Here they are: Beretta 92FS and Glock 17 torture tests

[Irfan]

Beretta 92FS

[Irfan]

and Glock 17

[Stainless]

Interesting. Very interesting.

[Will Beararms]

The 92 selection is indicative of the moronic and often corrupt decsions made by politicians. That locking block failure is fine for a magazinbe article but it could mean an American life in the field of duty. Typical-----------------just typical of Washington.

[duckdawg]

Did you read the entire 92FS article? Sounds like you didn't, so I'll take the liberty of including the last paragraph

"There is no question in my mind that the pistol is serviceable to 35,000 rounds, in fact I
would not be surprised to see it last 50,000 rounds. The Beretta M9/92FS is
in my opinion one of the most reliable firearms ever produced and this test proved it!
This is a very revealing test to the quality of the M9/92FS, it is no surprise why the most powerful military in the world carry the Beretta 92FS as their official sidearm."

[Will Beararms]

I did read it but I couldn't get past the block breaking just after the 19,000 round mark. Do a search and you will find from those who carry the 92 series that they often fail way before 20K rounds.

Additionally, my experience has revealed that the block comes out easy but can be cumbersome upon re-assembly expecially if one is in a stressful situation.

[duckdawg]

I've done a fair amount of research on the block thing. It seems that the locking block problem is old news. There may have been a problem with them up around 20,000+ rounds but I don't think that's been a problem for a number of years now.

Of course, I could certainly be wrong, but research has indicated this to be the case.

[Will Beararms]

I am a BIG fan of Beretta Shotguns and the 92FS is indeed one of the most accurate, easy to shoot 9mm's out there but I can never get past the locking block--------------fooling with it during take-down and re-assembly when there are so many other options out there like Glocks and Sigs.

[Irfan]

Hey WILL BEARARMS,
you used to be the real die-hard Beretta fan. What did happen to you? You bought that compact Glock in .40 *&* or something else? I remember some of your posts on Beretta forum. Here is one of them:

[Will Beararms]

Irfan:

I have had pistols like Clinton has had girlfriends. I still like the Beretta and I think the barrels are among the finest if not the finest in the world. I do wish they would get around that lockinmg block and I predict they will after the 9000 series has been perfected.

I admire Beretta for being the oldest Family-owned company in the world ---------- since 1526. My duck gun is a Beretta AL 390 Silver Mallard 12 gauge 3" with 24" barrel in Advantage camo.

I like the shootability of the M9 but again, I hope they lose the locking block down the road.

As to the Glock, I have sworn off the .40 Cal in favor of 9mm's or .45's. The main reason, is I can afford to practice much more with the 9mm and I do think there is something to the KB issue with Glocks larger than 9mm-------------------------there's too much evidence to indicate otherwise.

[Stainless]

Well, it seems to me that avoiding +P+ ammo, replacing certain parts regularly, and otherwise keeping an eye on it would prevent anything so horrendus as a block failure from happening in combat, because it is unlikely that anyone will expend 19,000 rounds in a single combat situation.

[dawg23]

Surely someone has observed that the Glock Torture Test article that Irfan linked is woefully out of date.

Taylor's Torture Test is now well past 170,000 rounds, as has been reported in several of the gunzines.

[SIGarmed]

"When we fired for qualification, to my
surprise there was only a handful of troops that did not qualify on the first
try. In fact it was probably safe to say that around 25% of the people
qualified as expert. The M1911A1 was different, only about half of the
company qualified on the first try and only a handful qualified expert."

A testament to the great marsmanship of our troops. So thats why we need a 9mm. I don't think what the author is saying is anything to be proud of.

[Jay Baker]

As a P.O. Weapons Training instructor, I put 23,000 rounds +/- a few, through my issued Beretta 92FS, before turning it in when I retired. These were Federal ball, Federal H.P., Win. Silvertips, Win. subsonic, and Win. SXT LEO Only, plus some FBI issued Speer and Remington H.P.s. The locking block was just fine. I know other instructors did the same, and more, without a failure of weapon.

