I think what you want did exist and it was called the elite 1AOriginally Posted by Handy
I hope the Langdon model does come to market. Preferably with a Novak or other "normal" rear sight instead of the Wilson, which isn't bad but it isn't a lot of people's favorite
There is no 92A1G, for one. The M9A1 frames also incorporate checkering on the front and backstrap and a beveled magazine well. I hear there are also some goofy differences with the 92A1 frame that make certain parts compatibility an issue but don't quote me on that.
I'm with you on the non-railed frame.
"Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer
The E1A was not anywhere close to that. It was a Brig G slide on a Vertec frame.
The 92A1 slide is not compatible with the standard 92 lineup. The dimensions are slightly different from the standard 92 series.
Note that the Vertec and M9A1 frame (which was originally on the 92G-SD) both predate the 90-TWO and 92A1. The Vertec frame has had a rail since its introduction in 2001. The better question is why did Beretta introduce the 90-TWO and 92A1 when the Vertec, 92G-SD, Elite IA and M9A1 were already available? All of these pistols had accessory rails, and with the exception of the M9A1, dovetailed front sights.
The major 'innovation' of the 90-TWO and 92A1/96A1 was the recoil buffer, which was intended to increase durability when using .40 ammunition. The cost of this dubious improvement was reduced compatibility with the rest of the 92 lineup. As ReverendMeat pointed out, the 90-TWO and 92A1 were also never offered in a 'G' version (potentially of less concern if/when the 'G' conversion kit comes out). But I think there is a reason that the Wilson and Langdon guns are both 'G' models.
Personally I think Beretta's choice to base the M9A3 off the Vertec design and not the 92A1 tells me where the future of the 92 is heading. Considering all the projects Beretta is working on (the Langdon gun, more Wilson guns, the M9A3 family, the PX4 Compact Carry, etc), I'm in no rush to see more 92A1s. Ever.
Last edited by JSGlock34; 07-15-2016 at 08:21 PM.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
I get that the 90-Two, 92A1 and 96A1 have a different size/shape dustcover to accommodate the buffer, but I hadn't heard the 92A1 isn't parts compatible beyond that. My understanding was that it used the extra space created by the rail to accomplish what a Brig does with its oversized slide.
If you want a rail, this made sense to me. I assume a run of the 92A1 slides with G machining wouldn't be that much harder than it is to produce standard G slides, but if the Langdon gun is going to be made out of "off the shelf" slides and frames (and the G conversion isn't available), then not using the 92A1 as a base makes sense. Beretta engineers believe they have made a more durable platform with the 92A1, seems a shame to ignore their work.
Separate from all of that, all of these fun combos are just frustrating to all the consumers out there that don't want/need a rail but can no longer install tritium in their fixed front sights. Beretta treats the 92 line as modular, but doesn't put out the mix and match most buyers probably desire - no rail, removable sights. These guns sell on a healthy dose of nostalgia, and the rail guns don't look right.
Considering how much time this forum spends discussing exactly what toppings they want on their pizza (gun), it is hard to find love for the one pizza (gun) that you can't swap the toppings on...
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
Only 28 years for me; that's longer than some on this forum have been alive.
Do you know what parts can't be swapped aside from the slide/frame? With the slide dimensions, rail, dovetails and the coming G conversion, it seems like it has it all - unless there is some action part that won't work on a 92A1.
Honestly I'm not sure what the overall small parts compatibility is. I was never particularly interested in the 92A1 since it was never offered in 'G' configuration. I know the 90-TWO had more small parts differences with the rest of the 92 series, but I don't think that all of that carried over to the 92A1, which seemed to skew back to traditional 92 lines. Wilson works on 92A1s and some posters on the forum (such as GJM) have had 92A1s customized there (to include 'G' conversion). Personally I don't get the appeal of the 92A1 when the 92G-SD, Brigadier Tactical and M9A3 are all currently in production, but I'm sure the 92A1 is a fine shooter.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
92a1 is a perfectly good gun and the majority of the small parts work on them...They shoot much flatter then the standard m9 or 92fs and have a dovetailed front with a railed lower. I understand what your saying but saying they don't have much appeal is a little much.
with that said, people like messing with shit so sure the 92a1 wouldnt be good if you had a spare slide you wanted to put on it... with that said it shoots really well.
Last edited by breakingtime91; 07-15-2016 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote