Beretta M9 or 92FS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redcoat3340

Redcoat3340

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
382
Location
Western Washington/Seattle area
Finally decided to round out my box 'o Berettas (1951, 92s, 8000) with a 92/m9. Doing a bit of research but can't see there's too much difference between the two (sights on some; dust cover, info actually on the gun, one made in US other in Italy).

Two questions:
1. Anyone have any preference between the two? Is there really any difference? Pros or cons versus any other non-polymer full sized 9mms? (I have a bunch of S&W's, a Browning HP and clone, some Stars and a P1 and Taurus PT99).

2. Where can I find the best price? Don't mind used at all. Any dealers have a deal going? LEO surplus? I'll be doing Armslist and Gunbroker. What are they going for these days?

3. (Without stirring up a bunch of "stuff," is a Taurus 92 a viable alternative. I'd prefer the Beretta just to keep round out the progression from P1 to 1951 to today...but budget is a factor.

Thanks in advance.
 
You might search around for an older 92FS...

Last year I found this used 92FS which was made in 1990. It was a one owner gun and was fed very few rounds.

This older 92FS is close to the M-9s I carried in the USAF, minus M-9 markings... It has: An M-9 styled dust cover, no polymer parts, and the two dot "snowman" sights.

I replaced the stock hammer spring with a lighter double-action-only hammer spring which really lightened the trigger pull.

As an added bonus it lacks the "You'll Put Your Eye Out" warning found on current 92FS pistols.

Edmo

imagejpg1_zps31342693.jpg
 
The only feature I look for is the radiused backstrap. It is a small feature, but makes a big difference for trigger reach. I think the 92's have the feature and the M9's don't. However, Beretta seems to be in the "parts is parts" business and you'll see some features come and go across model lines.
 
I've always been a bit apprehensive about the military Berettas because of the problems with the slide separations (depending on the age of the gun). Also, I don't know what, if any, corners are cut in the military production runs, but it's obvious that less money is paid via the government contact for the military guns than is paid by us for the civilian version. So is there a difference? I don't know. But I do know that I've really been happy with Taurus' Beretta clones. Back in the 80s they were just as reliable as the Berettas, but not as accurate or as well made. Now things have changed and, unable to afford a stainless Beretta, I've gone with a stainless Taurus. It's a gorgeous gun and surprisingly accurate. And it has both a cock & lock safety and a hammer drop, which is great. The stainless Beretta also is a two-tone black and silver thing. Not very attractive...at least to me.

I recently saw an all-steel Beretta 92 at a gun store (used). At first I thought the sales guy had handed me a loaded pistol because of the weight, but not so. Way too heavy for my taste.

Good luck on your decision.

Taurus92_3.jpg
 
I'd think its all personal choice. The differences are pretty inconsequential when using it.
I would throw the Sig P226 in the mix though, since you asked.
 
Confederate said:
I've always been a bit apprehensive about the military Berettas because of the problems with the slide separations (depending on the age of the gun). Also, I don't know what, if any, corners are cut in the military production runs, but it's obvious that less money is paid via the government contact for the military guns than is paid by us for the civilian version. So is there a difference? I don't know.
Click to expand...

List price for a government M9 when doing inventories a couple weeks ago was $636, which is higher than the cost of a civilian M9.

CDNN gets police trade in 92s sometimes. You could keep an eye on their site and pick up a used one for a decent price.
 
I agree with JTQ: the radiused backstrap on the 92FS makes a big difference.

I ordered an M9 at a store a few years back even though they had a 92 in the display case. Had to wait a long 4 weeks for it to come in. But when it came in and I went to pick it up, I happened to compare it to the 92 and found that I liked it a lot better after all. So I went home with the 92.

The radius is ever so slight, but it just felt better than the non-radiused M9. And I thought I hated the slightly slanted dust cover of the 92, but realized that I liked it better than the straight dust cover (i.e., the area below the barrel that nowadays is railed ;).

Try before you buy, to see what you prefer. You will be happy either way.