I also know a (now retired) armorer for a very large p.o. dept. who, over a period of years, put 70,000 rounds of factory ball and H.P. through a Beretta 92FS, without any malfunctions or locking block breakage. He was testing this pistol, and never cleaned it, other than to keep it lubricated.

I asked him about the locking blocks. Out of 10,000 pistols for the dept., there had been two locking block failures, in nine years.

Perhaps we just got lucky but I wouldn't hesitate to bet my life on a Beretta 92FS... and did for nine years.

(Besides, Glocks are so ugly, if they were a human being, they'd have to slip up on a glass of water just to get a drink!) Happy New Year to all!

FWIW. J.B.

[Stainless]

Indeed. Say what you want about Berettas, but they sure do build 'em pretty.

[blades67]

Why would one take their gun apart, and then try to put it back together again, in a "stressful situation"?

[RON in PA]

Beretta did change the shape of the locking block a number of years ago to eliminate/or reduce cracking.

Why would you ever need to remove the locking block for routine cleaning and lubing?

[Carbon_15]

Sorry to get off topic a bit, but I find it most agrivating when folks assume you cant have good bullet placement with a big bullet. Just plain annoying.

[JamesA]

I have sent maybe 30k rounds thru my 92fs give or take and never once had any type of problem. I clean after each use and keep well oiled. It has proven to be very accurate and am not a great shot. The only minor problem is I have put wood grips on it and after say 200-300 rounds they become lose a bit. Great gun.

[ZekeLuvs1911]

I own both the M1911 .45ACP and 92FS in 9mm. I have problems with some statements in the article.

The military also wanted a pistol that could be carried safely loaded with the hammer down. If one wanted to carry the M1911A1 loaded they would normally carry the pistol ,"cocked and locked," meaning a round in the chamber with the hammer cocked and the safety engaged. This condition is not considered safe by many gun experts.

WRONG!!!! Many gun experts including Jeff Cooper and Massad Ayoob have shown and argued that this is indeed a safe way to carry. We only have idiots that don't know how to handle it correctly.

If you have a 9mm, you are more likely to hit your target with a well-placed shot than with a larger caliber that is harder to shoot due to a heavier sharp recoil.

ROTFL!!!! What a bunch of horse manure! A .45ACP is not a round that makes it harder to shoot accurately. I taught a girlfriend of mine who never shot a pistol ever on the .45 as her first round. Within a few hours she was doing well enough to put some cops I know to shame. People should learn to shoot before they blame the gun or the round. This guy must be a pansy idiot!
Personally, my feeling is that the US made a huge mistake to convert to the 9mm. The M1911 stood up to the most important and the only qualifying test in my mind. That is the test of time. The 10mm and .40 was a direct result of various agencies which found the 9mm lacking. This is why the FBI HRT and certain Special Forces units use only the .45 ACP today!


Annual GOA Member
Lifetime NRA Member
"God made man and woman, Colonel Colt made them equal."

[Jager1]

First off, I have trouble with any article that contains the phrase “stopping power” with regard to handguns. I also am loathe to be forced to comment on the horrendous grammar witnessed throughout the article.

The author claims the 9mm is essentially inferior to the 45 ACP, then goes on to say he prefers the lighter, faster bullet. So much for declining the obvious.

He goes on to claim “better shot placement” ability is the reason. The theory he subscribes to relies on the “lowest common denominator” as you can derive from his military training “results”. Quicker proficiency does not equate to better terminal performance. Or more simply put, saving money does not always equate to saving lives.

How a 9mm is inherently more accurate than a 45 ACP is identified by the author as resulting from recoil. I have owned a 92 Beretta, a P226 (both in 9mm) and own 1911’s. The 9mm’s both have more “recoil” than the 1911’s if you define recoil as a causal factor with regard to bullet placement (this is the essence of his claim). Muzzle rise or “flip” is generally greater on the 9mm’s I have described. How he can make this preposterous claim and not expect broad-based criticism is indicative of his lack of experience with the articles in question. I have also fired some of the Army’s 1911’s during the 1980’s and many of them were quite worn and sloppy. Accuracy was mediocre with most. Comparing 1911’s of which “The last shipment of M1911A1 pistols to the Department of Defense was back in 1945” to those 9mm’s delivered since 1985 is pretty poor form. He admits this, but insinuates that even if new 1911’s were procured, they would somehow still be inferior.

