View Full Version : Beretta 92 series questions.
I have been looking at a Beretta 92A1. I have had many polymer pistols and am looking at getting an all metal design. I don't see much talk about this line of pistols, and was wanting to get a few "why's" answered. Why don't I hear much about these? Why doesn't anyone on this forum seem to run these? What's the trigger like compared to other DA/SA guns? Would it really just be best to return to a Glock, M&P or P30? I've had all of these and can use each of them effectively. I don't mind them at all, just looking at different things. Any info on these would be appr.
mkmckinley
02-04-11, 20:49
If you just want one then get it. If you're looking for something to carry then I'd say stick with your Glock or whatever you have. You're not going to see any performance gain with a 92FS and you'll have to deal with a few shortcomings of that platform. Personally I have one so I can train with the pistol I'm issued at work. I've also found it to be good for introducing new shooters that are uncomfortable with safetyless designs to pistol shooting. For some reason my M&Ps have been deemed "scary" by my wife and her friend but the 92FS is ok.
Everyone seems to be enamored with plastic, striker-fired pistols these days. The 92-series is certainly larger than the Glocks, and I'm not really fond of the location of the safety, but if you get a G-model that's decocker-only, it's fine. I've been carrying a 92G for years, and wouldn't give it up for any combat tupperware out there. That's not to say there is anything wrong with Glocks, HKs or M&Ps, they're all great guns, but I have taken a liking to my Berettas and I don't see anything in the newer pistols that warrant a wholesale shift. If you're starting out fresh, it may be worthwhile to try them all and see which ones you like best.
I have been looking at a Beretta 92A1. I have had many polymer pistols and am looking at getting an all metal design. I don't see much talk about this line of pistols, and was wanting to get a few "why's" answered. Why don't I hear much about these? Why doesn't anyone on this forum seem to run these? What's the trigger like compared to other DA/SA guns? Would it really just be best to return to a Glock, M&P or P30? I've had all of these and can use each of them effectively. I don't mind them at all, just looking at different things. Any info on these would be appr.
They are actually fairly new guns - only been out since last summer.
But, I have one - it is a nice gun. Out of my 6 Berettas, it is actually my favorite one. It balances better (in my opinion) 1 handed than any of the other railed models.
If I wasn't already using 2 of my Beretta 92 variants for concealed carry, I'd use this gun for carry. No need to scratch up all of my guns...
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/92a1-9000.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/Wheel-beretta-noname1.jpg
You don't hear much about them because they're not the latest kool-aid flavor of the month. Guns are like fashion to some men.;)
Feel free to use/carry whatever you want, but don't reduce the positions of those who choose to carry something else as falling victim to a "fad." For those of us that try to shoot and carry a single platform, other guns simply bring more to the table for less cost, less size, less weight, and more options (especially when it comes to sights, though the A1's have rectified this). Beretta should have also done a better job of having more "G" models in the lineup.
I don't ever plan on selling my 92, but it doesn't get a great deal of use these days.
You don't hear much about them because they're not the latest kool-aid flavor of the month. Guns are like fashion to some men.;)
Thats a fact, especially very young men....The 92FS/M9/M9A1 are top shelf nine's, the hit on them being, their large, aside from that, they are going to be our nation's service pistol for at least the next ten years...
Feel free to use/carry whatever you want, but don't reduce the positions of those who choose to carry something else as falling victim to a "fad." For those of us that try to shoot and carry a single platform, other guns simply bring more to the table for less cost, less size, less weight, and more options (especially when it comes to sights, though the A1's have rectified this). Beretta should have also done a better job of having more "G" models in the lineup.
I don't ever plan on selling my 92, but it doesn't get a great deal of use these days.
Well, I carry my 92FS everyday. I enjoy finally carrying a fullsize gun for once, instead of always carrying a smaller gun that I don't spend that much range time with.
and, while I do have a whole host of options for carry - I personally prefer a DA/SA gun. After a close call with a robbery almost 2 years ago, I saw what it is like when the adrenaline kicks in. I like the 1st shot being DA - to minimize me doing something by accident in a stressful situation.
And, with some work on the trigger, my carry gun has a SA pull is 4lb 10.4oz and my DA pull is 8lb 3.5oz.
While there are other DA/SA guns, the Beretta 92's design makes it easy to work on the frame and change the trigger weight without too much work and knocking out a bunch of roll pins.
I had one.
It's a very large gun for a 9mm.
