Beretta Locking Block Breakage Poll

[LUPUS]

Sorry since I have forgotten two locking blocks failed just under 3000 rounds...

 

[Chindo18Z]

JohnKSa: Both of those discrepancies indicate that something is wrong somewhere and the simplest explanation for what could be wrong is that the TFL poll got some invalid votes in the "broke in under 5K" rounds categories.

Why is that the simplest explanation? Reverse the logic...

Both of those discrepancies indicate that something is wrong somewhere and the simplest explanation for what could be wrong is that the Beretta Forum poll got some invalid votes in the "still good in XXXX (over 5K) rounds" categories.

Why would you automatically assume accurate data from a fan forum while questioning the veracity of data from TFL members? Both polls reflect alleged data from owners.

To my mind, the simplest explanations are:

1. Either the design is inherently flawed (i.e., a certain percentage of Berettas are borderline doomed to failure due to design placing them on the edge of a metallurgical failure envelope).

Or...

2. Certain serial number ranges or contracted runs of the weapon have been manufactured to substandard material or machining specs. It is quite possible that military weapons fall into this unfortunate category. Do you really think that the successive managers and vendors for a 3/4 million unit procurement effort are going to commit career suicide (or willingly face incarceration) for admitting to criminal malfeasance? I will posit that the entire history of US military procurement says otherwise.

92/M9 breakage problems are a fact acknowledged by the manufacturer's fielding of several evolutions of improved slide and locking block designs in an effort to alleviate the issues. They didn't try to fix them because they weren't broke.

Beretta should go the extra mile and beef up the gun a bit more. That is probably doable. Of course, they would then have to admit to the military that their earlier versions have problems.

The factory's lawyers and accountants probably have the last say on this one. Too bad.

Let the poll continue to roll...

LUPUS: I must admit that in all my time around Berettas that I hadn't seen THAT. Great photos. Very powerful input.

 

[2damnold4this]

I don't see how we can expect a poll on an Internet forum such as this to provide representative results. People that have had locking block failures might be more likely to click the link than those who have Berettas that haven't failed. People that have had failures might also be less likely to frequent Beretta only forums. I just don't see how we can get useful information unless we have a random sample.

 

[18DAI]

My M9 and 92FS Inox, both purchased new, have over 7500 rounds apiece but less than 9000 each, and have no problems whatsoever.

Well made pistols. Regards 18DAI.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Can't vote about civilian M92s, because my experience with military M9s is sufficiently negative that I'm not inclined to own one. I suspect that I could keep a personally owned Beretta running better than the .mil ones I had by changing out springs pretty liberally at low round counts and such, but I just don't think the M92/M9 is a very robust design when it is all said and done.

 

[LUPUS]

Those are some of the parts that failed in the 92 Inox which the barrel above belongs. Sorry since I could not get a very clean picture of the fracture on locking block that still stays intact because of the daylight.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I thought this excerpt from an earlier Beretta discussion would be appropriate for this particular thread...

From a 2006 post by Chindo18Z:

I thought some folks might like to see (for reference) what we are talking about when we discuss broken locking blocks.

Chindo18Z: The attached photos show multiple views of two broken locking blocks from M-9s. The ones on the left are from my issue pistol (that makes 6 broken locking blocks to date on my personally assigned GI weapons). It sheared and the weapon seized up while I was firing.

The ones on the right are from a different 12-man element that was using the range immediately before my group. The owner just left the broken block on the range table and returned to the unit. No need to explain anything to the armorer or show him the broken part. Normal and expected failure.

Both on the same day in April 2006. Not an uncommon occurence at my unit.

The poll currently shows 11 failures noted from 59 civilian weapons...a fraction over an 18.6 % failure rate.

All mechanical devices break. Some just break more often.

 

[chibiker]

John, I'd vote in your poll if I knew how....No, it's not a technology thing. I have no idea how to answer if I have to include a round count. I have a 92FS that going by serial number is a mid-eighties vintage. I also know that I am at minimum the fourth owner of it.
How many rounds put through it before me? Not a clue... I on the other hand would guess I have put somewhere around three thousand rounds downrange with it? I don't even know if the the locking block in it is the original. If wear pattern is used as an indicator compared to the rest of the gun I would say it was, again though just a guess.
So, mostly just answering to confirm there is another 92 out there, my locking block is fine and I personally don't consider it any more of a concern when it comes to failure as I do about any other part on any other firearm I own.

