Durability&Longevity of aluminum alloy frame pistols (Taurus PT 92/Beretta 92)

Then use satinless steel for imbedding in the alu Frame.
That would be an ideal pistol superior to any in longevity and rust proof.

I once had an 22 LR all steel (or at least Metall) pistol. Grabbing an rusting steel grip is no pleasure. Nor is grabbing an carbon steel a pleasure for me.
My carbon steel Revolver I have painted with Brownells Aluma Hyde 2 clear paint which solves the issue.

As I understood the alu Frame of the PT 92 is forged.

What about screwed in/pinned steel rails in alu Frame? Like an Long bolt transpassing both sides of the gun.
Or modular lift out pinned down with a few take down Levers (like the Beretta 92 has).
 
Oh good grief! If you like the Beretta you should have bought the Beretta. Taurus isn't going to make you a special gun with steel rails imbedded in it.

I'm done.
 
Stainless does not rust.
Aluminum does not rust.

Someone suggested the carbon steel imbedded in the alu will weaken the Joints. Makes sense.

So use detacheable stainless steel rails imbeded in the aluminum Frame (Kind of an modular Frame design).
 
It has been done. It is expensive to VERY expensive because it is done only on a custom basis. In this particular case, David Sams and Mountain Custom will put steel bearing inserts in Beretta aluminum frame rails.

It would not pay a manufacturer, it would increase the cost of the gun for longer life that most customers would never use.
 
Stainless does not rust.
Aluminum does not rust.

Someone suggested the carbon steel imbedded in the alu will weaken the Joints. Makes sense.

So use detacheable stainless steel rails imbeded in the aluminum Frame (Kind of an modular Frame design).
Click to expand...

Stainless does rust, it's just harder for it to rust.

They meant it would weaken it because of the weld points of different metals, not the rust.
 
See below the Pictures of following thread the Beretta 92 with steel inserts on the rail (Mountain Customs).

http://www.bullseyeforum.net/t6530-please-educate-me-about-beretta-m9-92fs

The drill and rivet type work does not convince me very much of the rail insert photo.

That must be possible by factory in an fairly cheap way redesigning the pistol a bit. Could be done modifying a bit the manufacture processes.

Like an continuous stainless steel rail insert hold in place in front by the take down Lever and on the back somehow by the elongated hammer pin.
Like in this my drawing:

attachment.php

Base photo source (green and blue painting are my own "Inventions"): http://www.bullseyeforum.net/t6530-please-educate-me-about-beretta-m9-92fs

Green line is the stainless steel rail continuous insert and the 2 blue dots are the hold in place Points to the Frame. Need to modify a bit the slide (make it a bit broader) and I don't belive the insert will Flex specially if it is made a bit thick and sturdy. May Need a Fixing Point in the middle rail touching Point as well so it would be attached to the Frame in 3 Points.
 

Attachments

  • Beretta 92-Taurus PT 92 stainless rail factory insert hold in place with hammer pin and take dow.jpg
    Beretta 92-Taurus PT 92 stainless rail factory insert hold in place with hammer pin and take dow.jpg
    76.7 KB · Views: 149
Last edited:
All this seems like a solution to an issue that is not a problem. After all the testing the 92 Beretta has went through some people still question it's reliability? Clean your guns and maintain them properly, pass'em on to your kids.
 
The cost of modifying a Beretta 92FS to add the steel rails costs about 3X what it would cost to just buy another Beretta. So by the time you're done you have spent what it would cost to buy 4 guns. The initial investment and then another 3X the initial investment for the modification.

That means that unless the modified gun lasts more than 4X as long as an unmodified 92FS, you lost money on the deal.

I stand by my original statement. If you can afford enough ammunition to wear out a Beretta 92FS, you can afford to replace it when it wears out.

Let's say it only lasts 35,000 rounds. If you save a dollar for every 50 round box of ammo you shoot, by the time the gun is worn out, you will have $700 saved.
 
