Keep in mind that those M9s that came apart had Sub-Machinegun ammo run through them. I dare you to take a Glock or Sig or any other pistol and fire a few thousand rounds of what is basicly +p+++ ammo (if not more) and see how well the gun comes out. Now I have all three of the above pistols and love them all. But facts are facts. Pistols are not made to take that kind of abuse.
What's wrong with Beretta?
- Thread starter HKMP5SD6
- Start date
- Status
Claemore70
Moderator
When a 1911 is more reliable than a Beretta, then I might spend the 2000 dollars required for a reliable 1911 and go with it whole heartedly. I love Berettas, and out of the six years I was in the army, shooting a lot of rounds through them, plus owning them on the civilian side, have never seen one jam. At the academy, EVERY 1911 jammed at least once. None of the Berettas jammed. I own a Beretta 96 Border Marshal, and it is beautiful, reliable, and accurate.
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
Patrick Graham
Moderator
I've got a 92 SB - The "made in Italy" version of the 92F. It's a great gun. Workmaship is very good on the Italian made guns.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>None of the Berettas jammed. I own a Beretta 96 Border Marshal, and it is beautiful, reliable, and accurate.[/quote]
I agree on beautiful and accurate! I have been having feeding jams in a 96 Border Marshal, and when I asked about this on the Beretta mailing list, some answered that the 96 was somewhat well-known for unreliable feeding. This surprised me alot, since I understand that the INS T&E showed that the Beretta 96 Brigadier (more or less the same as the commercial Border Marshal, but DAO) was significantly more reliable than its competitors -- in contrast, the 92 (9mm) seems to eat anything. If the heavier slide "fixed" the 96 feeding problems, I'm wondering why mine is not feeding well, and if it didn't, I'm wondering how the INS came to conclusions that are different from what's reported about other LEA experiences. Sometimes in this area, truth is hard to sort for lore...
I agree on beautiful and accurate! I have been having feeding jams in a 96 Border Marshal, and when I asked about this on the Beretta mailing list, some answered that the 96 was somewhat well-known for unreliable feeding. This surprised me alot, since I understand that the INS T&E showed that the Beretta 96 Brigadier (more or less the same as the commercial Border Marshal, but DAO) was significantly more reliable than its competitors -- in contrast, the 92 (9mm) seems to eat anything. If the heavier slide "fixed" the 96 feeding problems, I'm wondering why mine is not feeding well, and if it didn't, I'm wondering how the INS came to conclusions that are different from what's reported about other LEA experiences. Sometimes in this area, truth is hard to sort for lore...
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claemore70:
When a 1911 is more reliable than a Beretta, then I might spend the 2000 dollars required for a reliable 1911 and go with it whole heartedly. I love Berettas, and out of the six years I was in the army, shooting a lot of rounds through them, plus owning them on the civilian side, have never seen one jam. At the academy, EVERY 1911 jammed at least once.
[/quote]
Are you discussing 1911s you fired in the military or ones that uyou personally owned? I don't think you can fairly compare military Berettas with limited time in service to military 1911s that were probably manufactured during the 40s and have been beaten, repaired, and beaten for more years than the Beretta 92 design even existed.
I think they are both good pistols; but I don't find it to be any startling revelation to discover that a relatively new issue pistol of a modern design is going to be more reliable than a 5 times arsenal rebuilt 1911. The military is tough on guns and the longer a gun is military property, the more likely it is to have been through the hands of an inept armorer, received poor maintenance for an extended period, been banged around, etc.
Having said all that, the gun certainly didn't serveas the primary sidearm of the military since 1911 without having a pretty solid degree of reliability to it.
Is anyone aware of actual comparison numbers for MRBF between the M1911A1 and the M9?
When a 1911 is more reliable than a Beretta, then I might spend the 2000 dollars required for a reliable 1911 and go with it whole heartedly. I love Berettas, and out of the six years I was in the army, shooting a lot of rounds through them, plus owning them on the civilian side, have never seen one jam. At the academy, EVERY 1911 jammed at least once.
[/quote]
Are you discussing 1911s you fired in the military or ones that uyou personally owned? I don't think you can fairly compare military Berettas with limited time in service to military 1911s that were probably manufactured during the 40s and have been beaten, repaired, and beaten for more years than the Beretta 92 design even existed.
