Does anyone have any personal experience with the rebuilt “Bullseye Berettas”? The most specific examples that I can give would be something like the guns with rebuilt rails/surfaces, barrel/bushing, and trigger work.
Sometimes I wonder if a Taurus thumb safety PT92 or a short slide Centurion could achieve similar results with similar work.
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
No, but I’d start here:Originally Posted by Bergeron
http://www.samscustomgunworksusa.com
Beretta makes frame mounted thumb safety models.
I had Dave Salyer modify a Beretta 92FS with just a match barrel, taller adjustable sights and a trigger job. Other gunsmiths do much more extensive accurizing with steel inserts in the frame which is more durable, and much more expensive. Trigger work is something you can now do yourself with a drop-in Trigger Job In A Bag from Langdon Tactical.
I do not see why the same techniques would not work with the thumb safety models.
We have this thread
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-target-pistol
and a link to this article from Bob Kolesar with his Tony Kidd M9 https://firearmusernetwork.com/2013/...-for-bullseye/
unfortunately the picture links are broken
I have a bullseye built M9 that was supposedly built by USAMU armorer. I think that's likely true because I got it from an active duty LTC who based in DC at the time. Also, the quality of the pistol is fantastic.
Mine is built with a slow twist KKM barrel. That's 1 twist in 32. It requires fast 115 grain bullets, especially hollowpoints, that are moving fast. This is a bit of a PITA, but I have a fair amount of Federal 9BP that it shoots very well. Most bullseye shooters handload 115 gr HP bullets over a close to max charges of Power Pistol. I haven't benched it and don't have the skill to really wring out the accuracy at 50 yards, but it does hold tight groups.
I think you could do the same treatment to a Taurus, but by the time you're dropping $2200 on a conversion, why cheap out on the base pistol?
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.
Yes, the Sams guns are wonderful examples of the exact topic.
We seem to be in concurrence that a thumb safety gun ought to be accurizable like a slide safety gun, and that makes intuitive sense, nothing changes about the lockup that way.
How about stepping down to a Centurion slide? I understand the differences in 1911 going from 5" to 4 1/4" pretty well, but the Beretta is a bit mysterious to me that way. How might it respond?
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
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.
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.
Well, you may be a man. You may be a leprechaun. Only one thing’s for sure… you’re in the wrong basement.
Reply With Quote