Beretta 96D

[167]

I have recently started running a 96D, taking a break from my Glocks (long story). I know they are not considered the most durable. Most of you guys are more plugged into the shooting world than I am. What kind of service life should I anticipate from the 96D? Or is it just one of those things that some last and some don't?

[ToddG]

10,000 was what we told customers back when I worked there. A significant percentage of 96Ds had frame cracks by that point.

[Suvorov]

Todd,

What about running a red buffer or the like in the 96? Supposedly the 96A1s have a built in buffer to address the frame cracking issue. I have had great luck with the red buffers in my 92s with thousands of rounds fired with zero malfunctions related.

[ToddG]

I have no experience running the red buffers in a .40-cal Beretta, but used them at times in my 9mm guns but could not guess whether they actually did anything to improve service life.

They were also used in my custom modified 96G Elite in 357 SIG, where they got eaten up very fast. I stopped shooting that gun when I got hired at Beretta and the head quality control guy performed a dye penetrant test on the frame. He found multiple cracks and suggested I not fire the gun again. It had somewhere between four and five thousand rounds through it at the time.

[167]

Sad day. I guess I will just run it until it breaks and then replace it with something else.

[Tamara]

I've had a Beretta 96 Border Marshal and used a 96D as a bedside gun for years. For someone who does a lot of DA revolver work, a slickslide Beretta is stupid easy to shoot, and there are times when I miss them.

This thread sure helps fix that. :o

[167]

So is .40 S&W that much harder on the frame, or do 9mm 90 series Berettas not have that great a service life either?

[JonInWA]

The 9mm 92s in general (and by extrapolation, a 92D) are reputed to have much greater (and with less drama) longevity than their .40 96 compatriots. I would, however, STRONGLY suggest replacing your trigger return spring with Wolff's Trigger Conversion Unit (TCU) which essentially eliminates the weakest link in the overall Beretta durability equation. The Wolff assembly replaces a lever/mousetrap spring (notorious for breaking around 5K trigger pulls-the gun is still operable {because the triggerbar spring actually provides the leverage for pulling the trigger}, but the trigger must be manually pulled foward after each shot to engage the triggerbar spring); the Wolff unit is a much more durable coil spring assembly, and with their lighter weighted unit, I didn't find there to be any significant difference between it and the OEM spring; it was the solution that Wolff provided for the Border Patrol (which they subsequently adopted) for their 96D Brigadiers back in the day when that was their issue weapon.

Best, Jon

[167]

Thanks for the tip on the trigger spring.

I guess maybe I will have to see if I can find a 92D. I have a fetish for DA triggers, so much so I even like the P250 trigger!!

I have really been pleased with the Beretta 96 I have, although I find it hard to justify spending the same money on a gun that will last maybe 10k rounds as opposed to one that will last 50k+. I have been a Glock shooter pretty exclusively, and earlier this year decided to force myself to try other platforms.

[JR1572]

The first handgun I ever carried as a LEO was a 92D Centurion.

JR1572

[167]

So does the 10k general rule apply to straight and slanted dust cover guns, or only to straight? Was there any improvement made with the change in frame design?

[HeadHunter]

The 9mm 92s in general (and by extrapolation, a 92D) are reputed to have much greater (and with less drama) longevity than their .40 96 compatriots. I would, however, STRONGLY suggest replacing your trigger return spring with Wolff's Trigger Conversion Unit (TCU) which essentially eliminates the weakest link in the overall Beretta durability equation. The Wolff assembly replaces a lever/mousetrap spring (notorious for breaking around 5K trigger pulls-the gun is still operable {because the triggerbar spring actually provides the leverage for pulling the trigger}, but the trigger must be manually pulled foward after each shot to engage the triggerbar spring); the Wolff unit is a much more durable coil spring assembly, and with their lighter weighted unit, I didn't find there to be any significant difference between it and the OEM spring; it was the solution that Wolff provided for the Border Patrol (which they subsequently adopted) for their 96D Brigadiers back in the day when that was their issue weapon.