 

[seeker_two]

Question: are we just talking about breakages on Beretta pistols or on the Taurus and Helwan pistols as well? That could affect the data we're looking at here.....

 

[Homerboy]

No breakages on any of my 3 92's. Two were bought new, an INOX in 2002 with maybe 2000 rounds through it, and a police special bought last year with maybe 500. Also bought a mint Centurion this year. No idea how many rounds through it, but it looked unused when I bought it.

The 92 is my favorite gun. It's the gun I measure others against. Comparing locking block breakages on used and abused military M9's shooting hot NATO ammo to privately owned 92's that are well manintained is a waste of time.

I had a SIG 226. Nice gun, but sold ot for another 92.

 

[curt.45]

ok so where can I order a spare locking block?

 

[Chindo18Z]

Beretta USA:

https://www.berettausa.com/e2wItemMain.aspx?parentID=IT00002017&parentLink=2100000084:3100000485

$59.95

MidwestGunWorks:

http://www.midwestgunworks.com/page/mgwi/PROD/A-3-0001-sperformance/LE9201

$79.00

 

[JohnKSa]

Why is that the simplest explanation?

Because it is the simplest explanation that explains both discrepancies, not just one.

Why would you automatically assume accurate data from a fan forum while questioning the veracity of data from TFL members?

The reason I suspect the TFL poll data is because it implies that new blocks are more likely to break than blocks that have seen a lot of use. That is counter to my understanding of metal fatigue.

Both polls reflect alleged data from owners.

That's overly optimistic. I have no way to verify that only owners voted. Even if I assume that only owners vote I have no way to verify that the votes are accurate nor can I verify that the poll results have not been altered after they voted.

To my mind, the simplest explanations are:

There are some problems with your simple explanations:

The "borderline design flaw problem" theory is inconsistent with the apparently similar durability of the 96 pistols which subject their locking blocks to significantly more abuse and yet do not seem to experience locking block failures at a signficantly higher rate.

The "batches of flawed pistols" has merit and you will note that I listed it as a possibility. However, that wouldn't explain why Beretta forum members don't ever seem to encounter any of these flawed pistols. So that explains discrepancy 2 but not discrepancy 1.

Why would you automatically assume accurate data from a fan forum while questioning the veracity of data from TFL members?

I'm not automatically assuming anything, I'm just looking for a simple explanation that covers all the bases and I presented the best one I have come up with so far.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming that the Beretta forum results are accurate, I'm simply saying that the simplest explanation that covers both discrepancies is invalid votes on the TFL poll.

Ok, current results:

69 pistols represented in the TFL poll--11 broken blocks for a 15.9% failure rate overall.

Of the 34 pistols with 5K or less rounds, 6 of them broke blocks--17.6% failure rate.

Of the 35 pistols with 5K or more rounds, 5 of them broke blocks--14.3% failure rate.

Even more interesting is that the poll indicates that of the 10 guns that fired less than 2000 rounds, 30% of them broke a locking block.

If we're to take these results seriously then here's what we must believe.

If you fire your Beretta less than 2000 times you've got about a 1 in 3 chance of breaking your locking block.

Stick with it for around 5000 rounds and now your chances of breaking a block are just under 1 in 6.

If you can keep going past 5000 rounds you have about a 1 in 7 chance of breaking a locking block.

 

[railroader]

Well I know it's not a beretta but I have a taurus pt99 that was made in 1989. I am the second owner. The 1st owner said he put 500 rounds through it I'd say I put about the same. Well the block broke last sunday and locked up the pistol. Taurus is sending me another block. Mark`

 

[HorseSoldier]

The "borderline design flaw problem" theory is inconsistent with the apparently similar durability of the 96 pistols which subject their locking blocks to significantly more abuse and yet do not seem to experience locking block failures at a signficantly higher rate.

Smaller sample size comparing 96s and 92s may be something to consider when comparing durability issues between the two.

I kind of suspect that the inclusion of a shock buffer as standard on the Beretta 90-Two pistols to be supportive of the borderline design flaw theory. Official advertising is recoil reduction, but I don't know of anyone who really complains about the 92/M9 being snappy, so there must be some reason Beretta increased their production cost on the 90-Twos to add the buffer.

