Beretta M9 failures [Archive]

Moshjath

06-04-2019, 07:42 PM

JSGlock34

06-04-2019, 09:14 PM

I'd like to know if these were rebuilt pistols. I seem to recall there are a number of third party replacement parts in the military system, to include locking blocks, barrels (manufactured by FN), magazines...

Willard

06-04-2019, 09:20 PM

Honestly, what happens in the .mil WRT firearms is essentially inapplicable to the rest of the gun carrying public. When round counts are recorded, parts replaced at normal intervals, weapons lubed properly & serviced at recommended points, etc, things far less likely to break or malfunction. No offense to OP, I appreciate the post, but have concluded experiences with mil weapons (including my own) provide little information for me.

OlongJohnson

06-04-2019, 09:49 PM

Chlorinated CLP again?

10mmfanboy

06-04-2019, 10:31 PM

I agree, most of the parts in inventory by now are 3rd party vendors. I'm sure parts were not replaced when they should be, nor lubricated. Most of the reliability issues were traced back to using non oem parts, especially magazines.

Default.mp3

06-05-2019, 12:16 AM

Some interesting history from this thread, not sure how pertinent it is today: https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/my-love-hate-relationship-with-the-beretta-92-system

The Brigadiers were the first variants to come with factory dovetails for the front sight... an obvious advantage for customization. As well, they feature the beefed up hump on the slide that would withstand higher round count usage. Another obvious advantage for competition.

The Brigadier slide was Beretta's answer to NSW (SEAL) demands for a fix to the early M9 slide separation issue with some Navy guns. Internet immediate argument drills aside, that problem was a reality after the pistols were initially adopted. Not frequent by any means, but it did in fact happen. And not just to Navy guns.

I saw it on occasion (twice) with Army guns during the late 1990s. This with very high use guns in a particular Army SF battalion. Rare, but not unheard of. What was not rare was the routine failure of locking blocks (epidemic in all of my units) and the more occasional (but still common) failure of trigger springs and trigger bar return springs. Eventually leading to later generation radiused locking blocks and various aftermarket upgrades for those two springs.

The fact that Beretta generated two mechanical design changes to mitigate the slide separation issue is a glaring indictment that the problem did exist. The beef-upped Brigadier slide was one fix. Designed to prevent the slide from cracking in half to begin with. The other was to incorporate a modified hammer pin (with an over sized flange on the left end) into all military M9s. Also the defining characteristic of the 92FS. That "S" in the nomenclature indicates the model features that particular M9 fix. That exposed flange (on the left side of the weapon's frame) was/is designed to stop the back half of a broken slide from rearward travel off of the rails in the event of slide failure. Instead, it binds that part of the slide to the frame, keeping it from launching and hitting the shooter in the teeth.

Beretta didn't engineer those changes for a non-existent issue.

I forget how many Brigadier slides were purchased by SOCOM, but in the end, the USN SEAL community adopted SIGs anyway. The majority of those already purchased military Brigadiers slides (gathering dust) got transferred over to Army SF, where they were used mainly by 5th SFG(A) at least through the late 90s and early 00s. The only place I saw them in the flesh was at 5th Group. Other SF Groups may have received some, but I don't have any personal observations of that. IIRC, there were only a coupla thousand purchased for military use. It wasn't a huge number.

I know there's lots of folks out there who've put amazing round counts through Beretta 92 variants. I know Beretta has always claimed very big durability numbers. But the gun was only spec'ed (like the previous 1911A1) for a Cold War requirement of occasional annual firing (a coupla hundred rounds) and a total service life of 5000 rounds. Which translates to about 15-20 years of mild use (mostly stored away in arms rooms). In units that went to high round count routine CQB training in the late 90s... it didn't pan out that way. We broke M9s like beer steins at a Valhalla drinking party. This in units where almost every man was issued an M9. We replaced a lot of worn out guns and parts on a routine basis. Including simply replacing ALL unit guns with brand new ones after just a few years (3-5) of hard use. Rinse and repeat. They just didn't hold up against to our live fire training demands. In a unit where we were ruthless about tracking round counts and proactively replacing things like locking blocks.

In my personal experience (as an 18B Weapons Sergeant, 18Z Team Sergeant, and 18Z Company SGM), the guns simply never lived up to Beretta factory advertised round counts. Maybe they did somewhere else, but not in my Army SF units. At one point, circa 1999, my Company SGM had a little collection of broken M9 locking blocks in a big bowl on his desk. He asked that all ODAs & B-Team guys bring them in as they happened... rather than toss them. After fewer than 10 months, he had 67 of them collected. And that wasn't all of them (some getting tossed anyway). From 83 assigned M9s in the company. That was pretty typical across the board (including all sister companies and other battalions). While locking blocks are mechanically easy to replace, it's more difficult to replace guns with deformed rails caused by the tie-up event... and subsequent wooden malleting (in a shop vise) to get a locked-up gun disassembled. That used to piss me off to no end.

But not nearly as much as having one of my guys with a deadlined weapon in Northern Bosnia... where a CCW M9 was our primary weapon. Further entailing a long drive down to Eagle Base, Tuzla to steal a functional gun from somebody at HQ, and turn the un-repairable one in to depot maintenance channels. And not see it again for months. My guys temporarily out of pocket because they couldn't conduct scheduled work among the Serbian populace without a pistol... and at least two of them gone for an additional entire day (road trip out of sector) to obtain a pistol replacement. Same basic thing during the Kosovo Air Campaign (we were the ground element CSAR package). Same thing in Afghanistan. Same thing in Iraq. Same thing in Africa (except that there was no place to get a replacement pistol). I dunno, dumb grunt that I was, but I seemed to notice a pattern.

I still own a personal 92FS today, 'cause I've got a lot of training & deployed time with the design, as well as a footlocker full of spendy Safariland holsters, mags, light mount adapters, pouches, etc. Sort of a military nostalgia piece for me.

Like my formerly issued 1911A1s, it's an old friend, and comes to hand with deeply learned familiarity. But I don't love it. Because it's the single most problematic handgun I ever used in terms of mechanical parts failure. It's an accurate gun. It's an easy gun to shoot effectively. It's a very safe gun for widespread troop issue. It's a reliably cycling gun as far as digesting a variety of ammo, almost never jamming, and operating well under all field conditions.

But I had enough of them break (small parts failures) in my hand, in the hands of my team mates, and in the hands of most shooters in my units... that I'll never fully trust the M92/M9. Like a partner that's cheated on you, you never fully regain trust. ..even if you stick by them. I never went on a long training deployment, shooting course, or downrange push where somebody's M9 didn't go down hard for maintenance. Usually when we were someplace where repair or timely weapon replacement was extremely problematic. Aggravating, but we learned to live with it. We learned to procure through military channels (or personally purchase) a stockpile of spare parts. And to have a bump plan for shifting working guns to folks that absolutely had to have one. Usually leaving some unfortunate Fobbit without one. Spare pistols carried with us were only very rarely a possibility.

Love/Hate? Yeah... that describes it for me. Although I'm still very tempted to get one of the improved railed models. After my comments above, Go Figure...

Just my $.02 & YMMV.

Bear in mind that my above observations/bitches were about the military M9 version of the 92 Series. I suspect that a lot of the commercial versions were/are somehow manufactured to a higher standard... and also benefit from improvements (later generation locking blocks for instance) that the military didn't adopt in a timely manner. It's still a popular gun with lots of shooters and it's certainly a good looking gun.

But I'd not deliberately equip an organization with them if I expected to do a lot of year-in, year-out high volume shooting. For the average civilian owner or police agency... fine. For an SF CIF Company... not so much.

My current 92FS has never given me the slightest problem. Has always run like a champ. Then again, I dutifully replaced the locking block after the first 5K rounds, out of a sense of caution. And these days, I really don't shoot it that much or that often. A spare small parts kit travels with it when I do.

I'm familiar with the metallurgy reasons for early batches of the gun failing. Also the SEAL ammo question (it was NATO rated 9mm). On the point of Beretta knowing that locking blocks break, I'll simply note that such breakage wasn't part of any military discussion or PM guidance until long after the problem manifested itself during operational service.

