The Beretta becoming an older gent’s pistol?

A whole generation of folks regarded the “Colt .45 automatic” as the gun to get. Its status came from stories from the battlefield of WW1, 2, Korea and Vietnam. Many folks liked it, some didn’t.

Now, since the Beretta M9 was replaced, there seems to be a resurgence of interest. Bill Wilson (with Vickers and Hackathorn) endorses and improved the platform, as does Ernest Langdon).

Has the Beretta become an older gent’s sidearm, like the 1911 was/is, when compared with the polymer striker guns?

I know now two older gents in their 60s (I’m 37) who carry and keep a stock M9 as their main pistol, and when I asked them why, it had to do with their Military service.

I never served, but it is one of my favorites.

It might but do not think it will ever have the status of the 1911

all of the current + ex military I know all hated the M9 with a passion - three of the PD's near me issued them for 15 + years they are now much happier with their issue Sigs + Glocks -

schutzen-jager said:

all of the current + ex military I know all hated the M9 with a passion - three of the PD's near me issued them for 15 + years they are now much happier with their issue Sigs + Glocks -

Click to expand...

I know vets who hate the M9 (one a cousin of mine, one an LEO).

I'm also personal friends with a Marine who served two tours in the sandbox, shot bad guys with the Beretta, and he said it always worked for him. He now keeps one as his main sidearm.

I get it. Some hate it, some love it.

But it seems in recent years, it's been getting more love than the hate it started with.

No doubt that it is great pistol. I had so many chances to buy one or two or three. Still do. Just never warmed up to it. To big and I have enough 9mm pistols, all metal ones. Great for the range is about it,

Bill Wilson, Ken Hackathorn, Ernest Langdon, BAM-BAM and a whole lot of other folks like Beretta 92... and we're not all wrong

That said I prefer the Compacts and Centurions (4.2 inch barrel/slide).... to the M9.... never was a need for a 5" barrel.... especially in Police work....

I think a lot of the Military hate goes to the 9mm FMJ and low bidder Checkmate mags.

The 92FS has undergone a lot of changes since 1985...... all of which make it a better pistol.......... but so has the Glock; which is currently at Gen 5 ??????

D-spring..... can bring the DA trigger below 10lb.
radiused backstrap... shorter trigger reach
changeable sights..... night ,fiberoptic or Amerigio Hackathorn
locking block...... currently 3rd Gen.
Thin G-10 grips
flush fit 15rd mags for the compact
flush fit 18 rd and 20rd mags (shorter extension) for the M9 and Centurion
Vertec grip frame.
light rail
Decocker only (G model) or a retro fit kit ($55) solves issues many had with the Decocker/safety.

Owned and shot a dozen since my first a 92F Compact in 1988... never had a jam.... shooting USPSA,IDPA or just at the range........

Seems like a lot of people in the service hated them. My wife's former 1SG bought a Langdon Elite and let me handle it, he loves it and I love the quality too. I just don't like the exposed barrel, otherwise I'd have one as well.

"Is The Beretta an Older Gentleman's Pistol? ?

NO, because I don't own one and I am OLD !

In my opinion the Beretta is a good gun. It's the caliber that I don't like. I had a 9m/m in the early 60s and didn't like the caliber and have not changed my mind. One of my mentors said you need a lot of bullets in a 9m/m but seven .45s is enough. Larry

I've shot a 92 just once, a range rental. The oversize grip panels helped put the DA pull across state lines. I'd like to try another with thinner grips. They make a good house gun IMHO. Some folk bleat "it's too big!", but the 5" barrel makes best use of 9mm and its pressure IMHO. The extra weight soaks up the recoil well, too.

It's certainly no 1911 but it looks and feels like a real gun in contrast with the striker/ polymer 9mms. I've been shooting a 92F I bought new in 1988. It's been fired a great deal and much of that has been with a variety of cast bullet designs in weights from a bit over 100 grains to around 150+.

The Beretta will function with complete reliability using even .38 Special SWC bullets. I'm not sure you can jam one of these pistols without trying pretty hard. My gun is quite accurate with cast bullets of .358" diameter.

Regardless, it's not perfect and neither is the cartridge. The Beretta is a huge and heavy pistol with an oversized grip, but the gun itself works very well and is as dependable a firearm as most of us will find.

Reason a number service members have mixed to fairly neg. impressions is based on these factors: Sub-par military contract magazines that did not function very good., military maintenance & multiple users of the same firearm, open slide design not compatible with a very sandy middle eastern environment...with abuse tacked on I'm sure.

92F series pistols have a long respected history & an over-all excellent performance track record.

LVSteve said:

I've shot a 92 just once, a range rental. The oversize grip panels helped put the DA pull across state lines. I'd like to try another with thinner grips. They make a good house gun IMHO. Some folk bleat "it's too big!", but the 5" barrel makes best use of 9mm and its pressure IMHO. The extra weight soaks up the recoil well, too.

Click to expand...

I had a 92A1 recently. I think that the Beretta 92 has been around long enough and is battle proven. Granted, some don't like the size. Langdon Tactical Thin Grips gave a whole different feel to the Beretta. Same with my Browning Hi Power.

Not my choice for concealed carry but it makes a great house/truck/duty weapon.

I seem to remember hearing the complaints that the 1911s were "falling apart pieces of -----" in Vietnam..... with guns that had been is service since WWII.

In the early 80s buy a Colt and send it off for $1000 worth of work and you had a great gun!

We all suffer from the fog of 20/20 hindsight.

