Is this a real Centurion?

[GardoneVT]

Centurions are indeed nice Berettas, but after owning one I'm not really convinced that other than aesthetics (which can be a viable criteria, in all fairness) that the Centurion really offered much of significance, or quantifiable improvement(s) over a 92. Granted, you might have a micro-second's difference in draw speed due to the .65" difference in slide/barrel length, but I didn't find the balance to be significantly different between the two, and I've not found the 92 to be particularly difficult to carry, even in an IWB holster.

However, YMMV. And if you find a decent 92 Centurion, I'd jump on it if it meets your essential search criteria, as opposed to waiting for a "perfect" analog 92. In the D models, the 92Ds were produced from 92-98, and the 92D Centurions had a bit more abbreviated production timeframe, from 94-98. And while I don't know the actual production figures, I suspect that other than some significant LEO contract orders that Beretta did not exactly produce a metric boatload of either.

And, to clarify, I'm certainly not opposed to or recommending against the Centurions. They're intrinsically every bit as good as their standard-sized brethren.

Best, Jon

Perhaps this is splitting quantum sized hairs,but I do notice a subjective difference in drawing an M9A1 vs a Brig Tactical. They also track differently ,and being full size pistols there's less of a physical difference between those then a standard vs Centurion 92. I can fully understand why someone would love the Centruion and not the regular model & vice versa.

[Robinson]

Centurions are indeed nice Berettas, but after owning one I'm not really convinced that other than aesthetics (which can be a viable criteria, in all fairness) that the Centurion really offered much of significance, or quantifiable improvement(s) over a 92. Granted, you might have a micro-second's difference in draw speed due to the .65" difference in slide/barrel length, but I didn't find the balance to be significantly different between the two, and I've not found the 92 to be particularly difficult to carry, even in an IWB holster.

However, YMMV. And if you find a decent 92 Centurion, I'd jump on it if it meets your essential search criteria, as opposed to waiting for a "perfect" analog 92. In the D models, the 92Ds were produced from 92-98, and the 92D Centurions had a bit more abbreviated production timeframe, from 94-98. And while I don't know the actual production figures, I suspect that other than some significant LEO contract orders that Beretta did not exactly produce a metric boatload of either.

And, to clarify, I'm certainly not opposed to or recommending against the Centurions. They're intrinsically every bit as good as their standard-sized brethren.

Best, Jon

Thanks for your input. I've always liked the 92-series guns but my thumbs are just too short to manipulate the thumb safety on the FS variants. Easier with the G models. The D model is also appealing as I used to do a lot of DA revolver shooting. It's unlikely I'll ever make the transition, but I'd like to have one Beretta that really works for me just because I like them.