Back then, Beretta handled M9 failings just like any good Special Forces Trooper (or Congress Critter) would: Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, & Make Counter Accusations. Then get around to fixing the problem.

My Beretta M9 experience goes back to my 18B days, when I extensively fired the actual '83 JSSAP test weapons (the same year). In a manner of speaking, the M9 is what caused me to discover internet firearms forums, back when Windows 95 was still new. I was so aggravated by unit M9 failings, that when a fellow NCO suggested that I query other's experiences on firearms forums, it was the first useful thing I ever researched on the web. Lo and behold, it was just like today. Lots of individual folks claiming amazing round counts, but a few military or police folks (usually instructors or range NCOs) noting similar issues to mine. In situations where they routinely supervised a lot of guns and a lot of ammo.

I was serving as a E-7 CQB & Combat Pistol instructor during my battalion's transition from 1911A1 to Beretta M9. Over the next decade, the frequency of failures with the new guns was exponentially greater than we ever had with M1911A1s. Or anything else (non-standard or allied weaponry like BHPs, Walthers, HKs, S&W 3rd Gen). This while conducting similar levels of training. All guns break on occasion. But those other handguns rarely did. Our M9s did with alarming regularity. More than any other military weapon I ever fired or instructed with... to include clapped out M60 machine guns. Which is quite a feat as M60's were nearly self-demolishing under heavy usage.

I've got similar high definition close-up photos of Beretta locking block failures. I took them myself. A couple came from my own issued weapons. Over the years, I've posted a few of those photos on other internet firearms sites. The thing I often noticed about locking block doubters was that they usually claimed to routinely spot their own cracks during normal disassembly maintenance and acted like it was no problem at all if a locking block let go during firing. According to them, they'd just quickly replace it on the firing line. That told me they had little 1st person experience with the problem... on two counts: 1) Early microscopic fractures can be detected by Magnaflux, not with the MK I eyeball, which will only pick up very obvious and already well developed damage while inspecting a locking block. 2) Very frequently, when a locking block lets go while firing, the gun is locked up like a chastity belt. The slide isn't coming off of the frame (or even moving from its mid-cycle jammed state) without impact tools & a vise. The gun's rails or frame are often damaged by such a failure. BTDT.

I once hosted the Commanding General of US Army Special Forces Command on my ODA's range. He & his CSM visited my range specifically to observe our M9 training and ask questions about problems with the pistol. At the time, he was entertaining very near term replacement of our M9s with an HK USP variant (as recommended unanimously by SMEs from multiple SF units). In the middle of my detailing the salient issues, my Junior Medic's M9 predictably broke a block, seized up, and provided a timely visual. One that served to emphasize my talking points. He got the message. He was hearing the same message at every visited Special Forces battalion in the Regiment. IIRC, that was 1999 or 2000.

9/11 came along and we never did get those HKs, that program getting kicked down the road until about 2004. At which point Big Army volunteered to share costs/effort on our purely SOF selection program... and then slow-rolled things to the point that the entire effort was shelved stillborn. Other wartime priorities took precedence for SOCOM funding. Mother Army the same. It took Big Green another twelve years to finally trial and adopt a new handgun... after ruling out product improved Berettas (e.g., the M9A3).

In any event, concerning the M9, who am I gonna believe? The internet, or my lyin' eyes? It's generally a hell of a gun. In my experience, it just wasn't a very durable one for fleet hard usage. (Fleet meaning the total numbers acquired & issued, not anything to do with the US Navy.)

In the same thread, @Dagga Boy (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=1336) said:

The current locking blocks are improved over the military ones. The same crappy ones are still supplied to the military. I have been told this is due to requirements of the TDP on the guns. It is likely why there is a huge difference in reliability between the domestic LE issue guns and the military guns.

Does make me wonder about what could have been if SF had adopted the USP...

Sammy1

06-05-2019, 04:59 AM

An old test but I thought it was relevant. Note, he used a commercial 92fs not a standard issue M9.

"The Beretta 92FS," by Christopher Bartocci...
...published in Krause Publications' Handguns 2001(13th Edition), states the following information:

"With the gun's major criticisms in mind, I wanted to see how the M9/92FS would stand up to a 20,500 round torture test using mostly +P and +P+ ammunition. I purchased a stock 92FS from a local gun distributor and made some calls for some high-power ammunition. The ammunition used in this test is as follows: 9X19mm (NATO, Parabellum/Luger) manufactured by Winchester/Olin Corporation.

Beretta U.S.A. claims their pistol is serviceable to 35,000 rounds and that it will function under the most adverse conditions. Beretta U.S.A. claims 'the average reliability of all M9s tested at Beretta U.S.A. is 17,500 rounds without stoppage.' The ammunition I chose was the hottest ammunition available and I would not recommend anyone put high round counts of +P+ ammunition through any alloy-frame pistol regardless of manufacturer.

The first thing I did was fire for out-of-the-box accuracy, I used the 115-grain +P+ ammunition and at 15 yards the 15-shot group measured 1.5 inches. I had nine magazines loaded up and someone loading magazines as I emptied them and, within 20 minutes, I fired 500 rounds with no malfunctions of any type...

The next day I began firing 2,000 rounds of the 127-grain +P+SXT, by far the hottest 9mm ammunition I have ever fired. There were no malfunctions of any type using this ammunition. Over the next 3 days I fired 8,000 rounds of 9mm NATO, the standard M882 Ball ammunition issued to U.S. military personnel. The M882 ball cartridge is rated as a +P cartridge by SAAMI specifications.

The barrel was cleaned every 2,000 to 3,000 rounds. It would take us 45 to 50 minutes to fire 1,000 rounds and, at times, the pistol would become too hot to handle. I fired 1,000 rounds of Winchester USA 115-grain 9mm ball with no problems and the pistol, after 11,500 rounds, was still delivering groups in the 1.5-inch range.

At this point, the pistol was totally disassembled and cleaned. Then I fired an additional 6,000 rounds of the 115-grain FMJ with only one malfunction. There was one failure to extract due to an under-powered cartridge, not the pistol.

After about 15,000 rounds I began to notice some pitting on the right wing of the locking block. I recommend changing this part when pitting is noted, but this was a torture test and we wanted to see how long the gun will last.

As of now 17,500 rounds have been fired and I headed back to the range to fire the remaining 3,000 rounds. Finally at round count 19,498, I had a locking block failure. The left wing of the locking block broke and the pistol's slide locked up. By pushing down on the broken wing with a drift punch, the action was freed and the pistol subsequently disassembled, revealing some minimal frame damage - but nothing that would affect the operation of the pistol. I changed the locking block and within 10 minutes I was back in action and concluded the test with no other malfunctions. The last 15 rounds were fired for accuracy; the group measured about 1.75 inches at 15 yards. The accuracy had hardly changed at all.

The locking block survived 19,948 rounds, which included 2,500 rounds of +P+, 8,000 rounds of +P and 10,000 rounds of standard 9mm ball. One friend of mine put it best: 'You fired $4,000 worth of ammunition out of a $450 handgun and broke a $60 part after 19,498 rounds were fired, what more could you ask?'

I feel very few pistols will ever see this round count - except for a military pistol. For many years I have heard people claim the Beretta M9/92FS was a fragile gun because of those early, isolated incidents. Following this torture test, I know this gun is far from fragile! There is no question in my mind the pistol is serviceable to 35,000 rounds; I would not be surprised to see it last 50,000 rounds. The Beretta M9/92FS is, in my opinion, one of the most reliable firearms ever produced - and this test proved it."

Bigghoss

06-05-2019, 05:45 AM

Chlorinated CLP again?

I would be surprised if people weren't cleaning these with brake cleaner. Where I work they get just retarded about how clean the weapons need to be so I see guys all the time using brake cleaning and similar stuff. Plus it's quick. And how many people actually know there's chlorinated and non-chlorinated brake cleaner, let alone what the chlorine does to metal?

hufnagel

06-05-2019, 07:05 AM

Sammy1 a citation for that would be swell. Only thing I could find was a THR thread that had the same copy/paste.

TCinVA

06-05-2019, 07:14 AM

When you do not replace recoil springs at sane intervals, you will break pistols.

Every time I have met military armorers I've asked them how many times they replaced M9 recoil springs. I have run into exactly one guy who did it, and that was because he was working the arms room for a unit that shoots a lot of pistol.

