Beretta 92 FS Compact (and general Beretta love lately)

[Suvorov]

Speaking of Berettas, am I correct in thinking that it's considered acceptable to carry one off safe, hammer down? Because there's a long heavy double action pull anyways and the safety just gets in the way. I was carrying one this way during a recent class and a few people told me my gun was off safe and it was getting tiresome to explain the whole situation to them. The instructor didn't say anything about it.

Is there some strategy to make it clear that it's off safe on purpose so people don't bug me about it?

Were there a lot of .mil guys in the class?

Most units I have been around (who are of course commanded by officers and senior NCOs who are not gun guys and only care about covering their butts) will require soldiers to carry the M9 with the safety on. As you and others mentioned, the Beretta is more than safe with hammer down and safety off on a loaded chamber. Most PDs (LAPD and LA Sheriff) have long since abandoned the need to keep the safety on when carrying the gun as well as .mil units that have "enlightened leadership."

Next time you encounter this ignorance you could either just set them straight, tell them this is how LAPD does it, or simply tell them it is a "G" model that is docock only.

About the safety, it is kind of ironic that the Army tends to be so adamant about carrying the gun with safety on. Recently I was reading about the M9 trials and one of the gigs against the Beretta entry was that the Army thought the safety/decock to be redundant and preferred the Sig in this regard.

[Suvorov]

Negligent Discharge.

[JonInWA]

My .02 for this thread...I've had several Beretta 92 pistols-an issue 92FS back in the day(early 1990s), a 92D Centurion Police Special, a 92 Compact Type M, and my current 92D. While I'm no gunsmith, I do have what I consider more than a nodding familiarity with the 92. My 92D is used for IDPA, carry, and nightstand duty.

I consider the 92 series to be an outstanding example of the previous generation of autopistols-meticulously manufactured to very demanding standards and tolerances, using multiple springs (and types of springs), grips fastened by screws, and oriented around military/law enforcement contract requirements/usage. Interestingly, perhaps because of a superior design, materials, production standards, quality controls, ongoing military contract quality specifications/testing protocols (or any or all of the above), the 92 platform seemingly has avoided being plagued with some of the ongoing problems inherent to many, if not most (to a degree) contemporary production firearms, as has been discussed in a number of threads on the forum here.

Due to the tolerancing, a 92 requires lubrication-and consistent lubrication at multiple points-much (and many) more than your Glock/HK/M&P. While certainly not a kiss of death for me, it is a fact of life for the platform, and might give mere casual users a cause to go to another platform.

The Achilles heel of the 92 platform in my opinion is the OEM trigger return spring. Their forecasted lifespan is 5K trigger strokes-and notice I said "trigger strokes," not rounds. For anyone who has a dryfire program, that number comes up very, very quickly. While the current (since around 2008) OEM Beretta trigger return spring is a vast improvement of its predecessor, in my opinion that just means that there's an excellent likelihood that it'll actually last for the 5K manipulations. While it's not hard, or expensive to replace, it is of a greater magnitude of difficulty than, say, a recoil spring replacement. When a trigger return spring breaks, the gun is still fireable (since the triggerbar spring is the spring tensioning the trigger for actual firing), but the trigger won't automatically be levered forward-you have to mechanically re-position it forward yourself.

The solution, for the Border Patrol/INS, and myself, and many others, is to go too an ingenious replacement component that Wolff Gunsprings called the Trigger Conversion Unit or TCU designed at the behest of the Border Patrol back in the day when their issue gun was a 96D Brigadier (and plagued with breaking OEM trigger return springs)-a trapped coil spring (versus the "lever type" OEM spring), which provides a significantly increased lifespan (which Wolff has specified to be in the thousands of manipulations range). The caveat to it is that if you have a newer 92, you'll need to get the older all-steel trigger for the TCU to work; fortunately, BUSA currently stocks a neat package containing a steel trigger, a "D" mainspring, and an OEM trigger return spring that's very reasonably priced.

Magazines. A couple of threads have mentioned the Check-Mate magazines a problematic, but the true explanation is much more nuanced. As some of you know, I'm one of Check-Mate's sponsored shooters, but that came about due to my genuine appreciation of their magazines after using and field-testing over time (but you're still welcome to question my objectivity if you desire...). Here's the somewhat abbreviated story on their contract (and commercial) magazines for the 92/M9: Check-Mate provided the original contract magazines to DoD mandated specifications-which included phosphate-coating the exterior and interior of the magazine tube and baseplate. DoD's intention was that the coating would improve corrosion resistance (which it certainly did); however, the interior coating, mimicing a crackle-finish, also had the unanticipated side-effect of trapping the fine sand/grit/dust particles inherent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and precluding cartridge movements in the magazine-definitely not a good thing. When Check-Mate was provided in-theater sand samples, they realized the problem, and came up with the replacement dry-film finish in 2004, which eliminated the problems, and immediately produced thousands of magazines for the theater. Unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, DoD failed to purge the old phosphate-coated magazines from the theater, and also my understanding is that the new dry-film magazines were indiscriminately intermixed with the older problematic phosphate-coated ones. Subsequently, Check-Mate offered to refinish any and all of the phosphate-coated magazines with the dry-film finish (first removing the phosphate coating) at what I can best describe at a very advantageous price-DoD declined.

