Talk:Beretta 92 pistol series
The Boondock Saints characters David Della Rocco and the McManus brothers were incorrectly listed as users of the Beretta 92FS. In the movie, the actual pistols used were the Taurus PT92 with optional suppressors. The Taurus markings are visible in the Carlo Yakavetta execution scene at the end of the movie and was also confirmed by the armorer for the movie and director Troy Duffy.
- Well your correction was wrong. Have you even looked at the page? Here is a screencap. That's definitely a Beretta, it sometimes switches to a PT92 in certain scenes. --Predator20 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The Beretta Centurion, is it simply a 92FS with a shortened barrel? Or is there something else I'm missing?
It's essentially got the Compact's barrel and slide, the normal sized frame, and a slightly shorter dust cover that doesn't really fit into either other category. Acora 10:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder
When you talk about the Beretta 92F or 92FS, it is not spelled "M92F" (as this page is titled), "M92FS", or even "92 FS" with a space in between the "92" and "FS". It's just Beretta 92F or Beretta 92FS, exactly as I have just spelled it. If you see a page with the older (mis)spelling, please do not hesitate to correct it.
And considering that this page has grown to include all of the 92 variants (including the SB, Brigadier, Centurion, etc.), it might be time to rename it. I would recommend re-titling the page "Beretta 92-series pistols". Anyone else agree? MT2008
Why not have more info on the 93R? Give it its own page?
I propose the following info 9 (and an image if possible; how do I place/upload images here anyway?)
The Beretta 93R (full name: Beretta Model 93R) is a selective-fire 9mm machine pistol. The "R" stands for "Raffica" which means burst in Italian. It was designed in the 70s and meant for police and military use, offering extra firepower in a small package. It is perfect for concealed carry purposes such as VIP protection, or for close quarters fighting such as room-to-room searches.
A selector switch and the foldable foregrip allows the pistol to fire three round bursts with each pull of the trigger for a potential cyclic rate of 1100 rpm. The designers limited it to three round bursts to allow it to be more easily controlled. The 93R is basically a Beretta 92 series pistol (the Beretta 92FS is designated "M9" by the US military, and is the standard issue pistol for the US military). But the 93R is single action and outfitted with a muzzle brake, an optional detachable shoulder stock and a 20-round magazine that also allowed for a firmer grip. It is currently out of production.
The gun has been used in several movies:
- Face/Off a 1997 action movie starring John Travolta and Nicolas Cage and directed by John Woo.
- Equilibrium a 2002 action/science fiction film written and directed by Kurt Wimmer with Christian Bale, Taye Diggs, Christian Kahrmann, Emily Watson and Sean Bean.
I hope no one minds that I changed the page name, "pistol series" matches more of the titles on other pages and is easier to remember than "Series Pistols". Agreed? -GM
Why separate INOX?
I was just wondering if there were any technical differences between the 92FS and the INOX, other than the slide being stainless.
- Good question. Only because there are so many movies featuring the 92F Inox that if we didn't separate it from the regular 92F, we'd have to put notes about "Inox finish" in parentheses near each. Whereas most of the other Berettas with Inox finishes don't appear in nearly as many movies. -MT2008
What happened to the other Inox pic that was posted a few days ago? Could you send it to me, please? - User:Taurus96
Die Hard and Lethal Weapon
I've looked at a few of the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon pages, and there seems to be some confusion about which of the two Berettas on this site was used in each film. So, for future reference: which Berettas were used in the Die Hard films and the Lethal Weapon films? I'll put them up. Thanks. -Gunman69 02:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- What the Beretta page says is pretty much accurate. The first gun was used in both the first Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. See how it has a custom extended slide release (due to Willis being a leftie)? In Die Hard, there are plenty of scenes where it's possible to see that same extension on the slide release (most notably, during the scene where McClane is about to wander through the shattered glass). The second gun was used in the other three Die Hard movies and Demolition Man.