The locking blocks originally spec'd on the M9 had a short lifespan. A replacement locking block was made that eliminated some of the stress points of the original locking block. This part was supplied to the military and was supposed to be retrofitted to guns in service.

I doubt you can find more than a handful of guns that had the retrofit or more than a handful of armorers who can spot the difference between the original locking blocks and the replacements.

The locking blocks are supposed to be fitted. On military guns that likely is not happening.

The military has a bad habit of taking parts from deadlined guns and reassembling them into another working pistol that only works kinda because all the parts have completely different wear patterns and, shocker, that one usually breaks in short order, too.

So when you swirl all of that together, ya. You're going to break some guns.

Remember that big military for DECADES preached that the biggest danger to the AR-15 pattern rifle was over-lubrication. And they kept using beat-to-shit magazines like they were the family silver. That they experienced problems with their pistols...especially guns that have been in service longer than most of the people on the pop charts these days have been alive...should not come as a shock.

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 07:41 AM

There are a couple of anomalies in my opinion in the quoted threads from the SF NCO; 1). Failed locking blocks are extensively discussed, but interestingly, not trigger return springs. Early TRS were noted for their estimated lifespan of only 2K rounds, until redesigned by Beretta some 10-15 years ago. 2). Individual, unit and higher echelon maintenance procedures are not extensively discussed-as Larry Vickers commented in his generally excellent article years ago on the M9, operator/unit lubrication and forecasted component replacements were essentially never performed to standard. 3). The SF NCO cites the FN HP as more durable than the M9, along with the 1911 (and unspecified HKs and 3rd generation S&W automatics). This simply doesn't track with my personal experience, or, more importantly, the collective experience of much more knowledgeable and experienced users; HP barrels have a forecasted lifespan of 12K to 15K rounds, and the rest of the gun for only about 35K-40K rounds.

Locking block failures (particularly M9 locking block failures) have been discussed extensively here and elsewhere. Essentially the 3rd Generation BERETTA locking blocks provide an estimated 20K round lifespan; first generation AND FIRST GENERATION NON-BERETTA REPLACEMENT locking blocks apparently sourced by DoD, not so much. The replacement blocks apparently have the intrinsic weakness of the 1st generation Beretta locking blocks, and then some material issues on top of that...DocGKR has discussed that on p-f. Throw inferior components into the mix of inadequate/indifferent/non-existent lubrication and maintenance, and you have a recipe for incipient disaster.

Best, Jon

Greg

06-05-2019, 07:50 AM

When people cheer for a favorite weapon to be MIL adopted I think they’re nuts. They won’t be maintaining them, repair after failure is the norm.

The AK would gain a terrible reputation for reliability if we fielded it.

Stony Lane

06-05-2019, 08:02 AM

Obviously, these pistols were poorly maintained and badly abused. My experience, after 10's of thousands of rounds through many 92's, is that the platform is remarkably robust and reliable.

The old Ben Stoeger "A few hundred thousand rounds later" video comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8_uN0OIVs

Arbninftry

06-05-2019, 08:37 AM

.mil M9s are severely abused.

Sammy1

06-05-2019, 09:05 AM

jetfire

06-05-2019, 09:11 AM

So a buddy of mine is in a unit that happens to run the arms room that several cadre units draw from for qualification purposes. Not going to get more specific than that. Anyway, one of those organizations drew eight M9s and shot about 500 rounds through each, and got some fairly catastrophic results. 6 of the pistols experienced broken slides and broken locking blocks. Here’s my observations:

1. The same 9 pistols or so are repeatedly drawn and used over and over again.

2. Can’t tell the age, but they’ve obviously seen some use.

3. Possibly an ammo issue? 6/8 weapons breaking seems high even if abused.

4. Looking at the recoil spring in one pic, it seems the same length or slightly shorter than the barrel. From what I remember of the factory B92 armorer’s course back in 2011, this would indicate very worn recoil springs that would not attenuate recoil adequately.

5. The deadlining faults as he is relaying them to me are
“1 Broken slide
1 Fracture in slide
2 Locking block broken
1 locking block cracked
1 barrel cracked (near locking block)”

6. The locking blocks (kind of hard to tell) seem to be the latest generation with the chamfer at the right angle.

I’ve asked if he can get some pics of the ammo. We’re both interested to hear any observations the collective P-F knowledge base may have.

38713

38714

I would be willing to bet that the pistols above hadn't had their recoil springs changed...ever. I can't speak to other service's maintenance standards, but I know that the USAF Technical Order (which is the same manual the Army uses) says that the recoil spring on the M9 is supposed to be changed when it's shorter than the barrel. Considering the factory length of the spring is about an inch longer than the barrel, you can imagine how many cycles it takes to compress an inch off that spring. It's a huge number, way more than the 3,000 round interval that Beretta recommends the spring be changed.

A lot of the M9s in inventory are going on 20-30 years old, and during their service lifetime have seen very little maintenance. I was at an AFRC shooting course a few months back where we shot 1,000 rounds each over the course of a week and we deadlined three or four guns, all of which were broken locking blocks. The bottom line is that the military's guideline for when to change the spring isn't nearly often enough, and training guns especially will get pulled out of inventory repeatedly and shot. Run that cycle for 15 years and it's no wonder guns crack in half.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 09:22 AM

I seem to recall there are a number of third party replacement parts in the military system,.

Irrelevant. They all need to meet the same standards as OEM and OEMs aren't the only ones who know how to make parts to print.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 09:28 AM

let alone what the chlorine does to metal?

In the absence of water, nothing.

HCM

06-05-2019, 09:44 AM

Irrelevant. They all need to meet the same standards as OEM and OEMs aren't the only ones who know how to make parts to print.

They should meet the same standards, but often they don’t.

ralph

06-05-2019, 09:45 AM

Now I'm begining to understand why the military went with the SIG..It's simple really, at about $200 apeice, with extras thrown in, what they have is a disposable pistol. One quits running, and they can't easily fix it, take it over the bandsaw, cut it in half, or thirds and throw it in the dumpster..Go get a new one, and send it out.. Problem solved. You don't need to keep alot of spare parts around, or train alot of armorers.. Of course I'm being snarky here, but honestly, I'm not so sure that's not what they had in mind...

HCM

06-05-2019, 09:47 AM

I would be willing to bet that the pistols above hadn't had their recoil springs changed...ever. I can't speak to other service's maintenance standards, but I know that the USAF Technical Order (which is the same manual the Army uses) says that the recoil spring on the M9 is supposed to be changed when it's shorter than the barrel. Considering the factory length of the spring is about an inch longer than the barrel, you can imagine how many cycles it takes to compress an inch off that spring. It's a huge number, way more than the 3,000 round interval that Beretta recommends the spring be changed.

A lot of the M9s in inventory are going on 20-30 years old, and during their service lifetime have seen very little maintenance. I was at an AFRC shooting course a few months back where we shot 1,000 rounds each over the course of a week and we deadlined three or four guns, all of which were broken locking blocks. The bottom line is that the military's guideline for when to change the spring isn't nearly often enough, and training guns especially will get pulled out of inventory repeatedly and shot. Run that cycle for 15 years and it's no wonder guns crack in half.

Another question is what ammo are they Shooting ? Many .Mil ranges are requiring lead free ammo only due to environmental or impact area issues. IME lead free / frangible ammo greatly increases the rate of wear on the gun.

jetfire

06-05-2019, 09:50 AM

Another question is what ammo are they Shooting ? Many .Mil ranges are requiring lead free ammo only due to environmental or impact area issues. IME lead free / frangible ammo greatly increases the rate of wear on the gun.

I don't know, because I don't know what unit it was or what range it was. I do know that the DOD standard is if you're shooting indoors, you must shoot the 100gr frangible round. I forget the official designation for it. That's what we were shooting when we smashed all those guns.

The thing about the frang round isn't that it's especially hard on guns, it's that some lead free primers eat barrels alive. The stuff we shoot doesn't have a lead free primer so that's less of an issue.

HCM

06-05-2019, 09:57 AM

I don't know, because I don't know what unit it was or what range it was. I do know that the DOD standard is if you're shooting indoors, you must shoot the 100gr frangible round. I forget the official designation for it. That's what we were shooting when we smashed all those guns.

