Walther Forums banner

141 - 160 of 160 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
Sharing some basic engineering components, like the Browning breech, and sharing all details, are two different things.
A P38 and an M9 aren't the same gun, but they do share more than a common lockup.
It's all in matters of degree.
Moon

So true.


And the "degree" is measurable on a test target.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
That all sounds good, but handgun accuracy is MEASURABLE.


As I mentioned in a previous post, TWO of my 3.5" barrel P5s came with handheld/bench rested targets showing sub 1" groups (8 rds) @ 25 meters.


Someone PLEASE show me a 92 25m test target with sub 1" accuracy. Just one!
Whoa there... a P5 is not a P38. Very different eras and a more precise build vs two mass production military pistols. They just look similar, they couldn’t be more different in mission, design and production.

My target pistols are pretty good. By the way, I have seen plenty of berettas in the hands of good marksmen shoot tiny groups. Although to me pistols are just tools, I will clarify their similarities make them all good. My first generation semi auto war relics could still get the job done and I have a WWI 1911 rebuilt in 1942 that shoots really straight.

Keep in mind. Just to be considered for use as a military pistol in the US you have to turn over a pistol that shoots 3 inches at 50 yards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
That all sounds good, but handgun accuracy is MEASURABLE.


As I mentioned in a previous post, TWO of my 3.5" barrel P5s came with handheld/bench rested targets showing sub 1" groups (8 rds) @ 25 meters.


Someone PLEASE show me a 92 25m test target with sub 1" accuracy. Just one!
Machine rest and factory "targets" are all fine and dandy, but have you ever replicated any of your factory target groups? I have a Beretta 92FS with Barsto barrel that has been shot two hands over a bench and groups darn near 1" at 25 yards, and that is for real. David Sams, a bulleseye pistolsmith works on Berettas and can deliver a 92 that will do 2" at 50 yards, the bullseye standard of quality. I have some marvelously accurate guns, and it is gun to gun, no particular make or model promises 1" at 25 meters (except maybe the older P210's from SIG), as the Swiss demanded 50 meter test groups. After all, in the real world, it boils down to what a pistol can do in the hands of a shooter, and is probably more limited to the skill of that shooter than the intrinsic accuracy of the gun. When you can knock 8 ping pong balls off golf tees at 25 yards with your P5 and one magazine, I'll be impressed. I can't do it. Well, maybe 4-5 out of 8...............:) PS: I can't do photo's online, but can send in a email. I'll send you a tsrget from my 92FS if you PM me your email.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
Whoa there... a P5 is not a P38. Very different eras and a more precise build vs two mass production military pistols. They just look similar, they couldn’t be more different in mission, design and production.

My target pistols are pretty good. By the way, I have seen plenty of berettas in the hands of good marksmen shoot tiny groups. Although to me pistols are just tools, I will clarify their similarities make them all good. My first generation semi auto war relics could still get the job done and I have a WWI 1911 rebuilt in 1942 that shoots really straight.

Keep in mind. Just to be considered for use as a military pistol in the US you have to turn over a pistol that shoots 3 inches at 50 yards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I stated the P5 was the final evolution of the P38 earlier in this thread, and the P38 had a muzzle end lockup, similar to the P5, and LACKING entirely in the 92 design. Sorry about that.


Still waiting for a 92 target!


SOMEONE at Beretta forums SHOULD be able to provide a bench test 92 vid, yet one is NOT to be found. Some of those members got pre-production WC/B 92G Brig Tacs to review, and Wilson Combat factory tours. Yet no accuracy vids? Or test targets?


And FWIW, what Beretta Italy provided for testing over 30 years ago is a far cry from the 92s Beretta USA has been producing. If the junk coming out of the MD facility were going to the military, production would have been halted due to repeat escapes of issues without proper resolution. This is coming from a manufacturing engineer, who has DONE root cause/corrective action, on military programs.


I could make the argument that the Italian 92s from the early '80s are not the same as the current US 92s, just as you stated in regard to the P38~P5.


Edit; Per your post #117, you're FAR to busy to review the first page data (and make corrections), or deal in drawn out Liturgies (I would have to assume that's "non-engineer" speak for detail differences in designs), yet here you are AGAIN.


Are you too busy or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
^^^There. Got it posted. Bit over an inch, but then it wasn't a machine rest, and could have been better. The barrel was put in the gun by Novak's, but they don't normally work on Berettas. No other accuracy work was involved except for a slightly improved trigger pull years earlier by another smith. It is an Accokeek gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
Yes, the last line of post #143 has a request for you.

Not quite.


That has a Bar Sto barrel, ALSO it's not even stock length.


Box stock 92 target please. Would really like a recent production US model, not an Italian production unit from decades ago.
As stated prior, these are more accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
Not quite.


That has a Bar Sto barrel, ALSO it's not even stock length.