- Also, I don't know why people keep putting the Die Hard Beretta on other pages for movies which didn't feature that particular gun. It should only be used for pages on movies in which it's actually appeared, no more. -MT2008
- Ok, so the first one was in the first Die Hard and the first Lethal Weapon, while the second was used in the other three Die Hards. Was the second also used in the other Lethal Weapons?
- It's interesting how the Lethal Weapon pistol was the same one from Die Hard. Obviously it was modified for Bruce Willis to use, but didn't Lethal Weapon come out a year prior to Die Hard?
- As far as using the Die Hard image goes, I think people are doing that to pages that have the Beretta 92F and not the 92FS. This is probably because the Beretta 92F from Die Hard is the only image of a Beretta 92F on this site. Thanks for your help, MT. -Gunman69 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the Beretta used in the first Lethal Weapon was different from in the subsequent films because it had a gold Beretta logo on the grips instead of the black one that matches the grips on the Berettas shown here. Orca1 9904 06:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- the second was used in the other three Die Hards. Was the second also used in the other Lethal Weapons?
- I'm not really sure. When MoviePropMaster took the pictures of these guns, he said he may have got confused what movies they appeared in. But here is a picture of the second Beretta (and its "stunt double") in their display case at Stembridge & Cinema Weaponry:
- You can see that the label next to the gun only mentions Die Hard II and Demolition Man as its movie appearances. But MPM did say he was specifically told that they also brought this Beretta out of "retirement" from the glass case so that it could have a cameo appearance in Live Free or Die Hard (as we mentioned on the page for that movie). I'm not sure if it was in Die Hard with a Vengeance, but that strikes me as unlikely because that movie was filmed in New York and a different armory supplied the weapons for it. I'm also not sure if it was in any of the other Lethal Weapon movies or not. -MT2008
- As far as using the Die Hard image goes, I think people are doing that to pages that have the Beretta 92F and not the 92FS. This is probably because the Beretta 92F from Die Hard is the only image of a Beretta 92F on this site.
- Hmmm, to me, that's kind of stupid because there is so little difference between the 92F and 92FS. Not to mention that it's rather hard to be sure when one or the other is being used (the 92FS replaced the 92F in production very quickly, after all). But I would prefer that the Die Hard/Lethal Weapon Beretta only be used on pages for movies in which it actually appears. -MT2008
- I think they do this to movies that featured the Beretta that were made in the 80s. If I'm not mistaken, the Beretta 92FS came out in 1990, so they probably think it would be inaccurate to post a picture of the 92FS when the movie obviously used a 92F. -Gunman69 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's all a moot point. I Just uploaded two shots of early Beretta 92Fs which can be used generically as opposed to the hero movie guns. Thank you thank you thank you, just leave a tip in the jar........ MoviePropMaster2008 07:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
MPM2008, you deserve a cookie. I have replaced the 92FS image and the Die Hard 92F in a few 80's films. But what is the best year to stop using the 92F? Lethal Weapon 2 came out in '89 and Die Hard 2 '90, they both feature the 92FS. Anything prior to '88? -Predator20 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- The 92FS actually came out in either late 1988/early 1989, so these guns were purchased IMMEDIATELY and used right away, which is rare unless it's a hot and 'hip/trendy' gun like the 92. Prior to 1989 there ARE no 92FS guns. PRior to 1983 there are no 92F guns (The ones in 1983 were actually 92SB-F guns which were the same weapon. There is NO stop use date for the 92F or even the 92S/92SB guns. As you've seen people still grab them from inventory as recently as now in films. Just because the Walther P38 technically stopped production at the end of WW2 (Walther's post war versions were actually named differently) we still see the P38 in films for the past 65 years. So in essence we're just taking a wild guess. The only things we can be sure of is when they are NOT being used (i.e. the year of production is too early for the model to have been sold). But any gun of any age can be used at any time. When in doubt and it looks the same, opt for the 92FS from 1990 on unless you can get a really good look at the shiny grips, then it's a 92F. MoviePropMaster2008 19:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Awesome work on the new Beretta 92F pictures, MPM2008, they look great!--Alienqueen11 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I get what you mean about the 92F still being used today. But like you said unless you can really see the shiny grips or have a really great shot of the slide. You pretty much have to go when the film was made. I haven't handled that many Beretta's I didn't even notice the grips being different F shiny vs FS flat. Here is a pic of my 92F. While the grips look flat, they're shiny it is just my crappy photo skills.