The thing about the frang round isn't that it's especially hard on guns, it's that some lead free primers eat barrels alive. The stuff we shoot doesn't have a lead free primer so that's less of an issue.

Lead free primers are an issue but not the only issue with lead free rounds. When FLETC went lead free on most of their ranges we started seeing broken extractors and takedown levers on new officers guns within a year out of the academy. They determined the lead free ammo was hotter / higher pressure in order to function reliably with the lighter bullets. Solution was to simply replace the extractors and recoil springs on all guns before sending the newbies out to the field with them.

GardoneVT

06-05-2019, 10:20 AM

For most support units in the military, M9s are an afterthought. I knew multiple NCOs who went downrange with no handgun time (yet command ensured they attended Cultural Appreciation briefings). Between iffy maintenance at the armorer level and poorly educated end users , it’s no surprise to me the M9 has a bad reputation in the military.

The 1911 had the same problem in its day , and the M17 will acquire the same rep in the next war.

JSGlock34

06-05-2019, 10:28 AM

Irrelevant. They all need to meet the same standards as OEM and OEMs aren't the only ones who know how to make parts to print.

Disagree entirely. Experience with early Checkmate magazines is a prime example of a third party produced item introducing problems with the M9.

Bigghoss

06-05-2019, 10:37 AM

In the absence of water, nothing.

I've been told that chlorinated brake cleaner can make metal parts brittle over time. Brakes get replaced at regular intervals anyway so it's not a huge deal there. It's not like I did labratory testing myself so I wouldn't know for sure.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 10:52 AM

I've been told that chlorinated brake cleaner can make metal parts brittle over time.
Not in the absence of extreme heat and humidity, like the inside of a boiler.

Spraying a gun with chlorinated brake cleaner will do absolutely nothing to its steel and aluminum parts. Plastic parts? Not sure about those, not my area of expertise. The gun world is filled to the brim with serious misunderstanding and outright fabrications about materials and engineering concepts.

This place is fond of saying "stay in your lane". This is my lane.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 10:54 AM

Disagree entirely. Experience with early Checkmate magazines is a prime example of a third party produced item introducing problems with the M9.

And the original locking block was a prime example of an OEM part introducing problems with the M9.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 10:57 AM

They should meet the same standards, but often they don’t.

Nobody's perfect, but there is this impression in the gun world that subcontract/outsourced parts are generally inferior and that OEM parts are generally superior. I doubt someone has the metrics to prove it one way or the other.

My experience in OEM and contract manufacturing says that there are shitty OEMs in about the same proportion as there are shitty subs.

JSGlock34

06-05-2019, 11:14 AM

Nobody's perfect, but there is this impression in the gun world that subcontract/outsourced parts are generally inferior and that OEM parts are generally superior. I doubt someone has the metrics to prove it one way or the other.

My experience in OEM and contract manufacturing says that there are shitty OEMs in about the same proportion as there are shitty subs.

If only someone would study whether rebuilt weapons work as well...

Soldiers issued a rebuilt weapon were more likely to report a repair while in theater. Soldiers carrying rebuilt M16s were 2.5 times more likely to have had or have needed a repair. Although not statistically significant by two thousandths, those issued a rebuilt M9 were much more likely to experience a repair (the lack of significance is likely due to the very few reports (6) of rebuilt M9s).. Center for Naval Analysis: Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat

HCM

06-05-2019, 11:23 AM

Nobody's perfect, but there is this impression in the gun world that subcontract/outsourced parts are generally inferior and that OEM parts are generally superior. I doubt someone has the metrics to prove it one way or the other.

My experience in OEM and contract manufacturing says that there are shitty OEMs in about the same proportion as there are shitty subs.

In the civilian gun world, sure. Plenty of actual better than milspec out there.

The other factor is 3rd party parts for .mil is how those contracts are awarded.

Let’s say LTT and billy bobs, bait, tackle, machine shop and adult novelty of Hot springs AR are competing for a contract for replacement locking blocks. LTT is a veteran owned business, but even though Billy Bob is not a veteran, his wife, who owns 51% on paper is a disabled, female, Eskimo veteran so billy Bob gets the contract even though LTTs parts are better. And of course ten years later billy Bob is arrested by federal authorities for buying locking blocks made in Taiwan, not doing the require QC checks and falsely claiming they made in the USA.

Suvorov

06-05-2019, 11:27 AM

Luckily we now have the Sig M17 that not only has changed land warfare but has likely ended all issues around maintenance.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 11:28 AM

If only someone would study whether rebuilt weapons work as well...

Soldiers issued a rebuilt weapon were more likely to report a repair while in theater. Soldiers carrying rebuilt M16s were 2.5 times more likely to have had or have needed a repair. Although not statistically significant by two thousandths, those issued a rebuilt M9 were much more likely to experience a repair (the lack of significance is likely due to the very few reports (6) of rebuilt M9s).. Center for Naval Analysis: Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat

Post a link to the entire study. That way we can all see their definition of "rebuilt", and who did the rebuilds.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 11:31 AM

In the civilian gun world, sure. Plenty of actual better than milspec out there.

The other factor is 3rd party parts for .mil is how those contracts are awarded.

Let’s say LTT and billy bobs, bait, tackle, machine shop and adult novelty of Hot springs AR are competing for a contract for replacement locking blocks. LTT is a veteran owned business, but even though Billy Bob is not a veteran, his wife, who owns 51% on paper is a disabled, female, Eskimo veteran so billy Bob gets the contract even though LTTs parts are better. And of course ten years later billy Bob is arrested by federal authorities for buying locking blocks made in Taiwan, not doing the require QC checks and falsely claiming they made in the USA.
You know, I was going to bring up the difference between contract award and contract management. And list up a minor sampling of the Federal Acquisition Regulations that all businesses doing work for the government have to meet. And my experience dealing with Defense Contract Management Agency and its people.

But it would be of no use.

I'm sure these pistols all fell apart because they were rebuilt, or were rebuilt with shitty parts; absolutely no reason to believe they fell apart because they weren't maintained at all by anyone.

HCM

06-05-2019, 11:35 AM

You know, I was going to bring up the difference between contract award and contract management. And list up a minor sampling of the Federal Acquisition Regulations that all businesses doing work for the government have to meet. And my experience dealing with Defense Contract Management Agency and its people.

But it would be of no use.

I'm sure these pistols all fell apart because they were rebuilt, or were rebuilt with shitty parts; absolutely no reason to believe they fell apart because they weren't maintained at all by anyone.

That all business doing business with the Govt are supposed to meet. Some do. Some don’t. Profiteering off the military is nothing new.

JSGlock34

06-05-2019, 11:42 AM

Post a link to the entire study. That way we can all see their definition of "rebuilt", and who did the rebuilds.

And you won’t find that in the study (https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0015259.A2.pdf), and I really don’t care. You think whether a firearm was rebuilt is “irrelevant” and I think it is quite relevant to the discussion. I’m perfectly fine to agree to disagree. Have a great day.

David C.

06-05-2019, 12:22 PM

Not in the absence of extreme heat and humidity, like the inside of a boiler.

Spraying a gun with chlorinated brake cleaner will do absolutely nothing to its steel and aluminum parts. Plastic parts? Not sure about those, not my area of expertise. The gun world is filled to the brim with serious misunderstanding and outright fabrications about materials and engineering concepts.

This place is fond of saying "stay in your lane". This is my lane.

Do you want to try that again?

"Certain austenitic stainless steels and aluminium alloys crack in the presence of chlorides..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_corrosion_cracking#Metals_attacked

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 12:35 PM

Irrelevant. They all need to meet the same standards as OEM and OEMs aren't the only ones who know how to make parts to print.

Hardly. There's more than ample anecdotal evidence from well regarded sources that the quality of aftermarket components utilized by DoD is highly suspect. Given the lack of operator/unit/echelon maintenance that seems to plague the M9 throughout it's issue in the US military, arguably it can be difficult to pinpoint the causal effect of locking block failures, but an intrinsic lower quality seems to be a constant.

