Beretta 92X Performance

[Cory]

Not fitting well into any particular competitve niche is a good point. I expect to see Elite LTTs and BrigTacs continue to be the Beretta model of choice for USPSA production. The 92X Performance might be legal for Limited but isn't advantagous with minor scoring. Much like 9mm 2011s. Perhaps it will find a following amoungst 3 gunners like the 9mm 2011s have.

-Cory

[El Cid]

So I'm of two minds about the 92X Performance...

On one hand, as a Beretta 92 nerd, frame safety 92s are rare birds. I've never even see one in person. @PGT is the only poster I've seen who actually owns a 92 Stock, Combat, or Steel I and has provided shooting feedback. The 92X Performance is a rare opportunity to purchase a model derived from this lineage. And I applaud Beretta for bringing this model to market and continuing to expand the 92 lineup. More choices is a good thing, and perhaps more frame safety models will follow if 92X Performance sales are successful.

On the other hand, I'm not a collector, and pistols I don't shoot seldom stay in the safe for long. I'm not sure exactly what role the 92X Performance will fill for me. It is marketed as a competition pistol, and I am a competitive shooter. But it doesn't seem to fit neatly into a competition niche for me. It is too heavy to be legal for IDPA. For USPSA, it is probably best suited as a Production pistol, as it shoots a minor power factor cartridge. It seems like a direct competitor to the CZ Shadow 2, and CZ/TZ pistols dominate Production. But Production only allows hammer down starts, so one of the main selling points (the frame safety and the ability to run the gun cocked and locked) that makes this pistol unique in the Beretta lineup has no applicability in the Division it is likely to compete in. For Limited Division you could start cocked and locked, but the minor power factor cartridge makes the 92X Performance less competitive. Of course the weight of the all steel gun is a selling point for competitive use, but for defensive use I just don't see myself hauling around the 92X Performance. The STI Staccato or Wilson EDC 9XL are better single action options for defensive use.

At the end of the day, I'll probably need to scratch my 92X Performance itch and buy one to try for myself. The price point is very attractive.

What about Steel Challenge? Or a dedicated HD pistol? I want one of these pistols too. But I also want LTT 92’s. And a 92X. And Centurion/Compact of each. Lol! Time to go win that elusive lottery.

[JSGlock34]

What about Steel Challenge? Or a dedicated HD pistol? I want one of these pistols too. But I also want LTT 92’s. And a 92X. And Centurion/Compact of each. Lol! Time to go win that elusive lottery.

I honestly don't know enough about Steel Challenge to have an informed opinion. I haven't shot Steel Challenge and it isn't available in my area.

I've got both a Brig Tac and a LTT Elite 92G, so those bases are covered.

[Stony Lane]

The 92X Performance was designed in Italy. They wanted the weight, like the CZ Shadows, etc. (that also have to be manually decocked). I guess the safety levers and extended takedown lever are seen as good reference points for a consistent repeatable grip.

I removed the safety levers from a Steel I frame (added the rubber conversion grip, although a G10 or aluminum one would be much preferred) and then topped it off with a Vertec G slide. Americans would really like this combination. It has the weight and a decocker. This would be an excellent variant for Beretta to produce.

[pastaslinger]

So I'm of two minds about the 92X Performance...

On one hand, as a Beretta 92 nerd, frame safety 92s are rare birds. I've never even see one in person. @PGT is the only poster I've seen who actually owns a 92 Stock, Combat, or Steel I and has provided shooting feedback. The 92X Performance is a rare opportunity to purchase a model derived from this lineage. And I applaud Beretta for bringing this model to market and continuing to expand the 92 lineup. More choices is a good thing, and perhaps more frame safety models will follow if 92X Performance sales are successful.

On the other hand, I'm not a collector, and pistols I don't shoot seldom stay in the safe for long. I'm not sure exactly what role the 92X Performance will fill for me. It is marketed as a competition pistol, and I am a competitive shooter. But it doesn't seem to fit neatly into a competition niche for me. It is too heavy to be legal for IDPA. For USPSA, it is probably best suited as a Production pistol, as it shoots a minor power factor cartridge. It seems like a direct competitor to the CZ Shadow 2, and CZ/TZ pistols dominate Production. But Production only allows hammer down starts, so one of the main selling points (the frame safety and the ability to run the gun cocked and locked) that makes this pistol unique in the Beretta lineup has no applicability in the Division it is likely to compete in. For Limited Division you could start cocked and locked, but the minor power factor cartridge makes the 92X Performance less competitive. Of course the weight of the all steel gun is a selling point for competitive use, but for defensive use I just don't see myself hauling around the 92X Performance. The STI Staccato or Wilson EDC 9XL are better single action options for defensive use.

