Jump to content

Talk:Beretta 92

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors

[edit]

I started correcting some factual errors on this page (July 7 2005) and then ran across the better laid out Beretta 92F/FS page. I changed this page to a near-stub, covering just the basics of the 92's history, and the near-clone made by Taurus. scot 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

The 'near-clone' by Taurus isn't really a clone, it's made on the same machines as that of the Beretta because the Brazilian government bought the plans & machines from Beretta and then formed Taurus.

Right, but they bought the rights and equipment for the original model 92, which differs quite significantly from the current layout. There are major design differences, introduced in 1983, such as the frame mounted up-for-safe/down-to-decock lever on the Taurus, and the magazine release behind the trigger guard rather than the butt. Beretta did similar things at about the same time, but in a different way; the 92S added a slide mounted safety/decocker, and the 92F moved the magazine release up to behind the trigger guard. The magazine releases are in slightly different locations, so magazines don't interchange, and the frame mounted Taurus safety is far easier to manipulate, and far more flexible, than the Beretta's slide mounted safety. scot (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank the fools that have no idea about the history of the Beretta 92 pistols, that contribute so much to turning Wikipedia "bla-bla pedia"... if you would have looked around you would have noticed that I nearly did all the work for Beretta Pistols, reason is that I know that stuff. Thanks to those that did in fact contribute, like fixing my spelling mistakes etc. Now there is nothing left of the page that explained all about the Beretta 92.. because some fools do not know that there are a bunch of 92 varitions... which I have ALL COVERED! User:Meswiss

Please consider putting a "see talk page" note in your edit summary rather than leaving it blank when deleting a large amount of text, as such edits taken by themselves at first glance appear to be page-blanking vandalism. Triona 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I put this page back into a state that reflects reality. Please leave the page format and data as is. Thanks. User:Meswiss

I am no expert, but I have been looking into it and I seriously doubt that Beretta is still making the 92 in 7.65x21mm parabellum (aka 7.65 Luger or .30 Luger) as stated in the first paragraph. They made some 98F guns in 7.65x21mm parabellum from 1985-87 as stated later in the article, but not currently as far as I can see. I did not edit the article since I feel I do not have sufficient evidence. SLFubli (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments according to wikipedia standards so that we know when this comment was made (use ~~~ or ~~~~ as explained on Help:Talk page). Also try and put all relevant comment under one section heading. Deon Steyn 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Are the dates in this article correct? It says the gun was produced from 1975-1976 but was adopted by the US army in 1985. Is there a typo or am I missing something? Epeeist smudge 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are correct; the Model 92 was produced for only a short while before being significantly change--primarily the location of the safety and the magazine release. The model the US military adopted in 1985 is the model 92FS. scot 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. The article does say that if I read it properly. i only brezed in on a random article so my attention wasn't as good as it might have been. Epeeist smudge 03:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Variants

[edit]

There should never have been separate pages for all the variants (number over 50) as they do not meet the following Wikipedia criteria (from Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages)

  • There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
  • If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
  • If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

They should merely be listed as variants on one single page for the Model 92 (this page). You wouldn't create a separate page for each color variation of a certain car model would you? These pages were not created consistently and most of the data was duplicated. Exactly the type of problem that this duplication leads to has already happaned with the 92FS page now being more active and containing different information. I have added all the configuration and variant information, the next step is to incorporate the relevant information from the Beretta 92F/FS page into this one and redirect it as well. Deon Steyn 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the list from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Beretta&namespace=0 is impressively detailed, but really over the top. I'd support a merge into, at least, the basic types, not all the lettered variants, but I don't know enough about Berettas to help out much, sorry. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the M9 Trials Winner and the Disputed Contract Bids

[edit]

At the end of the M9 Trials and the completion of the first round of bidding, the SIG P226 had the leading score of 853.6 in six evaluation factors, while the Beretta 92 scored 835.34.

