New Beretta 92 "G" Models Exist!


PDA






OregonJohnny
September 3, 2014, 03:31 PM
Apparently, Beretta listens. A little bit.

There has been some rustling around various gun forums in the past few weeks about something new coming from Beretta, based on the 92. Now, Lipsey's is officially listing product BEJ92G300M, which is described as:

Beretta 92G, Black, 9mm, 4.9" Barrel, 15+1, De-Cock

MSRP is $675.

I have not seen any pictures yet, but it sounds like it's a standard black non-railed 92 with fixed front sight, but most importantly - a "G" configuration. For those who don't know, a Beretta G model has a decocker-only, which springs back up to the firing position automatically after decocking the hammer. There is no way to intentionally or unintentionally put the weapon on safe.

This is by far the most universally requested addition to the M9/92 line, and companies like Wilson Combat have even started doing the G conversion on standard FS models for $150.

I'm hoping that this is just the first 92G model in a long line of variants to be introduced by Beretta. But that's probably asking too much. If they come out with a 92G that has a rail and dovetailed front sight, it will absolutely be my next firearm purchase. If they decide to bring back the 92G-SD, I will buy two! Or at least come out with another Elite.

Come on Beretta - you gave us a crumb, now we want the whole cake! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "New Beretta 92 "G" Models Exist!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1KPerDay
September 3, 2014, 03:59 PM
What's the -SD variant?

OregonJohnny
September 3, 2014, 04:20 PM
What's the -SD variant?

The 92G-SD was only offered between 2002-2005. It differed from a standard 92 in the following ways:

Heavy "Brigadier" slide with thicker steel around the locking block area
Dovetailed front sight
Trijicon night sights
"G" decock-only lever
Integrated frame rail
Beveled mag well
Front and back checkering
Extended mag release

It was about as tricked-out as you could possibly get a Beretta 92, and it came this way straight from the factory. Used 92G-SDs occasionally pop up on auction websites and usually fetch well over $1,000.

1KPerDay
September 3, 2014, 06:06 PM
Cool thanks

OregonJohnny
September 3, 2014, 06:17 PM
I see this model is now up on 2 different distributor websites, but still no picture, and no description of whether or not it has a railed frame. The description definitely says "fixed" sights, so that's a big bummer.

In the meantime, I sent an email to Beretta customer support asking about it, and I'll see what they say.

If it is simply a plain 92 with the G lever, I think that they missed a big opportunity. I know it's more expensive to produce a 92 with railed frame and a dovetailed front sight, but I truly believe the people who are specifically in the market for a 92G would want these 2 additional features. Besides, they already make 2 models with a frame rail (92A1 and M9A1) and the 92A1 also comes with a dovetailed front sight. Maybe Beretta fans will be rewarded with additional, higher-optioned G models coming on the heels of this first release.

Ohen Cepel
September 3, 2014, 06:32 PM
Saw a pic on another forum. No rail, can't tell about the sights from the pic that is there.

I can take/leave the rail but would also like the dovetailed sights.

Of course, they could go all the way and put out a nice Elite again which I would like if done well.

1KPerDay
September 3, 2014, 06:49 PM
If it is simply a plain 92 with the G lever, I think that they missed a big opportunity. I know it's more expensive to produce a 92 with railed frame and a dovetailed front sight, but I truly believe the people who are specifically in the market for a 92G would want these 2 additional features.
I wouldn't... I have no use for rails. I DO have a use for a decock-only variant.

Does fixed sights necessarily mean non-adjustable/replaceable front sight?

OregonJohnny
September 3, 2014, 07:30 PM
Does fixed sights necessarily mean non-adjustable/replaceable front sight?

I'm assuming it's just like a standard 92/M9 fixed front sight post with a white dot, that is actually a part of the slide. I know that Trijicon will drill out the front sight and plug it with a tritium vile if you want night sights (the rear is dovetailed for replacement). Wilson Combat also offers this service, but so far their only front sight options to fill the fixed front after machining are green or red fiber optic.

I can take/leave the rail but would also like the dovetailed sights.

I wouldn't... I have no use for rails.

Well, different strokes. I would like a rail, since I already have a standard 92FS without a rail, and I prefer the option for a weapon light on a full size semi-auto that might see a home defense role.

