Beretta 92X Performance: not suitable for serious use

[Stubb]

Here's why I'm no longer shooting a Beretta 92X Performance and recommend avoiding the platform and company behind it.

I owned three of the guns, two purchased retail and one a warranty replacement. The barrel on the first one cracked at 20k rounds shooting my 130 PF reloads. The second one cracked at 17k rounds with the same ammo.

None of these guns had sufficient extractor tension from the factory and would jam in a manner like in the pictures every hundred rounds or so. Swapping in a WC extra-power spring and putting in the home-brew shim did resolve that problem.

Beretta's response was that most people don't have these problems because they don't shoot as much as I do. All their guns go through rigorous quality control checks before leaving the factory, and I voided the warranty by shooting my reloads. So there’s no reason to think replacements would last more than 20k rounds.

They agreed to buy the guns back from me in early January ($3k total). I returned them (one with a cracked barrel, the other the warranty replacement with my extractor mods) and patiently waited for a check. On March 27, I get this check for $720.62 marked "92X AND TOMCAT DIFFERENCE". What does a Tomcat have to do with anything?

Maybe I’ll get my money back, and maybe I won’t. At this point I’ve moved on.

 

[BLIP]

In for final verdict.

 

[Twitch2120]

Curious that both barrels cracked on the serial number. I would argue that 17k sounds like a reasonable service life for a barrel considering 99% would never see that round count but I understand your frustration. The fact you got any kind of return at all is impressive. Good luck

 

[cmshoot]

I ran 5 totally stock SIG P229’s in .357SIG to 40,000rds each, and they were still fully functional at those round counts.

In all that time, I broke 1 extractor and 1 decocking lever spring.

It’s a shame that a 9mm handgun that Beretta puts an MSRP of $1600 on won’t make it half as far as a base model P229 in a caliber with a greater chamber pressure. I’ve always been a huge Beretta fan, so this isn’t something I’m happy to see.

 

[Ken Ford]

Reloads…

 

[Stubb]

It’s a shame that a 9mm handgun that Beretta puts an MSRP of $1600 on won’t make it half as far as a base model P229 in a caliber with a greater chamber pressure. I’ve always been a huge Beretta fan, so this isn’t something I’m happy to see.

If it’s any consolation, aluminum-framed Berettas still seem to be doing fine. The problems appear limited to their steel-framed competition models. Which is kinda funny when you think about it—the pistols being sold to people who will shoot a lot don’t hold up to being shot a lot.

it’s funny that the ammo I’m loading for USPSA fires a 124 gr. bullet at roughly 1050 fps, which is on the mild side for factory loads. I took a Shadow 2 and a Glock 34 past 50k rounds on that ammo without incident. And buddies of mine are putting heavy round counts on those guns with 147 gr. Gold Dot bullets at the same velocity

 

[avmtdan]

Im impressed the guns can take that kind of round count and just have a barrel issue or any manufacturer can do 17k rounds without serious failure. Also, the primer looks puckered on your double feed. You also spent around 5x the cost of the gun in ammo, shouldnt you expect a failure?

 

[Cobalt 60]

Im impressed the guns can take that kind of round count and just have a barrel issue or any manufacturer can do 17k rounds without serious failure. Also, the primer looks puckered on your double feed. You also spent around 5x the cost of the gun in ammo, shouldnt you expect a failure?

Not on a serious competition gun, which these purport to be.

 

[Stubb]

Im impressed the guns can take that kind of round count and just have a barrel issue or any manufacturer can do 17k rounds without serious failure. Also, the primer looks puckered on your double feed. You also spent around 5x the cost of the gun in ammo, shouldnt you expect a failure?

The 92XP has heavy relief cut around the firing-pin hole. That’s how primers look after being fired in one.

17k rounds is nothing. I’d expect the gun to require lube and basic cleaning with that round count. Any parts breakage so suddenly would raise eyebrows. I say this as someone who has run several pistols past 50k.

My ammo cost peaked around $0.18/round. So 17k rounds is roughly $3k or about twice the cost of the gun.

 

[cmshoot]

Im impressed the guns can take that kind of round count and just have a barrel issue or any manufacturer can do 17k rounds without serious failure. Also, the primer looks puckered on your double feed. You also spent around 5x the cost of the gun in ammo, shouldnt you expect a failure?

At my old agency, we carried the SIG P229 .357SIG, a cartridge which has quite a bit more chamber pressure than the handloads the OP was using.

At 40,000 rounds we turned our SIG’s in for a new one. After 18 years, I was on my 6th P229. The first 5 went to approximately 40,000 rounds, and all were still running just fine when I turned them in. In those 5 P229’s, with a total of approximately 200,000 rounds, I broke exactly 2 parts; a decocking lever spring and an extractor. The former was no big deal, the gun still ran. Obviously, a broken extractor is a deal breaker in regards to functioning, but a quick and easy fix.

17,000rds of 9mm should be nothing to a quality handgun.