school me on the beretta 92

[tarosean]

On another forum, someone asked to compare the 92 with the proclaimed "chunky grip" to a gun a lot people think is perfect size (G19)

 

[JTQ]

While I'd prefer the Beretta to the Glock, in all fairness, that looks like one of the larger backstraps on a Gen 4 G19.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Backstory on the 1911a1 .45acp in the US armed forces....

According to the late Robert Boatman, www.Boatmanbooks.com , author of the non fiction: Living With book about 1911s, the US military built so many sidearms in the WWII era(1941-1946) that the different branches(US Navy, USMC, US Army, USAF, USCG) just used surplus parts & 1911a1 pistols left over.
No new 1911a1 contracted pistols were produced by any major vendors so the troops used beat up old .45acp "slab-sides" in USFK(Korea) & SE Asia(Vietnam era).
As noted before, this does not include the US military spec ops or the AMU(US Army Marksmanship Unit). These special groups had custom guns, gunsmiths & procurement systems.
Many National Guard armories & USAR(reserves) got older 1911s & requested .45acp 230gr ball rounds for many years.
I heard of one US Army reserve unit that had the entire company get brand new M9s with all the related parts(magazines, springs, barrels, M12 holsters, etc). Only the company grade CO & first sgt kept the 1911a1 .45s to use on deployments.
I guess rank does have it's privileges.

 

[tarosean]

While I'd prefer the Beretta to the Glock, in all fairness, that looks like one of the larger backstraps on a Gen 4 G19.

Med. backstrap and the Beretta is wearing VZ's

 

[B!ngo]

Good gun, but far from the best for what it does or the price it generally commands.

In MY opinion, the safety is backwards (it flips UP to fire and down to decock), so it is not as ergonomically ideal and also subjecting it to inadvertent decocking while doing a clearing/racking drill. Most would agree that DOWN to fire and UP to make safe is more logical.

Pistol is larger and heavier for it's capacity of 9mm ammunition compared to competition (Glock, Springfield, S&W M&P line, CZ, Sig Sauer... which are all by the way better designs). Standard capacity is 15 + 1, and you can get 17 round mags for it for a premium. Avoid anything not Magtech or factory mags because it is VERY picky with regard to the types of mags, which causes malfunctions.

Beretta fans will chime up for sure and of course the reference to military service will surely sweep in to say that it's proven itself, blah blah blah... but it's rumored or maybe even true that Beretta won the US military contract due to the politics of the day rather than outright better performance, and many modern designs didn't exist to compete. I fully expect that had Sig Sauer or Glock or HK won the contract, their guns would have performed as well or better for our military. And it's noteworthy that the military has been looking to replace it for at least a decade, maybe more. It's just not economically prudent due to the inventory, training curve, and contracts. There are plenty of better guns, no question.

In fairness it is a soft shooting pistol and inherently quite accurate. The sites are small-ish, but adequate and good. The decocker rotates the firing pin away from the hammer, which is a smart design. The DA and SA factory trigger are above average. It is a sexy looking pistol, which is what initially attracted me to the gun in the 1990s when wielded by Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis and several other action heroes. And it doesn't have that silly magazine disconnector which detracts from other designs like the High Power and S&W Generation 3 series.

But the bottom line is FEW people who can CHOOSE which gun platform to use for serious work will CHOOSE the Beretta 92.

Few Special Forces or Special Operators will CHOOSE it. I saw first hand operators who choose the 1911 or Glock over the M9 in Iraq. FEW Law Enforcement Agencies use it, if any. Most or all have long dumped the platform. Not many individuals for self defense, carry, or competition. Glock, XD, M&P and CZ dominate all the shooting competitions. Berettas are rarely entered and rarely win.

My experience? The 92FS was my first pistol purchased in 1998. I basically learned to shoot on that platform. I also spent many years in the Army, qualified expert on the M9, deployed with the US Army to Iraq and carried the M9 on 3 of my deployments. I've also owned a few over the years, in 9mm and .40 caliber.

The M9 is a serviceable and good platform, but probably not even in my top 10 of best modern combat handguns and not in my top 20 for carry handguns.

