Has Beretta ever gone through a period of poor quality control?

[Mark]

Over the last few years I've read of the Cohenization of Sig, which anecdotally seems to have improved. I've also read of the inability of S&W to make a 9mm M&P that can hit it's target past 15 yards. Then there's the issues with Glocks throwing brass at its operators forehead. In fact in most cases the prominent gun manufacturers save HK have all gotten some pretty bad press. I realized I've never heard of Beretta having periods of quality issues (excepting old bear up poorly maintained military guns). This makes me wonder if we aren't giving Beretta enough credit for reliability.

[GJM]

Have discussed this with Bill Wilson and Ernest Langdon. Beretta has maintained quality with the 92 series, actually improved it considering changes to the block and trigger return spring.

[GardoneVT]

Over the last few years I've read of the Cohenization of Sig, which anecdotally seems to have improved. I've also read of the inability of S&W to make a 9mm M&P that can hit it's target past 15 yards. Then there's the issues with Glocks throwing brass at its operators forehead. In fact in most cases the prominent gun manufacturers save HK have all gotten some pretty bad press. I realized I've never heard of Beretta having periods of quality issues (excepting old bear up poorly maintained military guns). This makes me wonder if we aren't giving Beretta enough credit for reliability.

Beretta's been in business longer then the United States has existed as a nation. With that stated, they've made their share of mistakes. Their first rotary-barrel pistol was a troubled design, as were their first generation 96s. I personally owned a 1994 produced Inox 92FS which went tango uniform after 600 rounds, although to the company's credit they've corrected the issue by using black small parts on the new guns.

Personally, Beretta's problem is that they try too hard to innovate. It is admirable to push the envelope, and its a fine enough thing when one discusses a computer or cell phone. With firearms, the last thing one needs at the moment of truth is "cutting edge design". No paper target or scumbag ever stood impressed because the shooter's gun looked 'avant garde'.

I believe Berettas standing would improve if they made boring, reliable , and affordable Browning action striker fired pistols -and left the swoopy lines, hammer fired lockwork, and experimental barrel designs on the cutting room floor.

[LHS]

"hammer fired lockwork" is kind of the epitome of proven, traditional design, and rotary barrels are nothing new either (though they've always been trouble). If anything, Beretta hasn't been innovative enough. They're still relying on the 92 series (which is a great gun, don't get me wrong) when everyone else has gone to polymer frames and strikers. Then they tried to make a polymer frame gun, and stuck that stupid rotary barrel on it. Then they made a polymer-frame 92 that wouldn't fit existing holsters because of the 'swoopy lines' slide, and lacked the kind of modularity and features that Glock had figured out years earlier.

I'd love to see Beretta make a modular, polymer framed 92 variant that fit in standard 92 holsters. I think that would solve a lot of folks' issues with grip size, etc. But in the meantime, I'll be happy if they just start making 92G Compacts again.

[GardoneVT]

"hammer fired lockwork" is kind of the epitome of proven, traditional design, and rotary barrels are nothing new either (though they've always been trouble). If anything, Beretta hasn't been innovative enough. They're still relying on the 92 series (which is a great gun, don't get me wrong) when everyone else has gone to polymer frames and strikers. Then they tried to make a polymer frame gun, and stuck that stupid rotary barrel on it. Then they made a polymer-frame 92 that wouldn't fit existing holsters because of the 'swoopy lines' slide, and lacked the kind of modularity and features that Glock had figured out years earlier.

I'd love to see Beretta make a modular, polymer framed 92 variant that fit in standard 92 holsters. I think that would solve a lot of folks' issues with grip size, etc. But in the meantime, I'll be happy if they just start making 92G Compacts again.

Small correction: Beretta never made a polymer 92. The 90-Two did have polymer grips in the fashion of the S&W 3rd Gens, where the options were a thin Vertec type grip or the standard gorilla size . Its unfortunate the gun looked like it was styled by someone on Oxycodone.

