School me on the Vertec

[Jared]

Since Beretta has brought back the Vertec, I'm interested in one. Now, this wouldn't be my first Beretta 92 rodeo at all, but I've never even seen a Vertec in the flesh. I'm familiar with the history of the design and all that stuff, but the BIG thing that is concerning me is a comment that I've seen here and a couple other places a few times. It goes like this: "Feels great when you pick it up and dry fire it a bit, but at the range, I shoot it worse than the regular 92."

I accept that this is all dependant on the individual user. However, I'd really like to hear from folks that have done the Vertec experiment that returned to the regular frame. Namely, can you identify what went "wrong" with your Vertec experience.

Now, worst case scenario is that I don't like the Vertec frame, and put the slide on my M9A1 frame and have a two tone faux Langdon Special, and I've got the money to buy the gun without affecting the training ammo budget, just trying to see what I may be getting into here. Thanks!

[LHS]

Since Beretta has brought back the Vertec, I'm interested in one. Now, this wouldn't be my first Beretta 92 rodeo at all, but I've never even seen a Vertec in the flesh. I'm familiar with the history of the design and all that stuff, but the BIG thing that is concerning me is a comment that I've seen here and a couple other places a few times. It goes like this: "Feels great when you pick it up and dry fire it a bit, but at the range, I shoot it worse than the regular 92."

I accept that this is all dependant on the individual user. However, I'd really like to hear from folks that have done the Vertec experiment that returned to the regular frame. Namely, can you identify what went "wrong" with your Vertec experience.

Now, worst case scenario is that I don't like the Vertec frame, and put the slide on my M9A1 frame and have a two tone faux Langdon Special, and I've got the money to buy the gun without affecting the training ammo budget, just trying to see what I may be getting into here. Thanks!

I find that the frame causes it to point at a much lower angle, and I don't care for it at all. I know some folks with small hands that love it. Basically, you'll have to try it out yourself and see, and if you don't like it, I don't reckon you'll have much trouble selling the frame. And as you said, the Vertec slide is tops (especially if you get a G model or have one of the FS models converted by Wilson's.)

[GardoneVT]

Since Beretta has brought back the Vertec, I'm interested in one. Now, this wouldn't be my first Beretta 92 rodeo at all, but I've never even seen a Vertec in the flesh. I'm familiar with the history of the design and all that stuff, but the BIG thing that is concerning me is a comment that I've seen here and a couple other places a few times. It goes like this: "Feels great when you pick it up and dry fire it a bit, but at the range, I shoot it worse than the regular 92."

I accept that this is all dependant on the individual user. However, I'd really like to hear from folks that have done the Vertec experiment that returned to the regular frame. Namely, can you identify what went "wrong" with your Vertec experience.

Now, worst case scenario is that I don't like the Vertec frame, and put the slide on my M9A1 frame and have a two tone faux Langdon Special, and I've got the money to buy the gun without affecting the training ammo budget, just trying to see what I may be getting into here. Thanks!

Since I'm moving back to Illinois soon for family reasons, I've got a limited time to get my ideal guns before moving to Chicago.

One of those is a Vertec Beretta, which in my case is a 96 .

In terms of shooting characteristics, it handles like a 92 FS top end on top of a 1911. Which is all good in single action, but when its time to go DA things might come off the tracks for some folks. In double action ,on the regular 92 the grip is full enough to deter the weapon shifting even if the grip is flawed. Draw a Vertec and you'll know real fast if your grip is jacked , because your hits will be all over .

On the plus side, small handed folks will find it very ergonomic, and the frame shift issues only happen if you have big hands and botch your grip.Concealment is where the biggest advantage goes-the area exposed above the holster decreases immensely with the Vertec vs the standard grip.

Personally, I don't have a preference either way as a large handed shooter. If your on the small side hand wise, I'd go Vertec and not look back. Even large handed shooters might find it a fun piece to run.

Last note-the Vertec slide retains the traditional 92FS dimensions. The Brigadier does not, which means if you want assured holster compatibility AND dovetailed front sights the Vertec is your only game in town. The 92A1s frame is bespoke, the the Brigadier slide is wide enough to preclude backwards compatibility with traditional holsters.

