Why does safety location on Beretta 92 make a difference?

[JohnKSa]

In a critical incident this is how you should replace a magazine. Gun up high, so you can look at it if you need too, so your head is up looking towards any threats, so the gun isn't pointed at anyone, and to reduce your stature.

You can have the gun up high but it needs to be pointed downrange, not at the sky.

Pointing a gun over the backstop will get you thrown off ranges that pay attention to things like that. It points the muzzle at things you don't intend to shoot in violation of one of the basic rules of gun safety.

It's possible to reload a gun without pointing the muzzle into the air, and while keeping it up high in the field of view so you can see it if you need to. You may want to turn the gun slightly onto its side towards the strong hand, but there's no need to aim at the sky. The muzzle may come up a little bit, but not high enough to put a bullet over the backstop. And if you are reloading in a gunfight, you won't have to take time pointing your gun into the air, then back down again when you're done reloading, it will stay pointed pretty close to where it needs to be to cover the threat.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm pretty dang tempted to get a 92X RDO G. I just need to know if the grip and trigger reach fit me better than the ol' FS or not. I need to make a trip to a gun shop to find out.

The flat backstrap is the only reason I haven't jumped on a steel frame 92x performance. I wear XL gloves and have a rather "hollow" grip with more slender fingers, but also a very meaty thenar eminance, so the standard 92 is a very good fit for me. The Vertec points low.

 

[JTQ]

The flat backstrap is the only reason I haven't jumped on a steel frame 92x performance. I wear XL gloves and have a rather "hollow" grip with more slender fingers, but also a very meaty thenar eminance, so the standard 92 is a very good fit for me. The Vertec points low.

The 92X Performance comes with a wraparound grip that mimics the standard 92 frame contours.

 

[Shivahasagun]

I'm pretty dang tempted to get a 92X RDO G. I just need to know if the grip and trigger reach fit me better than the ol' FS or not. I need to make a trip to a gun shop to find out.

I have one. It will fit you much better. It's like holding a normal pistol, not a Desert Eagle / standard Beretta 92.

The 92X comes not only with the Vertec frame but also extremely thin but grippy panels, the steel "Short reach" trigger, a lighter mainspring, and much more.

Two complaints about:.

-No irons are tall enough to use when you gave an optic mounted.

-The bore, like most 92's, is a bit oversize. It won't shoot some bullets very accurately and velocity is less than it should be. (Mine is about .3565 best I can measure)

 

[zaitcev]

I'm pretty dang tempted to get a 92X RDO G. I just need to know if the grip and trigger reach fit me better than the ol' FS or not. I need to make a trip to a gun shop to find out.

Sorry to disappoint, but I think there's no difference. I do prefer the straight grip of the 92X over the palm swell of 92FS, but I think the trigger reach is almost the same.

As for buying versus conversion. Of course conversion is a little extra expense ($58). Also, I was inattentive just for one second and scratched the rear sight with a punch. The damage was small and the sights can be replaced, but the hazard is certainly there for ham-fisted amateur armorers. I knew it before I started. But finding those G models was too much work.

 

[Shivahasagun]

Sorry to disappoint, but I think there's no difference. I do prefer the straight grip of the 92X over the palm swell of 92FS, but I think the trigger reach is almost the same.

As for buying versus conversion. Of course conversion is a little extra expense ($58). Also, I was inattentive just for one second and scratched the rear sight with a punch. The damage was small and the sights can be replaced, but the hazard is certainly there for ham-fisted amateur armorers. I knew it before I started. But finding those G models was too much work.

I've found a roll pin punch / roll pin starter kit to be worth the $50 or whatever over the years!

 

[SwampWolf]

It’s possible to (and I have done so in a match) inadvertently swipe the slide mounted safety/decocker into the down position while clearing a malfunction or otherwise manipulating the slide.

Very true and not unique to Beretta 92 autos. I've also had it happen during qualification clearance drills, especially when sweeping the palm over the top of the slide to remedy a "stovepipe" jam, with Smith da pistols having the safety/decocker feature. Like others, I generally carry da autos having a safety with it in the "off" position but it's good to know it can happen so that you're not taken by surprise if the safety is inadvertently moved to "on" in a self-defense situation.

