thinking of beretta m9/92fs for cmp/eic matches

I have gone almost 3 month without buying a new firearm, and I had been doing well until today when I went to the local Cabelas and got to thinking. I had been considering a mil spec bare bones Springfield for EIC matches. Due to the some what scarcity of milspecs in the area and their rising prices, I had been eyeing the auto ordnance wwII version. However, I finally found out that it is a series 80 style, and didn't want to get it out of principle. While at Cabelas I saw the 92fs and thought... I dont have one of those yet, and I do have a brick of 9mm thats been sitting in the safe for 3 years. For the price of a decent used one or a new on online, It appears to be a better price deal than a mil spec 1911. I am aware that there are minimal m9/92fs bullseye gunsmiths out there, the price of upgradeing them are way more ecpensive, and 1911 is the way to go, which I have several already (none that are cmp legal). From what I thought i have heard, you can only shoot 4 cmp matches a year. That, mixed with probably never being good enough to do well in a cmp match, i figured a stock gun would be fine,...for its price. I'd rather shoot the match for "history/nostalgia" sake along with for fun sake. The one and only cmp match I have shot so far, I scored a guys target that shot like a 270 and he used a stock milspec with the low profile combat sight.

Im looking for comments/concers on the beretta. Im looking for an accuracy comparison of an out of a box m9/92 fs to a Springfield Armory Milspec. I know both aren't anything to write to write home about out of the box accuracy wise. I would prefer an M9 for the reasons that it is a military copy to be used for a military related match. The 92fs' appear to be bountiful, but for cosmetic reasons, I dont like the "read the owners manual" and the other warning embossed on the frame. As far as the 92 goes I see there is an argument/conversation between Italian vs american made. It would be nice to say that mine was made in America, however some people have said the Italian version's fit and finish is nicer.

Like I have said before, I dont plan on sending a CMP gun off to be accurized at this point, whether an m9 or sa milspec 1911. I may only put on an adjustable rear sight, maybe a new barrel later. I figure somewhere down the line I will get a decent cmp legal 1911, but I would still like to own/collect a Beretta.


Thanks! or Grazie!... depending on your recommendation

ciao, bye

The stock Beretta is a fine pistol. I previously owned an accurized version and at 50 yards it shot much better groups with its Bar Sto barrel than my Clark accurized Hard Ball gun with Accurails. I bought a 92FS Police to replace my custom Beretta, because I like the gun. The stock 92FS seems to shoot ten ring at 25 yards, but I haven't done any testing at 50 yards. Some folks have done some relatively inexpensive mods to their Berettas for EIC matches and have shot some decent scores in matches.

I think that the Beretta is harder to shoot than the 1911, one-handed, but the top shooters in the country don't seem to have any problems producing outstanding scores (280's).

I tried the Beretta route and, well it was not pretty! After much frustration and some embarrassment I sold the gun and decided to stick with the 1911 platform. The 1911 is the easiest gun to shoot, accurize and work on.

The reason you see some of the top shooters (service members) doing well with them is that is their duty pistol also, they shoot it a lot, they have spent extensive time accurizing the pistol and they are required to reach Master before getting to shoot a gun with a dot. So it is not the pistol so much as the time spent with iron sights and trigger time with that gun.

A well built 1911 with proper loads can be as accurate as a Beretta and makes bigger holes. If your 22 and 45 are 1911's why throw an odd ball gun it the mix? If you want to own one for the sake of owning one have at it, leave it stock and enjoy it for what it is.

My .02

Neither a stock Beretta or a milspec SPringfield is worth a hoot as to accuracy at 50 yards without a lot of new parts and gunsmith work. So get ready to spend the bucks if you want to be competitive or look for one already accurized.

I agree with Joe and DavidR. I bought a slightly used 92FS a few years ago and found that it would hardly hold the paper at 50 yards. After installing a KKM match barrel it did well at 50 yards, but it still had the basic problems with the gun: a terrible trigger and overall fit for consistent lockup, and I saw that it would require spending much money to get it to serious match status. I also discovered that it was no easier or more comfortable to shoot than my .45 hardball gun. It now resides in my safe.

Sandy Latimer

Even a accurized beretta is a nightmare compared to a 1911 ball gun, 9mm is extremely finicky to get accurate loads , thats why if you look at the top shooters 9 out of 10 will be shooting Atlanta arms match ammo, 25.00 a box. But the 1911 if accurized will shoot many tested recipes well and as accurate.

DavidR wrote:Even a accurized beretta is a nightmare compared to a 1911 ball gun, 9mm is extremely finicky to get accurate loads , thats why if you look at the top shooters 9 out of 10 will be shooting Atlanta arms match ammo, 25.00 a box. But the 1911 if accurized will shoot many tested recipes well and as accurate.

My experience is different. I found that the recipe I was given for my accurized Beretta would shoot very well from the machine rest at 50 yards. I never saw a ball gun with 230 gr. hardball ammo, come close to the groups I got with the Beretta. My ball gun does shoot Nosler reloads very well at 50 yards, though. The Beretta, for me, was a more unforgiving gun. My scores with the Clark ball gun and accurized Beretta were very similar.

