Quantcast
New Beretta 92 "G" Models Exist! - 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 September 3, 2014, 02:31 PM   #1
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
New Beretta 92 "G" Models Exist!

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!
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 02:59 PM   #2
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,324
What's the -SD variant?
__________________
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 September 3, 2014, 03:20 PM   #3
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
Quote:
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.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 05:06 PM   #4
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,324
Cool thanks
__________________
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 September 3, 2014, 05:17 PM   #5
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
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.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 05:32 PM   #6
Ohen Cepel
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 4, 2003
Location: Where they tell me to go
Posts: 2,091
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.
__________________
"He who dares wins."
NRA Life Benefactor Member
BCCI Life Member
SAF Life Member
GOA Member
JFPO Member
MSI Executive Member
Ohen Cepel is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 05:49 PM   #7
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonJohnny View Post
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?
__________________
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 September 3, 2014, 06:30 PM   #8
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
Quote:
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.

Quote:
I can take/leave the rail but would also like the dovetailed sights.
Quote:
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.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 08:11 PM   #9
golden
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Posts: 800
I want another vertec

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
golden is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 12:34 PM   #10
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
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.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 01:00 PM   #11
WestKentucky
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 1, 2014
Posts: 1,720
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.
__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure" -Dwight D. Eisenhower
WestKentucky is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 02:35 PM   #12
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
Quote:
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.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 10:29 AM   #13
Onmilo
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 26, 2004
Location: Illinois`
Posts: 8,970
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...
Onmilo is online now  
Old September 6, 2014, 10:50 AM   #14
seeker_two
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 3,579
I'd like to see a 92G Compact with dovetail front sight....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0.....
seeker_two is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 12:27 PM   #15
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
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%20Succe...ccess%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.
JTQ is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 12:37 PM   #16
DPris
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 4, 2007
Posts: 2,994
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
DPris is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 01:09 PM   #17
mr.trooper
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 9, 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,817
Meh.

I wish they would make type 'D' availible again.
mr.trooper is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 01:40 PM   #18
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
Quote:
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.
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 02:07 PM   #19
1KPerDay
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 19, 2006
Location: Happy Valley, UT
Posts: 10,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTQ View Post
That's where they started.

http://www.berettaweb.com/92%20Succe...ccess%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).
__________________
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 September 6, 2014, 06:11 PM   #20
Onmilo
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 26, 2004
Location: Illinois`
Posts: 8,970
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.
Onmilo is online now  
Old September 6, 2014, 07:23 PM   #21
OregonJohnny
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 993
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
OregonJohnny is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 07:28 PM   #22
JTQ
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
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.
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 09:17 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.