Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mmfan  While there are a few polymer parts on the newer 92FS guns like the safety, most of the parts, like the slide are still made of steel. The frame is still made with aircraft-quality aluminum alloy like it always has been. But like I have said before, calling the new Beretta 92FS junk is crazy. Some people like the light weight of a Glock. That's one reason why Glock has become so popular. Everyone on this web site is going to have guns that they like better than others. There is no right or wrong answer here. The gun a person can shoot the best and is the most reliable for them to use is the gun they should own. The Glock, the SIG and the Beretta are all great guns that are made great companys. But most foreign gun companys refuse to open a plant in the USA to manufacture their firearms. Even though they are making thousands for law enforcement. This is just one of the many reasons I like Beretta, not only are they the most reliable handguns I have ever owned most are also made in the USA. And giving jobs to americans. In fact, most of the guns that Beretta is selling is the US are made at their manufacturing plant in Maryland. It's just to bad that the US military can't use something like the 9mm 147 gr. Hydro-shock. 
(gel shots by Doug Carr)
"Take your pick. They all look like they'd do the job. If you do your job with shot placement.
Notice the heavier bullets - the FBI considers 12 inches of penetration a minimum to effectively stop the threat. Don't use those light 115gr 9mm or other weak useless "frangible" rounds that don't offer enough penetration." The M9 and the 92FS is not the same gun. The following is from Beretta and the US military: From Beretta regarding the USA 92FS and Italian 92FS: Quote: All of the technical specifications are the same. All parts are interchangeable. There are no technical differences. The only exceptions on the Italian made 92FS’s are: Italian markings Barrel will usually be marked "9MM" Inox and .40 Cal. slides will have different markings on slide denoting Inox and .40 Cal./9mm. Note that previously, it was thought that the barrel was cold hammer forged in the Italian versions, but that is NOT true. (PX4 and Cougar barrels are, however). Apparently, the barrel isn't always marked 9mm either. The differences between the M9 and 92FS:- The M9 usually has a straight dustcover and non-radiused backstrap (Contract Pistols will always be straight/straight)
- The 92FS (recent model) has a radiused backstrap and angled dustcover
- M9 markings (including proof markings and cage # markings)
- M9 lacks the warning to read owner's manual
- The rear sight of the 92FS has 2 dots, whereas the M9 has a single half-moon
- M9 (unless special or limited edition) comes in cardboard box, with no plastic hard case
All model 92/M9/M9A1/96/90Two model barrels are made the same way. All other aspects of 92FS and M9 are similar/identical. This includes warnings and polymer coated parts. |
Keep in mind that you did not show how FMJ rounds perform. HydraShock rounds are not standard rounds for combat or usual military encounters.
I would agree GlockMeister, it all comes down to personal preference... unless you are dictated by a department what you will use (what is acceptable by the city/county/state) in a professional capacity.
I say the new 92 is "junk" because of my admiration for the earlier version. While it truly isn't "junk" ... I personally prefer the earlier version, which others may not. Hey, it's their choice, not mine.
My understanding is that the Glock (.45) will be replacing the Beretta (9mm) (which was tied to the survival of the AB in Aviano)... I do have mixed (personal) feelings on this. I like the Beretta better than the Glock... probably due to exposure and training.
To each his own brother...