Beretta 92G-TS

[TheNewbie]

I think its smart that to decock the gun, the lever must be pushed up instead of down to preclude the chance of accidentally decocking the gun while shooting. It's actually why I like the 92G having the decocker on the slide compared to other pistols with the decocker on the frame. No chance of accidentally activating it while shooting. While it's never happened to me on my USP's, it's something I think about. I have had it happen to me on a CZ.

Which CZ?

I find the decocker on the P-07 to be pretty close to perfect. Everyone has a bit different grip, so all might not agree with that.

[Noah]

Which CZ?

I find the decocker on the P-07 to be pretty close to perfect. Everyone has a bit different grip, so all might not agree with that.

The CZ and USP, while down to decock, are a pretty long stroke. A normal shooting grip won't do it on accident. The decock stroke on this 92 looks very short

[TheNewbie]

The CZ and USP, while down to decock, are a pretty long stroke. A normal shooting grip won't do it on accident. The decock stroke on this 92 looks very short

I wish the USP was up to decock and on safe, but I never had an issue in my limited time shooting USPs with accidentally decocking/interfering with the operation of the gun.

[gato naranja]

It's actually why I like the 92G having the decocker on the slide compared to other pistols with the decocker on the frame.

I grew up believing that the P -38 and FB Radom ViS 35 got the lever placement and operating direction right (the ViS decocking lever's fundamental shape was also way ahead of its time); traditional 92s and PX4s have never been a problem for me. Some of the various Beretta lever designs have made me a bit testy, however.

[Ben_G]

A USP style mechanism doesn't work in the 92 package. Believe me, we investigated that as gun nerds. That'd be practically a new gun on the parts side.

This mechanism still needed a new twin sear design to safely function like this, which is why we called it out in the designation; also that denotes some internal parts requirements.

The direction was because it's the 1911 MOA as well as the fact that, as anyone who has time on the frame safety 90 series will know, the natural hand position for shooting those is riding that lever, and that would be a mess if down decocked it then. And that'd also be a whole new set of grips too. This shares with the 92XI, and actually the old Steel I

[Exiledviking]

I think its smart that to decock the gun, the lever must be pushed up instead of down to preclude the chance of accidentally decocking the gun while shooting. It's actually why I like the 92G having the decocker on the slide compared to other pistols with the decocker on the frame. No chance of accidentally activating it while shooting. While it's never happened to me on my USP's, it's something I think about. I have had it happen to me on a CZ.

It happened to me with a USP9 Expert. I've detailed it elsewhere on this forum where I had an issue with my USP9 Expert while shooting the Steel Challenge Smoke & Hope stage and IIRC I had two strings where the hammer was partially decocked in the middle of the strings. Apparently l was riding the thumb safety hard enough to partially decock the hammer in the middle of the strings. I changed the control lever variant to safety only and I haven't had any more problems.
I grip the USP pistols high and with the exception of that 9mm Expert and a FS USP40, all of my other HKs are LEM with no control levers.
So, having thought about i do prefer the way Beretta implemented this decocker. I hope to one day have a frame mounted safety Beretta 92, but living in California that won't happen any time soon since they're not "safe".

[TheNewbie]

A USP style mechanism doesn't work in the 92 package. Believe me, we investigated that as gun nerds. That'd be practically a new gun on the parts side.

This mechanism still needed a new twin sear design to safely function like this, which is why we called it out in the designation; also that denotes some internal parts requirements.

The direction was because it's the 1911 MOA as well as the fact that, as anyone who has time on the frame safety 90 series will know, the natural hand position for shooting those is riding that lever, and that would be a mess if down decocked it then. And that'd also be a whole new set of grips too. This shares with the 92XI, and actually the old Steel I

Thank you guys for offering new ideas and new products that also are well made.


Is it possible to make the 92 decocker system function like the 80x system? Is the 80x system a twin sear as well?

[SwampDweller]

It happened to me with a USP9 Expert. I've detailed it elsewhere on this forum where I had an issue with my USP9 Expert while shooting the Steel Challenge Smoke & Hope stage and IIRC I had two strings where the hammer was partially decocked in the middle of the strings. Apparently l was riding the thumb safety hard enough to partially decock the hammer in the middle of the strings. I changed the control lever variant to safety only and I haven't had any more problems.
I grip the USP pistols high and with the exception of that 9mm Expert and a FS USP40, all of my other HKs are LEM with no control levers.
So, having thought about i do prefer the way Beretta implemented this decocker. I hope to one day have a frame mounted safety Beretta 92, but living in California that won't happen any time soon since they're not "safe".

If I wasn't going to have my full size USP 45s changed to Match Hybrid LEM triggers, I was going to have the variant switched to decocker only with the lever only on the right side of the gun. Originally I was going to have it switched to safety only, but for a carry gun I'd rather not have a manual thumb safety. I actually still have 2 detent plates for that variant from when I was planning to do so.

[Ben_G]

Thank you guys for offering new ideas and new products that also are well made.


Is it possible to make the 92 decocker system function like the 80x system? Is the 80x system a twin sear as well?

That's our goal!

And I don't think so for the safety style. I'm not an engineer, but I know from discussions that the fact that the 90 series frame safety's pivot point is concentric to the hammer pin while the 80 series is behind the hammer pin make those 2 systems and what they're mechanically capable of from a packaging perspective significantly different.

[45dotACP]

That's our goal!

And I don't think so for the safety style. I'm not an engineer, but I know from discussions that the fact that the 90 series frame safety's pivot point is concentric to the hammer pin while the 80 series is behind the hammer pin make those 2 systems and what they're mechanically capable of from a packaging perspective significantly different.

Ah...that's a bummer. That probably explains why the Taurus 92 knockoffs tend to have so little parts compatibility with a 92. The guns are fundamentally different aside from the open topped slide.