As far as the M9 being “popular”, few of the Desert Storm vets I know are so enamored with the Beretta. Sand seemed to be the largest complaint. Most of the military folks I know prefer the M11 (P228) and in most units you will find a continual struggle over who gets to carry the units fewer M11’s.

Which “gun experts” is the author referring to when he says they find cocked and locked carry unsafe? The “unsafe practice” of lowering the hammer on a 1911 is likely done several thousand times a day in the United States alone, not to mention many other single action autos or even hybrids like the CZ-75 series. Sure, some negligent or accidental discharges occur, but they do not mandate the practice “unsafe”.

“Covering fire” with a pistol. True idiocy. If it truly comes down to that, somebody has made a severe tactical error. We are talking combat troops. Ft. Benning sounds like infantry to me. Surely in his brief tenure at Ft. Benning, the author would have learned a bit more about small arms and their employment.

“However, by cocking the hammer the trigger is well within reach for those with the smallest hands”. The time factor in pistol engagements is generally the largest consideration. Yet the author prefers those same troops who require a lesser cartridge in order to gain quicker proficiency to cock the pistol under life and death criteria. The other alternative is to double action the pistol which only requires a “16.5 lb” trigger pull. I’d love to see these same “lowest common denominator” troops double action groups compared to those of a similar condition “cocked and locked” 1911.

The comparison of finishes of pistols 40 years apart in delivery is absurd.

That “red paint” on the extractor of my Beretta 92 was all but gone within several hundred rounds.

The author sounds like another gun-show/gun-shop commando with good intent and poor subjectivity.

Who goes out and spends $5,000 to do something like this without being directly affiliated with Beretta? Or makes a living from it? At a minimum, with an axe to grind? I cannot help but question if in fact the “test” ever occurred at all.

Anyone have any information on the “author” or the date of the “test”?

That said, if I couldn’t carry Sig-Sauers, I’d carry Berettas. They are some of the finest firearms available.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Berettas are nice guns, granted. But I'm not buying one. I don't believe the accuracy in that test. The AMU had to significantly rework theirs to make them worth a damn. But my primary objection to them is the fact that they are HUGE! I can't get good trigger index on them, and I find them way too fat for a pistol of that caliber. Something on the order of 1 1/2 inches. I have revolvers thinner than that! And a 1911 .45 is less than 1 inch thick on the entire top half of the gun, with a caliber almost 1/8 inch larger in diameter. Nope. Not for me. I'm to short, er, average-size, to want a gun so bulky. I'll stick to my 1911, thanks.

Note: This is strictly opinion, albeit a fast and loose one.

[STLRN]

What sounds like true gun shop commandos are people who compare highly customized 1911s with stock M9s or 1911s. Or people that believe pistols have a lot of utility within the military. Or those who think that all we do is spend time on the range and have billions of rounds to develop the marksmanship skill of those who will not carry a pistol for years, if ever. Or those that think that either a 1911 or a M9 (you can substitute 9mm/40/45 in this category) is an ultimate combat weapon.

[Handy]

If I were ever forced down someplace unpleasant, I'd prefer the accuracy and capacity of a stock 92 or 228 to govt' issue 1911. For aircrew and pilots the pistol is not the primary weapon, it's the only weapon. For many guard duties it is also the primary weapon as rifles are often left unchambered, but the sidearm is ready to go in the holster. That's first hand, btw.

[HCKJMN]

All 92fs-M9 problems were addressed-fixed by Beretta years ago. They are without a doubt one of, if not the finest pistol in the world.

Seems like guns never get over bad raps despite the problems being fixed. Case in point, early ruger P series P85s had an accuracy problem that was promptly adressed by ruger. Despite the fact that Rugers are top notch in every way, and have been for 15years they still have not totally shaken the accuracy problems the earliest of these had.