It’s an aluminum frame, that’s why the weight is lower than the 92X Performance. The fit and finish is admittedly poor given it’s a product of their new and cheaply done TN plant. The move from Maryland was bad. The barrel play isn’t an issue as that is typical for the locking block type guns and it does not affect accuracy as the barrel locks into the same position each time the gun cycles. It’s a different action from a browning barrel design. The crunch you feel is the firing pin block moving out of the way. Polishing it and a lighter spring gets rid of that feel. I like mine, just wish Beretta gave more of a damn to make it better from the factory. Biggest gripe for me is the machine marks all over it and the slide milling being asymmetric on mine with obvious gouges from the factory. The barrel could also look better, it just looks rough for a premium gun.
Weird brother, I have the same pistol but the Tactical version and my trigger is A DREAM. Is so good I think it must have had work done in spite of buying it new according to seller (FFL). Safety, true! But I always use front serrations. The barrel of the tactical is not bat at the front and the inside is not messy at all. May be the quality control isnt the best. How accurate is it? How does it shoot?
Did you notice the cosmetic “flaws” upon looking at the gun first before buying? You seem to mostly dislike the gun based on cosmetics in this video and a mere three boxes of ammo run through it. You didn’t explain how your 150 rounds of ammo felt when shooting it. How’s its accuracy? If you’re hitting the bullseye (which is hard to miss for most Beretta shooters), then your barrel fitment complaint is irrelevant. You’re not liking the way the barrel sits in the slide and that’s again, a cosmetic issue. All Beretta 92 variants are like that with the barrel-to-slide fit-up. There was nothing wrong with the design nor its looks in that aspect of things. That’s how all berettas are made and it neither hinders the firearms accuracy nor performance in the slightest. The gun isn’t a piece of jewelry. Personally I don’t care for the SA only thing and prefer Beretta’s traditional DA/SA mechanism, but that’s just me. There’s a reason why the basic 92F platform was used in the military for over three decades and with law enforcement for even longer. It’s a very reliable and proven firearm. That being said, may I recommend you sell that version because you don’t like it and buy a traditional M9 or even the M9A3 version. They’re awesome guns. My only question to you is after all of the cosmetic and thumb safety flaws that you noted, why on earth did you still buy it anyway?
all things can be changed for the better or the worst. presenting these issues to your audience can be met with where to find fixes for them right? so your video is half way to explaining good/bad. where can we go or how can these fixes be fixed?
It’s an aluminum frame, that’s why the weight is lower than the 92X Performance.
The fit and finish is admittedly poor given it’s a product of their new and cheaply done TN plant. The move from Maryland was bad.
The barrel play isn’t an issue as that is typical for the locking block type guns and it does not affect accuracy as the barrel locks into the same position each time the gun cycles. It’s a different action from a browning barrel design.
The crunch you feel is the firing pin block moving out of the way. Polishing it and a lighter spring gets rid of that feel. I like mine, just wish Beretta gave more of a damn to make it better from the factory. Biggest gripe for me is the machine marks all over it and the slide milling being asymmetric on mine with obvious gouges from the factory. The barrel could also look better, it just looks rough for a premium gun.
The Italian made 92 models might have been a better buy...
Weird brother, I have the same pistol but the Tactical version and my trigger is A DREAM. Is so good I think it must have had work done in spite of buying it new according to seller (FFL). Safety, true! But I always use front serrations. The barrel of the tactical is not bat at the front and the inside is not messy at all. May be the quality control isnt the best. How accurate is it? How does it shoot?
Did you notice the cosmetic “flaws” upon looking at the gun first before buying? You seem to mostly dislike the gun based on cosmetics in this video and a mere three boxes of ammo run through it. You didn’t explain how your 150 rounds of ammo felt when shooting it. How’s its accuracy? If you’re hitting the bullseye (which is hard to miss for most Beretta shooters), then your barrel fitment complaint is irrelevant. You’re not liking the way the barrel sits in the slide and that’s again, a cosmetic issue. All Beretta 92 variants are like that with the barrel-to-slide fit-up. There was nothing wrong with the design nor its looks in that aspect of things. That’s how all berettas are made and it neither hinders the firearms accuracy nor performance in the slightest. The gun isn’t a piece of jewelry.
Personally I don’t care for the SA only thing and prefer Beretta’s traditional DA/SA mechanism, but that’s just me. There’s a reason why the basic 92F platform was used in the military for over three decades and with law enforcement for even longer. It’s a very reliable and proven firearm. That being said, may I recommend you sell that version because you don’t like it and buy a traditional M9 or even the M9A3 version. They’re awesome guns.
My only question to you is after all of the cosmetic and thumb safety flaws that you noted, why on earth did you still buy it anyway?
all things can be changed for the better or the worst. presenting these issues to your audience can be met with where to find fixes for them right? so your video is half way to explaining good/bad. where can we go or how can these fixes be fixed?