Why does safety location on Beretta 92 make a difference?

My problem with the Beretta 92 is not the location of the safety, but the fact that engaging the safety automatically drops the hammer. This is unnerving to me. So I removed the hammer release levers on both my Berettas (replacing them with spacers from the "D" version). Now, with the safety on, the hammer remains cocked. (In that condition, you can decock safely simply by pulling the trigger.)

The next step has been to get the Taurus PT92, which has a frame-mounted safety and can be carried "cocked and locked." In other respects it's a near-duplicate of the Beretta.
Glad that works for you, but sure seems like it's asking for an AD.

Also, on a Beretta 92 series the linkage between the hammer and firing pin is rotated out of alignment when decocking/engaging the safety. So there really isn't any way for it to fire on decock. Forgetting to engage the safety and then pulling the trigger, expecting a decock on the other hand...................

All 92's should be "G" style.

Decock only, no manual safety.

You can buy one that way or buy a $55 kit from Beretta to retro it from FS to G.

I've done both.
This ^^^^
 
I don't know how exclusive this is to the Beretta 92 series but it was an interesting revelation that these pistols could have the magazine inserted and a round chambered, safety down, without ever needing to touch the safety or the hammer. I want a G conversion myself but for the safety conscious I can see how this arrangement is beneficial. Are there DASA pistols with frame mounted (thumb down) safeties that do this? As said previously I also prefer the SIG style decocker with no safety setting.
 
I don't know how exclusive this is to the Beretta 92 series but it was an interesting revelation that these pistols could have the magazine inserted and a round chambered, safety down, without ever needing to touch the safety or the hammer. I want a G conversion myself but for the safety conscious I can see how this arrangement is beneficial. Are there DASA pistols with frame mounted (thumb down) safeties that do this?
Several of the Taurus PT92/99/100/101 variants have a similar feature where the safety/decock lever can be left fully down, deactivating the trigger and automatically decocking the hammer when you load a magazine and rack the slide. One of mine does. I prefer the "G" style where the lever won't remain in the fully down/decock position but springs back to the ready position.

Also the P.38 does, and all the similar designs that resulted from it. (but they have slide-mounted safeties like the 92S/FS/etc.
 
HK USP V1 and Taurus PT92 have frame levers that are safe up, fire down, decock way down.

The Bren Ten has a conventional thumb safety and a peculiar cross bolt firing pin block. This would let you manually lower the hammer safely. One of the attempted revivals substituted a slide decocker for the cross bolt.
 
I don't know how exclusive this is to the Beretta 92 series but it was an interesting revelation that these pistols could have the magazine inserted and a round chambered, safety down, without ever needing to touch the safety or the hammer.

I'm not really a fan of racking the slide with the safety engaged. Done at speed, the slamming of the exposed decocking cam on the right-side safety/decocker lever (with the weight of the slide behind it) into the hammer release lever is just putting unnecessary stress on small parts, IMO.
 
Several of the Taurus PT92/99/100/101 variants have a similar feature where the safety/decock lever can be left fully down, deactivating the trigger and automatically decocking the hammer when you load a magazine and rack the slide. One of mine does. I prefer the "G" style where the lever won't remain in the fully down/decock position but springs back to the ready position.
The Taurus PT92 went through an evolution in which the decocker was added in the early 90's, as a response to the Beretta. However, the Taurus decocker works differently from that of the Beretta. The Beretta rotates a transfer piece, so that when the hammer falls, it doesn't transfer the blow to the firing pin. The Taurus, on the other hand, merely drops the hammer to the quarter-cock position, just barely out of contact with the firing pin. There is no rotating transfer piece. This is inherently not as safe as the Beretta, because if you have a worn or broken hammer / sear engagement (at the quarter-cock notch), you could end up with a disaster.

The Taurus safety / decocker has three positions: up for safe, down for fire, and further down to decock. The decock position is spring-loaded, so it automatically returns to the fire position. If it doesn't, that means you have a broken or missing decocker spring. These are easy to lose because they're merely held in place by a flange on the upper left grip screw bushing. Check your gun for a missing spring.