I think they are both good pistols; but I don't find it to be any startling revelation to discover that a relatively new issue pistol of a modern design is going to be more reliable than a 5 times arsenal rebuilt 1911. The military is tough on guns and the longer a gun is military property, the more likely it is to have been through the hands of an inept armorer, received poor maintenance for an extended period, been banged around, etc.
Having said all that, the gun certainly didn't serveas the primary sidearm of the military since 1911 without having a pretty solid degree of reliability to it.
Is anyone aware of actual comparison numbers for MRBF between the M1911A1 and the M9?
BrokenArrow
New member
How many times we gonna beat this dead horse?
We need a FAQ?
The reliability std to beat for the XM9 trials set by the M1911A1 was 1/450. The SIG did 1/1000, the Beretta 1/2000. The Beretta beat the SIG in some areas, and vice versa. Some SIGs cracked frames around 7000, but since it was after the 5000 cutoff, didn't matter. Both were judged "technicaly acceptable". SIG got the first low bid. Contract was changed, Beretta got the second, and final low bid. Funny business? Prove it.
By the M11 trials, both were up to 1/15,000. Best for the M9 so far as I know is over 1/30,000 (168,000 rounds in 12 guns, 5 jams).
Slide failures? Some funny stuff there too. Some SEALs were using non std ammo, very high pressure stuff, and maint wasn't the best. Guns were fired w cracked/broken blocks instead of replacing them for example. Some early lots of mil-spec ammo were messed up. Some slides may have been messed up. Why some guns T&Ed broke at 2000 rounds, and some went over 25,000, some never broke?
Whatever, it's "fixed", don't worry about it.
Avg service life w mil spec ammo is now over 35,000 for frames, 75,000 for slides, 15,000 for blocks (contract only specifies 5000 BTW). Will go even longer w std pressure 9mm ammo. Know of some going over 100,000 w one block replacement.
BTW, SEALS contracted for more new 9mm pistols last year, bought SIGs _and_ Beretta Brigadiers.
Largest federal LE pistol contract for 40s ever was w the INS/BP for Brigadiers (16,000)in 94, and they were happy enough w them to renew it again.
Beretta is number two in LE sales, behind Glock, but ahead of the rest.
------------------
>>>>---->
[This message has been edited by BrokenArrow (edited June 22, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by BrokenArrow (edited June 22, 2000).]
We need a FAQ?
The reliability std to beat for the XM9 trials set by the M1911A1 was 1/450. The SIG did 1/1000, the Beretta 1/2000. The Beretta beat the SIG in some areas, and vice versa. Some SIGs cracked frames around 7000, but since it was after the 5000 cutoff, didn't matter. Both were judged "technicaly acceptable". SIG got the first low bid. Contract was changed, Beretta got the second, and final low bid. Funny business? Prove it.
By the M11 trials, both were up to 1/15,000. Best for the M9 so far as I know is over 1/30,000 (168,000 rounds in 12 guns, 5 jams).
Slide failures? Some funny stuff there too. Some SEALs were using non std ammo, very high pressure stuff, and maint wasn't the best. Guns were fired w cracked/broken blocks instead of replacing them for example. Some early lots of mil-spec ammo were messed up. Some slides may have been messed up. Why some guns T&Ed broke at 2000 rounds, and some went over 25,000, some never broke?
Whatever, it's "fixed", don't worry about it.
Avg service life w mil spec ammo is now over 35,000 for frames, 75,000 for slides, 15,000 for blocks (contract only specifies 5000 BTW). Will go even longer w std pressure 9mm ammo. Know of some going over 100,000 w one block replacement.
BTW, SEALS contracted for more new 9mm pistols last year, bought SIGs _and_ Beretta Brigadiers.
Largest federal LE pistol contract for 40s ever was w the INS/BP for Brigadiers (16,000)in 94, and they were happy enough w them to renew it again.
Beretta is number two in LE sales, behind Glock, but ahead of the rest.
------------------
>>>>---->
[This message has been edited by BrokenArrow (edited June 22, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by BrokenArrow (edited June 22, 2000).]
