I hate to break it to you guys, but your guns have light alloy frames, not real steel. Some older Berettas, like the Model 34/35 do have steel frames. Some M-951's do.
I have a Model 92FS, which I like very much. My son found the issued M-9 very functional and deadly in Iraq, even with NATO ball ammo. He's paying off a 92-FS now, although he somewhat prefers his SIG's and Colts. And he shares my love for the CZ-75B, which DOES have a steel frame.
Berettas do have a rep for reliability that few can match. I trust their .380's much more than most, but the slides are often hard for many users to operate; strong springs and blowback action that needs to be strong enough not to batter the Ergol frames. Many women and men with neuropathy or arthritis problems can't operate them. That's why they developed the Model 86 with tip-up bbl.
On the other hand, the M-92 9mm's use a P-38-derived locking sytem and are among the easiest 9mm's to cycle. The slight radius cut on the back of the FS grip does a lot to make the gun useable for those with smaller hands. You have to look hard to see it compared to the M-9, but your hand will feel the difference. I can use the M-9, but the 92-FS does feel better in my hands, which are not small. My fingers can reach the DA trigger okay in both the Beretta and the CZ-75.
'
The old M-34 with metal-backed grips is among the most durable .380's. I think the metal backing was because the Bakelite (?) grip material of those days was relatively fragile. Later commercial M-34's use normal plastic grips, which I guess were stronger than Bakelite.
