Quantcast

Beretta 92fs from PSA

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by milemaker13, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. milemaker13

    milemaker13 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    PSA is selling the 92fs for $449 with free shipping. I'm dangerously close to ordering one but I have a question.

    I understand a few parts are made of polymer. Trigger, slide safety, guide rod and mag release. Did these parts used to be made of steel?

    My dad has an older 92fs (maybe 20 yrs old). I really like that pistol and I don't remember it having plastic parts. I may be wrong about that.

    At any rate, are the newer polymer parts cause for concern? Is this standard with all 92's or could this be a cost reduced civilian thing?
     
  2. Panzerschwein

    Panzerschwein member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    8,124
    Location:
    Desert
    No the old ones are all steel parts. I much prefer them. The new plastic just feels cheap and is a cost cutting measure.
     
  3. Blkhrt13

    Blkhrt13 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,005
    There is steel parts available to replace what’s been made of plastic but it will raise cost overall.
     
  4. milemaker13

    milemaker13 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    Aah, that sucks. I always liked the way that gun felt in my hand. I also remember the old man laid out something like $700 for it IIRC.

    Well, what do you think..? It would just be a range gun.. a full size to go up against my wife's ultra fine sig 1911... Not a day to day tool.

    Decisions, decisions....hmmm
     
  5. Panzerschwein

    Panzerschwein member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    8,124
    Location:
    Desert
    Frankly, there are better choice. The Berettas are ergonomically challenged and the triggers are not great. They are on their way out as the military pistol for good reasons. It is an old design and fairs poorly against the CZ-75. I would but a CZ-75 BD before I'd ever buy the Beretta 92.

    JMHO.
     
  6. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    13,619
    Location:
    DFW Area
    For whatever it's worth, with the exception of the guide rod, they are still made of steel. They just have a polymer overmolding that covers the internal steel part.

    Also, for whatever it's worth, while I have heard of the old two-piece steel guide rods failing on occasion, I haven't heard of one of the new plastic guide rods failing.

    If you like the way the gun feels in your hand, then you might as well get one. They're decent pistols. The DA triggers aren't bad at all, and I've had good luck with the SA triggers as well. Accuracy has also been good with the ones I've owned.
     
    Stringfellow and bsms like this.
  7. 1KPerDay

    1KPerDay Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,881
    Location:
    Happy Valley, UT
    I'd get one. Great pistols, classic Italian design, fun to shoot. Get a D spring in it ASAP. Transforms the trigger.
     
    Stringfellow likes this.
  8. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,023
    Ya, except for the guide rod the polymer bits are plastic over steel wire or thin stampings. As cheesey as they are, you probably won't find anyone with first hand experience with any of these parts breaking.
    I did completely purge mine of all the plastic parts- took about a half hour and $120, just cuz I hated the way they looked. All parts were Beretta factory replacement or NOS. At one point, Beretta offered this as a retrofit kit, but I had to scrounge about the internet quite a bit to find everything. The left side safety lever was a b#*$ch to find.
    On the upside, I am very happy with the result. The stainless guide rod did make a marked improvement in the accuracy department and the steel trigger improved feel greatly.
    The gun is also noticeably heavier. But I actually like it- feels more substantial.
    This is my 3rd 92, and if I had to grab one handgun and jump out a window, this would be it. It doesn't do anything perfectly (except feeding, Ive never had a malfunction of any kind with any of my Berettas over several thousand rounds), but it does everything well. Parts and mags are cheap and plentiful- though they may be plastic covered, lol.
    I would highly recommend the 92. BTW, Budsgunshop.com still has old Italian police trade in 92s for round $300- these are all metal. You could probably buy one of these and have it cerakoted for less than the cost of a new 92fs+the steel parts upgrades.:)
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  9. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,531
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    I was tempted many times over the last month at that price, actually just pulled the trigger tonight. $450 shipped is really cheap. I have a 92FS already, but it's an Inox "United We Stand" commemorative, and I'm not real keen on threading the barrel and milling a front dovetail for suppressor sights in that one. The black is kinda classic anyway.

    I might just post sample it, too........
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  10. Deus Machina

    Deus Machina Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,539
    Location:
    Brandon, Florida
    If you like it, grab it.
    If you're like me, pass it up. I'm with Cooldill on this one. I'm also a CZ fan, for one.
    But the design is aging--at least ergonomically--and I just can't shoot them easily. They need vastly larger hands than mine.
     