If you want a better combat pistol, typically for less money, search elsewhere. If you really must have a Beretta, there are good clones out there for less money look for the ATI and Taurus 92 (which has a positive 1911 style safety, rather than a decocker).

Very well stated. As I wa reading through your note I was planning to say, but now will repeat that I have not heard of any unit of our armed forces who, having the choice of sidearm, selects the 92. Surely that is the most telling.
On the issue of the military replacing it, it's partly because of belt tightening and partly because of the changing style of warfare that it is implicitly getting replaced. The era of large infantry ground forces are giving way to more, highly skilled special ops teams. They do and will select what they need and the growth will be with them and their needs. I would say a lot more but that is not a THR topic.
But to be fair, there are many reasons to choose a firearm. History, design, anatomical match, whatever. But in this case I don't think it will be for overall performance.
Though these are the confessions of an H&K snob.
B

 

[fanchisimo]

I loved how my 92 shot, but it simply came down to Ergonomics. It just didn't feel good in my hand. The weight didn't really bother me since it was for the range/HD, but I just came to like other things. If I was in the market for a metal frame 9mm, I'd probably go with a CZ75. However I don't believe it will be replaced by the Armed Forces any time soon because of cost and rarely does any situation degenerate into the pistol being the decider between life and death so it's a low priority for replacement.

 

[BSA1]

If it was so good, why is it not used by competitors and why has it been dumped by nearly every Law Enforcement agency in favor of other platforms?

It seems to me that you are not familiar with the politics and deal making that goes on with gun companies and law enforcement agencies.

The "best" gun is rarely selected on it's merits alone and the deal that the manufacturer many times is the deciding factor. It has long been a common practice for manufacturers to make deals with law enforcement agencies at a loss for bragging rights, advertising and marketing. One reason Glocks became so popular with law enforcement agencies is just for these reasons.

Remember that few Administrators and LEO's are "gun" people and most only carry a gun because the job requires it and only shoot it when they have to qualify. The Glock fills the bill because it is simple to operate and maintain. Contrast that to it's lackluster accuracy and trigger pull.

As for the 1911 many of the same complaints you made about the Beretta can also be made. The 1911 is large, very heavy, more unforgiving with handling mistakes, has a lot of recoil and in military and law enforcement agencies restricted to use by small, well trained, specialized units. There are newer designs that chamber the 45 acp that are superior to the dated 1911.

 

[tarosean]

Very well stated. As I wa reading through your note I was planning to say, but now will repeat that I have not heard of any unit of our armed forces who, having the choice of sidearm, selects the 92. Surely that is the most telling.

I only know one person that was a Force Recon, He was a sniper and carried the 92. Course this was back in the late 80's early 90's so rules may have been different.

 

[Welding Rod]

If the Berretta WASNT the standard arm, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if some units with a choice did select it.

 

[Bexar]

I owned the Centurion Model in 9mm and loved it. Sold it to get a more readily night sightable gun. If Beretta came out with the Centurion again I'd get one and go through the gunsmithing of having an insert put in the front sight.

 

[RustyShackelford]

How the Beretta M9 was selected over the SIG P226....

The reasons & rational of how Beretta USA got the US armed forces XM9 contract all vary. 90% of it is "bar talk" or war stories.
The NRA magazine; American Rifleman & a few other sources put out detailed articles & reports of how the Beretta 92F pistol was selected.

There were some political issues or favors involved(with elected officials that's always the case). Mainly it was the practical reasons why Beretta got the XM9 sidearm deal.
The Beretta & SIG Sauer P226 9mmNATO were nearly the same in the DoD test trials. The per unit cost of the 92F was slightly lower than the P226. The 92F also had a ambi safety lever(SIG's XM9 didn't). Beretta USA also had a jump on full scale factory production in the US(Maryland). SIG Sauer didn't have any final plans yet for CONUS production.
Italy was also in talks to enlarge the NATO bases & expand the US military forces deployed there, so the Beretta contract helped "grease the rails" .

