Noticed that there is a 92fs cheaper than the M9 at my local shop and was wondering what the differences are if any?
I always thought it was just name, but never really knew.
I always thought it was just name, but never really knew.
Suppressors Difference between the 92FS and M9?
- Thread starter viav13
- Start date
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Markings.
Markings.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
I heard the M9 was US made, I think that's wrong though, I've only shot 92Fs's.
I heard the M9 was US made, I think that's wrong though, I've only shot 92Fs's.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
I have had many M9's in my hand over the years and also have Beretta 92F at home. There is not any difference in the pistol from each other. Not sure why they are charging difference prices but when it comes to gun shops you just can't why unless, it happens to have U.S. markings on it and they think that makes it more desirable so they jack up the price.
I have had many M9's in my hand over the years and also have Beretta 92F at home. There is not any difference in the pistol from each other. Not sure why they are charging difference prices but when it comes to gun shops you just can't why unless, it happens to have U.S. markings on it and they think that makes it more desirable so they jack up the price.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
My 92FS has a polymer trigger and guide rod. Every M9 I've ever seen had metal for those parts. Steel for the guide rod and aluminum for the trigger, IIRC...
And yes, M9s are US made. So is my 92FS. If I was in the market for one right now, I would be getting one of the new M9A1s with the better checkering, beveled mag well, and light rail.
My 92FS has a polymer trigger and guide rod. Every M9 I've ever seen had metal for those parts. Steel for the guide rod and aluminum for the trigger, IIRC...
And yes, M9s are US made. So is my 92FS. If I was in the market for one right now, I would be getting one of the new M9A1s with the better checkering, beveled mag well, and light rail.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
M9's for the US military are made in Accokeek, Maryland as a stipulation of the original contract.
The US government and military services don't want any of their weapons manufacture located overseas in the event of hostilities, enemy take-over of the factory, labor strike, material supply disruptions, etc. FNH is based in South Carolina for that reason as well. Something about Belgium having the misfortune of being continually invaded and overrun and perhaps the ghost of Mussolini coming back from beyond...
All of which have occurred at some time as a matter of history. If you get a 92 with the plastic parts replace them, especially the guide rod. I've seen them bend/break and cause malfunctions.
http://www.shootingwire.com/shooting_wire_release.html?releaseID=125518
M9's for the US military are made in Accokeek, Maryland as a stipulation of the original contract.
The US government and military services don't want any of their weapons manufacture located overseas in the event of hostilities, enemy take-over of the factory, labor strike, material supply disruptions, etc. FNH is based in South Carolina for that reason as well. Something about Belgium having the misfortune of being continually invaded and overrun and perhaps the ghost of Mussolini coming back from beyond...
All of which have occurred at some time as a matter of history. If you get a 92 with the plastic parts replace them, especially the guide rod. I've seen them bend/break and cause malfunctions.
http://www.shootingwire.com/shooting_wire_release.html?releaseID=125518
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
When I was in the military teaching at a shooting school, I know that broken locking blocks in the M9 were a pretty common occurrence. I shot my used 92FS every chance I had and never had this same problem; probably due to the fact that the M9s were student weapons at a school house and had seen thousands of rounds. Can't say for sure, but it is always possible that to meet the government contract bid some corners may have to have been cut.
When I was in the military teaching at a shooting school, I know that broken locking blocks in the M9 were a pretty common occurrence. I shot my used 92FS every chance I had and never had this same problem; probably due to the fact that the M9s were student weapons at a school house and had seen thousands of rounds. Can't say for sure, but it is always possible that to meet the government contract bid some corners may have to have been cut.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Well if the M9 has better quality part in it, it's probably worth the small price difference between the two.
Thanks for clearing that up guys. Much appreciated.
Well if the M9 has better quality part in it, it's probably worth the small price difference between the two.
Thanks for clearing that up guys. Much appreciated.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Redmanss</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My 92FS has a polymer trigger and guide rod. Every M9 I've ever seen had metal for those parts. Steel for the guide rod and aluminum for the trigger, IIRC...
And yes, M9s are US made. So is my 92FS. If I was in the market for one right now, I would be getting one of the new M9A1s with the better checkering, beveled mag well, and light rail. </div></div>
I'm guessing the polymer parts have more to do with cost savings/trendiness. I noticed Sig is doing that now with their guide rods and I have seen some newer guns sporting plastic triggers where older ones did not. FWIW Both my father and I have 92fs' (45XXXX serial numbers) and they both are equipped with metal triggers and guide rods.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Redmanss</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My 92FS has a polymer trigger and guide rod. Every M9 I've ever seen had metal for those parts. Steel for the guide rod and aluminum for the trigger, IIRC...