The M9 magazine saga(s) are somewhat of a case in point. DoD in its infinite wisdom specified and required the initial magazine contractor (Check-Mate Industries) to provide a magazine tube with a crackle-finish, both inside and out. While that worked acceptably in a temperate climate (i.e., Europe and North America), it was an utter disaster in SW Asia, with fine, hard particulate sand and dust that lodged the ridges of the finishes, precluding cartridge movements in the magazine tube. When Check-Mate realized the issue, they came out with their dry-film finished magazine, which, along with the Beretta sand-resistant PVD coated magazines specified by the USMC for their M9A1s (where the coating and stamped "stand-off" inner tube strakes preclude sand issues) resolved the issues. Check-mate then offered, for a very nominal sum (significantly less than a dollar per magazine) to remove the crackle-finish from previous magazines and recoat with the dry-film finish; DoD declined, so the two Check-Mate finished magazines are intermixed, with the end result being Check-Mate perpetually blamed for sub-standard magazines.

There are various contracting formulas applied by DoD towards their aftermarket component vendors-and inherent quality/performance is only one of them, and I suspect that differential criteria weighting may be employed in the contract letting process, depending upon the vagaries of the political winds prevalent during the process, etc. HCM's hypothetical example in post #31 of the thread is unfortunately quite illustrative....

Best, Jon

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 12:42 PM

Nobody's perfect, but there is this impression in the gun world that subcontract/outsourced parts are generally inferior and that OEM parts are generally superior. I doubt someone has the metrics to prove it one way or the other.

My experience in OEM and contract manufacturing says that there are shitty OEMs in about the same proportion as there are shitty subs.

Are you familiar at all with the QC requirements inherent to the M9/M10 pistol contracts? Both individual and batch testing was specified, and it's probably not a coincidence that two of the currently highly regarded pistols with significant miitary/government contracts are the Beretta 92 and SIG-Sauer P2022, which is probably the only SIG that hasn't seen progressive parts cheapening and declining QC throughout its production.

I'd like to hear about how your specific experiences with OEM and contract management are specifically pertinent to this discussion.

Best, Jon

STI

06-05-2019, 12:49 PM

Luckily we now have the Sig M17 that not only has changed land warfare but has likely ended all issues around maintenance.

Sarcasm intended?

Did it change land warfare by introducing the shoot-you-in-the-ass-when-dropped feature?

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 12:54 PM

Post a link to the entire study. That way we can all see their definition of "rebuilt", and who did the rebuilds.

A concurrent issue pertaining to locking block replacement is checking to ensure that they properly fit in the individual gun-and that applies to both how they nest in the barrel lug AND how the wings index within the slide slots where they move vertically, under pressure during the slide reciprocation process. Improperly fitted replacement locking blocks can fail at an accelerated rate. Add indifferent/non-existent lubrication and recoil spring replacement, and you've got the potential for a perfect failure storm-and that's before delving into the intrinsic quality (or lack thereof) of the 3rd party locking blocks.

This is probably even more of an issue with military M9 locking blocks, due to the very unfortunate excessive component replacement intervals, despite manufacturer specifications and recommendations-there is likely going do be more wear, and more wear imparted on the slide rails, meaning that a replacement block with perfectly symmetrical wings will need to have the wings carefully reconfigured so that they match the slide rails' accumulated wear.

I suspect that the odds of that proper locking block analysis and fitting happening are somewhere within the range of "slim" to "none" given the apparent state of military M9 care and maintenance at pretty much every level.

Best, Jon

ralph

06-05-2019, 01:07 PM

Sarcasm intended?

Did it change land warfare by introducing the shoot-you-in-the-ass-when-dropped feature?

Sarcasm? I'm not so sure..I mean for what they paid for them, (my understanding is, about $200 apeice including extras) if one of these has a issue that can't be fixed by changing a recoil spring, or issuing new mags, then it's probably cheaper to just cut it up and throw the peices in the dumpster, and issue a new pistol..At $200 a pop, I can't see the military spending money rebuilding these things..it'd be easier, and probably cheaper, to dump them in the ocean and buy new..(or give them to the CMP to sell "as is" for about $100) Honestly, I'm begining to believe that's the game plan here..

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 01:15 PM

Do you want to try that again?

"Certain austenitic stainless steels and aluminium alloys crack in the presence of chlorides..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_corrosion_cracking#Metals_attacked

It's not as simple as simple contact with chlorides. There's a lot left out of Wikipedia but if you want to hang your hat on it, you win.

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 01:16 PM

Luckily we now have the Sig M17 that not only has changed land warfare but has likely ended all issues around maintenance.

Superb sarcasm aside, as a former field-grade Army officer, I REALLY wish that Glock had won the M17/M18 contract; in my opinion it's the best suited weapon for the military both because of it's intrinsic qualities, but almost equally because it can perform successfully in spite of indifferent and/or insufficient lubrication and maintenance, and with the proper parts kits most unit armorers can successfully (and quickly) perform most repairs and maintenance tasks previously reserved for higher echelon maintenance organizations, due to the simplicity of a Glock's detailed disassembly and reassembly.

But that's probably beating an already pulverized dead horse....

Best, Jon

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 01:19 PM

Hardly. There's more than ample anecdotal evidence from well regarded sources that the quality of aftermarket components utilized by DoD is highly suspect. Given the lack of operator/unit/echelon maintenance that seems to plague the M9 throughout it's issue in the US military, arguably it can be difficult to pinpoint the causal effect of locking block failures, but an intrinsic lower quality seems to be a constant.
I don't pay attention to anecdotal evidence. If someone has objective evidence of locking blocks (or any other part) not meeting print and/nor not being inspected by the correct methods or at the specified frequency/batch size post it up.

The M9 magazine saga(s) are somewhat of a case in point. DoD in its infinite wisdom specified and required the initial magazine contractor (Check-Mate Industries) to provide a magazine tune with a crackle-finish, both inside and out. While that worked acceptably in a temperate climate (i.e., Europe and North America), it was an utter disaster in SW Asia, with fine, hard particulate sand and dust that lodged the ridges of the finishes, precluding cartridge movements in the magazine tube. When Check-Mate realized the issue, they came out with their dry-film finished magazine, which, along with the Beretta sand-resistant PVD coated magazines specified by the USMC for their M9A1s (where the coating and stamped "stand-off" inner tube strakes preclude sand issues) resolved the issues. Check-mate then offered, for a very nominal sum (significantly less than a dollar per magazine) to remove the crackle-finish from previous magazines and recoat with the dry-film finish; DoD declined, so the two Check-Mate finished magazines are intermixed, with the end result being Check-Mate perpetually blamed for sub-standard magazines.
So Check-Mate made the magazines as specified, the magazines sucked, so it was Check-Mate's fault? LOL

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 01:30 PM

I don't pay attention to anecdotal evidence. If someone has objective evidence of locking blocks (or any other part) not meeting print and/nor not being inspected by the correct methods or at the specified frequency/batch size post it up.

So Check-Mate made the magazines as specified, the magazines sucked, so it was Check-Mate's fault? LOL

Although apparently it's somewhat of a fine distinction, intrinsically the Check-Mate magazines as produced in accordance with the DoD contract MANDATED crackle-finish didn't suck, provided they were utilized in climates without the hard, fine dust and grit particulate prevalent in SW Asia. The problem was undoubtedly accentuated by exposure to high velocity airborne dust and grit, such as from sandstorms, vehicle operations, and helicopter rotor wash (or prop/jet wash). The problem was not due to improper or inferior magazine construction; it was due to the finish mandated and applied as specified by contract.

Historically, Check-Mate has been damned, despite the fact that the initial contract specifications required the finish (which worked well in more temperate climates, but the subsequent dry-film finish is a superior theater and world-wide magazine finish solution). And that despite them coming up with a solution (the dry-film finish), it was not retroactively applied to existing crackle-finished magazines, despite Check-Mate's offer to do so at a very user-friendly price.

Regarding the locking block issues/intrinsic quality, you might want to query Dr. Gary Roberts, AKA DocGKR on the forum here. He has previously experienced this and posted on it, and has excellent credentials in conjunction with his observations and conclusions.

Best, Jon

GardoneVT

06-05-2019, 01:49 PM

It is telling the M9 design has a very different reputation between the military & US law enforcement.

