How’s the Beretta 1951?

[MattyD380]

I love the 51. I plan to build one of the beaters I snagged out to full restomod status if I can figure out how to do the safety mod I would like to do.

Interesting tidbit, the 92 Type M mags were literally 1951 magazines with a notch cut for the modern style mag release and a different baseplate. Same tube, same spring, same follower, etc.

Older 51 mags would have had a slightly different height for the slide stop notch, but they will fit in a type M as is, and you can cut the notch into the tube to work in a type M. When we had no type M mags, I modified a few Triple K 1951 mags to work with the Type M notch and they worked pretty well (considering they were Triple K mags).

Do not expect hte locking block to stand up nearly as long as the 92 one. IIRC, there's a fella in the Netherlands making modern reproduction blocks out of tool steel. If someone has a line on one of those I would sure love a few..

This is great info, thanks. Had no idea that type M mags were 1951 mags--makes sense, I suppose. Are the Triple K 1951 mags any good? Also... "Triple K"? Are you kidding me? Seventy years and four generations... no one could think of a better name.

Anyway...

The gentleman from the Netherlands posted here a while back:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....locking-block)

If it's a gun I think I'll be shooting regularly, I would consider buying a few from him. Extractor springs are another consideration. Numrich apparently has those. though it does mention "fitting" may be necessary.

Also, just curious... what kind of a safety mod did you have in mind? Did not expect it to have a firing pin block. No surprise there.

[MattyD380]

Because apparently it takes 37 weeks for an e-check to clear at Buds.

But I did a little research and it looks like the batch Buds has were made in the mid 70s, and I'm pretty sure they have alloy frames. DK is offering alloy-framed 1951s from this timeframe as well.

As the internet narrative on the 1951 goes...

Beretta made some initially with alloy frames, they sucked, so they switched to steel. End of story. But apparently they switched back to alloy at some point in the 70s--or least made both versions at that point. This would have been concurrent with the 92, so I guess the metallurgy was good enough by then.

Anyway... just thought it was interesting. In case anyone here is as much of a nerd as I am.

[Prepper_Pig]

They are novelty guns IMO. Like others have said, neat in their time but no longer relevant. They’re either found with steel or alloy frames depending on the time frame produced and they have a tendency to crack locking blocks. The blocks are hard to find and aren’t cheap when you come across them. As I recall, there was a fellow-perhaps in Europe-that was machining new blocks but as it stands currently I believe DK Firearms is selling spare locking blocks for around $80. I think it would be wise to pick an extra one up and a fresh recoil spring if you plan to shoot even a cursory amount of rounds through it.

That said, I’m a Beretta guy (and a hi-power guy, and an HK guy, etc.) but I think they’re aesthetically attractive guns. I toyed with the idea of getting one to practice my refinishing skills on but at $300-ish and the awful ergos I’m probably going to pass in favor of another model 81.

[john c]

I toyed with the idea of getting one to practice my refinishing skills on but at $300-ish and the awful ergos I’m probably going to pass in favor of another model 81.

What is awful about the ergos, other than the safety?

[MattyD380]

What is awful about the ergos, other than the safety?

Yeah. Seems like the single stack dimensions would lend to a pretty comfortable grip... as long as the thing's not too thin.

[e_stern]

What is awful about the ergos, other than the safety?

The ergos are great outside of the safety if you snag some KSD Wood Grips for them. The original Bakelites are quite fat.

[Prepper_Pig]

What is awful about the ergos, other than the safety?

The grip is too large for a single stack. It’s not that it’s too wide but the grip is very long in the trigger reach area. Aftermarket grips may Help this some but I only have experience with the stock grips. Besides that, the cross bolt safety and magazine release location aren’t doing this piece any favors.

[MattyD380]

Long trigger reach kinda sucks. But we'll see... I just got the email from Buds. Probably will pick it up tonight.

[MattyD380]

Slide is dated 1987. They'd been making the 92 for over 10 years at that point. Really surprised Beretta was still making these by then.

It has an alloy frame. I Googled upon an excerpt from some obscure gun reference book and it mentioned alloy frames and thicker slides on some of the late M1951s. Can't be sure, but I think this one probably does have a thicker slide based on pictures I've seen of earlier M1951s.

Condition is decent, aside from some gouges on the left side of the slide. Seems like someone raked it across something pretty hard. I agree the trigger reach feels long. I think a straight backstrap would help. The arch feels like it's kinda pushing your hand away from the trigger. Trigger is reasonably heavy with some initial "give" in the wall... but has a crisp break. Reset feels okay. Overall, I don't mind the trigger.

Rounds hand cycled okay. Though the mag seems to present the rounds at a fairly low angle of attack.

e_stern... any insight on these late M1951s? Is the alloy decent? I know the early alloy 1951s had issues, but being post 92... seems like they had alloy figured out.

Thanks. I'll post some pics tomorrow.

[MattyD380]

Cleaned it all up. Internals don’t look particularly worn. The bore looks perfect. For $299... I’ll take it.



It fits in my Kahr K9 holster, surprisingly.



I also realized you can chamber a round with the safety on. That’s kinda neat.