And get a D-Spring from Olhasso. For like ~$10 and 5 minutes of effort, it will dramatically lighten and smooth out DA and SA trigger pull, yet remain fully safe and 100% reliable. No brainer.

Good luck!
 
+1 on the D-spring, it makes a big difference. I have a 92fs Brigadier INOX and love it. I would go m9a3 tho, if I didn't already have the brigadier and pay to have the barrel threaded. But the m9a3 are going for like $1200ish now because the are new, probably be around $1000 once the hype wears off. The Brigadier INOX is around $750ish. The m9 and 92fs are $550ish new, Ive seen basic one with black finish used in decent shape for $400ish locally.

Also add a Mec-Gar Optimum Magazine 18 round flush fit for $25ish

Or go crazy and get this rip off M9 for almost $1700, lol
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=521274403. A sucker must be born every minute because there is no way that those upgrades and the NP3 finish are worth $1100 extra.
 
Last edited:
seems the M9A3 is designed to have more options for the backstrap by giving a more vertical back frame (like the vertec) and letting the wrap grips give the back contour
 
If I were looking for a Beretta, I'd want the Wilson Brigadier Tactical based on the 92G Special Duty.
 
I prefer the M9's bar-dot sights to the 92's three-dot sights; it's just something I got used to years ago shooting SIGs.
 
crazysccrmd said:
List price for a government M9 when doing inventories a couple weeks ago was $636, which is higher than the cost of a civilian M9.
Click to expand...
But how much does the military pay for each Beretta? I remember when the military announced its selection of the Beretta. My Italian Beretta jumped in price overnight to almost six hundred dollars. I loved that gun, but I couldn't afford keeping it. I sold it and used the money to buy a stainless Security-Six and a stainless .38 Speed-Six, which I had reamed to a .357 ($65). And I still had enough to for a good dinner. Later, I was able to buy a Taurus PT92, but it wasn't a Beretta. The finish looked like it was put on with a magic marker and though it was a decent gun, I soon got rid of it and got a S&W 659, a gun I had admired a long time. And I've still got the gun today. And I like it (and the 5906) better than I ever did the Beretta -- especially when the slide began coming off the military Berettas. Interestingly, it has never happened with an Italian our civilian pistol, even tho some had been shot extensively. And while civilians were paying $600+ for their Berettas, the military was paying under $200 each for its Berettas. And, as far as I know, it's never happened to a Taurus, tho that may not mean anything since no one knows what caused the problem to begin with.
 
Confederate said:
But how much does the military pay for each Beretta?
Click to expand...

The most recent 2015 contract price was $586.23.
The original contract price was $236.64 (gun = $178.50, 4 magazines = $37.20, 10% parts kits = $20.94).

Confederate said:
... the Beretta -- especially when the slide began coming off the military Berettas. Interestingly, it has never happened with an Italian our civilian pistol, even tho some had been shot extensively.
Click to expand...

GAO reports on slide failures (3 users failures and 11 testing failures) found they occurred with 10 Italian slides used on the earliest M9s and on 4 commercial 92SB and 92SBF models acquired by the military. The problem went away with full US production of the M9.
 
I honestly don't think that their is a "right" answer. When I was shopping for a 92 series, I ultimately went with the 92fs due to wanting an Italian gun from an Italian gun manufacturer. I would have no issue at all had they only had the M9. I just prefer the looks of the 92fs.


Actually, as unpopular of an opinion as it may be, if you forced me to choose one high cap 9mm to defend home and hearth I would pick a 92fs/M9 every time over a Glock or a SIG or M&P, etc. The Beretta is just the most accurate and reliable 9mm I have ever owned.
 
I despise the lawyer-spew on the newer-model 92FS.

The current "civilian model" M9 lacks that.

If you have a notion that you may want to put Buck Rogers sights on your 92-ish pistol, get one that has a dovetail front sight - which will be something with the Brigadier slide or the new overpriced model with the cheese-grater rail in front of the handguard.