Not a thing!
Of course with all of the posts here you'll get someone saying that their...H&K, SIG, Beretta, Glock, Colt, Ruger, S&W, Para, Wilson, Kimber, etc. broke after so many rounds or that it is a piece of junk, piece of ..., not worth..., wouldn't give you... etc.
I'm sure that every gun manufacturer has produced a lemon from time to time but generally, as with all of the guns discussed here, the Beretta is a fine weapon.
Of course with all of the posts here you'll get someone saying that their...H&K, SIG, Beretta, Glock, Colt, Ruger, S&W, Para, Wilson, Kimber, etc. broke after so many rounds or that it is a piece of junk, piece of ..., not worth..., wouldn't give you... etc.
I'm sure that every gun manufacturer has produced a lemon from time to time but generally, as with all of the guns discussed here, the Beretta is a fine weapon.
Way to large and cunky, limited service life, due to alloy frame, also problems with slides breaking. Thats why the later 92s have the slide retention device. Sorry not for me, my hide depends on my pistol.
7th
------------------
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL POLICE, KEEP THEM INDEPENDENT.
[This message has been edited by 7th Fleet (edited June 22, 2000).]
7th
------------------
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL POLICE, KEEP THEM INDEPENDENT.
[This message has been edited by 7th Fleet (edited June 22, 2000).]
The little info I have to realte to this topic comes from an SF friend of a family member. He says (his unit at least) didn't want the glocks because they needed a manual safety on the weapon. For what it's worth. He also mentioned that alot of the SF folks he knows carry either condition one 1911's or condition one HK USP45's in the world. I believe the Seals are issued 9mm Sig 226's now. There are some privately owned 1911's in use, from what I understand however.
Second hand info is what it is, though. Grain of salt time.
- gabe
Second hand info is what it is, though. Grain of salt time.
- gabe
I cant see anything wrong with them except they are heavy after 10 hours on the belt. The trigger can be tuned up very well and they feed very well. The down side is my 1918 colt is much nicer to carry out of sight than that fat butt grip on the darn baretta.I prefer the barreta if I had a choice to shoot back though. You could put a whole box of shells through someone in very short order at 75 yards if you can shoot. I could not do that with my colt unless we had a several min. time out. The 92 just has a bit of muzzle jump, the colt has climb.
Claemore70
Moderator
JNewell, if I were you I would either email Beretta, or call them on the phone about your problems. Border Marshals are fairly new and may need the kinks worked out. As it were, never had a problem with mine.
B.Roberts, I came in one the last of the 1911s in the military back in 88. Those were rattletrap guns that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but no I wasn't comparing those 1911s to the current Berettas. The academy I was referring was police academy in beginning of 2000. They were all personally owned Gold Matches, Combat Masters, Springfields, etc. I owned a Para-Ordnance once, and did have jams with it. Oh well, you can't really argue against a 1911 or a Beretta, or a Glock, Sig, etc, because you will have fans that will deny any kind of problem with any of them, even if they have had problems...
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
B.Roberts, I came in one the last of the 1911s in the military back in 88. Those were rattletrap guns that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but no I wasn't comparing those 1911s to the current Berettas. The academy I was referring was police academy in beginning of 2000. They were all personally owned Gold Matches, Combat Masters, Springfields, etc. I owned a Para-Ordnance once, and did have jams with it. Oh well, you can't really argue against a 1911 or a Beretta, or a Glock, Sig, etc, because you will have fans that will deny any kind of problem with any of them, even if they have had problems...
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
I have a Beretta Cougar 8045. It is an absolutely a superb weapon. Extemely reliable and a pleasure to shoot with any load. It is not the only handgun I own, but I would trust my life to it in a minute. They didn't become the oldest gun maker in the world by putting out crap! 
------------------
"Millions for defense, not one dime for tribute!"
------------------
"Millions for defense, not one dime for tribute!"
They've all got problems, and they all have things I don't like. That being said, the Beretta 92 series are superb pistols. I'm not fond of crunchentickers, but I love my 92FS.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...the effects of combat on the field just doesn't yield to plastic materials.[/quote]Huh?