Grip is overly large.
Awkward 'safety'
Loooooong DA
But dang was it accurate and refined. Single action was smooth. I'll have to get one again some day.
In the meantime my HiPower will be here next week. :D
The original weapon had some small things that needed updating. The sights gave you few options for upgrades, the safety was problematic in its placement, the controls are not ambidextrous (although for its day, being able to switch the magazine release to the left side was pretty progressive), there's no provision for mounting a weapon light and the overall weapon is large.
The newer versions fix most of these issues, especially if you get a G-model. The problems of size and single-side slide stop remain, and the newer guns are not yet fully supported with all the good holster options.
I still think the weapon points very naturally, it's generally stupidly reliable (as long as you use good mags), and it tends to be accurate. As Shipwreck pointed out, it takes a good trigger job and holds it for a long time, as my experience has borne out. I'm a big guy, and like a large-frame weapon, so the size is actually a bonus for me. I'm also right-handed, so the slide-stop issue isn't a problem. I use a G-model with a Brigadier slide, so I have good sights and no issues with the safety. I only wish I had a railed dust cover, but I can live with a hand-held light.
I like my 92FS a lot, but it's not a carry gun for me. The capacity is on the low side for how large and heavy the gun is. If it wasn't for that, I'd consider carrying a 92.
If you've shot one and it just feels right to you, there's no reason not to carry one.
TheSmiter1
02-05-11, 01:11
You don't hear much about them because they're not the latest kool-aid flavor of the month. Guns are like fashion to some men.;)
I guess Glocks must have a lot of fashion appeal. Or are they considered new, as well?
OP, it's ultimately going to be up to you as to whether or not the pistol is worth buying. You've received positive feedback regarding its function, and it is generally regarded as a very good platform. If you feel it suits your needs or wants, I'm sure you wouldn't regret buying it.
.....Why don't I hear much about these? Why doesn't anyone on this forum seem to run these? What's the trigger like compared to other DA/SA guns?
I have a 92FS. The pistol is accurate and has notably gentle/smooth recoil that makes it pleasant to shoot.
First problem: The slide mounted safety is really not optimal. Its very effective at 'turning the gun off" but, because Beretta has carved away half the slide, to charge the pistol you are encouraged to grab the slide very close to the safety and its rather easy to inadvertently engage the safety while doing so.
Second problem: Since Beretta has carved away half the slide, the exposed barrel is a heat hazard following rapid fire of, say, 30+ rounds.
Apparently they have listened to customers on another common issue because the front sight can be changed on the 92A1.
Capacity is not the disparity it once was. The gun used to be issued with 15 round mags and if you wanted more, the bigger magazines (20 rd) would stick out of the grip by at least an inch. Now MecGar offers an 18rd magazine (http://mec-gar.com/mags/mgpb9218.html) that isn't appreciably larger than the original 15 round magazine.
The back end of the slide is pointier than just about any other service pistol. The contours blend nicely with the gun in battery but don't get in its way when its cycling!
The action feeds nearly everything and is notoriously reliable. Originally the locking blocks were problematic. The most common piece I've replaced on other 92s is the trigger return spring (mine's been good so far).
The 92 is a good, well made pistol but the bottom line is that I just shoot a SIG P226 or a CZ-75 better.
I don't generally carry guns cocked and locked unless it is a 1911. So, frame mounted safties don't really matter to me.
I personally have no issues with the slide mounted saftey on the Beretta. I only use it as a decocker. Mine has never moved on its own. And, when I practice my double action shots at the range - I have no problems decocking the gun with my strong hand thumb, and then bringing the gun up to aim again.
I think that if ya like the gun, this is a non issue. I love the feel of the gun with the Hogue rubber grips (not the wrap around kind, but just the grip panels). With the undercut trigger guard,m the gun balances extremely well 1 handed. I actually do a lot fo 1 handed practice with it, and I practice with the DA trigger pull a lot too. With the work I have done on the trigger, it is easy to shoot the gun in double action...
As for round count in the mags... There are no 17 round factory mags... The 90-Two and 92A1 comes with them. The 92A1 comes with 3 mags, actually, so that's pretty cool. And, there are 18 and 20 round megcar mags that fit flush with just a little larger baseplate.
Pistol Shooter
02-05-11, 10:49
I bought my first Beretta in 1989 (an Italian 92F) and have added a few to my collection since then.
