For the record, I don't HATE the 92FS. I just believe, from extensive civilian and military experience owning the weapon, carrying the weapon in combat, and shooting the weapon extensively (to include expert qualification repeatedly) that there are better guns, especially for the money.
To clarify, I have large hands and can palm a basketball... I do actually like the ergos of the grip. I give credit where it is due. The gun isn't sinful, and actually the reason I purchased one, as I said, is due to the very attractive lines and designs, and Hollywood definately helped to sell this pistol.
But, my analysis is that, in summary, the bulk, girth, weight, and operation of the pistol is simply outmatched by more modern designs that do the same job, better. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 92 and it's competition have a failure rate of exactly the same, then why wouldn't you pick a lighter, stronger design gun with better safety mechanims and designs, even at the same pricepoint?
Comparing it to the competition the competition just flat out wins:
Trigger - not counting specially 'tuned' triggers, Beretta's trigger is nothing special. Among Stock triggers and reset, I believe the competition like Glock or CZ wins. Many people like XD but it's squishy. MP are good triggers too.
Safeties - With grip safeties, loaded chamber indicators, trigger safeties... Beretta is below it's competition. If it's loaded and cocked and dropped... who knows.
Grip - personal preference, but modern guns are adjustable
Decocker - Sig or CZ win. The Beretta decocker is in a bad place and operates counter-intuitive and is easy to accidently decock when operating the slide.
External safety - 1911 style like CZ. Beretta is counter intuitive.
Accuracy - tie
Sights - competition
Frame material/weight - polymer/competition
Ruggedness - most combat guns pass incredible standards so this is a tie
Price - seems Beretta is typically more expensive than Glock/XD/CZ/MP, and equal to Sig and less than HK, most of the competition wins.
Can't find the article now, but I read an article a few years ago that said that Glock and CZ were the MOST popular competition handguns. That may have changed and opened up to newer guns, but unlikely would open up to an older design like the 92. There MUST be a reason people gravitate to guns that AREN'T the 92... So this isn't just MY bias here...
Here's some evidence I found on the web in a quick search.
http://idpashooting.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/top-10-most-popular-idpa-guns/
Under 5% of IDPA shooting was done with a Beretta 92 in this 2008 compilation, and it barely edged out Caspian and Rock River!
http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2012/04/20/Glock-and-SW-Make-Up-67-of-IDPA-World-Shoot-Guns.aspx
In the Tactical Journal (Vol. 15, Issue 4) you'll find on pages 26-33 the equipment survey results from the 2011 IDPA World Shoot. Looking at the brands of handguns used by competitors one fact stands out above all else, two manufacturers, Glock and Smith & Wesson, dominate the list.
Beretta barely make the list here and has 1/2 the representation as Caracal or Predator Tactical!!!!! !!!!???? Beretta comes in at .03% representation, behind Tangfolio with 3-4 times the representation! Tangfolio!!!! Does Caracal, Predator Tactical, or Tangfolio even have any serious military or police contracts in the world?!?! Beretta lost out to Caspian!!! And tied with Chiapatta!!!!! Good lord. Not a good showing for the 92, and that says something in a competition. CZ has tripple the representation and so does Sig.
Despite its decades of service in the US military and police and the world, the 92 FAILS to even make it into the American Rifleman's Top Ten list. 1911 is there at #1, Glock is there at #3, the Browning HP is there, but the Beretta was beaten by the Broomhandle Mauser...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/top-10-handguns-2/
The web is filled with evidence that the 92 just isn't the gun that people wish it was. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Heck, Taurus "improved" it by putting the correct safety on it.
I give the 92 it's credit. It's a veteran of decades of service and heck a better designed product than I will ever make. It is just not the king of handguns anymore and should be retired... It's a mediocre or good gun, just not an overly impressive gun in my mind. Many better guns available.
In summary: It's more expensive than the real competition, has unpopular design features, and is not used by most of the world military and police or competition shooters... so it's not just me. It was my first gun and I have since owned a couple, and may one day own another... but it will never be my intended go to gun nor would I ever pay anything other than a rock bottom price for one...