I got the M9, and I'm very satisfied with my choice.
I'll live with the snowman sights. (on the right in the pic)

snowman%20sights_zpsawbkoupo.jpg


If you don't have a dovetail front sight, you can't put Buck Rogers sights on your Beretta unless you send the slide out to have the front sight drilled for a tritium insert. Nobody is offering a professional service for tritium-ILLUMINATED fiber-op for the 92.

And, NO.
You cannot have an ordinary 92 slide milled for a dovetail front sight.
Not enough meat on the slide for that.
 
GAO reports on slide failures (3 users failures and 11 testing failures) found they occurred with 10 Italian slides used on the earliest M9s and on 4 commercial 92SB and 92SBF models acquired by the military. The problem went away with full US production of the M9.
Click to expand...
Additionally, I don't think any of those were on a 92FS or subsequent models.
 
Count me in with W.E.G. (post 16) -- the warning labels on the 92s turn me off -- that's why I like the M-9 version. I don't need to be told to RTFM.

As far as the Taurus PT-92 -- mine, an AFS-D (early de-cocker version from 1992 or so) -- has always been splendid. If the current versions are anywhere near as good, I'd definitely say the Taurus PT-92 is most viable (especially if you're a 1911 guy -- the frame-mounted safety, which is ambidextrous, is excellent).
 
gc70 said:
The most recent 2015 contract price was $586.23. The original contract price was $236.64 (gun = $178.50, 4 magazines = $37.20, 10% parts kits = $20.94). GAO reports on slide failures (3 users failures and 11 testing failures) found they occurred with 10 Italian slides used on the earliest M9s and on 4 commercial 92SB and 92SBF models acquired by the military. The problem went away with full US production of the M9.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. If the gun cost was $178.50, it makes me wonder how much it cost Beretta to produce. When I worked for the Navy, I met the fellow who oversaw the tests for the Navy (and I suppose the Maine Corp). Whatever happened, he was very angry over both the Navy's response and Beretta's to the separation issue. He said based on their tests, the guns could fail at any time over about 6,000 rounds. At every so many rounds over 5,000, the guns were all disassembled, thoroughly cleaned, degreased and examined for micro-fractures. At no point were any indicators found before failure, he said. I hadn't heard of any failures with Italian Berettas.

Did anyone ever pinpoint what caused the problem? Was it the result of a steel part or the aluminum treatment?
 
Two questions:
1. Anyone have any preference between the two? Is there really any difference? Pros or cons versus any other non-polymer full sized 9mms?

I prefer the 92FS as my handling of both has found the 92FS to appear to be more finished. *These were older versions of both.

92FS v. M9
Radiused v. Non-radiused Back-Strap grip
Slanted Dust-Cover v. Straight Dust-Cover
External Stamps & Markings
3-dot sights v. Bar-dot sights
They will use the same parts and allow for the same customizations​
2. Where can I find the best price? Don't mind used at all. Any dealers have a deal going? LEO surplus? I'll be doing Armslist and Gunbroker. What are they going for these days?
Just a bit under $500, shipped​

3. (Without stirring up a bunch of "stuff," is a Taurus 92 a viable alternative. I'd prefer the Beretta just to keep round out the progression from P1 to 1951 to today...but budget is a factor.
Many put them close in both form and function, depending on preferences, however, the Beretta retains more value.​
 
I lucked into a 92FS Centurion a while back, with 4 mags. $400. ;D
Click to expand...
True, and they can be found for less at times, but I was sharing NIB pricing. The higher volume beretta dealers can offer the best prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Difference between Beretta 92FS and M9?
Replies
2
Views
708
psyopspec
P
W
  • Locked
Is there a reason not to buy a Beretta
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
Scratchshooter40
S
G
  • Locked
M9 and 92FS Difference
Replies
5
Views
311
REAPER4206969
R
M
  • Locked
Italian-made Beretta 92FS vs. M9
Replies
19
Views
6K
OregonJohnny
O
G
  • Locked
Basic question about the Beretta M9/92FS product line
Replies
24
Views
1K
JDGray
J
Back
Top