My first 9mm was a 92 FS. Like most newbies at the time I had it . shot it, and sold it.No complaints or issues with it. I always wondered why didn't or don't they make a .45 caliber in this configuration?

Because it would be gigantic.

The Beretta uses an action ased on the Walther P-38 locking wedge.  If you think about how wide the slide of a 92 is to begin with, then you can see that a .45ACP would have to be wider just to accomodate the ammo.  Additional size may be required on top of that to take the .45 ACP safely, I dunno, but anyway you cut it, it would have to be much wider than just about any gun out there.

When Taurus went to the .45ACP, they used the Browning type locking system in their 945.  

There's advanatages and disadvantages to both systems, but when you scale it up from 9mm the locking wedge is at a disadvantage due to size.

People bitch about the size of a 92 now.  You can imagine just how many people would bitch about one big enough for a .45ACP.

There isn't a huge market for a gun like that, and unlike the 92 where you can recoop development money from sales to the military or agencies, it just isn't going to happen with a .45ACP version.

There's also little reason to pour any money into a design that's as old as the P-39/92 to make it into something else.  It would cost just as much as starting from scratch and including all the newer technologies.

If there was money to be made in a .45 cal 92, they or Taurus would have made one.

Beretta did use CZ-24 (was this the first?) technology in the rotating system used in the Cougar for a .45 pistol.  

The Beretta 92 slide width is only about 0.1 inch wider in comparison to the width of the G17 slide .  Further width comes from the safety levers (Beretta 92) but these could be returned to the frame position.  

there's always the 45gap, so the grip is most likely stays the same.