Jim Watson

06-05-2019, 02:00 PM

E. Langdon, who sometimes appears here, once said of Beretta maintenance:

"I put in a spring pack (LTT package: recoil spring, trigger spring, trigger bar spring, cost $5) every 5,000 rounds. This keeps the trigger spring from ever breaking, I tear down the top end every 10,000 rounds, clean out all the carbon and unburned powder and install a new firing pin, firing pin spring and striker. Cost for these parts is $11. At 20,000 rounds I rebuild the top end. I replace all the slide parts subject to wear; extractor, springs, firing pin and such. Cost for parts is $40. I'll also fit a new locking block ($70) at this point."

The Army sure isn't tracking usage and doing preventive maintenance like that.
For one thing, if you asked the supply sergeant for a spare spring he would tell you that if he gave you a spring, he wouldn't have 100% inventory and would look bad if inspected. (I actually had that happen to me at my civilian agency when I requested spill control supplies from the warehouse clerk. I had to go pretty far up the chain of command to get supplies.)

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 02:10 PM

After discussions with Erik Stern at BUSA (and a p-f member and participant), I proactively replaced my Gen 2 locking block at approximately the 12,000 round count; it was still performing perfectly, with no evidence of cracking or accentuated wear (and I only use standard-pressure 9mm in my 92D), since 12K was the low end of problems potentially cropping up, I decided it would be prudent to replace at that point, especially since mine is used for duty, concealed carry, and self/home-defense, in addition to IDPA and ASI competition. My current Gen 3 locking block I'll replace at the 20K roundcount interval. I had no issues with fitting the replacement Gen 3 block; no additional fitting was required in my particular case.

For recoil, extractor and trigger return springs I'm currently using Wilson's Bullet Proof chrome silicon springs, reputedly lifetime springs.

Best, Jon

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 02:19 PM

I would be willing to bet that the pistols above hadn't had their recoil springs changed...ever. I can't speak to other service's maintenance standards, but I know that the USAF Technical Order (which is the same manual the Army uses) says that the recoil spring on the M9 is supposed to be changed when it's shorter than the barrel. Considering the factory length of the spring is about an inch longer than the barrel, you can imagine how many cycles it takes to compress an inch off that spring. It's a huge number, way more than the 3,000 round interval that Beretta recommends the spring be changed.

A lot of the M9s in inventory are going on 20-30 years old, and during their service lifetime have seen very little maintenance. I was at an AFRC shooting course a few months back where we shot 1,000 rounds each over the course of a week and we deadlined three or four guns, all of which were broken locking blocks. The bottom line is that the military's guideline for when to change the spring isn't nearly often enough, and training guns especially will get pulled out of inventory repeatedly and shot. Run that cycle for 15 years and it's no wonder guns crack in half.

A huge red flag is when in an organization selective non-assigned weapons are continuously and cumulatively used as qualifications mules. Essentially, a user has no pride or responsibility inherent to use AND maintenance, as opposed to an assigned weapon subject to leadership inspections (hopefully, but in this era, who knows...) and actual dependence upon as a life-saving, mission-essential device.

Best, Jon

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 02:54 PM

Regarding the locking block issues/intrinsic quality, you might want to query Dr. Gary Roberts, and has excellent credentials

Unless his credentials include education and experience in mechanical engineering or metallurgy, not really interested.

Joe in PNG

06-05-2019, 03:21 PM

I wonder. Supposedly the Army Sigs are "throw away" guns that one can just bandsaw when worn out, but is that what would happen?

JonInWA

06-05-2019, 03:48 PM

I wonder. Supposedly the Army Sigs are "throw away" guns that one can just bandsaw when worn out, but is that what would happen?

Even if that truly is the case, that would assume that the Army has the intention to determine when that point (the end of viable platform lifespan) is reached; historically, except at in face of draconian results (e.g., slides physically broken and severed), the pattern seems to be to just keep everything on hand pretty much forever (or until replaced by a successive platform, which will probably suffer the same fate).

Best, Jon

Joe in PNG

06-05-2019, 03:56 PM

Even if that truly is the case, that would assume that the Army has the intention to determine when that point (the end of viable platform lifespan) is reached; historically, except at in face of draconian results (e.g., slides physically broken and severed), the pattern seems to be to just keep everything on hand pretty much forever (or until replaced by a successive platform, which will probably suffer the same fate).

Best, Jon

M-16 mags is one I hear about frequently.

Suvorov

06-05-2019, 04:15 PM

Superb sarcasm aside, as a former field-grade Army officer, I REALLY wish that Glock had won the M17/M18 contract; in my opinion it's the best suited weapon for the military both because of it's intrinsic qualities, but almost equally because it can perform successfully in spite of indifferent and/or insufficient lubrication and maintenance, and with the proper parts kits most unit armorers can successfully (and quickly) perform most repairs and maintenance tasks previously reserved for higher echelon maintenance organizations, due to the simplicity of a Glock's detailed disassembly and reassembly.

But that's probably beating an already pulverized dead horse....

Best, Jon

All good points. My dead horse would have been to keep the M9 and improve shooter and maintenance training.

However neither of these solutions would have “changed the face of land warfare” the way the Sig has. [emoji23]

ranger

06-05-2019, 04:50 PM

And you won’t find that in the study (https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0015259.A2.pdf), and I really don’t care. You think whether a firearm was rebuilt is “irrelevant” and I think it is quite relevant to the discussion. I’m perfectly fine to agree to disagree. Have a great day.

My unit was in that study - there is no "48 Infantry Division" - that is the GAARNG 48th Infantry Brigade (Mech) - now the 48th IBCT (Light) currently in AFG. When we got off the planes in Georgia - all our weapons were turned in at the bottom of the stairs at the aircraft and were sent to depot for inspect-repair-rebuild. Our Infantry, Armor, Cav Soldiers, etc. had M4s - most of the support teams had some form of M16 - usually upgraded to M16A4 status. We left most of our M240Bs in theater as there were not enough to go around in 2006 and were hot swapped with incoming units.

I remember those surveys - great attempt but not uncommon for Soldiers to "hate" on the M9 and wax poetic if they only had a Glock or the mythical 1911. Most of the "Special" units in theater were carrying Glocks, sometimes 1911s. No surprise that M16s were unpopular as they were larger, heavier, etc. plus the gunfighters normally carried M4s.

I never saw an issue with a M9. Note the comments in report about adding accessories with duct tape, etc. then having issues - a M9 variant with a light/laser option would have been nice at the time.

ranger

06-05-2019, 04:51 PM

PS - I have seen several examples where the same weapons get pulled from the arms room and get many, many rounds through them with no maintenance while the rest of the weapons stay in the arms room "clean". Looking at you Ft Benning...…...

David C.

06-05-2019, 05:47 PM

It's not as simple as simple contact with chlorides. There's a lot left out of Wikipedia but if you want to hang your hat on it, you win.

You wrote that SCC only occurs at high temperature. Do you want to hang your hat on that in the case of aluminum alloys?

JSGlock34

06-05-2019, 05:49 PM

I remember those surveys - great attempt but not uncommon for Soldiers to "hate" on the M9 and wax poetic if they only had a Glock or the mythical 1911. Most of the "Special" units in theater were carrying Glocks, sometimes 1911s. No surprise that M16s were unpopular as they were larger, heavier, etc. plus the gunfighters normally carried M4s.

Well, the title of the study is Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat and no doubt the perceptions you list played into the low confidence ratings scored by the M9. I certainly take some of the comments with a grain of salt, and perceptions can be very subjective.

Still, I see no reason to dismiss the following conclusions (which are not limited to the M9).

Soldiers issued a rebuilt weapon were more likely to report a repair while in theater.

Weapons that were rebuilt were also reportedly repaired more often than non-rebuilt weapons, and those with rebuilt weapons were less likely to be confident in the durability of the weapon.

ranger

06-05-2019, 05:55 PM

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 06:05 PM

You wrote that SCC only occurs at high temperature. Do you want to hang your hat on that in the case of aluminum alloys?
Debating someone who's source is wikipedia is a waste of time

David C.

06-05-2019, 06:10 PM

Debating someone who's source is wikipedia is a waste of time

You overstated. If you have half the qualifications you allege then you know it also.