Also wouldn't a history timeline of the changes on the 92 be a good thing for the page? -Predator20 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the distinction between the Beretta 92F and the 92FS?
- The FS models have a slide retention device on the frame. Here is a pic showing the slide differences. The FS on top, F on the bottom. --Predator20 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Variantons we don't have
We are lacking:
Beretta 92A1: 17 round mag, and a Picattiny-Similar rail under the barrel
Beretta 96A1: Same as above but is chambered in .40 S&W and haves a 12 round mag
Beretta 92FS type M9A1: Basically a civilian M9A1 --Yocapo32 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unless those weapons have appeared in any movies or TV shows, I'm not sure we need them on this page. Our goal is to document what appears in movies, not to make a comprehensive list of every variant that Beretta has ever made. As a general guideline, we don't add variants/pictures to a page if we have no evidence that they've appeared in any media. -MT2008 01:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok --Yocapo32 00:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the process of customizing my Beretta, and I've found something that I really like, but I don't know the name of the product. It's the kind of grip in the picture used for the Brigadier Inox, and similarly seen in this image here: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_fP72_yZL4Yk/Sseqpb4zlsI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/1IvokqYHl30/s800/DSC_1636.jpg though I'm not sure they're the same brand of grips. Either way, though, does anyone know a company that sells grips like these for the 92FS? Hopefully at a relatively low price? Acora 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those look like Hogue grips. They are pretty common. Fairly inexpensive too. --Predator20 08:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Could be better
I just personally think "why would they not do that?" Like getting rid of the rounded trigger guard, or not giving it a M1911A1 style safety. Not to mention they could add about half of an inch to the barrel. I have never been able to find someone who would customize my old 92F, half the time the telling after I told them what I wanted, they would say, "It can't be done." Of course, being I'm stubborn as hell, I kept looking until I just gave up. Are these custom features too much or just can't happen except in my dreams? - Kilgore 05:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you want the "M1911A1 style safety" wouldn't you be better off with an original 92 that has the frame mounted safety versus the slide mounted safety of all the later variants. The trigger guard could probably be reshaped, no problem. But not sure if the alloy frame would cause problems. --Predator20 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Or just get a Taurus, they are good guns.--FIVETWOSEVEN 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone explain this to me?
What is the benefit of purchasing a Brigadier over a typical 92fs? I have been attempting to research it, and can find no definitive answer.
- Stronger slide. The Brigadier slide is beefed up where the 92fs slide weak point is, at the the locking block area. That's the most common area for them to crack at.--Predator20 15:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a question as well . i was on a page before and they refered to the 92FS as a "Lane And Weston" what dose that mean? simmons 8492
Beretta 92SB vs. Beretta 92FS
Aside from the shape of the trigger gaurd, what are the differences between the Beretta 92SB and the Beretta 92FS? -Anonymous
- The SB still had the traditional bluing while the 92F has the Bruniton finish.--Predator20 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you give more information about the two finnishes? Pros and cons of each, the finnishing process, why they switched?
- The Bruniton finish has the matte black look, it's supposed to be more durable than bluing as most other finishes are. My 92F is a former police gun, made in '87 I think. While it's got some wear. The Bruniton finish has done its job. The finishing process I have no idea. The finish on the frames looks to me like they stayed the same.--Predator20 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you give more information about the two finnishes? Pros and cons of each, the finnishing process, why they switched?
