i'm joking by the way. I think in terms of the "more extensive testing and use by this term in its life vs......" someone had a good point about timing. The Glock came out at a time (25 Years? good time flies) when many agencies, armies etc were re-thinking their armement. That does tend to lend itself to more extensive testing in a short time.
You know i don't think the Glock is a bad pistol, I just don't like it for me.(yes i have shot them.)
So to avoid another round of "Glock vs ......" lets just say
They both (in this case) seem good, to each, his/her own.
(and my 1911 has a shorter reset so Nya nya )
ok i'll head that one off, the ONLY problems i have had with it in 17 years is when I put one of the double springs in backwards. I bought it used and put nothing more into is so its not some x thousands special.
I looked up this definition:Argentina is not Third World. New Orleans is closer to that standard.
Third World: Phrase used originally to distinguish those countries that were aligned neither with the capitalist West, the First World, nor with the socialist East, the Second World. It remains widely used to describe non-industrialized, ex-colonial, or developing countries despite the collapse of the Second World.
Cosmopolitan Third World, perhaps, but I think Argentina is still a "developing" country. It's hardly a major world power in any sense (political, industrial, economic, etc.). But I may be ignorant, having never ventured to Argentina.
Semantics, perhaps, and not having much to do with guns.
The JSSAP tests certainly weren't. But it's one thing to put a bunch of guns through the wringer and choose one that passed all the tests because you want to put missiles in the pistol's country of origin. It's another to only test one pistol and adopt it because it's made in your home country.Have you ever known government procurement not to be influenced by politics?
AHEM... JSSAP POLITICS FREE? HA HA HA
In 1981, the US Army was given control of the JSSAP pistol trials. 85 requirements were laid down for the winning XM9 pistol; 72 were mandatory while 13 were desirable. Only four pistols were entered: the Beretta 92SB (an improved 92S-1), the HK P7M13, the S&W 459A, and the SIG-Sauer P226. However, all four failed, and strangely, the Beretta finished dead last, even behind the M1911A1.
Congress and the GAO were infuriated by the waste of money with no apparent results. Procurement funds for additional .45 ACP ammunition was withheld until the US Army could formulate a test series that a manufacturer could pass. The XM9 trials started again in January 1984. During the mean time, Beretta had improved the 92SB again, calling the resulting pistol the 92SB-F. The competitors included the Colt SSP, the FN Double Action Hi-Power, the HK P7M13, the SIG-Sauer P226, the S&W 459, the Steyr GB, and the Walther P88. In the end, only the P226 and 92SB-F were considered to have passed all of the tests.
After a series of bids in which SIG-Sauer was the low bidder, Beretta was finally given the contract due to a lower price quoted on its spare parts. Needless to say, SIG-Sauer was extremely annoyed, and there were allegations that Beretta was shown SIG-Sauer's final bid in order to under-cut it. Moreover, the other manufacturers were upset for a variety of reasons. Several had worked up bids before they were told that they were in fact not eligible. Moreover, S&W's pistols had failed due to a mathematical error while converting to English units from Metric in determining firing pin energy.
After a series of GAO and Congressional investigations, another series of tests similar to the XM9 trials were ordered for 1987. However, these started off with controversy as well. The US Army fought to keep the 92F (now the M9) from being retested since it had passed the XM9 trials. SIG-Sauer insisted that the P226 didn't need to retested either since it had passed XM9 as well. On the other hand, S&W noted that the Beretta M9s were no longer being built to the standards of the XM9 trials, having received relaxation of several requirements including accuracy.
Around the same time, reports of M9 slide separations were becoming rampant in both the US Navy and Army. The Navy SEALs were arguably abusing their pistols by firing over-pressure ammunition in suppressed examples, while the Army's separations were blamed on the use of recycled slides from a French contract which contained tellurium. Events were becoming so bad that a Safety-of-Use message recommended that slides be replaced after 3000 rounds had been fired; however, this recommendation was lowered to 1,000 rounds after a M9 suffered a slide separation with less than 3,000 rounds fired.
Beretta took a two-pronged response. First, they sued the Department of the Navy because the SEAL Teams had leaked info of the slide separations to Ruger. Second, they designed a hammer pin with an over-sized head to fit into a groove machined in the slide. Thus, if the slide separated, it would not strike the user in the face. Commercially, these pistols are known as the 92FS
The XM10 tests were finally rescheduled for 1988 after being canceled the year before for lack of participation. Beretta refused to submit samples, so the US Army used off-the-shelf M9s. Beretta protested this, but since they had already refused samples, this protest was rejected. SIG-Sauer also refused to submit samples, standing on principle that they had passed XM9 the first time. S&W submitted their 459 again, and Ruger submitted their new P85.
