Interesting. A quick internet search shows a mixture of Inox models, some with the reduced backstrap, most without. I'm suspecting that per Beretta's quality specs, "parts is parts."Originally Posted by JTQ
Interesting. A quick internet search shows a mixture of Inox models, some with the reduced backstrap, most without. I'm suspecting that per Beretta's quality specs, "parts is parts."
Last edited by Suvorov; 12-02-2014 at 01:42 PM. Reason: URL linkage
None of the new 92's I saw on the gunstore shelves today had the cut in the backstrap save for an M9A1 at different store.
And Beretta prices are much higher than I remember...making me feel even better about my Wilson purchase.
3/15/2016
Now that blows the theory that M9's don't have the radius'd backstrap and 92FS's do.
I suspect this is the most accurate answer.I'm suspecting that per Beretta's quality specs, "parts is parts."
The M9A1 is a new .mil approved frame which incorporated the new backstrap as well as checkering and rail, so this would be standard. I have yet to see a M9 with a reduced radius backstrap although I'm beginning to suspect some commercial models might have them. I'm thinking the moral of this story is that if you want a newer backstrap, you had best see the pistol before you buy it.
Hmm. I wonder how it would affect my grip in reality. One of the reasons that I'm looking at a 92 series is because I have monstrous hands that just don't work on most grips.
How long till you get it? Did you get either of the two options?looking forward to a review.
I have my Wilson 92. I've already had it to the range. A review on the gun nuts site is coming Thursday. Short version, it's the best Beretta I've ever handled.
I got one of the ones with the standard mainspring so I'm going to swap that, but other than that I'm thoroughly pleased.
3/15/2016
US, with straight dustcover.
Reply With Quote