SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    What is going on with Beretta's finishing around the extractor pin hole?
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
What is going on with Beretta's finishing around the extractor pin hole? Login/Join 
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted
I recently bought a M9A3 and a Wilson/Beretta Centurion. The finish around the extractor pin hole is just horrible. None of my older 92's are like this.

Is this simply how they come now? I've been emailing Beretta customer service about my M9A3 and I was shocked today when I picked up my Wilson/Beretta that it basically had the same issue.

Anyone else?



 
Posts: 7548 | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Is it a Gallatin, TN manufactured 92?
 
Posts: 255 | Location: Oregon | Registered: April 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
Someone in Gallatin doesn't know what the fuck they are doing.
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sigwheeler:
Is it a Gallatin, TN manufactured 92?


Yes, they both are.
 
Posts: 7548 | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have been seeing a few different posts on various sites regarding the finish and the staking on the top of the slide on Gallatin built 92's lately. One photo of a new M9A3 showed a horrendous slide finish that I have no idea how it passed QC. A friend recently purchased one of the blem 92 Vertec slides from Beretta and it was easy to see why they are selling them at a discounted price. The lettering on the sides is inconsistent in depth, The top staking looks quite similar to those in your photos and the slide serations on one side are not right and the front sight is not fit to the dovetail correctly compared to my older 96 Vertec slide. It seems to work, though.
 
Posts: 255 | Location: Oregon | Registered: April 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Unapologetic Old
School Curmudgeon
Picture of Lord Vaalic
posted Hide Post
Unacceptable on +$1000 pistols.

There really are no excuses at this point, Gallatin has been up and running for some time now.




Don't weep for the stupid, or you will be crying all day
 
Posts: 10719 | Location: TN | Registered: December 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Prefontaine
posted Hide Post
Send both back. That is unacceptable



What am I doing? I'm talking to an empty telephone
 
Posts: 12556 | Location: Down South | Registered: January 16, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Sarge1998
posted Hide Post
Wilson states on their web site that if they do an action tune with silicon springs that they must restake the extractor pin and marks are unavoidable.


Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
 
Posts: 440 | Location: Illinois | Registered: May 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Unapologetic Old
School Curmudgeon
Picture of Lord Vaalic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarge1998:
Wilson states on their web site that if they do an action tune with silicon springs that they must restake the extractor pin and marks are unavoidable.


Not sure about silicon springs but I have two Berettas with the WC action tune and neither has any marks at all




Don't weep for the stupid, or you will be crying all day
 
Posts: 10719 | Location: TN | Registered: December 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted Hide Post
I just checked Wilson’s site and I see what you’re saying. Interesting.

This just sours me on all Berettas really. If I can’t back a brand 100%, I tend to dump everything I own of it. I purged Sig from my life years ago (except for two 556’s).

Now I kind of want to sell off even my Beretta 400 shotguns and go to a different brand.

Also, I don’t really want to send them back for fear that they’ll just mess them up worse!
 
Posts: 7548 | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
The staking job must have been done post finish. It's a baked on finish, smacking it will leave a mark. Maybe the line changed to stake the pin after finishing. Maybe the stake failed final QC and they re-staked it before shipment.

None of my "factory" pin stakes look like that. But they also wouldn't cause me to drop my Beretta's.
 
Posts: 10635 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Personally, I wouldn't completely write off known good guns due to current QC issues. I would contact Beretta, specifically regarding the M9A3 and see what they say. I was concerned that some issues would likely pop up after moving manufacturing the way they did. Hopefully, they get everything ironed out in short order.
 
Posts: 255 | Location: Oregon | Registered: April 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted Hide Post
Beretta’s CS said “send in the gun and we’ll take a look at it, but we don’t cover cosmetics.”

That’s what sours me on Beretta. It would appear they aren’t the type of company who stands behind their products now. Keep in mind, I have to pay the shipping to send my flawed guns back. That just boils my blood.

I’ll keep y’all posted, but they are already setting it up for me to waste money sending it back for them to say it’s not covered. Not the kind of company I want to send end my money with. I’m used to good companies who admit it’s not right and send me a shipping label to send it in.

Maybe they’ll surprise me, but I’m not holding my breathe based off of my emails with them.
 
Posts: 7548 | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Sarge1998
posted Hide Post
Check your sales receipt on the Wilson, if you bought it from a dealer they may have ordered the action work, Beretta won't cover that so why send it? Take a pic and send it to Wilson CS, ask if that's their work.


Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
 
Posts: 440 | Location: Illinois | Registered: May 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
Honestly, something cosmetic like that should have been caught by the buyer before the 4473.

Should it be like that? No.

Do the guns functions? IDK, it looks like they haven't even been shot yet.
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Frangas non Flectes
Picture of P220 Smudge
posted Hide Post
I wouldn't be happy with that at all, and I think you're right to be disappointed. For a really visible, prominent part of the pistol, that's an incredibly rough stake mark job on both of those.


______________________________________________
Carthago delenda est
 
Posts: 17041 | Location: Sonoran Desert | Registered: February 10, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Unapologetic Old
School Curmudgeon
Picture of Lord Vaalic
posted Hide Post
They don't cover cracking finish on a brand new $1000+ pistol?? Fuck that. Id raise hell.




Don't weep for the stupid, or you will be crying all day
 
Posts: 10719 | Location: TN | Registered: December 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Are you aware that it is intentional? You understand staking? Given, that's a rough job of it, I've made cleaner ones when I built my Yugo underfolder. Still, I think you are striving for something you're not going to find. Odd you ditch all SIGs except for the 556 which has some of the worst reputations.

But I do consider that purely cosmetic. Slide it across the pavement and you won't notice it as much! Or ditch them and buy a design that doesn't involve staking pins.


------------------------------------------------
Charter member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy
 
Posts: 1858 | Registered: June 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by esdunbar:
I just checked Wilson’s site and I see what you’re saying. Interesting.

This just sours me on all Berettas really. If I can’t back a brand 100%, I tend to dump everything I own of it. I purged Sig from my life years ago (except for two 556’s
Now I kind of want to sell off even my Beretta 400 shotguns and go to a different brand.

Also, I don’t really want to send them back for fear that they’ll just mess them up worse!


You dumped all of your Sigs but kept in my opinion the worst sig product ever made, the 556. I can see dumping the berettas if there was an issue other than cosmetics, but I do understand your frustration. I bought an Ed Brown 1911 that had to go back to them when it was brand new because the trigger bar was out of spec and sometimes the trigger would hang and not reset. Does that mean Ed brown 1911’s suck and I should sell all my other Ed Browns?
 
Posts: 548 | Location: washington state. | Registered: June 30, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of CAR
posted Hide Post
Beretta has always staked the extractor pin during final assembly, post finishing, from the Beretta Model 1951 through to the present day M9A3.

Granted, when they were made in Italy, the staking was neater (just a single thin stake) than what you see now.

I think Beretta started double staking the extractor pins when they got the US military contract. My newly purchased M9A3 looks like the OP's gun.

I can tell you that if the extractor pin is not staked securely on these guns, you will lose the extractor within a few shots.
 
Posts: 926 | Location: Ohio | Registered: May 11, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    What is going on with Beretta's finishing around the extractor pin hole?

© SIGforum 2024