Again, there were allegations of impropriety. The Army refused to relax their requirement for a chrome-lined bore, even if the barrel was made from stainless steel. Moreover, the S&W failed tests that they had passed in XM9. They were the only pistols to pass the XM9 accuracy requirements, yet they failed the XM10. The S&W also failed the corrosion tests in spite of the fact that the affected parts which failed XM10 were made from stainless steel, while the same parts in the successful XM9 samples were made from carbon steel. Ruger wasn't provided any reasons as to why their samples failed.
"Third World" is 20th Century obsolete, based on ideology that doesn't even exist. Under a more applicable economic definition... GDP of Argentina outpaces New Orleans.
I have no idea how the Argentinians selected the pistol. That's why I asked you for a link.
I agree that the JSSAP tests were affected by politics, hence my comment on the missiles. Not only that, the Air Force seemed to have an institutional bias toward the Beretta. But at least the tests were stringent and the Beretta passed them all. It's a good pistol, and it works reliably over here for us. I honestly don't think the domestic pistols tested were as good, though I grant that the SIG P226 is also an excellent pistol.
Slide separations with the Beretta weren't "rampant," to the best of my knowledge. Do you have a hard number on how many actually happened? I am only aware of about a dozen. Which sucks if you're the guy it happens to, but a dozen out of hundreds of thousands isn't what I'd call "rampant." That's just hyperbole.
SIG Sauer is a Swiss/German company. SIG P226 also passed all tests but was passed over due to spares pricing. A cloud of corruption stains Beretta's quote as there are claims that SIGs pricing was leaked to them prior to their submission. Your comments about Air Force bias and missile deployment lends credibility to claims of undo political influence in the procurement process. Given the history, I prefer the M11 to the M9 in the field.
http://archive.gao.gov/d15t6/137930.pdf. At that time the M9 was not fully deployed from the initial contract.
An overview of the M9 slide failure issue and its handling is available http://www.thegunzone.com/m9-a.html. Slide failures were associated with Tellurium (Te), an additive used to control shape, but reduced fracture toughness. Te slides were not used in original XM9 trials but introduced in production. To minimize injury, Beretta increased the size of the hammer pivot (92F to 92FS). Later, Te was quietly removed from Beretta slide metallurgy.
Total count of Navy SEAL slide failures in the field is classified.
In the end, it appears that Beretta provided 'ringers' for the XM9 (JASSP) evaluations, cost cut in production, got caught, and now produce the reliable, but different, gun you are using today.
I wasn't "asserting" that's what the Argentinians did, merely speculating that it would be a lousy way to choose a pistol compared to a more extensive testing regimen. Since neither of us know about the procurement process, though, my guess is as good as yours about how they selected it.
So then you don't have an actual number on the slide failures, but state that they were "rampant?"
I realize a lot of people are biased against the Beretta. It's not my favorite pistol either, but I have seen many in service and have observed them to be utterly reliable and long-lived pistols, even under poor conditions.
Last edited by Mike Barham; 03-07-2008 at 09:11 AM.
http://archive.gao.gov/d15t6/137930.pdf) shows rampant slide failure was a fact for the 92SBF (92F) chosen to be M9. Since you didn't seem to like it, I'll quote from an earlier September 1988 GAO report (http://archive.gao.gov/d16t6/136824.pdf) that you might like better, Quality and Safety Problems with the Beretta M9 Handgun.
The first laboratory slide failure, which occurred on February 8, 1988, involved an Army M9 firing NAKI standard U.S.-produced M882 ammunition. This weapon was one of three M9 handguns being tested for problems related to the barrel. As part of the test, all three weapons had been inspected after 6,000 rounds using a scanning election microscope (SEM) or magnetic particle inspection (MPI) process, and there were no indications of slide cracks. When the M9 slide failure occurred at 6,007 rounds, the broken slide and the slides on the other two test weapons were removed for metallurgical evaluation. The evaluation showed that one of the other slides also had fatigue cracks. This evaluation marked the beginning of an Army slide failure test program to determine why the failures had occurred.
The Army replaced the slides on the three weapons and continued to fire the M9s, using NATO standard ammunition, until each broke. One slide failed at 4,908 rounds, another failed at 21,942 rounds, and the third failed at 21.486 rounds.
The next grouping test results for four other weapons: one M9 and three Army-owned commercial (92SBF) handguns. The slide on the M9 failed after 7,806 rounds, and the slides on the three 92SBFs failed at 17,408, 21,264, and 24,656 rounds.
In 1985, the Army acquired three commercial 92SBFs for testing to determine which part would fail first. The first part to fail was a barrel. After the barrel failed, the Army suspended testing and inspected the weapons using an WI process. The inspection showed slide cracks on all three weapons. Because slides are considered spare parts and there had not been any slide failures at that point in time, the cracked slides did not raise any specific concerns.