(Beginning in 1997, Taurus changed the design of the other three grip screws, combining the screw itself with the bushing. If someone incorrectly reassembles the grip screws, they might put one of these combination screws / bushings in the upper left position, thereby losing the retaining flange. The spring would then be free to fall out.)

My advice would be to not use the decocker feature on the Taurus, if it has one.
 
Last edited:
I'm another that dislikes the slide mounted safety. I owned a Beretta 92FS for several years and finally sold it due to me being unable to reliably poke off the slide safety.

I can reach a frame mounted safety much easier and the motion required of my thumb is simpler.

Funny thing is that the Beretta 92FS pretty much drove me away from any manual safety lever on my autoloaders. For "old school" hammer fired autoloaders, I'd rather have a decocker only on a SA/DA gun.
 
JTQ,

Actually, it was writen exactly as it was intended. The state police wanted the gun carried ON SAFE. Yes, the engaging the safety does drop the hammer, but unless you disengage the safety afterwards, it stays on safe. It is the G model where the safety/decocker lever on the slide only drops the hammer. The G model does not have a manual safety.
If you flip the safety and someone takes the gun away from you, they cannot fire it till the safety is disengaged, which is why the state police liked it.

Jim
 
JTQ,

Actually, it was writen exactly as it was intended. The state police wanted the gun carried ON SAFE. Yes, the engaging the safety does drop the hammer, but unless you disengage the safety afterwards, it stays on safe. It is the G model where the safety/decocker lever on the slide only drops the hammer. The G model does not have a manual safety.
If you flip the safety and someone takes the gun away from you, they cannot fire it till the safety is disengaged, which is why the state police liked it.

Jim
You said...
Also, Massad AYOOB has written about the CAROLINA State Police, teaching their officers to carry the BERETTA 96 with the safety on and de-cocking it as part of the draw. It has saved lives for them.
Jim
If the Beretta 96FS has the safety on, the hammer is already decocked. If the safety is on, you cannot decock the gun on the draw.

You can carry an M9/92FS/96FS with the safety on, and you can push the safety lever off and to the fire position on the draw, but you can't carry an M9/92FS/96FS with the safety on, and then decock the gun on the draw, since with the safety on, the gun is already decocked.

Perhaps it is a terminology thing, but your statement as written above cannot be done with an M9/92FS/96FS as configured from the factory.
 
Last edited:
The "problem" of inadvertently engaging a slide mounted safety seems very overstated to me. I suppose there may be designs out there which lend to that, but it's never been an issue for me with two of the most common examples, Beretta and S&W pistols. I have a couple Beretta 92s, a Baby Eagle, and more than a few Smiths from which I draw this conclusion

20230203_191535.jpg
 
out of interest I might get out my Beretta 92S, and see how many times I would have to rack the slide before I could even figure out how to accidentally engage the safety.
 
The "problem" of inadvertently engaging a slide mounted safety seems very overstated to me.
Thank you. A couple of us said that earlier in the thread, but apparently, most people posting don't want to actually read the previous posts, desiring simply to interject their personal opinions (and biases).

Another example of prejudice against one system causing everyone to way overthink something that either is a non-factor in effective employment of a firearms or something that truly can be easily adapted to and overcome. But hey, it allows all the manufacturers to come up with "solutions" that they can charge more money for...And creates fodder for internet debate.
 
I'm sure there are quite a few "die-hard 1911" folks that complain about the "backwards" safety on the M9/92FS, but I get the feeling most of these complaints about the Beretta safety/decocker are actually from striker fired folk that wouldn't carry a gun with a manual safety because it will get them "killed on the streets". Most of these folks couldn't operate a manual safety if it switched either up or down for safe.


I would agree.. I do not remember this debate until the Youtube explosion.
I cut my teeth, so to speak, on the old S&Ws, Walthers, etc. so the safety never really bothered me.

Now-a-days I would require a re-train of muscle memory if I were to employ one of my Walthers or Berettas as I don't rely on them for SD anymore. Not because of the safety location, rather the size.
 
Last edited:
I do not remember this debate until the Youtube explosion.

On that note, after some thought, it did occur to me that a change in doctrine perhaps does make it more likely to inadvertently engage slide mounted safeties.

