imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old 09-09-2013, 05:20 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
I think it's also a matter of need. Anyone who truly needed a better sidearm like aviators and special warfare units already got better pistols. I guess whoever was left didn't really have a pressing need.

What was the reasoning behind moving the safety on the Beretta 92 up to the slide? I know the army had a long-time hard-on for the Walther P38, but the frame-mounted safety just seems to make more sense ergonomically and intuitively.
The slide mounted safety allows for a really simple and reliable firing pin safety. Turning the safety to the on position rotates a piece that contains the separate rear portion of the firing pin (think they call it a transfer pin), meaning that if the hammer falls with the safety on there is no possible way for it to hit the firing pin. The first Beretta variant that had the slide safety was the S though and I don't think they did the firing pin block until the SB, so I'm not sure what the original reason was. It may have been easier to make a safety/decocker rather than a plain safety work on the slide rather than the frame, but Taurus manage it with their newer guns so it's a mystery to me.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.