SIG Sauer had a big stink over the loss & pushed for a second DoD test phase. They lost out to Beretta a second time(reportedly with even a poorer showing in terms of malfunctions/problems). The 2nd T&E confirmed Beretta's spot as the "official sidearm" of the US military.
Some spec ops units like the elite Navy SEALs pushed for the P226 9mmNATO based on the use of +P+ & +P rated 9x19mm rounds but overall, the armed services converted to the new Beretta M9 pistol.

FWIW; SIG Sauer did get the M11 compact 9mmNATO DoD contract. This smaller pistol was in use by CIDC(criminal investigators), MI, air crews, pilots, etc.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by tarosean:
On another forum, someone asked to compare the 92 with the proclaimed "chunky grip" to a gun a lot people think is perfect size (G19)...

Comparison with a Glock Gen 4 with the fattest backstrap installed is not a correct comparison.

Also, Glock grip is quite blocky to begin with. Glock 19 grip differs from Glock 17 in height, not girth.

 

[TestPilot]

It's not a bad pistol in general.

The problem is that it does not particularly excel at anything when there are so many good pistols around.

It works reliable enough for most applications, but there are other pistols that are better in that regard, like Glock. I've used both pistols, and Glock is lot more reliable and lower maintenance.

The M9 DA/SA trigger is okay, but not anything particularly better than that of SIG or S&W, and DA/SA system is not that popular anymore to begin with. I have a distaste for Beretta M9 DA trigger because it has a firing pin block actuation mechanism that has less leverage for the trigger finger, compared to that of most other pistols, which gives it a significant pressure stack toward the end of the trigger pull. Most pistols do require increased pressure on the trigger to get past the point where trigger bar actuates the firing pin block, but the lower leverage lever mechanism, compared to trigger bar itself just pushing the firing pin block up with other pistols, makes the creep worse.

The slide mounted lever, the benefit of which I can think of is ZERO, makes matters worse.

Is it accurate? Yes, but so are Glock, H&K, or M&P40.

It's the largest 9mm pistol, compared to other full size pistols from S&W, Glock, etc., without being particularly better controlling.

Compared to Glock's Tenifer, Melonite on M&P, Hostile Environment finish on H&K, and Nitron on SIG, Beretta has the lowest performing protective finish.

It is a good pistol overall in a generic terms, but it does not give me a single reason to pick it over other good pistols on the market.

 

[tarosean]

Comparison with a Glock Gen 4 with the fattest backstrap installed is not a correct comparison.

As pointed out above it is the med. installed not the large... They dont include a small strap.

 

[leadcounsel]

That measurement is at the fattest point at the bottom of the pistol where the Glock does flare out. Measurements at the middle, where the meat and potatoes are, will likely show different results. Regardless, it FEELS thicker and heavier... But that really isn't the main complaint, anyway, for me.

Compared to Glock's Tenifer, Melonite on M&P, Hostile Environment finish on H&K, and Nitron on SIG, Beretta has the lowest performing protective finish.

I had forgotten about this comparison, and I agree with this analysis.

It is a good pistol overall in a generic terms, but it does not give me a single reason to pick it over other good pistols on the market.

Precisely how I feel.

 

[JTQ]

That measurement is at the fattest point at the bottom of the pistol where the Glock does flare out. Measurements at the middle, where the meat and potatoes are, will likely show different results.

Ref the G19 and Beretta 92 grip measurement picture…

In the thread where those pictures came, another forum member measured his two pistols and gave this information.

Measuring my M9 Special Edition and Gen4 G19 using crude methods (a string and measuring tape), …
...The trigger reach, as in the front-to-back measurement from center of the trigger face straight back to the rear edge of the grip was 2 3/4" for the G19 and 2 7/8" for the Beretta.

His Beretta does not have the backstrap indent (or whatever Beretta calls the scoop in the backstrap) which I suspect if his pistol had, would put the trigger reach of the Beretta at the same as the Gen 4 G19.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Every criticism you guys have said is fair enough, the only way to appreciate the Beretta is just to shoot it. There is no smoother pistol. Its a great shooter. It is a true classic. Something was lost in the updates however. I don't like the Vertec nearly as much as the original 92. A type M compact is still my Holy Grail pistol. I would forsake any of my pistols for one.

 

[tarosean]

That measurement is at the fattest point at the bottom of the pistol where the Glock does flare out.

