Beretta 92D

[ReverendMeat]

Cendurion D update: Shot it today (alongside my 92G and a friend's M9A3 and Brig Tac), LockedBreech I'm afraid I'm gonna be keeping this one. I LOVE this gun. Never tried shooting a handgun at 75 yards before but I was making hits-with a DAO pistol no less (unpossible!) I have decided that I will die under a pile of Berettas as well.

[Joe in PNG]

Likewise.

[LockedBreech]

Cendurion D update: Shot it today (alongside my 92G and a friend's M9A3 and Brig Tac), LockedBreech I'm afraid I'm gonna be keeping this one. I LOVE this gun. Never tried shooting a handgun at 75 yards before but I was making hits-with a DAO pistol no less (unpossible!) I have decided that I will die under a pile of Berettas as well.

I was all ready to be butthurt, but another Beretta fan means more money for Beretta which means more new and cool designs along the Wilson and Langdon lines. So by all means, love it!

[JonInWA]

Considering how the 92D production run ran from only 1992 - 1998 (outside, I'm sure, of possibly some organizational orders/replacements), it's pretty interesting how a 18 - 24 year old platform has not only withstood the tests of time/durability/reliability/conceptually, but is continuing to viably come into its own with more than one or two of us here and otherwise...especially in light of some very credible current production options.

And especially on a board whose membership is oriented to using, and some of us heavily using our pistols of choice for duty, competition, carry, etc. While most of us can certainly admire a classic gun, we tend to be pretty hard-nosed about drawing the line between admiration and credible use if the necessary qualities aren't present. The 92D/92D Centurions seem to have crossed that Rubicon with both ease and an element of grace.

If this keeps up, we'll doubtlessly see Tamara and Nyeti getting one for themselves...THAT will be somewhat of a PF litmus test of sorts....

Best, Jon

[farscott]

As a former S&W DAO user and a current LEM user, I missed the 92D when it was in production. I am not sure why, but it probably was "too big for the caliber", especially with my small hands. Of course, the fact that I have never seen a 92D in a gun shop before I transferred the one I bought from a Beretta Forum member did not help.

With the renaissance of the 92-series brought about by the WC, M9A3, and the EL specials, I finally rectified my error. I added the WC "ultra thin" grips and steel guide rod, and I have a shooter. I have been shooting it at my gongs anywhere from 20 to 60 yards away and hitting with regularity.

[JonInWA]

I think that there were two factors that really constrained 92D sales during its production cycle: First, 5 of its 7 years of production were during the Assault Weapons Bill's timeframe, subjecting the gun to an inherent magazine capacity restriction of 10 round magazines in a weapon whose frame was designed for 15 round magazines, and Second, it was on its face as a DAO action reputedly a bit more challenging to shoot than a DA/SA or a striker-fired gun. Essentially, I think it was perceived through most of its production cycle as an institutional gun that was significantly neutered by those restricted to 10 round magazines, and while at the same time seen as being more difficult to shoot than its competitors-as well as being bigger and heavier than it's 10-round magazine capacity justified.

Without being privy to any actual sales figures, I suspect that the vast majority of 92D production was to institutional/LEO's, where administrators were placated by the DAO action-essentially, for most practical purposes, I think the D guns were viewed as being in effect a semi-automatic revolver, which really isn't a bad analogy.

While it was a commercially available SKU during most of its production cycle, I think that most current users probably became acquainted with it as it was cycled through or surplussed out of LEO inventories. While my personal 92D was obtained brand new in box around 2006 as I recall, is was out of a wholesaler who had stripped out the 15 round magazines it originally came with and replaced with the 10 rounders required during the ban period (and I'm sure the wholesaler realized an immense profit from the OEM 15 rounders, justifying their separation from the gun-given the concurrent low demand for D-series pistols, it's not like there were prospective buyers lined up at retail sales counters to complain about it. It languished for years in a warehouse, eventually being provided to a retailer-quite possibly as a deal sweetener of some sort. I traded a Walther P5C for it, getting it along with with several new 15 round Beretta MDS magazines and a set of grips-the gunshop was happy, and I was happy.

The Beretta D DAO is an exceptionally nice action, providing a very smooth and clean-breaking triggerpull. It does have a long reset, however, which probably places it technically behind in triggerpull merit to current DAO actions, such as HK's light LEM. Basically, as I've mentioned before, it's like a tuned classic Smith & Wesson revolver's triggerpull and reset-without any additional gunsmith tuning needed. When acclimated, it's very capable of quick, accurate and decisive shooting-especially at close to medium ranges. Longer distance, and single-handed shooting is more of a developed skill, in my opinion.

To those willing to put in the time to master it, as evidenced by this and other PF threads, a 92D is a very viable gun and defensive pistol. Ironically, now in it's post-production timeframe it may well be getting into it's prime. As Farscott mentioned, it's also been a derivative beneficiary of a trickle-down effect from the current Wilson Custom, M9A3 and Langdon Specials-and resurrected BUSA 92 model productions.

Best, Jon

[Ob1sbo]

I think that there were two factors that really constrained 92D sales during its production cycle: First, 5 of its 7 years of production were during the Assault Weapons Bill's timeframe, subjecting the gun to an inherent magazine capacity restriction of 10 round magazines in a weapon whose frame was designed for 15 round magazines, and Second, it was on its face as a DAO action reputedly a bit more challenging to shoot than a DA/SA or a striker-fired gun. Essentially, I think it was perceived through most of its production cycle as an institutional gun that was significantly neutered by those restricted to 10 round magazines, and while at the same time seen as being more difficult to shoot than its competitors-as well as being bigger and heavier than it's 10-round magazine capacity justified.

