How a Beretta 92 is made: Touring Beretta's Italian Factory

[FNBROWNING]

Early days? The PX4's production started 2004 as far as I know.

I think a major blowback for the PX4 was the Canadians that ran it dry and thus had major malfunctions with them. The word spread.

I do believe the PX4 is at least on par with the 92. I prefer mine above 92. Maybe because I do not have a 92. But shot enough of them.

The big sand problem was not action-wise. The old straight wall magazines (or flat magazines) malfunctioned. You will get that same problem with other pistols with straight wall magazines.

This is a while ago, but, as Oafpatrol sort of raised, there was a "deal" with ammunition supply from Sig that clinched the deal.


Sent from my BV8900 using Tapatalk

Poor wording on my part. Early days for me. That said I believe enough in them that I bought 3. Possibly the most accurate service pistol that I have ever shot.

[A-R]

This is an interesting debate re dust ingress affecting reliability. The dirt can easily fall into the action, but conversely it can easily fall out. Did any other pistol manufacturers subsequently design handguns with an open slide? Even the follow-up model to the z88, the Vektor SP1 went with a closed slide.

That had nothing to do with dirt ingress, but rather with Beretta getting angry about the pirate copy of their 92F model.
The SP1 could be made on the same machinery and shared most internal parts, but had enough differences to not cause a copyright issue.

Few people know that guns are usually patented, but these patents expire after some time. The Glock 17 and 19 Gen 3 being a prime example.
However, the "look" (cosmetics) of a pistol (or other gun, object) is still the intellectual property (IP) of the maker, and does not lapse or expire.
So what we are seeing copies of many guns, eg. Glocks, with cosmetic changes, but identical or close to identical internal designs. The operation of the parts is covered by the patents, which eventually expire, but the cosmetics are still protected as IP. Just the Chinese don't care, the Norinco NP7 being an example.
There are many copies of the classic Beretta 92:
Taurus is licensed. In fact, they bought the whole factory from Beretta, IP included.
Not sure where Girsan (Y16) stands. They might just have an agreement with Beretta.
LEW (Z88) definitely did not have any licencing agreement with Beretta.
Same with Llama, when they made the M82 pistol. Clearly B92 internals, but changed cosmetics (and closed top slides). Now you know where LEW got some design cues...

[Johann du Toit]

That had nothing to do with dirt ingress, but rather with Beretta getting angry about the pirate copy of their 92F model.
The SP1 could be made on the same machinery and shared most internal parts, but had enough differences to not cause a copyright issue.

Few people know that guns are usually patented, but these patents expire after some time. The Glock 17 and 19 Gen 3 being a prime example.
However, the "look" (cosmetics) of a pistol (or other gun, object) is still the intellectual property (IP) of the maker, and does not lapse or expire.
So what we are seeing copies of many guns, eg. Glocks, with cosmetic changes, but identical or close to identical internal designs. The operation of the parts is covered by the patents, which eventually expire, but the cosmetics are still protected as IP. Just the Chinese don't care, the Norinco NP7 being an example.
There are many copies of the classic Beretta 92:
Taurus is licensed. In fact, they bought the whole factory from Beretta, IP included.
Not sure where Girsan (Y16) stands. They might just have an agreement with Beretta.
LEW (Z88) definitely did not have any licencing agreement with Beretta.
Same with Llama, when they made the M82 pistol. Clearly B92 internals, but changed cosmetics (and closed top slides). Now you know where LEW got some design cues...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Taurus PT92 is based on the design of an earlier Beretta 92 model for which the patent expired.

[paulnb]

That had nothing to do with dirt ingress, but rather with Beretta getting angry about the pirate copy of their 92F model.
The SP1 could be made on the same machinery and shared most internal parts, but had enough differences to not cause a copyright issue.

Few people know that guns are usually patented, but these patents expire after some time. The Glock 17 and 19 Gen 3 being a prime example.
However, the "look" (cosmetics) of a pistol (or other gun, object) is still the intellectual property (IP) of the maker, and does not lapse or expire.
So what we are seeing copies of many guns, eg. Glocks, with cosmetic changes, but identical or close to identical internal designs. The operation of the parts is covered by the patents, which eventually expire, but the cosmetics are still protected as IP. Just the Chinese don't care, the Norinco NP7 being an example.
There are many copies of the classic Beretta 92:
Taurus is licensed. In fact, they bought the whole factory from Beretta, IP included.
Not sure where Girsan (Y16) stands. They might just have an agreement with Beretta.
LEW (Z88) definitely did not have any licencing agreement with Beretta.
Same with Llama, when they made the M82 pistol. Clearly B92 internals, but changed cosmetics (and closed top slides). Now you know where LEW got some design cues...

Thank you for the detailed explanation. It makes sense.

[FNBROWNING]

The latter Z88's had Beretta Licence in small print on the slide.That is if my memory is correct.

[Heath Robinson]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Taurus PT92 is based on the design of an earlier Beretta 92 model for which the patent expired.

One cannot patent a pistol as a whole.
One can only patent specific design features or combinations thereoff, and only if they are new.

[oafpatroll]

As per A-Rs post above my understanding is that the Vektor SP pistols were styled differently to avoid licensing fees to Beretta despite being mechanical clones.