Quote:
Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR
Anyone have any expereince with these? I've got one on layaway and have some plans on doing a bit of work to it, but want to make sure these things arent full of problems.
|
Think in 1911 terms. You're taking a gun, changing its caliber (to something significantly more powerful in this case), then shrinking the overall size of the gun. Result: less than perfect.
The 96-series guns were not known for their durability and generally exhibited less reliability -- in some cases dramatically less -- than their 9mm counterparts. While I'm a big fan of the 9mm 92-series, the .40-cal guns are
not their equal. As a range toy that will never see more than a few thousand rounds, sure. As a gun I'd rely on for home & hearth, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR
I do get some .40 ammo, but I'm thinking about grabbing a Bar Sto barrel and rechambering the gun to 357 Sig. 
|
Did that to the beefed-up Brigadier (Elite I, actually) in 1999/2000. Frame cracked in multiple places within a relatively small number of rounds ... I want to say 4-5,000 but it's been a decade. Beretta magnafluxed and dye penetrant tested my gun and in part because of that they never produced a 357 SIG variant of the 90-series guns.
edited to add: Thinking back, I recall that Beretta's head tech guru Drew Ursin and one of their sales reps (Brian Felter) actually tried to make a 357 SIG Centurion a year or two before I started working there. The test results were such that by the time I showed up, everyone already knew the 357 concept wouldn't work but since my gun
appeared fine to the naked eye, I insisted they test it.
Moral of the story: if you absolutely must have a 96 Centurion, do
not put a 357 barrel in it.