I don't own a Glock (have owned 3). Would a guy with a 5th gen ...... 19 willingly trade it for a new in Box 1st Gen 17???????? Oh I remember the B------- about the plastic front sight.

I know I'd not trade my Wilson Combat Centurion or 92 Elite II or even my upgraded 92F Compact for a brand new....... 1985 M9

I was less then impressed with some of the M9s I was issued, but it was a serviceable weapon. Sub-par training, maintenance and plain worn-out frames where it's biggest issues. I've seen M9s with their frames worn silver (in an MP unit).

The non-M9 Berretta 92s are more impressive. Especially, with a later generation locking block, "D" spring and most especially thinner aftermarket grips.

I think part of the resurgence of the 92 is in part due to the availability of aftermarket parts and the instant nostalgia of a retiring service side arm combined with GWOT fame, the resurgence of SA/DA (a counter to the plastic invasion?), it's nice trigger and low cost (compared to SIG classics) also, the shift back to 9mm (the 96 never really seemed very popular where I was) contributed as well.

Love the M9 or hate it, doesn’t matter. The Beretta was and is a quality firearm that is reliable, accurate, and durable. I carried one for over 10 years as a LEO (it was the issued duty gun) and it did everything you asked of it.

I suppose it could be considered an "older gent's" gun. Starting in the 80s you had not only the military switching to the M9/92FS, but also law enforcement agencies like the high-profile LAPD. Let's not forget the influence of popular action movies like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon that featured the 92. The 92FS was my first pistol, bought over 20 years ago, and my choice may or may not have been influenced at least partially by Lethal Weapon. It's still serving as my home defense gun and I do plan on getting some carry gear for it, hopefully in the near future, but with my PX4 Compact filling the primary carry gun role it's not a high priority.

I think there's also a contigent of more "seasoned" gun enthusiasts who prefer their guns made more from metal than polymer, and that could be a factor.

The biggest issues people had with the gun would probably be its size/capacity ratio, the DA/SA trigger, and the slide-mounted safety, in no particular order. I think a lot of these issues have been addressed by people like Bill Wilson and Ernest Langdon, among others. I think MecGar's 18-round mags have improved the size efficiency of the pistol. Things like D hammer spring swaps and trigger jobs have improved an already good DA/SA trigger. G-conversions, first by Wilson and then the kits made by Beretta, took care of the safety complaints (I will say that even though I got a G-conversion kit for my 92, I never really had an issue with the safety).

The reliability issues people often complained about could usually be traced to poor maintenance, bad mags, or both.

I don't know who started the resurgence in the 92 series, but I'm sure Wilson and Langdon were at the forefront. Was Langdon the first person to win an IDPA (or was it USPSA?) national competition with a DA/SA 92?

I also wonder if it may be a response to the glut prevalence of polymer pistols coming out and shooters wanting something "different." Kind of like how 50s bowling shirts came back into style some time ago.

Speaking of polymer pistols...you probably have a whole generation of shooters who started with Glocks and have had very little experience with other guns. And, just my opinion, I think these are also some of the same people who've been most vocal about how the DA/SA trigger is impossible to shoot well, which is easily debunked. Maybe this resurgence of the 92 is opening their eyes to other possibilities.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

And to make up for my rambling, here's some eye candy...

I served as a military police officer and had to carry the M9 and wouldn't suggest it as a civilian self defense pistol to my worst enemy.

First issue: slide safety... who's genius idea was this for a weapon that needs to be deployed on operated quickly? Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but a slide safety automatically brings ergonomics down to one star at best. We carried with the safety off, but many times I've watched the slide safety become engaged from the draw, so I just don't trust that method.

Second issue: why does a 9mm handgun need to weigh 37 pounds? Was it the goal of beretta and the United States military to add unnecessary weight to my already heavy duty belt?

Issue one plus issue two equal a handgun that the United States military should have dropped years ago.

A lot of GIs hated the 1911, too.

I love the Beretta 92. I was issued a brand new one sometime in the 80s. I know it sounds like sacrilege now, but I was happy to hand in my Model 15 for it. 15 rounds of NATO ball seemed like a much better deal than 6 rounds of 130 grain .38 Special.

Plus, its an iconic movie gun - Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, and every John Woo movie. What’s not to like?

Any firearm which has been in service for generations is bound to become iconic, and obviously those who relied upon a firearm, trained with it, and became proficient with it will continue to do so even after their terms of service have come to an end and a new firearm has replaced it.

That's why I can't help but laugh at the folks who make comments about Glocks or other such Polymer Wonders such as; "It's a reliable pistol, but it will never be an heirloom." As if their grandchildren won't inherit it, nor treasure it because at this point in time it isn't considered to be fancy nor impressive.
Honestly, do you think that the G.I.s who carried the M1911 thought of it as a heirloom when they were in the trenches of WWI, WWII, or even the Vietnam War? Do you think that the policemen who carried S&W Model 10s thought of them as heirlooms back in their day?

So yeah, the Beretta 92 has been in service long enough to develop such an iconic reputation, as I'm sure the SIG M17 will as well, assuming that it stays in service for at least a few decades.

Also, the old guys who still carry older guns do so because they've been carrying and shooting them for so long that switching out to something newer would most likely be detrimental because they probably wouldn't be able to shoot a new gun as well as the old one. Yet another thing young guys who are constantly swapping out their carry guns for "the latest and greatest" thing will likely never understand, or at least won't understand until they've settled down, learned to stick with what works, and devoted enough years to training with a particular firearm.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not an old guy myself, I'm only 33. It's just obvious to me.