Posted: 6/4/2010 12:08:11 PM EDT
|
Howdy,
I found a used Beretta at a local LE supply store. I saw it the last time I was there, but didn't get a chance to hold it and give it a once over. I called and talked to one of the guys at the counter just now, and he said it was a 92F. Whats the differences between the F and FS? Thanks. |
|
The FS has a slide retaining pin, so in the off chance the slide has a catastrophic failure around the chamber area, the back half of the slide stays with the frame instead of smacking you in the face at high speeds.... That's about the only difference between the F and FS... (there were cases of such failure during M9 testing) |
|
Basically, the 92FS is the updated model with a slot in the slide to catch on a stop if the slide should break during firing- a safety feature the lack of which on the 92F really is of no concern- most slide breakages were attributed to guns eating a heavy diet of NATO spec submachinegun ammo.
The 92F will also usually sell for quite a bit less. If I could get either for the same price, would probably go with the 92FS, but I love my 92F! |
|
Nothing wrong with that 92! Looks like it has all the original metal parts too, so that's a plus.
I would advocate getting a Wolff trigger return spring kit, perhaps the reduced powered version? I would go with a reduced power mainspring as well. Replacing both will give one about a 90% better trigger pull. Be sure to oil the slide, frame & bbl before you shoot it! |
|
Love my Italian 92F, it's old and beat up, but it's oh so very smooth and has never choked on a damned thing, and the only ammo it didn't like was some Egyptian surplus SMG ammunition with rock hard primers - about two per fifty needed to "double struck" in order to fire, FWIW, it gave an FA MP5 more grief than it gave the Beretta.
My understanding is that a large part of the problem with the early slide separations also had to do with subcontracted slides that were tested to be inferior, but by that time the enlarged pin had already been implemented, so there was really no reason *not* to stick with it. Commercial versions most likely shouldn't have that subcontracting problem. ~Augee |
