A
Critical Look at the Beretta Cougar 8000F
Article and
Photographs by Wayne D. Wright
Much has already been written about the Cougar and no doubt there will be more to come. With this in mind, I have decided to take a somewhat different approach to this fine pistol. What I hope to do is give a primer, if you will, intended for those who are familiar with Beretta pistols in general but who have not had the opportunity to take a closer look at this amazing firearm.
To me, it is remarkable how similar the Cougar is to the 92FS yet at the same time how strikingly different the two are. The Cougar was released in 1994 as a smaller, more concealable alternative to the 92FS, which was already in service with many armed forces and police departments across the globe. I remember seeing it splashed across the pages of all the gun rags and subsequently thinking to myself "Oh look, a rotating barrel. That'll never last." Sadly, I was right, but not because it is a bad design. On the contrary. Now that I've had time to familiarize myself with its rotating barrel, locked breech design I can honestly say I'm amazed at the simplicity of the mechanism.
Both the 92FS and the 8000F employ a DA/SA trigger arrangement and are fed from a double-column magazine. Other shared features include the use of a block to facilitate lock-up between the barrel and slide, a take-down lever to release said block from the frame, a slide-mounted safety/decocking lever, an external transfer (or trigger) bar, and a firing pin block that positively prohibits any forward movement of the pin until the trigger is depressed fully to the rear. Both frames are constructed from aluminum alloy, while the slides and barrel, on Bruniton models, are carbon steel. Earlier Cougars use a magazine catch that is not interchangeable with the 92FS but that was changed in later models as well as the new Stoeger Cougars. To fully illustrate the similarities and differences, I've taken some comparative photographs. The detailed specifications for the Cougar series of pistols are still available on the Beretta International Website.
Beretta 8000F
Beretta 8000F
All Beretta handgun frames made in Italy will have a date code stamped on the frame in the vicinity of the trigger. The code on my Cougar is BF, which indicates a 1995 date of manufacture. Sadly, American frame pistols lack this feature.
92FS(PS) Side by Side with the 8000F
Viewing the pistols side-by-side, the lineage becomes immediately apparent. The shape of the grips, safety levers, triggers, trigger guards and hammers make it plainly obvious to even the uninitiated that these pistols are unmistakably Beretta. The most notable differences are the overall length of the two and the shape of the Cougar's grip frame. I find it to be the most natural pointing, comfortable double-column pistol I've ever handled. I dearly love my 92FS and have learned to shoot it rather well over the years, but the first time I picked up the Cougar, it was true love. The deeply-radiused backstrap allows for a very high grip. That, combined with the lack of curvature of the back strap, makes it very easy for those of us with medium hands to get a proper firing grip on the pistol, even allowing access to the safety levers.
Field Stripped Frames
Looking at the field stripped frames, the design similarities become even more apparent. Towards the hammer end of the frame, you can easily see that the ejector, hammer and the firing pin catch lever are almost all identical. Even though the slide locks have slightly different lines externally, they are virtually the same internally where the catch engages the magazine follower. On both models, the slide lock spring end protrudes down through the frame to retain the trigger pin. From this side view, you can see the take-down lever on the Cougar requires only 45 degrees of movement compared to the 92FS, which requires a full 90-degree turn. To keep these levers in place, both pistols utilize a spring-loaded lock. The Cougar's lock release button is round while the release on the 92FS is oval shaped. This is because the spring on the Cougar fits right over the lock's shaft, while on the 92FS the spring is offset to the side and resides in corresponding recesses in both the frame and the button itself. This arrangement is by far the easiest take down method I've ever used.
* * *
Top View, Cougar Above, 92FS Below
From the top, you really get a sense of what's the same and what's different. The areas called out by the red arrows indicate where the take down levers go through the frame and secure the blocks. You can also see the different approach taken to the trigger and trigger spring taken on the Cougar. For the Cougar, the engineers chose a double-arm "mouse trap" type spring compared to the single-arm spring visible in the 92FS frame. Externally, the Cougar trigger is almost identical to the 92FS, however there are two recesses machined into the back of the trigger to accommodate the dual legs. Taking a good look at the slide locks from this viewpoint allows you to see just how similar they are. In fact, aft of the magazine well everything is similar in appearance and identical in function. Sadly, the hammers are not interchangeable.
* * *
Top, side view. Cougar aft, 92FS forward
The image above allows us to see that for all their similarities, the frames facilitate two vastly different lock-up systems. The recesses needed for the falling block of the 92FS are visible on the closer of the two frames above. The complexity of these cuts still leaves me amazed that Beretta can offer this pistol at such a reasonable price. The Cougar frame looks comparatively un-complicated, but that is only because the "magic" is all contained in the Cougar's central block, pictured below.
