GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-08-2012, 19:09   #1
gatorglockman
Senior Member
 
gatorglockman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama, USA
Posts: 703
Beretta 92FS vs M9

Okay.....did a prior thread on Beretta. I am close to pulling the trigger on a NIB Italian made 92FS that I can get a very good deal on where I moonlight (I get a pretty good employee discount).

That said, I served in the Army and carried an M9 so it has some sentimental value to me.

I am not an expert on the differences between the pistols except for the finish and that the M9's are made in the US. I can get the 92FS for about $50-60 less than the best deal I have found on the M9.

Feedback, opinion or guidance?
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum

"If you seek peace, prepare for war"
And that is why it is called 9mm parabellum
gatorglockman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 19:23   #2
JaPes
Rimfire 1010101
 
JaPes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NW Burbs, IL
Posts: 1,666
The big difference is in the grip, where the beaver tail is. The 92fs usually has more of a radius there than the M9. The 92fs dust cover is slanted, whereas the M9 is flat/straight.

This is not always the case, because I've seen 92fs' built with M9 frames at the chain retailer.

The front sight blade on a 92fs is fixed to the frame. I'm not sure about an M9's.

Shipwreck should be around soon enough to give you the rundown. He's the resident 92-addict. :D

Have you considered either a 92A1 or M9A1? I believe they have a picatinny rail and dovetailed front sights.
__________________
NRA Life Memeber | 2nd Amendment Foundation Member | Illinois State Rifle Assoc. Member | GSSF Member
-------------------------
Glock 26 Gen4 | Glock 29SF | Glock 22 Gen4 | Glock 17 Gen4 (X2)

Last edited by JaPes; 04-08-2012 at 19:28..
JaPes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 23:05   #3
TalkToTheGlock
Zombie Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,213
I am shipwreck junior.


I have a bunch of 92fs and a M9.

I like the grip better on the M9. That extra radius makes the gun sit deeper in my grip. It feels better.

Also, the markings are a lot nicer on the M9.

Some people will say fit and finish are better on the Italians. I don't see the difference in fit at all. Finish I would give the slight edge to the Italian, but it might just be my mind olaying tricks on me.

I carry my M9 mostly in the winter with a shoulder rig under a zip up hoodie and I an comfortable with it.

I put around 1,000 rounds through my 92fs and 1,500 through my M9. Both are accurate and a oleasure to shoot. I do however like the feel of the 92fs trigger more. Feels more crisp.

My opinion... Snag a 92fs Italian now before they run dry. I am a sucker for pistol manufactured in Italy. And since it is cheaper, that's a plus!



iPhone 4
TalkToTheGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 23:09   #4
collim1
Shower Time!
 
collim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 9,955
The only difference that matters to me is the is the M9 does not have all the roll markings of the civie 92fs version.

I dont need "do not point gun at your own head" and "will fire bullets" stamped all over my gun. Put that crap in the manual, not on the frame of the gun.
collim1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 23:12   #5
TalkToTheGlock
Zombie Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by collim1 View Post
The only difference that matters to me is the is the M9 does not have all the roll markings of the civie 92fs version.

I dont need "do not point gun at your own head" and "will fire bullets" stamped all over my gun. Put that crap in the manual, not on the frame of the gun.

That's one thing I hate about my all of my 92fs. It especially ruins my INOX for me. I love that gun, but when I see the right side I cringe.

For looks, the M9 wins with markings.

iPhone 4
TalkToTheGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 08:38   #6
Navitimer
Senior Member
 
Navitimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 786
I went through the same analysis a few months ago, and ended up with the 92FS-A1, which is the latest version with an accessory rail. They also make an M9-A1. There are several differences as the other posters have mentioned. I believe there is a sticky thread on a Beretta forum (just do a google search for the forum - I can't recall the actual name). I also believe the Beretta website has a .pdf you can download that breaks down the differences. Have fun in your search! That's one of my favorite parts of getting a new firearm is learning so much about the different models, features, etc. Hope this helps.
Navitimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 08:47   #7
gatorglockman
Senior Member
 
gatorglockman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama, USA
Posts: 703
THX gents. I know the Beretta will be like a Lay's potato chip...once I get one, I will want another. For the price diff and savings, if I do this, I will wade in with the 92FS I think.
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum

"If you seek peace, prepare for war"
And that is why it is called 9mm parabellum
gatorglockman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 08:48   #8
Shipwreck-The-Sequel
Beretta 92 Nut!
 
Shipwreck-The-Sequel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hockey City, Texas
Posts: 2,385
See, I prefer the 92FS with the curved dustcover and the rear strap indentation over the M(. I have small hands - that little bit of difference on the rear strap brings my hand closer to the trigger. Not much difference, but it is noticeable.

I can tell the difference right away when I hold them both.

I bought a 92FS built on an M9 frame last year - just because I collect 92s. But, it's not my preference for the frame.

I also do not care for the dot and post setup of the M9 - I like the 3 dot sights of the 92FS better.

Here are some pics, though...

General Firearms Forum

General Firearms Forum
__________________
-
Visit: Texas Gun Forum!!!!

Last edited by Shipwreck-The-Sequel; 04-09-2012 at 08:48..
Shipwreck-The-Sequel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 09:25   #9
NeverMore1701
Platinum Membership
Fear no evil.
 
NeverMore1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Amarillo, Tx
Posts: 27,538
I much prefer the radiused backstrap of the 92.
__________________
And if we should die tonight
We should all die together
Raise a glass of wine
For the last time
NeverMore1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 09:44   #10
Glockdude1
CLM Number 185
Federal Member
 
Glockdude1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Beaumont,Texas
Posts: 26,613


No collection is complete without a Beretta 92.

__________________
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
Glockdude1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 17:20   #11
Sheepdog Scout
Behind you!
 
Sheepdog Scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Who knows?
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockdude1 View Post
No collection is complete without a Beretta 92.

Or 6.
__________________
http://www.aspca.org/donate
Sheepdog Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 17:50   #12
Alizard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 918
I recall that Beretta guaranteed interchangeability of key parts (slides, barrels, locks, etc) on the M9 but not on the 92FS. In other words, tolerances are held better on the MIL gun.
Alizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:02   #13
NeverMore1701
Platinum Membership
Fear no evil.
 
NeverMore1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Amarillo, Tx
Posts: 27,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizard View Post
I recall that Beretta guaranteed interchangeability of key parts (slides, barrels, locks, etc) on the M9 but not on the 92FS. In other words, tolerances are held better on the MIL gun.
That's a new one to me....
__________________
And if we should die tonight
We should all die together
Raise a glass of wine
For the last time
NeverMore1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:08   #14
RWBlue
CLM Number 120
Mr. CISSP, CISA
 
RWBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 27,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipwreck-The-Sequel View Post
See, I prefer the 92FS with the curved dustcover and the rear strap indentation over the M(. I have small hands - that little bit of difference on the rear strap brings my hand closer to the trigger. Not much difference, but it is noticeable.

I can tell the difference right away when I hold them both.

I bought a 92FS built on an M9 frame last year - just because I collect 92s. But, it's not my preference for the frame.

I also do not care for the dot and post setup of the M9 - I like the 3 dot sights of the 92FS better.

Here are some pics, though...

General Firearms Forum

General Firearms Forum
My really old 92FS looks like the M9 frame. Have they changed over the years?
__________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.
RWBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:08   #15
.45Super-Man
Senior Member
 
.45Super-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Smallville
Posts: 4,836
I have older92fs as well as a few newer ones. While I do like the aesthetics of the original more, along with the all metal parts, the newer model with radiused backstrap DOES feel better in the hand. While it's not a huge difference, the radius is perfectly placed and is noticeable. And while I cant offer up any proof, the newer version feels just a tad heavier at the muzzle.
__________________
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"- Thomas Jefferson
.45Super-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:21   #16
JaPes
Rimfire 1010101
 
