Why no love for the Beretta 92?

[bensdad]

This pipe has been in service for a long time now. It seems to function as well as most others. Seems like I see WAY more Glock, XD, S&W M&P, 1911, etc. Heck, I don't remember the last time I saw a 92 at the range. I certainly haven't noticed one at an IPSC match? Why is that? Lack of advertising? Too many x-mil guys have a resentment? Does the gun not function as well as I thought? Outdated? Does it not fit into any particular category for competition shooting? Everybody hate a decocker? Or... am I way off-base and just don't notice them?

[DeanC]

Not a fan of crunchentickers myself.

I also don't like how big and round the grip is on them. To me it feels like you are grabbing the wrong end of a baseball bat.

[westberg]

The thumb safety is a deal breaker.

[BirdShooter]

I have a 92FS and I DO love it. Sure, the DA/SA decocker thing is more overhead than my Glocks, but that's more a matter of practice than anything. Good sights, low felt recoil... what's not to like?

I'm not planning to carry it, but I'm planning to try it at the next steel shoot and probably IDPA too since I found a nice Galco kydex holster for it.

[Shipyard]

the grip is HUGE for what it is, the price is high for what it is, the double action is heavey (for my tastes anyway) compared to others in it's class and the sights aren't detachable for easy working/upgrading etc

BUT - for those that like it, they LOVE it. i see way more ads/people WANTING a 92 than SELLING a 92. my lady has one - make that read, i USED to have one - and she absolutely loves it. can't get it out of her hand. the grip fits her and she can shoot it like a champ - she will NEVER own another 9mm!!!

for me, and for the money, i'd rather spend a little extra and go with a sig 229 (as long as we're talking 9mm here - otherwise it's a P220 hands down). way better trigger IMHO.

glocks/xd's/m&p's are easy. 1911's and race guns are showy. the beretta isn't either of those things, so it's kind of like... ???

[BBeckwith]

I love to shooting my 92. I shoot it better then most of my guns right now. I usually shoot my PX4 during the steel shoots to keep the constant action on the trigger. Always bring mine to the range to shoot though.

[justaguy]

.

[rugersol]

I'd question its historical significance. Yes, it's been the sidearm for 25yr, now. But all that means is, 25yr ago, they won the bidding. I've heard almost nothing since, except desire to find something else. And, when it comes down to it, for whatever reason, they just can't seem to pull the trigger on anything new ... and so, they order another 10,000 Berettas.

Anyhow, ya take that away, all you're left with is a bulky pistol, with an open-top slide, and a safety/decocker on the slide. Given the lack of such "features" on "popular" pistols since, it seems safe to say, not many people appreciate that particular configuration.

[White Horseradish]

safety/decocker on the slide

That's the #1thing I dislike about them. My thumb is not long enough to operate it. #2 is the trigger and #3 is the huge size.

[mrokern]

I've got no problem with the 92 and actually really like the gun, but I can understand SOME of the complaints.

The grip size is, well, huge. No other way to describe it. If you don't have paws, chances are that you aren't going to be comfortable with the gun.

The stock sights are tiny, and the front sight up until the recent revision required a lot of work to replace (as in gunsmith).

The DA/SA operating system isn't everyone's cup of tea, but that can be lightened up with some spring changes.

Open top has good and bad points.

All that said:

Every 92 I've shot has been 100% reliable and has been a tackdriver. Then again...

1) All those have been maintained properly, which isn't always the case with a service weapon.

2) Let's face it, most military folks can't shoot a pistol well. I know we've got a good number of them here who are the exception, but they aren't the norm. I submit that if you stick any other handgun platform in the hands of most of our troops, they'll still complain that the guns suck because they aren't shooting as well as they do with their rifles.

Now, a lot of the complaints I've heard are in regards to the 9mm round itself. THAT I'd be willing to lend some credence to, as the change from .45 to 9mm is certainly...um...interesting. Don't you love NATO?

-Mark

[macphisto]

Ben Stoeger owns face in USPSA with a Beretta Elite II.

Personally, I don't care for them. The location of the safety is the main problem.

[tacticalninja32]

i love my M9, just need more trigger time to loosen her up a lil, i think because of all the safeties, it is one of the safest pistol we can give to the gate guards and the Genpop of troops, as far as the troops(the MEU for example) that actually depend their life on the pistol they have the funds to carry higher end pistols like Springfield Operators, SIgs, H&K's,

[rugersol]

i think because of all the safeties, it is one of the safest pistol we can give to the gate guards and the Genpop of troops

Personally, if I were king, I'd never give a pistol to anyone who didn't show excellent compliance with "point only at what you're willing to destroy" and "keep your finger outta the trigger-guard 'til you're ready to destroy something" ... safeties, or no.

But, I realize I'm in the minority, there.

At which, I'd guess the U.S. forces ain't likely to see the likes of a Glock, anytime soon. Not that I'd want 'em to ... I got my own ideas, there. But "Glock-knuckle" aside, I'd guess there'd be quite a few raccoon-like troops happy with that particular switch.

Jeez ... ya know ... if they made Glocks with aluminum frames, sans finger-grooves, and brought the trigger-guard straight back to the front-strap, that'd be a purdy mean little **** formidable pistol.

[plblark]

and changed the grip angle

[rugersol]

and changed the grip angle

Well, DUH!