What would you pick?

[Kreyzhorse]

You can carry either but you will have to dress around them. Winter is easier, summer will be a bitch.

 

[ATN082268]

If you want to CC it, I'd go 92 (or M9). I prefer the M9 sights to the 92. As far as I know, that is the only difference between the two. Very proven platform.

I looked at Beretta's website and they have a number of variations of the 92 pistol. The M9 even has an M9A1. Why do you like the sights better on the M9? Are they any significant differences in any of the different models?

 

[AustinTX]

I looked at Beretta's website and they have a number of variations of the 92 pistol. The M9 even has an M9A1. Why do you like the sights better on the M9? Are they any significant differences in any of the different models?

There's a dizzying assortment of differences. I'll lay them out below.

The M9 has dot-and-post sights. The 92FS has standard three-dot sights. The other really important difference, for people with smaller hands, is the presence of a radiused backstrap on the 92FS, which the M9 lacks. This makes a big difference for some people in being able to reach the trigger. There may also be a difference in holsters between the models, because the M9 has a straight dustcover (as on the early 92FS), while the 92FS has a slanted dustcover.

The M9A1 is just a current 92FS with a rail. That is the one and only difference between the models.

If you intend to carry the pistol, I would suggest a 92G over a 92FS. The 92G's slide-mounted lever is decocker-only and automatically springs back to the "fire" position after use, whereas the 92FS's lever is both a decocker and a safety. Other than that, the 92FS and 92G are identical. With the DA trigger pull on your first shot, there's essentially no risk of some snag on clothing, etc. pulling the trigger hard and far enough to fire the gun, so a safety is kind of superfluous. The advantage of the 92G is that the lever can never have been accidentally switched to safe at a time when you want the gun to fire. Some people still like to have an actual safety, though; it comes down to personal preference.

The 92A1 has improved three-dot sights and a removable front sight. The previously-discussed variants all have front sights that are milled into the slide and that cannot be removed. The 92A1 has a strengthened frame (not needed for 9mm; this was done for the .40 version, the 96A1) and a slightly heavier slide. It has the radiused backstrap of the 92FS/92G and a rail like the M9A1. It has a safety/decocker combination and is not currently available in a decocker-only configuration. The 92A1 also comes standard with 17-round mags; these mags will work in any of the other variants discussed above, but for some unknown reason Beretta ships all of those with 15-round mags. Finally, the 92A1 has a built-in recoil buffer. I don't notice any difference in recoil in 9mm between the 92A1 and models without a buffer, but I could tell a bit of a difference in .40. I don't know anything about holsters for the 92 variants, but the 92A1 is dimensionally different in some ways from all of the previously-discussed variants (rounded trigger guard, slightly thicker slide, rail, differences in frame).

To add to this already-confusing mess, Beretta has reintroduced a couple of old 92 variants that aren't on their website: (1) the Brigadier-slide version, which is a 92FS with a thicker slide that weighs 12.70 oz. to the standard 92FS slide's 11.25 oz. (technically unnecessary, but something Beretta aficionados like); and (2) the Vertec, only in Inox (stainless) for now, which has a substantially thinner grip (front-to-back) to accommodate people with smaller hands.

Hope that helps! Feel free to ask any other questions if I can clarify something.

 

[ATN082268]

There's a dizzying assortment of differences. I'll lay them out below.

The M9 has dot-and-post sights. The 92FS has standard three-dot sights. The other really important difference, for people with smaller hands, is the presence of a radiused backstrap on the 92FS, which the M9 lacks. This makes a big difference for some people in being able to reach the trigger. There may also be a difference in holsters between the models, because the M9 has a straight dustcover (as on the early 92FS), while the 92FS has a slanted dustcover.

The M9A1 is just a current 92FS with a rail. That is the one and only difference between the models.

If you intend to carry the pistol, I would suggest a 92G over a 92FS. The 92G's slide-mounted lever is decocker-only and automatically springs back to the "fire" position after use, whereas the 92FS's lever is both a decocker and a safety. Other than that, the 92FS and 92G are identical. With the DA trigger pull on your first shot, there's essentially no risk of some snag on clothing, etc. pulling the trigger hard and far enough to fire the gun, so a safety is kind of superfluous. The advantage of the 92G is that the lever can never have been accidentally switched to safe at a time when you want the gun to fire. Some people still like to have an actual safety, though; it comes down to personal preference.

The 92A1 has improved three-dot sights and a removable front sight. The previously-discussed variants all have front sights that are milled into the slide and that cannot be removed. The 92A1 has a strengthened frame (not needed for 9mm; this was done for the .40 version, the 96A1) and a slightly heavier slide. It has the radiused backstrap of the 92FS/92G and a rail like the M9A1. It has a safety/decocker combination and is not currently available in a decocker-only configuration. The 92A1 also comes standard with 17-round mags; these mags will work in any of the other variants discussed above, but for some unknown reason Beretta ships all of those with 15-round mags. Finally, the 92A1 has a built-in recoil buffer. I don't notice any difference in recoil in 9mm between the 92A1 and models without a buffer, but I could tell a bit of a difference in .40. I don't know anything about holsters for the 92 variants, but the 92A1 is dimensionally different in some ways from all of the previously-discussed variants (rounded trigger guard, slightly thicker slide, rail, differences in frame).