  11. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    13,619
    Location:
    DFW Area
    I know that people complain about the plastic parts, but you have to keep in mind that you can buy a new Beretta 92FS today for close to the same price that they were selling for in the 1990s. I'm not talking about after correction for inflation, I'm talking about pretty much the same dollar amount. That means in actual cost, the prices have come down quite a lot in the intervening years and that savings had to come from somewhere.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  12. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,531
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    That's just it. There's not a thing wrong with the design, but if you don't wear at least a large glove, it's probably gonna feel chunky.

    Some people find Glocks a good fit. Others 1911s. Or CZs. And some of us find the 92FS comfortable. I put Hogue wrap-arounds on mine, which make it even thicker, and it's perfect. At 5'10", I somehow got the extremities of a much taller person, sporting a 6'4" armspan and wearing XL glove size with long, rather slender fingers, so large grip frames fit me well. I add thick finger groove grips and arched MSHs to 1911s to make them comfortable.
     
  13. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,531
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    I don't even remember them being under $500 in the '90s. For as long as I can recall, they've always been about a $600 gun with a ~$75 premium for stainless. Of course, I'm 35, so I really wasn't paying attention to the prices prior to the mid-'90s.

    My best guess is economy of scale, and trying to move units now that the military is changing over and the M9 no longer has appeal to those who buy what they buy largely because of what the military uses.
     
    Hacker15E and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  14. bannockburn

    bannockburn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    16,993
    milemaker13

    Put me down as another one who has small hands, making the Beretta 92 not the greatest of choices in a full size 9mm. The only version I can get a decent grip on (and still reach the trigger), is the Vertac model with it's straight backstrap.

    So if the 92FS works for you then I'd say pick one up and enjoy!
     
  15. maxxhavoc

    maxxhavoc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    930
    Location:
    SC Lowcountry
    I don't really like them. They are too large for their capabilities, and I prefer smaller guns in general. I much prefer the sleek lines of the 92's parent gun, the Walther P-38. The trigger is too long as well.

    With that said, my sister owns one, and I shoot it better than most of my guns, including my CZ. I may end up getting one just because they seem to like me.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  16. ingliz

    ingliz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    25
    A Taurus 92 fits me better than the Beretta. I have both pistols and the only difference in the grip seems to be a slightly different contour (and it's very slight) to the front strap. I cannot see how it would make that much of a difference to how it feels in the hand, but it does.

    BTW It's a dealer order special, rail-less without the lock.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  17. JONWILL

    JONWILL Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    373
    Nice shooting guns. Mine have all been very accurate. My only problem is the size. They are fine for a military handgun but way to large to CCW. My CZ-P10C or M&P 2.0 Compact hold the same and are easier to CCW
     
  18. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    3,130
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    If you like it get it. As for me, I maintained a hate-hate relationship with it for many years in the army and jumped for joy when we replaced them with Glocks.
     
    Panzerschwein likes this.
  19. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,157
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
  20. Shipwreck

    Shipwreck Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,650
    Location:
    Texas
    Well, I have small hands too, but the newer 92 frames have that rear backstrap indentation. I can only use 92 models with this. The M9 has the original frame... straight dustcover and no rear strap indentation.... That little difference either makes the gun work perfectly for me, or not.

    I had a 92 in the 1990s. It was too big for my hands. One bought after the frame change = perfect
     
    bsms likes this.
  21. milemaker13

    milemaker13 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    Lock?
     
  22. milemaker13

    milemaker13 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
  23. ingliz

    ingliz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    25
    The security lock on the backstrap.
     
  24. maxxhavoc

    maxxhavoc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    930
    Location:
    SC Lowcountry
    The deal killer for me is the heel-mounted mag release. Some magazines will work on both, but most commonly available 92FS magazines will not work in the 92S. Grips do not interchange either.
     
  25. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,023
    The S simply denotes a slide mounted safety/decocker- the very first 92 had a frame safety like the Taurus pt92.
    The F stands for "Federal", meaning changes the US federal govt. asked for in the M9 trial pistols, such as a recurve trigger guard, recurve lower grip, and mag release moved to the trigger guard.
    The main functional difference between these two is the mag release. Later production magazines will work in all 92 pistols but very early mags without the extra notch in the mag body will only work in a gun with the bottom latch.
     
    Coyote3855 likes this.
  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