 

[Overkill870]

The slide mounted safety on the Beretta does not bother me at all. I use a thumbs forward grip and my thumb can easily feel when the safety is on because the lever digs into my thumb. It's easy to flick off.

I could see it being an issue if you use a different grip or have smaller hands.

That said I don't use the safety as I don't feel it's necessary at all with double action. I have installed the G conversion on my M9. I haven't done the conversion on my 92X compact yet. I'm not sure it's necessary as like I said if I did find the safety inadvertently switched on I know it immediately and can easily flip it off.

 

[Archie]

At heart, I'm a Government Model adherent. I like the Government Model safety as it blocks the sear from moving. As far as I know, a slide mounted safety cannot do that (I suppose with a reasonably complicated linkage system it's possible). AND, the safety on most any double action pistol is primarily for lowering (and temporarily blocking) the hammer, for 'safe carry'.

I suppose I'm not so much addressing the position of the safety as much as the concept of a double action/single action semi-automatic.

 

[AustinTX]

I like the Government Model safety as it blocks the sear from moving. As far as I know, a slide mounted safety cannot do that (I suppose with a reasonably complicated linkage system it's possible).

The Beretta’s safety does better than that.

 

[Archie]

The Beretta’s safety does better than that.

How? In short.

 

[9mmepiphany]

How? In short.

I blocks the hammer from striking the firing pin. Blocking the sear won't do that

 

[Archie]

I blocks the hammer from striking the firing pin. Blocking the sear won't do that

The Walther PP and PPK did that as well. The S&W 59 did that also. There's another handgun - that I cannot bring to mind - doing the same thing. All of them had long term problems with the firing pin block structurally failing or failing to engage properly and the arm firing when handled improperly - as in the draw process.
The only time an internal firing pin fails is when it is dropped. Even then, only in special instances

One also notes the Beretta type safety is not commonly engaged when holstered. So it doesn't matter what it does or does not do when engaged at that point.

Now, some find the double action mode adequate safety. Others find the 'cocked and locked' system to be adequate. Both will function sufficiently IF used correctly. Both can be 'foiled' by a careless operator. I much prefer the 'cocked and locked' format. If you prefer any other system, feel free to use it. But to claim 'better' is unsupportable. Just for the record, popularity isn't argument or proof.

 

[Shivahasagun]

The Walther PP and PPK did that as well. The S&W 59 did that also. There's another handgun - that I cannot bring to mind - doing the same thing. All of them had long term problems with the firing pin block structurally failing or failing to engage properly and the arm firing when handled improperly - as in the draw process.
The only time an internal firing pin fails is when it is dropped. Even then, only in special instances

One also notes the Beretta type safety is not commonly engaged when holstered. So it doesn't matter what it does or does not do when engaged at that point.

Now, some find the double action mode adequate safety. Others find the 'cocked and locked' system to be adequate. Both will function sufficiently IF used correctly. Both can be 'foiled' by a careless operator. I much prefer the 'cocked and locked' format. If you prefer any other system, feel free to use it. But to claim 'better' is unsupportable. Just for the record, popularity isn't argument or proof.

The Beretta safety does matter when used; during decocking. That's when it matters most.

Once in the holster the passive firing pin disconnector and longer, heavier DA trigger pull help prevent AD's.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I read comments from people who do not like the slide mounted safety on the Beretta 92. What makes the frame mounted safety more preferable?

Sorry I didn't catch this sooner and if someone else already addressed this the same way I'm going to, double apologies.

There are many things that go into making something preferable or not. Design, location, mechanical operation, hand size/strength, or even just past experience.

The Remington 970 and the Mossberg 500 shotguns are practically identical. But the safeties are different. The Remington's safety is a button on the back of the trigger guard while the Mossberg's is on top of the shotgun, just forward of the stock.

While the Mossberg's safety location and operation makes it inherently ambidextrious by thumb operation, the Remington's standard safety is NOT, being operated by the finger of the shooting hand for a right handed individual. And it's not a simple matter of just flipping the safety button around.