[fixer]

92 and full size Px4 have a low defect rate. The 92s seem to be especially low in defects over the past few years (2009-2014). I have had one dud of a px4 out of 4 different ones. I consider the 92 to be on par with Hks in terms of out of the box quality.

However, the nano is another story. the px4 compact and sub compact have a demonstrably higher defect rates in my experience, also.

So in my experience and opinion, the 92 is a conviction buy.

[JV_]

They certainly had some stainless steel heat treating issues, like with the trigger bars and extractors. I don't know if that's the result of cost cutting or some other issue.

They've also continued with their plastic-ification of the 92s. A lot of parts on the 92s have been changed over to plastic coated parts, like the mag catch, trigger, hammer, guide rod, and base plates.

You have to pay extra if you want steel parts:
http://www.berettausa.com/en-us/beretta-factory-92fs-steel-parts-trigger-safety-levers-recoil-road-mag-rel-/e00706/

[Jeep]

They certainly had some stainless steel heat treating issues, like with the trigger bars and extractors. I don't know if that's the result of cost cutting or some other issue.

They've also continued with their plastic-ification of the 92s. A lot of parts on the 92s have been changed over to plastic coated parts, like the mag catch, trigger, hammer, guide rod, and base plates.

You have to pay extra if you want steel parts:
http://www.berettausa.com/en-us/beretta-factory-92fs-steel-parts-trigger-safety-levers-recoil-road-mag-rel-/e00706/

Plastic doesn't bother me--if it works. Have you seen any failures coming from these plastic coated parts? If so, that is an issue I'd be concerned about.

[JV_]

I no longer follow Beretta's current issues, or lack thereof, to know how the current plastic parts are holding up. When they were first introduced, there were certainly issues with the triggers and guide rods.

[GardoneVT]

Plastic doesn't bother me--if it works. Have you seen any failures coming from these plastic coated parts? If so, that is an issue I'd be concerned about.

The plastic parts on the 92s are that way for good reason.

Metal parts are finished, so with moderate use the safety and trigger will start showing the bare finish with time. Needless to say, it looks cosmetically unbecoming of a Beretta handgun. As for the guide rod, the metal ones would bind up the pistol if it accumulated any filth, which the plastic ones and the new Wilson Combat metal guide rod address via fluting.

[JV_]

The plastic parts on the 92s are that way for good reason. For the most part, it's because they're cheaper.



As for the guide rod, the metal ones would bind up the pistol if it accumulated any filthAnd the plastic ones will be quickly devoured by a recoil spring with a poorly cut end as it cycles across the plastic. Another issue with their original metal rods was that they'd bend when the gun was dropped (with the slide locked back), and it would prevent proper cycling.

[Jared]

I personally haven't had any issues with the plastic guide rods, but I have heard of issues that others have had. I've got a metal one around here in case I ever run into trouble with one.

One of the posts above mentioned plastic hammers. I've never seen a plastic hammer, but I have seen plastic hammer spring caps.

[JV_]

Yes, hammer (spring) cap. Sorry, I was rushing to get out of the office.

[JonInWA]

I 've got to laugh and shake my head when I hear what I consider that old wives' tale of the 92's metal guide rod binding when it "accumulates filth." C'mon-other than rusting, how the heck is that going to occur? It's not like 9mm ammunition is noted for dispersing a heavy coating of sticky GSR on innocent bystanding guiderods... Maybe such metal guiderod issues eminated from them being used as an ad hoc barbecue spit by a leprechaun, but otherwise I put it in the highly, highly improbable column. I will buy into DoD requesting the change to the more flexible polymer to GI-proof the component when Snuffy drops the gun when the slide is at slidelock on the then-exposed guiderod (and the whys and wherefores of Snuffy's droppage is probably grist for another discussion/need for suitable adult guidance/corrective action), but I really think that the supposed issues leading to the substitution of polymer for metal were overstated. That said, I really have no issues with the fluted polymer recoil spring guide-there was one on my late, unlamented 8357 Cougar, and it performed fine with it.

