Hope the Beretta M9A4 G was not a mistake

Guys, after reading on forums and mfg website , such as problems with chrome lining flaking off, rear sight pushed over to the right, and other quality control issues was reluctant to buy the Beretta but after going to the local gun store and looking at one closer didn't see any of the issues that was supposed to be issues.

My other concern is does anyone have experience with this pistol? Does it return to 0 after each double tap fast? Some of my other pistols like the Sig p320 X5 legion with 147gr bullets rocks back and forth too much where my Glock 19x is super fast

An unfortunate byproduct of the internet - the ability of just ONE to start a negative story that sweeps around the world and maligns the name of a reputable manufacturer. I own a few Berettas and have handled several more over the decades and have found them all to be very well-made and of high quality.
The M9 has an open slide which keeps it light so the pistol is less affected by the reciprocating slide mass, but still, it has a high bore axis compared to the Glock where the web of your hand is just barely below the bore axis, combined with a grip angle that rotates the shooting hand forward to further blank the effects of slide action.
I keep wondering who got paid off for the Army to adopt the SIG P320 - removable FCU and all. The pistol has an astoundingly tall bore axis and is much thicker than needed due to the removable FCU fitted inside the grip housing. The P320 does have goog points such as the sights and the extremely crisp trigger release, and the classic SIG slide removal system, and overall hand fit is good, but that bore sits WAY up there!
Lost in all the "noise" on the internet is the fact that there is a reason Glock handguns are so prolific!

The M9 was not a mistake. There was never a more rugged and reliable semiauto made. It’s just a little heavier and clumsier than I would like, but as it was intended to be a military pistol, that is not a bad thing.

DWalt said:

The M9 was not a mistake. There was never a more rugged and reliable semiauto made. It’s just a little heavier and clumsier than I would like, but as it was intended to be a military pistol, that is not a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I agree with DWalt and Bill Lear. I do not think you could go wrong with the Beretta M9. One of the great handgun designs that has been proven over the years.
I don’t have a M9 but I have its Civilian brother M92FS Inox. It was purchased in 1999 and is the only semi-auto pistol I own that has never jammed. From brand new til now. Good ammo and bad handloads or factory, clean or dirty. That in my opinion says it all.
It would not live here if I thought it would be a problem.

The Beretta 92 is an excellent pistol design, which is why it has withstood the test of time and has remained in production for several decades with only incremental updates/improvements to keep in it line with modern trends.

It's unlikely that any of the reported issues are by any means common, and even if it is, then you can count on Beretta to make it right. Beretta is one of the oldest names in firearms designs, dating all the way back to the 16th Century, so it seems highly unlikely that a company who has been making firearms for that long would mess up something as simple as barrel plating, much less sight alignment without addressing it, so I'm going to be bold and chalk up the proliferation of these reports to parroting rather than legitimate individual reports.
Also, I would be interested to know just what sort of loads the shooter who experienced flaking was shooting, because if they were some screwball 40gr Hypersonic tungsten-plated +P+ tumblematic loads by Pterodactyl Tactical™ Munitions Ltd® out of Hoboken NJ, then yeah, what did they expect?

I had a Model 92 FS back in the day and it was very reliable, and quite accurate for the type, not bullseye accurate but capable of 2” at 25 yards which is more than you need for combat accuracy.

I currently have a Model 92 FS Compact Type M as well as a Beretta 92 FS Compact L.

I sold the 92 FS as the large grip never quite fit my hand.

The single stack Type M takes care of that, and the Compact L works fine, after swapping out the trigger for a short reach trigger and installing ultra thin grips from Wilson combat.

All of the pistols in question have proven to be very reliable. That reliability doesn’t have anything to do with the open slide being lighter. The open slide, along with the non tilting barrel and locking lug design, eliminates nearly all the potential for failures to feed and eject.

The Beretta 92 is in fact the only pistol I’d ever feel comfortable carrying without extensive reliability testing.

——-

Bore axis height is in my experience over rated, as it comes with some sharp downsides that many of the low bore axis advocates are either unaware of or choose to ignore.

Striker fired pistols dominate when it comes to low bore axis heights as the lock work allows for a pistol to be designed with a lower bore axis than can be accommodated with most hammer fired pistols. But there is no free lunch.

The Glock 17 for example has a bore axis height of 1.26” which is great but it also places the hand so high that the index finger is above the trigger. Consequently, your trigger finger has to angle down to the trigger.

Individual shooters mileage will vary but for a lot of shooters a low alignment index (below 1.0, and 0.81 in the case of the Glock 17) has a negative impact on how well the pistol points.

One of the things I’ve always liked about the Browning Hi power and CZ-75, and 1911 is that they all fit my hand really well and point *exceptionally* well.