Broken Arrow, I think we do need a FAQ, though probably no one would read the thing. Glock owners are emotional? Not compared to the Church of John M. Browning.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...the effects of combat on the field just doesn't yield to plastic materials.[/quote]Huh?
Broken Arrow, I think we do need a FAQ, though probably no one would read the thing. Glock owners are emotional? Not compared to the Church of John M. Browning.
HKMP5SD6:
Isnt the Mark23 a polymer pistol? Don't the SEALs on occasion take a standard USP45 as well? From what I have heard some of the most rigorous testing for a military sidearm was for the "offensive" pistol and the one they chose, the HK Mark23, was a Polymer Frame. I would think that if Sea, Air and Land forces thought that it was durable enough for extreme environment use that there would be NO question of duribility in the field about Polymer pistols.
I dont know this but I suspect that Glock not being represented in the US military has more to do with either minutia about their construction or Glock's lack of desire to be competitive in that arena.
J.T.
Isnt the Mark23 a polymer pistol? Don't the SEALs on occasion take a standard USP45 as well? From what I have heard some of the most rigorous testing for a military sidearm was for the "offensive" pistol and the one they chose, the HK Mark23, was a Polymer Frame. I would think that if Sea, Air and Land forces thought that it was durable enough for extreme environment use that there would be NO question of duribility in the field about Polymer pistols.
I dont know this but I suspect that Glock not being represented in the US military has more to do with either minutia about their construction or Glock's lack of desire to be competitive in that arena.
J.T.
Lifted from a prior thread:
Reliability? The M9 trial scores MRBF (mean rounds between failures) for the Beretta was 2000, for the SIG 1000, for the M1911A1s used as a benchmark, 450. Some other scores for ya:
Endurance testing:
S&W 459 developed frame crack between 4.5k and 5k rounds; another developed frame crack at 6.5k rounds.
SIG P226 developed frame crack at 6,523 rounds; another had a crack discovered at the end of the 7k test.
All three Beretta 92SB-F guns and all three H&K P7M13 guns made it through with no problems
Reliability testing (wet phase/dry phase):
M1911A1 control, 100%/100%.
H&K P7M13, 99%/100%.
Beretta 92SB-F, 97%/98%.
S&W Model 459, 98%/96%.
SUG P226, 98%/79%.
Walther P88 failed both tests, results were not released.
Reliability testing (salt water corrosion):
after 10 days of testing,
M1911A1 control was 99%
Beretta 92SB-F was 100%
SIG P226 was 100%
S&W 456 was 97%
H&K P7M13 was 86%.
Latest scores are over 30K MRBF for the M9, 15K for the M11 (SIG P228) and 6K for the HK Mk 23 .45 BTW.
Bids?
On 18 Sept 84 the Army determined that the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92SB-F "technically acceptable." SIG actually won the first bid and had the contract. The Army added some mags and spare parts and asked for more bids. SIG kept the same price, Beretta lowered their price. Did Beretta get some insider info leaked? Did we want cruise missile bases in Italy? Was their a connection? Prove it.
The slide fiasco...
The Army measured pressure wrong in early lots, and some ammo exceeded proof load levels. The SEALs were experimenting w very heavy (147-158 grain) high pressure sub sonic ammo. Pistols were shot long after locking blocks broke and should have been replaced. Beretta may have used some slides from a cancelled French contract w tellurium instead of calcium or selenium in the base metal that was too brittle. All came together and slides broke. From Army tests to slide failure:
1 -- 2/08/88; 6,007 rounds; M9
2 -- 3/10/88; 4,908 rounds; M9
3 -- 3/14/88; 17,408 rounds; 92SB-F
4 -- 3/16/88; 21,264 rounds; 92F
5 -- 3/17/88; 24,656 rounds; 92F
6 -- 3/17/88; 7,806 rounds; M9
7 -- 5/23/88; 21,942 rounds; M9
8 -- 5/26/88; 21,486 rounds; M9
9 -- 6/22/88; 23,310 rounds; M9
10 -- 7/14/88; 30,083 rounds; M9
11 -- 8/18/88; 30,545 rounds; M9
12 -- 8/25/88; 27,684 rounds; M9
You will note that the commercial version guns all went 17k+ rounds, while the three outliers at significantly less than 10k
rounds were M9s ... this supports that unusual metallurgy was involved in
some of the early production M9 guns.
