What about Beretta 92?

Here is a little history on the military and weapons. Just because a contracted is awarded and a system is adopted on a certain date does not mean that everyone in the service gets the new equipment right away. Yes the M9 was adopted in 1986 but I was in units that didn't get them until late 1992 or early 1993. Even being active duty I didn't get issued a M16A2 until I got to Germany in 1992.

And the dislike for the M9 is not just us old timers not liking any caliber that begins with 4. Desert Shield/Storm was the first big deployment for the M9 with the US Military and was not yet tested in that type of environment. I can tell you from personal experience that the M9 would choke in the desert while the old worn out 1911s kept on working. I am not picky on what type or brand of weapon I have as long as it works well in every environment. The old PIG (M60) served me well through out my time in the Army.

And no the M9 doe not fit everyone's hands. But then again no pistol will. And yes part of the reason the US Military went with the Sig was the fact that it can be made to fit a wider variety of people. How a pistol fits the shooters hand IS very important if they want o shoot it well. We can use Glocks as a perfect example too. A common complaint of the Gen 1-4 Glocks is the finger grooves and how they do not fit a lot of peoples. I never liked how Glocks fit my hands until the Gen 5 came out.

And yes there is a difference between a civilian using a pistol for home defense or competition when compared to how the military uses them. Civilians are going to avoid mud, swamps, sand storms, etc. while the military can not avoid that stuff. I am not saying the M9/92 is junk because they are not. They just weren't the right/best pistol for military use even though they did serve a while.

Since "size" seems to come up a lot....



Perception on grip size seems to vary a lot, and not with just the Beretta.

I dont have overly large hands, and I find the Berettas grip to be very comfortable and the trigger reach in DA is about perfect. It also has a pretty nice DA trigger.

Same goes for most of the others. Contrary to what a lot of people will tell you, the 1911 actually has one of the larger grips (by feel and actual measurement), and when you compare width, its usually very close to the double stacks. My Glocks are actually a tad narrower than my 1911's.

I dont see that the Berettas safety/decocker is a problem. I only use mine as a decocker. With a DA trigger, theres really no need to put the gun on safe. As far as decockers go, I do prefer the SIG's, but the Berettas arent a problem once you get used to them. I handle the SIG like a SIG, and the Beretta like a Beretta.

One thing that applies here, just like anything else, is, the more experience you have with things, the better your experience will likely be with them. You work and shoot the gun you have in your hand, like its meant to be run and shot, not like something else. This is the same thing as the AR vs AK sort of thing. If most of your experience is with one thing, then most other things are not going to give you a good experience, if you arent willing to learn to work and shoot them as they are meant to be, than if you try and work it like the one you know and are comfortable with. Just isnt going to be good.

Yet, I think thats exactly whats going on, when you hear a lot of the complaints.

My experience has been, if you pick a gun of known quality, spend some time and effort with it to learn them, most of the problems youve been told about them, seem to magically disappear as you become familiar with the gun.

I have small hands. And, the Beretta 92FS fits perfectly. But, be aware that they made a change to the backstrap in the early 2000s. There is a small indentation on the 92FS and M9A1 at the top of the backstrap. It brings your hand a little closer to the trigger.

That works perfectly for me. Now, older 92FS models, prior to that change... And, M9 models - they do NOT have that change. And, those guns ARE too big for my hands. It is amazing how that little change fixes the gun for me. In the 1990s (prior to that change) a Beretta grip WAS too big for me.

And, I have owned 41 Berettas total, 29 of them have been Beretta 92 variants - over the past 30 years.

BlueHeelerFI

The 92x and Vertec models have a smaller grip that might be more comfortable for some people

Click to expand...

Same thing here; though even the Vertec and the 92X versions are still a bit of a reach for my smaller size hands. The Beretta 92 is still a very viable service weapon but in a DA/SA pistol I prefer my HK P229 and my CZ P01.

I am a fan of the 92/M9 ever since qualifying expert with my issued example the first time I went to the range. Yes, it's a big gun, and not well suited to micro hands. The only problem was from low bid aftermarket magazines. The fundamental design is outstanding, and like the P226, miles ahead of the typical "modern" striker system.