 

[Chindo18Z]

JohnKSa: I'm just pointing out two discrepancies and offering a possible explanation for the discrepancies.

Discrepancy 1: The poll here and the poll at the Beretta forum provided VERY different results. The Beretta forum results, even with many more responses, indicate no failures at all under 5K rounds and a much lower overall failure rate.

Discrepancy 2: The TFL poll results indicate that new locking blocks break at more than double the rate of locking blocks that have been subjected to a lot of use. It's not often that metal fatigue shows up more in new parts than it does in much-used parts.

JohnKSa: Both of those discrepancies indicate that something is wrong somewhere and the simplest explanation for what could be wrong is that the TFL poll got some invalid votes in the "broke in under 5K" rounds categories.

Quote:
Chindo18Z: Why is that the simplest explanation?

JohnKSa: Because it is the simplest explanation that explains both discrepancies, not just one.

Actually, an equally simple explanation is that many of the Beretta Forum votes are invalid.

JohnKSa: To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming that the Beretta forum results are accurate, I'm simply saying that the simplest explanation that covers both discrepancies is invalid votes on the TFL poll.

Reversing your logic again..."I'm not assuming that the TFL forum results are accurate, I'm simply saying that the simplest explanation that covers both discrepancies is invalid votes on the Beretta poll."

JohnKSa: The "borderline design flaw problem" theory is inconsistent with the apparently similar durability of the 96 pistols which subject their locking blocks to significantly more abuse and yet do not seem to experience locking block failures at a signficantly higher rate.

Conjecture and assumption. We haven't yet even nailed down the 92's problems. I wouldn't assume 96 perfection.

BTW: Do .40 cal 96s use identically dimensioned locking blocks, barrel exteriors, & slide/breech machining when compared to 9mm 92s? I would suspect not, but I honestly do not know.

The reason I suspect the TFL poll data is because it implies that new blocks are more likely to break than blocks that have seen a lot of use. That is counter to my understanding of metal fatigue.

But dovetails neatly with my conjecture that a lot of Berettas leave the factory with poorly designed/executed parts. In that case, I'd expect early failure. All guns and all parts are not necessarily produced uniformly equal in quality. Any minor change to tolerances or metallurgy could push a blueprinted design to early failure. I have seen exactly the same problem in a certain design of standard parachutes fielded to the military.

I will also remind everyone of something I've mentioned before.

Think about this. How many fellow shooters do you ACTUALLY KNOW who have the free time...the inclination...the consistent dedication to practice...and the $wallet$...to put MULTIPLE TENS OF THOUSANDS of rounds through ONE pistol.

How many have you even met or heard of? There are probably only a few thousand on this forum (and many are probably not even owners of Berettas). Competitive shooters? Check. Sponsored shooters? Check. Military & LEO with access to free ranges and ammo? Check. Range and Shooting Industry Employees? Check. The occasional well-monied Hobbiest and Itinerant Tactical School Student? Check.

But most of us? A couple of hundred to a couple of thousand rounds a year through any one of our multiple pistols...

The person who only owns ONE pistol? He/She has a busy life and bills to pay. Only out to the range once in a while more often than not.

Hence MY distrust of anonymus poll votes. Folks get bridled at the suggestion that their toy is anything less than perfect...and probably feel compelled to vote in an imaginary number of rounds in support of their chosen firearm. It's human nature. If the shoe fits...wear it.

I wouldn't care if every poll vote on the internet said that all Berettas are faultless through 500,000 rounds. I work around the weapon everyday. I've owned several. I have had the opportunity to personally observe the results of extended use across a pool of several thousand examples. What I've observed is locking block (and trigger return spring) failure. YMMV.

To this point, the only things solidly evident to ME are...

1. GIGO (nobody seems to actually trust polls)
2. Civilian Beretta 92s DO fail (in fairly significant numbers ~15%)
3. Factory engineering fixes indicate that Beretta acknowledges M92 failures
4. Beretta Forum members seem to love their M92s more than TFL members
5. Thus far, this partisan thread has remained civil and lucid (fairly unusual)

Anyway, time to go make the doughnuts...

 

[JohnKSa]

Actually, an equally simple explanation is that many of the Beretta Forum votes are invalid.

It is simple but it doesn't explain why the TFL poll results indicate that blocks in guns that have been shot little break more frequently than blocks in guns that have been shot a lot.

..."I'm not assuming that the TFL forum results are accurate, I'm simply saying that the simplest explanation that covers both discrepancies is invalid votes on the Beretta poll."

Except it doesn't cover both discrepancies as I've noted above repeatedly. There is a discrepancy that is ONLY reflected in the TFL poll data that indicates that blocks in guns that have been shot very little break more than blocks in guns that have been shot a lot. That discrepancy has nothing to do with the Beretta forum poll results and therefore can not be explained by anything having to do with the Beretta forum poll results.

I wouldn't assume 96 perfection.

Strawman. I haven't so much as implied perfection in either pistol. The only point I made was that if the 92 pistols are borderline in terms of locking block design fragility then 96 pistols should break blocks at a MUCH higher rate than 92 pistols since they stress the blocks significantly more. I've not seen any data that so much as implies that 96 pistols break blocks at a much higher rate than 92 pistols.

Think about this. How many fellow shooters do you ACTUALLY KNOW who have the free time...the inclination...the consistent dedication to practice...and the $wallet$...to put MULTIPLE TENS OF THOUSANDS of rounds through ONE pistol.

I know a few. It's not that common but it's not vanishingly rare or anything. I've seen data that suggests that amongst shooting enthusiasts something like 1 in 10 will put 25K or more rounds through a single handgun. I'd say that dovetails reasonably well with my sample set of personal friends who are shooters.

Hence MY distrust of anonymus poll votes.

Interestingly and ironically, I made a similar statement earlier in this thread and you've been taking me to task for it ever since.

2. Civilian Beretta 92s DO fail (in fairly significant numbers ~15%)

What, you mean based on anonymous poll results? It seems that you trust them pretty well when they support your point. It would be more accurate to say that: "Based on the poll results they fail at a rate of somewhere around 5% to 18%."

3. Factory engineering fixes indicate that Beretta acknowledges M92 failures

Yes, this is pretty much beyond debate. Of course I'm not aware of any design with decent longevity that hasn't been improved upon to some extent or another over time.

 

[Homerboy]

I know several guys who have put more than 10,000 rounds through their guns, and that includes 92's. You own a gun for 15 years and 10,000 rounds is hardly even used.

This whole argument is dumb. Ask an old soldier how great the 1911's were . My Uncle brought his back from Vietnam. Talk about rebuilt! This thing probably stormed the beach at Normandy. Wasn't an original part in the gun. And while we're on the topic of 1911's, anyone care to answer WHY they cost so much, when a S&W 4506 or a Glock .45 will fire the same bullet? And why do gunsmiths have "1911 tune-up packages" that cost several hundred dollars? Yet nobody would ever trash the 1911 like they trash the 92. If you buy an M1 or M1 carbine from CMP, you're gonna get a gun put together from bins of used parts. Guess what? Soldier's guns gets used, ALOT! They're gonna need servicing MORE OFTEN.



The Beretta 92 is a great weapon. WHEN they break, it is usually the locking block or a trigger spring. The trigger spring cost a few dollars, and a locking block maybe 50 bucks. Not a big price to pay for owning such a quality built firearm. There is NO gun I have ever handled that feels as smooth as any of my 92's. Slide feels like it's rolling on ball bearings. So I picked up a couple of locking blocks over the years. Never had to use one yet. If I do, I'll pop it in an continue to love the gun.

 

[Hommbs]

I had one break and it was pretty high count and an older square cut one. I was hoping it was isolated to the square cut ones, but I see a lot of the round cut ones failing too here.

 

[Homerboy]

There's a thread on here regarding a Glock kaboom. Do some research and there are others. Despite this, the Glock still sells and is very popular. whenever I see a pic of a 92 being used in Iraq, I always look closely at it. Usually look very worn.

My 92's have never let me down. I don't shoot more than 1000 rounds a year through any of them, and I have a few locking blocks on hand. The 92 just feels perfect in my hand. It is smooth as silk and the slide feels like it rolls on ball bearings. I am super accurate with it, blowing out the center of a target at 15 yards, rapid fire. For all the benefits it gives me, I'll accept that the locking block MAY break, just like a part may break on any machine.

I have sold other guns to get MORE 92's. mags are cheap and available, holsters and other accessories are everywhere. The one thing I will concede is is isn't the best candidate for concealed carry, but they do offer the Centurion and the type M single stack for Beretta fans. I have the Centurion, and it is fine for concealed carry.