Location, and physical operation, determines what digits are required to operate the safety, how much force is required to operate it, how easy it is to reach without significantly altering one's grip, etc.

A frame mounted safety us typically UP for the SAFE position and DOWN for the FIRE position. The slide mounted safety on the Beretta is DOWN for SAFE and UP for FIRE. Opposite directions.

The direction a safety is operated is important for more than just "what you're used to". Operating a safety requires different muscles to be utilized for the down and the up directions. In general, these muscles are more powerful in the "down" direction because this is the direction the thumbs move whenever we grip things. We apply more force gripping than releasing and pulling the thumb up. So, in general, it's easier to pull something down with the thumb than it is to lift something up with the thumb.

A frame mounted safety typically puts the safety right next to the thumb which operates it...sometimes even in contact with it. The slide mounted safety requires moving the thumb quite a distance to even reach the safety in the first place.

Also, a frame mounted safety on the Beretta 92 does not have a decocking feature like the slide mounted safety. This is part of the "design" function difference I mentioned earlier. The frame mounted safety essentially works to block or otherwise inhibit some action from taking place when you attempt to pull the trigger. This means the frame mounted safety typically requires less force to operate to perform that mechanical function (though significant force may still be required depending on detent depth, shape, and spring tension).

The slide mounted safety, however, must operate the decocking mechanism which drops the hammer (and prevents the firing pin from being struck). This inherently requires a bit more force to operate just to perform this function.

And, of course, one cannot ignore personal preference, however much some may poo-poo this. If you are used to frame mounted safeties because this is what the majority of your experience revolves around, then it's only natural that you would prefer a frame mounted safety, if only for its familiarity. Some may prefer them for simple esthetics, as well (they just like the look of it in that location). That's perfectly OK, too.

My advice to you, or anybody else, is to handle both and see how it feels to you.

I own several pistols, one of which is a Beretta 92FS which has a slide mounted safety/decocker. I bought the Beretta simply because I've always loved the look and feel of it. It's a beautiful gun and fun/accurate to shoot. The safety, however, is not something I would prefer for a carry piece. I prefer a slide mounted safety, consistent with most other pistols I own.

This is simply my preference...which should not be used to gainsay your own. I certainly will not consider getting rid of my Beretta for this, though. I love a beautiful gun, even so.

 

[9mmepiphany]

All of them had long term problems with the firing pin block structurally failing or failing to engage properly and the arm firing when handled improperly - as in the draw process.

How? In short.

You asked for simple and than nit-pick the answer with the broad brush of other slide mounted safety levers.

OK, longer answer:
The Beretta thumb safety does not block the hammer from the firing pin in the same way that the Walther (PP, PPK, P-38) and S&W (M39/59 and variations) pistols do. Those pistols interpose a section of their body between the firing pin and the falling hammer. While it is possible for that part to fail, it is as likely a failure as that between the sear/hammer of a 1911, which would also cause the pistol to fire...especially if it isn't equipped with the less than popular firing pin block/safety.

The Beretta safety, when applied, rotates a firing pin transfer plunger out of alignment between the firing pin and the hammer so that the hammer can not make contact with the firing pin. Even if it could, the Beretta is equipped with a firing pin safety which blocks its forward movement unless the trigger is depressed

But to claim 'better' is unsupportable. Just for the record, popularity isn't argument or proof.

The claim isn't that the Beretta safety is better. The claim is how the Beretta safety is safer than a safety which only blocks the sear...and that claim is fully supported.

But you are correct that popularity isn't an argument or proof

 

[Archie]

The Beretta safety does matter when used; during decocking. That's when it matters most.
Once in the holster the passive firing pin disconnector and longer, heavier DA trigger pull help prevent AD's.

That is absolutely correct. Which means it isn't really a safety in the sense of a mechanism to make the arm safe while transporting/carrying. The SIG has a 'hammer dropper' which is spring loaded to return to the non-safe position. Much the same as the Beretta lever but somewhat more honest than the Beretta device.