(While the overall score of the initial Saco contract proposal following the 1984 trials may have been higher, testing exposed serious defects in the Sig pistols. Two of the Sigs developed frame cracks in endurance testing, while the Berettas were the only pistols tested - including the steel "control group" Browning 1911s - which showed no signs whatsoever of frame cracking. The Sigs' performance in the "dry dust" phase of functional reliability testing was decidedly mediocre at 79%, compared to 96% for the S&W, 98% for the Beretta, and 100% for the H&K. The Model 92 had several defects noted, but they were relatively minor and easily rectified, such as the overly complicated safety lever operation and the non-replaceable front sight blade. The test evaluators also took into account the fact that the JSSAP testing process had been prolonged and repeated since its inception in 1979 - primarily due to pressure from Smith & Wesson - and the Beretta had been the winner in each round of testing, except for the 1981 trials, when Beretta's experiment with teflon coatings caused reliability problems, and in which inconsistent ammunition caused all the pistols to fail to meet the reliability criteria - a fact that greatly irritated and exasperated Congressional commttees.) 75.90.16.48 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the final bids for the M9 contract, Beretta underbid Saco (SIG's U.S. importer at the time). Saco bid $77,816,000 for the pistols, magazines, and spare parts. Beretta bid $74,762,000. This was controversial since in the original series of bids, Saco had underbid Beretta by just over $9 million. With the final prices factored in, the scores changed to Beretta 858, Saco 847.

This led to allegations that the Army had leaked Saco's bids to Beretta for the purposes of undercutting them. This argument was bolstered by the fact that Beretta USA's general manager delivered their final bid personally. The bid document was type-written with blanks for the final prices, which were then written in and initialed with ink by the general manager. The General Accounting Office investigated this upon request by Congress. The report is titled Pistol Procurement - Allegations on Army Selection of Beretta 9-mm as DOD Standard Sidearm (June 1986). --D.E. Watters 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The Army evaluators and the GAO also had greater confidence that Beretta would actually deliver its pistols on time and on budget, compared to Sig. They had several good reasons for believing this. First, Unlike Sig, Beretta already had a US factory (the M9 contract winner had to be manufactured in the US), therefore it only needed to expand an existing factory, instead of building a new one. Second, on the commercial market the Beretta was considerably cheaper than the Sig, indicating that the Sig was inherently pricier to make. Third, Sig used stamped steel for the slide, and steel-stamping equipment is initially very expensive compared to milling and grinding machines. All these factors led to the suspicion that Sig had submitted a "low-ball" figure that it could not fulfill.) 75.90.16.48 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language in the section(s) regarding the Small Arms trials and efficacy in combat need to have the language neutralized; they read like either apologetics or advertisements. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications to slide

[edit]

I was watching History Channel today and they said the slide was modified because law enforcement found that when the gun was extended within arms reach of a criminal, the criminal could grab the top of the slide and pull it towards themselves. This would remove the slide entirely from the gun disabling it. Anyone have references to confirm this? I'm not used to editing pages or I'd do it myself.

Please remember to sign your comments.
As for this modification, I have never heard of or read about it. Perhaps they are confusing several facts: yes at various points modifications have been made to meet requirements or requests from various armed services (US military, French military and Italian military/police) and yes there was a modification called a "slide retention device" (see Beretta 92#Early problems) that prevents the slide from flying off to the rear during a particular type of slide failure with some early models, but it had nothing to do with criminals pulling the slide from the pistol. I'm not a police officer, but boy, if I were and a criminal grabbed a hold of my pistol, I would probably prefer that the slide came off so that they wouldn't be able to use my own pistol against me! Deon Steyn 11:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an urban legend. Anyone grabbing at a police officer's gun is going to be end up with many bullets in them, and even if anyone ever did pull the slide off the gun in this manner, there is no way it ever happened enough to warrant a design change. You would need to press the disassembly latch to remove the slide anyway so it's not a plausible story to begin with. --Junky 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... LAPD officers often ask their armory to shave off the disassembly lever so that particular move is not possible. This came about when the move was showed in a Hollywood Film, in which Jet Li did indeed dissarm an opponent this way. We all got together in a National Guard Armory to see if it could be done, and sure enough, after practicing this a couple of times, we could do it with a 90% success rate. Now I am not saying that this is a recommended way to disarm an opponent, but it is mechanically possible. - Jerry.mills 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible but not very likely. It would require flipping the takedown lever and pulling off the slide all before the shooter pulls the trigger. What you need to be worried about is an assailant pushing your slide out of battery (The gun cannot fire out of battery and it would KB if it did). This is a problem on any semi-automatic pistol and, there are rail attachments that cover the muzzle for pistols. This prevents the BG from pushing your slide out of battery from the muzzle end.