And yes, M9s are US made. So is my 92FS. If I was in the market for one right now, I would be getting one of the new M9A1s with the better checkering, beveled mag well, and light rail. </div></div>
I'm guessing the polymer parts have more to do with cost savings/trendiness. I noticed Sig is doing that now with their guide rods and I have seen some newer guns sporting plastic triggers where older ones did not. FWIW Both my father and I have 92fs' (45XXXX serial numbers) and they both are equipped with metal triggers and guide rods.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
The only difference between the 92 and M9 is the roll marks. The M9's come off of the same lines as the civvie guns and have the same parts including the plastic ones. The reason you see more M9's with metal is because the major orders for them were filled in the 80's and early 90's. All new production M9's are just like the ones you get in the stores.
Locking blocks have been an issue and have been redesigned. Beretta is on gen 3 right now and the problems with breakage have been greatly reduced. Again, most of the service M9's and spare parts were bought in the 80's and still use gen 1 blocks.
Part of the reasoning for the polymer is cost savings to be sure, but some is due to part longevity. The steel guide rods for example tend to loosen up over time and per US Army TM requires replacement when the head gets loose. The plastic is one piece.
The only difference between the 92 and M9 is the roll marks. The M9's come off of the same lines as the civvie guns and have the same parts including the plastic ones. The reason you see more M9's with metal is because the major orders for them were filled in the 80's and early 90's. All new production M9's are just like the ones you get in the stores.
Locking blocks have been an issue and have been redesigned. Beretta is on gen 3 right now and the problems with breakage have been greatly reduced. Again, most of the service M9's and spare parts were bought in the 80's and still use gen 1 blocks.
Part of the reasoning for the polymer is cost savings to be sure, but some is due to part longevity. The steel guide rods for example tend to loosen up over time and per US Army TM requires replacement when the head gets loose. The plastic is one piece.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Units that shoot alot still break Gen3 blocks.
Just received two brand new in box USGI M9's to replace some that broke their major components and they had metal parts - no plastic in them maybe some of yours are different. Kept the boxes.
Units that shoot alot still break Gen3 blocks.
Just received two brand new in box USGI M9's to replace some that broke their major components and they had metal parts - no plastic in them maybe some of yours are different. Kept the boxes.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Very interesting. I guess now I should ask a lot of questions before buying one. I had no idea that they have went through so many changes in the years.
Very interesting. I guess now I should ask a lot of questions before buying one. I had no idea that they have went through so many changes in the years.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
No doubt they'll still break the blocks eventually but they seem to be improved over the older ones. The last shipment of NIB M9's I got in was 8 guns and had I think 3 with plastic parts. That was last spring and I assume that there is still residual stock being used up. I haven't seen anything newer as I don't work for Army any more but I do know most of the replacement guide rods and triggers we got in were plastic.
Personally, I don't have a issue with the plastic except for the lanyard rings. The GI's wear out aluminum LR's in 6-12mos so I can't imagine how many of those will get chewed up.
No doubt they'll still break the blocks eventually but they seem to be improved over the older ones. The last shipment of NIB M9's I got in was 8 guns and had I think 3 with plastic parts. That was last spring and I assume that there is still residual stock being used up. I haven't seen anything newer as I don't work for Army any more but I do know most of the replacement guide rods and triggers we got in were plastic.
Personally, I don't have a issue with the plastic except for the lanyard rings. The GI's wear out aluminum LR's in 6-12mos so I can't imagine how many of those will get chewed up.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No doubt they'll still break the blocks eventually but they seem to be improved over the older ones. The last shipment of NIB M9's I got in was 8 guns and had I think 3 with plastic parts. That was last spring and I assume that there is still residual stock being used up. I haven't seen anything newer as I don't work for Army any more but I do know most of the replacement guide rods and triggers we got in were plastic.
Personally, I don't have a issue with the plastic except for the lanyard rings. The GI's wear out aluminum LR's in 6-12mos so I can't imagine how many of those will get chewed up.
</div></div> Haha, didn't even notice the lanyard ring was plastic on mine until now. Of course I never use it either... Good info though.
