New Wilson Beretta -- Centurion Tactical

[Bucky]

Yeah, almost no one in this industry sells at MSRP. That is almost a given. BUT, there is a MAP (Minimum Advertised Pricing) that has to be adhered to for sure. The manufacturer cannot make you sell it at that price, I am pretty sure there is a legal issue there. So the dealer can sell it as cheap as he wants. Hell, they can sell them at a loss if they want. But putting that pricing in print ad or out on the internet as the "advertise price" is the issue. That is the problem as then the public sees that price, and it becomes the price for that gun, therefore making the public think that is "the price" for that product. Then every higher price seems to be expensive, people stop buying the product at the "normal" pricing and just wait for the next deal to come along.

So when ads say price too low to print, that’s not a marketing gimmick, it has to do with MAP?

[Jared]

So now I've shot the Centac alongside an M9A3 and a lighly massages M9A1, so now I have some thoughts. I used all three of them for three runs of the HiTS Super Test each. High score was the Centac at 294. Average score for each gun ranged from 283 to 285, so a pretty small spread between the three for three runs each.

We did a little walk back drill, based loosely on the HiTS 2 second standards. Basically, I'd fill a mag and shoot pairs with a 2 second PAR time. If the whole mag stayed in the B8 black circle, I moved the target back a yard. If not, it came forward a yard. All three guns stalled out in the same spot, so roughly equal performance there.

Then some bill drills, followed by some failure drills, where I consistently flirted with Gabe White light pin level but actually ended up with dark pin performance once everything was tallied up. Again, very very equal with all three pistols. I didn't do the two head portion of the GW Standards, and when I did the double failure drill, I broke it up over two targets, so not really a true full GW Standards run, but a decent look at what I could do with the three.

I ended by shooting some 8 inch plates that are set at 20 yards at the range. Mostly, this was fun and relaxing time although I did measure time.

So the Centac shoots as good for me as the M9A3 did, and as well as one of my old standby 92's, that M9A1. It's got a really nice feature set out of the box with the factory G configuration, the sights are quite usable (do wish the front was a smidge thinner but not a deal breaker), the rail would certainly be handy for nightstand use, and the shorter slide means it fits the JRC holster that I love so much for carry. That means I can gain about 5 rounds over my current Compact 92 by using it with the MecGar mags. The downside here, for me, is that for the added cost, I didn't get measurably better results on timer or target between it and my significantly less expensive M9A1. Whether it's feature set makes it worth the extra cost is obviously up to each individual, and of course, others mileage may vary

[Doc_Glock]

So now I've shot the Centac alongside an M9A3 and a lighly massages M9A1, so now I have some thoughts. I used all three of them for three runs of the HiTS Super Test each. High score was the Centac at 294. Average score for each gun ranged from 283 to 285, so a pretty small spread between the three for three runs each.

We did a little walk back drill, based loosely on the HiTS 2 second standards. Basically, I'd fill a mag and shoot pairs with a 2 second PAR time. If the whole mag stayed in the B8 black circle, I moved the target back a yard. If not, it came forward a yard. All three guns stalled out in the same spot, so roughly equal performance there.

Then some bill drills, followed by some failure drills, where I consistently flirted with Gabe White light pin level but actually ended up with dark pin performance once everything was tallied up. Again, very very equal with all three pistols. I didn't do the two head portion of the GW Standards, and when I did the double failure drill, I broke it up over two targets, so not really a true full GW Standards run, but a decent look at what I could do with the three.

I ended by shooting some 8 inch plates that are set at 20 yards at the range. Mostly, this was fun and relaxing time although I did measure time.

So the Centac shoots as good for me as the M9A3 did, and as well as one of my old standby 92's, that M9A1. It's got a really nice feature set out of the box with the factory G configuration, the sights are quite usable (do wish the front was a smidge thinner but not a deal breaker), the rail would certainly be handy for nightstand use, and the shorter slide means it fits the JRC holster that I love so much for carry. That means I can gain about 5 rounds over my current Compact 92 by using it with the MecGar mags. The downside here, for me, is that for the added cost, I didn't get measurably better results on timer or target between it and my significantly less expensive M9A1. Whether it's feature set makes it worth the extra cost is obviously up to each individual, and of course, others mileage may vary

Great post. Thank you. Did you notice if the slide had less forward dipping with the Cent Tac compared to the others?

[BlueDog2009]

So now I've shot the Centac alongside an M9A3 and a lighly massages M9A1, so now I have some thoughts. I used all three of them for three runs of the HiTS Super Test each. High score was the Centac at 294. Average score for each gun ranged from 283 to 285, so a pretty small spread between the three for three runs each.

We did a little walk back drill, based loosely on the HiTS 2 second standards. Basically, I'd fill a mag and shoot pairs with a 2 second PAR time. If the whole mag stayed in the B8 black circle, I moved the target back a yard. If not, it came forward a yard. All three guns stalled out in the same spot, so roughly equal performance there.

Then some bill drills, followed by some failure drills, where I consistently flirted with Gabe White light pin level but actually ended up with dark pin performance once everything was tallied up. Again, very very equal with all three pistols. I didn't do the two head portion of the GW Standards, and when I did the double failure drill, I broke it up over two targets, so not really a true full GW Standards run, but a decent look at what I could do with the three.

I ended by shooting some 8 inch plates that are set at 20 yards at the range. Mostly, this was fun and relaxing time although I did measure time.

