Beretta M9 vs. SIG M17: Pros and Cons - Gun Guys with Bill Wilson and Massad Ayoob

[spinmove_]

Mas's point about trigger reach and size is legit. I fully favor the 92 on a personal level, but that DA pull for most females and some males is pretty far out there.

This. Thin grips and Wilson’s short reach trigger have made the 92 series a lot easier to use for my smedium sized hands.

[JonInWA]

Mas's point about trigger reach and size is legit. I fully favor the 92 on a personal level, but that DA pull for most females and some males is pretty far out there.

Thin grips (LTT/VZ/WC/Trausch etc) will make a significant improvement. There is also a Beretta reconfigured short trigger available.

Best, Jon

[LHS]

As many folks have mentioned, the modern relief-cut frames, thin grips and short-reach triggers make a big difference for folks with small hands, and the Vertec frame does so as well. The current 92X guns come with a Vertec frame and an extra set of grips to mimic the relief-cut 'standard' frame.

[Hot Sauce]

While I agree with you guys who mention thin grips and short reach triggers, those are more salient to individual users like us than big Army, unless they were gonna buy them that way.

I also thought the logistical transition to the M9A3 would have been the simplest solution, but clearly someone crunching numbers thought the SIG would end up cheaper in the long run. And I suspect that's much more a deciding factor than the performance of handguns on the battlefield, because they are seldom used on the battlefield anyhow.

[JSGlock34]

I didn't think the M9A3 should necessarily have been selected as the next issue sidearm, but the Army could have accepted the ECP and taken delivery of the (substantial) remainder of the contract with M9A3s instead of yet more M9s. The military would have received a more capable sidearm for the same money and Beretta would be able to tout the M9A3 as official issue.

[JTQ]

Interestingly enough, I've found the more objectionable trigger reaches to be for guns like the Sig P226 and the CZ-75. I just can't stretch my finger that far. Compared to those, the Beretta is easy for me.

The Beretta 92 isn't really great for those with small hands, but I agree with this.

I've lost count of the number of threads I've been on, on gun forums across the internet, where somebody is looking for a gun suitable for those with small hands, and multiple folks will recommend a CZ75B. I just don't get that. I have to rotate my hand to one side to reach the CZ75B DA trigger, and to the other side to reach that half a jelly bean CZ thumb safety that has a pivot point about the same distance from the back strap as the forward leading edge of a Colt 1911 teardrop thumb safety.

[BigT]

As many folks have mentioned, the modern relief-cut frames, thin grips and short-reach triggers make a big difference for folks with small hands, and the Vertec frame does so as well. The current 92X guns come with a Vertec frame and an extra set of grips to mimic the relief-cut 'standard' frame.

Or they could just get normal sized hands

[Jared]

Interestingly enough, I've found the more objectionable trigger reaches to be for guns like the Sig P226 and the CZ-75. I just can't stretch my finger that far. Compared to those, the Beretta is easy for me.

As have I. The first CZ I ever held made me very curious, as I seem to remember someone saying they were better for smaller handed folks. Maybe the grip circumference is smaller, but I didn’t think the reach to the DA trigger resting location was any shorter at all. My perception was that it was further on the CZ.

[Bucky]

A point was made, if you forget to decock an M9, you have a hair trigger... etc. Still don’t see much difference in safety between a factory 92 trigger in SA and a P320. YMMV.