The other polymer-coated parts seem to have performed without issue or inducing degradation in performance. The polymer-coated trigger precluded using Wolff's replacement TCU for the OEM trigger return spring, but a user can simply substitute the OEM metal trigger and then use it-and Beretta has, as mentioned earlier, significantly improved and strenthened their OEM lever-type trigger return spring years ago (I personally think that the Wolff is a superior spring and concept, and use it). BUSA actually has a nice little parts kit, comprising of a D mainspring, a new OEM metal trigger, a new trigger return spring and a new recoil spring, nicely priced, to expedite things as desired (as well as an updated locking block kit, too).

The Inox extractor in Inox guns was simply a bad idea. Apparently stainless steel lacks the necessary tensility and durability for a component subject to significant repeated flexation, and would break at the extractor hook. Beretta's solution was to revert to the carbon steel extractor. SIG-Sauer subsequently discovered the same thing with their original stainless steel external extractor employed in their 1911s; they ended up re-engineering, strengthening, and I believe switching also to carbon steel; the aftermarket replacement extractors made by EGW and Bruce Gray for the SIG 1911s were/are carbon steel. That would be a clue...

The quality control on my 8357 Cougar was excellent-the engineering/design had significant fleas, and Beretta never really admitted them, at least publicly. The 8357 had conceptual and operational extraction issues, and Beretta continued to adamantly insist that oil, not grease be used for lubrication, when in reality, particularly on the .40 and .357 chambered Cougars the rotating portions of the barrel where there was metal-on-metal torquing contact with reciprocal slide and barrel cam/cam track components significantly benefited from, if not outright requiring grease or something like TW25B to preclude locking up after relatively low session roundcounts (in mine, in less than 150 rounds of accumulated {NOT continuous/uninterrupted} use.

While relatively component-intensive and a bit bulky for some, I consider the 92 series to be a very viable and well produced pistol today. I certainly enjoy my 92D.

Best, Jon

[JV_]

The Inox extractor in Inox guns was simply a bad idea.But it seems like Beretta was producing stainless extractors for a long time before they really started having issues. I'm not convinced it is a fundamental issue, rather than an execution issue.

My only issue with the aluminum guide rods was (one time) the pin broke that held the head on.

[JSGlock34]

To ask whether Beretta has ever had QC problems, I think we'd have to acknowledge that the initial rollout of the 92 series to the US military had some issues. The number of slide failures may have been very small and largely confined to the NSW community, but it certainly shook confidence in the pistol, required Beretta to modify the slide and improve the metallurgy, and tarnished the reputation of a fine design.

[GardoneVT]

I 've got to laugh and shake my head when I hear what I consider that old wives' tale of the 92's metal guide rod binding when it "accumulates filth." C'mon-other than rusting, how the heck is that going to occur? It's not like 9mm ammunition is noted for dispersing a heavy coating of sticky GSR on innocent bystanding guiderods... Maybe such metal guiderod issues eminated from them being used as an ad hoc barbecue spit by a leprechaun, but otherwise I put it in the highly, highly improbable column. I will buy into DoD requesting the change to the more flexible polymer to GI-proof the component when Snuffy drops the gun when the slide is at slidelock on the then-exposed guiderod (and the whys and wherefores of Snuffy's droppage is probably grist for another discussion/need for suitable adult guidance/corrective action), but I really think that the supposed issues leading to the substitution of polymer for metal were overstated. That said, I really have no issues with the fluted polymer recoil spring guide-there was one on my late, unlamented 8357 Cougar, and it performed fine with it.


The Inox extractor in Inox guns was simply a bad idea. Apparently stainless steel lacks the necessary tensility and durability for a component subject to significant repeated flexation, and would break at the extractor hook. Beretta's solution was to revert to the carbon steel extractor. SIG-Sauer subsequently discovered the same thing with their original stainless steel external extractor employed in their 1911s; they ended up re-engineering, strengthening, and I believe switching also to carbon steel; the aftermarket replacement extractors made by EGW and Bruce Gray for the SIG 1911s were/are carbon steel. That would be a clue...

