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

To answer the original question; you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

The 92 design is legendary and will last a very long time.

Shoot and enjoy.
 
I shot the gun over an chronograph today again.

I did put an simple rubber O-Ring over the spring&guide rod to similate the Wilson Combat Shok Buff. This works well with the rubber O-Ring.

However I experienced a slight difference in reloads from this gun and the SD9VE.
The SD9VE shot an 3.3 grain VV N330 powered 9mm case seated to OAL of 1.040" reliably. However the velocity must have been in the realm of an 38 spl only (at that time I did not have yet an Chronograph).

Now to use the Lee 0.5 cc powder dipper which trhows 3.9 to 4.0 grains of powder I seatd the 124 grain Lee lead TC TL bullet to 1.085" and had almost allways a failure to feed. I realised the slide did not have enough momentum to the rear to load the new round. With this I got 972 (3.5 grain powder) fps which is 260 ft-lbs and 933 fps for 3.3 grain powder which is 240 ft-lbs.

Then I seated the bullets to OAL of 1.062" and with that I got 1027 fps and the gun loaded but on the weak side. This gives an energy of 290 ft-lbs.
Since the slide had a weak travel back feel, I seated the bullets a bit deeper to 1.051" OAL. This gave me an velocity of 1036 fps and an energy Level of 295 ft-lbs which is a very weak 9mm but the Taurus PT 92 AFS reloaded reliably and had a kick to it but did not lock back on the last round (which I don't care about since it mayb due to the rubber O-Ring shock buffer).
This is the weakest powder I have and the other powders may give more velocity.
 
With loads that light, you probably don't need the o-ring. In fact, you probably don't need it with normal loads.

In my opinion, the gun isn't likely to wear out from the slide hitting the frame, it's more likely to accumulate most of the wear from the barrel and locking block hitting the frame. There's not really a good way to buffer those impacts since they're happening very early in the cycle. I'm not saying I would worry about those impacts from a practical standpoint, I'm just pointing out that the o-ring/buffer probably isn't giving you any benefit.
 
Looking at the VV website, the load date for VV N330 under a 124 gr lrn bullet, the low is 4.4 gr (1131 fps) to 4.8 gr (1175 fps).

This seems roughly in line with your data. Have you tried to up the charge?

Alternately, reduce the recoil or hammer spring so that the gun recoils fully.
 
I lubed with liquid grease the whole firearms from within.
I realised the Barrel has some sort of separate inside rail where it slides.

At least I have done all possible to protect the Frame and contribute to longevity as much as I can possibly do.

I wonder why Wilson Combat then makes These Shok Buffs for all kinds of pistols when they are of no use.
Other shooters do not like the shok buffs since they get destroyed after a few 1000's rounds. If the buff got battered that is for me a sign it is doing what it is supposed to do.

The Walther locking lug does it really Impact the Frame?
As I see that the locking lug swings out only towards the Frame hence in german it is called "Schwenkriegelverschluss", Swing locking block, without really putting any stress to the Frame. The only stress Impact maybe the pin as it Impacts the Frame unlocking the Swing Locking Block.
 
John C,

I do not want to mess with the gun since were I am located I can not send the gun in for repairs and those guns are incredible expensive locally.

Yes the Barrel may batter the Frame as the round explodes in the chamber and there is no way to buffer the Impact. The utmost protection I can do is with the shok buff (O-Ring).

The VV Website states an high OAL for that load data. If I recall it right their lowest OAL is on that Webpage 1.140". I would put in great danger the gun should I not consider first the OAL.

You see on my data that seating it a bit deeper rises the velocity. I have found each 0.1 grain of powder raises the velocity by 20 fps. If I get about 300 ft-lbs I am happy.
By seating depth you can regulate pressure, gun functioning and velocity/energy.

Example: OAL of 1.040" allows you to function reliably this pistol with 3.0 to 3.3 grain of powder.
Rise the OAL to 1.085" and even with 4.0 grain of powder you have each round an ftf.
I do not want to up the Charge since the Lee 0.5 cc dipper just throws this Charge if levelled off. And in my Situation (scavenging shotshell powder) I have to save powder.
 
I wonder why Wilson Combat then makes These Shok Buffs for all kinds of pistols when they are of no use.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say there are no benefits to any Shok Buffs, just that with light loads a shock buffer designed to cushion slide/frame inpact isn't providing any significant benefit in the Beretta 92 design. In fact, with light loads, you're probably not getting much benefit with any design.

