Why does safety location on Beretta 92 make a difference?

I suppose it would matter to someone with short thumbs.

I have no problem transitioning from frame mounted to slide mounted safeties, really don't have a preference on location as long as they're intuitive, ergonomic and not prone to inadvertent engagement/disengagment.

On that note, slide mounted safeties are almost always deckocker-safeties found on double action firearms, so I would not typically leave them engaged after decocking.

Ive never had a problem with it- but then I dont generally use the safety on DA guns.

I guess some folks thought it was too hard to reach, or could be inadvertently switched on/off too easily when drawn or brushing against something- hence the low-profile aftermarket levers.

Of course, one could always go this route if they find safety levers too ojectionable-

92D (no external safety) converted to DA/SA.

Shorter reach with a person's thumb, from my, personal, experience.
Having to use my "off" hand in not very convenient.

Now for the engineering elegance, it's an excellent notion. You are blocking parts right where they are located, no links, cams or the like.

Elegance is not ergonomics, though.

My 2¢ YMMV

Balrog said:

What makes the frame mounted safety more preferable?

Click to expand...

The same phenomena that makes putting the gas pedal on the right more preferable. . . putting it on the left is bass ackwards.

John Moses Browning (PBUH) put the safety right where deity (and the US Cavalry) ordained it, and set it up so that closing your hand onto the pistol naturally switches to Fire. Moving it seems a bit irreligious, and turning it upside down so that an outward, opening motion of the thumb is required, is just heretical.

That's my story anyway. . .

It’s possible to (and I have done so in a match) inadvertently swipe the slide mounted safety/decocker into the down position while clearing a malfunction or otherwise manipulating the slide. The more recent updates with the slightly upswept levers on the berettas supposedly help but I don’t know from personal experience.

you can see it demonstrated about 1:09 here if interested

I had both a Taurus (frame mounted) and a beretta (slide safety) and they both were functional, but the frame mounted safety is more intuitive because it’s where every other gun has a safety. I have also drawn from holster with the beretta at a passing doe and couldn’t get the shot off because the stupid safety was on.

Now, there’s the mental aspect of this too. With the frame mounted safety, you lock the trigger mechanism. You see that nothing moves when you engage the safety. When you use the Taurus safety as a decocker you see the hammer fall to the hammer block safety and stay there. With the frame mounted safety you see that it’s flipped… and that’s that. You get no visual confirmation that it’s doing anything so there is generally less trust there than what you can physically see.

And for the record I still own Taurus 92 pattern guns, but the berettas all went away to new homes. My preference in Taurus over Beretta is largely in part to the safety, because all else considered they are the same gun. Taurus guns have actually been a touch more accurate for me, likely due to the pt99 guns having adjustable sights.

edwardware said:

and turning it upside down so that an outward, opening motion of the thumb is required

Click to expand...

That's my spin on it. I have long thumbs... I have no problem shooting my FIL's PT92, but I do have a problem with my muscle memory trying to sweep the safety down... it's just a habit. Even my brother's PPK/s gives me fits. Further, I shoot 1911's thumb-over-safety... and you sure can't do that with a slide-mounted safety! But like ed mentions... it's just not intuitive to be closing your grip on a pistol, but having to lift your thumb to disengage the safety.

Truthfully, it's one of the reasons I never pursued a S&W auto, never really considered a '92 in any flavor.

More guns use the 1911 style frame mounted safety than use the S&W style (from the old DA/SA S&W autos) safety/decocker on the slide. There may be a practical reason. Like others have said, most people can reach the 1911 style frame mounted safety with no trouble without changing their grip. Unless you have long thumbs, you may have to shift your grips to deactivate a slide mounted safety/decocker. Also, when it first became "gospel" in the gun community that frame mounted safeties are better, more people started shooting 1911s and other SA pistols with the frame mounted safety than DA/SA pistols with the slide mounted safety/decocker. It is what more people were used to and preferred. Even now, more people have probably spent more time with a gun with the frame mounted safety than a slide mounted safety, it is what most of us are used to and to change would definitely take an adjustment.

If it is just a range gun, there is no reason to care IMO. If you will use it for home defense or carry, you could always just use it as a decocker and not engage the safety. Though, if I was to do that, I'd probably buy the kit to modify it to be a decocker only (Beretta sells it for a pretty reasonable price).

BALROG,

It comes down to training and myths.

THE MYTH: John BROWNING put the safety on the 1911 at the rear of the frame, so NO OTHER PLACEMENT CAN BE CORRECT!
The fact is early BERETTA 92 pistols had the safety on the rear of the frame just like the TAURUS 92/99 and 1911 style pistols. Like the 1911, when you switched the safety to the on position, it locked the hammer in the cocked position. Having the safety frame mounted seems to defeat the whole purpose of a double action pistol, since it encourages "cocked & locked" carry. Why use a double action pistol if you are going to carry the pistol cocked?

