Beretta 96D

[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

[Suvorov]

Yup.

Feel free to follow along on my blog

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