They feel good in hand, balance well and point naturally for me.
The 92 series are very accurate, soft shooting and reliable to a fault in my experience.
In terms of the grip size, my wife (a pretty accomplished shooter) is 5' 3" tall, weighs 108 lbs. soaking wet and wears XS shooting gloves.
Given her small hands, I thought she'd prefer one of my BHP's, 1911's, M&P's, etc.
However, she locked onto one of my 92FS's and it became hers instantly. She had the desire and determination to master this pistol and did just that.
She can run the sh*t out of it and just adores her Beretta. :laugh:
Her daily carry piece is a 9mm PPS but she uses her Beretta for home defense and at the range.
I think you'd really enjoy one chilic82.
Good luck, let us know what you decide.
Something I wrote a few years ago that might be helpful.
http://pistol-training.com/articles/kevhs-very-opinionated-guide-to-the-beretta-92
$CashMoney$
02-05-11, 11:28
I prefer the trigger guard of the M9A1 over the 92A1, but I like the rail on the 92A1 better than the M9A1. So, for me, it's the 92A1 all the way. I'm actually in the process of buying one.
Also, consider that despite the popular uproar over the M9 in the military world, it continuously destroys the polymer competition in field tests by the dozens. This means a lot to me.
I've owned several 9mm glocks, M&Ps, and Sigs over the years, and I still return to the Beretta for the industry standard in 9mm.
And, it shoots like a laser beam out to about 50 yds!!!!
BL, it's a great gun at a fair price.
I think the M9A1 looks the best of all the railed Berettas. But yea, I prefer the feel of the 92A1.
The checkering on the M9A1 is too shallow - it's not like on a 1911. For me, I like the plain serrations on the front and back straps better.
mrosamilia
02-05-11, 11:40
I prefer the trigger guard of the M9A1 over the 92A1, but I like the rail on the 92A1 better than the M9A1. So, for me, it's the 92A1 all the way. I'm actually in the process of buying one.
Also, consider that despite the popular uproar over the M9 in the military world, it continuously destroys the polymer competition in field tests by the dozens. This means a lot to me.
I've owned several 9mm glocks, M&Ps, and Sigs over the years, and I still return to the Beretta for the industry standard in 9mm.
And, it shoots like a laser beam out to about 50 yds!!!!
BL, it's a great gun at a fair price.
What "tests" has the Beretta beaten either the Glock or HK in?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Pistol Shooter
02-05-11, 11:42
Something I wrote a few years ago that might be helpful.
http://pistol-training.com/articles/kevhs-very-opinionated-guide-to-the-beretta-92
Very nice piece of work. Thanks much!
What "tests" has the Beretta beaten either the Glock or HK in?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Honestly, I don't know or care. I like the gun and it is reliable. All these youtube "tests" with people putting guns in buckets of sand and mud are silly to me. Sorry. I wouldn't do that stuff to any gun I own.
But, if you do some googling, you can likely find the "tests" that the military did during the 80s.
Well, I carry my 92FS everyday. I enjoy finally carrying a fullsize gun for once, instead of always carrying a smaller gun that I don't spend that much range time with.
and, while I do have a whole host of options for carry - I personally prefer a DA/SA gun. After a close call with a robbery almost 2 years ago, I saw what it is like when the adrenaline kicks in. I like the 1st shot being DA - to minimize me doing something by accident in a stressful situation.
And, with some work on the trigger, my carry gun has a SA pull is 4lb 10.4oz and my DA pull is 8lb 3.5oz.
While there are other DA/SA guns, the Beretta 92's design makes it easy to work on the frame and change the trigger weight without too much work and knocking out a bunch of roll pins.
I have no doubts that you're a fan of your Beretta. However, my post was giving a few reasons about why it isn't as popular as some other firearms, and how the popularity of other offerings (especially amongst those who have BTDT) shouldn't solely be attributed to some sort of bandwagon effect.
I still contend that the majority of people looking and shoot and carry a platform will find the 92 line less favorable than a number of polymer options for reasons I feel are obvious.
This isn't to detract from those who enjoy the ones they own, shoot, and carry, but that's a subjective preference. Most quality handguns today are going to be reliable, so other criteria and considerations start to come into play.
Also, consider that despite the popular uproar over the M9 in the military world, it continuously destroys the polymer competition in field tests by the dozens.
What "field tests" are you talking about?
I like my 92FS a lot, but it's not a carry gun for me. The capacity is on the low side for how large and heavy the gun is. If it wasn't for that, I'd consider carrying a 92.
If you've shot one and it just feels right to you, there's no reason not to carry one.
My 92FS holds a capacity of 18 + 1 rounds...MecGar Optimus magazines are superior to the Beretta factory fare...;)
My 92FS holds a capacity of 18 + 1 rounds...MecGar Optimus magazines are superior to the Beretta factory fare...;)
There are polymer-framed pistols with similar capacities that weigh significantly less. That's all I was getting at.
Mr. Goodtimes
02-05-11, 15:00
I sold my Beretta 92FS to my father (who really likes them) to buy my P30. Over all I didn't really care for the gun that much. It was accurate and reliable but thats about it. It was heavy, the grip was too fat even for my gorilla hands, the safety was in a horrible spot, it had no provision for mounting a light and I was stuck with the 3 dot sights that came on the pistol.
I accidently switched the safety on numerous times when performing malfunction drills or simply reloading. I hated the trigger on the gun as well, it was ok in single action but its double action was way too long and heavy.
All that being said, I wouldn't buy one for anything other than a range toy or a collector item. There are far better options out there these days.
Out of my 6 Berettas, it is actually my favorite one.
I think you might change your mind if you tried one of these . . .
http://www.box.net/shared/static/59zzv2393x.jpg
....
I think you might change your mind if you tried one of these . . .
http://www.box.net/shared/static/59zzv2393x.jpg
....
Well, I REALLY would love a Billenium. And that is super nice too. I do spend quite a bit on 1911s, so if I wanted one of those, I could track one down.
But, the main thing stopping me is the lack of rubber grips for the frame mounted safety versions. That's why the 90-Two is my least favorite. There are NO rubber options out there.
I plan to get a 45 cal Cougar soon, but I already managed to track down a set of NIB pierce rubber grips for the 45 Cougar. They haven't been made in several years, and are like finding the Holy Grail in that caliber (it is a LITTLE bit easier to find them for the 40/9mm frame).
Since there are zero options and I'd be stuck with the stock grips, that's why I haven't gotten one yet. I even have simple pachmeyer grips on my 2 high end 1911s, because that is what I like...
I have no doubts that you're a fan of your Beretta. However, my post was giving a few reasons about why it isn't as popular as some other firearms, and how the popularity of other offerings (especially amongst those who have BTDT) shouldn't solely be attributed to some sort of bandwagon effect.
I still contend that the majority of people looking and shoot and carry a platform will find the 92 line less favorable than a number of polymer options for reasons I feel are obvious.
Well, I do think that part of it is because the design has been around so long, and Beretta no longer makes all the variants that they once did (and seem to show no interest in doing so, since they get fed the big $ from the government contract).
And, the gun is so large in this world of concealed carry. If I remember right, even the Sig 226 has a slightly shorter barrel. Everyone wants small guns for concealed carry - usually no bigger than the compact size (Glock 19 size). Also, polymer is all the rage now.
To me, I like the feel/weight of the Beretta on my waist. It's not overly heavy, but I feel strange when I do not have it or have a lighter gun on me.
DanjojoUSMC
02-05-11, 16:37
Can't under-estimate the fun/cool factor of having a firearm that is in plenty of action movies... Every body knows it, even if they won't admit it :cool:
I wish more companies had models with a little more barrel sticking out the end of the slide, more velocity with less bulk.
I have been looking at a Beretta 92A1. I have had many polymer pistols and am looking at getting an all metal design. I don't see much talk about this line of pistols, and was wanting to get a few "why's" answered. Why don't I hear much about these? Why doesn't anyone on this forum seem to run these? .
My problems with the 92:
1. Widgets (safety / decocker)
2. Widgets on the SLIDE (Sig frame mounted widgets not quite so objectionable)
3. Widgets that work in the opposite direction from the the way God and John Moses Browning intended (off-safe is up on the 92, not an ergonomic, downward swipe as one assumes a firing grip). Most peculiar, Momma...:D
My problems with the 92:
1. Widgets (safety / decocker)
2. Widgets on the SLIDE (Sig frame mounted widgets not quite so objectionable)
3. Widgets that work in the opposite direction from the the way God and John Moses Browning intended (off-safe is up on the 92, not an ergonomic, downward swipe as one assumes a firing grip). Most peculiar, Momma...:D
I don't have those problems with my 92 :D . . .
http://www.box.net/shared/static/59zzv2393x.jpg
....
theblackknight
02-05-11, 18:48
My problems with the 92:
1. Widgets (safety / decocker)
2. Widgets on the SLIDE (Sig frame mounted widgets not quite so objectionable)
3. Widgets that work in the opposite direction from the the way God and John Moses Browning intended (off-safe is up on the 92, not an ergonomic, downward swipe as one assumes a firing grip). Most peculiar, Momma...:D
NUMBER 3!!!!!!
