Quantcast

Beretta 92FS decocker removal

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by AlexanderA, Jan 10, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Virginia
    In the Beretta 92FS (U.S. M9), applying the safety rotates the firing pin out of the way of the hammer, blocks the firing pin, and then drops the hammer. As someone who's used to the way the M1911 operates (being able to carry it "cocked and locked"), this feature has always made me nervous. I would like to be able to carry the Beretta "cocked and locked."

    Doing some research on the subject, I have found that a single part is responsible for the decocking feature: the "hammer release lever." This part can easily be removed (it's held on by one transverse pin), and a spacer from the 92D model substituted.

    If this modification is done, the safety still rotates the firing pin out of the way and blocks it (rendering the gun safe), but the hammer remains cocked. Since the safety does not disengage the trigger, pulling the trigger when the safety is applied decocks the gun, the same as if the hammer release lever was present. Except now, applying the safety, and decocking the gun, are two separate actions.

    Or, the gun can be left cocked. Placing the safety on "fire" would allow you to fire the first shot single action, the same as if you had cocked it by hand with the gun in the normal configuration.

    Has anyone else tried this?
     
    glc24 and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  2. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    Not exactly, but it makes sense the way you did it- very cool.

    My Dad does have a 92D which he retrofitted a 92F hammer and sear to, however, resulting in a smooth slide DA/SA with a very light DA pull. I'll see if he will let me borrow it for some pics.:)
     
    Jinx0760 likes this.
  3. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I'm pretty sure nobody does this. I'm not sure your modification would work as you think. You may be able to remove the decocker, but you'd not have a safety for Condition 1 (cocked and locked carry). I think you'd just just end up with a gun that doesn't decock with the lever, that you'd have to manually decock, but would have no ability to safe the gun with the hammer back.

    I've primarily been shooting the 1911 since the late 1980's, but I also have an S&W 4506 that operates with the same safety/decocker function as the Beretta 92FS. I have no concerns about using the lever to decock the gun. It is one of the safest procedures in all of gun handling.

    If you want a Beretta 92 "style" gun that you can carry in Condition 1, get the Taurus PT92/99.

    https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=P92&toggle=tp

    or the Beretta Billenium or Steel I

    http://www.berettaweb.com/Billennium/Beretta 92 Billennium.htm

    https://www.genitron.com/Handgun/Beretta/Pistol/92-Steel-I/9-mm/Variant-1
     
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Virginia
    That would be interesting. The 92D is DAO, with no manual safety. Its safety depends on that long DA trigger pull, like a revolver. With the modification your father did, you couldn't carry it cocked because it would have no safety at all. And you would have to decock it by hand (very carefully!).
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  5. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    You don't have to decock the 92D. Since it is a DAO gun, the hammer doesn't stay back when fired. The gun fires, the slide cycles, the hammer returns to rest. All shots are fired from the hammer down position.
     
  6. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Virginia
    The safety would still block the firing pin, rendering the gun safe. The hammer would be dropped by pulling the trigger, but it would fall harmlessly.
     
  7. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    What's the advantage?

    You can't have the hammer in the locked back position. I you pull the trigger, or it gets bumped, the hammer falls, and you not only would have a double action trigger, but you'd still need to reach a slide mounted safety to un-safe the gun.

    I realize the 92FS is a safety/decocker, just like millions of S&W, Ruger, Walther, and Beretta (and others) pistols, but the lever is most often used for the decocker function and not for the safety function. Folks shoot a string of shots, decock the gun with the lever, then turn the safety off, and either reholster or prepare for subsequent shots. There is very little advantage to that lever if it doesn't either decock or lock the hammer back in single action, like a 1911 safety does.
     
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Virginia
    Right, but Nightlord's father substituted a 92F hammer and sear, which means that on his particular gun, the hammer does stay back. In that condition, you would have a light SA trigger pull, and no safety (unless you decocked the gun by hand).
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  9. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Ernest Langdon on the 92FS beginning at about the 2:45 mark

     
  10. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I've begun thinking I may be answering questions that aren't being asked. My understanding of the intended operation of the guns seem to be keeping me from following some of the ideas here. I'll step back and watch as the discussion evolves and help if I can.
     
    1KPerDay likes this.
  11. crestoncowboy

    crestoncowboy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,528
    If you disabled the rotating of the safety when the lever is down (wouldn't be impossible if you really got involved) , would there be any other safety feature left. I'll experiment tonight after work, but I'm pretty sure that if you did that your safety would be useless and just for show. You could carry cocked with the safety lever down, but it wouldn't be "locked" as pulling the trigger would still fire the gun. I don't see the point
    Maybe try an HK usp or one of the other guns that can be carried cocked and locked?
     