Think about it, if the slide is just barely going back far enough to reliably "load the new round", how hard could it be hitting the frame? If it's just barely hitting the frame, how much benefit could be provided by cushioning that impact?
Yes the Barrel may batter the Frame as the round explodes in the chamber and there is no way to buffer the Impact.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the discharge pressure/impact.

Pull the slide back very slowly and watch what happens. First of all the locking block flips downward and hits against the frame. Then after the barrel has been unlocked from the slide, it hits the frame and stops.

Those two impacts happen VERY early in the slide travel cycle--WAY before the shock buffer cushions the final impact between the slide and the frame. And they happen while the slide is still traveling at maximum velocity, before it's been slowed significantly by the recoil spring, by friction, by the force required to extract/eject the empty cartridge, etc.

Back when I was shooting my 92FS pistols a LOT, I could feel the difference between normal loads and the hotter loads. During the slide cycle, you could feel the "click" of the slide hitting hard against the frame with the hotter loads. It might make sense to use a shock buffer in that situation but I don't think you're getting any worthwhile benefit with light-normal loads.

Also, I would never recommend using shock buffers for self-defense use. If you want to use them while at the range, that probably doesn't hurt anything. But they should not be left installed while the gun is being carried or is "on duty" for home defense.
 
Well if I use tha shock buffer on the pistol it stays there as well for SD or duty (not my case but...) applications.

The primers flatten a bit with the 4.0 grain of VV N330 type powder seated to OAL of 1.051".
The recoil with this load is more as it was with the OAL 1.040" with 3.3 grain N330 powder. No flat primers with this load.

Regards the Barrel battering the Frame I think I realised the Barrel rides as well in the chamber area on the Frame in some lugs. At detonating the Charge that must be an horrendous battering.
 
!. Vihtavuori company velocities are pretty much fantasy, I have never achieved what they claim.

2. A friend thought he could adjust velocity by seating depth instead of changing powder (he was already at the maximum for that one) and blew a casehead. It did not hurt him or the gun much, but still an error.
 
I like this pistol. The 34 oz Beretta 92 & clones are much more comfortable to carry that my SAA 36 oz Revolver. if 15 rounds are loaded then the weight adds but still the gun is light compared to it's size.
I carry this pistol in an Browning Buckmark oversized Nylon padded Holster. It fits perfectly.

As well this DA/SA is a Revolver style Trigger were you can shoot it like a Revolver. I almost allways cock manually the hammer like in a Revolver.

The controls are more complicated than those of an Glock type pistol,
In fact the Glock was so popular by the Austrian recruits as they made the first Trial in about 1975 since even non shooter took them up and knew to shoot immediatelly. Controls seems to contritute to shooters confusing. In a stress Situation most likely the Glock will be the most safe gun since the lack of any controls.
However the experienced shooters of the Austrian army did not like the Plastik Glock back in that time.

I dont worry anymore for the Frame and take it as it is.
But the aluminum Frame is an improvement to the polymer Frame of the SD9VE.
It is indeed better to have an aluminum Frame than an Plastik one except if the gun is modular.
 
Well if I use tha shock buffer on the pistol it stays there as well for SD or duty (not my case but...) applications.
Click to expand...
Is that because it takes so long to remove it or because you expect to shoot so many rounds in SD that you can't take the chance of not having the O-ring in place?
...In fact the Glock was so popular by the Austrian recruits as they made the first Trial in about 1975...
Click to expand...
The Austrian MOD placed its first Glock purchase order in 1983. Trials were in 1982.
 
It's just by principle.

If it desintegrates it's not working at all. If it lasts a Long time why take it out.

I just watched a Video on YouTube were an ex Glock engineer explained the first Glock presented to the Austrian army and how the recruits reactioned to the gun.
 
Actually ever shock buffer I've ever used will eventually disintegrate with use. That's why Wilson Combat, maker of the original Shok Buff recommends their replacement every 1000 rounds.

You take them out for self defense because:

1. They are not part of the original design and adding them provides another part that can fail and/or cause problems.
2. They do eventually disintegrate/break down and you don't want that to happen during a self-defense encounter. Having it happen at the range is a non-issue.
3. They're of zero value during SD use since no one is going to shoot more than just a handful of rounds in SD during their whole life and the amount of wear that could possibly put on a handgun is negligible by any reasonable standard of measure.
I just watched a Video on YouTube were an ex Glock engineer explained the first Glock presented to the Austrian army and how the recruits reactioned to the gun.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. If the engineer said that the Austrian recruits tested any Glock pistols in 1975 then he was mistaken. The firearm portion of the Glock company wasn't founded until 1981 and the pistol wasn't ready for testing until 1982 when Glock submitted prototypes.

