Anyone here know when they dumped the 92 and went with the 226?

Because Beretta tried to blame the Model 92 slide failures on overpressure ammunition instead of working with NSW on identifying the real cause of the failures and correcting it.

I believe it was in 1988. If you are interested in this issue, you might find this article interesting:

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/...ry/true_story_m9.htm

Beretta definitely did drag its feet when it came to determining the cause of the early M9 slide failures. The Government Accounting Office determined that the issue was due to the addition of too much tellurium to the steel of the early Beretta slides which made them brittle:

http://www.guns.com/2012/10/06...-a-look-at-the-data/

Interestingly, when the French military was conducting its procurement trials for a new pistol (which eventually led to the PAMAS-G1 version of the Beretta 92) they actually specified addition of tellurium to the steel of the slides that were initially made in Italy. After finding that these slides had a limited service life of only around 6000 rounds, they rejected a large batch of slides.

There are allegations that these rejected slides intended for the French found their way onto early Beretta M9s in the years immediately after the pistol was adopted by the US Army in 1985, before production of M9s began in the US.

Frogman posted something up a few years ago telling the Beretta story regarding NSW. I can't seem to find the post.

Navy special warfare adopted a Beretta 9mm prior to the 1986 adoption by the US Military. Their input into the original 92S helped to bring about the final product, the M9. The Seals had a program where they would continuously fire weapons to document failures and round count, they purposely shot the guns until they broke. Not just handguns but all of their weapons. When the Beretta M9/92 finally broke the slide or a piece of the slide came off and struck sailors in the face/head. When handgun slides break they tend to torch and break in the middle on the side. In response to the slide coming off Beretta engineered a new piece that prevented this from occurring again but in the meantime Navy Special Warfare adopted the Sig P226.

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
Navy special warfare adopted a Beretta 9mm prior to the 1986 adoption by the US Military. Their input into the original 92S helped to bring about the final product, the M9. The Seals had a program where they would continuously fire weapons to document failures and round count, they purposely shot the guns until they broke. Not just handguns but all of their weapons. When the Beretta M9/92 finally broke the slide or a piece of the slide came off and struck sailors in the face/head. When handgun slides break they tend to torch and break in the middle on the side. In response to the slide coming off Beretta engineered a new piece that prevented this from occurring again but in the meantime Navy Special Warfare adopted the Sig P226.

Very interesting information.

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
In response to the slide coming off Beretta engineered a new piece that prevented this from occurring again

IIRC, this is also the difference between the 92F and the 92FS. I recall reading articles where this re-engineered M9 was designated the M10, which was followed by the adoption of the Sig P228 as the M11. I don't think the M10 designation stuck, though, as I haven't read about it since probably the early 90s.

1988. Ok,thanks

One can only wonder now, but if the military had gone with the SIG 226, I'm certain it would still be in service today (as is the case with the Beretta 92), and the plan to search for a new service pistol may not have been hatched for a few more years.

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
In response to the slide coming off Beretta engineered a new piece that prevented this from occurring again

IIRC, this is also the difference between the 92F and the 92FS. I recall reading articles where this re-engineered M9 was designated the M10, which was followed by the adoption of the Sig P228 as the M11. I don't think the M10 designation stuck, though, as I haven't read about it since probably the early 90s.

The difference between the 92f and 92fs is the FS model has a larger radius on the hammer retaining pin. The large side of the hammer pin sticks up above the level of the frame. The FS slide has a groove in it that fits over the heap of the pin. The groove doesn't extend the full length of the slide so if the slide breaks the rear half can't fly straight back and come off the frame.

You're not a real SEAL unless you've eaten Italian Steel.

quote:

Originally posted by kaschi:
One can only wonder now, but if the military had gone with the SIG 226, I'm certain it would still be in service today (as is the case with the Beretta 92), and the plan to search for a new service pistol may not have been hatched for a few more years.

I suspect the P-226 would have faced the same issues with modularity that the M9 does. Also, I believe the Navy Seals have opted for the Glock 19 over the P-226 as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigwheeler:

quote:

Originally posted by kaschi:
One can only wonder now, but if the military had gone with the SIG 226, I'm certain it would still be in service today (as is the case with the Beretta 92), and the plan to search for a new service pistol may not have been hatched for a few more years.

I suspect the P-226 would have faced the same issues with modularity that the M9 does. Also, I believe the Navy Seals have opted for the Glock 19 over the P-226 as well.

The M9, in service with big army, suffered from a lack of maintenance, sub-par replacement parts and lack of proper training (maintenance). I suspect any handgun would have had problems with that type of support after years of service(though I believe glock would have done better).

As noted the large hammer pin keeps the slide attached to the frame if it becomes separated at the ejection port. The head of the pin rides in a matching groove in the slide. Beretta used to mill pre-FS slides to accept the enlarged hammer pin if you wanted I'm not sure if they still do.

A pic of a 92SB with the small pin and a 92G with the large pin.

I have heard of numerous locking block failures, of course, and frame cracks, but has anyone seen or heard of a complete slide fracture since the 92 FS was introduced?

I am interested to know whether the enlarged hammer pin of the 92FS has ever actually been called on to retain a fractured slide. Since the early M9 slide failures attributed to metallurgy problems, I don't recall hearing about any slide fractures.

quote:

Originally posted by pblanc:
I have heard of numerous locking block failures, of course, and frame cracks, but has anyone seen or heard of a complete slide fracture since the 92 FS was introduced?

I am interested to know whether the enlarged hammer pin of the 92FS has ever actually been called on to retain a fractured slide. Since the early M9 slide failures attributed to metallurgy problems, I don't recall hearing about any slide fractures.

I never heard of a slide fracture on an issue M9. I have heard of several commercial 92FS slide separations, but they were on high 100k+ round count guns.

Any documented frame failures using commercially loaded 9mm ammo on commercial guns? Most stuff I've seen is with 357SIG, .40 or reloads.

I was a Beretta 92 guy for a while. I broke three locking blocks on two different pistols. I got into Sig 226/228s a while back and have had no issues. I agree if the 226 had been adopted it would still be used today instead of the new M17/18s,but I like them as well.