In grey's anatomy, season 6 ep 23~24 it looks like the shooter was using either the 92 or the 96 I am not sure which. Can anybody verify? - teckchris
- More likely a 92. 9mm pistols work better with blanks than .40s, and since so many blank-firing 92s are available for use, it doesn't seem likely they would use a 96. I saw the episode in question, but can't remember what the bore size looked like. -Anonymous
Does anyone know if the LAPD (or California Law enforcement in general) is required to abide by the 10rd limit they impose on civilians? I'm pretty sure the LAPD adopted this weapon before the limit was instated, however since it was passed are the uniformed patrol officers required to use the restricted capacity magazines civilians are forced to make due with? -Anonymous
- It varies/depends on the particular state somewhat but generally no, law enforcement isn't limited by the same restrictions as civilians. After all, they do have selective-fire, short-barreled and/or suppressed weapons, and even access to restricted ammunition and other things. I'm pretty sure extra-loaded mags for their service semiautos are part of the deal. In some gun catalogs it states certain capacity magazines are available only to law enforcement. So, yes they can have full 15 (10+) round magazines. I'm not positive as to whether this applies to CA specifically, but I would think so. StanTheMan 23:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find that appalling. SWAT officers certainly should not be required to abide by the same restrictions as civilians as they are more highly trained, do not interact with the public often, and are only called when things really get hairy, but I don't believe patrol officers should be permitted to possess weapons that are forbidden to private citizens, as any situation they might encounter a civilian could be faced with as well, and, because they interact with the general public more, there is greater potential for abuse if the balance of power is too much in their favor. I don't want to sound like some kind of paranoid anarchist, however in principal I don't think the average cop on the street should be able to outgun every citizen he may encounter. Sure 10rds vs. 15rds may not be that big a deal, but it's a slippery slope. -Anonymous
- Again, I'm not too specific about all the uh, specifics. And some vary depending on which state you live in. Some civilians are allowed 'restricted' stuff, though not in many cases from what I gather. Still, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Granted I wouldn't mind so much about them getting a few extra rounds in their semiautos (one of the reasons they went to semiautos in the first place was higher capacity), but I hear you about the rest. 'Special' weapons of the sort SHOULD only be issued/used by SWAT teams and other 'special' units. Unfortunately, some cities/departments don't seem to care much in that regard, especially these days. The LAPD you're talking about is also the same LAPD that issued hundreds of military-surplus M16 rifles to regular patrolmen as a knee-jerk reaction to the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout, a decision that still holds effective to this day I believe. And other departments have followed suit (I have seen an episode of 'COPS' with a regular patrolman holding an M4-type rifle on a suspect). Anyway, I still haven't given you a definitive answer about your initial question, so before we continue preaching further, perhaps we should wait until we get one, though I'm pretty sure what the answer will be. StanTheMan 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean that "they" impose on civilians? LAPD are law enforcers, not lawmakers. And no, I don't think LAPD deserves to be subject to the same idiotic laws that civilians are subjected to. Just because legislators in CA are stupid doesn't mean the LAPD needs to be impeded from doing their jobs. And contrary to what you seem to think, LAPD officers are not going to encounter the same situations that civilians encounter. It is their job to put themselves out on patrol in dangerous areas on a daily basis, which means that they are statistically more likely to be at risk than civilians. I realize you hate CA's gun laws, but taking your anger out on law enforcement officers is hardly a rational response. You do sound like a "paranoid anarchist". -MT2008 03:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- They may not make the laws, but by enforcing them they give them credibility. Complacency is complicity, after all. And yes, the LAPD(with exception of SWAT) deserve to be subject to the same laws as civilians. Here in California, a Ruger Mini-14 is not an assault weapon, but an AR-15 is, despite both being functionally identical, save for a few ergonomic and cosmetic features. And when you consider that Assault Weapons Ban Supporters claim that the only purpose of Assault Weapons is killing lots of people(their words, not mine), it makes you start to wonder why every patrolcar has one in it. I didn't realize that it was the police's job to kill lots of people. 10 round limits are fine, but not the rest of it. As for the original question, I walk by a police station every other day, and I see in each patrolcar an AR-15 type SBR with a 20 round magazine(in addition to a riotgun). I've never looked closely enough to know whether they are full-auto though. So no, even regular police are not governed by the same restrictions as civilians here in CA.--Mr-Jigsaw 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's their job to enforce the law. They don't have a choice. Plenty of people work in professions where they have to do stuff that they don't necessarily agree with. By your definition, anyone in California who obeyed the law (and doesn't buy 15-round magazines) must also be "complicit". Just because you disagree with CA's magazine capacity limits doesn't mean police deserve to suffer the same restrictions. And in case you've forgotten, at least civilians have the option of fleeing from scenes of violence, whereas a police officer's job is pretty much to run towards it. Take your ire out on politicians and their idiot constituents. -MT2008 14:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
