Beretta M9A3 questions

[Rmiked]

I have a 92A1 and am considering buying another. I started looking at the M9A3 as an option. It seems that they are scarce and have read about some quality issues possibly related to a new plant in TN vs MD? Does the M9A3 have the D spring (hammer) from factory or is it the same as was in my 92A1? Does anyone know if the M9A3 has the recoil buffer like the 92A1? Also, is the guide rod/spring a captured model and is it steel or plastic?

I think the M9A3 looks very nice. Just wondering if it is worth the extra $300. Appreciate any suggestions. Cabelas shows limited stock to shop to store in 5-8 days. There is a store in my town.

[JTQ]

I'm not an owner of either, so take my information with a grain of salt.

Only the 92A1 and 96A1 have the buffer. It is really only there for the 96A1 (.40 S&W), but since the 92A1 has the same frame, it has it too. Note the 92A1/96A1 are the only models with the round disassembly button, all others are oval, and I don't think those slides swap with any other models (other than the discontinued 90-Two).

The M9A3 has the D spring installed from the factory.

[Rmiked]

Thanks. Are you aware of any quality problems? My 92A1 is Italian. I have heard no issues with MD factory. Is the M9A3 being made at a new plant not in MD? If so is that plant having any QC issues? Just wondering

[JSGlock34]

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. 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.

[Rmiked]

By reduced compatibility you mean only a 92A1 slide will fit? I imagine the slide dimension from "rear of guide rod to buffer" has to be different than any model w/o a buffer? But the magazines and barrels are interchangeable, correct? Trigger, hammer, related springs, safety/decocker are all interchangeable with 92FS etc, correct?

The Wilson Combat spiral/fluted steel guide rod and std spring work like a champ my 92A1. But I am very open to a different "9" series Beretta. I am sold on the basic design

[Andy T]

M9A3: No recoil buffer, plastic recoil rod with standard (non captured spring). Mine is from TN and I like it. However, it did have an issue - it was missing the roll pin that retained the locking block plunger. I found out the hard way...

[JSGlock34]

Yes that is my understanding.

I have a bit of a purist's aversion to the 90-TWO/92A1, but they are fine pistols (the newly available factory G conversion addressed the model's most significant shortcoming). Still I find the lineage of the Elite, SD, and Vertec lines far more interesting.

[JTQ]

Yes, the 92A1/96A1 are the oddballs in the Beretta M9/92 line-up.

The Vertec/M9A3 slide gives the dovetailed front sight, without the Brigadier slide like the 92A1, but unlike the 92A1, the Vertec/M9A3 is family compatible with the rest of the line-up.

The first time I noticed the oddity of the 92A1, was when I was casually trolling through the Beretta USA website, and noticed it was the only one in the whole line-up with the round disassembly button. When they first came out, I avoided them due to the rail (holster availability compared to a standard M9/92FS), but now I just look at the 92A1 as a dead end gun in the Beretta line-up. When Beretta finds nobody wants to shoot .40 S&W out of 90 series gun anymore (either they give up on .40 altogether, or move to the PX4, APX, or some other maker), I think the 96A1 will go away, and with it will be the 92A1. I suppose the 92A1 could go away right now, and they could keep the 96A1, but if you're already making the 96A1, you might as well keep making the 92A1.

[MSparks909]

I've got a TN made M9A3. No issues. I swapped out the plastic guide rod for the fluted Wilson guide rod. I've been pleased with the gun so far; I'm running a TLR-1 on it and it's my nightstand gun.

[GardoneVT]

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. 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.

The 92/96A1s are made in Italy.

The M9A3 was originally made to address the shortcomings of the M9,and as such must be made in the US to fulfill the contract. It signifies nothing significant about Berettas future plans for either model.