Well, I did it…went up to Grants store today with the intention of buying a 92FS…but while there, I also looked at a stainless Vertec…Wow! what a difference. The 92’s grip felt “fat” compared to the Vertec, and the trigger also felt as if it was farther out. The Vertec just felt right. The grip feels right, trigger reach is perfect for me. I bought the Vertec… got on Brownell’s site and ordered a “D” spring, I figure I’ll shoot it for a while before I do anything else to it.
That IS a steal of a deal even if it is a basic 92FS. Says on his site that they are Italian made too.
I might have to re-think the M9 because this is hundreds less than most M9s I can find near me.
…tempting
I have a current product 92G (decock only) and have been very pleased with it. This is not my first introduction to the 92, I’ve had three (SD, Vertec G and Centurion G) from 2004 - 2010, so the reliability is not unexpected. On my current 92G, I’ve replaced the stock hammer with the Elite II hammer, installed a 13lb hammer spring, VZ Tactical Slant grips and finally the Wilson Combat fixed rear sight. I really like the plain black sight picture of the rear sight and the U notch. It’s less cluttered than the two dot rear that came with the gun. This is the same rear sight that is installed on the Wilson/Beretta Brigadier Tactical.
They are indeed Italian made… Before I chose the Vertec at Grant’s shop today, I did look at the 92fs, that he had… For that kind of money, you can’t go wrong.
The Beretta 92 has been the most consistently reliable 9mm pistol I’ve owned.
I think if I were to consider a 92 it would have to be a decock only model (G) with low-profile decock lever. It would also need a shorter grip and barrel. Thin panel grips and a dovetailed front sight are needed too.
That’s the only way I’d ISWB one. And even then it would still be heavier than say, a Glock 19 and hold two fewer rounds. The M92 Compact is one step but needs to go two or three more.
This thread amuses me - if you had asked this question 10 years ago, this thread would’ve taken a totally different direction. The M9 used to be the gun enthusiast’s whipping boy - it should’ve never replaced the 1911, should’ve lost to the 226, should’ve been a .45, etc.
The 226 is the M9’s closest competitor in my eyes. Personally, I’ll take the 226/Sig family everyday (and do, I carry a p229 on duty and a p239 off) due to ergonomics and controls, but that is purely a preference thing. I think that if the M9/92x series had come out with a railed model earlier, and had a continually produced/aftermarket supported compact model it could’ve eaten Sig’s lunch. Any pistol that the US military adopts for general issue has the opportunity for unlimited commercial success, but I think that Beretta missed the mark early on in the M9’s career. They’re definitely “getting it” lately with the G-SD models, M9A1 and A3, and the Wilson Combat partnership, but its a bit of a case of too little too late in the plastic striker fired era…
If Beretta built a frame-mounted decocker model, with a commensurate compact/“M” (single stack) model, they would’ve cleaned house. But then that pretty much describes the direction Sig went in after losing the US military trials. SIG has cleaned up in the Federal LE market, which could’ve been Beretta’s had they been paying attention to the market.
Have any of you M9/92 owners had any issues with the locking blocks? The Berettas I used to deal with were all service pistols, so I’m curious as to whether that played a part in the frequency of broken locking blocks that I had seen.
You would be seriously hard pressed to find an actual person with locking block issues that is using the Gen 3 block. I imagine it’s different in the military where the guns are terribly abused, parts swapped around, and service history is over 20 years. EL has one Beretta over 100,000 rnds by the way. If your lug does break however, or chip, it can induce abnormal wear to the slide and frame. I’ve seen some suggestions to change the locking block every 20,000ish rounds. EL has a good guide on preventative maintenance. Military Beretta pistols should not be compared to the ones in private ownership in terms of longevity IMHO.
That’s why I was asking. The locking blocks I used to see seemed almost like pot metal when they broke. That was the one reason I have never looked into purchasing a Beretta. I wish I had found this site sooner.
Yea I pretty much hated my m9 since the day it was issued to me.
Too heavy? Absolutely. Comperable pistols weigh considerably less. Seriously a glock 19 would be a much better service pistol. What people don’t realize when they talk about service pistols is: they are not the military’s A plan. In fact if you are in the military and have to employ a handgun (exception MP’s and AFSF) pretty much the world has fallen apart. Like really a pistol is nothing more than a “get off me” gun for POGs and BOB’s. Shit, maybe if the gun didn’t weigh 3.5 pounds than people wouldn’t have to remove them before using the latrine and subsequently forget them.
Where have you see a lot of broken locking blocks? I have “owned” several hundred M9s throughout my time in and have only seen 1, what I have seen the most of is broken trigger return springs and lost trigger bar springs. The trigger bar spring can literally be scrubbed out of the pistol by the vigorous usage of an AP brush up the mag well.
I used to see at least one in every detail (at least the larger ones) that would pass through the Marine range I used to work at. It was bad enough that we used to bring out loaners until the unit armorer could fix them.
I was a unit armorer for a few years, only thing I ever had to mess with was trigger springs.
I guess your M9s were better than those of the units I trained.
We had several broken locking blocks every cycle of HRP and SAWIC.
Changing to the latest generation of locking blocks (whatever that was around 06) solved the issue.
Yep, early gen locking blocks-
usually one or two out of twenty high round count training personnel twice a year.
Military issue M9s with decades of service, unknown round counts, the original locking blocks, and unknown how lubed they used to be kept…
Out of eight years saw about a dozen broken locking blocks, twice that jacked up the frame rails.
The original locking blocks seemed to be fine on guns that were well lubed for tens of thousands of rounds.
Tens of thousands of rounds without ever getting a new recoil spring and a history of not being lubed well seemed to be the issue.
That’s pretty much everything I’ve ever read in a nutshell. I seem to remember that before the military adopted the M9, they went through their inventory of 1911’s and found that at least half were worn out, (probably from the same lack of basic maintenance) So, it’s no wonder they had some problems. I’ve read where some M9’s found in service, appeared not to have had a recoil spring changed since they were new. In a few extreme cases, that was about a decade, and God knows how many rounds prior. And they wonder why things like locking blocks would break… In one way, the substantial amount of abuse that both the M9, and 1911 endured are testaments to their designs. It will be interesting if the military does change pistols/calibers, how well the next generation will fare, considering the lack of maintenance they’ll probably get…
I’m replying to this from memory. Maybe I read it in the M9A3 thread or some other forum, but, am I safe to assume that the locking block and trigger spring issues are no longer an issue, especially if one intends to purchase an M9A3?