Altogether, the average was 19,758 rounds before slide destruction. Remove the three outliers and the average becomes 24,264 rounds. Contract service life only specified 5000 rounds. Latest guns tested (with good mil-spec ammo)lasted 35K for frames, 75K for slides/barrels, 20K for blocks. No problem.
How does a 1911 score 100% reliability, yet average 450 rounds btwn. failure?
Does this mean that it shoots all 450 rounds w/o stoppage?
Why aren't the supposedly more reliable guns listed as 200 or 300% or better then?
Reliability? The M9 trial scores MRBF (mean rounds between failures) for the Beretta was 2000, for the SIG 1000, for the M1911A1s used as a benchmark, 450. Some other scores for ya:
Endurance testing:
S&W 459 developed frame crack between 4.5k and 5k rounds; another developed frame crack at 6.5k rounds.
SIG P226 developed frame crack at 6,523 rounds; another had a crack discovered at the end of the 7k test.
All three Beretta 92SB-F guns and all three H&K P7M13 guns made it through with no problems
Reliability testing (wet phase/dry phase):
M1911A1 control, 100%/100%.
H&K P7M13, 99%/100%.
Beretta 92SB-F, 97%/98%.
S&W Model 459, 98%/96%.
SUG P226, 98%/79%.
Walther P88 failed both tests, results were not released.
Reliability testing (salt water corrosion):
after 10 days of testing,
M1911A1 control was 99%
Beretta 92SB-F was 100%
SIG P226 was 100%
S&W 456 was 97%
H&K P7M13 was 86%.
Latest scores are over 30K MRBF for the M9, 15K for the M11 (SIG P228) and 6K for the HK Mk 23 .45 BTW.
Bids?
On 18 Sept 84 the Army determined that the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92SB-F "technically acceptable." SIG actually won the first bid and had the contract. The Army added some mags and spare parts and asked for more bids. SIG kept the same price, Beretta lowered their price. Did Beretta get some insider info leaked? Did we want cruise missile bases in Italy? Was their a connection? Prove it.
The slide fiasco...
The Army measured pressure wrong in early lots, and some ammo exceeded proof load levels. The SEALs were experimenting w very heavy (147-158 grain) high pressure sub sonic ammo. Pistols were shot long after locking blocks broke and should have been replaced. Beretta may have used some slides from a cancelled French contract w tellurium instead of calcium or selenium in the base metal that was too brittle. All came together and slides broke. From Army tests to slide failure:
1 -- 2/08/88; 6,007 rounds; M9
2 -- 3/10/88; 4,908 rounds; M9
3 -- 3/14/88; 17,408 rounds; 92SB-F
4 -- 3/16/88; 21,264 rounds; 92F
5 -- 3/17/88; 24,656 rounds; 92F
6 -- 3/17/88; 7,806 rounds; M9
7 -- 5/23/88; 21,942 rounds; M9
8 -- 5/26/88; 21,486 rounds; M9
9 -- 6/22/88; 23,310 rounds; M9
10 -- 7/14/88; 30,083 rounds; M9
11 -- 8/18/88; 30,545 rounds; M9
12 -- 8/25/88; 27,684 rounds; M9
You will note that the commercial version guns all went 17k+ rounds, while the three outliers at significantly less than 10k
rounds were M9s ... this supports that unusual metallurgy was involved in
some of the early production M9 guns.
Altogether, the average was 19,758 rounds before slide destruction. Remove the three outliers and the average becomes 24,264 rounds. Contract service life only specified 5000 rounds. Latest guns tested (with good mil-spec ammo)lasted 35K for frames, 75K for slides/barrels, 20K for blocks. No problem.
How does a 1911 score 100% reliability, yet average 450 rounds btwn. failure?
Does this mean that it shoots all 450 rounds w/o stoppage?
Why aren't the supposedly more reliable guns listed as 200 or 300% or better then?
OT but someone asked. No, Glock did not enter into the US military trials. See www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/17/index.htm This article contains information from Gaston Glock himself.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
- Status