The final grouping of weapons involved three M9s that were being tested as part of an annual comparison test. After the weapons were fired 10,000 rounds, the slides were inspected using the MPI process and one slide was cracked. The Army decided to fire all three weapons until the slides failed. Slide failure occurred at the 23,310 round mark on one weapon, 30,083 on another weapon, and 30,545 on the third weapon.
When every production M9 (92SBF/92F) randomly selected for testing actually fails due to slide failure, and at a low round count, yes I'd say the problem was rampant.
I love my 96FS.
Getting back to the Bersa thing. i bought one a while back thinking it might make a good backup type thing and it wasn't much money so I wouldn't cry too much if it wasn't all that good. I can say it's a pretty good pistol. It does what I would expect of anything in the caliber I was using (380)
As to this huge thing about those Barettas..people are going to like what they like. Though to compare a 92 Beretta to a 226 Sig for me would be a no brainer. I all about the 226 in that race. I've owned both and I kept the Sig. Why? Because it was more accurate, more reliable, and feels better in my hand.
I don't much care what tests say especially in the government is involved. I had run my own tests. Thousands of rounds at 25-50 yards(Figuring if I can group in under 3" there I'm good at the 21 feet most all states CCW qualifies). I really like how the Sig breaks down over the Beretta too. The Sig was/is hands down the better of the two there. In fact. The Sig P226 is probably the most accurate Military type pistol I have shot period, though I will admit that the 226 I have shoots a little better than others I have got to hold and send lead down range. After shooting several of both I still have my opinion.
Now..Back o the Bersa. anyone getting one I would strongly advise getting to know it really well. Make sure to use only ammo that feeds easy for a couple hundred rounds and it will turn out to be a pretty good little pistol. The 380 is a little tough to take down at first but like most things..Everything is a pain in the rear untill you're used to it I've not owned th 9mm but have shot a couple..Not too bad
The Sig 226 costs a lot more, and it should have the edge.
submoa, I concede your point on the 92F. I was unable to download the PDF file (bandwidth here sucks), so I appreciate you quoting the second for me. I do not know how many 92F failures occurred in the field/range, but I accept the laboratory evidence.
I think you misunderstood my comment on the JSSAP tests, or I wrote poorly. I was trying to reply to your statement about "test not being influenced by politics" by agreeing that the JSSAP tests were politically influenced by our desire to put missiles in Italy. I think there was also some personal bias toward the Beretta with the Air Force testing personnel.
Quite honestly, I think the SIG P226 is a better pistol than the M9, and would rather they'd selected it. But I do think the (current) M9 is a fine service sidearm, regardless of how it was finally achieved. It's certainly been tested a lot.
I get pretty riled up about instances where new weapons get rushed into service because of politics. M9 was one example. M16 before they chrome lined the bores and issued cleaning kits is another. The SA80 is the worst not only because they replaced the L1A1 SLR with a total POS, but because it took 18 years before they brought in HK in to fix it (L85A2 upgrade).
In the software industry Version 1.0 syndrome means a reboot. In military procurement, Version 1.0 gets people killed or maimed.
Ssshhhh! Don't tell anyone how good the Bersa's are; its hard enough now to find magazines for them.
I have both the 9UC and 45UC. The 9 has been totally trouble free right out of the box. The 45 had some feeding problems initially, but has been getting better as it breaks in. Surprisingly it had less problems with hollow points (Taurus Hex) than with ball (WWB).
What is this thread about again, hmmm lets look....
When i was looking to purchase a small inexpensive back up gun I stumbled accross the Bersa and the P3at. My father-in-law purchased one first and noted that he liked it fairly well. I have a chance to shoot it and liked it very much. Therefore I made my decision to buy one and have never looked back. I wish I could honestly say that I don't care what others think about guns and that I make my own decisions. But that would be incorrect. I listen to what others say, and at most they will cause me to shoot a gun first before deciding on it.
I am happy with both of my Bersa Thunder .380's as well as my Bersa .380CC model. I fluff, buff and clean my guns religiously and have had no failures of any kind on all three.
just so you guys know the buenos aires police carry the bersa and so do some of the argentinian police agencies. just a little bit of info
That was probably the best answer to a question I have been wondering for a long time! Thanks pal! BJ
The company was founded in the mid 1950's by Italian immigrants Benso Bonadimani, Ercole Montini and Savino Caselli, all of them mechanical engineers. Montini worked for Beretta in Italy. At the beginning they were producing parts for the now defunct Argentinian arms manufacturer Ballester Molina. Their first handgun was a modified version of a Ballester model which they called "Luan", combining the first two letters of the last names of the 2 designers of the pistol, Luce and Antonovich. The gun didn't have much commercial success and very few of them were produced; nowadays they are quite rare collector's items.
