Why does Beretta use slide mounted safeties/decocker?

[Crow Hunter]

My very first centerfire handgun was a S&W 909 way back in the Mid 90's. It was a gift from my father. I had it for a while but I really didn't "gel" with it and part of that was the safety/decock location. On a lark I traded it for a Taurus PT92.

While that was probably a bad deal on my part, I MUCH preferred the frame mounted safety/decock on the Taurus. I kept that gun for years. Just sold it recently actually. Eventually I bought a couple of actual Beretta 92Fs (an Inox and a Bruniton). Mostly because I could find the magazines easier during the ban years. But I actually liked the Taurus better although it didn't "feel" quite as smooth or polished as my Berettas.

I notice that Beretta makes a SAO target version of the 92. Why have they never offered one in double action?

TPD from the government?

Corporate inertia?

Patent infringement?

Technical impossibility?

Just one of those things I wonder about as I am contemplating buying a Beretta Compact.

[Trooper224]

I notice that Beretta makes a SAO target version of the 92. Why have they never offered one in double action?

The 92D is the double action only variant of the Beretta.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/8584105237/10238832/b54bbd887a9d6cf9947d2787166d117a.jpg

[GardoneVT]

My very first centerfire handgun was a S&W 909 way back in the Mid 90's. It was a gift from my father. I had it for a while but I really didn't "gel" with it and part of that was the safety/decock location. On a lark I traded it for a Taurus PT92.

While that was probably a bad deal on my part, I MUCH preferred the frame mounted safety/decock on the Taurus. I kept that gun for years. Just sold it recently actually. Eventually I bought a couple of actual Beretta 92Fs (an Inox and a Bruniton). Mostly because I could find the magazines easier during the ban years. But I actually liked the Taurus better although it didn't "feel" quite as smooth or polished as my Berettas.

I notice that Beretta makes a SAO target version of the 92. Why have they never offered one in double action?

TPD from the government?

Corporate inertia?

Patent infringement?

Technical impossibility?

Just one of those things I wonder about as I am contemplating buying a Beretta Compact.

The Beretta pros should be along shortly.

Barring their input, my Holiday Inn Express take on it is that there isn't substantial market interest in a frame safety Beretta here. John Cleetus buys a gun because "Agency X" uses it, which is why we're in big trouble if Hi Point ever gets a famous contract anywhere.

Notice how Berettas which diverged from the M9/92F design like the Elites, Steel Ones, Billeniums, didn't exactly set the market on fire.

[Crow Hunter]

The 92D is the double action only variant of the Beretta.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/8584105237/10238832/b54bbd887a9d6cf9947d2787166d117a.jpg

Sorry.

I should have been more clear.

I meant a model with a frame mounted safety/decocker similar to the SAO version but in a DA/SA format.

My bad.

[Tamara]

It had been my understanding that the move from the frame-mounted safety on the original 92 to the slide-mounted safety/decocker on the 92S was to seek US .mil contracts, although Wikipedia claims it was at the behest of Italian LE/.mil organizations.

[Wheeler]

The Beretta pros should be along shortly.

Barring their input, my Holiday Inn Express take on it is that there isn't substantial market interest in a frame safety Beretta here. John Cleetus buys a gun because "Agency X" uses it, which is why we're in big trouble if Hi Point ever gets a famous contract anywhere.

Notice how Berettas which diverged from the M9/92F design like the Elites, Steel Ones, Billeniums, didn't exactly set the market on fire.

If they do there will be a surge in instructors teaching the Hi Point as well...

[DannyZRC]

doesn't the slide mounted safety's rotating the intermediate 'striker' out of the path of the hammer predate the firing pin block, and maybe the half cock notch as well?

once upon a time it was a solution for safe decocking, and once established there is a certain institutional inertia that keeps old ideas rolling.

[GJM]

I consider the G, decocker models, the most desirable. If you're going to have a decocker, I am happy to have it up and out-of-the-way.