I recommend finding a lightly used pre-2000 production example than still has the proper all steel components. My current home defense 9mm is a 90's Brigadier with slide reinforcement and dovetail front sight.

thunderbyrd said:

I have found one at a nice price, but I have no experience with this gun. I know it's 9mm, looks really cool and the US military went to them in 1986. Does the mighty High Road Brain trust recommend this firearm for plinking and home defence? Are they considered to be reliable? Do they shoot straight?

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

After a session of shooting 45’s, 10’s, and or 44 mags, switching over to a 92 is like going from a day long bumpy Jeep ride to nice smooth riding Cadillac!

they are very wide, long gripped, and have an awkward recoil impulse.
If your used to the very fast recoil of a revolver it will feel very strange. Its long, drawn out, and you can feel each step. There is a small bump when the slide hits the case, the bullet hits the ramp, the round chambers, and the slide closes. Its not bad, just different, and I never got used to it. It made follow up shots harder, and thats why I never did like mine. It was reasonably reliable, I think I had one failure to feed, and two stovepipes, over many rounds. Similar to any other good pistol.
They're extremely top heavy, and that may be uncomfortable. This is part of the weird recoil.
Even the M9's had some plastic parts.
The aluminum frame can wear out if you shoot it enough, though few will. Mine had sights that were not adjustable. Its accuracy wasn't all that great with most rounds, but acceptable.

The one thing that changed all of that was very hot 9NATO loads, 125gr at 1250fps, and the recoil smoothed out, accuracy became excellent and follow up shots were easy. But shooting 5k/year of that would probably ruin the frame, so I traded it for a 1911.

Ultimately the big complaint is the grip. A few other people complain about the recoil, but most people who started on autos get used to it quick. So the only way to decide is to at least hold one, and try to shoot one.

This is just my experience of course.

.455_Hunter said:

I recommend finding a lightly used pre-2000 production example than still has the proper all steel components.

Click to expand...

The current 92X models and the Langdon models have steel small parts.

Accurate and reliable. Too big for my hand. I carried one in the Navy and the Air Force (civilian and military). I qualled Expert everytime, but the grip is too big around for my tiny hands. I bought one when I was in the Navy and couldn't get it to shoot anything well. I think the barrel was bad. I shot all manner of ammo (factory/handloads) and couldn't get it to shoot. I should have sent it back to Beretta. Every M9 I shot in the service and carried shot just fine. The one I bought didn't.

I like mine, but I have large hands. If you don't like the larger size, perhaps a GP-35 or CZ-75 would be more to your liking.
That said, they are accurate, easy to field strip, clean, and find parts for. They are an all metal gun, hammer-fired DA/SA.

I had one and really liked the looks of the pistol but that didn't overcome the awkward ergonomics. I have wide hands with short fingers so the trigger was too far forward for me and I had to shift my hold to reach it which made for poor accuracy. Also didn't like the slide mounted safety, just too hard for me to reach with short fingers. If you can, shoot the pistol before purchasing it. I've bought a couple hand guns that felt good at the sales counter but on the range shooting it showed that we weren't compatible.

I have a M9 and 92FS compact, I will have them until I take a dirt nap.…

I loved my 92 and 96 pistols. Easy to shoot accurately and functioned flawlessly for me for many years. A good holster makes them easy to carry.

My 96 Brigadier DAO has a bit more of a trigger reach than most of my other pistols, but the DAO operation is so smooth it doesn’t matter a bit.

Like the guys said above; if you can shoot one before you buy one, you’ll know if it’s a gun you can work with or a gun you won’t like.

Good luck with your search.

Stay safe..

The Beretta 92FS was my very first firearm, purchased as soon as I got my carry permit (arrived on my 21st birthday!). I've not shot it as much as some, only ~13,000 rounds, but only experienced two failures-to-eject with Blazer aluminum-cased ammo. All brass-cased ammo functioned just fine.

I've also carried three different M9s throughout my career in the military, and never had a problem with any of them either. I would avoid "Checkmate" brand magazines, which the military bought a whole bunch of; they are garbage. Factory or Mec-Gar mags are fine.