92FS Late Version
I noticed that while we have separate images of most major weapons in each of their development stages, yet we don't have any images of post '03 models (the ones with the miscellaneous polymer parts and a tapered forward frame). I browsed through all of the movies on the 92FS list that had a listed date after 2003, and the the only one that I could tell was definitely using one of the newer makes was Taken (you can see Neeson using one with the distinctive slanted frame in the second screenshot for the "factory black" 92F listing). To the various armorers on this site; are these just not that common in movie armorer stocks?--PistolJunkie 06:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's just not economically feasible to run out and buy every variant that comes down the pike and put into the armory. Especially since California is going out of it's way to make getting newer models of any type of firearm more difficult or more expensive (completely due to regulations and NOT the free marketplace), armories maintain many older firearms because there is no real upside in not only buying new guns and blank adapting them, but also the cost has to be filtered down to the customer, and very rarely does it make a difference to the story. Also, even if you're an FFL and have other permits and paperwork, many business are just not doing ANY business with the state, another facet which makes it more difficult MoviePropMaster2008 07:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Technically speaking, should it be "INOX" or "Inox"? And how do you pronounce it: ee-nox, ih-nox, in-ox or spelled out? Thanks MrOshimida27 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- The term "Inox" is short for "inoxidizable", which is a fancy way of saying the weapon has a stainless finish. Orca1 9904 14:24, 11 July 2011 (CDT)
Just an amateur question
I have a blank Beretta 92F pistol. Is there any way to tell that it is a blank gun? (I do not wish to rob a bank or anything like that, I just want to know how many changes did they make compared to the original model... :D ) bozitojugg3rn4ut 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- It may just be the angle of the first photo, but it looks like they either gave it a skeleton hammer or set it further inward. It also looks like they removed some of the curvature from the rear of the slide. The magazine foot is thicker in the front, the lanyard loop is thicker and the extractor is longer.--PistolJunkie 20:15, 16 March 2011 (CDT)
Early Beretta 92?
Can someone tell me what exactly this pistol is? (pic from Beretta World)
The site has it as the picture for the Beretta 92, but it has a couple of differences. Firstly, it has different grips that do not feature the Beretta logo, but I understand that these can be easily changed so could be spurious. Secondly though, the gun in question features a taper/step down in the slide just in front of the ejection port that I have never seen before. My assumption is that this is a very early or prototype Beretta 92 with a slide that was too weak, so the front was widened to the same thickness as the back for future models. I wouldn't normally care, but have found a pistol that matches the above one exactly, so want to know what it is:
--commando552 05:25, 14 July 2011 (CDT)
What film is the screenshot from? --cool-breeze 06:45, 14 July 2011 (CDT)
- Its from the TV series Ultimate Force, am just getting ready to do a big update. They use the exact pistol multiple times, but the odd thing is that they use it in both blued and stainless versions (shown below). It had been suggested that it might be an early Taurus PT92, which apparently lacked the finger step (never heard of this though) but after finding the pic of the Beretta 92 shown above with the exact grips and slide, am pretty sure that is what it is. --commando552 16:39, 14 July 2011 (CDT)
Ah right. The picture has a higher angled hammer than a standard 92 style hammer. --cool-breeze 17:57, 14 July 2011 (CDT)
How does one actually prononuce Inox? Is it Eyenox? Innox? And does it change depending on the country? TheHeartbreakKid15 17:51, 14 October 2011 (CDT)
- "In ox". It's short for "inoxidizing".--PistolJunkie 20:09, 14 October 2011 (CDT)
Question about M9
Is there actually a difference between the M9 and the 92FS, or is it simply a matter of a different designation, because the M9 is a military weapon? Sentient6 19:55, 13 November 2011 (CST)
- From the Beretta forum.--Predator20 22:55, 13 November 2011 (CST)
- The M9 usually has a straight dustcover and non-radiused backstrap (Contract Pistols will always be straight/straight)
- The 92FS (recent model) has a radiused backstrap and angled dustcover (The older 92FS pistols did not have the slanted dustcover.)
