Traditional threading still has its problems with that rotating barrel. However, I don't think anyone's ever tried a ratcheting or axial lug-based mounting solution with it yet...Originally Posted by sheepdog
Traditional threading still has its problems with that rotating barrel. However, I don't think anyone's ever tried a ratcheting or axial lug-based mounting solution with it yet...
Disclaimer, not my image. This image is from a 2010 Beretta catalog, and shows the silencer that they were planning.
FWIW, there's a video of Mike Pappas (at the time, at Silencerco) shooting a PX4 with an Osprey on it. I'm not sure if they went metric left handed or US right handed with the threads (iirc they went US right handed over the fear that it would lock up the threads/not be able to remove the can if they went metric left handed but I could be misremembering), but when they shot it, they said the can kept moving/rotating and not staying put, and that was the end of that. Maybe metric threading would have solved that issue? ...and maybe made the can unremoveable without fixtures and wrenches..
I've also read some threads on the internet (so we know they're %100 factual) of people running normal cans but with plumber's silicone tape on the threads to prevent the can from moving during recoil/rotation.
There's info out there that Gemtech was contracted by Beretta to come up with a mounting solution, and they did come up with a working rotating LID that functioned as you would expect it to on a PX4 rotating barrel...and then Beretta shelved it, taking their IP home. So while Gemtech did it, Beretta owns the data, and Gemtech couldn't make it without their say-so. That's a very broad-strokes remembrance of the threads from silencertalk.com though.
nice! Would be kind of interesting now to see what that muzzle device lug would look like with a hybrid 9mm compensator on itDisclaimer, not my image. This image is from a 2010 Beretta catalog, and shows the silencer that they were planning.
I think I might have caught a few of those tidbits you found earlier, too. With almost no knowledge of mechanical engineering, I'm wondering if shallow grooves cut into the front of the barrel (down its length) could secure a muzzle device for rotating barrels, kind of like an extractor but facing the opposition direction?
Is it really this simple to have a DAO PX4?
Anyone know of any demonstrable or theoretical issues in safety, reliability and function running one this way?
Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?
This is how the factory DAO models are built (not counting the differences on the top end, safety levers, etc, and the hammer).
I’ll add that my 2 converted guns do not have a high round count (~1000 and ~700 rds), so I don’t want to make a sweeping statement about reliability, but none of my PX4s has malfunctioned.
Last edited by boing; 06-03-2020 at 02:31 PM.
It could be advisable to remove the hammer drop lever and put in the larger spacer from a type D. It is possible that the hammer drop lever flopping around could get bound with the slide.
I would also then consider the firing pin block plunger and firing pin to be wear items.
When firing double action only with no sear the hammer will follow the slide down and will strike the back of the firing pin plunger. If your firing pin block plunger is compromised you could ignite the next round.
I would also make sure that if you put in the new OP trigger bar that you verify with LTT that the firing pin block plunger will be fully re-engaged while the trigger is held back during cycling.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned about the Ameriglo sights, but Ernest, Ameriglo, and/or Beretta were wise enough to make such a narrow rear sight. I am not talking about the notch but the overall profile. People tend to always have an opinion about having too much or too little "air" between the rear posts and the front sight, but they completely forget about the rest of the rear sight that is often designed too wide in my opinion. Rear sights lacking tritium, for example, are the best candidates for a narrow profile since there are no tritium viles to protect, and this increased viewing area makes it easier to tracking moving targets in particular. Combined with enough air between the posts, these Ameriglos really do give a better sight picture than most. They only improvement I'd like to see other than a i-Dot profile is deep & course serrations to provide even more contrast in a variety of lighting as the gun metal and darker shaded lines in properly serrated rear sights provide a greater range of contrast for differnt lighting conditions & backdrops.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” – Herbert Spencer
TFB review posted this morning.
Not a fan of I-dots, but I'd love a serrated rear option. I was shooting my PX4CC in an outdoor match the other day, and had issues fighting the glare off the rear sight when the sun was behind me.
Reply With Quote