I will second that. Early in my days at Rogers, one SF Unit had 6 of 15 M9s become non-mission capable because broken trigger springs during a course. Shortly thereafter, I put the Wolff unit in all my Berettas.

[JonInWA]

In fairness to Beretta, some 8 or 9 years ago they did significantly strengthen the OEM trigger return spring, but the recommended replacement interval is still every 5K manipulations; I believe that the strengthened spring simply provides a needed level of assurance that it's capable of reaching the 5K point. While 5K iterations may seem like a lot to many shooters, if you factor in any sort of a dryfire program, that point is reached pretty quickly.

In comparison, Wolff attests that their Trigger Conversion Unit has literally undergone tens of thousands of rounds in testing without failure. One caveat to it is that the Wolff TCU will not work with the newer polymer triggers on current production Beretta 92 guns; they require the older steel-and-Bruniton-coated trigger (which my understanding is can be drop-in retrofitted to the newer guns if desired, which would then facilitate use of the Wolff TCU).

In my personal experience (with a sample size of 2 92Ds; a 92D Centurion I had years ago, and my current 1996-vintage 92D, which I obtained brand-new-in-box in 2006) the triggerpull of a 92D is much like a well-tuned Smith & Wesson revolver; which trigger return spring used is irrelevant, as the triggerpull itself is controlled by the triggerbar spring (but I've also replaced my OEM triggerbar and slide release springs with Wolff replacements). In my opinion, a 92D in decent shape is well worth the price of admission (which is likely to be conveniently discounted, as DAO automatics are not held in high esteem by many, as they're often considered to be more difficult to use/master than their DA/SA compatriots-neither of which I consider to be valid with proper familiarization, experience, and training). As Tamara did, mine is used as a nightstand gun, due to the combination of its trigger/action, Trijicon nightsights, and simplicity of operation-nice if I have to pass it to my wife to use. I also installed a set of Trausch TJ 92 ultrathin polymer/fiberglass grips, which I find very favorably increase the handling characteristics of the 92.

Best, Jon

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN1164.jpg

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN1163.jpg

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN1158.jpg

[37th Mass]

Would using a heavier recoil spring in the 96 series Beretta's help extend the life? I don't understand why Beretta uses the same strength spring for both the 9mm and .40 cal rounds. Wolff offers recoil springs which are a few pounds heavier than stock. Would they be advisable for a 96?

[Suvorov]

Would using a heavier recoil spring in the 96 series Beretta's help extend the life? I don't understand why Beretta uses the same strength spring for both the 9mm and .40 cal rounds. Wolff offers recoil springs which are a few pounds heavier than stock. Would they be advisable for a 96?

I have wondered the same thing, but it might be that the extra force of the slide slamming back into battery caused by the heavier recoil spring will do as much or more damage as the added recoil of the .40 cal round.

[fuse]

In fairness to Beretta, some 8 or 9 years ago they did significantly strengthen the OEM trigger return spring, but the recommended replacement interval is still every 5K manipulations; I believe that the strengthened spring simply provides a needed level of assurance that it's capable of reaching the 5K point. While 5K iterations may seem like a lot to many shooters, if you factor in any sort of a dryfire program, that point is reached pretty quickly.

In comparison, Wolff attests that their Trigger Conversion Unit has literally undergone tens of thousands of rounds in testing without failure. One caveat to it is that the Wolff TCU will not work with the newer polymer triggers on current production Beretta 92 guns; they require the older steel-and-Bruniton-coated trigger (which my understanding is can be drop-in retrofitted to the newer guns if desired, which would then facilitate use of the Wolff TCU).

In my personal experience (with a sample size of 2 92Ds; a 92D Centurion I had years ago, and my current 1996-vintage 92D, which I obtained brand-new-in-box in 2006) the triggerpull of a 92D is much like a well-tuned Smith & Wesson revolver; which trigger return spring used is irrelevant, as the triggerpull itself is controlled by the triggerbar spring (but I've also replaced my OEM triggerbar and slide release springs with Wolff replacements). In my opinion, a 92D in decent shape is well worth the price of admission (which is likely to be conveniently discounted, as DAO automatics are not held in high esteem by many, as they're often considered to be more difficult to use/master than their DA/SA compatriots-neither of which I consider to be valid with proper familiarization, experience, and training). As Tamara did, mine is used as a nightstand gun, due to the combination of its trigger/action, Trijicon nightsights, and simplicity of operation-nice if I have to pass it to my wife to use. I also installed a set of Trausch TJ 92 ultrathin polymer/fiberglass grips, which I find very favorably increase the handling characteristics of the 92.

Best, Jon

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN1164.jpg

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN1163.jpg

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN1158.jpg

Man, looks so clean without a saftey/decocker or decocker.

[JonInWA]

Elimination of the manual safety/decocker lever also eliminated an area susceptible to dust/dirt infiltration (which could operationally hinder the gun if the the safety's movement was sufficiently inhibited), and also made the slide slightly stronger, as elimination of the levers also eliminated the need for a stress-reduction cut. Beretta actually semi-officially termed the D guns "slickslides," calling them out as such in their catalogs and promotional information back in the day. Shortly after D model production commenced (back around 1992, if my memory serves me correctly) Beretta also extended the number and coverage area of the slide grasping grooves (mine pictured above is a 1996-vintage gun with the increased grooving).

Best, Jon

[167]

I have wondered the same thing, but it might be that the extra force of the slide slamming back into battery caused by the heavier recoil spring will do as much or more damage as the added recoil of the .40 cal round.

I am not a physicist, nor an engineer, but that just doesn't seem to track. I would imagine the recoil forces are far in excess of the forces that would be imparted by a 5-8lb increase in spring weight.

I guess we will find out, I just started running a 20lb recoil spring in my 96D.

[Suvorov]

I am not a physicist, nor an engineer, but that just doesn't seem to track. I would imagine the recoil forces are far in excess of the forces that would be imparted by a 5-8lb increase in spring weight.

I guess we will find out, I just started running a 20lb recoil spring in my 96D.

Yes, but the gun is designed to absorb large amounts of recoil force in one direction and not designed to absorb forces in the other direction. Looking at my pistol, the slide will reach its rearward limit of travel when the recoil spring is fully compressed and the slide contacts the frame with the frame absorbing any remaining force. When the pistol goes into battery, the recoil spring drives the slide forward with the slide stopping once the locking lugs are seated and the bottom of the locking block is resting against the takedown lever. The area on the frame where the slide contacts is designed to absorb far more force than the takedown lever and locking blocks are. I'm not offering cannon here, maybe Todd can give Beretta's real rational here, just offering a possible explanation.

Please keep me informed on how it works for you. ;)

[167]

Sent an e-mail off to Beretta USA concerning this issue.


Are there any issues associated with running a 20lb recoil spring in an older (1997 production) Beretta 96D? Knowing that there are frame durability issues with this particular model I felt it a prudent step to use a heavier recoil spring, however the heavier spring also imparts greater "abormal" forces on the frame than a stock spring would. Are there any known issues to be present with using a heaver spring?

Their answer.


BerettaUSA does not suggest the use of non-factory approved parts in our firearms. While this spring may work with your firearm, it will most definitely cause cycling issues with lighter loaded .40S&W.

Unless I hear something relatively definitive and the gun remains functional I plan to stay with the 20lb recoil spring. I figure if nothing else it can serve as a test bed for anyone who might be thinking about running a heavier spring.

[Suvorov]

Sent an e-mail off to Beretta USA concerning this issue.



Their answer.



