Beretta 92FS change?


I love shooting my Beretta.  I just do.   But I’ve had a “Wake up” moment about it.   Let me explain…
I’ve never had a problem with the safety.  In fact, I rather like the safety mechanism as I consider it to be one of the safest safeties in the industry.  Now, when I carry my Beretta, my routine is to safe the gun, holster, and then flick it off safe.   This allows the first trigger pull to be unhindered.  More like a SIG.  I like that.

Friday the 30th, I participated in’s Zombie Shoot.  It was a blast!   However in one stage, at two different points, I ran into some thorns.   From the first position of 3, you fire your string and safe your weapon and move to the second position to engage.   So I hit the safety, scooted to pos-2, and tried to engage.  Trigger was nothing but slack.  Two pulls, “Oh”, *flick*, bang bang bang… And then it happened again, exactly the same going into pos-3.

This was all me.  I recognize and own this.   It was not the gun – it was me.  Normally, the safety never “gets me” because I almost never keep it engaged.  I just don’t.  But because I did – broke from my routine – it got me.  twice in a row.   And I really really don’t like that.

Also, I’d normally have run my 1911… I just don’t run the Beretta enough.  Again – this is all me and my Ogreish habits.  How I do things.  And I was tasked to do things outside of my operating procedures – and evidently I don’t do that well.   I’m not making excuses here, I’m recognizing my malfunctions.

I think it’s time to look at doing “The G-Mod” on my Beretta.  Converting my 92 FS to a 92 G.   This changes the safety mechanism to a De-Cock Only.  So the lever will automatically spring back to the Fire Position.  This is evidently something that is so much of an issue for enough folks that Beretta even HAS a G model.

So now the question that I must ask myself… and only I can answer this for me.  Is do I get the G-Mod done, or do I train on this safety more so I don’t have those stumbles again?

24 thoughts on “Beretta 92FS change?”

  1. But then the first shoot will be double action? And have a totally different feel. I dont know berettas but with the cz 75 it will work like that…

  2. I am a Beretta lover, and the safety is an attraction for me rather than a wart. I like it being there during times of manipulation such as loading and unloading, holstering, and the like. As you mentioned as an option at the end, I just decided to dedicate a lot of work and attention to making the safety sweep part of the presentation as well as shooting with a thumb high grip that places my thumb right between the disengaged safety and the slide lock. I carry it off safe, but I still always do the sweep as a “just in case” thing. After doing it for a while, it’s just second nature and doesn’t add any time to the draw.

  3. I know you’re not taking votes, but I vote for the G. Another liability with the FS is the potential of inadvertently knocking the safety down while racking the slide to clear a malfunction. I think it is more of an unsafety.

    1. There it is. The rack risk.
      I’ve heard people talking about that risk, but i’ve never actually seen that happen. I think it’s a myth. Like bigfoot or Nigerian Princes that want to give Americans money.

      1. With respect, it does exist. It was something I noticed when I first picked up my Beretta, and I feel it is a technique issue, no more.

        It seems to come up when using a ham-fisted overhand slingshot slide release maneuver, such as one can safely use on any Glock or Sig. An adjustment of technique, and some reloading drills can minimize the chances of it ever being an issue.

        As for the question at hand… Go for the G mod. You already use your weapon as such, so why not?

  4. Just seek out the original Italian pre s model 92 with the frame mounted safety and have training congruity with the 1911 platform, i.e. condition one carry. although the magazine release :(. I guess you just need a billenium,

    1. Oh, yeah… because those are so easy to find!
      LOL – I wish it was that simple. I’ve only seen ONE of those, approx 12-15 years ago. I’ve never seen one in person since.
      And even then, at that time – it was not for sale.

      1. yeah My Billenium comment wasn’t to be taken as a realistic suggestion, I definitely want one but its not about to happen anytime soon. I’ve currently been toying with the idea of a Taurus PT 92 can it be that bad? The 92 S mag release is actually a little bit handy for tac reloads as long as your firing right handed, I just still cant recommend it as the costs outweigh that slight benefit.

  5. I want all of my carry guns to work the same. Pull the gun, pull the trigger. Revolver or semi-auto – no difference. Now, the second shot may or may not have the same trigger pull as the first, but it works the same. Pull the trigger. Do it again. My semi-autos either have decockers, or are carried hammer down, safety off.

    I don’t like safety switches on carry guns. That may just be me, but I prefer simple and consistent.

  6. Train with and pick one system for carry. Then stick with it instead of jumping from 1911 to stryker fire to DA/SA and on and on. Do not recommend altering any system a firearm came with. Just adding another potential point of failure in an emergency. You admit it was operator error so increase practice or just use it for recreational range time. Respectfully

      1. Boring yes, but if you had those self admitted errors in a real life situation you might have ended up room temperature. At least finish any range session with the weapon you carry to reinforce muscle memory into reflex action. You are not getting any younger and focus is a mature shooters best friend.

        1. Uh, if you read the article, he says that he normally carries it off-safe, but that he had to safe it between stages for the event he was attending. So, those failures would not have taken place in a real life situation, because he’d have been carrying it ready-to-rock in real life.

  7. I say training. First, the system is out there on multiple platforms, a trainer should be able to run them without resorting to modifications. Second how many times have we heard (or said ourselves) don’t try to buy a hardware solution to a software problem. You said yourself that you don’t run the gun enough, that sounds like your answer right there, just my opinion.

    1. We don’t tell a small woman that she should buy a heavy gun, and “just exercise more” to make it easy to point. Yeah, that would be the ideal solution, but in the real world, we tell her to buy a gun she can comfortably bring up on target.

      Ideally, we’d all train constantly on every possible weapon, and be able to pick up absolutely anything and run it like we were born holding it. But most of us can’t manage to do that, so we work to ensure that we can get similar performance from all of the weapons we own, with the amount of training we can afford (whether that be in ammunition, time, or whatever other costs exist).

      Sometimes that means using a “hardware solution” to enable us to train for the things that matter, rather than expending our training budget on irrelevancies.

      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  8. The parts from Wilson aren’t that much dough, but how much does the Smith charge for the conversion. I don’t know what is involved, but I am under the impression that it isn’t just a parts change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *