Why is the Beretta 92FS so underated?

Status
Not open for further replies.

556A2

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
604
Location
Asheboro, NC
I was thinking about this in my arguement-based research class this morning so here goes. I have noticed for the most part here on the High Road (and even TFL) that there are not too many Beretta 92FS fans for the most part. I know that the grip is big for some people, but other than that what is so bad about them? The military uses it as the offcial sidearm, even if the Sig P-226 did overedge it slightly, it still did a great job in the trials. (Flame-suit on) It even replaced the 1911A1. (Flame-suit off). I'm not bashing the 1911A1 by any means, I'm just saying that it did replace it and I'm NOT debating the 9mm vs 45. Just talking about the actual gun. Then there is the slide cracking stories like rusty Sigs, totally unreible 1911s, Kabooming Glocks etc. Asides from the big grips, I really can't find anything wrong with them, so what is everyone elses opinions on the 92FS?
 
Why is the Beretta 92FS so underated?
I'd ask instead, why is it so overrated?

Grip is too big. Locking block fails. The decocker/safety is mounted on the slide, rather than the frame. This makes it harder to reach with your thumb and also makes it possible to accidentally apply the safety/decocker while cycling the slide.
 
Ergonomically, I hate the 92FS. Hard to reach the mag release button. Hate the slide-mounted safety/decocker. And it feels like a brick in my hand.

The trigger is no better than some Rugers I've shot (my recently traded P95 has a better trigger than every 92FS with which come into contact). For all this, they want roughly $500.

No thanks.
 
Let's face it, the 92 has had its "15 minutes of fame".

When given a chouce, special units are opting for the 1911 type sidearm for their operational use.

Word has it that DOD is working up a procurement spec for a 1911-based sidearm.

When the fit hits the shan, which would YOU prefer to carry?

Make mine American!

Bring on the flames...
 
M1911 wrote:

Grip is too big. Locking block fails. The decocker/safety is mounted on the slide, rather than the frame. This makes it harder to reach with your thumb and also makes it possible to accidentally apply the safety/decocker while cycling the slide.

I would have to agree with these comments.

As a member of the military, I am around the M9 daily, in my duties.

I have extremely small hands and I am able to manipulate the pistol just fine while firing, but I wouldn't want to take it to combat, simplyt based on ergonomics. It doesn't fit my hand well enough for me to do things quickly.

I would prefer to switch back to the m1911 for those who can show proficiency with the 1911. All others probably should go to a revolver.
 
Not that it would be my first choice, but if we have to go with 9mm for NATO compatibility, why not a hi-cap 1911 in 9mm?

OTOH - I think revolvers would be a good idea too. - S&W 625s :D
 
Can't add much more than has been said: trigger heavy, too big, safety works the wrong way and grip too large for lots of folks. I'll take a Ruger P-95 or a SIG P228 over the 92 if you are talking DA/SA pistols. On the other hand if I was a GI and had to use what was issued the M-9 isn't that bad. Also we who post here are by and large spoiled gun nuts with many pieces, if you have to use what is issued you learn the ins and outs of that weapon. Beware the man/woman with one gun.
 
When the fit hits the shan, which would YOU prefer to carry?

Make mine American!

Mine's made in the US. All the ones I have seen are.

If it's a stupid idea, but it works, it's not a stupid idea. I shoot my Beretta the best out of everything I own or have owned (2 1911s, 2 USPs but haven't put my P7 thru the paces yet) so I really don't care if people get down on the 92.

I really like the concept of the 1911 but can't shoot it worth a damn compared to my cheesy $650 Eurotrash wondernine.

I have 6000 rds thru mine and haven't had a single fte or ftf. Some finicky pieces yes, but mine is was a prototype gun and wasn't a production one.

The locking block may fail, just like the firing pins may break on my HK. I'm going to get another 92G as a spare, and if both break on the same day, God probably wants me dead ;)
 
I bought a plain jane Beretta in about 1996. The biggest problem I had with it was the safety. Being brought up properly with 1911s ( ;) ) the safety was just completely wrong. The gun itself worked perfectly. The grip is a bit big, much bigger than the 1911s slim profile. The open barrel was a bit perplexing. Never understood why you would want that much barrel exposed unless it was to aid cooling during prolonged spray and pray sessions.