I broke two locking blocks in my USMC years on two different pistols, and both times were in schools that required shooting several hundred rounds a day. IIRC, they're spec'd to last 22k rounds and don't take an armorer more than 5 minutes to replace. Also, that is 9mm NATO spec ammo which is a lot hotter than the run of the mill ammo you find out there.
I've shot ~10k rounds of PMC/AE/Wolf/etc. commercial ammo and ~3k NATO spec rounds through my 92FS over the last 4 years, and the pistol was used when I was issued it. The plastic guide rod and trigger are holding up well with hardly any signs of wear. I haven't had one single non-magazine related malfunction with it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No doubt they'll still break the blocks eventually but they seem to be improved over the older ones. The last shipment of NIB M9's I got in was 8 guns and had I think 3 with plastic parts. That was last spring and I assume that there is still residual stock being used up. I haven't seen anything newer as I don't work for Army any more but I do know most of the replacement guide rods and triggers we got in were plastic.
Personally, I don't have a issue with the plastic except for the lanyard rings. The GI's wear out aluminum LR's in 6-12mos so I can't imagine how many of those will get chewed up.
</div></div> Haha, didn't even notice the lanyard ring was plastic on mine until now. Of course I never use it either... Good info though.
I broke two locking blocks in my USMC years on two different pistols, and both times were in schools that required shooting several hundred rounds a day. IIRC, they're spec'd to last 22k rounds and don't take an armorer more than 5 minutes to replace. Also, that is 9mm NATO spec ammo which is a lot hotter than the run of the mill ammo you find out there.
I've shot ~10k rounds of PMC/AE/Wolf/etc. commercial ammo and ~3k NATO spec rounds through my 92FS over the last 4 years, and the pistol was used when I was issued it. The plastic guide rod and trigger are holding up well with hardly any signs of wear. I haven't had one single non-magazine related malfunction with it.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Well one of my 92's (the first one I bought in '98) has just over 25k rounds of any kind of 9mm you can feed it and I'm still on the original block. That said I've also replaced the recoil spring maybe 3-4 times.
I've had 2 malfunctions with it, one was me putting a .40 in the magazine and the other was me taking it out of the ultrasonic and shooting it dry to see how long it would shoot with no lube. I got about 20 rounds down before the slide stopped mid-cycle.
I'm not a plastic trigger fan but that's mainly because the USP got me SUPER biased against them. Any time I can watch a trigger flex pulling DA just makes me wanna poke the engineer who designed it in the face with a really sharp stick. The Berettas don't bend like that but it's just reflex at this point.
Well one of my 92's (the first one I bought in '98) has just over 25k rounds of any kind of 9mm you can feed it and I'm still on the original block. That said I've also replaced the recoil spring maybe 3-4 times.
I've had 2 malfunctions with it, one was me putting a .40 in the magazine and the other was me taking it out of the ultrasonic and shooting it dry to see how long it would shoot with no lube. I got about 20 rounds down before the slide stopped mid-cycle.
I'm not a plastic trigger fan but that's mainly because the USP got me SUPER biased against them. Any time I can watch a trigger flex pulling DA just makes me wanna poke the engineer who designed it in the face with a really sharp stick. The Berettas don't bend like that but it's just reflex at this point.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
There's a little more to the differences than just the markings. The slide is the same on both the m9 and 92. The frame is where the differences are. 1) The dust cover on the M9 runs parallel to the slide while on the 92fs the dustcover angles slightly towards the muzzle. 2) On the 92fs, the area of the backstrap that curves to the hammer guard (can't think of what it's called, the area where the webbing between your thumb and index finger would be when gripping the gun) is machined out more.
Sorry about the descriptions, apparently having a brain fart right now, but if you were to examine both pistols side-by-side you might notice the differences. Doesn't affect function.
There's a little more to the differences than just the markings. The slide is the same on both the m9 and 92. The frame is where the differences are. 1) The dust cover on the M9 runs parallel to the slide while on the 92fs the dustcover angles slightly towards the muzzle. 2) On the 92fs, the area of the backstrap that curves to the hammer guard (can't think of what it's called, the area where the webbing between your thumb and index finger would be when gripping the gun) is machined out more.