DyNo 02:36, 9 November 2006

Anyone criminal who could pull this trick could---and WOULD---simply snatch the whole pistol (probably taking the user's trigger finger off in the process) and then would shoot the user to death.

This isn't a "defect" with the Beretta, it's a training---and intelligence---problem with the users who would allow a bad guy (that they are pointing a loaded pistol at) to get close enough to snatch their weapon.

You can't fix stupid. Not by modifying some parts of a handgun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.162.7 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sport use

[edit]

The whole sport use section is just bloat in my opinion. Every gun has a lot of 3rd-party modifications available, and I don't think this discussion adds anything to the article. Most of it applies to all guns, and maybe it would fit in better in some other article. --Junky 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calibers section

[edit]

I only came to look at this article because I recently got in some time with several Beretta models, including the 92. Because I do not want to offend anyone, as this article seems to have a following, and because I don't know specifically which countries to list other than Italy, I just thought I'd of the obvious that Africa is not a country. --Trakon 10:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's better. Thanks to Asams10 for the edit. -- Mudwater 12:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Dates of first 92 model

[edit]

I am trying to figure out if the timespan given for the production of the first model is correct (1975-1976). I own an Italian made 92 of the first design (step slide, frame safety, bottom mag release), and the date stamp on the trigger guard says AC, which according to [1]this table is 1977. Any ideas? --Rainynight65 12:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for PAMAS G1

[edit]

The French service pistol is a simple license-built variant of the 92 with a few minor modifications. Koalorka (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they should be merged. Woodrow Buzard (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber vs calibre

[edit]

'Caliber' is more commonly used by English speakers than 'calibre'. The Wikipedia article, Caliber, uses that spelling in the title for that reason. Since this has little to do with the Beretta 92, the Caliber article would be a better place for you to discuss your issue with the spelling. ROG5728 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. 'Caliber' is the USA spelling. 'Calibre' is found in other countries, including English speaking ones. As this article is about a gun from an Italian manufacturer there is no reason to adopt US spelling. Additional to this is that 'calibre' is the spelling used in Italy and therefore appropriate for an Italian subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that 'calibre' is used in English-speaking countries outside of the United States. It's still true that most speakers of English use 'caliber'. The subject of the article doesn't dictate what spelling is preferable; the Beretta 92 may be of Italian origin but this is still an article written in English, on the English Wikipedia. The most commonly spoken English word is preferable, and in this case that is 'caliber'. ROG5728 (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the initial argument. It doesn't matter what spelling is used. If an Italian or a Scot started the article and used the spelling calibre, then that spelling does not have to be fixed to caliber just because most of the U.S.A. use caliber. This is not the U.S.A. Wikipedia. It's the English Wikipedia and any article written in English can adopt whichever spelling. It would be nice to tag the article with a geographical location that correlates to a specific English initially spelling.
ICE77 (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Service

[edit]

Does anyone know when which Beretta 92 model is in service and what year it was adopted by the Italian Armed Forces? Thedefenceman (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Italian article on the M92 says 1978, and here [2] it says that the police adopted it in 1976, so I suppose 1978 is possible. --Amendola90 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

92SB "Extremely rare"

[edit]

The 92SB was issued to South African armed forces in large numbers - so I am not sure if the "extremely rare" statement is correct! Farawayman (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Beretta 90two

[edit]

The article, Beretta 90two, has only one source and that is a self published website. Also, it's just a variation of the 92. So I put a merge template on the page. --LBiller39 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the two should be merged. I do not think that the difference between the M9 and 90Two is great enough to justify separate pages. it seems like it would be similar to having separate pages for different Glock pistols. I think the setup should be similar to the page for the SIG P226. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone cleaned up the Vertec entries, eh?

