Beretta 9mm pistols as a starting pistol. If is is good enough for the US Army then it might be that good

Beretta 9mm pistols as a starting pistol. If is is good enough for the US Army then it might be that good.

Attached: 350718E6-4947-42D0-B5DE-B94F354B9BF6.jpg (620x248, 22K)

It's a fullsize double stack service pistol with a million and a half options from budget surplus to gucci flex guns. Have at it.

It's a good pistol, can't say I'd recommend it for concealed carry but that's probably not what you need from your first anyway.

you're on Jow Forums, there are at least a few idiots and lardasses browsing right now that have looked at that chunk and went "yeah, I can totally conceal this, no problem" only to not be able to sit down at all and have their pants dragged around their butt cheeks. it's a great home defense / nightstand drawer / desk gun though.

I actually had a fat dude at a gun shop try to convince me that the 92FS was easily concealable so you're probably right.

my first gun was a 92FS
I love it

Taurus clone is nice too.

I'll be placing an order for an Italian 92fs tomorrow. This will be my second pistol after a lot of thought. I'd recommend checking out the .22 conversion kits for planking too, user.

They're pretty good.
I recommend actually handling, or better yet-renting and shooting a 92 along with a selection of other pistols before buying one. Maybe you will like it the most, maybe you'll find some other gun fits you better.

I've found the 92 is a bit chunky for some people's hands and it is overall a large metal-framed DA/SA service pistol. Small enough for a nightstand or if you just want to take it to the range every now and then, but too bulky for most to conceal comfortably. The position of the safety on the slide is also a bit annoying, which is why some prefer the Brazilian-made Taurus PT-92.
They do work though and they are aesthetic as fuck. A lot of Hollywood directors picked them for decades just because of the distinctive open-slide appearance.

They're fine. I abhor slide mounted controls but other than not being able to easily change the front dot there's nothing wrong with them

There are retards here who conceal roland specials, I don't think the Beretta is a problem.

later slides let you swap the front sight and can be put on a 92F/FS frame

This. They're great guns but with the factory grips I have to adjust my grip to release the mag. This doesn't happen with my Browning Hi-Power. I've never tried one with slimmer grip panels, or tried the 92x yet.

fat dudes can conceal anything easily so i guess he's not completely wrong

>M9
>92FS
Am I the only one who thinks it's really autistic that anyone makes a distinction like this?

I cant tell the difference even with this picture, they look exactly the same to me.

yes, you sounds like a fag who cries about those people who correct others about it being a AKM and not a AK47
>huhu, you get what I mean bro!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>It isn't literally in their flowing sleeve

It's a fantastic pistol that will outlive you. Go with the 92fs vertec model if you want rail, 92fs if not. Really there's no reason NOT to go with the rail for HD (flashlight) or something, unless you're going with one of the euro surplus models for like $350.

There are slight differences not related just to the cover. Example, the M9 has "snowman" sights where a white dot is on the front sight, then the middle notch on the rear has a white dash beneath it. So you rest the front on top of the white dash, giving what looks like a "8" sorta setup. The 92FS has a standard 3 dot. 92A1 has a rail too. There is a difference in grip too, with the 92fs being a bit thinner. Some find this more comfortable. Lastly the 92fs hammer pin is larger and more robust; this fixed a rare problem where it could cause the slide to rather violently fly in your face. the slightly different dust cover can effect holster selection too.

Either one is ultimately fine, but the 92fs is a slight refinement of the m9. If the m9 is the "gen 1", then the 92fs is kinda like the "gen 2", or at least "gen 1 v 1.1".

Precisely the opposite. I couldn't tell you the difference between generic AK type rifles unless the difference is obvious (such as rifle vs pistol configuration)

an M9 has a heavier trigger pull and earlier ones have shitty locking blocks, user
they're different enough

If I were you, I would try to go to a LGS and see if it fits your hand well. Even better, a range where you can rent one and try it out. If you like it, then get it. The 92fs is my first handgun. The only complaint I have about mine is that I have to raise my middle finger on the grip up to release the mag, but I've gotten used to it. Also, one really nice feature about the 92fs is that it has a chrome lined barrel so cleaning is a breeze.

Great gun to start with, it's a pretty beefy gun so it recoils alot less than other funs chambered in 9mm.

Also, if you can learn to shoot DA/SA, you can shoot Striker and SAO easily.

For EDC it may be too big, but over the winter it can be done.

I wanna start carrying a Langdon 92 in a shoulder holster over the winter because I'm a massive faggot.

It’s a good handgun for sure, especially since they’re coming down in price, but if you can try to finger fuck it first. I could hold one with no problems but for some it is rather big and chunky, especially for CC’ing. If you can hold and shoot one comfortably then it is great, personally one of my favorite 9mm pistols.
IIRC the M9 has a slightly heavier pull and the snowman sight.

The only Beretta worth buying is the one that says MADE IN ITALY on it.

I got a 92S ages ago as my first pistol for $250. It turns out I actually prefer the smaller sights on the S as long as I used a bit of high visibility paint on them.

Overall though, any 92 would be fantastic. They can eat shitty Tula ammo all day long too, and you'll never run into problems with one. I can't speak for the M9 though.

I’d look into the 92A1 or the 92A3 if I were you, they have rails and are nice guns. That being said, any Beretta 92 is a solid option.