 

[Archie]

The claim isn't that the Beretta safety is better. The claim is how the Beretta safety is safer than a safety which only blocks the sear...and that claim is fully supported.

Yes, that was the claim to which I responded.

But you are correct that popularity isn't an argument or proof

 

[mljdeckard]

I learned to carry it cleared with the safety off. I reloaded using the front slide divots to rack it. I didn't want to risk putting it on safe grabbing the rear of the slide.

 

[JohnKSa]

Which means it isn't really a safety in the sense of a mechanism to make the arm safe while transporting/carrying.

There's nothing preventing a person from leaving a Beretta with the typical safety on safe in the holster and some experts recommend it. It decocks the gun safely and it is, very much, a safety in the sense of a mechanism that makes the arm safe as long as it is engaged--that includes while it is being transported/carried if the user desires to carry it in that condition. The gun can not be made to fire as long as the lever is in the down position (on safe).

With the safety on:

1. The trigger is disconnected from the sear/hammer so the hammer can't be operated by the trigger.
2. The sear is held out of engagement from the hammer so the hammer can't be cocked.
3. The transfer firing pin plunger that transfers hammer energy to the firing pin is held out of alignment from both the firing pin and the hammer so that it can't contact the firing pin and the hammer can't come into contact with it. Even if something did fail and the hammer could somehow contact the transfer firing pin plunger (I can't see how this could happen without metal machined away from the slide and/or the hammer being narrowed/shortened somehow), the plunger wouldn't be in proper alignment with the firing pin and the energy from the hammer would not be transferred to the firing pin.

The SIG has a 'hammer dropper' which is spring loaded to return to the non-safe position. Much the same as the Beretta lever but somewhat more honest than the Beretta device.

Beretta offers a "G" option which is a decock only "hammer dropper" where the lever is spring loaded to return to the non-safe position. Some people prefer it. The standard decock/safety option functions identically to the "G" option except that the lever stays in the decock/safe position when pressure is released, keeping the trigger disconnected, preventing the hammer from being cocked and holding the firing pin transfer plunger rotated out of alignment with the hammer and firing pin.

 

[Shivahasagun]

That is absolutely correct. Which means it isn't really a safety in the sense of a mechanism to make the arm safe while transporting/carrying. The SIG has a 'hammer dropper' which is spring loaded to return to the non-safe position. Much the same as the Beretta lever but somewhat more honest than the Beretta device.

The "G" version of the Beretta, like mine, and those FS models converted via the Beretta DIY kit, do return to the "fire" position. A decocker-only.

 

[Fishbed77]

Interesting to see this discussion today. I’m actually planning to install the G decocker-only parts into my 92X RDO this afternoon.

Personally, the location of the safety/decocker lever on the 92 series never bothered me that much (though I never cared for the up-to-fire design). And the redesigned levers of the 92X and other recent models make it much less likely to inadvertently activate the safety/decocker when retracting the slide compared to earlier models.

What I don’t particularly care for is the safety/decock function itself. It’s just kind of the worst of both worlds. At least DA/SA pistols like the USP Variant 1 that have a safety give you the option of cocked and locked carry.

Hence my conversion to the G. It will operate essentially just like a P226 or decocker-equipped CZ, and I can wrap my head around that.

 

[Archie]

Interesting to see this discussion today. I’m actually planning to install the G decocker-only parts into my 92X RDO this afternoon.

Seems more to the point.

Personally, the location of the safety/decocker lever on the 92 series never bothered me that much (though I never cared for the up-to-fire design).

In reality, the location is of less offense to me than the function.

And the redesigned levers of the 92X and other recent models make it much less likely to inadvertently activate the safety/decocker when retracting the slide compared to earlier models.

That strikes me as beneficial, but since I never carried one, I cannot really comment.

What I don’t particularly care for is the safety/decock function itself. It’s just kind of the worst of both worlds. At least DA/SA pistols like the USP Variant 1 that have a safety give you the option of cocked and locked carry.

This refers back to the second reply in this post. I certainly agree. I did carry a USP (v1) for several years (in the less than popular .40 S&W caliber). One of the finest sidearms I've carried.