So does the 92. I took the measurement at the fattest part for each of these guns.

Both are my guns. IN my personal experience, 3 92 variations (Type M, A1, FS) vs 3 Glocks (19, 19C, 17) my Berettas have outperformed my Glocks in every conceivable way. However, Ive only carried the Type M, as the others are just too big for concealed IMO.

 

[Nordeste]

I carry one as my duty sidearm. I like it, generally speaking. Acceptable ergos, good trigger, reliable and accurate. Downside is size. I have owned a Beretta PX4 and would pick it any day over the 92.

 

[jamal28]

Ive owned both the 92 centurion and 96 fs theyre both good and reliable guns but neither one compares to the glock, m&p, xd, sig 2022 or cz p09 in the terms of feel, function,reliability, and price

 

[Jenrick]

Looking at the Beretta 92 series in it's context as a military side arm and it's staying power there is very misleading versus it's usage in the civilian context. In the military a sidearm is 99.9% of the time a badge/privilege of rank, or a secondary/backup weapon for a crew served weapon or vehicle crewman. Only garrison MP's really carry pistols as their primary weapons system and that's usually on CONUS posts. In the combined history of warfare the pistol is probably less then .01% relevant to the outcome of a given conflict. The Beretta 92 shoots NATO standard 9mm, meets the requirements and was cheaper then the competitor by and large. Honestly a 9mm Hi-Point would probably fit the military's needs admirably.

In the civilian context I do think the movement of agencies away from the platform does speak a little more then the militaries continued use of it. For LEO's and armed citizens it is often the primary and only lethal force option available to them.

Part of the reason for the shift in LE, is the increase of additional training requirements for officers in things other then firearms. If you have 24 weeks to train an officer, and suddenly you have week of new state mandated training on something you have to take the training time from somewhere. Sadly administrations often take that from the firearms training. So long as someone qualifies why do they need more training? In this context, yes a TDA weapon is probably not optimal for officers who do not train or shoot outside of their department mandated qualification blocks. Agencies that have a culture of allowing and promoting officer training and practice tend to not make a large scale push to get ride of TDA semi-auto's nearly as much. They tend to allow officers to self select their weapons. A lot of times officers continue to use their TDA pistols as they are able to practice with them enough to be comfortable.

The Beretta 92 itself is a full size duty pistol with all that entails, both good and bad. If your hands can fit a DA trigger on a duty pistol of any other manufacturer it'll fit a Beretta. I'm not a huge fan of the slide mounted safety, but I don't have any problems running the gun and using it either.

Those that criticizes the Berettas trigger have probably never shot a DA pistol before. Yes it's not the worlds greatest example of a DA trigger, but it's certainly not the worst. The single action is perfectly shootable, and in an honest comparison to any SF pistol out there has a cleaner lighter break. Is it the worlds best SA trigger, certainly not but most of us can't afford a custom heirloom quality 1911 to try out that type of trigger either.

Overall I find it to be a solid reliable gun that does exactly what its supposed to do. For some it points and shoots superbly, for others it's not the gun for them. Just like any pistol find what works for you.

-Jenrick

 

[leadcounsel]

Here we go again...

Today, consistent with what I said in the opening salvo of posts...

The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services....

...Army weapons officials maintain that combat troops need a more effective pistol and ammunition....

...Beretta officials maintain that the company has offered to upgrade M9 many times. "We have submitted numerous changes or product improvements that really address a lot of the shortcomings that are either perceived or real," said Gabe Bailey, Business development manager for Beretta's military division. The Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 in 2006 that features a rail for attaching lights or lasers, checkering on the front and back of the grip and a beveled magazine well for smoother magazine changes. Some of the improvements Beretta offered included an enhanced sight system, changing the angle of the slide-mounted safety to avoid inadvertent safety activation and a threaded barrel, Bailey said.
Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.
"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/03/army-wants-a-harder-hitting-pistol.html?ESRC=dod.nl


In total fairness, the article explains that the military wants a better man-stopper and that it's got design problems. This however IMO is a total waste of time and money (I'm an advocate for replacing it with a more modern striker fired pistol, but not the glutton of testing they will certainly waste money doing - and I'd probably stick with the 9mm as 'good enough'). The experts agreed that shot placement (and more ammo capacity by default) is the most important factor, and 9mm is easier to control that .40 or .45.