Now, please go away and stop bothering everyone in this thread.

JSGlock34

06-05-2019, 06:17 PM

I am not clear on the definition of "rebuilt" weapon. As I stated, all of our small arms were surrendered literally as we deplaned in Georgia - sent to depot level maintenance for inspection-repair-rebuild. That seemed to be the norm and I assume this was to insure the weapons were to "spec" for future use. My point is that all the small arms seem to be "rebuilt" unless you get the first issue - for example, units now getting the M17s.

Per the study:

Weapon condition
Four percent of soldiers reported that their weapon had been re- built. This information was ascertained by asking if there were any Xs stamped next to the serial number on the weapon, indicating a rebuild.

Alpha Sierra

06-05-2019, 08:24 PM

You overstated. If you have half the qualifications you allege then you know it also.

Now, please go away and stop bothering everyone in this thread.

I'm not going to write a paper on stress corrosion cracking for you or anyone else on this forum. I'm not the one who needs to go to wikipedia to learn about the subject.

You can GFY for all I care.

GyroF-16

06-05-2019, 08:49 PM

I'm not going to write a paper on stress corrosion cracking for you or anyone else on this forum. I'm not the one who needs to go to wikipedia to learn about the subject.

You can GFY for all I care.

Okay, Alpha Sierra-

You may not realize it, but your posts in this thread come across as pompous, superior, and not at all helpful or educational to the rest of the forum members.

Dismissing the experiences, opinions, or apparent knowledge of others without offering anything other than “I’m an expert in this area” isn’t doing anything to advance the conversation.

If you’d like to share your intimate knowledge of the gov’t contract award/mangement process, non-OEM part quality, and metallurgy - please - expound...

But I gotta tell you, right now you’re coming across more like an internet troll... And I still believe that Pistol-Forum is better than that.

TheNewbie

06-05-2019, 11:59 PM

Superb sarcasm aside, as a former field-grade Army officer, I REALLY wish that Glock had won the M17/M18 contract; in my opinion it's the best suited weapon for the military both because of it's intrinsic qualities, but almost equally because it can perform successfully in spite of indifferent and/or insufficient lubrication and maintenance, and with the proper parts kits most unit armorers can successfully (and quickly) perform most repairs and maintenance tasks previously reserved for higher echelon maintenance organizations, due to the simplicity of a Glock's detailed disassembly and reassembly.

But that's probably beating an already pulverized dead horse....

Best, Jon

I wonder if something like the P250 might be a good all purpose gun. Easy enough to shoot DAO, lightweight, and cheap to buy.

fixer

06-06-2019, 06:01 AM

You wrote that SCC only occurs at high temperature. Do you want to hang your hat on that in the case of aluminum alloys?

I'd like to know more....All I know about this is from API 571 stuff which predominantly concerns itself with stainless steels and carbon steels.

Hambo

06-06-2019, 06:13 AM

Okay, Alpha Sierra-If you’d like to share your intimate knowledge of the gov’t contract award/mangement process, non-OEM part quality, and metallurgy - please - expound...

If Alpha Sierra could stop being an asshole, I'm interested in his experience with engineering, metallurgy, and contracts.

DAB

06-06-2019, 09:11 AM

It's like no one reads the manuals that come with their guns. they tell you how to lubricate it, generally what to use to clean and oil it. and then stores sell items that are marked as for use with pistols, but people insist that they know better, and go to Pep Boys to get stuff made for cars. a little bottle of solvent or oil isn't that expensive, and it's made just for guns. but i guess some know more than the people that designed and built their guns, so off to the auto parts store they go.

newt

06-06-2019, 09:14 AM

You can GFY for all I care.

Fetching personality. Really enhances the decor.

Arbninftry

06-06-2019, 10:28 AM

A huge red flag is when in an organization selective non-assigned weapons are continuously and cumulatively used as qualifications mules. Essentially, a user has no pride or responsibility inherent to use AND maintenance, as opposed to an assigned weapon subject to leadership inspections (hopefully, but in this era, who knows...) and actual dependence upon as a life-saving, mission-essential device.

Best, Jon

Sure but these are DOD pistols we are talking about. Chances are those pistols are handed out for quals and not ASSIGNED to anyone in particular. The only time I ever saw the same pistol twice was when deployed and it stayed on me for 18 months.

Sammy1

06-06-2019, 10:29 AM

Wonder9

06-06-2019, 10:51 AM

What is the process for fitting a new locking block? Also, about how much reduction in life span if it's literally "drop-in" with an OEM Gen3 kit?

JonInWA

06-06-2019, 01:46 PM

What is the process for fitting a new locking block? Also, about how much reduction in life span if it's literally "drop-in" with an OEM Gen3 kit?

Here's how-one of the tips from our long-running Beretta 92D Update thread:

See post #81 on page 9: Reproduced here so you guys don't have to search for it (hey, I do it for you!)

Quick update: After approximately 12K rounds, I decided to replace my 1996-vintage OEM Gen 2 locking block with the current one, a Gen 3 https://berettaforum.net/vb/showpost...3&postcount=18 (While my 92D was manufactured in 1996, I didn't actually buy it, BNIB until 2006, which was its actual commencement of use date).

And a lengthier discussion of Beretta locking blocks is here: https://berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=45325

While mine with its OEM Gen 2 was running just fine, I decided it would be prudent simply to replace it, as "normal" locking block anomalies have been seen to crop up as early as the 12K point. (Outlier issues, while unusual, can crop up both earlier and later, and "normal" forecasted locking block longevity is around the 15K to 20K roundcount from what I've read and researched on these earlier locking blocks, and at the 20K to 30K interval for the later current Gen 3 locking blocks. So replacing mine at its roundcount was arguably overkill, but I'm considering it inexpensive preventive maintenance.

Erik Stern at BUSA (and a p-f member and participant) and I recently had an excellent discussion on it; he suggested that the replacement block normally doesn't need to be fitted, but to watch for any eccentric wear in the slide from the previous block buy looking for an even fit with no light bars showing when the new one is installed. Mine seems to fit nicely with no additional fitting needed. If fitting is needed, it's essential to do it, as the replacement block's longevity can be severely compromised by the eccentric wear/stress it has to deal with.

While a pretty straightforward and simple process, BUSA has an excellent Youtube segment that I strongly recommend watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWO5cBl1FvI

It's easy to follow, with some very succinct tips. For a punch, since the retaining pin is a roll pin, I used a roll pin punch, which speeds up and stabilizes the process (both on pin removal and installation), and eliminates damage to the old roll pin (which of course I immediately lost on my garage workshop floor when attempting to bag it for potential re-use...).

Beretta has 2 locking block kits, one with a replacement recoil spring and the other without it. Since I'm running a Wilson Combat 14# silicon chrome recoil spring, I opted for the kit without, which includes the locking block, plunger pin, and retaining roll pin.

I wiped down the new block and plunger pin with Weapon Shield prior to installation, and also placed some Lucas Red "N" Tacky #2 grease in the portion of the barrel lug that the nose of the locking block fits and moves.

It's really just a 5 minute job at most.

Best, Jon

JonInWA

06-06-2019, 02:01 PM

I wonder if something like the P250 might be a good all purpose gun. Easy enough to shoot DAO, lightweight, and cheap to buy.

It might be; for a long time, I thought the P250 was just a piece of SIG kludge, briefly adapted but quickly found wanting by both the Federal Air Marshals and the Dutch police; true enough, but another p-f member recently filled me in on the rest of the story, which is that SIG belatedly, but very effectively revised the P250. Marketing was minimal and ineffective (kinda like they do regarding P2022...), and the P320's introduction essentially killed it. I did a quick search, but couldn't find the detailed post our fellow p-f member provided me, including a phot comparison between the first and second P250 versions-hopefully someone'll chime in. Or you could put SIG P250" in the forum search engine and go through 'em...

These days, in a similar gun conceptually, I tend to recommend an HK with LEM, but LEM is a bit of an acquired taste, and can require some time (and possible spring swaps) to really get synchronized with it.

Best, Jon

Chuck Whitlock

06-06-2019, 08:07 PM

These days, in a similar gun conceptually, I tend to recommend an HK with LEM, but LEM is a bit of an acquired taste, and can require some time (and possible spring swaps) to really get synchronized with it.

