Quantcast
Review - Wilson Combat Low-Profile Beretta 92 Safety - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Tools and Technologies > Handguns: Autoloaders

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 15, 2014, 12:52 AM   #1
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 986
Review - Wilson Combat Low-Profile Beretta 92 Safety

Some of you may know that Wilson Combat is now working on Beretta M9/92/96 guns, and making parts for them as well. The part that caught my eye the most is their single-sided low-profile decocker/safety lever: http://shopwilsoncombat.com/Wilson-C...oductinfo/636/

I decided it was worth a try, so I ordered it last week. It arrived yesterday and I installed it last night. Installation requires driving out various pins (it's recommended to do this inside of a large clear plastic bag, as 3 different tiny springs and plungers easily launch into space) and removing the old safety mechanism.

Before installation, it was rather easy to unintentionally sweep the safety lever down while doing fast power stroke racks of the slide. Now, I can grab the slide hard, power stroke it like crazy over and over again, and the safety lever does not move. There's also nothing sharp digging into the palm of your left hand while you grasp the slide. The only downside is this - decocking the gun with this new low-profile lever is rather difficult, and it is definitely harder to flick the lever back up to fire. Before, I was able to decock and flip the lever back up to fire without shifting my shooting grip. Not anymore. Plus, if you're left handed, it basically removes the ambidextrous functionality of the Beretta's safety/decocker.

But this part improves (virtually eliminates) one of the biggest universal complaints about the Beretta 92. If there is anyone out there who likes the Beretta, but is wary of the safety being unintentionally engaged while carrying, clearing malfunctions, etc., this part is definitely worth a look.

My modifications to this 92FS over the years have been:

D mainspring
Metal guide rod
Metal trigger
Metal mainspring cap/lanyard loop
Elite II hammer
Oversized checkered magazine release
Alumagrips
Wilson combat single-sided low-profile safety

All of these mods are very much worth it, IMO. I haven't had the gun to the range yet with the new safety, but in just manipulating the gun at home, it is a huge improvement. Some before and after pics:

BEFORE:


AFTER:


BEFORE:


AFTER:


BEFORE:


AFTER:


OregonJohnny is offline  
Old June 15, 2014, 01:04 AM   #2
Joshua M. Smith
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Location: Wabash IN
Posts: 942
I dig it.

I'm a lefty but use slide decocks by stabbing the opposite side with my pointer finger on my right hand, as if I'm going hand-over to release the slide.

I used to carry a Taurus PT92. The lack of a slide-mounted safety/decocker for the reasons you mentioned made up my mind on that one. The Taurus, too, was finished much more nicely than the Beretta I was comparing it to side-by-side. I don't know why.

I thought for a while about finding a DAO Beretta 92D slide and slapping it on a 92fs, but that would have been more trouble and expense than I wanted.

Josh
__________________
Smith-Sights.com

I would like to buy your Mosin-Nagant front sights. Please PM me for details.
Joshua M. Smith is offline  
Old June 15, 2014, 08:44 AM   #3
mworsham
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 30, 2014
Location: TX
Posts: 4
Thanks for posting this info and the excellent pics. I'm ordering this today.
mworsham is offline  
Old June 15, 2014, 02:27 PM   #4
Stringfellow
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 29, 2009
Location: the Bay Area
Posts: 346
This is cool on several levels:

1) considering how long the '92 has been in production and how many are out in the field, I always thought we would see more aftermarket parts (not just accessories)

2) this addresses one of my complaints - the safeties contribute to the pistol being overly wide (a typical pet peeve with me). The before and after picture really is pretty impressive in terms of how much more streamlined the pistol becomes.

Similarly, I recontoured a set of Hogue Nylon grips and found that they can be substantially thinner, which really made the pistol sleeker - except for the stock safety...

We can only hope that Wilson or someone else also makes a more streamlined slide release (it is about double the thickness it needs to be, which is all the more obvious with the Wilson safety)
__________________
Well-armed liberal
Stringfellow is offline  
Old June 15, 2014, 02:29 PM   #5
Stringfellow
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 29, 2009
Location: the Bay Area
Posts: 346
And one more thing - I wonder if the safety will work on my Cougar, which appears to have the same safety parts...

