Berettas, 90two/92A1.

[DannyZRC]

Hey folks, I've been shopping for a new pistol to replace a P2000 LEM (v2) that I've put out for consignment at a nearby shop. In the meantime, since she's more decisive than I am, my girlfriend has purchased her own Pistol while I get done making up my damned mind. She picked up a PX4 Subcompact in 9mm. (very sweet little gun).

So, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I'm getting to be pretty sure that what I'm looking for is a 90two in 9mm, but because of the -two's level of obscurity, I feel somewhat compelled to be doubly sure I don't really want a 92A1.

My reasoning is that I really like the PX4, but the design of the safety lever is such that I don't feel great confidence in my ability to disengage it under pressure. I don't have the same concern for the 92 style safety(the web of my thumb is pretty meaty which shortens my thumb's reach, my GF doesn't have any trouble at all with the PX4 style lever). However, there exists mountains of respected opinions on the 92 safety being a liability during malfunction clearance drills, and I know Todd advocates the decocker only models partially for this reason.

It seems to me that (even though I assume a lot of the design is aesthetically driven) that Both the 90two and the subsequent PX4 safety lever designs moved towards mitigating the accidental engagement of the safety during slide manipulations (I've played a lot with the PX4 SC's slide and never once nudged the safety on). Is this an accurate perception? is the 90two safety lever design about as good as the PX4 in this regard, and do the rest of you feel that either of these levers are truly an improvement over the 92? (anecdotally, I rented a 96 and I found reports of the safety being easy to engage very believable based on just a little fooling with it).

I've yet to handle a 90two, but I know that at least on paper it should be quite close to the 92fs in shape and size, just different texture. I have very sweaty hands, so I would intend on stippling the whole polymer grip piece.

I don't want to turn this into a novel, so I'll stop my rambling here. Please feel free to chime in with questions or opinions!

I am very grateful for any input in my admittedly 'low speed/high drag' line of questioning

[WDW]

All the 92 series guns are very similar, and if you are proficient with the M9/92FS, the proficiency will carry over. It's all personal preference. Some have rails, some don't, some look more "modern", bottom line, all the same gun. Let me ask this-Why do you want a DA/SA gun with a manual safety. That is one thing I have always hated about the M9. It's just one more thing to forget when you need it. Have you looked into the Sig P226 or P229? They are pull and shoot, DA/SA guns with very convenient decockers, unlike the 92's. All my opinion. Hope I've helped you out. Also, the guide rods on the 90-two's are super cheap and flimsy. I know most guns use plastic rods these days, but Beretta went to extra lengths to make sure theirs was the cheapest. That is a definite must replace part (use an older 92 metal rod).

[phidelta308]

The 92A1's seem to be replacing the 92two's. I've read that Beretta is folding the features from the 92two into the 92A1, hopefully combining the best of both worlds (92FS/M9/M9A1 and 92two).

I love Beretta's, but don't much care for the looks of the 90two. The 92A1 is on my short list of pistols to buy. I already have a 92FS, but wouldn't mind having something with a rail.

Regarding the slide mounted safeties on Beretta's, you can actually swap out the safety on a PX4 series gun for a decocker only lever, thus effectively making it a "G" model. This is not possible on a 92 series gun, and Beretta doesn't seem to like selling anything other than the FS and D models to civilians. So if you want a decocker only, the PX4 may be the way to go. There are several threads with detailed instructions at berettaforum.net.

[DannyZRC]

I don't want a decocker only, and while the 92A1 is mechanically similar to the updated 90two platform, none of the ergonomics are changed (maybe if you count the rounded trigger guard).

[DannyZRC]

I thought I'd cobble together an image of what I was talking about, maybe clarify a bit.. =D

http://dannyzrc.smugmug.com/Guns/PX4-SC/i-szdnvG4/0/XL/composite%20safeties-XL.jpg

Very Big Version (http://dannyzrc.smugmug.com/Guns/PX4-SC/i-szdnvG4/0/O/composite%20safeties.jpg)

On the original (92) safety lever design, basically all of the frontal cross section of the lever falls below the pivot point, so any rearward pressure on the lever translates to an clockwise rotation, tending to the on safe position.

On the PX4, almost all of the frontal cross section is above the pivot when off safe, so when the slide is actioned any rearward force on the lever is tending to press the lever counter clockwise and hold it off safe.

the 90two seems in between, but it shares the slanted bottom face of the PX4, which helps to cause rearward pressure to exert counter clockwise rotation when the slide is actioned with the lever off safe, though not to the degree that the higher offset PX4 lever does.

the PX4 lever, however, has a gradually sloping profile (when viewed from above or below, indicated in red), so the engagement surface (indicated in blue) for your thumb pushing the control off safe is relatively small, the 90two and the 92 both have very abbreviated ramping, so a large portion of the lever is full width yielding larger engagement surface.

So, my question is: is the 90two the evolutionary intermediate step, that is both easy to disengage and yet resistant to accidental engagement when cycling the slide, or is it a lot more similar to either the PX4 or 92, not really being a step in between?

(this post is a verbatim copy of a PM I sent on another forum, please excuse any odd phrasing)