Sorry about the descriptions, apparently having a brain fart right now, but if you were to examine both pistols side-by-side you might notice the differences. Doesn't affect function.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
I could have been getting bad information for the past couple years but I do believe the difference initially was that getting the M9 contract Berretta had to build a plant in the US as previously stated, AND ALSO the milspec addition to a safety feature that if a catostrophic failure happened there was a locking device that kept the slide from flying off the frame. This can be seen on the lower left rail as seen from behind, as a L shaped notch that is different from the right side rail. Now, the newer 92FS's have this done but the earlier ones did not, when the M9 was adopted. So to mdern guns, they are essentially the same gun just keep in mind the earlier 92's dont have the additional "safety" feature
I could have been getting bad information for the past couple years but I do believe the difference initially was that getting the M9 contract Berretta had to build a plant in the US as previously stated, AND ALSO the milspec addition to a safety feature that if a catostrophic failure happened there was a locking device that kept the slide from flying off the frame. This can be seen on the lower left rail as seen from behind, as a L shaped notch that is different from the right side rail. Now, the newer 92FS's have this done but the earlier ones did not, when the M9 was adopted. So to mdern guns, they are essentially the same gun just keep in mind the earlier 92's dont have the additional "safety" feature
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could have been getting bad information for the past couple years but I do believe the difference initially was that getting the M9 contract Berretta had to build a plant in the US as previously stated, AND ALSO the milspec addition to a safety feature that if a catostrophic failure happened there was a locking device that kept the slide from flying off the frame. This can be seen on the lower left rail as seen from behind, as a L shaped notch that is different from the right side rail. Now, the newer 92FS's have this done but the earlier ones did not, when the M9 was adopted. So to mdern guns, they are essentially the same gun just keep in mind the earlier 92's dont have the additional "safety" feature </div></div>
All of the FS's have the safety catch, prior to that they were designated 92F's!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could have been getting bad information for the past couple years but I do believe the difference initially was that getting the M9 contract Berretta had to build a plant in the US as previously stated, AND ALSO the milspec addition to a safety feature that if a catostrophic failure happened there was a locking device that kept the slide from flying off the frame. This can be seen on the lower left rail as seen from behind, as a L shaped notch that is different from the right side rail. Now, the newer 92FS's have this done but the earlier ones did not, when the M9 was adopted. So to mdern guns, they are essentially the same gun just keep in mind the earlier 92's dont have the additional "safety" feature </div></div>
All of the FS's have the safety catch, prior to that they were designated 92F's!
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could have been getting bad information for the past couple years but I do believe the difference initially was that getting the M9 contract Berretta had to build a plant in the US as previously stated, AND ALSO the milspec addition to a safety feature that if a catostrophic failure happened there was a locking device that kept the slide from flying off the frame. This can be seen on the lower left rail as seen from behind, as a L shaped notch that is different from the right side rail. Now, the newer 92FS's have this done but the earlier ones did not, when the M9 was adopted. So to mdern guns, they are essentially the same gun just keep in mind the earlier 92's dont have the additional "safety" feature </div></div>
All of the FS's have the safety catch, prior to that they were designated 92F's!</div></div>
That is the way I understand it also. The "S" was for safety. I may be wrong, I got that info from a clerk at a gunshop. He could have made it up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could have been getting bad information for the past couple years but I do believe the difference initially was that getting the M9 contract Berretta had to build a plant in the US as previously stated, AND ALSO the milspec addition to a safety feature that if a catostrophic failure happened there was a locking device that kept the slide from flying off the frame. This can be seen on the lower left rail as seen from behind, as a L shaped notch that is different from the right side rail. Now, the newer 92FS's have this done but the earlier ones did not, when the M9 was adopted. So to mdern guns, they are essentially the same gun just keep in mind the earlier 92's dont have the additional "safety" feature </div></div>
All of the FS's have the safety catch, prior to that they were designated 92F's!</div></div>
That is the way I understand it also. The "S" was for safety. I may be wrong, I got that info from a clerk at a gunshop. He could have made it up.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Beretta began to produce 92's in the US in or around 1986 IIRC. From then until today Beretta USA has sporadically imported Beretta IT guns to fill back logs or for special project guns. Even many of the "Made in USA" guns have Italian parts including frames. These Italian produced frames are clearly identifiable by a "Z" suffix on the serial number such as BER 012345Z.
The M9 contract did stipulate that within a given amount of time from the award of the contract, all pistols destined for the US military must be produced within the US. As accepted in 1985, the M9 was a standard M92F. After a small number of slide separations (due in part to a bad lot of steel) the design was modified with an enlarged head on the hammer pivot pin that rode in a corresponding slot in the left rear of the slide. This would effectively catch the rear half of the slide in the event of a future separation. This modification was referred to as the M92FS for civilian sales and no distinction was made between the updated and older non-modded M9's. Earlier M9's lacking the newer pin were retrofitted with it along with the required slot in the slide.