  12. crestoncowboy

    crestoncowboy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,528
    Actually I retract my previous (wouldn't be impossible). Lol.
    I remember putting a Wilson combat lever in one and the main safety is two pieces, the left side and the rotating part is one solid piece, the right pins on with the spring. Another gun would be the answer, although I don't care to hack up and experiment with a gun myself, I wouldn't depend on it to save me either, nor would I recommend it. You would have to hand make the entire setup. An SAO sig, or hk usp, or fnx would be my choices if I wanted condition one carry.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  13. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Virginia
    These are valid points. My counterargument would be that with the roughly 3 lb. SA trigger pull, it would be unlikely to be activated unintentionally, so it wouldn't much matter if the hammer was locked back positively. Worst case scenario, the hammer falls harmlessly and would have to be recocked by hand (or fired DA). As for deactivating the manual safety, that extra action would be about the same as deactivating an M1911 safety. The advantage would be that you could carry the gun cocked safely, giving you a lighter SA trigger pull on the first shot. I have relatively small hands, and with the grip on the Beretta being as large as it is, it's hard for me to manipulate the DA trigger pull smoothly. I'm trying to find a way to duplicate the ergonomics of the M1911.
     
  14. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Generally speaking, reaching the slide mounted safety, with the shooting hand, is more difficult, especially for those with small hands, than reaching the double action trigger.

    Reaching the slide mounted safety on the Beretta is the most complained about feature on the gun. Find some Beretta 92/M9 threads on this forum and chances are good, complaints about the slide mounted safety will usually appear within the first five posts. I'll add, usually these are from folks that seem to think they need to carry the gun with the safety engaged, like a 1911. As Ernest Langdon explains in the linked video above, most simply use the lever, even on the safety equipped versions (the non-G model decocker only models), as a decocker and carry the gun with the safety off. There is very little reason to carry the gun with the safety engaged, unless required by your employer.

    If trigger reach is an issue, and you want a Beretta 92/M9, the Vertec frame is available as the M9A3 or with Wilson's Brigadier Vertec.

    M9A3 http://www.beretta.com/en-us/m9a3-black/

    Wilson Brigadier Vertec https://shopwilsoncombat.com/Beretta-_-Wilson-Combat-92G-Vertec-_-Brigadier-Tactical-9mm/productinfo/BER-92VT-9/

    There are also slim grips that will help reduce the grip circumference and help with trigger reach. The Langdon 92G Elite LTT has very thin grips that make a big difference with the feel of the gun.

    http://www.beretta.com/en-us/92g-elite-ltt/
     
  15. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,717
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Perhaps the lack of leverage and the heavy factory DA trigger combine for your problem.

    Installing a "D" hammer spring ( https://www.berettausa.com/en-us/be...er-spring-trigger-and-d-hammer-spring/e00691/ ) is an extremely common Beretta 92 modification and reduces the DA trigger pull weight. Both Wilson Combat and Langdon Tactical offer even lighter trigger modifications, if that is something you'd be interested in.

    Thinner grips and hammer spring modifications are extremely common modifications made to Beretta 92 series guns. You would be the first I've heard modifying the safety/decocker as you've proposed.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  16. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    Correct, it has the "D" pull in DA mode, then the hammer stays cocked for SA fire. It is a very smooth shooting gun!

    Dad has always considered his trigger finger to be the first and best safety, lol.
     
  17. pblanc

    pblanc Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    691
    Here are a few random thoughts.

    It's a small point, but engaging the safety on the Beretta 92FS does not rotate the firing pin. It rotates the firing pin plunger. The plunger is what the hammer hits and the forward end of the plunger hits the firing pin. As the safety is engaged on the 92FS, the plunger is rotated out of line with the firing pin well before the hammer is released by the hammer release lever.

    Broken hammer release levers are not unheard of on the 92FS. Here is a video a guy made about just that happening with his pistol:



    Modifying or removing the hammer release lever intentionally is not something that I would do. If you ever had to use this pistol for self-defense, or had a negligent discharge with it that resulted in injury to someone else, having done so could quite plausibly be interpreted as having intentionally disabled a safety device (decocker) and could be used against you. Also, if you did this, carrying the pistol with the safety on and hammer back would not be equivalent to carrying it cocked and locked, since the trigger itself would not be locked and a relatively light pull could still drop the hammer. With a model 1911, with both the thumb safety and grip safety engaged, the trigger is securely locked. Granted, so long as the safety lever was in the down position, this would not result in a discharge, but what if the safety lever somehow became disengaged while carrying? Granted, this is something that can happen with a model 1911, and I have heard of individuals carrying a 1911 cocked and locked in Condition 1 who suddenly noticed that their thumb safety was disengaged. But the 1911 has a redundant safety in the form of the grip safety, and the Beretta 92FS does not.

    The Beretta 92FS is a big pistol with a chunky grip that gives quite a few shooters difficulty managing the reach to the double action trigger. Wilson Combat sells an "short reach" trigger for the 92FS that reduces trigger reach a little. They also sell some VZ ultra-thin grip panels that reduce grip circumference a bit more. The 92FS is slightly better than the M9 in this regard, because the 92FS has a slight relief cut on the upper backstrap of the grip that the M9 lacks. And as was stated, a reduced force hammer spring helps out the DA pull weight quite a bit. I have a Wilson Combat 14lb mainspring in my 92FS and I have not had any light strikes as yet.