The best of both worlds would be for Beretta to also offer a G model of their 92A1 which already has a rail and dovetailed front sight.

golden
September 3, 2014, 09:11 PM
If BERETTA wants to bring out another 92D that I would buy, it would be a VERTEC model with a heavy BRIGADIER slide in the double action only version. I would settle for a VERTEC BRIGADIER in a G model, but prefer the D double action one as that is what I am used to.

The BRIGADIER slide is the reinforced slide that was designed for the INS/BORDER PATROL model 96D. The high velocity .40 caliber ammo beat the standard slide to junk in no time, so BERETTA came up with the BRIGADIER slide.

Jim

OregonJohnny
September 4, 2014, 01:34 PM
I just got confirmation from Beretta customer service that these new 92G models are externally identical to a standard US-made 92FS (no rail, no removable front sight). Bummer.

I asked if there were any future plans for other 92G variants, and their response was, "There are no current plans to offer any dovetailed front sight variants or other alternatives at this time."

But, of course, 9 months ago, I asked them, "Does Beretta have any plans to release any 92 series pistols in a G configuration?"

And at that time, their response was, "At this time there are no current plans to re-introduce a G model."

9 months later, here we are with a new 92G.

So, I'm keeping a little bit of hope alive for something along the lines of a 92A1 type G to appear in the near future.

WestKentucky
September 4, 2014, 02:00 PM
I have intentionally passed on several 92s because of the rail. It makes holster selection much more limited and I have no use for the rail anyway. Seems to be the same with the other guns I like too...1911 especially.

OregonJohnny
September 4, 2014, 03:35 PM
I have intentionally passed on several 92s because of the rail. It makes holster selection much more limited and I have no use for the rail anyway. Seems to be the same with the other guns I like too...1911 especially.

Yes, the holster availability complaint seems valid with a railed 92. Luckily, I make my own kydex holsters, so the presence of a rail on a full size semi-auto doesn't bother me one bit, and in fact opens up more options, which I like.

I have used the plastic add-on Beretta rail called the TICK, and although it works ok, it limits the ability to quickly and easily field strip the gun. I'm ready for a railed frame. But I want a G model, as it comes from the factory; not a modification by a 3rd party.

Onmilo
September 6, 2014, 11:29 AM
Biggest complaint I have about the New style 92 series is the slide mounted safety, in ANY form.
Really wish they would go to the Taurus style frame mounted safety that can be used as a decocker AND put the gun in Condition One, cocked and locked...

seeker_two
September 6, 2014, 11:50 AM
I'd like to see a 92G Compact with dovetail front sight....

JTQ
September 6, 2014, 01:27 PM
Really wish they would go to the Taurus style frame mounted safety that can be used as a decocker AND put the gun in Condition One, cocked and locked...

That's where they started.

http://www.berettaweb.com/92%20Successo/Beretta%2092%20a%20global%20success%201a.htm

Lots of folks like to complain about how "odd" or "strange" the Beretta 92FS slide mounted safety/decocker is, but it is just like all of the Walther P38's, S&W TDA autos, Ruger P-Series, and IMI Baby Eagles. You very seldom find a thread about those guns where somebody will complain about the safety/decocker on those guns.

DPris
September 6, 2014, 01:37 PM
I have. :)
Stopped carrying a slide-mounted Smith years ago when I accidentally activated it during malfunction drills at a qualifier.

Besides being more inconvenient to use, it's also subject being moved during such slide manipulations under stress when the safety's on the slide.
I won't carry a pistol with a slide-mounted safety.
Denis

mr.trooper
September 6, 2014, 02:09 PM
Meh.

I wish they would make type 'D' availible again.

OregonJohnny
September 6, 2014, 02:40 PM
Stopped carrying a slide-mounted Smith years ago when I accidentally activated it during malfunction drills at a qualifier.

Besides being more inconvenient to use, it's also subject being moved during such slide manipulations under stress when the safety's on the slide.

With a standard stock Beretta FS model, yes I agree with you. It's happened to me during a defensive handgun class. I power stroked the slide after a mag change, pushed out toward the target and pulled against a spongy dead trigger. Of course, instinct kicked in and I flipped the safety off in a split second, but still...

And that's exactly what this Beretta G model fixes. You will NEVER get a dead trigger on a Beretta G. Even if you managed to sweep the decocker down while power-stroking the slide, the G lever would automatically be flipped back up to "fire" by the time the slide was back in battery. And if memory serves, the G lever has a little more resistance than the standard FS lever does, making it even harder to unintentionally sweep it down.