Without being privy to any actual sales figures, I suspect that the vast majority of 92D production was to institutional/LEO's, where administrators were placated by the DAO action-essentially, for most practical purposes, I think the D guns were viewed as being in effect a semi-automatic revolver, which really isn't a bad analogy.

While it was a commercially available SKU during most of its production cycle, I think that most current users probably became acquainted with it as it was cycled through or surplussed out of LEO inventories. While my personal 92D was obtained brand new in box around 2006 as I recall, is was out of a wholesaler who had stripped out the 15 round magazines it originally came with and replaced with the 10 rounders required during the ban period (and I'm sure the wholesaler realized an immense profit from the OEM 15 rounders, justifying their separation from the gun-given the concurrent low demand for D-series pistols, it's not like there were prospective buyers lined up at retail sales counters to complain about it. It languished for years in a warehouse, eventually being provided to a retailer-quite possibly as a deal sweetener of some sort. I traded a Walther P5C for it, getting it along with with several new 15 round Beretta MDS magazines and a set of grips-the gunshop was happy, and I was happy.

The Beretta D DAO is an exceptionally nice action, providing a very smooth and clean-breaking triggerpull. It does have a long reset, however, which probably places it technically behind in triggerpull merit to current DAO actions, such as HK's light LEM. Basically, as I've mentioned before, it's like a tuned classic Smith & Wesson revolver's triggerpull and reset-without any additional gunsmith tuning needed. When acclimated, it's very capable of quick, accurate and decisive shooting-especially at close to medium ranges. Longer distance, and single-handed shooting is more of a developed skill, in my opinion.

To those willing to put in the time to master it, as evidenced by this and other PF threads, a 92D is a very viable gun and defensive pistol. Ironically, now in it's post-production timeframe it may well be getting into it's prime. As Farscott mentioned, it's also been a derivative beneficiary of a trickle-down effect from the current Wilson Custom, M9A3 and Langdon Specials-and resurrected BUSA 92 model productions.

Best, Jon

You sir... Should write speeches... Detailed, informative and super easy to follow.

[HCM]

I think that there were two factors that really constrained 92D sales during its production cycle: First, 5 of its 7 years of production were during the Assault Weapons Bill's timeframe, subjecting the gun to an inherent magazine capacity restriction of 10 round magazines in a weapon whose frame was designed for 15 round magazines, and Second, it was on its face as a DAO action reputedly a bit more challenging to shoot than a DA/SA or a striker-fired gun. Essentially, I think it was perceived through most of its production cycle as an institutional gun that was significantly neutered by those restricted to 10 round magazines, and while at the same time seen as being more difficult to shoot than its competitors-as well as being bigger and heavier than it's 10-round magazine capacity justified.

Without being privy to any actual sales figures, I suspect that the vast majority of 92D production was to institutional/LEO's, where administrators were placated by the DAO action-essentially, for most practical purposes, I think the D guns were viewed as being in effect a semi-automatic revolver, which really isn't a bad analogy.

Best, Jon

The AWB and 92D production also coincided with the rise of the .40 cal. There seem to be many more 96D models in circulation than 92D models which is unfortunate because the Beretta is great 9mm but a poor choice for the .40.

[JonInWA]

The AWB and 92D production also coincided with the rise of the .40 cal. There seem to be many more 96D models in circulation than 92D models which is unfortunate because the Beretta is great 9mm but a poor choice for the .40.

Excellent point. The .40 cartridge was definitely ascendant during that timeframe, and a 96 was easily viewed as coming to the table with a more powerful and effective caliber, and doing so in the same envelope as the 92-so users perceived that if they were restricted to 10 round magazines, they'd be better off with 10+1 rounds of .40 than 9mm in the same platform.

Of course, we've subsequently realized that .40 with it's quicker, more aggressive pressure spike can be both more difficult to control, and concurrently accelerates wear on the platforms using it, particularly in platforms designed for 9mm and re-chambered for .40 without significant platform structural upgrading to counter-act the damaging impact of the .40 on the gun.

And current cartridge advances applied to 9mm cartridges have really leveled the playing field-while the .40 is certainly a viable and credible cartridge in its own right (after all, similar cartridge advances were concurrently applied to it), users can now utilize a 9mm platform which is likely more durable, easier on its users (and their guns), accurate, and carrying equally effective cartridges-and more of them, at a lower cost.

Vis-a-vis our current discussion, while I don't consider a 96D to be a "bad" gun/choice, users are likely to encounter an inherently more limited lifespan with a higher frequency of parts replacement necessary throughout that more limited lifespan. And in .40, the 96D will be comparatively harder to control and/or shoot at speed.

For those desiring (or needing/mandated) a .40 Beretta platform, in my opinion the currently available 96 A1 makes more sense, as it possesses specific frame strengthening/upgrades for greater platform durability and longevity with .40 use. http://www.beretta.com/en/96-a1/

However, for those of us having a 92D/92D Centurion, we get to reap the benefits of the improved 9mm cartridges in a more than sufficiently durable platform, capable of utilizing it's 15 round (or larger) magazines-along with the inherently slightly stronger 92D slide (due to no safety lever cut-outs) and superb 92D action and triggerpulls.

Best, Jon

[Clobbersaurus]

I just received my slide back from the shop where I had the front sight machined and a FO rod installed. I think it turned out great! I like that they left the top milled opening "in the white" as it gathers more light. The FO is very bright and quite large, which is perfect for what the gun was designed for.