View Full Version : Frame Mounted Safety Beretta 92
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.
http://s18.postimg.org/6qqauqj89/PT92_picture_small.jpg
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
07-29-15, 18:33
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
07-29-15, 21:22
Get a 92G, and be happy with the decocker.
A Taurus.....(shudder)
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
07-30-15, 00:53
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
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.
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
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.
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.
https://s27.postimg.org/88r574n4j/Jericho_941.jpg
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.
If I could find a new condition 92D, then that would be an option. Unfortunately, they don't seem to offer them any longer. The ones that are available seem to be well used police surplus. I'm guessing the officers don't like the 10Lb+ DAO trigger pulls.
You buy a G model, or for $150 Wilson combat will make your F/s a G with a low profile decocker.
Wilson also sells a left side only safety decocker and a low profile version of the same. They are about $42.
I could do that, but it would still rotate in the "wrong" direction for me. I have several Makarovs. Although they have slide mounted safeties, the safeties rotate in the same direction as the 1911, CZ's, etc. Because of the small pistol size, the safeties are not out of reach, so they don't feel wrong from me.
Bret it seems like you want at least four types of pistol to have similar controls. I don't think the problem is beretta ' s design, it just doesn't work like your other three pistols.
That's exactly right, but I'm not the only one. In my opinion, Beretta is missing an opportunity to sell a bunch more pistols. They make so many other sorts of 92 variants, I wouldn't think that a frame mounted safety would be a big deal.
All that said, I think that I'm likely banging my head against the wall at this point. The Taurus PT92 works better for me, so I'll just live with it not appearing as refined.
KalashniKEV
07-30-15, 16:11
The oldest 92's had a frame mounted safety... before they caught a case of the stupids:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HnK-atqtG3w/maxresdefault.jpg
Beretta should have never made the slide mounted, wrong direction safety. They should have been dovetailing the front sight on all pistols for a long time. They should not change the locking block design without warning and then put it in a bag marked NSN 1005-01-204-4340. They should have submitted an ECP for railed frames at the beginning of the GWOT. Many have long touted the P38 lockup as offering enhanced reliability suppressed- they should have threaded barrels cheap on the shelf and as an option on every model. They should not be making lanyard loops out of plastic...
If they were switched on, they would not be losing their M9 contract.
They're great pistols, but the company is stupid.
The oldest 92's had a frame mounted safety... before they caught a case of the stupids:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HnK-atqtG3w/maxresdefault.jpg
Beretta should have never made the slide mounted, wrong direction safety. They should have been dovetailing the front sight on all pistols for a long time. They should not change the locking block design without warning and then put it in a bag marked NSN 1005-01-204-4340. They should have submitted an ECP for railed frames at the beginning of the GWOT. Many have long touted the P38 lockup as offering enhanced reliability suppressed- they should have threaded barrels cheap on the shelf and as an option on every model. They should not be making lanyard loops out of plastic...
If they were switched on, they would not be losing their M9 contract.
They're great pistols, but the company is stupid.
BRAVO !! Well put and the truth!
I would love a railed 92 with frame mounted safety.
notorious_ar15
07-30-15, 23:12
I think KalashniKEV has some great points. The Beretta 92 series is good, but I don't like slide mounted safeties although I understand the concept. I have an older step-slide model 92, and it feels very natural to have the safety on the frame - the size & function of it are perfect in my opinion.
Beretta reminds me somewhat of SIGs marketing decisions: too many variants, opposite features from what makes practical sense in a pistol. Beretta also has a history of making special editions without changing anything really significant, unless you want to count the 92 Centennial model which goes for around $3K.
KalashniKEV
07-31-15, 08:05
BRAVO !! Well put and the truth!
I hope they read every word.
Don't even get me started on:
1) The Beretta Storm (This weapon could have totally captured the market share formerly served by Krap-tec & Hi-Point... which has now grown exponentially since there are finally QUALITY options like Scorpion, B&T, MPX, and licensed MP5-types)
2) The ARX... (really don't get me started!!!)
https://app.box.com/shared/static/gu9mewlz4slehcmea5k2.jpg
....
colt191145lover
07-31-15, 17:05
https://app.box.com/shared/static/gu9mewlz4slehcmea5k2.jpg
....
Last one of those I saw for sale Bill Wilson ended up with it. Very sexy gun...
Last one of those I saw for sale Bill Wilson ended up with it. Very sexy gun...
What model is that?
legumeofterror
08-03-15, 20:56
Beretta did away with the frame mounted safety and added the slide mounted decocker at the request of multiple governments, and as a result enjoyed lucrative military contracts that carried the company for decades, most notably with the US, France, and Italy.
Of course, had they followed the advice of the experts on this forum, I am sure they would have done even better...
I'd sure like to hear the government logic that led to such requests. I've had people tell me that with proper training the slide mounted safety can be worked as well as the frame mounted safety. I've never had someone tell me that it's a better design.
The beretta was an evolutive design, and despite its beauty it is kind of a horse designed by a committee to meet all the design specs thrown by the potential users.
The decocker/safety was put into the slide when a decocker was requested because it made for a very positive safety and the decocker manipulation did not had the problems like the frame mounted Taurus safety/decocker. Of course, the flip side is that it is a more difficult safety to operate, and you can put the gun in safe while manipulatin the slide. In retrospect, a manual safety was not really needed with a decocker and a FP safety, but the "committee" was set on a safety.
2) The ARX... (really don't get me started!!!)
I'd love to hear it. I think the arx is fantastic
What model is that?
Its a "Stock", available as a 92, 96 and I believe a 98 as well, along with the "Combat" in the same models. They pop up for sale on the rare occasion. Be prepared to spend $2500 and up...
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq169/bbossman1/5857367_zpsb6pubfnv.jpg
Someone else mentioned a conversion being made available on the DAO pistols, Allegheny Gunworks has done these. The problem is getting the parts to do the conversion. Brignoli Silvio in Italy did at one point have limited availability of the necessary parts.
I was finally able to satisfy my need for a frame mounted safety Beretta 92. I purchased a new sealed in the box Centennial off GunBroker for right at $1,600 when all was said and done.
https://s23.postimg.org/h1827e623/Centennial_in_box.jpg
https://s23.postimg.org/u2p5ji52j/Centennial_ammo_can_out_of_box.jpg
https://s23.postimg.org/sl3p7y0bv/Centennial_ammo_can_open.jpg
https://s23.postimg.org/rpbt68g17/Centennial_left_view.jpg
https://s23.postimg.org/6tpiuzju3/Centennial_right_view.jpg
Needless to say, it looks great. The bluing is awesome. I read online that the trigger wasn't that good, but I think it's excellent. The reset is kind of long, but there's not much take-up and once you get to the break point, the hammer drops with no more movement. I could do without the large rear sight, but other than that it's perfect. I'm glad I was able to score this at a price well below what most other Centennial owners had to pay.
To the OP Bret, that centennial looks like a great pistol, congrats on your purchase. Is that an adjustable LPA rear sight on it?
The lack of frame mounted safety is what kept me from purchasing a M9 or 92A1 when I was looking for a all metal full size 9mm pistol. I ended up with a CZ instead. I'd still like to add a 92A1 to my collection one day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It looks like an LPA rear sight. It doesn't really seem to go with the looks of the pistol. I'm thinking about replacing it with a smaller blued rear sight.
azeriosu85
01-13-17, 00:20
Love Beretta's man
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.