The Hi Power has a 1.53” bore height and a near perfect alignment index of 1.01. It points like an extension of your index finger. The CZ-75 has a bore height of 1.57” and a still impressive alignment index of .95.

The 1911 has a comparatively high bore axis height of 1.74” , and an alignment index of 1.11, but it still points so much better than a Glock that there is no comparison. When you add in the 1911’s extremely short trigger reset, nothing double taps faster.

The Beretta 92 has an almost worst in class bore axis height of 1.8” (along with the Sig P320 and a near identical 1.78”) but the alignment index is a still very impressive .97 (and .99 for the Sig P320). With the single stack Compact Type M, and now with a Compact L modified with short reach trigger and Wilson combat ultra thin grips, the Model 92 fits well and points exceptionally well.

What’s interesting here is that as a striker fired design, Sig clearly could have designed the P320 with a lower bore axis height, but chose instead to optimize the alignment index and point ability of the pistol.

Rapid follow up is also an area where the Beretta’s open top slide and the weight reduction that results also shines. The reduction in slide weight and reciprocating mass reduces the muzzle flip you’d otherwise have with the higher bore axis.

——

So what does all that mean? It means there is never a free lunch. Bore axis heights less than about 1.5” almost always come with a low alignment index. The Walther PP series pistols with their fixed barrels are an exception (1.34” and a 1.1 alignment index), but they are also small .32 ACP or .380 ACP pistols with disproportionately harsh recoil in .380 ACP given the straight blow back design.

At the local public range, I’ll often see the local talent mag dumping a Glock or similar striker fired pistol in a very impressive manner (speed wise), but 95% of those shooters are scattering rounds all over the target and they are shooting at fairly close distances of 5-7 yards or less.

Personally, whether it is a Glock, Hi Power, CZ-75, 1911, or Beretta 92 it takes me 1.2 seconds to draw from concealment and land the first round on target. The difference is that the target can be a 6” plate at 15 yards with all of the above - except a Glock. With the Glock, the target needs to be a lot bigger, or a lot closer because it points so poorly for me.

The Glock might recover a little faster and (with the exception of a 1911 in 9mm with its very short trigger reset) give me slightly shorter split times on subsequent shots. However it won’t shoot with anywhere near the same precision at speed as the other pistols with alignment indexes hovering around 1.0.

It’s not the first shot fired that wins a fight, or even the first hit, it’s the first hit in the vitals, where it has far greater potential for rapid incapacitation. Most shooters are going to get that quicker with a pistol with a good alignment index rather than with a low bore axis height.

But your mileage may vary. I suggest you shoot the 92 up against the Glock using the 10 ring or x ring on a B-27 target or a 6” plate at 7-10 yards and throw in some failure to stop drills on a B-27 or bottle target, or with a pair of vertically spaced plates.

You’ll discover which ones gives you more hits in a given amount of time. You might be one of the minority for whom the Glock fits and points well, but the odds are you’ll score more hits with the Beretta 92 when you’re looking for incapacitating cardio vascular or CNS hits.

If you are just spraying poster sized zombie targets at 5 yards or less, you’ll probably like the Glock better.

Quality wise, the only issue I have ever had with the Beretta 92 is the Bruniton finish (a Teflon paint over a parkerized finish.

It’s just not as durable as the Polycoat over parkerized finish on a CZ, or the incredibly durable epoxy finish on a Mk III Hi Power.

DWalt said:

There was never a more rugged and reliable semiauto made.

Click to expand...

Love the 92 series, but let's not get carried away here ...

I don’t have an M9A4 but my M9A3 LTT is one of my favorite pistols. I am pretty certain you will enjoy yours just as much.

The OP’s gun is a little more tricked out than the basic M9/Beretta 92.

I was issued a brand-new M9 when they finally made it my USAF unit. I swear a golden glow came out of the box like Marcellus Wallace’s briefcase!

My GI one was flawless, and I’ve owned two 92s and a 96 since then. I can’t remember a single jam from any of them.

My current 92 shoots to the point of aim with any ammo - 115, 124, 147. I don’t know how, but it does. At 20 yards.

Beretta makes good guns, yours included.

Some guys (myself included) find the factory grips to be a bit on the wide side. I installed a pair of G10 grips similar to the Wilson Combat slim grips. Made a huge difference for me. Grips don't look as wild as some pics make them look. Bar none it's the most reliable semi auto pistol I've ever owned.

“At the local public range, I’ll often see the local talent mag dumping a Glock or similar striker fired pistol in a very impressive manner (speed wise), but 95% of those shooters are scattering rounds all over the target and they are shooting at fairly close distances of 5-7 yards or lesS.” BB57

I frequently see the same thing. On one occasion, while walking past a lane where 3 or 4 country yutes were shooting, I stopped and watched while one kid was blasting away. When he stopped, I asked him if he was using a skeet or cylinder choke. His friends chuckled; he didn’t think it was funny.