Cougar Central Block and 92FS With Barrel and Block Installed
With the central block installed, you get half of the story. The concave areas forward and aft of the camming tooth act as bearing surfaces for the barrel, while the tooth itself fits in a machined slot on the barrel (Beretta calls this slot a "double cam" in the 8000F manual) to facilitate the rotation needed to lock and unlock the barrel from the slide. Just for illustrative purposes, the 92FS barrel is shown in the rear, unlocked position. When the slide comes forward, the barrel is pushed forward and the "wings" on the locking block ride up the ramps and into the matching recesses in the slide, effectively locking the barrel to the slide. The Cougar's block, on the other hand, does not move at all. It remains securely locked in place while the slide forces the barrel to rotate as the double cam rotates along the tooth. The double cam is visible in the image below.
Barrel In Slide, Showing Double Cam and Corresponding Surfaces of the Central Block
Pictured above is the other half of the story--the double cam. In this image, you should get an idea of how the two parts match up and facilitate the rotational action needed to lock and unlock the barrel from the slide. Beretta advertised heavily that this type of action can reduce felt recoil because a portion of the recoil energy is channeled into the rotation of the barrel. While I can't say I've definitely noted a reduction in felt recoil, I will say that the recoil felt is "different" than that of the 92FS and even different than the Browning type tilting actions employed by just about everyone else in the gun business. You will have to judge for yourself. One other thing I note from this image is the amount of machining required to make this whole thing work. There is a lot more to the central block than is evident in this picture, but I can understand why the 92FS survives to this day and the Cougar did not. Money. With the 92FS being the U.S. military contract pistol, and sluggish civilian and L. E. sales, the Cougar was kind of left out in the cold, so to speak. I think it's unfortunate that the 8000 was never picked up by our military as an "officer's" model to go with the M9 or even as a compact sidearm for the military investigative services. I understand why it wasn't, but I think the Cougar does an excellent job of addressing the "shortcomings" presented by the M9 haters without sacrificing any firepower.
* * *
Slides With Barrels and Blocks
In this final image above, we can see a bit more of the complexity present in the Cougar's central block. What appears to be a channel is a hole drilled right through the block for the recoil spring and guide. Also of note is the channel indicated by the arrow. Astute observers will recognize this as the channel needed for clearance of the enlarged hammer pin head, and it is visible in the 92FS slide pictured. That Beretta included this modification on the Cougar is very curious to me. For those who aren't familiar with the story, this channel is part of the safety mod that changed the 92F to the 92FS. The enlarged hammer pin head rides in this channel, and prohibits the rear portion of a failed (cracked) 92FS slide from being ejected off the frame, causing injury to the operator. To my knowledge, there has never been a reported case of a Cougar slide failure so I'm going to venture that Beretta wanted to be able to tell the military that the Cougar had all the same safety features as the 92FS. Either that, or they had a lot of 92FS hammer pins laying around when they were designing the Cougar. Either way, you're not going to get a face full of slide in the event of a catastrophic slide failure.
* * *
In conclusion, I think it's fair to say Beretta did an amazing job of taking what they knew worked and incorporating it in a completely different pistol. It makes me immensely happy that this excellent design has been resurrected and is now being manufactured under the Stoeger name and offered at a very reasonable price. This move should enable thousands more to get to know, and love, this great pistol.
Even though this one is a definite keeper, there are a few points of contention. First, I find the hammer end of the slide to be a bit sharp for my taste. The obvious answer is to keep my hand far away from the slide when it's cycling, but it could've been addressed at the factory, as on the Stoeger offering. Second, if I take too high of a grip, I get some hammer bite for my trouble. Again, the easy answer is to keep my hand away from the moving parts when they are moving. Finally, there is the issue of aesthetics that invariably comes up when people mention the Cougar. I personally find it to be an extremely sharp looking pistol--very business-like. I've always been a believer in "form follows function" and I think this pistol should be the design model for that phrase. Not all agree, and I would venture that some would rather see the Cougars melted down and forged into more 92 Elites! Regarding function, it has fired every time I've pressed the trigger with a live round chambered, and that's more than I can say for some pistols. Equally as important, I have not experienced a jam of any kind. A friend of mine, having recently fired this pistol for the first time, commented that it felt "mechanical". I would have to agree, and I think that's a good thing.
Regrettable is the lack of a long-slide version to compliment the short-gripped Mini Cougar. Perhaps this was not feasible because of the rotating barrel but I'm sure it could have improved accuracy and would've been poplular with competiton shooters who desire every extra bit of barrel they can get. Also strangely absent is the apparent lack of an after market rail kit. Given the dust cover's squarish geometry (required for the central block to slide into the frame from the front) it would seem this pistol should've been a natural for the conversion. Thankfully the Cougar's release pre-dates the now-common practice of sticking a rail on any exposed inch of pistol frame. I'm sure rails are just ducky for Force Recon Marines, but I'm not a fan.
Thanks for taking the time, and I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. But what's more important, I hope it helps you to a better understanding of the Cougar series of pistols and perhaps even convinces you that this fine pistol is worth your time and hard-earned money.