The quality control on my 8357 Cougar was excellent-the engineering/design had significant fleas, and Beretta never really admitted them, at least publicly. The 8357 had conceptual and operational extraction issues, and Beretta continued to adamantly insist that oil, not grease be used for lubrication, when in reality, particularly on the .40 and .357 chambered Cougars the rotating portions of the barrel where there was metal-on-metal torquing contact with reciprocal slide and barrel cam/cam track components significantly benefited from, if not outright requiring grease or something like TW25B to preclude locking up after relatively low session roundcounts (in mine, in less than 150 rounds of accumulated {NOT continuous/uninterrupted} use.

While relatively component-intensive and a bit bulky for some, I consider the 92 series to be a very viable and well produced pistol today. I certainly enjoy my 92D.

Best, Jon

On the subject of the guiderod, I received the information about it from an Air Force armorer . In Iraq, the unique properties of the local talcum-like sand meant it would accumulate on the lubricated guiderod , resulting in a seized weapon when the user tried to move the slide.

Not an issue likely to face a stateside user, to be sure, but in that theater of operations its a valid enough issue.

[JonInWA]

On the subject of the guiderod, I received the information about it from an Air Force armorer . In Iraq, the unique properties of the local talcum-like sand meant it would accumulate on the lubricated guiderod , resulting in a seized weapon when the user tried to move the slide.

Not an issue likely to face a stateside user, to be sure, but in that theater of operations its a valid enough issue.

I'm still incredulously skeptical. First, it sounds like the guide rod was over-oiled, and/or lubricated with a environmentally inappropriate lubricant (I know that at least one of the more specialized units went to Strike-Hold, a dryfilm lubricant). Second, for the gun not to work due to detrius accumulation, it would seem to require a heck of a lot of it packed around the guide rod and spring to inhibit slide reciprocation-for that much to accumulate, I would think that other more significant components/component areas would have also contaminated and motion inhibited, with far greater consequences. Third, if detrius was in fact the primary causal factor, a simple solution would be to either not apply oil to the guiderod/spring, or to lightly oil and then wipe off the oil-a thin protective film still would be there to provide protection, without serving as a residue magnet-and it's not like the guide rod is a high stress component with significant metal-on-metal reciprocation requiring significant lubrication anyhow. Quite simply, weapons maintenance in different environments requires different techniques and lubricants/protectants.

What I really suspect is that given the abysmal lubrication and maintenance given to the M9, as very succinctly reported by Larry Vickers in a Shotgun News article several years ago its that inadequate operator, unit, and higher echelop maintenance practices (including rampant failures to replace recoil springs at anywhere close to Beretta's forecasted replacement interval) were the primary causal factors. Substituting a polymer guide rod for a metal one was likely a prime example of treating the symptoms as opposed to systemically addressing the problem.

Again, I have nothing against the polymer guide rods-it's simply that I think they were unnecessary.

Best, Jon

[Suvorov]

To ask whether Beretta has ever had QC problems, I think we'd have to acknowledge that the initial rollout of the 92 series to the US military had some issues. The number of slide failures may have been very small and largely confined to the NSW community, but it certainly shook confidence in the pistol, required Beretta to modify the slide and improve the metallurgy, and tarnished the reputation of a fine design.

I was thinking the same thing. That said - But was that due to "quality control" or lack thereof or due to poor design specs and or ammo that was way over spec?

[JV_]

We need a Godwin's law for the Beretta 92, where it references the trite old saying "You're not a SEAL until you taste Italian steel".

[JonInWA]

I was thinking the same thing. That said - But was that due to "quality control" or lack thereof or due to poor design specs and or ammo that was way over spec?