See, we used to only teach overhand slide racking to people who lacked the strength to slingshot it.

In slingshotting, you're lifting up slightly as you draw the slide back due to simple gun geometry and human anatomy. That keeps the levers up in the fire position. Overhand reverses the force vector on that secondary axis.

I do not and will not recommend overhand racking or any other practice which turns the muzzle toward a part of your own body and/or people standing to the side of you during chambering unless a person simply cannot accomplish it any other way. And I will first push that person toward a firearm they can properly manipulate. That's why my 73 YO mother has a S&W Shield EZ.

Also, there is one slide mounted safety I actually do not care for, and that's the Desert Eagle. Not because you might accidentally engage it, but because it's a single action that needs to have it engaged if carried C&L, and it's a rather unpleasant one to disengage with your thumb due to the reach on the massive pistol and, more importantly, the shape of the lever on the Mk VII and earlier Mk XIX.
 
Last edited:
On that note, after some thought, it did occur to me that a change in doctrine perhaps does make it more likely to inadvertently engage slide mounted safeties.

See, we used to only teach overhand slide racking to people who lacked the strength to slingshot it.
You also probably taught folks to use the slide stop, as a slide release, back in the day when slide stops were large, robust parts like those found on the 1911, Browning Hi-Power, and Beretta 92.

At some point the slide stop became a small stamped part, that was less durable, and to increase the lifespan of those stamped parts, they stopped being used to release the slide.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there are quite a few "die-hard 1911" folks that complain about the "backwards" safety on the M9/92FS, but I get the feeling most of these complaints about the Beretta safety/decocker are actually from striker fired folk that wouldn't carry a gun with a manual safety because it will get them "killed on the streets".
Nah, it was fashionable for gunwriters to complain about "backwards" safeties long before the Glocks were popular.
I would agree.. I do not remember this debate until the Youtube explosion.
I was a big 92 fan many years ago and remember rolling my eyes at just about every single gunwriter evaluation of the 92F/92FS. It was as if they were all working from the same script that required them to mention that the safety was in the wrong place and worked backwards.
The "problem" of inadvertently engaging a slide mounted safety seems very overstated to me.
It's not like it happens every time, but happening even just once when you don't expect it is enough to make a note of it. I've had it happen a couple of times.
I do not and will not recommend overhand racking or any other practice which turns the muzzle toward a part of your own body and/or people standing to the side of you during chambering unless a person simply cannot accomplish it any other way.
I agree that people shouldn't be pointing guns at themselves or others unless they mean to. I've never noticed that it's necessary to do so while overhand racking. In fact, it seems to me that the pinch-grip slingshot, when performed quickly and instinctively angles the muzzle towards the strong side about as much as a properly executed overhand rack angles the gun towards the weak side. Neither one is going to endanger the shooter or those to either side of the shooter.

Anyone teaching people to overhand rack in a way that has them point the gun at themselves or others is being negligent. Just like the folks who teach people to reload autopistols by pointing the muzzle high into the air.
 
The "problem" of inadvertently engaging a slide mounted safety seems very overstated to me. I suppose there may be designs out there which lend to that, but it's never been an issue for me with two of the most common examples, Beretta and S&W pistols. I have a couple Beretta 92s, a Baby Eagle, and more than a few Smiths from which I draw this conclusion

]

Not for me.

Would do it almost every time unless I purposely altered the way I racked it. And I wouldn't always do it because it was different from how I racked other guns

I'm right handed. If i put my support hand on the top of the slide, thumb pointed towards myself, my thumb will put the gun on safe. If my thumb doesn't, my palm probably will.

I also heard the gun go on safe or found it on safe three times in a few months while carrying after I bumped or brushed against something. That M92A1fs Compact wasn't trustworthy due to this. I sold it. A few months later, having not been available for 30 years. Beretta comes out with kit to convert an FS to a G. Great timing.

Anyway, like I said, the G style fixes the problem. A real problem.
 
It's almost funny, but there's another thread currently running about a certain 3rd generation S&W semiauto, and yet -- exactly zero persons have chimed in to complain about the slide-mounted safety whilst almost every poster is talking about what a worthy pistol it is...