Somewhat concurrent to the problems inherent to the phosphate-coated magazines, some not-so-bright-lights thought that the solution would be to remove the magazine springs, stretch them, and then re-stuff them in the magazines for greater spring tension to help overcome the particulate resistance. This solution 1) doesn't work; and 2) actually REDUCES the spring tension and longevity...

I personally prefer the dry-film magazines in my 92D for several reasons: First, they're very well made, and have a lifetime guarantee (as do all Check-Mate magazines); Second, I prefer their hardened steel baseplate, both for its durability and it's slightly lower profile. While the dry-film magazines came about in 2004, if you're uncertain, just stick with 2005 or later date-rollmarked Check-Mate magazines to ensure that you have ones with the dry-film finish.

Contractually, DoD has used/contracted Beretta/BUSA, Check-Mate, Airtronics and now (again, and currently) Check-Mate for the M9. Beretta also has their excellent PVD-coated sand resistant magazines (which are OEM with the M9A1), which incorporate interior strakes and a slick tube finish to preclude sand issued. MDS (Mechannica del Sarca, a Beretta subsidiary, also markets blue steel magazines for the 92 platform, basically identical to their Berretta rollmarked compatriots, with the Beretta magazines exhibiting perhaps a slightly superior finish, at least aesthetically. My personal magazine preference is for Check-Mate, then Beretta/MDS.

I wish that Beretta had not discontinued the 92D around 1998 (other than for some subsequent contract orders). The triggerpull, while long, is exquisite-think along the lines of a gunsmith-tuned Smith & Wesson revolver. The "D" mainspring nicely lightens the DAO triggerpull to the vicinity of 8 lbs. The lack of safety levers slightly slims down the slide profile, simplifies the manual of arms, and eliminates an egress point for dust and dirt entry, and strengthens the slide. Like a revolver, a 92D tends to be an acquired skill, especially for longer-distance firing.

On my personal 92D, I've replaced the grips with a set of ultra-slim Trausch TJ92 grips-unfortunately, Jacques Trausch recently passed away, and their current and future availability is somewhat in doubt. In addition to the Wolff TCU trigger return spring, I've also replaced my recoil, triggerbar, and slide release springs with Wolff springs. My personal 92D also came with the Trijicon nightsights as the OEM sights-they provide a very good day and night sight picture.

I hope that this somewhat lengthy post is helpful.

Some images:







Best, Jon

[Timbonez]

Were there a lot of .mil guys in the class?

Most units I have been around (who are of course commanded by officers and senior NCOs who are not gun guys and only care about covering their butts) will require soldiers to carry the M9 with the safety on. As you and others mentioned, the Beretta is more than safe with hammer down and safety off on a loaded chamber. Most PDs (LAPD and LA Sheriff) have long since abandoned the need to keep the safety on when carrying the gun as well as .mil units that have "enlightened leadership."

Next time you encounter this ignorance you could either just set them straight, tell them this is how LAPD does it, or simply tell them it is a "G" model that is docock only.

About the safety, it is kind of ironic that the Army tends to be so adamant about carrying the gun with safety on. Recently I was reading about the M9 trials and one of the gigs against the Beretta entry was that the Army thought the safety/decock to be redundant and preferred the Sig in this regard.

The AF specifically tells their people to chamber a round and carry the M9 with the safety off. That's how I carry when I fly.

[Suvorov]

The AF specifically tells their people to chamber a round and carry the M9 with the safety off. That's how I carry when I fly.

That's the Air Force. Who knows, maybe things have changed in the Army as well, but when I was in, every unit I saw (including MPs) were carrying safety on. I haven't heard of much good change either.

[David B.]

I hope that this somewhat lengthy post is helpful.

Thank you.

It was interesting to read about the magazines. Do you know who makes the current 17 round mags that ship with the 92A1's? They've got a high gloss finish and are very slick. Thanks.

God Bless,
David

[ADKilla]

Do you know who makes the current 17 round mags that ship with the 92A1's?

Not sure about the 92A1, but military is fielding the 20rd mags by Mec-Gar. It's their standard 18-rd flush-fit mag with their +2 baseplate.

[ST911]

Looking back at my Beretta days, I remember the 9mm >15 mags being iffy in function with the exception of the OEM 20rd. Are they better of late?

[1986s4]

Thank you.

It was interesting to read about the magazines. Do you know who makes the current 17 round mags that ship with the 92A1's? They've got a high gloss finish and are very slick. Thanks.

God Bless,
David

Sir, I believe those are made by Beretta. The Mec-Gar Opti-mags are 18 and 20 round mags. Mec-Gar also makes 15 round mags that are nicely polished and blued but lack witness holes in the back.

Best,
1986s4

[Dave J]

Looking back at my Beretta days, I remember the 9mm >15 mags being iffy in function with the exception of the OEM 20rd. Are they better of late?

I used a few Mec-Gar 18-rounders last trip downrange, and was happy enough with them that it was what I kept in the gun when not on the practice range. I normally kept them downloaded one round short of full capacity, on the assumption that it might aid long-term durability.

However, I was only able to get my hands on about 3K rounds of 9mm for practice during that time, and much of that got fired through the 15-rounders I also had, so take it FWIW. Subjectively, I felt they worked much better than the extended 20's I've occasionally tried in years past.

HTH,
Dave