Easy Beretta Question

M

mept

New member
I have seen a good price for a Beretta 92F.
My question is what is the diff. between that model and the current designation in their catelog of 92FS? I don't believe it is DAO, I think it is possibly the older vs. w/o the slide changes, does that sound about right? Is their any known problem with the F model vs the FS? Thanks
 
The 92F does not have the slide capturing device that prevents a broken slide from rocketing back into your face when you fire it.

This CAN be a good thing, when the 92FS slide breaks, the slide capture device will bend the frame, effectively destroying the pistol. Without the slide capture device all you have to do is replace the slide (and maybe your head).

Some M9 (military designation of the 92F) slides failed with less than 3000 rounds fired, so before they were all upgraded to 92FS standards they were replacing slides every 1000 rounds.

All the current M9's are upgraded to the 92FS standard.

------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
 
I dunno what rex is talking about but, the diffrence between the 92f and the 92fs is the "S" for stainless.

I could be wrong but when i was in the market for a beretta i always looked for the 92fs because i wanted a stainless model.


Tim : )

------------------
Why dont you get rid of that nickel plated sissy pistol and get yourself a glock. :::Tommy Lee Jones:::
 
Rex is right. The S stands for the slide modification upgrade. Beretta refers to the stainless models with the designation "inox." I've seen a lot of 92FS models and none were stainless.
 
OK, so i was wrong. wouldnt be the first time. Rex i apologize. So, tell me. Does the slide really come flying off of these pre-slide modified guns? Ive never heard such a thing about the berettas.


Tim :)

------------------
Why dont you get rid of that nickel plated sissy pistol and get yourself a glock. :::Tommy Lee Jones:::
 
No problem PLASTIC SIG. ;)
I have only heard this happening to military pistols. They tested 8 pistols with standard NATO ammo, and the failure rate was 100% with a round count of anywhere from 4,908 to over 30,000 with the majority failing at around 20,000.
They fail where the locking lug slots are cut into the slide. When they fail depends on the amount of Tellurium, a rare earth element, in the metal alloy of the slide. I think Berreta is making more effort to purify the alloy used to cast the slides now.

------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
 
the nato stuff was hot as hell. for normal stuff like most use the f was ok, the fs was a new design after the slide failures. the nato rounds were producing nearly twice the pressure of factory (they were using subgun ammo).
 
NATO standard 9mm used in the testing was 115gr bullet @ 1300fps, this load did not exceed the SAMMI 35,700 c.u.p. standard.
The original failures of the weapon in service were blamed on high pressure ammo, but this was found not to be true. The testing with the NATO load listed above caused the 100% failure rate.

------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
 
A question to Rex:

I've read a lot of posts on the net about the 92F slide breaking problem. It is "common net knowledge" that the problem was only with a few guns (used by SEALS) that shot hot sub gun ammo. You seem to be pretty sure that this is not the case. Since you are going against conventional wisdom, could you please tell us where you get this information? Is there any way that I can verify your info?

If you are correct, is there any way to tell if an individual weapon is at higher risk for this problem? I'm thinking that maybe the pistols manufactured after a certain date were made with a better alloy?

I'm not trying to flame your post or show any disrespect, I'd just like to get the truth!

Thanks for the help,
Gino
 
There is an article about this written by Chuck Karwan in one of my Gun Digest softcover books, Combat Handgunnery 3rd edition, published in 1992.

The first failures WERE among Naval Special Warfare units (ammo type was NOT specified in the article, it just stated that initial reports of non-standard high pressure ammo being at fault were subsequently proven untrue), and they put out a research contract to develop a slide that would correct this. Phrobis developed a nearly indestructable slide with the locking lug seats in the slide only partially cut, however when the locking lugs on Phrobis slide equipped pistols broke they were unable to disassemble the pistol for repair, they could not push down the broken lug withuot the full lug seat cut in the slide.

This is about the time the Navy purchased 1500 SIG P226's for the SEALS.

The Army tested 8 M9's to destruction using standard NATO (this WAS verified by pressure testing random samples) and got 100% failures, at anywhere from 4,908 rounds up to 30,000+ rounds, most failing around 20,000, so now all M9's in service are 92FS types.

As far as I know (this is not in the article, but I have read it elsewhere) Beretta started using spectroscopic analysis to test samples of the alloys used in slide production when they were made aware of the problem by the Army tests. All 92FS's should be up to snuff.



------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.

[This message has been edited by Rex Feral (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
Does this problem with the 92F's apply to the Italian ones as well? Or is it just the U.S. made ones?
 
I remember two failing at Peterson AFB resulting in injury, several failed in LA County (Sheriffs). The ultimate cause was a bad lot over hardened slides. They were brittle from a sub-contractor screw up. No commercial Beretta has had the slide faulure. I've been running NATO and hot handloads (115@1500fps) for many thousands of rounds with the addition of a Wolf 19# recoil spring..henry
 
Originally posted by Henry Bowman:
" No commercial Beretta has had the slide faulure. I've been running NATO and hot handloads (115@1500fps) for many thousands of rounds with the addition of a Wolf 19# recoil spring..henry"

Henry, if you read this can you reply whether yours was the F model?, is the 19# a heavier recoil spring which may reduce forces the slide is exposed to?

To anybody, Everyone brings up SEALs this and HOT AMMO that in regard to the slide failures. The question for me is:
A) Did the seals have the M9's which failed as equipment prior to completion of formal Army testing of the weapon, in which case the testers would have known?
B) If the Army test failures were the same, was the failures with ordinary loads failing under high total round counts?
C) Since the F had been around prior to the Army testing, does anyone know how long or when the 92F first came into existance and when production changed to FS?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top