Box stock 92 target please. Would really like a recent production US model, not an Italian production unit from decades ago.
As stated prior, these are more accurate.
Oh, please! Are you serious? First of all, either a barrel, of any make, is accurate, or it is not. Secondly, the sight radius, or sights for that matter, on my gun give no accuracy advantage. Thirdly, the cost, even as modified, is WAY under that of a comparable P5, or souped up P5, P38, or whatever. My very simple point is that if you have never owned, shot, handled, or otherwise have any experience with an accurate M9 type gun, you are basically expounding with little to back it up. Bring your accurate Walther on down and we'll do a little shooting. The type of gun doesn't matter. I have a stock 1952 commercial SIG P210 that is a Colt/Tokarev/MAB 1935 (it robs design from all of those) derivative shoots well, or a tuned up 1911 that does cloverleafs at 25 yards (gunsmith test target). With any of them, I am taking shotgun shells off the post at 25 yards when I do my part. We'll swap guns, get some shooting in, and learn all about practical accuracy and just how good guns are. Is Beretta even making a target version? Is Walther, with any type of test target? In any case, a Beretta can be made to shoot with the accuracy you desire, and sometimes with little investment. As far as gun quality, I like Beretta AND Walther, but even our beloved Walthers come with surprises sometimes. Like the P99 striker assembly that broke on mine, and a subsequent erratic ignition glitch that came and went on its own (gun was totally clean). Then the entire extractor assembly fell out of my P1 several years ago. Miraculously, I found all the parts and put it back together. And dropping my PPS had the changeable back strap come off and the gun was rendered "non-firing". That made me nervous, too. I still love them all, but there is no panacea of a totally reliable or perfect gun. If it fits you, and makes you happy, enjoy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
Nya, nya, nya! If Beretta put a Bar Sto barrel in a 92 and called it a match gun for $150 more, would you buy it and calm down? Simple modification, no? Actually, the stock barrel was very accurate. At the time, I just needed a barrel for suppressor work, and the slightly longer threaded ones now available were not available then, and threading a standard 4.9" barrel didn't give much mount beyond the slide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
I stated the P5 was the final evolution of the P38 earlier in this thread, and the P38 had a muzzle end lockup, similar to the P5, and LACKING entirely in the 92 design. Sorry about that.


Still waiting for a 92 target!


SOMEONE at Beretta forums SHOULD be able to provide a bench test 92 vid, yet one is NOT to be found. Some of those members got pre-production WC/B 92G Brig Tacs to review, and Wilson Combat factory tours. Yet no accuracy vids? Or test targets?


And FWIW, what Beretta Italy provided for testing over 30 years ago is a far cry from the 92s Beretta USA has been producing. If the junk coming out of the MD facility were going to the military, production would have been halted due to repeat escapes of issues without proper resolution. This is coming from a manufacturing engineer, who has DONE root cause/corrective action, on military programs.


I could make the argument that the Italian 92s from the early '80s are not the same as the current US 92s, just as you stated in regard to the P38~P5.


Edit; Per your post #117, you're FAR to busy to review the first page data (and make corrections), or deal in drawn out Liturgies (I would have to assume that's "non-engineer" speak for detail differences in designs), yet here you are AGAIN.


Are you too busy or not?
The P5 is no such thing. It is a finicky, low production special made in the last generation of quality smithing.

To support my claim, shoot a regular production P38 and a Beretta 92 pulled from the armory at Ft. Bragg. I bet the bullets go in the same holes... because they are the same gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
Nya, nya, nya! If Beretta put a Bar Sto barrel in a 92 and called it a match gun for $150 more, would you buy it and calm down? Simple modification, no? Actually, the stock barrel was very accurate. At the time, I just needed a barrel for suppressor work, and the slightly longer threaded ones now available were not available then, and threading a standard 4.9" barrel didn't give much mount beyond the slide.

Bar-Sto pays more attention to just the crowning operation of their barrels then Berreta puts into their entire barrel.


This barrel crowning process is just about the SINGLE most critical step when it comes to accuracy at distances beyond 10 yards.


FWIW; Bar-Sto barrels have been used exclusively by the US Marine Corps Marksman Unit since 1977. They have also been in nearly every winner’s gun at the Masters, the Steel Challenge, the U.S.P.S.A. Nationals, and the Camp Perry Bullseye Nationals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
The P5 is no such thing. It is a finicky, low production special made in the last generation of quality smithing.

To support my claim, shoot a regular production P38 and a Beretta 92 pulled from the armory at Ft. Bragg. I bet the bullets go in the same holes... because they are the same gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok, I guess all those front lock-up details are invisible on the 92.


Thanks for letting us know those items are ACTUALLY there.


Have a nice day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
I intend on doing some 25yard accuracy testing of the P5/92 platforms when it cools off and the Texas winds calm down.


Should be interesting, I'll be using the 100% original (no tricky comp grade extended barrel, '89 vintage) 6" barrel Lang, not the 3.5" barrel P5s that came with sub 1" test targets (those are still NIB, after over 30 years). Will also bring along and shoot the Wilson Combat/Beretta 92G Brigadier Tactical. This gives the 92 platform a CLEAR advantage. The WC/B-92G/BT is manufactured to Bill Wilson/Ernie Langdon specified "enhanced" tolerances (tighter than a "basic" 92/M9), comp crowned stainless target barrel, well machined Trijicon B&T front and U Notch Battlesight rear sights, WC bench worked trigger assembly that is tuned during test firing at WC, also has a lighter mainspring.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
Thanks for the open mind. I'll bet the only limiting factor is the shooter. As far as barrels used by the pro's, take a look at Kart. Most of the gunsmiths I know say their name before Barsto. I opted for the Barsto just because I had a limited choice at the time, and wanted to make sure it had enough mount for threading. It could have been 1/2 to 5/8" shorter for my liking; I do not know why Barsto makes them that long. The flash hider is to protect the threading and for looking cool, but if anything, could actually detract from accuracy if the wrong harmonics occurred. I would like to see ALL current production guns come with a factory test target. It would be a marketer's genius to bring back the test target.
 
141 - 160 of 160 Posts
Top