The new Wilson Combat low-profile single sided safety lever that's available for the FS pretty much eliminates the risk also. I have one on my 92FS and after many rounds and hundreds of aggressive slide manipulations, it has never flipped down to safe, no matter how hard I've tried:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=754623

But the G decock-only model just adds 100% assurance that your handgun will never be on safe when you want it on fire.

1KPerDay
September 6, 2014, 03:07 PM
That's where they started.

http://www.berettaweb.com/92%20Successo/Beretta%2092%20a%20global%20success%201a.htm

Lots of folks like to complain about how "odd" or "strange" the Beretta 92FS slide mounted safety/decocker is, but it is just like all of the Walther P38's, S&W TDA autos, Ruger P-Series, and IMI Baby Eagles. You very seldom find a thread about those guns where somebody will complain about the safety/decocker on those guns.
Maybe not, but that's the primary reason I don't own or carry any of those guns. (I do have a WWII P-38 but don't use the decocker... just range use and shoot SA).

I have swept the beretta's safety on during malfunction clearances during a match on 2 occasions. I usually run a SIG or 1911s so it's just a matter of familiarity/training, but it IS a legitimate gripe. I'm looking into the wilson thing but I'd prefer a drop-in G conversion (I realize it doesn't exist).

Onmilo
September 6, 2014, 07:11 PM
JTQ
All those guns you mentioned, I don't care for them either and am no great fan of frame mounted decocking levers on the Sigs, the P-5 Walther or the variant 3-4 H&Ks and I own or have owned all the guns mentioned.
The original 92 used a frame mounted slide engagement safety that operated the same as the 1911 pistols, it did not decock the hammer.
The BEST system allows safe decocking of the hammer AND allows the weapon to be rendered cocked and locked during movement and fire.

The double action feature on a DA/SA pistol should only ever be employed for rapid draw and fire from a holster at ranges measured in feet, not yards..
It is pure stupidity of motion to decock a weapon for movement then either fire again with a heavy DA pull weight OR have to manually cock the hammer after completing that movement.

OregonJohnny
September 6, 2014, 08:23 PM
All those guns you mentioned, I don't care for them either and am no great fan of frame mounted decocking levers on the Sigs, the P-5 Walther or the variant 3-4 H&Ks

So you don't like frame-mounted decockers, and you don't like slide-mounted decockers. It sounds like you basically don't like DA/SA handguns. Unless there is a DA/SA handgun with an exposed hammer and no decocking lever that I'm not thinking of.

The double action feature on a DA/SA pistol should only ever be employed for rapid draw and fire from a holster at ranges measured in feet, not yards..
It is pure stupidity of motion to decock a weapon for movement then either fire again with a heavy DA pull weight OR have to manually cock the hammer after completing that movement.

I agree, decocking a DA/SA just to move is probably not the main intention of the design. That certainly wasn't the tactic being taught in the defensive class I attended. But I must ask - what other SAFE way is there to decock and holster a DA/SA handgun once the hammer is back? It seems to be a necessity of the DA/SA system, to have a decocking lever, whether on the frame or on the slide. Do you just disagree with the DA/SA system in general?

JTQ
September 6, 2014, 08:28 PM
The BEST system allows safe decocking of the hammer AND allows the weapon to be rendered cocked and locked during movement and fire.

Like HK's V1, where it operates as a safety or decocker?

Hilton Yam did a test some time ago with some service size .45 Auto guns. I don't remember if it was the USP or HK 45. Since he's a long time 1911 shooter, he rides the thumb safety. During strings of fire with the HK, he found he was decocking the gun and even getting the gun into a sort of "no man's land" where the trigger was disengaged. I don't remember what he had to do to get the trigger to reengage, complete decock or rack the slide.

I'm primarily a 1911 shooter and I suspect I'd have the same problems. I also have trouble with the SIG slide release getting in the way and the decocker is a more difficult reach than a slide mounted decocker, for me at least.

While I don't particularly care for the Beretta 92FS safety/decocker, and like most folks who have commented here, I would prefer to find a decocker only Beretta 92, my first semi auto experience was with the S&W 4506, and I find that device far enough out of the way as to be of little consequence.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Beretta 92 "G" Models Exist!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!