P-38 -vs- Beretta 92/96

B

BoogieMan

New member
I have looked a t a few P-38s lately and is it just me, or is this a 92 without the dust cover and extended slide?
I own a 96 and have had it apart countless times. I never owned a P38 to take the time and break them down side by side.
Similar- Trigger linkage, safety, locking block, takedown, etc... Am I right in thinking that the Italians basically copied a earlier German design and rebranded it to sell to the US?
If this has already been discussed in detail forgive me for the re-topic. Its something that has been bugging me for a while and I havent seen mention of it other places.
 
The Beretta 92 locking system and safety as well as the concept of the DA/SA trigger is inspired by the Walther P-38. The Walther was years ahead of other designs and only needed a double stack magazine to qualify as a wonder-nine. Basically meant to be an officers' weapon, there was no need for hi-capacity (over eight) round magazines. The Browning hi-power is the exception of its era.
 
I think it is pretty well understood that Beretta "borrowed" the locking block idea from Walther, but the P.38 is an 8 round pistol, and the DA trigger pull is heavier than that of the Berettas. They are different guns. IMHO, the P.38 feels better in the hand than the Beretta, and it is less bulky, but if I were in dire need of a pistol, I would certainly choose the Beretta over the 77 year old design of the Walther.

Jim
 
The post-war Walther P38s/P1s went to an aluminum frame which Beretta also borrowed for the 92. For some reason though Beretta didn't go with the left side brass ejection!
 
How about the similar slide safety?
The trigger linkage design?
I dont think anything is interchangeable, but at the same time the P38 is the earliest design that I have seen with those similar features. But, I havent seen that many guns from that time period.
 
Prior to obviously being inspired by the Walther design Beretta produced pistols of bullet proof design but all in single action mode only. Both pistols are a hoot to fire and both can be quite accurate in the right hands I have both in the safe and enjoy which ever makes it's way with me on a shoot day. Neither would be my choice for a carry pistol but as for a C&R to put in the collection both have merits.
 
There is also an intermediate step in there.
Look up the Beretta Model 51. It is a single stack, single action pistol, but has the Walther locking system.
 
The P.38 was not the first DA/SA auto pistol with a slide mounted safety. Those features appeared earlier on Walther's own PP/PPK and the locking block appeared on the AP and HP models. The P.38 was, like most products, the result of evolution, not revolution.

Jim
 
The P38 feels good in my hand. The Beretta M9/92 has too long of a reach when using trigger in DA mode for me. I find myself swapping my grip after the first shot. I don't do that with the Walther.

I have the P1 version with aluminum frame. I would never fire +P ammo from it. Later P1s had the bolt to reinforce the frame/locking block area, but mine is before that.

I don't know if I would want a steady diet of +P in the Beretta either.

Left ejection reminds the shooter that something is different here.

DA pull feels like it is between 13 and 19 lbs. SA isn't bad.

P38 trigger is not easy to make break like a glass rod snapping.

Early P38s had issues when using safety/decocker too frequently, in that parts in the slide broke. It is recommended to hold the hammer as you use the decocker to slow the hammer drop. [pointed toward safety, of course.]

The Walther is an interesting piece of history. Same number of rounds as the P08/Luger, and 1 more than the USA 1911a1 of the era.

The P35/High Power held 13 and feels 'just right' to me, after the trigger is overhauled. Factory feels too stiff and gritty.
 
Basically meant to be an officers' weapon, there was no need for hi-capacity (over eight) round magazines.
Click to expand...

Not really. As a rule, large caliber weapons (P.08, P.38, Radom 1935, Star B, Astra 600, etc.) were intended for enlisted men, non coms, etc. The old adage about the Germans was: "The higher the rank, the smaller the pistol."
 
As an aside, compare the mechanics of the Beretta Model 90 .32 ACP pistol to a German Sauer 38h. That one was obviously a very similar copy.
 
In WWI and earlier, armies issued a large number of pistols, not only to cavalry, but to officers and others whose main duty did not involve shooting at the enemy and who would be encumbered by carrying a heavy rifle. That iincluded squad and platoon leaders, mortar and artillerymen, machine gunners, military police, etc. (Oddly, not the "cooks and bottle washers" who usually were issued rifles; they wouldn't cook and fight at the same time.)

In WWi, both the Germans and the Allies experienced a severe shortage of handguns; there were simply never enough, partly because of the nature of trench warfare, partly because of the large number of men who were designated to carry a pistol or revolver.

The solution adopted by the Germans was to make and issue more pistols. The U.S., taking another tack, adopted an intermediate weapon, the M1 Carbine.

Jim
 
The Third Reich's appetite for handguns was enormous, a higher percentage than ours, as the handgun was part of the uniform, and included with the dagger part of the political uniforms, and virtually every govt job in Nazi Germany had a uniform.

So, in addition to the demand for combat pistols they had a demand for political pistols as well. Because of this, they used nearly everything available, somewhere, .25s on up.

Personally, I think the Beretta is overly large for a 9mm. Its mag capacity trumps the P.38 for a fighting pistol, certainly. The P.38 has a different feel, which might matter more to some.

The P.38 proved it was an adequate combat pistol. But, its features do not make it a premier choice as a defense handgun today.
 
I agree. The Beretta is actually larger in every dimension than the 1911A1, even though it is in a smaller caliber. Do the fighting troops really need a large, high capacity pistol? Are there now many troops whose duties prevent carrying an M4 Carbine? The civilian generals on the web seem to favor a huge pistol, in .45 ACP (or .500 S&W) with a shoulder stock, an 18 inch barrel and radar sights. Maybe I have the wrong idea, but given all the junk the GI carries today, I think something the size of the Star BKM and a couple of spare magazines might be just as good as the M9.

Jim
 
James K, did I misunderstand your post or are you saying the M-1 carbine was adopted in WWI due to a shortage of pistols?
 
Thickice,

I know James K will chime in, but that isn't how I read it.

I read his post to indicate that the M1 Carbine was developed after WWI as a result of their experiences with combat and handguns, such that the M1 Carbine was ready for service in WW II.

I may be wrong, but that was how I took his post. Just my $.02
 
No, I didn't mean that the M1 Carbine was adopted during WWI; it would have been a lot better than the silly Pedersen device, though.

The idea of a small, light rifle to replace most of the pistols in the TO&E had been kicking around for some time in the 1930's. At first, some thought the M1 Rifle (Garand) could be modified but it soon became apparent that it would be as large as, and actually heavier than, the Model 1903. So in June 1940, the Chief of Infantry and the Chief of Field Artillery formally requested the Chief of Ordnance to develop a light rifle, not to exceed 5 pounds in weight, but to have an effective range of 300 yards. On October 1, Ordnance put out a circular (effectively a Request for Proposal) with more details, including that the light rifle fire a cartridge based on the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge. There were many submissions and testing was begun. Exactly one year later, Winchester's entry was formally adopted as the U.S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M1.

There was never any requirement that the Carbine share a general appearance or functionality with the M1 Rifle, but I have little doubt that Winchester's entry was helped because of its similarity in appearance and operation to the rifle, a significant matter when cross training is involved.

Another point of interest is that the short stroke piston system could not have been adopted earlier because non-corrosive primers did not exist, and corrosive primers would have destroyed the carbine very quickly.

The story has been told in several books; my source is Ruth's War Baby.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top