Then I read about the Taurus. Made on Beretta equipment in Brazil but with the safety in the proper location. I sold my Beretta and bought a Taurus. Paid $289 for the gun, 2 10 round mags and 3 15 round mags. The gun has served me very will since. I've put more rounds through that gun than any other centerfire ahndgun I have ever owned. When I take a new shooter out, this is usually the first centerfire gun I have them shoot unless they are very specifically wanting a revolver. The gun has absolutely never had any sort of failure with me shooting it EVER. I've put nearly every sort of ammo through it, FMJ, traditional HPs, new fangled HPs, Blasers, 115, 124, 147 Gr... they all work perfectly. I'm not the best shooter in the world but it is neck and neck accuracy-wise with my best 1911s. Hard to fault proven perfection.

Not to toot the Taurus horn too much, there is a bit of slide frame rubbing and the finish is completely worn off in that area. Still, it has never effected the performance in any way.

That being said, it is far from my favorite handgun. I'm still a 1911 guy and that is what presents and points best for me. The CZ75 platform is next and even though I don't own a BHP, I'd say I like those more than the Beretta/Taurus. I'm no fan of poly guns in general but I'd rather carry a 9mm Glock and probably even a SIG though I think SIGs are very top heavy and have too high of a bore axis. I don't know what it is about the design that makes people dislike it (or loathe it or hate it ;) ) but there is something.
 
Like a huge list of other guns, the 92 works fine. It has okay accuracy, okay capacity, is reliable. But that describes so many 9mms, so who cares?

The 92 is not particularly durable, it's wide, long and thick and has more parts (65 or 70) than most every other similar pistol. It does little to positively distinguish itself.

What sort of kudos does it deserve?
 
Part of the problem is what I called the "Jane Pauley Effect". It replaced something very popular, so it was doomed to negative responces.
I think that there are many adherents to Berettas on TFL and THR. You tend to see the side you are on.
Blocky grip? The Glock and Ruger have much more brick-like handling qualities than the Beretta (to me), although the Beretta's grip may be larger. The following models gave more contoured grips, and the Vertec is made for smaller hands. The Beretta 92 has as large a grip as I can manage and still maintain repeatable accuracy. Admittedly the Browning HiPower has the best grip for my hands.
Mine is as accurate as anything else I own, so the trigger cannot be affecting my shot that much.
Frame mounted safety? Never moves when cycling slide or sling-shotting (real word?) the slide. I only use it as a decocker only. In DA mode I really don't need the safety.
As a range, home/car defense gun, it does fine. As a concealed carry weapon it leaves something to be desired. That is not the niche it was designed for.
Cracking slides and locking block issues? I have not heard or seen such in civilian models. Mine certainly shows no signs of it, and it is well past 5000 rounds. As you say Glocks have the Kaboom rumor as well as proven issues with the "E" series. Sigs are known for rusting away. Old 1911's are known for needing much tweaking for accuracy. Even new 1911's are said to need work for reliability. Ruger's are tainted by Bill Ruger's participation in the 1994 Assault Weapon ban and statements like "No honest man needs a gun smaller than a canned ham". S&W caved to Bill Clinton. Show me a manufacturer/design without faults.
 
I’ll give the M9/92FS some love.

I am a 1911 fan first and foremost, but the Beretta 92 series is my favorite 9mm. The ergonomics work for me, so no issue there. I am also left handed, so that the mag release is reversible and the safety/decocker is on both sides is a bonus. Now that the 92 series comes in a reduced grip/short trigger version, for civilians, the grip issues are the beating of a dead horse.

I like the Beretta for the following reasons: In my experience, the slide is the smoothest traveling I have ever seen on mass produced pistols. The 92 slide glides on its rails like no other non-custom pistol I have ever encountered. The only one that comes close to that smoothness is the HK P7M8.

I like the way the magazines situate the round in parallel to the chamber. The 92s in my experience, if the mag springs weren’t completely shot out, always feed. They always extract too. In fact, the B92 is the only centerfire pistol I have ever seen eject rounds without an extractor. Berettas also put the best dent I have ever seen in a primer, broad, deep enough, and uniform.

