Beretta 92fs from PSA

JohnKSa said:

you can buy a new Beretta 92FS today for close to the same price that they were selling for in the 1990s. I'm not talking about after correction for inflation, I'm talking about pretty much the same dollar amount. That means in actual cost, the prices have come down quite a lot in the intervening years and that savings had to come from somewhere.

Click to expand...

It is even better than that -- I still have my 1992 receipt for buying a new 92FS for $585, and I shopped all over the place to get that good of a sub-$600 deal.

Got mine today. And I promptly tore it apart to thread the barrel and install a custom 5/8-24 extension. We'll try it out tomorrow with the can I just built.

way cool!

milemaker13 said:

Did you get that 92 thru PSA? Made in Italy or USA?

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's Italian made. The fit & finish on my 2002 American made Inox 92 is better. That's not to say this one is bad; more like excellent compared to virtually perfect.

milemaker13 said:

Ha! Looks like they finally ran out of the $449 w/ free shipping 92's. They just kept extending the sale, drawing me ever closer to pulling the trigger. First night I saw it, my wife was out of town, I thought heck with it, I'll just buy it.....aah better not. Sale will end, 'nuff said. Then it was extended, and again, and again.... They really know how to push a man to the brink!

Click to expand...

That's what happened to me. I ignored it for a month and a half, finally got tempted too much.

The 92 is a good host weapon for suppressors; hammer fired guns aren't subject to the same sear engagement & wear issues as striker fired pistols caused by an extra 10-16 ounces hanging off the snout, lifting the rear of the slide off the frame.

I just have to figure out what sights I want to put on it and mill a front dovetail.

I had one and really enjoyed shooting it. It fit my hands well and was way more accurate than me. It was easy to disassemble and clean and very reliable. I regret selling it.

View attachment 789601 Nothing wrong with the 92FS.
I used the M-9 extensively in peacetime and combat.
Ran a 92FS as a duty weapon for a Civilian Law Enforcement Agency as well.
They are fine pistols if maintenance guidelines are followed and quality magazines are used.
If you like them, get one!

I have one. I tend to prefer the CZ, all things being equal; but the 92FS is a classic. Mine's a nice shooter, very slick, and if it were my only pistol I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage. BTW I have some pretty small hands, but for whatever reason it doesn't give me a problem.
It was the military issued sidearm for the US for several decades. Love or hate that, it's up to you; but it IS the gun our guys carried. For a lot of folks, that in itself is a draw. Regarding some troops' complaints about them, I remember hearing complaints about the 1911 back in the day, too. Doesn't stop it from being loved now.

Not yet mentioned here, I don’t think:

The 92S does not have the design change present on the 92FS that prevents rearward ejection of the slide should the front of the slide crack and split apart. This is documented to have happened... IMO you should protect your faceteeth and skip the 92S.

The plastic guide rod probably costs less, yes, but its flutes also prevent spring binding caused by sand or debris. If that is a problem for you, consider a fluted metal replacement instead of smooth.

The particular slide cracking issue was sorted out to early production slides on the fs that didn’t have enough radius in a corner. They were also found via high round counts and hammering on them with NATO rounds. Which are plus p pressures.

Blkhrt13 said:

The particular slide cracking issue was sorted out to early production slides on the fs that didn’t have enough radius in a corner. They were also found via high round counts and hammering on them with NATO rounds. Which are plus p pressures.

Click to expand...

That's certainly good to add, but I think supports my opinion, mainly because it's nearly impossible to tell how much of what kind of ammo was run through surplus guns with mixmaster parts of unknown age and origin.

on the M9 I used to have the trigger, and guiderod were plastic. I think the mag release as well, but on that one the decocker was steel, both of them. I second the CZ75-BD if you just want a good 9mm, and its not too much more than a used beretta at $550 or so new. Are the berettas new?

mjsdwash said:

on the M9 I used to have the trigger, and guiderod were plastic. I think the mag release as well, but on that one the decocker was steel, both of them. I second the CZ75-BD if you just want a good 9mm, and its not too much more than a used beretta at $550 or so new. Are the berettas new?

Click to expand...

My 92s was 3 bills. And of a 70s era vintage.

Alec said:

That's certainly good to add, but I think supports my opinion, mainly because it's nearly impossible to tell how much of what kind of ammo was run through surplus guns with mixmaster parts of unknown age and origin.

Click to expand...

The 92s guns are mostly as assembled. Not hodgepodge. I believe they may have been arsenal checked before sale. But fit, finish and wear are all very nice. There is obvious holster wear but looks like almost zero range abuse.

It is an old design and fairs poorly against the CZ-75.

Click to expand...

The Beretta came out in 1972, the CZ in 1975. Both are outdated designs, but the Beretta does have historical significance. I've had both and neither would be my top choice for any practical application. But I'd take a Beretta over any CZ. The plastic parts function just as reliably as the older steel parts and help reduce the price.