[stand watie]

To All,

I'm considering buying a Beretta Model 92S for 299.oo (with free S&H) from one of the large military surplus/gun vendors, plus a 20.oo FFL transfer.
(All of the people that I've talked to so far by email & upon several forums say that the surplus 92S handguns are in EXCELLENT/MINT condition internally & GOOD/VG/EXCELLENT condition externally. = Luck of the draw as to what exterior condition that each buyer receives.)

MOST seem to be "un-issued" or "carried a great deal" but seldom fired.

Are there any obviously flaws in that handgun that would make it a "less than suitable" self-defense handgun??

yours, sw

 

[Skeptic49]

It uses the low grip magazine catch. Magazines might be hard to get.

Geoff
Who notes the US Army insisted on the high grip release, most of the world didn't care.

 

[bearcat6]

My problem with this gun is the size. I think it's a lot bigger than a 9mm needs to be. Other than that I've had no problems with mine.

 

[WaltGraham]

I know it's just me but I've always hated everything about the Beretta 92; big, ugly, suck ass ergonomics.

Give me a snubbie or a gubmint model and I'm content.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Personally I like the '92. I've got an Inox (brushed stainless) 92fs, and I put the Hogue wraparound grip on it. It's certainly a hand-filler, but there's something neat about shooting a pistol that makes 9mm feel like a .22.

The best part about it, though, is the groans I get from Charlie et al when I pull it out of the bag: "Oh no, not the pizza pistol."

Then, of course, they pull out their Walthers or Lugers, I make an obligatory snotty comment about their schnitzel pistols, and we all get back to shooting.

 

[csmkersh]

I'm with Walt on this one.

 

[GunGeek]

To All,

I'm considering buying a Beretta Model 92S for 299.oo (with free S&H) from one of the large military surplus/gun vendors, plus a 20.oo FFL transfer.
(All of the people that I've talked to so far by email & upon several forums say that the surplus 92S handguns are in EXCELLENT/MINT condition internally & GOOD/VG/EXCELLENT condition externally. = Luck of the draw as to what exterior condition that each buyer receives.)

MOST seem to be "un-issued" or "carried a great deal" but seldom fired.

Are there any obviously flaws in that handgun that would make it a "less than suitable" self-defense handgun??

yours, sw

The 92S was the first appearance of the slide mounted safety, which was a request/recommendation of the US Army after their 1976 pistol trials (which the Beretta won, but wasn't adopted at that time). Differences between the 92S and the current 92FS are:

Receiver material: 92S is 6061-T6 aluminum
92FS has 7076-T6
Not that it matters much, there has never been any significant issues with the receivers

92FS has different shape to trigger, different grip shape, and different shape of the trigger guard.

The 92S will not have the metallurgical & design upgrades that were made following the slide failures of the early 92's. This could be an issue to someone looking to shoot the living snot out of a 92S, but for most mere mortals, I don't think it's something I would ever sweat.

Taurus still makes magazines that will fit the 92 & 92S, so magazines can be had.

All in all, they're good pistols.

 

[spwenger]

A Guy Had One...

...at the local range a couple of weeks ago. Accustomed the smooth DA trigger strokes on the 92F's that were issued by LASD, I was surprised to find the DA stroke on this one a bit gritty. On the flip side, LASD saw its share of cracked locking blocks on the 92F.

Then there's the magazine release on the heel of the butt, which may not be a bad thing if you wear thick gloves in the winter.

 

[GunGeek]

Locking blocks are a "wear item" on the 92 series. The re-designed locking blocks on the FS series guns are very tough and will go several times farther than when Beretta recommends changing.

Even the old locking blocks take over 2,500 rounds of full NATO pressure before breaking becomes an issue. I would just shoot the snot out of it with standard pressure ammo, and when the opportunity came, order up a replacement locking block from Beretta (they're backwards compatible), and don't sweat it.

As for the heel mag release, it's just a training issue.

All in all, the 92S is an extremely reliable pistol. It's just a bit of a dated design, but once can certainly make it work.

 

[csmkersh]

What's NATO pressure? Subgun rounds?