The Beretta has a stock chrome lined barrel. It has a “tough enough†aluminum frame that will not easily corrode. It has one of the better factory finishes put on a pistol. There is a universe of aftermarket items for this series of pistol.

I have heard that the open top slide has some trouble with sand, but I have personally never seen a Beretta jam in my eighteen years of going to a range most weekends and some evenings. It is also easy to tear down to a least a field strip, and I have every confidence in a bad guy not being able to disassemble it in my hand in spite of the “Jet Li surprise field strip myth.†With practice, the B92 is not all that difficult to detail strip. After all, they manage to teach the process to Marines.:neener:

Now, as I have said elsewhere before, I will not defend the condition of any M9s in service with the armed forces. If my days in the Navy are any indication, community property weapons, motor vehicles, rec equipment, etc., tends to be treated like community property in the most negative sense of the phrase. If Berettas are “junk†in the service, it is because they aren’t treated well. Then again the 1911s we had aboard my ship were all crap too. A civilian B92 maintained by its owner is a universe apart from a mistreated military sidearm.

Full cap mags are easy to get and inexpensive. A Beretta 92 was used to win the IDPA nationals recently. The DA pull is better than most, especially after the easy swap out of a “D†model mainspring. The SA pull is fine and can be improved with a special overtravel stop equipped trigger from Langdon Tactical Technologies.

As for the safety, most people who’ve owned B92s use it only as a decocking lever and many buy Elites, which are decock only. When used as a decock lever, the “reach†issue is a sham, because on a DA first pull pistol, the safety does not need to be on. When I was a reserve deputy however, I liked the idea of having the trigger disconnect safety in the on position, especially when doing crowd duty.

The B92 is not the paragon of pistol design, but it is a very good pistol. I am still somewhat amazed that they do only want some $500+ for it depending on the style. That is a lot of pistol for the money. Sure, it won’t probably last forever like my 1911s might, but most people will never shoot a B92 to failure either. It is not an heirloom, it is a self-defense pistol, as good as the Sig-Sauer series in my opinion.

Oh yeah, and it is the visual favorite of John Woo. I happen to think it is pretty good looking too.:evil:
 
I like the Beretta 92fs. I use mine as my HD gun. If for some reason I had to go into combat I would choose it over a 7 shot 1911 anyday. Spray and pray is a very underrated tactic.;)

I have medium sized hands but I like smaller grips, for some reason the Beretta is O.K. for me. I think it is because it is more rounded than rectangular, it seems to fit me better than a 1911 or a glock 36.

I shoot the Beretta 92fs the most accuratly fast second to my Ruger P95. I would use the P95 for HD but I don't have hi caps for it yet.

Because the Berettas are so underrated, you can often find them used for a steal.

I guess it all comes down to personal choice. I used to scorn the 92 until I got one and shot it, then I was a big fan. You can not tell everything about a gun from just holding it in a store. Sometimes it won't feel all that great in your hand but when you shoot it, it starts to feel better. I guess shooting a gun involves recoil which can affect the feel of a gun.
 
I just like the Beretta 92. Unfortunately the grip was a bit large. -So I bought a Vertec. (other than the trigger that was easily fixed, it is fine.)

I like the idea that I can chamber a round with no chance of a ND. Sure, I KNOW... finger out of the trigger guard.... but there is an added bit of safety there. If I want to shoot SA and the hammer is down, I just cock it.

I carry with safety OFF and in DA mode. Works fine for me. The only time I use the safety is when chambering a round or when I am done shooting.... to lower the hammer. Never had a misfeed or any other malfunction. Hi-Caps have been easy to find - at least until lately.

I tried several other handguns but none of them "felt right" to me. Parts and accessories are plentiful if I need them. All I am saying is that I believe the 92FS is a decent gun. As long as it's a decent gun I say, "If the gun fits, wear it." - Literally Guns that "fit" are hard to find (for me anyway).

Logistar
 
I Can Put the Holes Where I Want 'em

I just bought a 92FS secondhand, and it works fine for me. It was the best shooter right out of the box I've found so far. The nine I had before was an old 2nd generation S&W compact, and I wanted a more common gun in current production that I could also get a .22 conversion for. No complaints.
 
"Let's face it, the 92 has had its "15 minutes of fame".

