IPSC approved the new "optics" division last year that has near parity with USPSA "limited optics." Optics division will likely be the meta division for IPSC going forward because of the 141.25 mm magazine limit with no capacity limit (as opposed to "production optics" which is 15 rounds). Limited optics division in USPSA is the second most popular division and probably the fastest growing.

This gun is to the 92 as the full-size PDP Steel Frame is to the Q5 Match Steel Frame.

quote:

Originally posted by MacGyver:

quote:

Originally posted by bac1023:
I think this model will make a good shooter out of the design.

What makes you say that?

I like the steel frame and the flatter trigger. If the trigger pull is similar to the 92X Performance, it will be much better than a standard 92FS or M9.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
IPSC approved the new "optics" division last year that has near parity with USPSA "limited optics."

I knew it was a gamer gun, but I didn't know IPSC approved a new division. Thanks. Now the big question is will it be as much as the 92X Performance or if Beretta is going to price this like the Shadow 2 Orange that they don't even build.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:

I thought the writing in the upper right photo said, "Bob Evans" at first!

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
This is or course serious thread drift. But there are so many positives to an actual stock on many/most guns that one would SBR. I can't even imagine the idea that with the current approval times and costs one would choose that. I personally have no issues saying suppressed on pistols is not that big a winner (we are in the pistol section) but the idea that you would forgo suppressors on rifles just boggles the mind IMO.

I completely agree from a functionality aspect. There are a number of guns I’m interested in that are inherently configured as SBRs (even suppressed). A perfect example is the entire MP5 series (MP5, MP5K, and MP5SD), especially with me being the HK fan that I am. However, the things that have to be done to these guns to get them stateside for civilian sale are absolutely ridiculous. The things that have to be done to them to get them even close to being back to their original configuration are even more ridiculous. I find it antithetical to the very idea of the USA, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So does watching other people jump through the hoops.

I agree though - thread drift.

It's a niche gun for a niche market. I don't have a problem with it.

quote:

Originally posted by bac1023:
I like the steel frame and the flatter trigger. If the trigger pull is similar to the 92X Performance, it will be much better than a standard 92FS or M9.

That’s fair. I was thinking the same, but I was more intrigued by other aspects of the ergonomics. The new grip shape/undercuts/length notwithstanding - I wonder if the weight balance will feel different as well. I always appreciated the 90-series and shot them well, but I was never too crazy about how they handled. So I’m curious to get one of these in the hand.

Regarding the IPSC stuff, I also didn’t know there was a new division. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised though since a lot of SIG’s puzzling XFIVE configurations are explained away by the very same thing.

I assume the price of the non-“Launch Edition” 94X Performance will be a touch more than the current 92X Performance.

Stupid video, moron shooting a gun one can hardly see.

quote:

Originally posted by ACP1:
Stupid video, moron shooting a gun one can hardly see.

MARKETING!! THANK YOU!!

The rear sight seems a bit much.

I read somewhere that 94 mags will fit 92 but 92 mags will not go into 94s. So, without seeing both in person, the design from the mag's feed lips to the Mag Release detent did not change... my personal theory. The length from the Mag Release to the bottom is longer on the 94 to match the longer grip design and that's why they will work on the shorter 92 mag tunnel.

My only concern is the 94's Safety, it's on the body. I am so used to the 92 with a slide mounted G type. It seems the lowered RDO cut may have forced to relocate the Safety to the body. Is it possible to change the body lever from an FS type to a Decocker/G lever?

That video was awful. I kept thinking...SHOW THE GUN.

At least it has a frame mounted safety. I always hated the slide mounted one on the 92.

Still, not really my thing.

I like the idea of a longer frame. One reason I prefer the 226 to the Beretta 92 is that the 226 frame is just a bit longer. I have a number of standard 92s and I'm not in the market for this but it's good that Beretta is still invested in the 92 design.

Wow. I didn’t even watch the video until seeing the comments about it. The music and especially the narration was horrible. Pistol seems ok.

Damn! Talk about jumping the shark.