So the Beretta 92 is a fantastic pistol but in FS models has the “backwards” safety decocker.

The fear is it can be put on safe when racking the slide. This is completely legitimate and can be corrected with the G version.

I was shooting a 92 the other day and started wondering why I have never done this. Now I am not using it under stress or getting shot at so take my anecdote for what it is.

Anyway I decided to pay more attention to how I work the slide instead or I unconsciously doing it. What I found is without thinking I tend to use the safety decockers as sort of charging ears and I sort of instinctively grab and pull up on them as a charging support.

So I was VP9 cool long before the VP9.

and, thus the G-action retro kits were born....

Yep, they should have done those years ago. I may put one on my 92fs but I don’t have a huge issue with it as is.

What's crazy is that Beretta hasn't churned out thousands of their SAO/Frame Safety 92 variants with an aluminum frame.

I can see the appeal of the G conversion, but I've yet to have an issue with my 92FS safety. I keep it off safe. When I pick it up I sweep my thumb to make sure it's off. I use a slingshot method when manipulating the slide, which helps keep the safety off, but I still do a sweep with my thumb to make sure it's off. It actually works pretty well for me when using a thumbs-forward grip.

Despite my small/medium-sized hands I can manipulate the safety/decocker easily with my shooting hand thumb.

I've thought about doing the G conversion, but at this point in time it's not really worth the cost and trouble for me.

Since I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a safety on a DA/SA pistol, I installed the G conversion kit on my Brigadier last Wednesday night.

It's a wonderful thing!

Personally, I prefer the Wilson Combat low profile single sided safety/decocker. The new G kits look a bit goofy, specifically the right ear. The Wilson safety is very low profile in comparison.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:
I can see the appeal of the G conversion, but I've yet to have an issue with my 92FS safety. I keep it off safe. When I pick it up I sweep my thumb to make sure it's off. I use a slingshot method when manipulating the slide, which helps keep the safety off, but I still do a sweep with my thumb to make sure it's off.

That's exactly what I did with my DA/SA S&W 3rd Gens too. They have the same style slide-mounted safety-decocker as the Beretta 92.

I never had an issue with the safety becoming inadvertently engaged. I used it solely as a decocker, and trained to sweep my thumb to ensure the safety was in fact off when drawing/firing.

quote:

used it solely as a decocker, and trained to sweep my thumb to ensure the safety was in fact off when drawing/firing.

This is what I needed to add. Every time I drew a 92 or Smith I swept my thump up. To me it was very simple to do. As simple as swiping it down on a 1911.

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.

True. I never had an issue with my 92FS when I carried it as my duty weapon. However, the Wilson safety really unclutters the rear of the slide quite nicely.

That's my biggest concern. My 92fs is for range use only but as I grab the top of the slide to "slingshot" rack it I always find the safety in the way and kind of uncomfortable.

First thing I said to my PX4’s was well bye, and slim levers were bought and installed. Love the G’s, don’t like the F’s nor the bat wings.

My only gripe with the 92fs safety is that it is too small. I would like a P-38 style humungo one.

I guess I would really prefer the frame mounted type as on the limited edition types.

Its possible to convert to the oversized setup. Brownells has the parts....runs about $300 for a pair of levers and all the small parts. Then, pic up a 92D variant and send to Josh at AAGW. I have a 92 Centurion in NP3 that's been converted (by another respective smith); one slide is 9mm and the other is 357SIG. Makes for a nice, compact setup. Josh can also do the small, single lever conversion from the original production 92 of the 1970's.

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.

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.

The only times I've ever inadvertently engaged the safety was when using an overhand grip when manipulating the slide. It's one of the reasons I use a slingshot grip; safety stayed off.

The nice thing about the safety on the 92FS is that the lever is spring-loaded. I can sweep the safety off with the same motion I used on 1911s.

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?

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.

I also like the Wilson Combat lo-pro non-ambidextrous safety lever on the 92FS. I think it is a good choice for a right handed shooter in that it pretty much eliminates the right side of the lever, and it makes accidentally putting the pistol on safe just about impossible.

I also never had an issue accidentally engaging the safety, but the big levers do tend to get in the way of rapid slide manipulation.

It would make it harder to disengage the safety quickly, but most people who use the 92 for self-defense carry it hammer down with the safety off anyway, so this is not really an issue for most.

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