Who dislikes/hates the Beretta 92FS/M9?

[UncleEd]

I happen to like the Beretta 92FS/M9 models very much.

They fit my hand well, I like the whole design and find them
to be one of the most reliable 9mm pistols ever made. And
I find the double action/single action no deterrence whatsoever.

Butr I know that's not the case for many. So I wonder
what negatives some or many of you have found in
the Beretta 92FS/M9 or some of the later offshoots.

Of course all negative comments will be given due
consideration, taken in the spirit of lively gun talk
and then rejected. I'm kidding.

P.S.: Those who want to post positive views are
also welcome.

 

[jmr40]

I've owned a couple over the years. I don't dislike them and would carry one with confidence if I were issued one. But if I'm spending my own money for a handgun will buy something else.

They are accurate, reliable pistols, just bigger than they need to be, and I never cared for the "backwards" safety. If I were choosing a DA/SA design, I much prefer the Sig 226 family and others with the decocker only. Or if it has a safety something where I move the safety down to fire instead of up. Part of that is my familiarity with 1911's.

Not just the Beretta, but I'm not a huge fan of aluminum alloy framed pistols in general. I like a lot of the traditional styles with steel frames. But if I want a lighter pistol make mine plastic.

Understand this isn't intended to bash the Beretta. I think they are a fine pistol. Just my personal preference and why.

 

[armoredman]

I agree with the above - I've shot them, never issued one, (we still used the 1911 when I was in uniform), but for my hands it's too big, with the safety/decocker in an awkward position. However, every one I've seen was well made, reliable and accurate, good solid service sidearm. If I was suddenly issued one today, I would carry with confidence.

 

[StrawHat]

To put it concise, I don’t care for any self loader. Too many decades with a S&W in my holster or in my hand.

Not to say they aren’t good, just they don’t answer my needs.

Kevin

 

[JDeere]

What jmr40 said so no sense in repeating it all. I run a lot of 1911s so the design is off and I personally do not like how they look...

 

[chicharrones]

My first centerfire autoloading pistol was a 92FS. I bought it on price (factory refurb) and on reputation.

I had it for several years, but came to the realization that it was never going to get any smaller in my hand and the controls were never going to become easier for me to reach.

So I sold it and used the proceeds to get a CZ75*.

I don’t hate the 92FS at all, it just didn’t fit me.

*Edit: CZ75D PCR

 

[trackskippy]

I have a couple, 92FS, M9, M9-22, and like them. They are accurate, smooth, soft shooters, that feel good in the hand and point well.

The safety was never an issue for me, as I don't use it as one. Just use it to decock the gun. The fact it might inadvertently get kicked on might be an issue I suppose, and a decock only might be a better thing, but its not a big deal once you get to know the gun.

I know they "look" big, but they really aren't. Not any bigger than any of the others in the same class anyway. Grip size and trigger reach are comfortable and they point naturally.

The open slide never seemed like a good idea to me, and if I were to find any serious fault, that would probably be it.

One thing that really bugs me with most all of them is, they never have an aggressive enough grip texture. That would be the only other complaint I would have with them. Aggressively stippling the grips, and front and back straps, would be a good thing.

 

[21H40]

I carried an M9 for my last deployment. I liked how accurate and dependable it was, but it was never comfortable in my hands. For the size and weight, I want a few more rounds, too. The SF guys all carried Glock 19's which fit my hand better, had the same number of rounds, was lighter, and more comfortable to carry all day.

Also, the double action pull always felt so long to me. I didn't hate it, but I'm not going to carry one as a civilian.

 

[JTQ]

I'm always intrigued by the size comments from the CZ75B guys.

The CZ75B trigger reach is longer than the Beretta 92FS and the reach to the CZ75B safety is also a long one.

As @trackskippy mentions, the Beretta 92FS safety/decocker to me is a decocker primarily. On guns with a slide mounted safety/decocker I only use the safety feature during administrative handling or when the gun is stored, so the position is not much of an issue because operating it is a "ground speed zero" operation.

As for the grip texture and trigger pull comments, other than the M9/92FS models (edit to add: admittedly this thread is about the M9/92FS so those are valid complaints), and Beretta has a whole lot of 92 Series guns available, almost all other models in the series now offer front and back strap checkering and come with at least a "D" spring that lightens the trigger pull below the M9/92FS levels.