 

[stand watie]

csmkersh,

YEP. = The last NATO memo that I saw (circa JAN 2006) indicates that "NATO Standards" for 9x19mm ammo, used by all NATO Forces, require that handguns/SMG must meet the same standards.
(I was "told", though I have NO source/proof, that SMG ammo pressures were "lowered" to be safe in NATO member nation's issue handguns.)

yours, sw

 

[stand watie]

GunGeek,

I seriously DOUBT that I'll ever fire 2500 rounds in any single handgun, though I do practice with all my handguns from time to time. = Since I retired, I doubt if I've fired much more than 100 rounds per year in pistols/revolvers, combined.
(I'm mostly a rifle/shotgun guy.)

Fwiw, I got an email yesterday AM that the forum member doubts if the 92S, that he received from the same vendor, was EVER issued & he said that his 92S appears internally/externally "as new" & "un-fired".
(With my luck, IF I order a 92S, "mine" will appear as if it's been dragged behind a PU. = ALL orders are, "- - - filled from the next pistol removed from the crate".)

ADDENDA, 15JAN18: The vendor is now pricing the 92S handguns at 259.95 with FREE S&H for the next 7 days.

yours, sw

 

[GunGeek]

What's NATO pressure? Subgun rounds?

Yes, that's essentially what it is. It goes back to Egypt making their SMG specific ammo for their Port Said SMG's. The Brits captured a bunch of it during the Suez crisis and found it was pretty impressive in their SMG's; much better barrier penetration. It eventually was loaded by Radway Green in the UK, and that is the load that eventually became the NATO load. It's a stout +P 124 grain load and it turned out to be a bit much for just about every 9mm handgun made before about 1985.

 

[stand watie]

GunGeek; All,

IF ordered "my 92S" will be fired with the same 9x19mm (NOT +P) Hornady Critical Defense ammo that I load my Sig-Sauer P225 & my S&W Shield with.
(IF purchased, the Beretta will be my "PU handgun".)

yours, sw

 

[GunGeek]

GunGeek; All,

IF ordered "my 92S" will be fired with the same 9x19mm (NOT +P) Hornady Critical Defense ammo that I load my Sig-Sauer P226 & my S&W Shield with.
(IF purchased, the Beretta will be my "PU handgun".)

yours, sw

Good idea. I'm personally not all that on board with +P 9mm. It's no more effective than standard pressure. +P is all about barrier penetration, and personally if I'm really concerned about barrier penetration (and I'm not), then I can use standard pressure 147's which will penetrate better than +P 124's.

 

[stand watie]

GunGeek,

Hornady Critical Defense ammo is ALL that I buy to carry in 9x19mm pistols.
(I have, in the past, bought cheap FMJ surplus ammo for practice. - I still have a couple of hundred of those around.)

yours, sw

 

[William R. Moore]

Since CIP & SAAMI measure pressures in slightly different manners (but with the same type gauges), it's hard to get an exact comparison. You can roughly equate current NATO spec with actual +P so far as MAP is concerned. [Yes, there have been some hairy machine pistol rounds here and there. Radway 2Z and CAVVIM/CAAVIM were both gun breakers-at least in pistols. However, I'm talking about current spec.]

Now about ammo as actually loaded and shipped-my experience (and with my chrono) is that most commercial +P delivers about what the factory claims their standard pressure does. Perhaps a mite more. This will vary somewhat depending upon manufacturer and what you're shooting it out of. Remember the test specs are out of test barrels, not production barrels.

+P was originally trying to get the bullets of old to expand. Now, you seem to get a wee bit more expansion and possibly a wee bit less penetration in soft tissue. With some exceptions. In certain calibers (.38 Spl) it may be the only way you're going to get reliable expansion, maybe not then. I haven't been able to capture any 158 gr LHP .38's to figure out if they've expanded-after 24 inches of tissue, I kinda doubt they did.

 

[Skeptic49]

NATO standards are most concerned that ammo from any source will work in any weapon chambered for it. The idea that NATO standard ammo is excessively high powered, is not true.
Geoff
Who notes various tests of NATO standard ammo on line.

 

[Charlie Petty]

Gee Mike...Jim coined pizza pistol, not me

FWIW I don't like the 92 either... just does not feel good to me... but I'd be all over buying one if it was USGI

Apparently there is something to the change in NATO pressure standards. For another project I shot several different M882 9mm NATO lots and compared them with current Winchester white box which is marked "nato" and has the same headstamp. Velocities were identical between those and threeedifferent lots of GI.