These are not the droids you're looking for...
These are not the droids you're looking for...
My late-to-the-thread .02:
While the 90-TWO might in fact be/have been a credible pistol, it had multiple strikes that militated against if from the onset, in my opinion.
First, the cosmetic re-casting in conjunction with Giugario Design was of questionable benefit, and if anything might well have been perceived more as a negative, given the less than stellar 9000 affiliation with Giugario Design, which was widely interpreted as being an example of design trumping operation/durability/reliability-not exactly the ideal cloud to be born under.
Second, the model seemed to provide muddled advantages to competing models, and Beretta's marketing did little to coherently pinpoint and discern the respective market model niches, if indeed there were any.
Third, the primary benefit to the 90-TWO seems to be afforded to the .40 variant-the internal recoil buffer. However, the .40 cartridge has been steadily declining in desirability, given the combination of its inherently more difficult shootability, cost, and concurrent improvements to 9mm cartridges-all militating against "another" .40-and the concurrent benefits the 90-TOW offered against competing existing 9mm platforms (Beretta and otherwise) seemed to be pretty minimal (another example of "the juice not justifying the squeeze'"-good pistol or not).
At the end of the day, I don't think that the 90-TWO really provided much of value that wasn't already concurrently provided by existing 92/M9/M9A1/or 92A1 platforms. Especially against the 92A1, the benefits are pretty difficult to discern....and I think that pretty much doomed the 90-TWO from the onset.
Best, Jon
Some real Beretta fan will have to chime in, but I don't think the 90-Two ever competed with the 92A1. I think the 90-Two may have been out of production for a year or two before the 92A1 hit the market. The 92A1/96A1, I believe, was designed as a follow-on replacement for the 90-Two.Originally Posted by JonInWA
This ^^^ exactly.
Nope-not exactly....Take a look at the attached 2010 Beretta brochure, and you'll discern that while the 92A1 and 96A1 evolved chronologically subsequent to the 90-TWO, they were concurrently marketed.
Beretta 2010brochure.pdf
Best, Jon
Because the name is a homonym, a lot of folks refer to the 90-Two as "the dash".
I think of it as Beretta's attempt at their new Coke.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Getting rid of old stock ?
Either way the 90-two was a fail. Even if it lived on shortly into the 92A1 / 96A1 period the A1 guns were an attempt to salvage the best feature of the "-" design, The improved recoil system to handle 40 Cal. Unfortunately it was too little too late.
GJM hit the nail on the head re: Beretta's version of new Coke.
Last edited by HCM; 02-23-2016 at 06:57 PM.
I think another thing that didn't exactly help it aesthetically was the bulbous rail cover, which I'm not sure was even needed. It's not that it was a bad gun (unfortunately, the snarky side of me cant resist this-Beretta had some other contenders for that...), it just seemed like nothing more than a fairly unnecessary stylistic exercise. And one that diluted, rather than increased the overall Beretta market presence, in my opinion. But there's really nothing intrinsically bad or objectable on the gun per se-so owners needn't feel obligated to immediately divest themselves of it and get another 92-but I wouldn't bank on them becoming an appreciating investment, either.
Best, Jon
That's perfect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
Reply With Quote