 

[AlexanderA]

Who dislikes/hates the Beretta 92FS/M9?​

They are big, clunky guns (compared to, say, the Sig Sauer M17/M18). But the feature I dislike most is the dropping of the hammer when the safety is applied. Highly disconcerting for someone who grew up on the M1911.

So I removed the release levers on mine, substituting spacers from the "D" model. The hammer stays cocked when the safety is applied. But this doesn't lock the trigger, so, with the safety on, the gun can be decocked if desired simply by pulling the trigger. Needless to say you have to be highly aware of what position the safety is in at all times.

I finally shifted my attention to the Taurus PT92 (a Beretta clone), which can indeed be carried "cocked and locked."

 

[N555]

Main draw back to a 92fs is it's just to darn fat to fit in some people's hands.
It fits me like I designed it for myself.

 

[tarosean]

But the feature I dislike most is the dropping of the hammer when the safety is applied. Highly disconcerting for someone who grew up on the M1911.

Odd as its one of the safest decokers ever conceived.

I own multiple.. So yeah I do like em.

Obviously this thread needs pictures. (92C Type M)

 

[trackskippy]

I just now measured the grips of a 1911, Beretta 92, SIG P226, and a Glock 17. Measurement was in about the same place on each (mid grip, bottom of the grip safety on the 1911)

1911......... 1.25
Beretta.... 1.35
SIG............ 1.35
Glock....... 1.18

Not really scientific, but when you compare them all side by side, one on top of another, all but the Glock are more or less 1911 GM size. The Glock is Commander-sized. Not any real difference between all of them to complain about, size-wise anyway.

And considering that these guns are more or less the basis for most things autoloader-wise we see these days, it would be a good thing to get/have an example of each and get to know them well. That would clear up a lot of things for a lot of people I think, and as with most things you get to know well, most of the usual complaints tend to melt away the more experience you have with them.
'
At the very least, youll have a good base to draw on if or when you might need to pick one up and put it to work and they will be just as familiar and natural in your hand as anything else.

These days, the Glocks get the most of my attention, as they are what I use. I still shoot the others regularly too, and they all fall into the dry fire mix and get handled and dry fired on a daily basis.

Need be, I wouldn't have a problem using any of them either.

 

[bihj]

Maybe not 'hate' or 'dislike', but it feels like I am holding on to the wrong end of a baseball bat.

 

[Bazoo]

I like the 92, and shoot it well enough. It doesn't fit my hand however. The grip is a mite too large for my liking, but the trigger reach is too long for me in double action.

The 1911 A1 fits my hand better than any other semi-automatic handgun I've tried. Arched mainspring housing and short trigger. The new 1911s with their flat msh and long trigger don't fit me as well.

 

[chicharrones]

I'm always intrigued by the size comments from the CZ75B guys.

The CZ75B trigger reach is longer than the Beretta 92FS and the reach to the CZ75B safety is also a long one.

As @trackskippy mentions, the Beretta 92FS safety/decocker to me is a decocker primarily. On guns with a slide mounted safety/decocker I only use the safety feature during administrative handling or when the gun is stored, so the position is not much of an issue because operating it is a "ground speed zero" operation.

As for the grip texture and trigger pull comments, other than the M9/92FS models (edit to add: admittedly this thread is about the M9/92FS so those are valid complaints), and Beretta has a whole lot of 92 Series guns available, almost all other models in the series now offer front and back strap checking and come with at least a "D" spring that lightens the trigger pull below the M9/92FS levels.

Edited my text to clarify that my 92FS got turned into a CZ75D PCR, which has an easy to reach decocker that goes “snick-snick” compared the dry fire sound of the Beretta decocker.

With thin G10 grips, the CZ grip is as thin as a 1911, which helps me with trigger reach. Plus, when the hammer is decocked, the hammer sits on a “half cock” notch, which makes trigger reach a little easier too.

 

[Jim Watson]

A stock Beretta is broad in the butt, has tiny sights, and mediocre trigger pull.
Then I got to shoot a LTT Beretta. His thin, contoured grips, fibre optic sights, and worked trigger make it a whole different gun. I think I would get one in place of my present GGI P226 if starting over in DA/SA.