Any know if they are interchangeable?
__________________
Well-armed liberal
Stringfellow is offline  
Old June 16, 2014, 10:07 AM   #6
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,230
Thanks for the review and pics.
__________________
Pet peeve: "You better send that defective __________ to me for proper disposal." Not original. Not funny. Not helpful. Please make it stop.
1KPerDay is offline  
Old June 16, 2014, 09:33 PM   #7
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 986
I shot my 92FS today with the new Wilson lever. It worked great. Doing dozens of failure drills and combat reloads with the overhand powerstroke method, the decocker lever never budged. It's like it's not even there. But when you need to decock and re-holster, it's pretty easy with a slight shift of your shooting grip.

Quote:
I'm a lefty but use slide decocks by stabbing the opposite side with my pointer finger on my right hand, as if I'm going hand-over to release the slide.
Well, then this Wilson lever would work great for you.

Quote:
I thought for a while about finding a DAO Beretta 92D slide and slapping it on a 92fs, but that would have been more trouble and expense than I wanted.
Just out of curiosity, why would you need to do this, since the frames on a 92D and 92FS are identical? Unless you are looking for a rail, which would be an M9A1 frame. Actually, that might be kind of cool - a 92D slide on a railed M9A1 frame.

Quote:
considering how long the '92 has been in production and how many are out in the field, I always thought we would see more aftermarket parts (not just accessories)
I agree. The 1911 has had it's fun. Now it's us Beretta guys' turn!

Quote:
We can only hope that Wilson or someone else also makes a more streamlined slide release (it is about double the thickness it needs to be, which is all the more obvious with the Wilson safety)
I actually like the stock slide release lever. My grip does not interfere with it, but doing a lightning-fast reload by hitting that giant lever is easy and feels like second nature to me. Guys that are used to Glocks and 1911s probably see the Beretta lever as overly large and in the way, but if you use it as a true slide release, and not just a catch, it really works well.

Quote:
And one more thing - I wonder if the safety will work on my Cougar, which appears to have the same safety parts...

Any know if they are interchangeable?
I have no idea, but the guys over at berettaforum.net would probably know. Or you could send an e-mail to Wilson Combat.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 12:05 AM   #8
gunnutery
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,674
If you don't mind me asking, how much did the part cost?
gunnutery is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 09:21 AM   #9
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
If you don't mind me asking, how much did the part cost?
The link in the OP's first post, says $41.95.

http://shopwilsoncombat.com/Wilson-C...oductinfo/636/
JTQ is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 09:41 AM   #10
gunnutery
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,674
EDIT

Oops, I missed that link, thanks.

Thanks for the review OJ. I do like the much thinner profile now. I'd looked through Wilson's Beretta product/upgrade list before, but most of it seemed either too pricy or just unnecessary. I missed that one though when I scrolled through last month.

I may actually go for this low-pro decocker when funds are a little looser and I have time to tinker. I don't really carry it enough, but I use my 92fs as a hidden "night stand" gun so that my wife and I have 24/7 access to A gun if everything else is locked up. I've showed her how to rack the action in a way that doesn't flip the safety down, but this seems like it would be more trustworthy in a stressful situation.

Last edited by gunnutery; June 18, 2014 at 12:27 AM. Reason: Further thought
gunnutery is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 10:53 PM   #11
Devonai
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 24, 2003
Location: East Granby, CT
Posts: 3,348
A side-by-side comparison of my 92FS and my Cougar 8045 would seem to indicate that they are not interchangeable. However, if Wilson made a kit for the Cougar, I would buy it.
__________________
"Consequently, the garden variety mindless American comes to trust in his bubblewrapped world, and really fails to appreciate, at a very core, fundamental level, that the world is a dangerous place and will gleefully kill him in nasty ways if he lets it." - geekWithA.45
Devonai is offline  
Old June 18, 2014, 08:37 PM   #12
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 986
I am hoping that with enough interest in Wilson's "G" conversion, Beretta might realize there is a market to bring back their G models (decock-only). If they brought back something like the 92G-SD or the 92G Elite II (or add a rail and call it the Elite III), people might take the Beretta 92 a little more seriously as a modern fighting handgun.