Why would anyone WANT to train with a gun that the safety is as high and a rear as possible? On top of that, it goes the wrong way!!!
I don't have those problems with my 92 :D . . .....
Assuming prices were in-line with the current 92 offerings, I'd go out and buy one of these RIGHT NOW if Beretta re-introduced these and ramped up production.
The 92 Stock is the 92 as it should have been, IMO. Even better if there was a Centurion-sized model available.
3. Widgets that work in the opposite direction from the the way God and John Moses Browning intended (off-safe is up on the 92, not an ergonomic, downward swipe as one assumes a firing grip). Most peculiar, Momma...:D
FWIW, you can use a downward swipe of your thumb to take a 92F/92FS/M9 off safe. I don't know if you have one handy, but give it a shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0VxLkqm--U&feature=player_detailpage#t=167s
However, I still have no love at all for slide mounted safeties, and I wish I could convert my 92FS to a G like you can with the PX4 line (atleast, I think you can on those). The ears tear into my hands and I occasionally will put the gun on-safe when doing a fast overhand rack of the slide under stress.
FWIW, you can use a downward swipe of your thumb to take a 92F/92FS/M9 off safe. I don't know if you have one handy, but give it a shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0VxLkqm--U&feature=player_detailpage#t=167s
Well, someone can. I think your hand has to be sized right for that to work every time.
I'd rather not keep the manual safety engaged anyway. Once the hammer is down or at half-cock, that's plenty safe with this design.
I have been looking at a Beretta 92A1. I have had many polymer pistols and am looking at getting an all metal design. I don't see much talk about this line of pistols, and was wanting to get a few "why's" answered. Why don't I hear much about these? Why doesn't anyone on this forum seem to run these? What's the trigger like compared to other DA/SA guns? Would it really just be best to return to a Glock, M&P or P30? I've had all of these and can use each of them effectively. I don't mind them at all, just looking at different things. Any info on these would be appr.
You don't hear much about them because the "new" has worn off.
Just like every gun they have their peculiar characteristics.
Yes...you should get one and try it out...why not?...it looks like you've tried the other popular models. Then you can decide for yourself if you think it's a keeper and that's all that rally matters right?
Beretta 92 series pistols are great for flat range IDPA/IPSC/USPSA/etc type shooting, which means it is a suitable pistol for 90% or more of the people on the interwebs who will tell you it's a piece of shit. It is a nicely built pistol with decent ergonomics. It is an easy pistol to learn to shoot very accurately and control, making it quite fast in practiced hands.
For some the grip is too large. That's no fault of the pistol or its designers though. You can't accommodate everyone.
It's a fine shooting pistol. It's a lot of things, but reliable is not one of them. Everyone needs to realize that "reliability" is a subjective term. What one shooter deems an acceptable level of reliability may exceed or fail to meet what others deem as acceptable. For this shooter (and many others) the M9/92 series pistols fail to make the grade. Rather than get into a pissing match or dick measuring contest, I hope that end caveat will suffice. If the M9/92 meets your needs, that's excellent, and you have chosen a quality pistol that will likely make you happy.
Could you comment on what, specifically, are the 92's shortcomings in the area of reliability as you see it?
Beretta 92 series pistols are great for flat range IDPA/IPSC/USPSA/etc type shooting, which means it is a suitable pistol for 90% or more of the people on the interwebs who will tell you it's a piece of shit. It is a nicely built pistol with decent ergonomics. It is an easy pistol to learn to shoot very accurately and control, making it quite fast in practiced hands.
For some the grip is too large. That's no fault of the pistol or its designers though. You can't accommodate everyone.
It's a fine shooting pistol. It's a lot of things, but reliable is not one of them. Everyone needs to realize that "reliability" is a subjective term. What one shooter deems an acceptable level of reliability may exceed or fail to meet what others deem as acceptable. For this shooter (and many others) the M9/92 series pistols fail to make the grade. Rather than get into a pissing match or dick measuring contest, I hope that end caveat will suffice. If the M9/92 meets your needs, that's excellent, and you have chosen a quality pistol that will likely make you happy.
