FYI: Looks like they're making 92 compacts again (in TN)...

[MattyD380]

Several railed, inox examples popped up on GB:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/776963731

I can sorta make out Gallatin TN on the slide of this one. Previously, they were made in MD.

[TheNewbie]

A non railed single stack 92 style pistol would be nice. Especially if it was to be smaller than the current compacts and could be had in FS or G.

[GyroF-16]

A non railed single stack 92 style pistol would be nice. Especially if it was to be smaller than the current compacts and could be had in FS or G.

You mean like this?
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/776811904

Except for the “smaller than current compacts” part, you’re describing the 92 Compact L, Type M.

Find someone to make some really thin G-10 grips (like the Langdon ones for the Compact L), and it would be even sweeter.
My wife and I have a pair, and really like them. That said, my regular carry off duty is a Compact L

[MattyD380]

A non railed single stack 92 style pistol would be nice. Especially if it was to be smaller than the current compacts and could be had in FS or G.

They had the Type-M... though it was never super popular. I think it would be neat if they brought it back, though.

[OlongJohnson]

Type-M was discussed in the Beretta Compact Love thread, with some choice quotes from Todd G.

[GyroF-16]

Type-M was discussed in the Beretta Compact Love thread, with some choice quotes from Todd G.

Here’s what ToddG wrote:

——————
“The Type M is the goofiest gun.

Beretta takes the 92 and makes it shorter in the butt and nose: 92 Compact.
Someone says it should be thinner, single stack: Type M.

Then some utter moron designs the grips for the gun to be extra wide so the grip feels identical to the standard double-stack 92.

True story.

A 92 Type is literally a 92 Compact in which you opt to run 8rd mags instead of 13rd mags. It's like asking the car company to rip out your gas tank and replace it with an 8g one.”
——————

I had a different experience. I immediately replaced the grip panels with thin Farrar rubber panels, and then the Type M felt noticeably thinner. Both for shooting and concealing. I’d agree that the stock grip panels were too thick (although not literally as thick as the Compact L - I’ve measured and compared).

Again, for people with smaller hands, and a desire to print a bit less for concealed carry, the Compact L, Type M has some merit. Especially in states with mag capacity limits.


Gyro

[MattyD380]

Here’s what ToddG wrote:

——————
“The Type M is the goofiest gun.

Beretta takes the 92 and makes it shorter in the butt and nose: 92 Compact.
Someone says it should be thinner, single stack: Type M.

Then some utter moron designs the grips for the gun to be extra wide so the grip feels identical to the standard double-stack 92.

True story.

A 92 Type is literally a 92 Compact in which you opt to run 8rd mags instead of 13rd mags. It's like asking the car company to rip out your gas tank and replace it with an 8g one.”
——————

I had a different experience. I immediately replaced the grip panels with thin Farrar rubber panels, and then the Type M felt noticeably thinner. Both for shooting an concealing. I’d agree that the stock grip panels were too thick (although not literally as thick as the Compact L - I’ve measured and compared).

Again, for people with smaller hands, and a desire to print a bit less for concealed carry, the Compact L, Type M has some merit. Especially in states with mag capacity limits.


Gyro

Word.

The "existential irrelevancy" arises from the grip panels. Not necessarily the gun itself.

If they were to re-release a new Type-M, they could design new grip panels to keep the grip thinner than the Type-L. I guess making the levers thinner wouldn't hurt either.

Than you'd actually have a more carryable 92c.

[e_stern]

Word.

The "existential irrelevancy" arises from the grip panels. Not necessarily the gun itself.

If they were to re-release a new Type-M, they could design new grip panels to keep the grip thinner than the Type-L. I guess making the levers thinner wouldn't hurt either.

Than you'd actually have a more carryable 92c.

How bout that?

[TheNewbie]

A 6-8 shot Beretta 92 style pistol that could be had in FS or G (and D) would be awesome. Maybe Glock 43, Shield, or PPS size.


How does the 92 Compact L type M compare to the regular 92 compact in size?

[Beretta Dawg]

A 6-8 shot Beretta 92 style pistol that could be had in FS or G (and D) would be awesome. Maybe Glock 43, Shield, or PPS size.


How does the 92 Compact L type M compare to the regular 92 compact in size?

Same size, just a thinner grip. Think the Cheetah model 84 vs Model 85.