    A lot of people familiar with the model 1911 find the function of the Beretta 92FS slide-mounted safety counter-intuitive since the model 1911 thumb safety lever goes down to disengage and the Beretta lever goes up. The Beretta lever is also a bit harder to reach quickly than the thumb safety lever of the 1911, and there is also the concern many have that executing a quick slide rack during a malfunction clearance drill might accidentally engage the safety lever. So many owners of the Beretta 92FS choose to convert the F model to a G model, converting the lever to a decocker only. Beretta now sells a kit for the M9A3 that can be used to convert the lever to a decocker only function. Most Beretta 92 owners feel perfectly safe carrying in Condition 2, relying on the long, deliberate DA trigger pull to be the safety, and decock the pistol after chambering a round or after holstering.

    I think that the Taurus PT92 and a variety of CZ DA/SA pistols are better options if you really want a DA/SA pistol that can be carried cocked and locked.
     
    MTMilitiaman likes this.
  18. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    I think your liability in a SD scenario would be no worse than using a revolver, since you intended to shoot the attacker.

    But I could see where you might incur additional exposure in an AD situation.
     
  19. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    26,819
    The S&W M52 and M745 operate as the OP describes his planned Beretta modification.

    The slide safety blocks the firing pin but not the sear; the hammer will fall without firing a shot if the trigger is pulled with the dingus down.
    The M52 was meant as a bullseye gun, the main use of the safety is to allow dryfire without whacking the firing pin.
    The M745, introduced as an IPSC anniversary model, has an extended lever on the slide safety, getting it in reach for a clean draw from a open top holster on a stiff belt.

    I once sketched out a replacement for the sear trip lever on a DA/SA S&W that would block the sear, allowing a true cocked and locked start. Never got the Roundtuit lined up to make one, though.

    M. Ayoob has recommended carrying guns like the Beretta with the slide safety engaged and learning to flip it to get to a DA start.
     
  20. MikeInOr

    MikeInOr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,171
    Location:
    Oregon
    I have owned my Beretta 92 INOX for ~30 years. It is the gun I learned to shoot on and will always be one of my favorite guns. I don't understand why you are trying to make a Beretta 92 something it is not? It would seem to me that you would be better served by a different gun like a CZ75? I own a CZ75D compact. It is a great gun but I still prefer my Beretta... mainly because I like the operation of the Beretta better than the CZ. It sounds like you are looking for a gun that operates like a CZ... wouldn't it just be easier to buy a CZ (or one of the many other 9mm's with a similar manual of arms)?

    I have a few 1911's that I shoot frequently but they are range guns with target triggers. I have never felt comfortable carrying 1911's because cocked and locked doesn't appeal to me... especially when I am used to having a really lite target trigger.
     
  21. MikeInOr

    MikeInOr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,171
    Location:
    Oregon
    I don't carry my Beretta... way too heavy. But it is my night stand gun and I keep it chambered, hammer down and safety on. I haven't disengaged the safety on my Beretta for many many years... it just magically happens when I am ready to shoot... no thought about disengaging the safety at all.
     
  22. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Virginia
    I want to say that everybody's comments are appreciated. This has been a real eye opener.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  23. MTMilitiaman

    MTMilitiaman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,170
    Location:
    Missoula, Montana
    Even if you remove the decocker, you still have to deal with the world's least intuitive safety design placed in the least convenient spot. Up-swept, slide-mounted safeties are retarded and offer not one single advantage over a properly placed and functioning down-swept, frame-mounted safety. Better to just not mess with the POS Beretta to begin with, IMO.
     
  24. crestoncowboy

    crestoncowboy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,528
    I like the berettas. Clearly the op likes something about his. I feel no less armed with my beretta than with my sigs/hks/fn/ etc. I might even choose it over all of them if I had to pick, luckily I don't. Actually I think I subconsciously carry and use glock just to infuriate people who know I could carry any of the others. Lol. But I do have an inox 96 beside my bed at night. There are Very few guns I wouldn't change something on, but the beretta safety never bothered me. The God awful (and not easily changed) sights may be the only thing I don't like. I'd move the USP mag release, I'd stop the travel of my sigs triggers so that they didn't pinch my finger and I'd make the mag set below the grip rather than 1/4 inch too high. and I undercut all my glock trigger guards. All good guns though, just need tweaking to suit me. In this case however if I wanted condition one carry, which I don't unless I'm carrying a 1911, I'd seek a different gun.

    And the worst safety placement imo has to go to the fn 5.7.

    Least intuitive surely goes to the heritage rough rider. Absolutely nothing intuitive about a safety on an single action clone

    Or the Phoenix 22 with a poorly placed slide mounted safety in conjunction with a poorly positioned frame mounted safety. But that's just my opinions

    Did beretta never offer a variant other than the two listed above that were capable of condition 1? No sao? I had never really looked. My 21a can be carried cocked and locked. Might look a bit silly in a drop holster though.
     
    MikeInOr and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  25. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    The Model 51 was essentially a single action 92, though with a steel frame and single stack magazine. They are great guns if you happen to come across one, run away from the Egyptian Helwan copy, though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice