Both. Like in a John Woo movie.

whichever I can more readily swap to a 92G configuration.

quote:

Originally posted by pblanc:
For me, the grip of the 90-Two felt nothing like either the M9 or the 92FS.

It seemed to me that the top of the backstrap resembled the M9 more than it does that of the M92FS; my wild guess was that trigger reach on the M9 would be fine for me.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
whichever I can more readily swap to a 92G configuration.

They're the same in that regard.

Tough call.

It's pretty much a coin toss for me, but I think I'd be inclined to go with the M9 since it seems likes it might be closer to my mid-90s 92FS than the current 92FS. Can't really say for sure since I haven't handled any of the current generation 92s, but that'd be my guess based on what I've read/seen.

M9 would be my choice.

I’d go M9, or better yet Langdon LTT. Langdon also does a pimped out m9 as well

M9

1. no warnings on the frame

2. I-dot sight

3. straight dustcover

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by pblanc:
For me, the grip of the 90-Two felt nothing like either the M9 or the 92FS.

It seemed to me that the top of the backstrap resembled the M9 more than it does that of the M92FS; my wild guess was that trigger reach on the M9 would be fine for me.

You might be right. Certainly, the 90-Two grip did not have the small recurve at the top of the back strap that the 92FS has. It has been quite a long time since I have held a 90-Two, but as I recall its grip had a Vertec-like feel compared to that of the 92 series, and many people find the trigger reach on the Vertec less problematical than that of the 92FS/M9.

The 90-Two also had two different thicknesses of wrap-around polymer grip available which made a significant difference in trigger reach. Although I am given to understand that the pistol came stock with the thicker grip and that the thinner grip was somewhat difficult to find.

M9. No stupid warning on the frame .

The 92FS in Brigadier heavy-slide...

Pure shooting pleasure that is (doesn't conceal carry well)

M9, then G conversion and D spring or better yet the LTT trigger job in a bag.

Neither

Neither to the M9 or M92FS here too. But the 92A1 or LTT is a tough decision.

I had been searching for a 92 Centurion for sometime and stumbled upon a 92G in rough shape. I purchased it and sent it off to Cummings custom who restored its finish to a work of art. I’ve since added Langdons TJIAB, elite hammer & D spring mods. My search for the perfect Beretta is over..

I bought a 92FS in the mid 90's that had a straight dust cover and bar-dot sights. Was it an anomaly? I'd like to find another one.

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:
I bought a 92FS in the mid 90's that had a straight dust cover and bar-dot sights. Was it an anomaly? I'd like to find another one.

Nope, that's just how they were made back then. The slant dust cover frame was introduced sometime in the early 2000s.

The change was never applied to the M9 because Beretta isn't allowed to make changes to the TDP of the M9 without Army approval.

That said, Beretta USA has in the recent years started making normal commercial 92s with straight dust covers again, probably to save time from having to switch tooling between commercial and military productions.

However Pietro Beretta (Italy) continued to make new 92FSs with slant dust cover.

Why the change to the uglier slant cover? Is it easier to make? stronger?

Well, I have an M9A1 and I would buy it again over the two choices given in this poll.

M9

The main reason is the straight dustcover. To me it's just more aesthetically pleasing the the Italian slanted ones.