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!

What's the -SD variant?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Does fixed sights necessarily mean non-adjustable/replaceable front sight?

Click to expand...

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.

I can take/leave the rail but would also like the dovetailed sights.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't... I have no use for rails.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?