The Modelo 62, one of the early BERSAs
BERSA Rifle cal. 22 LR
BERSA ShotgunsIn 1959 the first 22 Long Rifle pistol was commercialized, called "Modelo 60", which later evolved in the "Modelo 62", and based on a modified Beretta design, it sold extremely well. In 1960 the name "BERSA" was finally introduced, it is made up from the initial letters of the founder's first names. Many more successful models in increasingly more powerful calibers were produced in the following years, making BERSA a well known and respected name in the firearms world. In 1989 the first full size combat pistol was introduced, the Model 90, chambered for the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge.
In 1994 a new model name for the entire production line was introduced, "Thunder", followed by a number indicating the handgun caliber. However the Thunder series in reality include two totally different designs in mechanics and appearances; for cartridges up to and included the 380 ACP the handguns are compact in size (except for the Thunder 22-6 which is a 22 LR target competition pistol with a 6" barrel) and based on a blowback system, for more powerful rounds, starting with the 9x19mm Parabellum, the Thunder line is based on a locked breech and short recoil modified Browning design.
At the end of the 1990s BERSA won the contract for supplying a new standard sideram for the Argentina Armed Forces and Argentina Federal Police that were looking to replace their aging Browning Hi-Power pistols. The BERSA Thunder 9, an evolution of the Model 90, was chosen.
In the past BERSA also produced 22 Long Rifle caliber long guns and single and double barreled shotguns but they did not have the same commercial success of the pistols and they have been discontinued.
BERSA is nowadays one of the largest privately owned corporations in Argentina. It produces, among many handguns, the very popular BERSA Thunder 380 and the BERSA Thunder 9 pistols and the Utra Compact series of the Thunder chambered in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. The company is well known among firearm enthusiasts for producing high quality guns at very reasonable prices and it spends very little money on advertisement. Lifetime warranty coverage is provided to the original owners. However, firearms made by such companies can cost as much as twice or more compared to a BERSA pistol in the same caliber and with similar features. The Argentine company is often influenced by the German firearms manufacturer Walther in the design of its handguns; the Thunder 22, 32 and 380 are basically clones of the famous Walther PP and PPK while the Thunder 9 and 40 are somewhat similar in appearance and some mechanical aspects to the Walther P88. For many products in the past, a similar source of technical "inspiration" was Beretta. The full size Thunder combat pistol is the standard sidearm of the Argentina Armed Forces (Thunder 9), Argentina Federal Police (Thunder 9), Buenos Aires Provincial Police (Thunder 9) and several other Law Enforcement agencies (Thunder 9 & 40).
The Model 90 Combat Pistol, forerunner of the Thunder 9
BERSA Thunder 22-6 cal. 22 Long RifleThe Thunder 22 pistol chambered for the 22 Long Rifle cartridge is widely used among recreational shooters in Latin America and the Thunder 22-6, a longer and thicker barrel version of this handgun, is used in more serious competitions. Team BERSA, equipped with Thunder 9 and Thunder 40 pistols, has won several IPSC matches. The Thunder 32 and 380 handguns sell very well in countries that ban the use of more powerful cartridges for civilian personal defense purposes. The Thunder 380 is immensely popular in the US market as a small and light, easy concealable, high quality and competitively priced personal defense handgun.
I think this should answer your question about military use and/or reliability.
TNjack - as in the Bersa talk member?
Anyway, I own a Ultra Compact 45 Bersa. The deal it this - $350 - comes with 2 magazines
The issue I think relates to the older versions of the model which had one spring instead of the dual springs they have now.
True, you can buy a Taurus for around $299, but it is not set up for ambidexterous (spelling not strong point) use out of the box.
I like the dual action safety/decocker and the grip design.
I am no strongman - far from it, but I can easily one hand this with either hand.
I believe it is a little to do with the gun snobbery out there.
Yes, I have fired a Sig Sauer, Browning, and I have fired a $3k 1911 Caspian. I like my Bersa better.
Don't expect the fit and finish of a $600+ handgun. Expect it to work.
My understanding of XD's is that they have been used extensively by the Croatian military and Croatian polices forces as of the late 90's (assuming it is the same product basic product that is imported and sold in the US). I would be curious to see if those agencies conducted high round counts or torture tests like have been performed on Glocks.
Buy what suits you, and shoot the piss out of it. End of test. Duh.
I own two Bersa pistols, a .380 and a Thunder .380 and really like them. As far as reliability, any issues that I have had with them are my lack of proper cleaning. The main reason I bought my first Bersa was because of how well the pistol fit my hand..... I was sold instantly. I added a set of rubber finger-groove grips (factory grips) and that even made them feel better IMO.
On a side note, where is the best <cheapest> place to get a factory clip for a Thunder .380?