I have over 10k rounds thru mine, still a great accurate shooter. Very dependable , and fun to shoot.

I bought a 92 in 1989. It was a good shooter. I never used in any environment that might foul it like sand or gravel might. It’s heavy. Sold mine after three years. Never missed it.

Mine was accurate and dependable and more then good enough for home defense. Never carried it though and sold it after a few years. And never had “sellers remorse” after getting rid of it.

I've had a fondness for the M9/92 ever since the first time I fired one, approximately a day after we got 'em in to our armory (contrary to popular belief, even the the M9 was "officially adopted" in 1985, many of our units were still using the 1911 into 1994...). My unit's qual scores went up substantially across the board when we first started fielding them. Even the females with smaller hands tended to shoot better than with our old 1911s. And apparently I'm one of the minority as the stock M9 grip fits my hand like it was made for it. And, having been issued this pistol for a couple deployments to certain desert regions, I had zero issues with the sand. Of course, I was using the issue Bianchi flap holster and never had occasion to roll around in the sand.

Old Dog said:

My unit's qual scores went up substantially across the board when we first started fielding them. Even the females with smaller hands tended to shoot better than with our old 1911s.

Click to expand...

Even though folks often whine about the non-dovetailed front sight on the M9/92FS, the Beretta sights had to be a huge improvement over the little sights that were on Government Issue 1911's.

I like the beretta 92 family of pistols, have a few, shoot them well, and would not feel bad about recommending them to others.

The 92/M9 is a few things to me: Clunky. Heavy. Dependable. Accurate. I've always qualified expert with one; even obviously worn out military equipment. But, every time I've had to use one, I was always happy to put it back in the rack. I strongly prefer the P320/M17 or a modern poly lowered pistol. I hated carrying them overseas.

They are accurate and dependable. I will never own one.

I have a 92FS (9mm) and a 96A1(.40 S&W). Fine and reliable pistols...I bet my life on them often.

Harry

westernrover said:

By 1954, Smith & Wesson had copied the P38 and entered their "Model 39" in the US service pistol trials that year. The '54 trials were one of the several attempts by the US Army to find a replacement for the M1911. A bunch of brass came to realize the Germans had invented a better mousetrap and thought they could make things better by adopting it, but obviously not everyone agreed. They did apparently agree that the MG42 was worth copying and adopting (chambered in .308) as the M60.

Click to expand...

1. The S&W Model 39 has almost nothing in common with a P-38. The only similarities are they are both 9mm, they are both double/single action hammer fired with a decocking/safety on the slide, and both have a single stack magazine. The S&W trigger mechanism is much simpler, and the locking system is the more robust Browning design.

2. The M60 is not a copy of the MG-42 in any way, shape, or form. The feed system is based on the MG-34, and it is a gas operated weapon, not a recoil operated like the MG-43, and the locking system is based on the Lewis machine gun/FG-42.

3. The two front runners in the 1954 9mm competition were S&W M39 and a 9mm Colt 1911. The reason 9mm was not picked then was there were warehouses full of new, or like new M1911A1

westernrover said:

The action type introduced with the P38 was adopted by SIG, H&K, CZ, and subsequently all the copies of those. That isn't to say that those did not continue to innovate and introduce new design breakthroughs. The DA/SA design remained dominant until Glock made the striker-fired action the most popular today.

Click to expand...

Those mentioned pistols do not use the P-38 action, and bear little in common with the P-39 other than being DA/SA.

westernrover said:

The striker-fired action was introduced in a handgun first by Heckler & Koch, and a pistol, the P7, with this design was entered in the 80's US handgun trials. It featured the unique squeeze-cocker. H&K also entered another pistol which featured a polymer frame and was striker-fired but was DAO (no partially pre-cocked striker). For whatever reason, these innovations didn't really catch on until the Glock began to gain acceptance about a decade later.

Click to expand...

The Borchart, Luger, Browning 1900, Baby Browning, Browning 1910, 1922, and the two dozen copies of the Browning 1910 all were striker fired. Even the AMT .380 Back-up hit the market before the H&K P7