The added “S” may or may not actually stand for the word “safety”; I’ve never seen anything that actually proves that but it does seem somewhat logical for those of us who speak English. The letter codes only seem to partially correspond to words so this may or may not be the case with the “S”.
In rough order, the 92 variants were as follows…
92 – frame safety, heel mag release, no frame serrations
92S – moves frame safety to slide
92SB – moves mag release to frame
92SB-F - transitional gun for the XM9 trails; became the 92F
92F – adds frame serrations, squared trigger guard, flared front mag well
92FS – adds oversize hammer pin
92G – replaces safety with a decock only feature; requested by French Gendarme
92D – Double action only; no safety lever
92DS – DAO with external thumb safety
Beretta began to produce 92's in the US in or around 1986 IIRC. From then until today Beretta USA has sporadically imported Beretta IT guns to fill back logs or for special project guns. Even many of the "Made in USA" guns have Italian parts including frames. These Italian produced frames are clearly identifiable by a "Z" suffix on the serial number such as BER 012345Z.
The M9 contract did stipulate that within a given amount of time from the award of the contract, all pistols destined for the US military must be produced within the US. As accepted in 1985, the M9 was a standard M92F. After a small number of slide separations (due in part to a bad lot of steel) the design was modified with an enlarged head on the hammer pivot pin that rode in a corresponding slot in the left rear of the slide. This would effectively catch the rear half of the slide in the event of a future separation. This modification was referred to as the M92FS for civilian sales and no distinction was made between the updated and older non-modded M9's. Earlier M9's lacking the newer pin were retrofitted with it along with the required slot in the slide.
The added “S” may or may not actually stand for the word “safety”; I’ve never seen anything that actually proves that but it does seem somewhat logical for those of us who speak English. The letter codes only seem to partially correspond to words so this may or may not be the case with the “S”.
In rough order, the 92 variants were as follows…
92 – frame safety, heel mag release, no frame serrations
92S – moves frame safety to slide
92SB – moves mag release to frame
92SB-F - transitional gun for the XM9 trails; became the 92F
92F – adds frame serrations, squared trigger guard, flared front mag well
92FS – adds oversize hammer pin
92G – replaces safety with a decock only feature; requested by French Gendarme
92D – Double action only; no safety lever
92DS – DAO with external thumb safety
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
I own an Italian made 92F circa 1988 and it looks the same as the FS & M9, but feels quite a bit different.
(It has the Z as the last digit in the serial number as well.)
When handling it there is a notable difference in weight and balance.
No plastic parts, Italian steel, Italian proof marks, and no oversized hammer pin stop.
I have at least 5K rounds through it and use it in production class USPSA matches.
Only failures that I have encountered have been from a batch of poorly manufactured reloads that had about 1 in 100 cases that were not completely resized.
They would become lodged in the chamber and it would not go into battery.
No issues or visible wear with the locking bar either.
It is due for some TLC on the finish but other than that still performs like new.
I own an Italian made 92F circa 1988 and it looks the same as the FS & M9, but feels quite a bit different.
(It has the Z as the last digit in the serial number as well.)
When handling it there is a notable difference in weight and balance.
No plastic parts, Italian steel, Italian proof marks, and no oversized hammer pin stop.
I have at least 5K rounds through it and use it in production class USPSA matches.
Only failures that I have encountered have been from a batch of poorly manufactured reloads that had about 1 in 100 cases that were not completely resized.
They would become lodged in the chamber and it would not go into battery.
No issues or visible wear with the locking bar either.
It is due for some TLC on the finish but other than that still performs like new.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Currently the differences are minor.
The M9 is made in the US (92FS are made in the US and Italy) and does not have the stupid warning rollmarks and has the classic straight dustcover instead of the angled dustcovers that current 92FS pistols have. Also, current 92FS pistols have a slight radius where the backstrap meets the beavertail. The M9 does not have this either. The sights are the same but M9s do not have the rear dots filled in with white paint, instead a vertical stripe is painted at the bottom of the sight picture.
Currently the differences are minor.
The M9 is made in the US (92FS are made in the US and Italy) and does not have the stupid warning rollmarks and has the classic straight dustcover instead of the angled dustcovers that current 92FS pistols have. Also, current 92FS pistols have a slight radius where the backstrap meets the beavertail. The M9 does not have this either. The sights are the same but M9s do not have the rear dots filled in with white paint, instead a vertical stripe is painted at the bottom of the sight picture.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9.
Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9. </div></div>
This is a true statment. I'm also fairly sure (but not 100%) that new M9's have the radius and slant dust cover as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9. </div></div>
This is a true statment. I'm also fairly sure (but not 100%) that new M9's have the radius and slant dust cover as well.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9. </div></div>
This is a true statment. I'm also fairly sure (but not 100%) that new M9's have the radius and slant dust cover as well. </div></div>
The most recent M9 I have is from 2008. It has the polymer parts but is still non radiused and has the straight dust cover. I've yet to handle a 2009 or 2010 example.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9. </div></div>
This is a true statment. I'm also fairly sure (but not 100%) that new M9's have the radius and slant dust cover as well. </div></div>
The most recent M9 I have is from 2008. It has the polymer parts but is still non radiused and has the straight dust cover. I've yet to handle a 2009 or 2010 example.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
IS it a '08 arsenal or NIB? I had a stack of NIB guns come through this past spring that had all the plastic and I was fairly sure they had the slant covers too but honestly I forgot. The most recent "new" ones were from Anniston. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry I'm just going from memory.
IS it a '08 arsenal or NIB? I had a stack of NIB guns come through this past spring that had all the plastic and I was fairly sure they had the slant covers too but honestly I forgot. The most recent "new" ones were from Anniston. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry I'm just going from memory.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
It was NIB april '08.
It was NIB april '08.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Well then it's entirely possible that I'm a big d-bag and completely fabricated the slant covers in my head. It's also possible that I got confused because we worked on OGA guns as well sometimes that I'm 100% had the slant covers.
Well then it's entirely possible that I'm a big d-bag and completely fabricated the slant covers in my head. It's also possible that I got confused because we worked on OGA guns as well sometimes that I'm 100% had the slant covers.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr. Phil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I own an Italian made 92F circa 1988 and it looks the same as the FS & M9, but feels quite a bit different.
(It has the Z as the last digit in the serial number as well.)
When handling it there is a notable difference in weight and balance.
No plastic parts, Italian steel, Italian proof marks, and no oversized hammer pin stop.
I have at least 5K rounds through it and use it in production class USPSA matches.
Only failures that I have encountered have been from a batch of poorly manufactured reloads that had about 1 in 100 cases that were not completely resized.
They would become lodged in the chamber and it would not go into battery.
No issues or visible wear with the locking bar either.
It is due for some TLC on the finish but other than that still performs like new.
</div></div>
Italian aluminum too!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr. Phil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I own an Italian made 92F circa 1988 and it looks the same as the FS & M9, but feels quite a bit different.
(It has the Z as the last digit in the serial number as well.)
When handling it there is a notable difference in weight and balance.
No plastic parts, Italian steel, Italian proof marks, and no oversized hammer pin stop.
I have at least 5K rounds through it and use it in production class USPSA matches.
Only failures that I have encountered have been from a batch of poorly manufactured reloads that had about 1 in 100 cases that were not completely resized.
They would become lodged in the chamber and it would not go into battery.
No issues or visible wear with the locking bar either.
It is due for some TLC on the finish but other than that still performs like new.
</div></div>
Italian aluminum too!
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Buy a Sig
Buy a Sig
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
So what did we come up with?
There exactly the same things?
So what did we come up with?
There exactly the same things?
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
Yes, the major differances are still minor cosmetics.
Yes, the major differances are still minor cosmetics.
Re: Difference between the 92FS and M9?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9. </div></div>
This is a true statment. I'm also fairly sure (but not 100%) that new M9's have the radius and slant dust cover as well. </div></div>
The most recent M9 I have is from 2008. It has the polymer parts but is still non radiused and has the straight dust cover. I've yet to handle a 2009 or 2010 example. </div></div>
Mine is a 2010, and it is still non radiused with the straight dustcover.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, to all the people thinking that the plastic parts are specific to the 92FS, you are wrong. The same polymer parts are used on the M9. </div></div>
This is a true statment. I'm also fairly sure (but not 100%) that new M9's have the radius and slant dust cover as well. </div></div>
The most recent M9 I have is from 2008. It has the polymer parts but is still non radiused and has the straight dust cover. I've yet to handle a 2009 or 2010 example. </div></div>
Mine is a 2010, and it is still non radiused with the straight dustcover.