To add to this already-confusing mess, Beretta has reintroduced a couple of old 92 variants that aren't on their website: (1) the Brigadier-slide version, which is a 92FS with a thicker slide that weighs 12.70 oz. to the standard 92FS slide's 11.25 oz. (technically unnecessary, but something Beretta aficionados like); and (2) the Vertec, only in Inox (stainless) for now, which has a substantially thinner grip (front-to-back) to accommodate people with smaller hands.

Hope that helps! Feel free to ask any other questions if I can clarify something.

That helps a bunch. Thank you for the valuable information !!!

 

[Deaf Smith]

ATN,

If you get them new....

Beretta 92FS $600
FNX-45 Tactical $1000!!!!
Mossberg 590A1 $500

So since the FNX costs much, you can get the Mossberg AND a pistol.

Personally I'd get the 590A1 and a Glock 19 size gun for CCW. That would be around $1000 if you look some.

The 93FS is just too thick for good CCW most of the time. The Glock 19 will give you the same 'firepower' but smaller and simpler package.

You then have both a CCW and home defense shotgun.

Deaf

 

[BigMikey76]

I went with the shotgun. It may not be as much fun at the range, but for home defense, which I feel is more important, a shotgun out shines any handgun on the market.
As far as shooting it at the range, ask the range folks what their rules are. My local ranges allow shotguns, but only with slugs. Other ranges may have different rules.
If you have the ability to set up a shooting area on your own property, that is the best option. The money you save in range fees can go to putting more rounds down range, or you could put the "range fee" money into a jar every time you shoot on your home range. You will be surprised at how quickly you can afford to pick up the next gun on your wish list.

 

[Sequins]

IMO you shpuld D/Q the FNX45. The FNX series was slightly suboptimal with occasional loose backstraps and magazine wobble, and at that price for a polymer why risk it? Also FNH is going to launch a new pistol relatively soon, so you might really rue the purchase a year or two from now when a "same but better" FNH model comes out.

Also, why go tactical unless you have a suppressor? Huge expense and unless you have a can to throw on why bother?

I voted 92FS because it'll do what you want, MIGHT be able to conceal on your frame, and is just a great gun. I've got one and its my favourite range shooter.

 

[Blue Duck]

My vote is for the 92FS, because it will be more fun on the range, fairly accurate, magazines and ammo are pretty easy to come by. Can be more accessible at night and faster to deploy without having to get up to get a shotgun.

It can be carried concealed although it is a bit thick, compared to other options. The 92 is a pretty proven design. If you did get the shotgun, I wouldn't get a Mossberg, anyway. And for a first gun, the 45 cal is more expensive to shoot, probably and the 92 is just a good choice over the other two.

Get the 92 if you want, then save up and add other guns later, like a good .22 cal pistol, so you can shoot a lot, then a shotgun, or smaller CCW Pistol or small revolver, because the 92 really is a little on the big side for an all around CCW gun.

 

[Tucker 1371]

I've had my eye on the FNX-45 for quite a while. Since you plan on concealed carrying the shotgun is obviously out, for now anyway. I owned a 590A1 and it was a fine shotgun but if you're entertaining the idea of getting your carry permit then you need something that will fill both roles.

I carry a full size 1911 and it doesn't bother me a bit. I'm not a big guy either 5'7" 160 lbs. However, a 1911 is considerably slimmer than either the 92A1 or the FNX. You are also not me. You may buy the FNX or Beretta and get so annoyed with carrying them that you decide to leave it home more often than not. We don't get to choose when or if something or someone bad happens to us, a gun at home or left in the glovebox does you no good.

With all that said and given the options you specified, I say go with the FNX. I personally find the ergonomics to be much better than the 92A1, I think the manual safety is far more intuitive, and it's polymer framed so it will be a little lighter and more comfortable to carry than the Beretta.

But I strongly urge you to take a long hard look at what you're going to be comfortable carrying day in and day out. Maybe look at something that is a little bit closer to a Glock 19/CZ P-07 size wise.

I suggest that if/when you decide to start carrying, no matter the gun you choose, that you invest and a very good holster and belt combo, I am very pleased with the belt I got from Crossbreed Holsters. Good Luck in your decision!

 

[testuser79]

Shotgun, no question. It's probably less fun to shoot, but it's essential in the sticks. I look at mine as an invaluable tool.

I've lived in the country my entire life and I've had to use a 12 gauge or rifle on several occasions. In my case it's always been to dispatch a rabid or otherwise aggressive problem animal, generally, it's been in the middle of the night, too. Ranges vary between 10 to 35 yards. Over the years, I can't think of a single incident in which I would have preferred to have a handgun instead of a 12 gauge shotgun or rifle. Never.

I have a handgun for the house. I'm unlikely to ever need it. I keep long guns to police my property and will definitely have to use one again, almost certainly it will involve some sort of irate varmit. We've the event we've needed to kill a snake, and that's very rare, a hoe works pretty well, but if I'm not around, I doubt my wife will get close enough to a copperhead to use a garden tool. She'll likely just pick up the shotgun.

There's definitely a difference between the kinds of guns someone in a suburban or urban might need vs. a rural setting. With no animal control to speak of and sparse police presence, I can't think of anyone without a 12 gauge, even people that don't hunt or shoot regularly will have an 870 just in case.