I've heard several things regarding these early slide failures; 1) that in their haste to fulfill DoD delivery requirements, they used some slides that were either intended for or were license-built for their French contract licensee, PAMAS, and that somehow there were trace elements of tellurium in the slide alloy, which weakened them; 2) that the SEALS were using grossly overpressure cartridges whose characteristics exceeded the allowable (and presumably contract-specified) performance envelope of the M9, and 3) that the M9 slides were barely within the allowable strength limits/envelope required, and were inherently somewhat susceptible.

I've heard and/or read all of the above from what I consider reputable sources, and certainly don't claim to have any definitive answers. Perhaps there is an element of truth to all of them. Subsequently, the issue seems to have vanished, and I'm not aware of the slide separation issue resurrecting itself with the standard 92/M9 slides. Of course, Beretta did come up with the Brigadier slide, which provided more steel surrounding the locking block/locking block cut-outs, but I'm under the impression that that was more oriented towards the .40 96 series due to the characteristics inherent to the .40 cartridge.

Best, Jon

[JV_]

I'm not aware of the slide separation issue resurrecting itself with the standard 92/M9 slides.I've seen pictures of a stainless 92 that had a catastrophic failure and injured the shooter. It was posted on the Beretta Forum years ago, maybe < 2005'ish.

[Trooper224]

I was serving in the USN at the time of the change from the 1911 to the M9/92. I wasn't with NSW but my job gave me some contact with them and being a gun guy I paid attention to such things. NSW had been using the Beretta in an unofficial capacity since 1979 or so. In fact, many of the improvements, such as the relocation of the mag release were due to the feedback they provided to Beretta. The ammunition being used was standard NATO ball and I happen to think the metallurgy issue is probably the culprit since NSW hadn't reported any issues prior to widespread adoption. Slide failure really wasn't the issue since the military expects, and does, break stuff at an exponentially higher rate than most other organizations and the number of slide failures were actually pretty small.

The issue that tipped the scales was that Beretta blamed the SEALs for the failures and really had to be taken to task before they admitted it was a manufacturing problem. I saw the same thing in my field when I dealt with the evaluation of experimental equipment. The initial knee jerk reaction by the manufacturer was always to blame operator error, first and foremost. By the time Beretta owned up to it, the Type A+ personalities in NSW had developed an " F*** you Beretta" attitude and went with SIG. Now when that happened NSW began experiencing cracked frames on their SIG's due to some design elements the company had introduced. A fact everyone always seems to forget in that particular tale. The difference came when the company was informed of the problem. SIG took immediate corrective action and everyone rocked on. Who knows, if Beretta had adopted a similar attitude NSW might still be using the M9 today. in spite of the introduction of a few polymer parts, which is either a downgrade or not depending upon your viewpoint, I've found Beretta quality to be far more consistent than most of their contemporaries.

[JonInWA]

I've seen pictures of a stainless 92 that had a catastrophic failure and injured the shooter. It was posted on the Beretta Forum years ago, maybe < 2005'ish.

Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall that one as well. I think it was a statistical/material outlier, though. I'm personally unaware of others, or that if they indeed have occurred, I doubt that they exist in any significant/statistically significant numbers. Perhaps Todd, Ernest, Bill, the Wilson Rep or DocGKW will weigh in-any of them may possess more detailed information.

Best, Jon

[JV_]

I think it was a statistical/material outlier, thoughAgreed.

[JonInWA]

Here are two GAO reports that cover the specifics of the issue-they're both interesting reading, both for the issue we're discussing, as well as for some of the other nuggets of information contained within. They both date back to 1988, so there may have been subsequent reports, or they might have become "irrelevanticized" by subsequent contract mods, etc.

Be aware that you'll need to re-arrange the pages in numeric page order in the second report (the one on M9 Questions) for it to read sequentially...

http://archive.gao.gov/d16t6/136824.pdf

http://archive.gao.gov/d15t6/137930.pdf



Best, Jon

[JSGlock34]

Who knows, if Beretta had adopted a similar attitude NSW might still be using the M9 today.

