Bullseye Berettas

[Bergeron]

Yes, absolutely a loss of sight radius from a Centurion or other form of 92-short slide makes for a poorer bullseye gun.

I'm wondering about having having a thumb safety 92 with the bullseye-level accuracy work, but not to shoot bullseye. I'm wondering if a thumb safety 92 can get bullseye-accurate (I don't see why not, and I see other concurrence) and if a carry-comp Centurion would be possible, or if that's just too big and weird and inappropriate of a lift, it really ought to be a "normal" full-length slide pistol.

Well, there would be less lockup since the slide rails are a little shorter in the Centurion because the shorter slide needs to move a little further back when it cycles.

Yes, exactly! How meaningful in terms of accuracy difference might we guess/estimate/predict from the shorter slide rails? Would it be something like a Commander vs Gov't 1911?

@john c - your pistol sounds cool. How much accuracy do you think is gained going from a faster twist barrel to the 1-32, assuming equal quality of barrel and fitting?

[john c]

There is zero advantage to shortening your sight radius on a bullseye gun.

Centurion from full size cuts a half-inch off your sight radius. That isn’t doing anyone any favors at 50 yards.

The only argument for a shorter sight radius is greater perceived stability because of visually-reduced wobble. That will only help the rankest beginner (people who aspire to stay on paper on the long-line). Once you get a grasp on accepting wobble and area aiming, you’ll want as much radius as you can get.

I partially disagree. With a dot sighted gun, sight radius no longer matters. You are 100% correct with iron sighted guns. I also agree with accepting the wobble with either dots or iron sights.

There's no easy way to put a dot on a Beretta, so that's a bit of a moot point, unless you're starting with a RDO gun.

[JRV]

I partially disagree. With a dot sighted gun, sight radius no longer matters. You are 100% correct with iron sighted guns. I also agree with accepting the wobble with either dots or iron sights.

There's no easy way to put a dot on a Beretta, so that's a bit of a moot point, unless you're starting with a RDO gun.

The “bullseye Berettas” are not dot guns. They’re metallic sight service pistols.

Open emitter reflex sights are not competitive in bullseye on centerfire guns and Berettas have no surface for a sight rib.

[zeleny]

That is also where I would start. Dave Sams built Berettas for the US Army competive shooters and is very good at what he does.

David Sams built me this Beretta. I am happy to vouch for his workmanship.

[Bergeron]

Wow, that's a stunner!

What's it like to shoot?

[john c]

The “bullseye Berettas” are not dot guns. They’re metallic sight service pistols.

Open emitter reflex sights are not competitive in bullseye on centerfire guns and Berettas have no surface for a sight rib.

You bring up a tangential point that I've wondered about. My area isn't very active with service pistol shooting, so I'm a little out of the loop. Are people building competition guns on the M17 or M18? In the future, will the competition allow for dot sights at some point in the future, presumably when dots are standard equipment? Just idle curiosity.

Great point about the open emitter sights not being competitive. Back when I was shooting bullseye a lot, the only real viable option was the Ultradot. I would have thought the explosion in high quality reflex dots would have opened the field.

[john c]

Yes, absolutely a loss of sight radius from a Centurion or other form of 92-short slide makes for a poorer bullseye gun.

I'm wondering about having having a thumb safety 92 with the bullseye-level accuracy work, but not to shoot bullseye. I'm wondering if a thumb safety 92 can get bullseye-accurate (I don't see why not, and I see other concurrence) and if a carry-comp Centurion would be possible, or if that's just too big and weird and inappropriate of a lift, it really ought to be a "normal" full-length slide pistol.




Yes, exactly! How meaningful in terms of accuracy difference might we guess/estimate/predict from the shorter slide rails? Would it be something like a Commander vs Gov't 1911?

@john c - your pistol sounds cool. How much accuracy do you think is gained going from a faster twist barrel to the 1-32, assuming equal quality of barrel and fitting?

It sounds like you're looking for an accurized service pistol for general use. If so, getting a B92 built by a serious gunsmith isn't really cheaper than just buying a top end 9mm pistol, like a Smith 952. These are $3100++ on Gunbroker, and are excellent, accurate pistols. The reason bullseye Berettas exist is because CMP service pistol competition at one time required an actual US Army service pistol type. They've loosened the rules, not too long ago. By the time you get a Beretta and send it off for conversion, you're in the ballpark of other nice, custom pistols.

Or you can do what I did and try to find a used one on Gunbroker or bullseyeforum.net.

As you can see, Zeleny has one built on an SAO B92.

I have no direct experience with the accuracy differences between a fast twist and slow twist 9mm barrel. For other than specialized use, I would opt for a fast twist barrel, since it will shoot other bullet weights better. Service pistol/bullseye is a demanding sport with 50 yard slow fire. It's like building a Corvette for fast 1/4 mile times and then wanting to drive it around town. It'll be too specialized for all around use, though it would do it.

[Welder]

Dupe.

[Welder]

As you can see, Zeleny has one built on an SAO B92.

Not just any SAO 92. Looks sorta like a Centennial with a spare blued Billennium slide? Us poors are jelly.

[zeleny]

Not just any SAO 92. Looks sorta like a Centennial with a spare blued Billennium slide? Us poors are jelly.

That it is. Shoots like a laser beam. Note that mechanical precision is mostly due to the conical bushing similar to those fitted to the Stock and Combat variants.