I'm left to wonder how many people that think the M9/92FS safety location is a big deal actually spent several years with the gun as their issue handgun, either military or LE. Of course, all the former "operators" with their own YouTube channels, consulting businesses or shooting schools who coincidentally now earn huge bucks touting certain brands are free to talk smack about the Beretta system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTQ
It's not like it happens every time, but happening even just once when you don't expect it is enough to make a note of it. I've had it happen a couple of times

Make note of, sure. Why not? But it's hardly a design flaw, at least not any more than any safety which can be inadvertently engaged or disengaged with inattentive manipulation. In general, the degree of ease with which it can be engaged is proportionate to the opposite. And on that note, I've had holsters both engage and disengage frame mounted safeties. I consider it a holster problem, not a firearm design issue. But I did reduce the lever on my Witness compact 10mm for that reason, since it was carried IWB. Never had the slide mounted safeties on my CS45 or 4516 engaged by an IWB holster.

I also don't carry handguns with an empty chamber, so even if I did manage one day to accidentally decock and safety on chambering, it would be remedied before holstering to go about my business, making it a non-issue.

it seems to me that the pinch-grip slingshot, when performed quickly and instinctively angles the muzzle towards the strong side about as much as a properly executed overhand rack angles the gun towards the weak side.

I don't see any way a pinch grip can result in more than a few degrees deviation from straight ahead on the horizontal plane without deliberately (and awkwardly) making a point of it.

I've watched many people use, and many instructors teach, an overhand method that turns the muzzle perpendicular to down range (held in the way you would take down a glock), advocating the mechanical advantage of pushing your arms toward each other. This can put it in line with your weak hand forearm, and anyone standing on your weak side.

Not for me.

Would do it almost every time unless I purposely altered the way I racked it. And I wouldn't always do it because it was different from how I racked other guns

If one way works and another doesn't, and you refuse to adapt, that's a you problem, not a design problem. Somehow many are able to effectively manipulate weapons with a different manual of arms. I don't forget that Colt cylinder releases go back instead of forward like a Smith, or that my FAL charging handle is further forward on the left, different from the AR, AK and many others. I've never attempted to lift the bolt handle on a Schmidt-Rubin. And I've not had a problem forgetting where a safety is, which way it goes, or how to avoid unintentionally engaging/disengaging when manipulating the weapon. These are overt and tactile things, not like an unusual button layout on a keyboard.
 
I suppose it would matter to someone with short thumbs.
I resemble that, LOL.

I find a similar issue with 3rd-Gen Smiths. As a decocker-only I'm fine with a slide-mounted lever. But then again, I trained for a long time with 1911's, then with classic Sig's, so anything else seems alien to me.
 
But it's hardly a design flaw...
I didn't call it a design flaw, but it is a feature I don't care for.
I also don't carry handguns with an empty chamber, so even if I did manage one day to accidentally decock and safety on chambering, it would be remedied before holstering to go about my business, making it a non-issue.
I don't either, so it would happen for me during a malfunction clearance or when dropping the slide manually after a reload rather than using the slide release. The latter is a real possibility for me since one of my carry guns doesn't have a slide release and I practice using a slide rack to drop the slide after a reload.
I don't see any way a pinch grip can result in more than a few degrees deviation from straight ahead on the horizontal plane without deliberately (and awkwardly) making a point of it.
Agree.
I've watched many people use, and many instructors teach, an overhand method that turns the muzzle perpendicular to down range...
So have I, which is why I specified "properly executed" in my post. I've also seen many people use and many instructors teach raising the muzzle in the air 45 degrees or more during a reload, something that is unsafe on most shooting ranges.
 
I've also seen many people use and many instructors teach raising the muzzle in the air 45 degrees or more during a reload, something that is unsafe on most shooting ranges.

That is good training.

In a critical incident this is how you should replace a magazine. Gun up high, so you can look at it if you need too, so your head is up looking towards any threats, so the gun isn't pointed at anyone, and to reduce your stature. (Make you less of a target / keeping your arms / gun more behind cover or concealment
 
Back
Top