That's a fun 'what if' scenario to waste some time on. Had Beretta quickly addressed the slide failures to the satisfaction of the Navy, there'd be no Mk24 or Mk25. Would the M11 still be a SIG, or would a Beretta 92 compact have secured the M11 designation? The slide failures certainly gave the gun writers of the day plenty of grist for their columns lambasting the Beretta...no doubt these cost Beretta sales and market share. Perhaps there would be more Beretta 92 pistols in US law enforcement use in this alternate reality...(well, at least until the .40 S&W arrives on the scene).


Here are two GAO reports that cover the specifics of the issue-they're both interesting reading, both for the issue we're discussing, as well as for some of the other nuggets of information contained within.

Thanks for posting those. Interesting reading.

[GardoneVT]

"Perhaps there would be more Beretta 92 pistols in US law enforcement use in this alternate reality...(well, at least until the .40 S&W arrives on the scene)."

From what I understand, Beretta did enjoy widespread success with Law Enforcement after the M9 won the trials.

[JSGlock34]

Of course they did (though not with federal agencies). Their pistol was all the rage in Hollywood too. But no doubt the slide failures cost them marketshare and eroded their position.

Would it have changed the dramatic impact of Glock's business strategy with the law enforcement market during the 1990s? I doubt it.

[Hambo]

I was serving in the USN at the time of the change from the 1911 to the M9/92. I wasn't with NSW but my job gave me some contact with them and being a gun guy I paid attention to such things. NSW had been using the Beretta in an unofficial capacity since 1979 or so. In fact, many of the improvements, such as the relocation of the mag release were due to the feedback they provided to Beretta. The ammunition being used was standard NATO ball and I happen to think the metallurgy issue is probably the culprit since NSW hadn't reported any issues prior to widespread adoption. Slide failure really wasn't the issue since the military expects, and does, break stuff at an exponentially higher rate than most other organizations and the number of slide failures were actually pretty small.

I knew a guy from the unit that broke M9s, and he said the same thing: NATO ammo, pre-M9 Berettas had extremely high round counts and no problems, and that the broken M9s disappeared quickly. He always thought it was a metallurgy issue. I have no personal knowledge, but having seen a Springfield Armory 1911 send half its slide downrange I can definitely buy into the metallurgy idea.

[Magsz]

Pictures will be forthcoming this evening.

The crown on my 92A1 was cut non concentric to the bore.

[JodyH]

I'll say that every handgun Beretta makes except the 92 series (and derivatives) has "fair to middlin" performance at best, but the QC and fit/finish are usually pretty decent.
Great execution of below average engineered pistols = Beretta in my experience with the "kitty cat" lineup (Tomcat, Bobcat, Cheetah) and the Nano.

[JonInWA]

The GAO reports when read carefully appear to indicate that there were some unknowns regarding the specifics of the ammunition used in the Navy Berettas that experienced slide failures. There also appears to have been some non-NATO standard ammunition used in some of the Army pistols, with powder that had the potential for over-pressurization (albeit supposedly in very cold weather situations). Clearly "the contractor" (which I assume is Beretta/BUSA) tried assert that overpressure ammunition(s) was the causal factor for the slide separations (either via non-standard ammunition or un-or im-properly certified NATO ammunition), but the GAO doesn't seem to have totally bought into that.

Interestingly, the slide failures appear to have occurred with Italian-produced slides, not with BUSA-produced ones. Inferentially, the implication/suggestion was that the heat treatment processes of both Italian and US factories needed to be examined as a potential causal factor, but it's not clear that this was done, at least within the information provided in the 2 GAO reports.

The reports are over 25 years old. As there are not further reports of epidemic slide separations from either military, LEO or commercial users, it sounds like Beretta/BUSA effectively dealt with the problem(s). That the expanded hammer pin head/recessed slide slot were the primary mods made for user reassurance, to me it sounds like the primary causal factor was more of a metallurgical composition and/or heat treatment issue than a slide architectural one; but I freely admit that I'm no scientist, metallurgist, engineer, inspector, gunsmith, or manufacturer.

