Why does safety location on Beretta 92 make a difference?

Glad that works for you, but sure seems like it's asking for an AD.

Also, on a Beretta 92 series the linkage between the hammer and firing pin is rotated out of alignment when decocking/engaging the safety. So there really isn't any way for it to fire on decock. Forgetting to engage the safety and then pulling the trigger, expecting a decock on the other hand...................

This ^^^^

 

I don't know how exclusive this is to the Beretta 92 series but it was an interesting revelation that these pistols could have the magazine inserted and a round chambered, safety down, without ever needing to touch the safety or the hammer. I want a G conversion myself but for the safety conscious I can see how this arrangement is beneficial. Are there DASA pistols with frame mounted (thumb down) safeties that do this? As said previously I also prefer the SIG style decocker with no safety setting.

 

Several of the Taurus PT92/99/100/101 variants have a similar feature where the safety/decock lever can be left fully down, deactivating the trigger and automatically decocking the hammer when you load a magazine and rack the slide. One of mine does. I prefer the "G" style where the lever won't remain in the fully down/decock position but springs back to the ready position.

Also the P.38 does, and all the similar designs that resulted from it. (but they have slide-mounted safeties like the 92S/FS/etc.

 

HK USP V1 and Taurus PT92 have frame levers that are safe up, fire down, decock way down.

The Bren Ten has a conventional thumb safety and a peculiar cross bolt firing pin block. This would let you manually lower the hammer safely. One of the attempted revivals substituted a slide decocker for the cross bolt.

 

I'm not really a fan of racking the slide with the safety engaged. Done at speed, the slamming of the exposed decocking cam on the right-side safety/decocker lever (with the weight of the slide behind it) into the hammer release lever is just putting unnecessary stress on small parts, IMO.

 

I'm another that dislikes the slide mounted safety. I owned a Beretta 92FS for several years and finally sold it due to me being unable to reliably poke off the slide safety.

I can reach a frame mounted safety much easier and the motion required of my thumb is simpler.

Funny thing is that the Beretta 92FS pretty much drove me away from any manual safety lever on my autoloaders. For "old school" hammer fired autoloaders, I'd rather have a decocker only on a SA/DA gun.

 

JTQ,

Actually, it was writen exactly as it was intended. The state police wanted the gun carried ON SAFE. Yes, the engaging the safety does drop the hammer, but unless you disengage the safety afterwards, it stays on safe. It is the G model where the safety/decocker lever on the slide only drops the hammer. The G model does not have a manual safety.
If you flip the safety and someone takes the gun away from you, they cannot fire it till the safety is disengaged, which is why the state police liked it.

Jim

 

You said...

If the Beretta 96FS has the safety on, the hammer is already decocked. If the safety is on, you cannot decock the gun on the draw.

You can carry an M9/92FS/96FS with the safety on, and you can push the safety lever off and to the fire position on the draw, but you can't carry an M9/92FS/96FS with the safety on, and then decock the gun on the draw, since with the safety on, the gun is already decocked.

Perhaps it is a terminology thing, but your statement as written above cannot be done with an M9/92FS/96FS as configured from the factory.

 

In a world of "tap-rack-bang", the rack part is a problem if you knock the gun back on safe when you grab the slide.

I learned to work around this by using the front divots on the slide to rack and emergency load.

 

out of interest I might get out my Beretta 92S, and see how many times I would have to rack the slide before I could even figure out how to accidentally engage the safety.

 

Thank you. A couple of us said that earlier in the thread, but apparently, most people posting don't want to actually read the previous posts, desiring simply to interject their personal opinions (and biases).

Another example of prejudice against one system causing everyone to way overthink something that either is a non-factor in effective employment of a firearms or something that truly can be easily adapted to and overcome. But hey, it allows all the manufacturers to come up with "solutions" that they can charge more money for...And creates fodder for internet debate.

 

I would agree.. I do not remember this debate until the Youtube explosion.
I cut my teeth, so to speak, on the old S&Ws, Walthers, etc. so the safety never really bothered me.

Now-a-days I would require a re-train of muscle memory if I were to employ one of my Walthers or Berettas as I don't rely on them for SD anymore. Not because of the safety location, rather the size.

 

You also probably taught folks to use the slide stop, as a slide release, back in the day when slide stops were large, robust parts like those found on the 1911, Browning Hi-Power, and Beretta 92.

At some point the slide stop became a small stamped part, that was less durable, and to increase the lifespan of those stamped parts, they stopped being used to release the slide.

 

Not for me.

Would do it almost every time unless I purposely altered the way I racked it. And I wouldn't always do it because it was different from how I racked other guns

I'm right handed. If i put my support hand on the top of the slide, thumb pointed towards myself, my thumb will put the gun on safe. If my thumb doesn't, my palm probably will.

I also heard the gun go on safe or found it on safe three times in a few months while carrying after I bumped or brushed against something. That M92A1fs Compact wasn't trustworthy due to this. I sold it. A few months later, having not been available for 30 years. Beretta comes out with kit to convert an FS to a G. Great timing.

Anyway, like I said, the G style fixes the problem. A real problem.

 

It's almost funny, but there's another thread currently running about a certain 3rd generation S&W semiauto, and yet -- exactly zero persons have chimed in to complain about the slide-mounted safety whilst almost every poster is talking about what a worthy pistol it is...

I'm left to wonder how many people that think the M9/92FS safety location is a big deal actually spent several years with the gun as their issue handgun, either military or LE. Of course, all the former "operators" with their own YouTube channels, consulting businesses or shooting schools who coincidentally now earn huge bucks touting certain brands are free to talk smack about the Beretta system.

 

I resemble that, LOL.

I find a similar issue with 3rd-Gen Smiths. As a decocker-only I'm fine with a slide-mounted lever. But then again, I trained for a long time with 1911's, then with classic Sig's, so anything else seems alien to me.

 

That is good training.

In a critical incident this is how you should replace a magazine. Gun up high, so you can look at it if you need too, so your head is up looking towards any threats, so the gun isn't pointed at anyone, and to reduce your stature. (Make you less of a target / keeping your arms / gun more behind cover or concealment

 

I side-stepped this problem by converting to G, with the kit off Beretta website.

 

I'm pretty dang tempted to get a 92X RDO G. I just need to know if the grip and trigger reach fit me better than the ol' FS or not. I need to make a trip to a gun shop to find out.