This statement made NO sense:

"We have got an old fleet of M9s right now; it's costing us more to replace and repair M9s than it would cost to go get a new handgun,"

How could it possibly cost MORE to replace or repair old M9s, than to test for, and purchase NEW platforms? Sounds like fuzzy math to me. Testing will certainly cost millions of dollars. Then there's replacement guns. Versus, the armorers are already a sunk cost and parts are not that expensive on huge contracts...

At the end of the day, IMO a pistol rarely decides a fight in combat. I'm not a fanboy of the M9, but it's a low priority to replace it. Appears to be another way to waste our money, spending millions on tests that lead nowhere. They could just pick another highly proven platform and go with it (Sig, Glock, XD, CZ, etc.). They've all got at least a decade or more of proven adverse conditions track record.

 

[Shipwreck]

Read the GOA report at that link below... This will tell you the official story about all the "rumors" and such on how the Beretta was chosen. There are 1000 "official" stories told by people on the internet about the whole thing - and everyone believes that their story is correct.

Here is the direct link to that report if anyone is interested: http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf

Og course, some will dismiss teh report - but it does have facts and such that no one else can actually provide, because they had nothing to do with the process. The truth is that the Sig did not complete one of the tests - and itw as given a passing grade, so the military would have more than 1 final candidate at the very end.

 

[Shipwreck]

As for the gun itself... One of the main issues people always jump in on this topic is to complain about the gun and to say that they always see problems with the Beretta M9 in the military...

Now, I am not the first to point this out - but military armorers typically DO NOT do preventive maintenance on the M9. They don't change the recoil spring every 3-5k. They don't change the trigger return spring every 5k. They do not change the locking block every 15-20k. The gun just keeps going until something breaks. Then, it’s called “a piece of crap”

Numerous military guys have jumped in on past threads on this very topic. They state that there is no procedure for tracking fired rounds through M9s. So – if ya don't change the recoil spring at all... EVER... You probably WILL crack a locking block WAY, WAY before the 20k round lifetime. Changing the recoil spring to prevent that is a must.

The gun is MADE to have the recoil spring and trigger return spring changed with regularity. I see it claimed all the time by military personnel (on various gun forums) that while the military M9s sometimes suck, the 92FS’s in private hands generally do well. Well, this is probably why….

I have owned probably 15-17 Beretta 92's over the years, with up to 9 at one time (some were different variants of the platform). I also sold a $3k 1911 and a $2.5k 1911 a few years back after I caught the Beretta bug again. I simply shot them less and less after I got back into the Berettas. I have full faith in the platform.

The gun also fits my hand in a 1 handed grip perfectly. I’ve owned a lot of different handguns over the years. This is still easily my favorite platform for a variety of reasons. I’ll admit that makes me a bit biased in favor of Beretta. But, the anti Beretta crowd quite often does not know what they are talking about, and are often just repeating something that another person told them…

Finally - I've also seen some military guys on a forum tell the story of seeing soldiers use their M9 as a hammer, and then just put it back on the shelf with the other M9s. Do that a few times - What do you think is gonna happen to the next guy who is issued that gun?

 

[BSA1]

I own 9mm's ranging in every size in sub-compact to the full size 92FS.

The size of the 92 is a bit of a downsize for civilian concealed carry. Yet fans of the 1911 brag about how easy it is to carry the full size all steel 5" barrel model.

The full size of the 92 makes it a pussycat to shoot. Manufacturers have figured out how to make reliable 17, 18 and 20 round magazines which is a big plus especially for combat. One thing I notice is soldiers shoot a lot of rounds. A 92 with one 20 round mag (+ one in the pipe if you disregard regulations) equals three 7 round 1911 mags. Even with the current 15 round mags 3 of them is 45 rounds of firepower.

Like it or not research and testing proves there is very little difference, if any, between 9mm and 45 ball (FMJ). Stopping power isn't going to change until the military drops FMJ bullets.