With post #87 I just wanted to make the Statement that Taurus or Beretta could very well in a cheap and affordable way make a perfect gun by adding some sort of my design stainless rail.

Without extra cost. Adding basically an stainless full rail.

No fancy gunsmitting nor lots of work. Just redesign a bit the pistol adding that stainless rail in an economic manner and Berettas would outlast any other pistol. Taurus could follow that idea.

But anyways. It's not going to happen. I am fine with the gun how it is and will Keep it lubricated properly.

I just thought Taurus/Beretta could improve like that in an economic way (not much additional cost) their guns.

OR...

make the gun completely modular.
Drop in FCU and exchangeable aluminum Frame.
This Option is my favourite.
 
With post #87 I just wanted to make the Statement that Taurus or Beretta could very well in a cheap and affordable way make a perfect gun by adding some sort of my design stainless rail.
Click to expand...




No and not even close. ;)
 
Best option is...

make the gun completely modular.
Drop in FCU and exchangeable aluminum Frame.
This Option is my favourit option
Click to expand...

Make an drop in Fire Control Unit and modify the aluminum frame to an exchangeable frame.
So you have an almost everlasting gun with the advantage to be rust proof, all metal, ligth and durable.
 
So you basically wish that you had bought a Sig p320 instead? I'm not sure you understand how much it would cost for beretta to design an entirely new pistol.
 
Agreed

With post #87 I just wanted to make the Statement that Taurus or Beretta could very well in a cheap and affordable way make a perfect gun by adding some sort of my design stainless rail.

Without extra cost. Adding basically an stainless full rail.
Click to expand...

Just because you made the statement does not make it true.
Redesigning and retooling is not without significant cost.

And why would they bother on an obsolete design?
Beretta is following the herd towards striker fired plastic pistols. I think they only continue building the 92 because they can do it cheaply on paid for equipment and still with some customer following. I don't know about Taurus, except they are living off the Beretta subcontract of many years ago, and do not know if they have the expertise to "modernize."

As said, the P320 is highly modular and there is no demonstrated advantage of an "all metal" pistol over one that is half plastic.
 
Obsolete means "it did not function well and so Technology has overcome it to an reliable design".

Obsolete are: Luger P-08, Sauer Roth, Beretta Glisenti, Needle firing guns, etc and 1911(maybe).

I believe if a gun which runs 100% reliable, is utmost longeve and does not Need repair will NEVER BE OBSOLETE.
Just take the same gun (92/PT 92) and modify the grip (since today all is CNC machined it would be easy to Change the program pressing a few Buttons and shape the easy to machine aluminum accordingly) and build an additional FCU. If that can be done easily with Plastik that can be done easily with aluminum as well as it is cheap to mill out.

Not considering materials used.
I left the Plastik pistols for an all metal one due to feel and handling
 
Last edited:
Again just because you wish it to be so doesn't mean it would actually be cheap, I know nothing about CNC machines but I'm betting it's a fair bit more complicated than a few button presses. Not to mention the costs associated with actually designing the pistol, coming up with something that doesn't infringe any patents, the cost associated with gearing the tooling up for a new pistol versus a proven seller, and if it doesn't sell well all the sunk cost you have because of the units of firearms you could have manufactured but didn't.

Edit: also your definition of obselete leaves much to be desired.
 
It would be the same pistol from outside but way better from inside.

Only the internals would be a bit different but wastly improved.

Aluminum specially lends itself well for easy machining so the costs would be the same. Only aluminum would be a bit more expensive than polymer. That is why IMO the new modular guns are in polymer (polymer is way cheaper than aluminum).
Besides that this modular PT 92/92 would allow you to buy from walmart an Frame for let's say 50$ if yours break. Only the FCU would be registred. You could Switch calibers as well. And on top since the FCU must withstand any caliber it would be built very sturdy.

But maybe the gun industry isn't interested in Long life pistols.
 
Last edited:
I think 92/96 Beretta's are far from obsolete.
That way of thinking would make the 1911 just north of a Flint Lock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top