planeflyer21 Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 You do understand that Beretta but the safety right were the DOD requested it be. Which is why it was in that location, on the slide, for the Ruger and Smith & Wesson trials pistols too. Originally Beretta had the safety mounted in the same position as Taurus...with the mag release in the rear bottom of the left grip, like a Brigadier. Of course if you like the Beretta 92 and would like the safety frame mounted and the mag release in the correct American position, you could always save for a 92 Billenium Limited Edition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 You do understand that Beretta but the safety right were the DOD requested it be. I completely understand it - and it's still an idiotic place to put it. It doesn't matter who decided it should be there, or why - just the fact that it's there makes the pistol suck even more. If you like the M9, more power to you. I can't stand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeedrinkerinNC Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 I completely understand it - and it's still an idiotic place to put it. It doesn't matter who decided it should be there, or why - just the fact that it's there makes the pistol suck even more. If you like the M9, more power to you. I can't stand it. Then why blame Beretta for complying? Either way, there is no current pistol that is, that much better to justify the cost of switching. With more and more enemies starting to wear body armor, there is no need to go back the 45acp. It has a even less chance of penetrating armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
392heminut Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Either way, there is no current pistol that is, that much better to justify the cost of switching. I don't know about justifying the cost, but there a LOT better pistols out there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robocop1051 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Either way, there is no current pistol that is, that much better to justify the cost of switching. With more and more enemies starting to wear body armor, there is no need to go back the 45acp. It has a even less chance of penetrating armor. There are a LOT of guns worth the cost of switching. Several LE agencies across the country figured that out about 15-20 years ago. I'm not aware of a single department that still issues the M92. However, Glock and Sig dominate the field. I'm not a Glock fan, but for half the price and 1000x the popularity, how can it be ignored as a viable replacement to the M9? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 It can't be. There was an article somewhere that the Army had rejected Beretta's proposal out of hand, don't even want to evaluate the updated design. My guess: The replacement will be the Fabrique Nationale FNS-9 with frame-mounted safety (opposed to the version with no safety). Already a government contractor, the FNS-9 is still 9mmNATO, made in the USA, and has a properly dimensioned Picatinny rail (not a proprietary "accessory rail"). 17+1 capacity, nice small grip for those "smaller statured shooters" who had complaints about the M9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgecrusher Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Our agency uses the M&P 45, switched from the Sig 220 4 years ago. Both are far better than the m92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Our agency uses the M&P 45, switched from the Sig 220 4 years ago. Both are far better than the m92 Dude...seen the new P220 in 10 F-ing Millemeter?!?!?!?! Yeah baby!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted January 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 we have M&P .40s. gotta say I like them alot. don't like the silly ruger-esque take down or the mag safety, but those are easily remedied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Then why blame Beretta for complying? Either way, there is no current pistol that is, that much better to justify the cost of switching. With more and more enemies starting to wear body armor, there is no need to go back the 45acp. It has a even less chance of penetrating armor. I don't blame Beretta for complying - it's a dumbass place to put the safety. However, I do blame Beretta for the shitty slide life - that's all on them. No pistol made should have a slide life like that POS M9 does. That in itself is a waste of money. The way most M9s in the Army were used, they'd only reach taht slide life round-count maximum in 20 years - but for the people that actually shoot that POS, you can go through a slide in 6~12 months. So, IMHO, it's a piece of $hit. There are LOTS of pistols out there that are better, and well worth the cost of switching. The 226 should have won the contract in the first place. Edited January 17, 2015 by 98Z5V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.