- M9 markings (including proof markings and cage # markings)
- M9 lacks the warning to read owner's manual
- The rear sight of the 92FS has 2 dots, whereas the M9 has a single half-moon
- M9 (unless special or limited edition) comes in cardboard box, with no plastic hard case
Thanks! Sentient6 08:00, 14 November 2011 (CST)
The original M9 was based on the 92F, the FS was a later 92 variant however everything I find online shows the M9 (including Beretta's own site on the M9) mentions it does indeed have it. Pepper (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2014 (EST)
- That number could easily be in the thousands due to how ubiquitous the 92FS is. Spartan198 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2013 (EST)
Does anyone know why the safety was moved from the frame to the slide? I've heard complaints about the slide safety, how it gets in the way while working the slide, and seeing how keeping it on the frame would simplify transitioning from the M1911, why the change? Was it Beretta's idea or the US military's? --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (EST)
- Despite my liking for some semiautos like the older Rugers and the 3rd Gen S&Ws I find the slide safeties on those to a be a bit of a potential drawback. Firing my bro-in-law's Px4 was wonderful and it is a great gun except that safety is a bit awkward to deal with, especially when working the slide. So I have to say I can see their point, and even agree to an extent.
As for why, well, I have a feeling it might have been more a manufacturing expedient; it may have been a bit simpler to produce guns with slide safeties - A lot of pistols around that time and later (and indeed, many semiautos period) seem to have them, so that may be it. It also may be because those safeties act as decockers as well, necessitating making them at the slide nearer to the hammer to facilitate their purpose and again, be easier to make. In any event I'm sure it was all Beretta, and not something asked for by the DoD - It was done back on the 92S, which I think predates those pistol trials - Plus there isn't a slide safety on the P226 (or any SIGs, for that matter), which came to within a hair of winning itself, so again, doubt it was in their criteria (nor disallowed, obviously). Just some observations, they might be a bit silly to suggest it but there they are. StanTheMan (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (EST)
- The change was at the request of Italian police I believe, who wanted a combined safety/decocker (with the original the options were cocked and locked which some police forces do not like, an empty chamber which is far from ideal if the pistol needs to be used, or having to manually decock by riding the hammer down with the safety off which is a very bad idea for a general issue police pistol). I don't know if the change of position was also part of this request or it was just what they needed to do to get it to work (I imagine the former as Taurus PT92s can have a frame safety/decocker so it can physically work). Although I really do not like frame safeties as I am paranoid about engaging them when racking the slide (particularly in gloves), there are some advantages to the slide safety. With the slide safety the way it works is that it rotates the firing pin out of line with the hammer meaning that there is absolutely no way that the gun could fire and is a very simple and reliable system. Also, the way that the frame safety on the original 92 worked meant that with the safety engaged the slide was locked closed, meaning that in order to load, clear or check the gun you had to take the safety off which could have been a problem for police. --commando552 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2015 (EST)