Looking at my 92A1 and my 92 Vertec, Brigadier, along with my M9 and two 92FS's today I got to wondering. Why doesn't Beretta use the slide from the 92 Vertec and Brigadier for the 92FS models? I get the M9 and M9A1 are designed the way they are to meet a contract requirement but it doesn't make any sense that in 2017 Beretta is still producing only three 90 series slides that have removable front sights. The 92A1 is it's own thing and the Brigadier slide is heavier but the slide on my 92 Vertec looks like my 92FS and M9 slides with less machining. We see how popular guns like the M9A3 and WC Tactical are. An M9A1 compact or 92 compact  would be more practical with the ability to easily add fiber optic or tritium sights. While like my "basic" 92s I really, like my 92 Vertec. It is a gun Beretta made back in 2004. I just don't understand why they don't make more models with the Vertec/M9A3 slide.

I agree.  My house gun is an M9A1 with Vertec slide (with Trijicon's) and it's pretty close to perfect.  It's a pistol Beretta should have made.

Attached File

Last year there was talk of Beretta developing a Langdon Tactical 92 with almost this exact setup.

When Beretta releases more M9A1s my plan is to buy a few, one to keep as an M9A1 and the other two are getting Brigadier slides. I am going to send one of the M9A1/Brigadier hybrids to AGW to get a G conversion and Vertec mod to make my own Elite.

The Vertec, M9A3, 92A1 and 90-two are much more useful as defensive guns with the added light rail and the ability to change both front and rear sights. Supposedly the M9A3 is less expensive to produce than the standard M9. If that's the case pass that lower cost to the consumer and produce more 90 series guns with these two simple features. Beretta would sell even more guns.

My perfect carry gun would be a 92 with a full size slide, reverse crown on the muzzle, dovetail front and rear sights, G only, compact Vertec frame with a beveled magwell, front and rear back strap checkering and a light rail.

I once put my inox vertec slide on my compact. I liked it and it shot great but I hate 2 tone guns.

I really want to put a night sight on my m9a1 compact. It's the only thing it's currently lacking.

I think Beretta believes they've done that with the M9A3.  I haven't held one yet but with the "regular" grip it supposedly duplicates the feel of the M9A1.  Since it has what is essentially a Vertec slide, what's left to do?  Personally I can't get past the color but that's an easy enough fix if they want to.  I think they'd end up selling more black ones than brown ones.

It would be nice if they came out with a black and Inox version without the threaded barrel and offered compact framed versions as well.

A compact with compact Vertec slide in black would be hard to resist.  With a straight dustcover (no rail) and the M9A1 compact grip.

Am I the only one wondering that now that Beretta has lost the US mil contract & they get their ass handed to them in civilian sales, will they listen to the market & bring out some of these suggestions mentioned?

Is their R&D Dept consisting of 70 year old men shooting O&U shotties?  

My concern is the R&D Dept consists of a bunch of accountants shooting O&U shotguns.  Full size all metal SA/DA pistols are a waning segment of the handgun market and I worry about what kind of resources Beretta is willing to dedicate to it.

I don't know how much I agree with the idea that metal guns are a waning segment of the handgun market. Sig and CZ still sell metal guns and the Sig P series is still Sigs bread and butter even with the success of the P320. The CZ guns are very popular as well. Beretta has a huge back log of M9A3 orders. The run of M9s they made back in March are pretty much sold out. I am sure the M9A1s will go much the same way. I think the market is still there and it is strong. That problem in my opinion lies with the design and the price point. I have heard it said more than once that when Beretta approached the Army about buying the M9A3 the big selling point was that the M9A3 being easier to manufacture would cost the same as the current issues M9. Why is it then as a consumer can I buy an M9 for $500 but an M9A3 cost $900. That price point issue is why I think guns like the Brigadier don't move as well. What are you getting for almost $800 when you can buy a 92A1 and get the same features plus a rail for $600.

Beretta needs to review their pricing and update the design. Part of the reason for Sigs P series success is the different options offered.

Sorry about that, I was commenting more in terms of the R&D of new products.  There is clearly still a market for metal pistols but new development from all makers seems to be towards Glock fighters.  How much are they going to be developing for this class of pistol compared to what they’re spending on the polymer/striker fired stuff?  What are the chances Beretta will develop and build a compact Vertec slide before they do a Compact APX, for instance?  I hope they do it all but honestly I think if it wasn’t for the threat of the MHS  program the M9A3 would never have been made.  

Regarding pricing, if they were producing M9A3's in bulk they might be cheaper.  As well, I think the prices for the "special" Berettas reflect market demand.  They're in business to make money so I don't really hold that against them.

I agree they are in business to make money but there is still some derp when it comes to pricing. As I pointed out you can buy a 92A1 for $650 but a Brigadier costs $725. Why? In terms of usefulness it can be argued the 92A1 is a lot more useful as a defensive gun due to it's rail. It just doesn't make sense to me that a gun with more features cost less.

Agree that you pay a premium for the M9A3, I paid $890 for mine. But you do get night sights on the M9A3 which would probably cost $200 installed on a M9A1 or a 92A1 and it is the only Beretta that comes with a threaded barrel. There's definitely a demand for the M9A3, they're still selling out as soon as retailers get them in.