[JTQ]

The originator of the Traditional Double Action (TDA), the Walther P-38, had a slide mounted safety/decocker just like the current Beretta 92FS.

The most common TDA in the US at the time the Beretta 92 was introduced were the S&W auto's, that operated the same way. The Taurus 92's lever (which I believe was same style the Beretta began with), was originally a safety only. It did not decock. The "folks" wanted a decocker, so the lever moved to the slide where it was similar in operation to the S&W pistols common in the day.

Today, SIG's frame mounted decocker is well known to us (and interestingly mostly unique to SIG pistols), but it was basically a brand new design in the 1970's, while the slide mounted safety/decocker had been in use for a long time and was familiar to US shooters. When you think about it, there have been lots of guns that have used that design, from the previously mentioned Walther P38, and S&W autos, to the Ruger P-Series line-up, IMI Baby Eagle guns, and the Beretta family of TDA autos. The safety/decocker on the Taurus is a fairly new modification and is only on guns that are newer than the Beretta 92FS, such as the HK USP and the relatively newer line of FN guns with that device.

[Tamara]

The original Beretta 92 (which the Taurus apes) had a frame-mounted safety, no decocker.

Taurus PT-92/99 autos didn't have the decocking feature until the mid-'90s.

[JTQ]

The original Beretta 92 (which the Taurus apes) had a frame-mounted safety, no decocker.

Taurus PT-92/99 autos didn't have the decocking feature until the mid-'90s.
I agree.

[Don Gwinn]

This is the kind of thing I really come here to find. Fascinating. Never even wondered about this before.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

[BaiHu]

Ditto. Lurking around here is like walking by a library when a book you've never heard of, and never would have thought to pick up, smacks you in the head, and lands open to just the right page you didn't know you were looking for-kismet is another good word for this, I believe.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[David B.]

The answer to this question along with a complete history of Beretta firearms development can be found in Gene Gangarosa's book, Modern Beretta Firearms. http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Beretta-Firearms-Gene-Gangarosa/dp/0883171740/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400904809&sr=8-1&keywords=modern+beretta+firearms

Basically, Beretta's first 92 series had the frame mounted safety that was not a decocker and enabled cocked and locked carry or hammer down carry. However, to get the hammer down, you had to thumb it down. It was the desire for military and police contracts that ultimately led to the current slide safety/decocker design.

"Because of these and other safety arrangements, the chances of the early Beretta 92 entering military or police service were limited. Indeed, only a relatively small number of the model 92 pistol using the original safety configuration was purchased by military or police forces. Some organizations, notably the Italian Policia di Stato (State police), told Beretta early on that they liked the model 92's double action trigger system, its functional reliability and its high magazine capacity. These features combined with a hammer decocking system, were strongly recommended and, for that reason, Beretta decided to alter the safety system" (Modern Beretta Firearms 80).

The change to the slide mounted safety/decocker came in 1976 and was designated the model 92S. The model 92S eventually supplanted the older model 92 because military and police forces preferred the slide mounted safety system of the 92S.

Personally, if there is going to be a safety on the gun, I prefer it to be out of the way on the slide. I never carry with the safety on and would actually prefer a G-model if they were available. In lieu of a G model, a Wilson/AGW low profile safety lever on the slide is the next best option for me.

God Bless,
David

[Trooper224]

T In lieu of a G model, a Wilson/AGW low profile safety lever on the slide is the next best option for me.

I just installed one of these on my 92FS and agree. If a non-G model is used I can't think of a modification that's more of a must have than this one.

[Rich]

OP

Can the Taurus and Beretta swap parts?

Although I never own the Taurus , But I've heard from owners that they are good pistols.

BTW
The Safety / Decocker on the Beretta or Gen 3 S&W 5906/6906 and a P85 has never given me any problems.

But I can see how it could for others.

[LHS]

Afaik, the parts won't interchange. And the Taurus 92 clones I've handled felt like someone let Joe Biden build Berettas.

[Dave J]

Although I never own the Taurus

Good motto to live by right there, IMHO.

