Kreyzhorse
New member
You can carry either but you will have to dress around them. Winter is easier, summer will be a bitch.
crimsondave said: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 said: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.