So the Centac shoots as good for me as the M9A3 did, and as well as one of my old standby 92's, that M9A1. It's got a really nice feature set out of the box with the factory G configuration, the sights are quite usable (do wish the front was a smidge thinner but not a deal breaker), the rail would certainly be handy for nightstand use, and the shorter slide means it fits the JRC holster that I love so much for carry. That means I can gain about 5 rounds over my current Compact 92 by using it with the MecGar mags. The downside here, for me, is that for the added cost, I didn't get measurably better results on timer or target between it and my significantly less expensive M9A1. Whether it's feature set makes it worth the extra cost is obviously up to each individual, and of course, others mileage may vary

Yeah, I've been hearing similar reports. I always appreciate another 92 variant, but it doesn't really tick any boxes for me like the brig tac or the WC Compact carry did/does. I was never super turned on by the Centurion like some. I wonder how long this one will be in production because the WC compact went away way too soon.

[Jared]

Great post. Thank you. Did you notice if the slide had less forward dipping with the Cent Tac compared to the others?

Compared to the M9A3, yes, the M9A1 is likely due for a new recoil spring and tracked almost identical to the Centac. But yes, less dip than the M9A3.

[Jared]

Yeah, I've been hearing similar reports. I always appreciate another 92 variant, but it doesn't really tick any boxes for me like the brig tac or the WC Compact carry did/does. I was never super turned on by the Centurion like some. I wonder how long this one will be in production because the WC compact went away way too soon.

It's not exactly a knock on the Centac. I've noticed over time that I shoot almost all 92 variants pretty much the same, which includes the G-SD and the Brig Tac, Vertec, etc....

I was never super wild about the Centurion setup either, but this one does have an excellent feature set that sets it apart, especially compared to my old Centurion that is basically a 92FS commander that never really stimulated me.

[GJM]

So now I've shot the Centac alongside an M9A3 and a lighly massages M9A1, so now I have some thoughts. I used all three of them for three runs of the HiTS Super Test each. High score was the Centac at 294. Average score for each gun ranged from 283 to 285, so a pretty small spread between the three for three runs each.

We did a little walk back drill, based loosely on the HiTS 2 second standards. Basically, I'd fill a mag and shoot pairs with a 2 second PAR time. If the whole mag stayed in the B8 black circle, I moved the target back a yard. If not, it came forward a yard. All three guns stalled out in the same spot, so roughly equal performance there.

Then some bill drills, followed by some failure drills, where I consistently flirted with Gabe White light pin level but actually ended up with dark pin performance once everything was tallied up. Again, very very equal with all three pistols. I didn't do the two head portion of the GW Standards, and when I did the double failure drill, I broke it up over two targets, so not really a true full GW Standards run, but a decent look at what I could do with the three.

I ended by shooting some 8 inch plates that are set at 20 yards at the range. Mostly, this was fun and relaxing time although I did measure time.

So the Centac shoots as good for me as the M9A3 did, and as well as one of my old standby 92's, that M9A1. It's got a really nice feature set out of the box with the factory G configuration, the sights are quite usable (do wish the front was a smidge thinner but not a deal breaker), the rail would certainly be handy for nightstand use, and the shorter slide means it fits the JRC holster that I love so much for carry. That means I can gain about 5 rounds over my current Compact 92 by using it with the MecGar mags. The downside here, for me, is that for the added cost, I didn't get measurably better results on timer or target between it and my significantly less expensive M9A1. Whether it's feature set makes it worth the extra cost is obviously up to each individual, and of course, others mileage may vary

I think this is a very fair review.

If I could sum it up, it would be that the CenTac is a 226 sized 92 that shoots as well as a full size 92, with excellent sights installed by the factory. I find the Brig Tac and full size 92 models a tad long for my comfortable AIWB, and I don't believe an equivalent front sight is an option on the Brig Tac.

Bill Wilson sticks his neck out in specifying a model with a feature set he deems attractive, commits to a bunch of them, and as a result these pistols carry a margin that rewards him, compared to a BUSA standard offering.

[DAB]

concur. thanks for that good review.

you could also take it that the 92 is so good, that it's hard to make it noticeably better. but having more than one flavor is also good.

looking forward to getting mine from Wilson, hopefully part of their next batch from Beretta. would be nice to get it before Christmas. give my wife something to wrap up for me (she'd wrap the box, the pistol would be in the safe).

[Jared]

Deleted

[Jared]

I think this is a very fair review.

If I could sum it up, it would be that the CenTac is a 226 sized 92 that shoots as well as a full size 92, with excellent sights installed by the factory. I find the Brig Tac and full size 92 models a tad long for my comfortable AIWB, and I don't believe an equivalent front sight is an option on the Brig Tac.

Bill Wilson sticks his neck out in specifying a model with a feature set he deems attractive, commits to a bunch of them, and as a result these pistols carry a margin that rewards him, compared to a BUSA standard offering.

I do wish the front sight was thinner.... And I do agree about Wilson's risk/reward on the models.

What I'm sort of repeating is basically this:. It's an enthusiasts pistol. If you dig 92's, it's probably a good buy. If you wanna dip your toe in the water and see, you can get performance just as good with a less expensive model. People don't need to feel like they have to shell out a grand or more to have a good 92 experience. On the other hand, for someone who looks at the feature set of the Centac and deems it worthwhile, it's worth the tariff.