Unless I hear something relatively definitive and the gun remains functional I plan to stay with the 20lb recoil spring. I figure if nothing else it can serve as a test bed for anyone who might be thinking about running a heavier spring.

Thanks for the post - it will be interesting to see if you encounter any weird issues. Maybe they kept the spring weight down since as I recall, the Border Patrol was using light .40 bullets and they were wanting to make sure the guns worked for them? Anyhow even if it does cause a little more battering on your takedown lever, it is easier to replace that part then a frame right?

[167]

Yup.

Feel free to follow along on my blog (http://www.masterclasschronicles.blogspot.com)

[Suvorov]

Yup.

Feel free to follow along on my blog (http://www.masterclasschronicles.blogspot.com)

Will do, thanks for the link.

Good stuff and nice to see someone else shooting a "legacy" system.

I have been thinking about converting one of my 92s to a 96D since the slide assemblies seem to pop up from time to time just to burn through some of the .40 I have and to make a night stand gun that is simple for my wife to use, but have held off in part due to the slide battering issue.

[nwhpfan]

10,000 was what we told customers back when I worked there. A significant percentage of 96Ds had frame cracks by that point.

Wow, and people still bought them? I know most people shoot far less but it doesn't take but a few classes, few range days with friends, and bug to compete once in a while to get up to 10k rounds!!!

[JonInWA]

I'll eagerly solicit ToddG's (and others) input/correction, but in the hiatus period of 92/96 sales, which I'd guess was roughly 1985-1995, the large LEO use of the D series was Chicago PD, which authorized the 92D (and I believe had a fairly large number of officers sink for them), the Pennsylvania State Police and the Border Patrol, which issued the 96D Brigadier. Of course, many more went with the 92F/96F manual safety and 92G/96G decocker varients during this timeframe, and later. As I recall, the 92/96D DAO Berettas were a regular production gun from 1992-1998, and somewhat later by special/large departmental order.

It was during this period that LEO firearms training really began to significantly expand, but I think the norm went from annual qualification to only 2-3 qualifications per year, which does not involve thousands and thousands of rounds going through individual issue firearms. Of course, SWAT use is likely much higher, but that involves a much smaller sub-set of LEO officers, and usually with higher/appropriately ramped up resources.

I believe (and I'm happy to receive correction) that the standard LEO model for individual officer sidearm longevity is for 10 years, incorporating forecasted training and use. A 10,000 round forecasted lifespan over a 10 year period equates to 1,000 rounds per year, which boils down to some 83 rounds per month per officer/gun. I'd bet that most department trainers would be overjoyed if they could coax individual officers to fire more than their mandated qualifications. While my understanding is that while expected firearm longevity has been expanded to 20,000+, I'd be very, very surprised if actual departmental/individual weapons training firing has increased much over 100 rounds per month-if that.

So-despite the realistic 10K forecasted lifespan regarding the .40 96-series Berettas, I suspect that most of them made it to the forecasted year point successfully, with normal preventive maintenance. The 9mm 92-series Berettas I believe had a much longer predictive lifespan, due to the lower impact/stress placed on the frames with the lower-pressure/less intensive pressure spike of the 9mm cartridge. And, with judicious selection, that's why I believe that these police turn-in 92/96s can be excellent buys-but upon acquiring one, as a matter of course I'd probably immediately replace the triggerbar spring, trigger return spring, recoil spring, all magazine springs, slide release spring and the locking block. However, given the increases in 9mm cartridge/bullet performances, the lower expense of 9mm ammunition, the ease of shooting 9mm ammunition, the lower weight of 9mm ammunition and the greater longevity/durability of a 92 compared to a 96, unless you're really, really into the .40 cartridge, I recommend the 9mm 92 (and no, I didn't forget the greater capacity of a 92 vs a 96 magazine, I just don't see it being all that relevant one way or another in the overall scheme of things when establishing pros and cons between the two platforms).

Best, Jon