Beretta's website shows the full size PX4 in "C" and "D" configurations, but no model #s (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=s) are given.

revchuck38

06-06-2019, 08:33 PM

Beretta's website shows the full size PX4 in "C" and "D" configurations, but no model #s (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=s) are given.

I'm pretty sure they're discontinued, at least here in the US. I've got a D version and it was produced in '11.

10mmfanboy

06-07-2019, 01:10 AM

Beretta's website shows the full size PX4 in "C" and "D" configurations, but no model #s (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=s) are given.

They still make them, just harder to come by. Buds gunshop has the type c constant for sale right now.

JTQ

06-07-2019, 06:38 AM

I'm pretty sure they're discontinued, at least here in the US. I've got a D version and it was produced in '11.
Jumping into the thread drift, I noticed this on Brownell's site the other day

https://www.brownells.com/firearms/handguns/semi-auto/px4-storm-handgun-9mm-4in-17-1-jxf9f21-prod88895.aspx?avs%7cMake%7e%7eModel_1=Beretta__PX 4

PX4 STORM HANDGUN 9MM 4IN 17+1 JXF9F21

Discontinued by the Factory

Beretta USA still shows that model on their site, but the JXF9F21 is the 9mm F model standard white dot sights. I suspect the Brownell's note is in error, but I suppose it's possible a plain F model with white dot sights could be dropped in favor of a night sight gun, or in favor of a G gun as the baseline model in the line-up.

Oops, forgot the Beretta USA PX4 link

http://www.beretta.com/en-us/px4-storm-full/

jetfire

06-07-2019, 08:37 AM

Sure but these are DOD pistols we are talking about. Chances are those pistols are handed out for quals and not ASSIGNED to anyone in particular. The only time I ever saw the same pistol twice was when deployed and it stayed on me for 18 months.

Again, I can only speak to units I have knowledge of, but generally speaking the AF has qual mules that are assigned to the CATM shop and used for qualifying base populace. When that user goes on a deployment or mission that requires them to be armed, they take their own personally assigned weapon. This is why some of Berettas have basically never been fired and others rattle when you look at them hard.

RJflyer

06-07-2019, 08:06 PM

My time in the .mil has convinced me the M9 never had a reasonable chance in mass issued service. My current deployment to AFG is only further convincing me. When I initially inspected my own issued M9, I was pleasantly surprised to see it hadn't been fired much. But of course, the ban era mags are on original springs/followers and had likely never been cleaned.

I see people walking around base with M9s caked in dust. I've seen multiple pistols with grips retained by duct tape. And I've heard a concerning number of people laugh about never having cleaned their pistol in six months. I can't imagine how many of those guns have been allowed to go on with pitted locking blocks or worn recoil springs.

Will a new fleet of striker-fired, polymer guns fix this problem? Maybe, but the skeptic in me thinks we'll come full circle after the next generation of service members inevitably abuses and neglects the pistols they're given.

JonInWA

06-08-2019, 01:17 PM

LockedBreech

06-08-2019, 03:23 PM

Will a new fleet of striker-fired, polymer guns fix this problem? Maybe, but the skeptic in me thinks we'll come full circle after the next generation of service members inevitably abuses and neglects the pistols they're given.

My prediction is that the failure point of the 320 in general issue, based on treatment of issued M9s, is going to be the removable fire control unit.

JonInWA

06-08-2019, 05:28 PM

TOTS

06-08-2019, 07:02 PM

Again, I can only speak to units I have knowledge of, but generally speaking the AF has qual mules that are assigned to the CATM shop and used for qualifying base populace. When that user goes on a deployment or mission that requires them to be armed, they take their own personally assigned weapon. This is why some of Berettas have basically never been fired and others rattle when you look at them hard.

Absolutely concur. This has been my experience throughout several units on several bases throughout 15 years of carrying an M9 in the USMC.

Jeep

06-09-2019, 08:49 PM

I view weapons maintenance and operation as a leadership issue/challenge. Sunffy (regardless of actual rank held) is generally/usually/most of the time simply gonna choose the route with the least effort involved, unless compelled by either a dose of reality or leadership, or both.

It can also be a result of lack of education and/or training-but that's also a leadership issue too.

Best, Jon

And it is a leadership issue that is hard to fix. Our .45's were treated the same way M9's are now and M17's will be treated. We never replaced recoil springs or magazines or basically anything. Those were all expendable items and no one had the budget to deal with even such minor expenses. (Paper for copiers was an expendable item also, but it was an important one so copier paper was bought in bulk.

Besides, "back in the day" probably a majority of unit armorers were both incompetent and lazy--they wanted the weapons to never be touched--and the zero defects military culture strongly supported that attitude. Leaving weapons in the arms racks until they were cleaned (and most definitely not lubed--oil picked up carbon and so looked dirty)before the annual IG inspection was the preferred way for dealing with them.

M9 problems are easy to fix by lubing the weapon, changing recoil springs and assigning one operator to the weapon and training him to look for cracks developing on the locking block. I recently replaced a block that started cracking at 14,000 rounds, but I inspected it every time I cleaned it. I don't doubt that SF units 20 years ago had all sorts of problems with them, but what can one do when the Army refuses to update specs so they still had Gen 1 locking blocks?

In other words, the problem here isn't the weapon any more than were the problems with our .45's. It is a combination of historically dysfunctional systems and procedures that create such problems and are beyond any easy ability to fix.

The only good thing is that bad-guy militaries tend to have even more dysfunctional systems.

LangdonTactical

06-10-2019, 06:55 PM

Did the military get the new locking blocks or where they stuck with what was originally spec'd out. Also, I've heard horror stories about non Beretta replacement parts by third party vendors. One example is a shipment of replacement grips that were one sided.

The Army has bought lots of locking bocks, most of which did not come from Beretta.

Jeep

06-15-2019, 12:26 PM

The Army has bought lots of locking bocks, most of which did not come from Beretta.

Because buying stuff at the lowest conceivable price saves money even if it doesn't work--and even if you actually don't get the lowest conceivable price.

Here is a true Big Army procurement tale. It is a dated but it tells a continuing procurement tale. As we know the DOD is committed to getting the best possible quality at the lowest possible price. Except, of course, it may not buy from non-qualified contractors. And sometimes it must buy from politically connected contractors. Like when the Little Bird was pushed aside for the Kiowa because the Little Bird was made by Hughes and the Kiowa by Bell, and Bell (and its parent, Textron) was friendly to highly placed politicians.

And, of course, sometimes the politically favored contractor is only politically favored because it meets some "set aside" reserved for favored groups. And sometimes, DOD organizations like Big Army are desperate to buy from a favored group in order to meet a politically required set-aside non-quota (it's a non-quota because quotas would, of course, be illegal). That often tends to happen with commodity-type products such as food and PO, and more than occasionally is the favored-group contractor is little more than a front for a larger contractor run by a non-favored group.

So, back in the day, a crack mechanized division needed diesel fuel. It needed a lot of diesel fuel. It was a perfect, relatively high-dollar contract to provide to a favored-group contractor and would help DOD meet its required non-quota. This contractor was essentially one man and a telephone. On getting the contract, he immediate passed along the requirements to the larger contractor--who had a problem. It could not buy enough diesel from the small refineries it did business with, but was able to buy extra aviation fuel extremely cheaply because of a production overrun or something. So some of the diesel was blended with aviation fuel. And some of the aviation fuel was simply marked diesel. Aviation fuel and diesel are very similar.

Not similar enough for tank engines of the time (that would soon change) and so a certain tank battalion in said mechanized division got 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel to feed its tanks. That did not work well--the injectors on every single engine melted and 54 or so main battle tanks had to have their engines replaced and those engines had to be fixed at Anniston.

But the good news is that the politically required non-quota was met, and that is what mattered.

Anyway, I 'm pretty sure Big Army went out-of-pocket more on this (and a hundred other similar tales) than it did with all the money wasted on bad locking blocks and prematurely battered-to-death guns. Because in the end of the day, Big Defense isn't really about fighting capability except in times of existential war--its about keeping Washington happy through keeping contract dollars going to politically favored directions and engaging in various social and economic and other experiments to please powerful Senators and the like.