There may be other more reliable pistols, but I think its a bit of a stretch to say the 92 'isn't reliable'.
Everyone needs to realize that "reliability" is a subjective term. What one shooter deems an acceptable level of reliability may exceed or fail to meet what others deem as acceptable. For this shooter (and many others) the M9/92 series pistols fail to make the grade.
It may be worth remembering that the 92 design has evolved quite a lot since its introduction in the late 70's. Some of the changes are improvements and some are attempts at cost reduction (an exercise that seldom results in performance improvements).
People who had the earlier locking block design -if it failed- will have some choice words about the gun.
Those who were issued an M9 and a handful of poorly made magazines will probably consider the pistols' performance sub-standard.
People who shoot practical matches may have observed one that performed badly. Usually this is because someone installed whiz-bang parts or brought bad magazines.
Its a matter of perspective.
I know one chap who simply can't leave well enough alone. He has a Glock that won't run 100 rounds at a time without choking and a CZ Shadow that has broken all kinds of parts. Ordinarily these two brands are known for solid performance. He puts go-fast parts in hoping for an edge and gets opposite results. There is no telling if his pistols would have worked as they came from the factory.
My perspective: I bought my 92FS in the 90's. Its no longer 100% stock but I use decent mags and quality ammo. It has fired every time I've asked it to; which puts it above the Browning Hi-Power, Smith Wesson revolvers, M&P, Kahr 9, CZ-97, Walther P88 and a few others.
This lands my 92 in league with guns like an H&K P7, SIG P226, Glock 17, CZ 75, Ruger P89, S&W 4506 and an STI 2011. Some of these are not my favorites. Some I don't own but they have proven to work when I wanted them to. Call it what you will.
RAM Engineer
02-06-11, 06:28
What "field tests" are you talking about?
I'm still waiting for the answer to this too.
Since pistols (for the most part) play a relatively minor role on the battlefield, it's somewhat surprising at the level of controversy over the M9. Although it replaced a legendary firearm in general service, so I guess some of that is to be expected.
The Beretta 92 series has been issued to militaries and police/security forces around the world and has served for decades. I haven't heard any negative feedback in those cases. So what did they do right that we didn't?
Beretta 92 series pistols are great for flat range IDPA/IPSC/USPSA/etc type shooting, which means it is a suitable pistol for 90% or more of the people on the interwebs who will tell you it's a piece of shit. It is a nicely built pistol with decent ergonomics. It is an easy pistol to learn to shoot very accurately and control, making it quite fast in practiced hands.
For some the grip is too large. That's no fault of the pistol or its designers though. You can't accommodate everyone.
It's a fine shooting pistol. It's a lot of things, but reliable is not one of them. Everyone needs to realize that "reliability" is a subjective term. What one shooter deems an acceptable level of reliability may exceed or fail to meet what others deem as acceptable. For this shooter (and many others) the M9/92 series pistols fail to make the grade. Rather than get into a pissing match or dick measuring contest, I hope that end caveat will suffice. If the M9/92 meets your needs, that's excellent, and you have chosen a quality pistol that will likely make you happy.
I'll be the first to admit that my primary 92 hasn't been immersed in talcum dust in Iraq, or mired in mud, but it has run and run and run and run without much in the way of cleaning or lube. I use good mags and reasonable ammo (WWB, Black Hills reloads, Blazer, etc) and have managed to get through several classes without so much as a wipedown during the classes themselves. I give it a cleaning and a lube every now and again, and it keeps running, despite all the accumulated fouling and clothes lint (it's primarily an IWB gun, so it collects a fair bit of lint over the years).
It's a lot of things, but reliable is not one of them. Everyone needs to realize that "reliability" is a subjective term.
This is open to a lot of interpretation. Can you please clarify what you mean, exactly why you deem the weapon unreliable?
As I said, I don't want to get into a pissing match. If a piece of kit or weapon or whatever the item being discussed meets your needs/standards, that's excellent. As I said, the pistol in question is of great quality, it just doesn't fit my needs.
Here are a couple of examples why:
-Using one of my personal 92s at the range doing IDPA/ISPC type stages, and the pistol became so sluggish that when shooting a plate rack I would acquire the next plate, but have to sit and wait for the slide to return to battery because it was tired and dirty.