A few months back, Beretta USA asked people which special 92 model they'd like to see brought back. And word out of a recent 2 day Beretta class hosted on Bill Wilson's ranch and taught by Ernest Langdon, is that the reps who were there from Beretta got quite a few requests for a return of the G models.

In the meantime, this low-profile lever from Wilson is the next best thing, without having them do a G conversion that cannot be undone.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old June 18, 2014, 08:48 PM   #13
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,613
I'm pretty sure the lack of G models is a from a liability standpoint from Beretta.

I think all of the G models were sold to LE and the Elite II was mostly marketed as a competition gun. Most of the Beretta's sold were FS, safety/decocker models.

I think Beretta is concerned about the inevitable, "hey, I put the thing on safe, I didn't realize it was spring loaded to go back to the fire position. I was sure it was still on safe when I pointed it at (you fill in the blank), and pulled the trigger. Man, that was a loud bang."
JTQ is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 12:04 PM   #14
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,230
I don't see why that would be more of a liability concern than SIG's decocker system, or H&K's, or...
__________________
Pet peeve: "You better send that defective __________ to me for proper disposal." Not original. Not funny. Not helpful. Please make it stop.
1KPerDay is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 04:17 PM   #15
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
I don't see why that would be more of a liability concern than SIG's decocker system, or H&K's, or...
Because the predominant Beretta 92 model in the US is the 92FS with a decocker/safety. We have about 30 years of military personnel trained with that design. The predominant SIG is the decocker only.

When you pick up a Beretta 92 you expect it to decock and safe when you swing the lever down. When you swing the lever down on the SIG, you expect it to decock only.

I'm not saying people can't figure it out, just that I'm pretty sure Beretta understands a decocker only 92 would be pretty popular. The reason they don't offer it is not because they think it wouldn't sell.
JTQ is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 05:17 PM   #16
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,230
I for one would vastly prefer it...
__________________
Pet peeve: "You better send that defective __________ to me for proper disposal." Not original. Not funny. Not helpful. Please make it stop.
1KPerDay is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 09:26 AM   #17
arspeukinen
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 4, 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 99
Does it come in INOX variety?
arspeukinen is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 09:34 AM   #18
Nakanokalronin
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 1, 2008
Posts: 320
I'd get one for a safety model, but my decocker only Elite is gtg. I do like seeing Wilson Combat making some quality parts for the 92/96 series. I hope Beretta makes the Elite series again or at least the G model. I sold my other 92s with safety only since I was spoiled with the Elite.
Nakanokalronin is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 09:39 AM   #19
Nakanokalronin
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 1, 2008
Posts: 320
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the lack of G models is a from a liability standpoint from Beretta.

I think all of the G models were sold to LE and the Elite II was mostly marketed as a competition gun. Most of the Beretta's sold were FS, safety/decocker models.

I think Beretta is concerned about the inevitable, "hey, I put the thing on safe, I didn't realize it was spring loaded to go back to the fire position. I was sure it was still on safe when I pointed it at (you fill in the blank), and pulled the trigger. Man, that was a loud bang."
Funny you say that since Beretta sells a G model PX4 and the parts to convert a safety model PX4 into a decocker only model.

I think it has nothing to do about safety and everything to do with freeing up time for their polymer line of guns.
Nakanokalronin is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 12:54 PM   #20
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Nakanokalronin wrote,
Funny you say that since Beretta sells a G model PX4 and the parts to convert a safety model PX4 into a decocker only model.
It's not that Beretta has liability concerns about decocker only models, the PX4 has always been available with a decocker only version, and they sold the decocker only G model to LE and the competition geared Elite II was decocker only, it is that there is such a long history of the safety/decocker on the 92FS that Beretta no doubt feels people expect that safety/decocker function from that particular gun.

from another forum, from Todd L. Green, a former Beretta employee, referencing decocker only 92 models…
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...retta+decocker
Quote:
It's why Beretta only offered "G" models to the commercial market when they were special (and different looking) from the regular M9/92FS. I still think it's paranoid but it's far closer to reality than the other issue.
JTQ is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 01:46 PM   #21
TestPilot
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 696
Quote:
Because the predominant Beretta 92 model in the US is the 92FS with a decocker/safety. We have about 30 years of military personnel trained with that design. The predominant SIG is the decocker only.