I believe it was the Italian Carabinieri who did not like this and wanted a de-cocking safety, so BERETTA started making the 92S model which still had the heel mounted magazine release, but put the safety where it belongs, on the slide.
If someone worries about the safety accidentally being set to safe (like when the forget to take it off safe before holstering it), use the G option, which replaces the 92F or S slide mounted safety with a simple de-cocker which safely lowers the hammer and snaps back to the off position. You cannot put it on safe! My next BERETTA 92 pistol will be a G model.

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.
I will admit, using the safety on the BERETTA 92/96 is better a 2 handed operation, but I only do it to de-cock the pistol, so no problem.

My former agency bought the BERETTA 96D Brigadier back in the 1990's. It had the other solution, a double action trigger which really worked well. You had to try hard to have an accidental discharge. It was still possible, but not easy. After I went to present agency, I purchased several BERETTA 92 and 96 D models and they shoot fine.
It is only now that I am getting ready to retire, that the long double action trigger is getting tiring.

Jim

I guess I'm the only one who dislikes slide mounted safeties because they make racking the slide uncomfortable.
There only so much serrated surface and Beretta thinks that a good place to put a safety.

WestKentucky said:

Now, there’s the mental aspect of this too. With the frame mounted safety, you lock the trigger mechanism. You see that nothing moves when you engage the safety. When you use the Taurus safety as a decocker you see the hammer fall to the hammer block safety and stay there. With the frame mounted safety you see that it’s flipped… and that’s that. You get no visual confirmation that it’s doing anything so there is generally less trust there than what you can physically see.

Click to expand...

There's a more dramatic change in the orientation of the lever on a slide mounted safety/decocker, it's easier to tell at a glance that a slide mounted safety is engaged. They also, in almost every case, disengage the transfer bar and either block or retract the firing pin. Dead trigger, and you couldn't discharge the thing even if you shot the back of the hammer with another firearm. So, mechanically, the slide mounted safeties are superior.

Frame mounted decockers are less trustworthy, since they depend on the mechanism stopping the hammer before it impacts the firing pin rather than making it impossible for the firing pin to be struck. There are several firearms out there which are known to discharge with use of the decocker, most notably the CZ52 pistol. This is mitigated by modern designs which incorporate a firing pin block that requires pulling the trigger for the firing pin to be able to strike a primer, but it's something to be aware of nonetheless.

dogtown tom said:

I guess I'm the only one who dislikes slide mounted safeties because they make racking the slide uncomfortable.
There only so much serrated surface and Beretta thinks that a good place to put a safety.

Click to expand...

I actually kinda like the slide safety for that. Seems to give me a better place to grab. But I see your point there.

MachIVshooter said:

There's a more dramatic change in the orientation of the lever on a slide mounted safety/decocker, it's easier to tell at a glance that a slide mounted safety is engaged. They also, in almost every case, disengage the transfer bar and either block or retract the firing pin. Dead trigger, and you couldn't discharge the thing even if you shot the back of the hammer with another firearm. So, mechanically, the slide mounted safeties are superior.

Frame mounted decockers are less trustworthy, since they depend on the mechanism stopping the hammer before it impacts the firing pin rather than making it impossible for the firing pin to be struck. There are several firearms out there which are known to discharge with use of the decocker, most notably the CZ52 pistol. This is mitigated by modern designs which incorporate a firing pin block that requires pulling the trigger for the firing pin to be able to strike a primer, but it's something to be aware of nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Agreed that it’s easier to see, but you don’t see it actually doing anything. It’s like being afraid of a plane crash because you see them on the news, but not being afraid of guzzling energy drinks or smoking because you personally see no problem. A person is much more likely to die of a medical condition from energy drinks or smoking than they are of a plane crash.

For me it isn't the location, but which direction you move the safety. On a Beretta or similar DA/SA pistol you move the safety DOWN to decock and place the gun in SAFE mode. You push UP to go to the fire position. That is a lot harder to do than simply pressing down to go to FIRE mode.

If I'm buying a DA/SA pistol, I'll take something like a Sig 226 that is decock only with no safety. When I had a Beretta, I only used the safety lever to decock the pistol. With the heavy DA pull for the 1st shot I don't see any need for an additional safety.

I have 1911, hk usp, Beretta 92/96, 21A, sao p220, hi power, five seven....

All are different. The five seven has a truly odd safety. The USP has the dumb paddle mag release. I don't mind any of them. They are different but it still seems natural. Even with the 5.7. My worst gripe is the paddle mag release (or a heel release) but even those aren't a problem.

I actually started with the Beretta 96 and a p97 dc. The rest came along after. One thing about the 1911 if your hand or gloves ride up, the gun is made safe. So I see either way being correct and either one being wrong

I greatly prefer (and carry) a Glock. I'm not trading he rest but still will carry the Glock.

works as designed and it was never a concern to me in the slightest way. I just figure they designed it that way for many reasons and it is just up to me to use it and make it work, as designed.

as an aside, I find any ambi safety to be a turn off. I don't really want a safety at all, I carry with no round in the chamber, and I just practice to rack and then proceed so, the safety to me is just in the way. if you practice I think it adds .15 seconds, and that isn't really any more than fiddling with the safety, and way less than getting the safety wrong. and it seems just generally safer, since even an act of God can not fire a round that isn't chambered.

golden 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.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this is not written as you intended to convey the information.