[Jared]

My hands are sort of a Medium, maybe a bit of a "Smedium." Not large, not tiny, but if I look around at work, I tend to think they're a smaller than a lot of my co-workers. OTOH, I don't have any trouble reaching and running the DA trigger on a standard Beretta frame, or a SIG with standard trigger and normal (non E2) grips. I do know than the "hump" on the normal 92 does do some contacting of my hand, I've cleaned skin cells out of the backstrap on more than one occasion on my dry fire gun.

In concealment, the part of the 92 that want to print, for me, is actually the magazine baseplate. Yeah, seriously. I realize this is a bit of an oddball thing, but it's definitely there.

Were I to acquire a Vertec, the only thing I'm seeing at the distributors are Inox "F" models. If I fell in love with it and decide to go all Vertec, I'd likely put a low profile AGW safety on my carry piece and rock on with it. Of course, all Vertec would also mean probably 3 total: Carry, Competition, and Practice, but again, I'd find a way to swing it.

Any other thoughts appreciated.

[JSGlock34]

The announcement of the M9A3 has tempered my interest in acquiring a Vertec. Unless the Vertec really speaks to you, I'd consider waiting for the M9A3 later in the year. The M9A3 simply offers more options.

[JV_]

I've always found that the way something "points" to be a function of how much time I've spent with the gun. Something that might point high or low will feel natural after a few thousand rounds.

[Suvorov]

The announcement of the M9A3 has tempered my interest in acquiring a Vertec. Unless the Vertec really speaks to you, I'd consider waiting for the M9A3 later in the year. The M9A3 simply offers more options.

Assuming you live in a state that will allow new pistols to be sold to members of the proletariat. The Vertec (in Stainless Steel no less - it isn't "safe" in any other finish) and a trip to a smith - is going to be the closest I will be able to get to an M9A3 for a long time.....

[Mitch]

Since I'm moving back to Illinois soon for family reasons, I've got a limited time to get my ideal guns before moving to Chicago.

One of those is a Vertec Beretta, which in my case is a 96 .

In terms of shooting characteristics, it handles like a 92 FS top end on top of a 1911. Which is all good in single action, but when its time to go DA things might come off the tracks for some folks. In double action ,on the regular 92 the grip is full enough to deter the weapon shifting even if the grip is flawed. Draw a Vertec and you'll know real fast if your grip is jacked , because your hits will be all over .

On the plus side, small handed folks will find it very ergonomic, and the frame shift issues only happen if you have big hands and botch your grip.Concealment is where the biggest advantage goes-the area exposed above the holster decreases immensely with the Vertec vs the standard grip.

Personally, I don't have a preference either way as a large handed shooter. If your on the small side hand wise, I'd go Vertec and not look back. Even large handed shooters might find it a fun piece to run.

Last note-the Vertec slide retains the traditional 92FS dimensions. The Brigadier does not, which means if you want assured holster compatibility AND dovetailed front sights the Vertec is your only game in town. The 92A1s frame is bespoke, the the Brigadier slide is wide enough to preclude backwards compatibility with traditional holsters.

Not to get too off track here, but depending on what you mean by "ideal guns," that may or may not be the case. I've lived in Illinois for all my life, the CCW law changed a lot of issues surrounding Chicago (for hand guns, at least). Send me a PM if you'd like to get into it a little more.

[GardoneVT]

Not to get too off track here, but depending on what you mean by "ideal guns," that may or may not be the case. I've lived in Illinois for all my life, the CCW law changed a lot of issues surrounding Chicago (for hand guns, at least). Send me a PM if you'd like to get into it a little more.

Its not a problem of the law, but of economics: where I live firearms are inexpensive and easy to get. Near Chicago they're pricey and I have to wait 72 hours.

[Jared]

I've always found that the way something "points" to be a function of how much time I've spent with the gun. Something that might point high or low will feel natural after a few thousand rounds.

True that!

I tried a little something to hopefully get a feel for what a Vertec might be like after all my time with the normal frame. I dug out my only 1911, a Colt with a flat mainspring housing. Went to the dry fire area, locked on to one of my simulated 30 yard targets, and did 10 presentations from low ready. My sights came up nice and level, I didn't have to bring the muzzle up to correct when I was on target or anything.

So now I'm thinking (maybe more hoping) that I might be able to manage a Vertec just fine, and maybe even go back and forth without a problem.