When you pick up a Beretta 92 you expect it to decock and safe when you swing the lever down. When you swing the lever down on the SIG, you expect it to decock only.
No, Beretta have been doing that far before U.S. military ever adopted it.

It's the company mind set during the time M92 was being sold.

Now there is very little reason to fix that, since Beretta wants to push more PX4 sales.
TestPilot is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 02:17 PM   #22
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
TestPilot wrote,
No, Beretta have been doing that far before U.S. military ever adopted it.
What part of my comments are you disagreeing with?
JTQ is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 10:03 PM   #23
Nakanokalronin
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 1, 2008
Posts: 320
If they had concerns about the 92G that was originally designed for the French military and then sold commercially, they probably wouldn't want what first came out as a safety only gun (PX4) in a G configuration either. I also wouldn't think they'd sell a G conversion kit on their website if they thought it was confusing.

That ToddG seems to think the G model should of stayed for sale to the public nor does he seem to think people would be confused.
Quote:
As for the "converting F to G" thing and liability, balderdash. The G is a factory configuration used by LE and military personnel around the world and used in the company's top tier competition guns. I carried G's for about four years. You're more likely to have trouble shooting weird off-brand "+p+" ammunition and having a lawyer claim that the stuff cops carry isn't "deadly enough for you." (and I wouldn't worry about that overmuch, either)
The Elite models were made in the U.S. and if someone was buying one of those, I'm sure they would know what they were getting. It's like if someone buys a competition model of a gun with a 3.5# trigger instead of the 6# version or a V8 muscle car over the V6 daily driver model. Same on the outside, but they know they're different on the inside and why they're buying the other one. If not, the salesman would tell them the differences.

Companies have taken away or added a safety years after a guns introduction. Either way, the companies provide an instruction manual with every gun on how each system works. If someone pulls on a trigger just because they think it's on safe, then it's the poor handling skills of the owner that would make it go off. I haven't heard any backlash on the companies where CCW holders end up in the news because their gun "just went off" in a bathroom stall or some other place because they were playing with it like a toy.

I think Beretta just wants their polymer line to go forward and not bother with special models anymore. It's a shame really since slide mounted safeties aren't really popular anymore, but that G configuration negated it's drawback. I had a 92FS before I found the Elite pictured below in a used case, then later bought a 92A1. I never got confused on which lever did what and I think people would ask why an Elite costs more than a standard 92 and what the differences are. I have a FB account and Beretta sometimes posts pictures of the Elite models. When they do, everyone asks when they are coming back.

I don't think I would buy another 92 if it wasn't decocker only.


Most don't know that Beretta did have an EliteIII ready, but never produced them for sale.


Below is from another gun forum.

Quote:
Beretta Elite III
Limited Production

SA/DA
Flush Crowned Barrel
Hogue rubber grips
Stainless Finish
"Elite III" engraved on slide
Novak sights
Skeletonized hammer
SD frame
Picatinny rail

Includes set of standard 92 grips
3 magazines with mag bumpers & custom hard case

JS92F11 9mm 15 Cap 4.9" barrel $750 MSRP
JS96F01 40SW 11 Cap 4.9" barrel $750 MSRP

I spoke with Beretta today and they said they might be getting them in from Italy next year. Also said that they can't make them in US, due to large military contract.
That's another thing. They're so wrapped up in producing the standard 92 for the military that special models are their last concern. It wasn't long ago that they got their military contract extended so maybe Beretta will start producing special models again once the military retires the M9.
Nakanokalronin is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 10:58 PM   #24
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,613
I think we're reading the same information and coming to different conclusions.
JTQ is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.