[edit]

Just looking at the page, I noticed that someone seems to have removed references to the "Vertec" variant/series. It is still present in some boxes and in the "users" section, but not explanation anywhere. I cannot be bothered to search through the revisions to find the original text. Thought I'd point it out anyway 62.225.239.45 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errors spotted by Dimitrius James

[edit]

Not too tech savvy, so I don't want to try my hand at editing yet, but would like to bring to the attention of those that are editors of this page a couple of minor errors. First, under the "options" heading regarding the Brigadier. The Brigadier is not being made under collaboration with Wilson Combat. Beretta still makes this pistol by themselves. The "Wilson Combat 92G Brigadier Tactical" is the pistol that Beretta is making in collaboration with WC. These differ from the standard Brigadier in that they have a light rail, all steel controls (as opposed to the polymer coated ones) "G" spec decocker, 4.7" target crowned barrel, fluted steel guiderod, thin profile G-10 grips, rounded trigger guard, "D" spec hammer spring, Elite II hammer, and their own unique serial number with a "WC" prefix among other features, the specs of which can be found here : http://wilsoncombat.com/new/handgun-beretta-brigadier-tactical.asp#.VUzmyXBHaK0

The other error is under the heading "Design" with regards to the polymer coated parts. The trigger bar, slide lock/release, right side safety lever, and disassembly button and latch are not polymer coated. They are simply coated in Bruniton, just like the slide. The trigger, mag release, and left side safety lever are the "true" polymer coated parts, being polymer encasements over a steel endoskeleton. Again, this includes the mag release, which is not completely made of polymer, as alluded in the description.

It would also be nice to see mention of the Vertec variant, which is essentially a railed 92 with thinner grip panels, 4.7" barrel, and a 1911 grip angle. This gun caters to those used to/preferring a 1911 style grip, as well as those with smaller hands that find the standard 92 frame a little bit of a handful.

I'm just a guy that's into Beretta's, as I'm sure are those that edit this page, and just wanted to make my minor contribution to enhance accuracy.

Dimitrius James (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Dimitrius James[reply]

Dimitrius James, I've moved your comment down to a new section; the prior discussion is from almost 10 years ago(!), and I feel the stuff you've brought up deserves its own section. It sounds like you really know what you're talking about, but an important issue is verifiability, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. Essentially, we have to back everything up with reliable sources. Do you have links or books you can use to back these statements up? In the meantime, if the wrong material does not have a source, go ahead and remove it. No point in leaving incorrect information up there - we're generally better off with a shorter article than a wrong one. :) One way to experiment with editing is to go to your sandbox (yours is here). You can copy and paste the entire source of the Beretta 92 page into it and make sure that the edits you're thinking of doing all come out looking right. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beretta 92. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beretta 92. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beretta 92. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winnenden school shooting

[edit]

I added two sentences about the Winnenden school shooting, committed with a model 92. The shooting resulted in legislation being passed, so it passes the recommendation for inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms# Criminal use :"...legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage". Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and comments

[edit]

I read the article and made some fixes to the text in the "Options" section which was not in chronological order and to the layout which was rather unorganized. I have a few comments.

1. "The United States Armed Forces replaced the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP pistol in 1985 with the military spec Beretta 92F, the M9."

Spec is not a word. It's a truncated word. Only proper words from the dictionary should be used. Jargon should be avoided.

2. The 92 models should each state dates of introduction. The same should happen for the models listed under "Operation".

3. "The 92SB, initially called 92S-1, was specifically designed for the USAF (US Air Force) trials (which it won), the model name officially adopted was the 92SB."

92SB is redundant. This sentence could be reworked.

4. "This also spawned several variants of similar internal design."

The subject is missing.

5. Under the section "Operation" I see several "Models". I don't think this makes sense. I think this should be fixed. Should the section simply be called "Models"? The introduction used the word "configurations".

6. Under "Options" section I see "Inox" and I read "(present)". That doesn't sound right. It should specify a year, a range of years or a starting year.

7. The "Steel I (2004)" section needs to be revised. I'm not even sure why parts of the text are delimited by square brackets and why the section says "Edit".

8. "These magazines provide users in unrestricted states with a larger capacity magazine."

Is it "states" as U.S.A. or countries? This is ambiguous.

9. I am debating whether the 93R model should be described in this article since this article is primarily about the Beretta 92. My opinion is that it the 93R model should only be mentioned so section "93R Machine pistol" should disappear.

ICE77 (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Beretta 92. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand to hand combat?

[edit]

"Squared off the front of the trigger guard. The squared-off trigger guard protects both the gun and the shooter during hand-to-hand combat"

Why do people insist on adding stuff like this with absolutely no clarification at all? Is it just supposed to be obvious to me how a squared of trigger guard "protects the gun and shooter" ? (And that should be user, not necessarily a "shooter"). Does the OP not know either but they felt it was worth repeating in the article? Idumea47b (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beretta_92&oldid=1214049987"