Frame Mounted Safety Beretta 92

[Bret]

I own a Beretta 92FS Inox, a 92FS Brigadier and was recently fortunate enough to get a 92S in new condition. I love the looks, fit and finish, and reliability. I just can't stand the slide mounted safeties. Yes, I can use them, but they just don't feel as right as the frame mounted safeties on my CZ's, Tanfoglio's, Jericho's and other CZ clones. I find that I'm drawn to shoot them much more often than the Berettas. Over the past twenty years or so I've seen the price of a regular 92FS go from being $150 to $200 more than a regular CZ75 to the point now where the prices are about the same. CZ75's (and clones) seem to be growing in market share at the expense of Beretta. Why can't, or should I say won't, Beretta make a Beretta 92FS with a frame mounted safety? Most people prefer the 1911 style frame mounted safety over a slide mounted safety. I think they'd sell a ton more pistols. Beretta seems to make all sorts of 92 variants.

I recently went so far as to purchase a Taurus PT92. The fit and finish is not on par with Beretta, but for me the frame mounted safety is way better than the slide mounted safety. In fact, the trigger is also significantly better those in any of Beretta 92's. I'm not sure if that relates to how the safeties work though. The Taurus also came with a metal trigger and guide rod. Taurus definitely needs to ditch the cheap looking printing they apply to the pistols.


So why is the Beretta 92 frame mounted safety off the table? I'll even provide them free of charge with the new model designation. They can call it the Beretta 92FMS.

[El Pistolero]

Beretta has made 92s with frame-mounted safeties, it's just a matter of finding out which model(s) had them, and then finding one for sale. No doubt you'll pay a premium for that feature. But if Beretta offered a 92 in their regular line up with a frame-mounted safety I think I would finally buy one. The slide-mounted safety is the only thing that I've hated enough about the 92 to make me not want to own one. Shame because they are indeed good guns but I agree with you that the slide-mounted safety is a turn-off for many.

[anachronism]

Get a 92G, and be happy with the decocker.

A Taurus.....(shudder)

[Bret]

Beretta is certainly a better company overall than Taurus, but I honestly have to judge these pistols on their own merit. The frame mounted safety and trigger of the Taurus are simply better. I'm also not a fan of the initial DA trigger pull followed by SA trigger pulls, so that rules out the 92G. I much prefer a constant trigger pull from the first to last shot.

[oldandslow]

bret,

I have a number of pistols with a slide-based safety/decocker (SW 3rd generations, Beretta 8045 and 92compact) and those which are frame-based (1911's, Taurus PT-99, HK-USPcompact .45, CZ, EAA witness).

If the safety is a combination safety/decocker like the Taurus and HK then, when using a high-thumbs grip which rides the left sided safety-decocker, the decocker often is depressed when the pistol recoils and your next shot is an unintended double-action shot again. I had to switch out the left-sided safety on the HK to a right sided one so I do not press the decocker inadvertently when the pistol recoils upwards. I did the same to the Taurus by grinding off the left sided safety lever and leaving the right sided one unchanged. Both work well with this arrangement.

With the slide mounted decocker/safety there is no accidental dropping of the hammer by riding the safety/decocker. The only problem is that with a malfunction drill where you rack the slide sometimes the slide mounted safety can accidently be flipped down to the "safe" position.

With a frame mounted safety (no decocker) like 1911's or CZ's or EAA Witness's there is no problem riding the safety and accidently decocking.

So for me if the choice is a combined safety/decocker I prefer it on the slide. For a safety/no decocker I prefer it on the frame. Then of course there is the decocker/no safety models like Sigs (frame mounted) or Beretta G series (slide mounted) which both work well.

best wishes- oldandslow

[DirectTo]

If the safety is a combination safety/decocker like the Taurus and HK then, when using a high-thumbs grip which rides the left sided safety-decocker, the decocker often is depressed when the pistol recoils and your next shot is an unintended double-action shot again.

I've got plenty of rounds through a USP compact in 40 and 357 and couldn't imagine accidentally decocking it on recoil - the HK takes plenty of force and quite a bit of travel to be activated in recoil in my opinion, and I do use a thumbs high grip. But everyone's hands and grips are slightly different.

I'd rather have anything on the frame than on the slide. Just awkward IMO.

[4325]

bret,

I have a number of pistols with a slide-based safety/decocker (SW 3rd generations, Beretta 8045 and 92compact) and those which are frame-based (1911's, Taurus PT-99, HK-USPcompact .45, CZ, EAA witness).

If the safety is a combination safety/decocker like the Taurus and HK then, when using a high-thumbs grip which rides the left sided safety-decocker, the decocker often is depressed when the pistol recoils and your next shot is an unintended double-action shot again. I had to switch out the left-sided safety on the HK to a right sided one so I do not press the decocker inadvertently when the pistol recoils upwards. I did the same to the Taurus by grinding off the left sided safety lever and leaving the right sided one unchanged. Both work well with this arrangement.

With the slide mounted decocker/safety there is no accidental dropping of the hammer by riding the safety/decocker. The only problem is that with a malfunction drill where you rack the slide sometimes the slide mounted safety can accidently be flipped down to the "safe" position.

With a frame mounted safety (no decocker) like 1911's or CZ's or EAA Witness's there is no problem riding the safety and accidently decocking.

So for me if the choice is a combined safety/decocker I prefer it on the slide. For a safety/no decocker I prefer it on the frame. Then of course there is the decocker/no safety models like Sigs (frame mounted) or Beretta G series (slide mounted) which both work well.

best wishes- oldandslow

I have the same issue with my HK's, there's no need to get rid of the left side safety lever though all it takes is a $5 dollar detent plate swap

[TiroFijo]

I echo oldandslow word by word...

and, as posted above by anachronism: "Get a 92G, and be happy with the decocker."

I have lots of experience with Taurus (they are very popular around here, in south america) and they are in another league compared to Beretta.

[Bret]

I've got plenty of rounds through a USP compact in 40 and 357 and couldn't imagine accidentally decocking it on recoil - the HK takes plenty of force and quite a bit of travel to be activated in recoil in my opinion, and I do use a thumbs high grip. But everyone's hands and grips are slightly different.

I'd rather have anything on the frame than on the slide. Just awkward IMO.

My experience is exactly the same. I have a H&K USP40 that I purchased in December 1993. It's so old that it's the initial version that came with a conventionally rifled barrel instead of a polygonally rifled barrel. I've taken it off safety with the hammer cocked more times than I can imagine and have never had it decock on me. I guess it just goes to show that guns handle different for different people.

I understand people liking the slide mounted safety because it works for them. I just don't understand Beretta's unwillingness to make a frame mounted safety version of the 92 when the result would be a large boost in sales. IWI recently figured it out in regard to their Jericho 941 (Baby Eagle) pistols. They've manufactured both frame mounted and slide mounted Jericho 941's for years. For some reason they only imported the slide mounted safety versions to the US for the past couple of decades. As a result of that and their higher prices, they were getting killed in the market by CZ and Tanfoglio (EAA Witness). Now they're just started importing the Jericho 941F (F stands for frame mounted safety) in to the US through IWI-USA. In the picture below, compare the slide mounted safety version on the top left with the frame mounted safety version on the top right.

[jondoe297]

So why is the Beretta 92 frame mounted safety off the table? I'll even provide them free of charge with the new model designation. They can call it the Beretta 92FMS.

There is a forum member on the Beretta Forum that can do a frame safety conversion, using a 92D slide as the basis for it. I've not seen a conversion in person, but if it's on par with the other work he's done for me, it's GTG.