At the end of the day, I'll probably need to scratch my 92X Performance itch and buy one to try for myself. The price point is very attractive.

The CZ shadow 2 is the same way as far as controls. The point of the frame safety is a ledge, you need to manually decock like with a cz safety gun or a tanfoglio.

[BigT]

So I'm of two minds about the 92X Performance...

On one hand, as a Beretta 92 nerd, frame safety 92s are rare birds. I've never even see one in person. @PGT is the only poster I've seen who actually owns a 92 Stock, Combat, or Steel I and has provided shooting feedback. The 92X Performance is a rare opportunity to purchase a model derived from this lineage. And I applaud Beretta for bringing this model to market and continuing to expand the 92 lineup. More choices is a good thing, and perhaps more frame safety models will follow if 92X Performance sales are successful.

On the other hand, I'm not a collector, and pistols I don't shoot seldom stay in the safe for long. I'm not sure exactly what role the 92X Performance will fill for me. It is marketed as a competition pistol, and I am a competitive shooter. But it doesn't seem to fit neatly into a competition niche for me. It is too heavy to be legal for IDPA. For USPSA, it is probably best suited as a Production pistol, as it shoots a minor power factor cartridge. It seems like a direct competitor to the CZ Shadow 2, and CZ/TZ pistols dominate Production. But Production only allows hammer down starts, so one of the main selling points (the frame safety and the ability to run the gun cocked and locked) that makes this pistol unique in the Beretta lineup has no applicability in the Division it is likely to compete in. For Limited Division you could start cocked and locked, but the minor power factor cartridge makes the 92X Performance less competitive. Of course the weight of the all steel gun is a selling point for competitive use, but for defensive use I just don't see myself hauling around the 92X Performance. The STI Staccato or Wilson EDC 9XL are better single action options for defensive use.

At the end of the day, I'll probably need to scratch my 92X Performance itch and buy one to try for myself. The price point is very attractive.

Its in fact designed to be specifically applicable to its division . Manually decocking is the norm in Production, its not a carry gun which gets the hammer lowered during use. I'm pretty sure getting rid of the decocker allows a one piece firing pin, which will likely allow a little more forgiveness in hammer springs. The frame mounted safeties allow a consistent index point which is their primary function here. Getting rid of the slide mounted safety or decocker means theres zero chance of accidently activating it on empty starts or malfunction clearance.

Its heavier than the LTT or any of the Wilsons which is a selling point.

Capacity is going to be an issue on the 40 for Standard possibly less for Limited, but I have a feeling majors days are numbered in Standard anyway.

This is a gun with no real carry or duty use aspirations , thers a whole other rangen of tjose. This is a single purpose game gun like a Shadow 2 or Stock 2 and it will be interesting to see how it fares there.

[Bucky]

Capacity is going to be an issue on the 40 for Standard possibly less for Limited, but I have a feeling majors days are numbered in Standard anyway.

The 96 magazine is too narrow to properly stagger a.40 for maximum capacity. I’d be surprised to see more than 17 in a 141.25mm magazine, compared to the standard 20, 21 you see today.

[CraigS]

JS, your concerns are the same as mine. I do local IDPA w/ my LTTd M9A1. When I first saw the 92X Perf. model I thought it might be my next gun. Then it was pointed out that IDPA has a weight limit. So no good there. One place I shoot is independent and just calls their events action shooting so I could possibly shoot it there. Then I recently found out about the manual decocking thing. I know 1000s of people do it all over the world, but I am not comfortable with it. So it looks like this gun would just be a curiosity for me. I have no problem w/ the price if I were going to be able to use it regularly but I'd rather have an Elite LTT.

[BigT]

The 96 magazine is too narrow to properly stagger a.40 for maximum capacity. I’d be surprised to see more than 17 in a 141.25mm magazine, compared to the standard 20, 21 you see today.

Then IPSC Standard is hoingbyo be a fail for it completly.

[BigT]

JS, your concerns are the same as mine. I do local IDPA w/ my LTTd M9A1. When I first saw the 92X Perf. model I thought it might be my next gun. Then it was pointed out that IDPA has a weight limit. So no good there. One place I shoot is independent and just calls their events action shooting so I could possibly shoot it there. Then I recently found out about the manual decocking thing. I know 1000s of people do it all over the world, but I am not comfortable with it. So it looks like this gun would just be a curiosity for me. I have no problem w/ the price if I were going to be able to use it regularly but I'd rather have an Elite LTT.

Bear in mind IDPA wasn't part of the design spec on these. Nor really USPSA. It was , as I understand from a conversation with the guy running the project , designed to shoot IPSC Production, well the variant being discussed anyway. Beretta have a whole lot of other options to shoot IDPA with.