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.
Bookmarks