When given a chouce, special units are opting for the 1911 type sidearm for their operational use.

Word has it that DOD is working up a procurement spec for a 1911-based sidearm."

That pretty much answers your question about why the M9 gets ragged on so much. The .45 lovers still think some kind of NATO conspiracy was behind the Colt .45 getting the boot. In truth, it was a generally unreliable weapon with a terrible failure rate.

(.45 lovers: insert stories here about the 50-yard one-shot kills with the .45 and the 15 rounds of 9mm fired into the chest of the attacking Afghanis who never died).

Bottom line, here is why the 9mm Beretta M9 was adopted:

1) The Army set a standard for the new weapon that it had to exceed 15, 000 rounds fired (average) before any serious failure (not repairable in the field). The M9 averaged about 30,000 rounds to failure.

2) the Army's own testing showed new recruits gain acceptable accuracy levels faster with an M9 than a .45. Accuracy on the M9 remains higher without as much practice (in short, a 9mm is easier for the average guy to shoot than a .45). Duhhhhh.

3) The standard issue handgun round for NATO is the 9mm +p+ hardball and standardizing does simplify inventory problems and costs.
 
I've been looking all my life for a handgun that I can stick with.
I love the 1911... but I never found one that I harmonized with.
I love HK's... but I never found one that I harmonized with.
I have tried on for as long as 3 years at a time, various other makes and models...
I finally found the gun for me... a well used Beretta 92FS that had a trigger and action job done to it. For only $350. High Cap mags were found as well for the right price.
I can shoot it accurately and rapidly... with 100% reliability so far.
Beretta is a good maker with a good history of well made guns. Yeah, the safety is on the slide... just like Ruger and S&W and a horde of other makers. Yeah, it's big. But the 92FS is also classified as a "Full Sized Duty Gun" not intended to be used as a CCW. So in that sense, size doesn't matter. Yet that full sized frame makes it comfortable to shoot two handed, all day long, and do it accurately thanks to the good sight radius.

I like mine. 15+ rounds of 9MM go a long way to make up for the fact that it isn't a .45.
 
i also grew up with the 1911, but i carry a beretta as a duty weapon on a daily basis. we are restricted pretty much to DA/SA weapons and my beretta has proven to be the most reliable. i have never had a FTF or FTE in thousands of rounds...and i'm not great about cleaning it either.

1. it does have a big grip that doesn't fit everyone (that's why they have a vertec)
2. some folks have trouble reaching the mag release (they make an extended version)
3. some folks don't like the slide mounted safety/decocker (they make a "G" model, also the "elite sereis)

on the positive side:
1. the open slide is the biggest ejection port made
2. the DA is one of the smoothest straight from the factory (lighter with "D" spring)
3. high cap mags are REALLY affordable and available (mine is the 96, .40, and mags are even more affordable)
4. you don't run the risk of breaking your extractor by dropping a round into the chamber
 
"Why is the Beretta 92FS so underated?"


Underated?

If anything, it's way overated for what it is: an overly large Euro-designed 9mm.

In terms of size and weight, a 9mm really has no business being any bigger than a Glock 19 or Sig 228, if that. People who feel that a 9mm needs to be the Beretta's size in order to "dampen recoil" really need to stick with the foo-foo calibers below .380 and wear nice soft gloves. :rolleyes:

Well, at least Beretta fixed that slide-coming-back-in-your-face thing. :what:

Hence, the "FS" designation. ;)
 
Last edited:
I've been looking all my life for a handgun that I can stick with.
I love the 1911... but I never found one that I harmonized with.
I love HK's... but I never found one that I harmonized with.
I have tried on for as long as 3 years at a time, various other makes and models...
I finally found the gun for me... a well used Beretta 92FS

Preach it , brother!!
 
In terms of size and weight, a 9mm really has no business being any bigger than a Glock 19 or Sig 228,

That of course wouldn't explain the size of the Glock 17 or the Sig 226, but then again we can't all be sawed off midgets with hands the size of your typical Oompa-Loompa.:neener:
 
:D


Yep, being "handicapped" by big mits sure limits your choices. :p

'Course I know a few big-handed fellas who carry Sig 228s, and one who even carries a G-26, but, hey...


:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top