By all accounts, it wasn't until February of 1980 that Glock became aware of the upcoming contract and began considering the design of a sidearm for the competition. It wasn't until April 1981 that Glock filed for a patent on the design.
 
What I fear more in SD as the gun not working is if I actually can and will pull the Trigger on another human being.

Passing that psychological/religious treshold worries me more.

I am sure the gun will work in an SD Scenario.

No. I am not sure about the year the Glock was tested. It may be very well as well in the 1980's. Video is this (time: 1:25 starts the engineer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_6TURbwmt8
Actually the engineer states the recruits were "overwhelmed" (asked to much) of the controls and hammer of the old austrian army duty pistol.
 
Last edited:
What I fear more in SD as the gun not working is if I actually can and will pull the Trigger on another human being.
Click to expand...
There are lots of things I worry about more than my gun not working in an SD encounter. But that doesn't mean I believe it makes sense to forgo reasonable precautions--especially ones that are very simple to take.

Next time you're cleaning your gun after a range trip and worrying about being able to pull the trigger on another human being; take about 15 seconds off from worry, remove the O-ring and put it aside for your next range trip.

Then you'll have one thing less to worry about--even if you don't worry much about it to begin with.
 
JohnKSa you will never win any points with this guy. He has a ready answer and counterpoint for anything you try to tell him. He already knows all the answers. I am done with him.
 
JohnKSA and ratshooter are completely rigth.

Its just why would such a renowned company like Wilson Combat make a shok buff if it is dangerous in a SD situation. I believe Wilson Combat know what they do.

For 1911's they make them as well and it seems those are a must for 1911 style pistols since they sell them in a package of 50 or so.

I dont know. I bougth for my SD9VE an stainless Galloway guide rod and spring. The plastik original one looked like it would snap at the end any time. I believe there is a reason for aftermarket supply for guns for the simple fact tvey improve the performance of the gun.
 
Its just why would such a renowned company like Wilson Combat make a shok buff if it is dangerous in a SD situation. I believe Wilson Combat know what they do.
Click to expand...
It's a risk factor (albeit a small risk) in a situation where taking the risk has absolutely no return.

In other words, you're not gaining anything by having the buffer in place during an SD shooting since you're not going to be shooting enough rounds in SD to put any measureable wear on the gun. And you're taking a risk (again, a very small one) that the buffer will fail in such a way as to jam the gun during the shooting.

Sometimes it makes sense to take a risk if the return is worthwhile. But it never makes sense to take a risk when there's nothing to be gained. This is exactly such a case. There's no benefit to be gained and therefore it makes no sense to take the risk, however small.

Now, if it were difficult or time-consuming to remove the o-ring, it might make sense to leave it in place to save time and trouble. But it literally takes seconds to remove it--so there's no valid argument at all for leaving it in place. That's all I'm saying.
For 1911's they make them as well and it seems those are a must for 1911 style pistols since they sell them in a package of 50 or so.
Click to expand...
I haven't done a lot of study on the 1911 design and how a shock buffer affects that design. It's possible that they are more valuable in that design. I don't know. But they aren't very useful in the Beretta 92FS design. And by the way, the reason they sell them in quantity is because they break down/wear out relatively rapidly and need to be replaced fairly frequently.
I believe there is a reason for aftermarket supply for guns for the simple fact tvey improve the performance of the gun.
Click to expand...
The reason for aftermarket supply is twofold.

1. People want to believe that they can spend a few dollars and drop in a part that will improve their handgun. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. What's more commonly true is that changing things in a semi-automatic handgun can have unintended consequences.

For example, shock buffers can not only break down and, in the worst case, jam the gun; they can also reduce slide travel which means that the slide comes forward with less force--which can result in insufficient energy to reliably strip a round from the magazine and chamber it--particularly when the gun gets dirty. Another example is when people replace the plastic guiderod in the current Beretta 92FS pistols with the older two-piece steel guiderods. I've never heard of one of the plastic rods breaking or causing function issues--but I have heard of the two-piece steel rods failing by separating into their component parts. Which can tie up the pistol.

2. There's money to be made by selling aftermarket parts because people will buy them. See reason #1.

It is certainly not always true that the presence of a particular aftermarket part implies that there is a deficiency that needs to be addressed, nor is it always true that an aftermarket part improves performance. Some aftermarket parts have no functional value at all, and some can actually cause problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top