quote:

Originally posted by pblanc:
As for why Beretta put a manual thumb safety on the 92FS, I am quite certain the Army required one for the M9.

Yep. The wondernines didn't all have the same safety/decocker design by accident.

For many decades prior to the US military's adoption of the M9, similar style slide-mounted safety/decocker levers had already been used on a number of handguns, like the S&W 39 and 59, or the Walther P38 and PP, or the Makarov.

Even the Beretta 92 had implemented it on the 92S model in the mid-1970s, years before the Beretta was being considered by the US military.

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
Or, you could just use the slide release. The slingshot method is for the 1911, which you have to adjust your firing grip to actuate the release, and the Glock which has a useless slide release.
"Fine motor skills go out the window under stress" Like, pulling a trigger while aligning the sights?
"But you should only use one way for all weapons"
Because the manual of arms for a 249 is the same as an M-16?

How do you use a slide release to clear malfunctions? It's kind of hard to do a tap-rack-assess without manipulating the slide.

There's about 4 inches of slide in front of the chamber, away from the safety, and also keeps your hand away from anything you're trying to force out of the gun.

I always do an overhand hold on top of the barrel, never from the back. That's why I like front serrations.

I like the 92fs safety lever the way it is. No “g” mod in my future.

I put the safety on my 92 S during a ceterfire competition. Lost 6 shots before I woke up & got back in the game.
Had to play catchup... got back to business, and still tied for 1st place.
Thank the Lord , I had sense & 50 dollars for a trigger job, prior to the shoot.

I just hate a slide mounted safety no matter what kind of gun its on or how its engaged. Even when the lever only serves as a decocker it’s still in an awkward location.

I find that I don’t activate the safety while cycling the action, if I turn the pistol horizontally to towards the midline of the body and Cycle the action aka slingshot method.

had my M9 since 2013 and practiced with safety on in the night stand - Hated the thought of a opps - I'm dead. Started the Never a safety mode - fine - matched my PK380 as well.

Then I started USPSA - after the first Make Ready and screwing up leaving the safety on I went to "G" -

I have even put my 1911 on safety during comp mag changes. Funny how that beeper changes everything.

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:
I still don't get why they abandoned the frame mounted thumb safety. Or why they bother with ANY thumb safety at all. Use the strategy of holding the hammer off the back of the firing pin like SIG does with the classic P-series hammer guns and be done with the need for a stupid thumb safety altogether.

CZ decocks to "half cocked" as well. I sold my 92 pistols before the g conversion was available. I mean the design had been out for 30 years. Truth is that Beretta felt very little need to do anything other than crank out 92fs' until the military grumbles began. Then it was suddenly like all 30 years of criticism were addressed in 2 years.

What??? Berettas reintroducing compacts, g levers, and the 92a3 which has a grip that looks a lot like the Vertec's.

quote:

Originally posted by kalford:
I sold my 92 pistols before the g conversion was available. I mean the design had been out for 30 years. Truth is that Beretta felt very little need to do anything other than crank out 92fs' until the military grumbles began. Then it was suddenly like all 30 years of criticism were addressed in 2 years.

Sometimes, it takes someone new in the company in a position of influence and ingenuity to take existing parts from another gun and stick them in ole faithful and show the engineers that the hard part was already done, they just needed to sign off on it.

The beauty of the G kit is that it uses basically 8000 Cougar series levers which can be converted back and forth from FS to G and back, unlike the 92G which needs slide modifications and special G levers. They're a little clunky compared to 92G levers but a retro-capable $55 accessory fix is pretty nice to have.

quote:

Originally posted by kalford:
What??? Berettas reintroducing compacts, g levers, and the 92a3 which has a grip that looks a lot like the Vertec's.

M9A3. It's a COTS upgrade; a 92 Vertec w/ some features added. So, yes, it looks a lot like a Vertec.

There are a few alive today who might not otherwise, thanks to gun-grabbers who were slowed as they tried to figure out the safety.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
In over twenty years of using the 92 series both professionally and personally I have NEVER inadvertently activated the safety. EVER. Utilizing the Beretta and Smith third gen saftey style never made me blink an eye, they are as easy as flicking off the safety on a 1911. Or not having a safety on a Sig or a Glock.

Personally I think the entire thing is overblown.

Practice, practice, practice. And you will not have a problem with any of them.

I used a 92 in IDPA for a while - maybe two years of regular shooting. I managed to activate the safety once accidentally. And I was careful. It isn't impossible. The G design is superior in every way.