User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/6/2014 4:04:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Distributors just got them in this week.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2014 11:33:01 PM EDT
[#2]
It's about time. I hope it's back to being a regular option, but with my luck it won't be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 9:14:19 AM EDT
[#3]
Finally
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 11:00:15 AM EDT
[#4]
Well I guess I'll be buying a new Beretta handgun soon, something I haven't done in more than a decade. Now if the folks at Beretta USA could just celebrate their move to Tennessee with a run or two of Centurion 92G's..............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 11:37:43 AM EDT
[#5]
I have to ask, why didnt our military go to this version over the standard issue one? Seems like a no brainer specially when they were testing the Sig.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 6:10:59 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to ask, why didnt our military go to this version over the standard issue one? Seems like a no brainer specially when they were testing the Sig. Because it didn't exist then. The G didn't come out until well after the M9 was adopted. The XM9 only required there be a way to decock the gun without using the trigger. They didn't care if there was a safety or not involved. Switching to G's to remedy a problem that few GIs actually encounter is unlikely. Once it was adopted, getting the Army to change it wasn't really going to happen. In the overall scheme of things, the military wasn't having problems with the safety switch the way it was, so it wasn't a problem to solve. You're looking at bean counting in action. Remember the GAO bean counters recommended that the DoD drop the XM9 program and just continue to but OTS .38 revolvers. Getting funding for legacy systems is a two-edged sword. If you start upgrading a legacy system, you get Congress asking why you need money for a new program. Alternatively they start asking why you are spending money on a legacy system and not requesting funding for a new program that can bring jobs to their district. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 7:35:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because it didn't exist then. The G didn't come out until well after the M9 was adopted. The XM9 only required there be a way to decock the gun without using the trigger. They didn't care if there was a safety or not involved. Switching to G's to remedy a problem that few GIs actually encounter is unlikely. Once it was adopted, getting the Army to change it wasn't really going to happen. In the overall scheme of things, the military wasn't having problems with the safety switch the way it was, so it wasn't a problem to solve. You're looking at bean counting in action. Remember the GAO bean counters recommended that the DoD drop the XM9 program and just continue to but OTS .38 revolvers. Getting funding for legacy systems is a two-edged sword. If you start upgrading a legacy system, you get Congress asking why you need money for a new program. Alternatively they start asking why you are spending money on a legacy system and not requesting funding for a new program that can bring jobs to their district. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have to ask, why didnt our military go to this version over the standard issue one? Seems like a no brainer specially when they were testing the Sig. Because it didn't exist then. The G didn't come out until well after the M9 was adopted. The XM9 only required there be a way to decock the gun without using the trigger. They didn't care if there was a safety or not involved. Switching to G's to remedy a problem that few GIs actually encounter is unlikely. Once it was adopted, getting the Army to change it wasn't really going to happen. In the overall scheme of things, the military wasn't having problems with the safety switch the way it was, so it wasn't a problem to solve. You're looking at bean counting in action. Remember the GAO bean counters recommended that the DoD drop the XM9 program and just continue to but OTS .38 revolvers. Getting funding for legacy systems is a two-edged sword. If you start upgrading a legacy system, you get Congress asking why you need money for a new program. Alternatively they start asking why you are spending money on a legacy system and not requesting funding for a new program that can bring jobs to their district. interesting thanks for the info |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 8:17:31 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 10:59:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
interesting thanks for the info Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have to ask, why didnt our military go to this version over the standard issue one? Seems like a no brainer specially when they were testing the Sig. Because it didn't exist then. The G didn't come out until well after the M9 was adopted. The XM9 only required there be a way to decock the gun without using the trigger. They didn't care if there was a safety or not involved. Switching to G's to remedy a problem that few GIs actually encounter is unlikely. Once it was adopted, getting the Army to change it wasn't really going to happen. In the overall scheme of things, the military wasn't having problems with the safety switch the way it was, so it wasn't a problem to solve. You're looking at bean counting in action. Remember the GAO bean counters recommended that the DoD drop the XM9 program and just continue to but OTS .38 revolvers. Getting funding for legacy systems is a two-edged sword. If you start upgrading a legacy system, you get Congress asking why you need money for a new program. Alternatively they start asking why you are spending money on a legacy system and not requesting funding for a new program that can bring jobs to their district. interesting thanks for the info IIRC 92G came about as a request from the French military (who went and made their own licensed version anyways). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 11:12:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC 92G came about as a request from the French military (who went and made their own licensed version anyways). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have to ask, why didnt our military go to this version over the standard issue one? Seems like a no brainer specially when they were testing the Sig. Because it didn't exist then. The G didn't come out until well after the M9 was adopted. The XM9 only required there be a way to decock the gun without using the trigger. They didn't care if there was a safety or not involved. Switching to G's to remedy a problem that few GIs actually encounter is unlikely. Once it was adopted, getting the Army to change it wasn't really going to happen. In the overall scheme of things, the military wasn't having problems with the safety switch the way it was, so it wasn't a problem to solve. You're looking at bean counting in action. Remember the GAO bean counters recommended that the DoD drop the XM9 program and just continue to but OTS .38 revolvers. Getting funding for legacy systems is a two-edged sword. If you start upgrading a legacy system, you get Congress asking why you need money for a new program. Alternatively they start asking why you are spending money on a legacy system and not requesting funding for a new program that can bring jobs to their district. interesting thanks for the info IIRC 92G came about as a request from the French military (who went and made their own licensed version anyways). Interesting might have to do more research on this |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 11:36:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC 92G came about as a request from the French military (who went and made their own licensed version anyways). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have to ask, why didnt our military go to this version over the standard issue one? Seems like a no brainer specially when they were testing the Sig. Because it didn't exist then. The G didn't come out until well after the M9 was adopted. The XM9 only required there be a way to decock the gun without using the trigger. They didn't care if there was a safety or not involved. Switching to G's to remedy a problem that few GIs actually encounter is unlikely. Once it was adopted, getting the Army to change it wasn't really going to happen. In the overall scheme of things, the military wasn't having problems with the safety switch the way it was, so it wasn't a problem to solve. You're looking at bean counting in action. Remember the GAO bean counters recommended that the DoD drop the XM9 program and just continue to but OTS .38 revolvers. Getting funding for legacy systems is a two-edged sword. If you start upgrading a legacy system, you get Congress asking why you need money for a new program. Alternatively they start asking why you are spending money on a legacy system and not requesting funding for a new program that can bring jobs to their district. interesting thanks for the info IIRC 92G came about as a request from the French military (who went and made their own licensed version anyways). French Gendarmerie, hence the G. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2014 8:03:51 PM EDT
[#12]
think I'll need to pick up one of these to go with my Italian 92FS, US built M9, and Italian 92S
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2014 8:35:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2014 12:43:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Saw a new US made G today for $600.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2014 7:54:40 PM EDT
[#15]
I saw one today for $560. But I only buy 92s with factory night sights. And, I don't need any more 92s's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2014 3:53:15 PM EDT
[#16]
are the G's built in Maryland or in Italy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2014 6:54:51 PM EDT
[#17]
I wish they would bring the Elites back!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2014 8:34:15 PM EDT
[#18]
There's a guy on BF selling them for $599 shipped IIRC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2014 9:42:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Mine is made in Maryland. Made last month I think..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:30:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mine is made in Maryland. Made last month I think.. You got a new 92G and didn't post a pic ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 8:02:03 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You got a new 92G and didn't post a pic ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mine is made in Maryland. Made last month I think.. You got a new 92G and didn't post a pic ? Yeah man, it's in the pic thread! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 8:37:40 PM EDT
[#22]
92FS-based G, or 92A1-based G? The latter might actually interest me
ETA: looked up the listing, they're 92FS based. Lame as hell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:17:44 AM EDT
[#23]
You guys missed out...Bud's had these available for their 180 day layaway program about a week and a half ago, but took them down either the same day or the day after they went up. They were selling for $511...I got mine
They still have them for $516 through Team Bud's or whatever... http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/718001923 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:00:05 PM EDT
[#24]
I recently asked a guy at my LGS if they were going to get any of the new 92Gs. I told him people already had them and distributors were selling them. He then told me that nobody has them in stock yet. This guy goes on the Beretta forum quite a bit so I told him which sites showed them for sale. We both look at the websites and he still tells me that none of them have info on the G models so they don't really have them in stock or he'd have one already.
 I pointed out obvious indications that they were indeed real, but he kept going on like I didn't know what I was talking about. I don't know why this guy thinks everyone that stocks them or has one is lying.
Then again I once told him how I had a 92 Compact and 92FS and there wasn't enough difference in size to be limited to 13 rounds which prompted a look like I just insulted his mother. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