It’s way over rated worrying about I/4 or half inch higher bore axis. If a pistol fits your hand and your’re accurate with it keep practicing and you’ll do just fine. Don’t worry about trying to make it sound like a machine gun

Bought this commercial M9 new 11 years and 12k rounds ago. Did break a locking block along the way, but other than that, I would say it has proven itself a quality piece.

sigp220.45 said:

The OP’s gun is a little more tricked out than the basic M9/Beretta 92….

Click to expand...

Night sights, FDE finish, a beveled mag well, an optics ready slide, and a rail have absolutely no effect on the quality or reliability of the basic Model 92G pistol.

The G kit offers no real improvement over the FS, for a trained shooter. However, there’s a great deal of value in a competition where a “safety” is required to be applied before starting the stage, if a safety is present. The decocking lever on the FS stays down and is thus a safety, while the decocking lever on the G snaps back up, so it’s not a “safety”.

1sailor said:

Some guys (myself included) find the factory grips to be a bit on the wide side. I installed a pair of G10 grips similar to the Wilson Combat slim grips. Made a huge difference for me. Grips don't look as wild as some pics make them look. Bar none it's the most reliable semi auto pistol I've ever owned.

Click to expand...

A bit on the wide side? Yeah, like an 18-wheeler is "a bit" bigger and heavier than a Mazda Miata. I should try a 92 with some thinner grips. The only one I have shot had those square edged factory rubber grips and I hated them. I also found the trigger reach a bit much by a zip code or two.

My first duty gun (retired LEO) was a 92F. Carried it for nearly 9 years. Never had one malfunction, and I shot the Beretta ALOT! Had nearly 20,000 rounds through it and only had to replace a recoil spring.

I've had this "Centurion" variant almost 30 years. Not one malfunction, ever. Joe

My first a 92F Compact is still going strong after 34years.
Bill Wilson, Massad Ayoob, Ernest Langdon and I are all fans of the Beretta 92. If you watch the WC channel you'll see that Ayoob carries a WC 92 Compact. With Mec-gar mags the Compact is now a 15+1 gun

My latest is a Wilson Combat 92G Centurion Tactical. 18+1 with Mec-gar mags. Thin G-10 grips, short trigger, relieved backstrap, G,D spring and other upgrades.......

Never had a jam or failure with any of my 92s.

1sailor said:

Some guys (myself included) find the factory grips to be a bit on the wide side. I installed a pair of G10 grips similar to the Wilson Combat slim grips. Made a huge difference for me. Grips don't look as wild as some pics make them look. Bar none it's the most reliable semi auto pistol I've ever owned.

Click to expand...

LVSteve said:

A bit on the wide side? Yeah, like an 18-wheeler is "a bit" bigger and heavier than a Mazda Miata. I should try a 92 with some thinner grips. The only one I have shot had those square edged factory rubber grips and I hated them. I also found the trigger reach a bit much by a zip code or two.

Click to expand...

In my opinion the US military made a major error in procurement with the M9, given the large grip that doesn’t fit small or even mid sized hands very well.

- To get enough leverage to use a DA trigger effectively, you need to be able to get the trigger finger on the trigger all the way up to the first joint.

- To grip a DA or DA/SA pistol properly, you need to be able to get enough trigger finger on the trigger, without rotating the hand around on the grip.

- To fully control a pistol, you also need to get your hand around it, at least enough to allow your thumb and middle finger to touch as you grip it. (You don’t keep your thumb there when shooting, but it’s a very reliable measure of fit to ensure you can wrap your fingers around it enough to properly grip it, and if the need arises better retain it.)

Many shooters who were issued M9s simply could not meet all three of those requirements. I fell in that category and while I could certainly shoot it well enough to qualify with it, I never came close to shooting it was well as a 1911, particularly in practical shooting at speed, and eventually I gave up and sold my personal 92 FS.

——

I recently acquired a Model 92 Compact L and tried a pair of the Hogue “thin” G10 grips. However even with the short reach trigger installed it wasn’t quite enough. Better but not where it needed to be.

However I found the Wilson Combat “ultra thin” grips along with the short reach trigger did the trick. The Wilson Combat ultra thin grips have feathered edges and a very wasp waisted profile along with absolute minimum thickness over the grip screws.



With the Wilson grips on my 92 Compact L, it is still no where near as thin as the grip on the single stack 92 Compact Type M. But it’s as thin as it gets with a double stack Model 92. The grips, in combination with the short reach trigger allow for a trigger reach sufficiently short enough to meet all the requirements above.



The Beretta 92X with its slightly thinner Vertec based frame and a set of ultra thin grips should also fit a much wider range of hand sizes, especially in combination with a short reach trigger.