Tam tries to replace the sights on a Beretta PX4 Storm and discovers a quality control problem. Sounds like whatever program they use to generate the toolpaths from their CAD drawings didn’t quite get things right. That happens. But hey, that’s why you run one off and examine it closely before doing your production runs. I think Jason, when he was experimenting with making a one-off CNC AR-15 pistol and CNC 1911 (still in progress, pending Delorean engine rebuild), went through several mistakes before getting things right. The mistake is understandable, but selling the mistake is not.
UPDATE: “Beretta says it’s in the drawings and is a stress relief cut.“
Beretta says it’s in the drawings as a stress relief cut.
So now we ask Meprolight why their front sight doesn’t have a full-width base to cover the hole?
Looks more like a Blog FAIL:
From Matteo at Beretta USA:
“…the cut you’re referring to is NOT a CNC mistake. The cut is present on all Px4 Compact pistols (I’m surprised your gunsmith did not mention it,) and represents a stress-relief cut. The cut is therefore not a flaw in manufacturing, but a planned and justified piece of engineering and designing.â€
Dave,
“Looks more like a Blog FAIL”
Looks like a Dave comment FAIL. Did you even read my comment above yours, or did you just start typin’?
So the inflammatory title is still ok?
You know, the one that says “Beretta CNC Failâ€
Did you read the title or just start typing’?
See where it says “UPDATE”?
When we make mistakes we correct them; we don’t erase them and pretend they never happened.
I’m not altering the title. Anyone who finds the article will also find the update, where the record is corrected. If anything, leaving the full context up makes me look bad, not Beretta. So I don’t see what the problem is.
I find that high-def photos do the same thing to me.
I applaud your integrity in following a simple plan. Admit a mistake and post the correction ALONG with the original. Airbrusing is unethical in my view. Good on you.