If the safety is "on" on a Beretta 92FS/96FS, it would be decocked already. That's what the lever is, a safety/decocker. One would not decock the gun as part of the draw. They may turn the safety off, but if they were decocking the gun on the draw, that would mean they were carrying the gun with the safety off and the hammer cocked, often referred to as Condition 0. This seems extremely unlikely.

Ernest Langdon on why one may prefer the slide mounted lever

golden said:

BALROG,

It comes down to training and myths.

THE MYTH: John BROWNING put the safety on the 1911 at the rear of the frame, so NO OTHER PLACEMENT CAN BE CORRECT!
The fact is early BERETTA 92 pistols had the safety on the rear of the frame just like the TAURUS 92/99 and 1911 style pistols. Like the 1911, when you switched the safety to the on position, it locked the hammer in the cocked position. Having the safety frame mounted seems to defeat the whole purpose of a double action pistol, since it encourages "cocked & locked" carry. Why use a double action pistol if you are going to carry the pistol cocked?

Jim

Click to expand...

A point I wish to make, Cult Cocked and Locked frequently speak their wishes, as though they were fishes. One of these, of which I have read ad nauseam, is that the 1911 thumb safety positively blocks the hammer. It does not. The thumb safety is a sear blocking safety only. @1911Tuner on the safety:

1911 safety

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/1911-safety.777474/#post-9866215

1911 safety
It's a little unnerving, but it's not as bad as it seems on the face of it.

The trigger still has to be pulled in order to fire the gun, and the grip safety has to be depressed before the trigger can be pulled.

The thumb safety only blocks the sear. It doesn't lock or block the hammer.

If the sear were to suddenly disintegrate, the hammer would fall, and it would wipe the safety off faster than you can do it with your thumb...and the odds of that happening are about as good as winning the powerball three times in a row.

If the hammer hooks were to fail, the sear would grab the half cock and stop the hammer.

If the sear crown cracked, the sear would still grab the half cock and stop the hammer.

And if it happens to be equipped with a Series 80 or Swartz system...the firing pin is blocked unless the trigger is pulled or the grip safety depressed...respectively.

So, breathe easy and keep your finger off the trigger until you want the gun to fire

About half of this is hyperbole by 1911tuner, gotta remember, his handle is 1911tuner!, so he is quite optimistic about the half cock safety. The half cock safety may or may not engage a falling hammer. I am aware of a Bullseye Pistol Match Director, (Frank) who was shooting in a Bullseye Pistol match who had his sear fail. He dropped the slide at the load command, (timed or rapid fire) and the sear broke. The pistol fired five rounds, with the fifth round went through the brim of Frank’s hat. Sears break. Sears also fail, when the hammer/sears wear enough, I have had doubles. That half cock is not an infallible, perfect safety. It may catch the hammer, it may not. The modern curl around beavertail is obviously designed to protect the hammer from an impact. I did read in a gun magazine, someone carried cocked and locked, the door knob from a double door hit the hammer, sheared the sear, and the 1911 discharged. I am sure if there was a collecting house on negligent discharges, we would have heard more about them.


John Browning understood this. This is a page from his “1911” patent where he put the thumb safety on. The 1910 pistol, which was the one accepted by the Army as reliable as the revolver, did not have a thumb safety. In his patent John Browning is quite aware of the consequences of sear breakage, which does happen when the hammer on a cocked 1911 is hit hard enough. Incidentally, sears just wear out, and then the hammer falls, and the thumb safety ain’t going to do nothing about that either.

John Browning claimed this feature would prevent sear failure from a blow. It has not been incorporated in the military pistol, or any other 1911 that I am aware of.



you can watch the whole video on how a 1911 works,

How a 1911 works, Thomas Swenke



and at some point, you will see this. The thumb safety is a sear blocking type safety. Not a hammer blocking safety.



So a slide safety that positively blocks the firing pin, is a more positive safety than a thumb safety that just blocks the trigger bow from touching the sear.

Since Cult Cocked and Locked is all about quick draw games, a slide mounted safety is slower to engage than a thumb safety, and they won't have one. Instead, they make up stories about how the 1911 thumb safety functions, to make themselves feel safe.

If you want something that looks rather like a 1911 but is more secure, the Spanish Star's thumb safety is a hammer block.
But it doesn't have a grip safety.
And at least some have a full length firing pin, so no hammer down Condition 2.
Oh, dear, what ever are we to do?

I am comfortable with a 1911 cocked and locked in a stout belt holster. Which means competition, these days. My house gun is DA/SA with a mechanical decocker, my concealment weapon is DAO.

If you wish to sponsor Team Mediocre to shoot a pistol with a dingus on the slide, it should be a decocker only, Beretta G type, by choice. LTT tuneup, please.
I tried hard to like the SW M745 but could not get on with the slide safety.