Best, Jon

[Jared]

I'll say that every handgun Beretta makes except the 92 series (and derivatives) has "fair to middlin" performance at best, but the QC and fit/finish are usually pretty decent.
Great execution of below average engineered pistols = Beretta in my experience with the "kitty cat" lineup (Tomcat, Bobcat, Cheetah) and the Nano.

That's probably the best description of the "non 92" Beretta's I've heard. Kind of a shame if you ask me. I can't help but wonder how they did such an excellent job making a reliable pistol with the 92, and have pretty much swung and missed on pretty much the rest of their line-up.

[Magsz]

As promised:

I will preface this by saying i dont have the correct lens to really show this properly but you can see where the right side of the crown has a steeper cut than the left side like it was crowned at an angle.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/6LMcP5.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/ey6LMcP5j)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/GbhOBH.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/paGbhOBHj)

[KevH]

San Francisco PD issued the 96F during the late 90's and early 2000's. They experienced a huge problem with keyholing in those guns and went back and forth with Beretta for some time with Beretta blaming the ammo (Winchester) and Winchester blaming the guns. It went so far that Winchester was producing special runs of ammo for them as a stop-gap until they ultimately ditched Beretta and went to Sig 226R's, which is what they carry now.

To make matters worse the local Beretta LE factory rep at the time was not exactly the easiest guy to deal with.

So yes, they've had some QC issues over the lifespan of the 92-series.

[Matt O]

As promised:

I will preface this by saying i dont have the correct lens to really show this properly but you can see where the right side of the crown has a steeper cut than the left side like it was crowned at an angle.

How has accuracy been at distance?

[Magsz]

How has accuracy been at distance?

FING terrible.

Ive read that the 1:10 twist works well with 124 grain pills so ive got some inbound to test.

With BVAC 124 grain re manufactured jacketed ammo the gun was missing an IPSC target at 25. Im talking, shotgun. I chalked that one up to shit ammo so i moved on to the next batch.

135 grain RNFP's (plated) loaded to 1.11 at 130k power factor behind WST grouped into a 12-14 inch cluster...

147 grain Bayou FP's (Hi Tek coated lead) loaded to 1.10 at 131k power factor behind WST grouped into a 7-10 inch cluster.

Winchester white box grouped into a 2 inch group...I am going to have to pull a bullet to see what the measured diameter is because i have no clue as to why this grouped as well as it did.

The Extreme plated bullets are .355 diameter, the bayou fp's are .356's. A lot of people say Beretta's like .357 or .358 sized slugs which i refuse to buy since EVERY single one of my other guns shoots the aforementioned rounds just fine, ie 2 to 2.5 inch groups from a rest at 25.

I confirmed that the Italian made guns (mine is a 92A1) generally have larger bores than the US made contract barrels as per Eric At BUSA. (super cool guy btw).

Ive got to be honest, i am enjoying this gun but it is becoming the biggest pain in the dick ive ever had to deal with in regard to tuning.

[GJM]

My Wilson tuned 92A1 shoots every load I have tried into a 3x5, from offhand, at 25 yards. Better than a 3x5 when I do my part.

[Magsz]

My Wilson tuned 92A1 shoots every load I have tried into a 3x5, from offhand, at 25 yards. Better than a 3x5 when I do my part.

Im starting to think i may have gotten a Lemon... :P

The same ammo i am shooting in this gun groups 2-3 inches out of my P09 and Glocks from a sandbag at 25.

[GJM]

Loads that I have shot in my 92A1 are PMC 115 ball, Aguila 124, Lawman 115 and 124 grain, and Gold Dot 124+P. I would call each of them 2-3 inch at 25 yards loads.

[Magsz]

Loads that I have shot in my 92A1 are PMC 115 ball, Aguila 124, Lawman 115 and 124 grain, and Gold Dot 124+P. I would call each of them 2-3 inch at 25 yards loads.