JaPes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NW Burbs, IL
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdog Scout View Post
Or 6.
That's just daring Shipwreck to pull out the infamous "Wheel of Beretta" pic.
__________________
NRA Life Memeber | 2nd Amendment Foundation Member | Illinois State Rifle Assoc. Member | GSSF Member
-------------------------
Glock 26 Gen4 | Glock 29SF | Glock 22 Gen4 | Glock 17 Gen4 (X2)
JaPes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:33   #17
maniDAR
Senior Member
 
maniDAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: nj
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdog Scout View Post
Or 6.
Very well said and YES thanks to this forum i am a proud owner of 92FS.
maniDAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:39   #18
.45Super-Man
Senior Member
 
.45Super-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Smallville
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizard View Post
I recall that Beretta guaranteed interchangeability of key parts (slides, barrels, locks, etc) on the M9 but not on the 92FS. In other words, tolerances are held better on the MIL gun.
That dog wont hunt.
__________________
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"- Thomas Jefferson
.45Super-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 18:50   #19
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 54,774


The minor cosmetic differences between the two variants don't really mean much to me at all.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 00:42   #20
Sheepdog Scout
Behind you!
 
Sheepdog Scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Who knows?
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWBlue View Post
My really old 92FS looks like the M9 frame. Have they changed over the years?
Yes. The slanted dustcover is something that evolved from the straight one. Supposedly, it's to help maintain the strength and service life of the frame. They did this in the early 90s for the .40 caliber 96s. And since the 92 and 96 use the same frame. Though you still see some 92s pop up with the straight frame, like we did last year (contract overruns I believe). If the military specs and contracts weren't set in stone, there could be no more straight dustcover 92s made. But I for one prefer the look of the straight dust covers.
__________________
http://www.aspca.org/donate

Last edited by Sheepdog Scout; 04-10-2012 at 00:45..
Sheepdog Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 00:46   #21
Sheepdog Scout
Behind you!
 
Sheepdog Scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Who knows?
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaPes View Post
That's just daring Shipwreck to pull out the infamous "Wheel of Beretta" pic.
Every chance he gets.
__________________
http://www.aspca.org/donate
Sheepdog Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 01:07   #22
Alizard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverMore1701 View Post
That's a new one to me....
I called Beretta factory to ask if I could buy one of those surplus .40 top ends and drop it onto a 92 frame and they said they don't guarantee slides from a different Beretta will drop onto the 92s but they do on the M9. That's what they said.

It did work on mine no problem, BTW....

They said there are MINOR differences between a 92 and 96 frame..... but obviously not enough to be significant. A slight difference in the feed ramp cut? Anyway, Beretta used to sell a "dual" gun that came with both a 9mm and .40 top end, and the factory guy said it was a standard 96 frame used with both. I used a standard 92 frame with both tops and it worked.

I also used the Beretta factory 9mm magazines to feed .40 and they worked as well. I was told the mag shells are the same, slight variation between 9mm and .40 follower but worked in mine.

Last edited by Alizard; 04-10-2012 at 01:13..
Alizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 01:08   #23
faawrenchbndr
CLM Number 281
NRA Life Member
 
faawrenchbndr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: US
Posts: 31,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizard View Post
I recall that Beretta guaranteed interchangeability of key parts (slides, barrels, locks, etc) on the M9 but not on the 92FS. In other words, tolerances are held better on the MIL gun.

Bahullcrahhhp!
faawrenchbndr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 01:14   #24
Alizard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by faawrenchbndr View Post
Bahullcrahhhp!
Like I said, take it up with the factory.
Alizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 01:18   #25
Alizard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 918
Quote:
The M9 is a short recoil, semi-automatic, single-action / double-action pistol which uses a 15-round staggered box magazine with a reversible magazine release button that can be positioned for either right- or left-handed shooters. The M9 is used with the Bianchi M12 Holster, though other holsters are often used. The specific modifications made from the Beretta 92 includes:
  • Design of all the parts to make them 100% interchangeable to simplify maintenance for large government organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_pistol

I was told the interchangeability was required to meet the govt contract, it was NOT extended to civilian guns.

This topic got beat to death over on the original Beretta forum, it came up every time CDNN ran a $100 special on the surplus used 96 slide/barrel combos they would have from time to time. Beretta gave the same answer: unless it's a MIL gun, it's only guaranteed to work with the slide it came with.

Last edited by Alizard; 04-10-2012 at 01:28..
Alizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:53.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,159
307 Members
852 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42