[Crow Hunter]

OP

Can the Taurus and Beretta swap parts?

Although I never own the Taurus , But I've heard from owners that they are good pistols.

BTW
The Safety / Decocker on the Beretta or Gen 3 S&W 5906/6906 and a P85 has never given me any problems.

But I can see how it could for others.

While I am not 100% for sure, I don't think so.

Their magazines didn't interchange (I remember that vividly because I could find lots of pre-ban Beretta 15rds around but no Taurus PT92 mags)

I agree with others, while the gun was definitely functional and I didn't have any issues with it, it was no comparison to a Beretta 92. I did like the safety/decock better though.

The only reason that I had mine for so long is that my Dad took a liking to it and I gave it to him only to have him pass away and I got it back and forgot that I even had it until a couple of years ago.

[Tamara]

Their magazines didn't interchange (I remember that vividly because I could find lots of pre-ban Beretta 15rds around but no Taurus PT92 mags)

IIRC, the Brazilian military contract was for original Beretta 92s with the heel-mounted mag release, so when Taurus started making their own version using the old tooling, they had to engineer their own mag button and that resulted in the incompatibility.

[GJM]

While I prefer G model Beretta pistols, Ernest Langdon taught us a method of flicking the Beretta 92 standard safety off, that is as fast as using the thumb safety on a 1911. Instead of "lifting" the safety lever up, you flick it down with your thumb instead. Never been exposed to that before.

[Mr_White]

While I prefer G model Beretta pistols, Ernest Langdon taught us a method of flicking the Beretta 92 standard safety off, that is as fast as using the thumb safety on a 1911. Instead of "lifting" the safety lever up, you flick it down with your thumb instead. Never been exposed to that before.

I tried this on the range's 92 the other day. I think I was doing it the right way. It was much harder for me than pushing up on the front end of the lever.

[TR675]

Could it have something to do with thumb size/length? I have long skinny thumbs and had the same results as OAK.

[Tamara]

That's how I've always run S&W autos, but it's been so long since I fired a regular Beretta, I honestly can't remember if it works for me on them or not.

[GJM]

I tried this on the range's 92 the other day. I think I was doing it the right way. It was much harder for me than pushing up on the front end of the lever.


Could it have something to do with thumb size/length? I have long skinny thumbs and had the same results as OAK.

How are you doing it? With EL's method, your thumb momentarily, and lightly, touches the safety on the way into the firing position. It is a downward "flicking" motion, and requires almost no pressure if you are flicking the correct part of the thumb safety. Doesn't work with the low profile levers, but worked fine for me and others at the Langdon class.

[JAD]

. It is a downward "flicking" motion, .

Do you think you could do a quick video, G? I'm a little baffled myself.

[GJM]

https://vimeo.com/96769536

[jetfire]

https://vimeo.com/96769536

This will be incredibly useful for my SAO Storm CDP gun plan.

ETA: Nevermind, the safety on the storm doesn't have the right profile for this. Bollocks

[JAD]

awesome video

Thanks dude. Good thing you live in a gun store.

[GJM]

I ran into the local Sportsmans Warehouse. Best part was that a guy next to me at the counter was doing paperwork to buy another 92, and said "I didn't know you can do that with a 92 safety!"

[Handy]

One advantage of the slide safety/decocker that doesn't get much mention is that you can load the chamber with the completely unable to fire because the firing pin is secured, and the pistol goes right to decock as the slide goes into battery. This is a very useful feature for military and police use.

And while we think nothing of them today, frame decockers were entirely uncommon until the mid to late '80s. Aside from the Sig P220 which came out in '75, all previous frame levers were either safeties or required the trigger to decock (Sauer 38H, P9S). AND, frame decockers are mechanically much more difficult to execute than slide decockers, meaning more complexity. Both the Sig P22X and USP pistols had their frame decockers revised to function differently early on.

Slide levers are reliable and very simple devices. Their a pain if you're going to carry safety on, but out of the way if you don't.