Roger,

Nothing heavier than 124 though?

[Matt O]

FING terrible.

That is disconcerting to say the least. I've got a new 92A1 in hand and am heading to the range this Sunday for the initial break-in. I've got a case or so of Aguila 124 gr left, so we'll see how things work out.

[Matt O]

Also, to add, I checked my 92A1 and the crown does appear to be ever so slightly off towards the right side (when looking at the muzzle).

[GJM]

Roger,

Nothing heavier than 124 though?

Not that I recall. Wasn't intentional, it is just with the ammo crunch I have been able to get the PMC and Aguila in quantity, and had Lawman around, as well as the Gold Dot 124+P, which is my standard carry load.

I have it in the back of my head that the 92 supposedly doesn't do as well with 147 grain ammo, but haven't tested that.

[Trooper224]

I've been using my 92FS in a bullseye league I compete in every Monday. It's a short range, twenty five yard course of fifty rounds with a perfect score of 500. With a 1911 I typically shoot a 498 average with 40+x"s. So far with the Beretta I've maintained my average with a slightly lower X count. The target used has a 3 inch ten ring with a 1.5 inch X. I've just switched to using an 147 grain bullet when I'd been previously using 124's. The intent was to raise the point of inpact to allow me to use a six o'clock hold on the black. The 147's did that and maintained the same group size as the 124's, whicj typically hovers around 2-2.5 inches. The powder charge is 3.5 grains of Bullseye with an Hi Tech coated bullet from SnS Casting, eith 124 or 147 grain. My current carry load is the 124 grn +P Gold Dot and it shoots those quite well.

[LHS]

Im starting to think i may have gotten a Lemon... :P

The same ammo i am shooting in this gun groups 2-3 inches out of my P09 and Glocks from a sandbag at 25.

You may well have gotten a lemon. None of my Berettas seem to care about ammo type or weight. I've run 115gr and 147gr without any appreciable difference in accuracy. WWB, Winchester 147gr, Blazer (brass and aluminum), S&B, Magtech, PMC, Cor-Bon, Federal and now Freedom Munitions have shot well. Everyone misses something in QC every now and again.

[Clobbersaurus]

Im starting to think i may have gotten a Lemon... :P

The same ammo i am shooting in this gun groups 2-3 inches out of my P09 and Glocks from a sandbag at 25.

My Elite shoots all ammo pretty much the same, my best group off hand at 25 was with steel cased Tula 115g. Just crap blaster stuff. But I've tried a variety of ammo, and i don't see any major differences.

Have you tried contacting Beretta? Perhaps they will replace your barrel.

[JonInWA]

All commercial factory ammunition that I've cycled through my 92D has done so without event, and with consistent grouping/accuracy.

Best, Jon

[Matt O]

That is disconcerting to say the least. I've got a new 92A1 in hand and am heading to the range this Sunday for the initial break-in. I've got a case or so of Aguila 124 gr left, so we'll see how things work out.

The range report was sadly inconclusive in terms of determining my sample-of-one 92A1's mechanical accuracy. It was, however, conclusive that my 25 yard shooting has somewhat atrophied over the last 2.5 months of inactivity.

That said, I did manage to run a few rounds through a new 1911 at the end of the session (finally joined the 1911-owners club) and was managing to keep shots in the head box at distance with that pistol that were inexplicably missing with the Beretta. Admittedly the 92A1 was shooting about 4" low so my sight picture on a B8 was less than ideal, but I am having nagging doubts that it's not all me. I also had 3 light strikes in about 300 rounds of Aguila which isn't helping to bolster my confidence. I'm digging the D spring, but may have to go back to a stock hammer spring if the light strikes continue.

[opmike]

My 92FS (circa 2009, now sold) had a similar crown to the picture Magsz posted. I'm no Ben Stoeger but I didn't notice any accuracy issues to speak of with my particular example, but I admit I didn't do any formal bench testing.

This information is worth exactly what you paid for it.