-At work we once pulled out a bunch of brand new, latest generation M9s from their boxes. This was a couple of years ago, so don't go thinking I'm relating a tale of 1980s pistols. I say again, brand new. Over the next few days, we had numerous locking blocks fail. I can't remember the exact number, but it was too many, as one is too many.
I currently own one. I have owned another. As I said, it's a quality pistol. It's not Lorcin. In my first post, I said that, as well as saying that reliability is a subjective term, which someone else also pointed out. If this pistol meets your needs, I'm happy for you. Don't get worked up because it doesn't meet someone else's needs. It doesn't cut it for me, so I don't use it. I'm not calling someone an idiot because they think the pistol works for them. I'm simply saying that I have different needs.
This is open to a lot of interpretation. Can you please clarify what you mean, exactly why you deem the weapon unreliable?
I personally do not keep guns that are not 100%.
If my 92's didn't run 100%, I wouldn't have 6 of them...
In 2011, there is no need for a duty pistol to be the size of a Beretta 92 Series pistol and therein lies the root cause of the 92's waning popularity, especially as an issued pistol. The days of police departments being staffed almost exclusively by white males between 5'8" and 6'2" are over. Officers now come in an assortment of sizes, sexes, and colors and thus the Beretta is a poor fit and a poor choice to equip them. The days of shooters having to adapt to the size of the only available pistol are over as many pistol manufacturers have developed pistols that can fit a wide variety of hands yet still be uniform across the ranks, eliminating the need for a pistol for one group and another pistol for another group, based on size. Pistols are tools and tools are changed to adapt to changing times. The pistol manufacturers who understand this and have adapted will be successful, those that don't will fade away as they lose their market shares.
In 2011, there is no need for a duty pistol to be the size of a Beretta 92 Series pistol and therein lies the root cause of the 92's waning popularity, especially as an issued pistol. The days of police departments being staffed almost exclusively by white males between 5'8" and 6'2" are over. Officers now come in an assortment of sizes, sexes, and colors and thus the Beretta is a poor fit and a poor choice to equip them. The days of shooters having to adapt to the size of the only available pistol are over as many pistol manufacturers have developed pistols that can fit a wide variety of hands yet still be uniform across the ranks, eliminating the need for a pistol for one group and another pistol for another group, based on size. Pistols are tools and tools are changed to adapt to changing times. The pistol manufacturers who understand this and have adapted will be successful, those that don't will fade away as they lose their market shares.
Excellent points. While I personally like the Beretta 92 (well, MY Beretta 92D) I'll be among the first to admit that it's somewhat large and bulky, and has many fiddly small parts/springs.
There are later designs that are lighter, simpler, more weather resistant, less maintenance intensive, and far easier to detail strip when needed.
However, that certainly doesn't invalidate the 92 series as a viable combat/defensive weapon. It just provides a perspective for its users/potential users.
While I'm far more likely to use and carry a Glock, my 92D does yeomanry service, among other things, as a nightstand gun. In that role, I particularly like it's DAO triggerpull and nightsights-and, if I need to pass it to my wife (or another non-dedicated user), for at least 15 rounds it's simply a case of "aim and pull trigger" without the user having to be confused by consider any other levers or a varying triggerpull.
Best, Jon
http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae343/JonInWA/Beretta%2092D/DSCN0843.jpg
The M9/92 appears to have some troubles with water.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?feature=mhum#p/u/75/VeAE9MdcbNU
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?feature=mhum#p/u/62/PVLtdJ2NKc4
The M9 a really good shooting gun that points dead on for me, I got all misty eyed over the M92A1 that I looked at yesterday, but after sleeping on it... I'd rather have something else.
My oldest son (USAFSF) on the other hand, is stuck with the Beretta for well into the foreseeable future.
Well, its no bigger than a 1911, and tons of guys love to carry a 5" 1911. I will admit that the Beretta 92 has no where near the "history" of the 1911. However, I'm just saying that for some people, he size issue is a non issue.
However, I also know that I am in the major minority with conceal carrying a 92FS. But, it "works" for me.
Pistol Shooter
02-06-11, 17:14
The M9/92 appears to have some troubles with water.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?feature=mhum#p/u/75/VeAE9MdcbNU
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?feature=mhum#p/u/62/PVLtdJ2NKc4
The M9 a really good shooting gun that points dead on for me, I got all misty eyed over the M92A1 that I looked at yesterday, but after sleeping on it... I'd rather have something else.