 

[bannockburn]

bihj

Maybe not 'hate' or 'dislike', but it feels like I am holding on to the wrong end of a baseball bat.

You know that was the exact same thing I thought of when I picked up an M92 for the first time: like I was holding onto the barrel of a baseball bat.

 

[American_Fusilier]

I don't really care for any DA/SA pistols

 

[JTQ]

Edited my text to clarify that my 92FS got turned into a CZ75D PCR, which has an easy to reach decocker that goes “snick-snick” compared the dry fire sound of the Beretta decocker.

With thin G10 grips, the CZ grip is as thin as a 1911, which helps me with trigger reach. Plus, when the hammer is decocked, the hammer sits on a “half cock” notch, which makes trigger reach a little easier too.

Thanks for the clarification.

If we are changing guns, you could also get a Beretta 92 with a thinner grip and a decocker that only drops the hammer to the half cock position. You'd also get to keep a full size gun and not shift to a compact gun like the PCR.

Beretta 92GTS Full Size Standard

<p>Experience the next generation of the Beretta 92 series with the Beretta 92GTS Full Size. Seamlessly blending legacy and innovation, this pistol features Twin Sear Technology, DLC trigger components, and an optic-ready slide for unparalleled performance.</p>

www.beretta.com

 

[12Bravo20]

I never cared for the M9 since it never fit my hands well. I could never shoot the M9 as well as the M1911A1.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I was 10 when the M9 was selected. As a teen, I thought replacing the 1911 was stupid. As a 23 year old Active Duty Army O1, I was sent to the range and qualified expert the first time I ever shot a M9. Based of my experiences, I now own four 9mm examples: A 90's FS Brigadier, a 90's FS Centurion, a SB Compact Type M and a Wilson 92 Compact Carry.

The major shootablity complaints I have witnessed include:

Improperly grip fitment for small hands (The Vertec frame & skinny grip panels help with this issue).

Inadvertant safety activation during manual racking. The decocker only conversion is a viable solution if problematic, but it's also nice to be able to lock-out the action during non-combat operations.

Poor function of certain magazines in adverse conditions.

Poor quality and desirability of post-2000 plastic components.

All in all, I would take a 92/M9 platform in ANY functional condition over the P320/M17/M18 abomination. However, P226 would have probably also provided excellent service if it had been selected instead in 1986. I find the the Sig P2XX platforms highly desirable and serviceable, as well.

 

[AlexanderA]

I just now measured the grips of a 1911, Beretta 92, SIG P226, and a Glock 17. Measurement was in about the same place on each (mid grip, bottom of the grip safety on the 1911)

1911......... 1.25
Beretta.... 1.35
SIG............ 1.35
Glock....... 1.18

You need to measure the grip circumference, using a tape measure.

Here's what I get, measuring at the midpoint of the grip. Most common grip for that model gun, in inches:
1911......................................................................5.375
Taurus PT92 (same as Beretta 92FS)....5.75
Sig Sauer P320................................................5.50

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Odd as its one of the safest decokers ever conceived.

I own multiple.. So yeah I do like em.

Obviously this thread needs pictures. (92C Type M)
View attachment 1208208

Still kicking myself for selling my Type M. Picked it up on my lunch break, showed it to my boss and he offered me $400 cash more than I paid on the spot.
Never even made it home or shot it. Haven't seen another since.....

Nice Microtech too!

I still like 92s, have a bucket full of them and another bucket of magazines- but they don't get a lot of range time or carry anymore. The plastic fantastics have pushed them to the dusty corner of the safe.....

 

[Old Dog]

Not me.

In fact, I have a great fondness for the pistol, having been issued one for the second half of my military career.

The 92FS/M9 fits my hands as though made for them; the slide-mounted safety doesn't bother me (and I am a lifelong, huge 1911 fan), for me, is easily accessed with a firing grip, but I consider it strictly a de-cocker anyway. I've always found the Beretta to be one of the more accurate production pistols right out of the box, and in my experience, it's been totally reliable, both my personal pistols, and those I've been issued.

If I was forced to give up all but one of my DA/SA pistols, it'd be a coin flip between my M9 and a SIG P-226 (sorry, CZ-75).