Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "South Africa's Berettas: The Vektor Z88 and SP1" video.

As I know there had not been any fallout. Taurus' plant was originally made by Beretta to manufacture guns for the Brazilian Army (a contract Beretta won in 1974). When the contract expired Beretta sold the plant with all the tooling to Taurus, that could start producing its own 92 clone, because at that point the patent expired too. Beretta didn't care, because at that time Taurus could only manufacture clones of the original 92 (the model whose patent expired) while Beretta was manufacturing the 92F already.
4
Probably post-war production regularly purchased.
3
Why? The clones hardly prevent Beretta from selling any gun (they are aimed to a lower market segment), while the existence of the clones testifies of the soundness of the design.
3
Some year before Tanfoglio reverse-engineered the CZ75. They surely didn't have the blueprints, they had not government aid, and I would be really surprised if they had more than half a dozen samples to study.
2
@ramdom_assortment That style of decocker (that Beretta introduced in the Cheetah) doesn't decock the hammer completely, but put it in half cock position. That means that debris can enter between the hammer and the firing pin when the gun is "decocked", or that they can do it before, so acting as a medium between the hammer and the firing pin when the gun should be safely decocked. Beretta/style decocker have a further level of safety. the hammer is completely decocked, so it seals the space behind the firing pin, AND the firing pin is out of the way when the gun is decocked, so nothing moved by the hammer can hit it. As said, that is the safest place to put a decocker. One can like other ways to make it, but there is a reason if Beretta puts it there.
2
In 1983 Taurus could manufacture 92 clones without any licence because the patent already expired. Beretta knew it when they sold them the plant with all the tooling, but they didn't care, because Taurus, at the time, could legally only clone the original 92, while Beretta already designed the 92S, 92SB and 92F, three furter steps of evolution. The patent of the model Vektor wanted to copy instead didn't expire yet, so they needed a licence. Today the patent of the 92F/M9 long expired too, infact Girsan can manufacture a copy without any licence.
1
Well, some year before Tanfoglio reverse-engineered the CZ75. They surely didn't have the blueprints, they had not government aid, and I would be really surprised if they had more than half a dozen samples to study.
1
@denzilvenske6315 Now they don't interchange, because Tanfoglio, starting from its original clone (the TZ-75) followed a different evolutionary line than CZ did. The TZ-75 was slightly different from the CZ-75 too (both aesthetically, and mechanically, since it had a beretta-style slide mounted decocker) but all those changes were intended as improvements, not dictated by an incapability to copy the original gun. Infact, placing the slide assembly of a gun over the frame of the other, it still worked flawlessly.
1
That's the safest place to put a decocker actually (since it rotates the firing pin out of the way of the hammer), and a SA/DA service gun NEED a decocker. The safety instead is usually required by the armed forces. The SP1 has a 1911/style safety simply because is simpler to manufacture.
1