My oldest son (USAFSF) on the other hand, is stuck with the Beretta for well into the foreseeable future.
You don't really believe that You Tube BS do you?
Every hayseed Bubba and his brother posts handgun "tests" on You Tube. They mean absolutely nothing.
"Hey, hold my beer and watch this." :angry:
You don't really believe that You Tube BS do you?
Actually, the guys that made that video I trust very much.
He had nothing to gain by 'rigging' the test.
The 1911 and XD passed the water/mud test BTW...
I have been looking at a Beretta ... Any info on these would be appr.
Did you hear about the Secret Service Agent who recently shot himself while guarding former First Lady Nancy R.? Accidents happen, even to the best of us. I think a safety is an important consideration.
Personally, I liked the Italian Beretta 92FS and Compact version, over all the rest, by just a hair. If you are set on getting a Beretta, get an Italian 92FS. If it was me, I would forget the plastic.
I am not into plastic frames unless you mention VP70, and I'm already feeling the pain of pulling the trigger, in a good way.
The M9/92 is probably my favorite full size 9mm sidearm. Granted, there are things about it that I don't like, but as a whole, I can't complain. My 92FS turned 13,440rnds in 4yrs of service, including many training classes where it was run very dirty and exposed to some dirt/mud. It's record so far without cleaning was 1200rnds straight. I plan to try more, ammo and time permitting. I've never had a failure of the weapon. I've had a few magazine failures, but that was it. I replaced all springs and the locking block at 12k out of preventive maintenance. I also have a newer M9 that topped the 3k point recently without any issues. I'd like to try a 90-Two in the near future as well.
nugentjeep45
02-21-11, 12:49
It's a lot of things, but reliable is not one of them.
This is absolutely NOT the fact based truth. Have you not ever read about the U.S.Military testing in the early 80's? You may have gotten a lemon, but the Beretta 92 series is one of the most reliable semi-autos on the planet! Even some of the industry experts that prefer Glocks, which I love my G19's, say that even though the Beretta 92 may not be size efficient, one thing it is, is reliable.
The reliability thing and the Beretta 92 continues to sporadically raise its head from time to time-and it seems to come primarily from disgruntled users in/from the military.
I'd suggest several things. First, others have related a locking block issue in the past (DocGKR among them, and I trust his observations and opinions, although we don't always agree). It would seem that there may have been a bad batch of locking blocks at some point. Keep in mind that Beretta is now on the 3rd or 4th generation (depending on how you count) of locking block improvements; if it's a concern, particularly if you have one of the military cast replacement locking blocks, or an early first generation locking block, simply replace it.
Second, a 92 needs to be maintained and lubed. That means look at the operator's manual, TM, or comic book, and regularly perform operator's maintenance as specified (or more frequently as conditions/use dictates). And if you're in the desert, it needs to be lubed with a lube that won't easily evaporate and/or cook off. TW25B is a good thing. In my experience as a troop leader, stuff like this usually requires command emphasis at the muddy/dusty boot level...
Third, there are preventive maintenance steps to be followed-such as replacing springs at specified intervals (like every 5K rounds for the recoil spring, trigger spring, and slidelock spring-or replace the trigger spring with a Wolff TCU spring; I'm shortly going to try it, and will report back...).
Fourth, use quality magazines-and don't dick with their springs. If you're in the military, Check-Mate dry film lube magazines are fine; look for magazines with a roll-stamped date code of 2/04 or later-those will be the dry-film ones. The earlier ones have a DoD mandated internal and external phosphate finish which traps fine sand particles and causes operational issues; these should be avoided/purged from arms room inventories in desert (Iraq/Afghanistan) theatres. Otherwise, Beretta, MDS, and MecGar magazines are excellent. If Beretta/MDS magazines are used, look for ones with the aluminum baseplate. Regardless, a key issue for magazine reliability is that the magazine is clean (yeah, that means the inside too) and the springs have sufficient tensility, are properly installed (and haven't been innovatively stretched), and the feed lips are in decent shape.
Otherwise, Beretta reliability is superb. In testing (which is continuous for military contract pistols in each production batch) the mean failure rate is about 1 in 20,000-plus rounds. Works for me-and my personal 92D has never had a malfunction (and no, I haven't quite reached the 21K roundcount point yet).
Best, Jon
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.