Many good built ballguns will shoot 2'' and under @ 50 yards with 5gr of vit-320 and a sierra 230 fmj.

DavidR wrote:Many good built ballguns will shoot 2'' and under @ 50 yards with 5gr of vit-320 and a sierra 230 fmj.

Good custom Berettas will shoot better. The load depends on the brand of barrel.

Ask Bruce Smith how much he likes his ball gun. New build by Chambers Custom Pistols Bruce won the first service pistol match he shot with it and got his first leg points and legged out 2 matches later. Yes he won three in a row with his 1911.

It can be done!

You can have a 92 accurized pretty reasonable.

Dont need to go all out with all the bells and whisels(sp.)

Have a KKM slow twist or comparable barrel installed, trigger work and sights.

Thats it.

The aluminum frame will hold up until you get your distinguished badge( I know, I do not have mine yet, but I have 30pts, just need a hard leg).

I used Atlanta arms to get my best EIC score of 278-6x

I used my reloads to get my best NMC of 288-8x

It is a snappier recoil than the harder push of a .45.

You only have to shoot 30 shots, practice with it, focus, it will come.

As a side note, I chose the 9mm over the .45 because my right/ shooting wrist was broken , fused and screwed together many years ago and cannot handle the recoil of the full boat load of the .45.

For what it's worth.

Thanks everyone for the input. I spent most of the night last night looking up stuff on it and kind of came to the conclusion that the Beretta might be a hassle after all, compared to a mil spec 1911. Like I had said earlier, I dont want to plan on spending the money sending it off for a year to then only use it in a max of 4 shoots, with it more likely being only used 1 to 2 times. I would prefer the 1911 but again in my line of thinking, the m9 is a nostalgic type gun to have, I can get it cheaper/quicker than an available milspec (even with a kkm barrel --I think was like $225ish), off the shelf ball ammo is cheap.

What I don't know is how a 9mm recoil feels one handed, the only 9 i have is a kahr pm9, which is not conducive to BE. The trigger pull on the m9/92 that I handled today seems similar to my everyday work gun (sig226) so I am some what use to it, as well as iron sights.

What I cant find out is how "bad" is an off the shelf m9/92. It appears elsewhere online there is a strong love hate relationship with this firearm. Some say its accurate, some say they cant hit the broadside of a barn. The thing is there isnt anything statistical like group size at a certain distance. Has anyone here ransom rested a stock one to give me an idea. Is a stock gun a 5-6" gun or 12-18" at 50y, I just have no idea

C.Perkins :

"You can have a 92 accurized pretty reasonable"

what kind of price is reasonable. I am new to this so reasonable to me may be much lower than actual. And also can that kkm be self installed like a 1911 barrel essentially could ... if you knew what you were doing. Is there any other improvements that can be done at home?


Thanks again for all the advice.
BB

Might have been New Gun Syndrome, or New Method Syndrome, but the first shoot with my off the shelf 92fs and white box ammo, made a 9 ring size group at 50yds offhand. I used a new to me center hold rather than sub six as the fixed sights were not regulated properly. Trouble is I have not been able to shoot it that good ever since. Even with new sights and a Roddy trigger.

I did not ransom my M9 but off sand bags I was unable to hold a repair center at 50 yards. At 25 yards it would hold the black, this was in box stock form. I then did some trigger work and installed a KKM barrel and adjustable sights and all together I had about $900 and change in the gun.

I was at first disappointed with the KKM and found it had a defect and once that was corrected it would hold a repair center at 50 and the black at 25. Not what I would consider good enough for earning any points. Maybe given more trigger time it would have improved?

All I knew was after screwing around with loads only to find the issue was the barrel I had a bad taste in my mouth. The Mil-Spec Springfield is hard to find however the RIA Mil-Spec is under $500 at Buds and is available. I have heard they are surprisingly tight and decent guns. Even if you put another $500 in it you would have a capable ball legal gun for under a grand.

You should be able to get a nice used 92FS for $500-$600. You can get a well-used one for less. The fact of the matter is whichever you choose, you'll probably have to sink some money into it to get it to shoot reasonable well at 50 yards. IMHO, leg points are won at the short line. If you get a pistol to shoot well enough that you can shoot scores in the 80's at the long line and you shoot high 90's at the long line, you will easily be able to leg out.

Alright! I have been talked out of it, for now at least. Last question I have pertains to a mil spec 1911. I have heard that a stainless is not the best for accuracy improvement compared to I guess regular steel. How much of a big deal is it. I only ask because I will just plan to keep an eye out for a SA mil spec deal, and if there happens to be a SS version I can have a better idea to jump on it or not. I know this is off topic for not being the Beretta, but this would be still be used as an occasional CMP gun only.

The only issue with SS over blue is SS is a little less forgiving as to frame to slide tightness, ss can gald if too tight. The cost to bring a mil spec up to a competitive ballgun is substantial, trigger work, adjustable sights, tighten frame slide fit and add a match barrel and bushing, much of this will require a good smith with specialty tools to do. I would suggest buying a Springfield range officer it can be purchased from tombstone tactical for under 800.00, it comes with great adjustable sights, a good trigger that only needs slight spring adjustment to hit the 4lb mark, a NM barrel that is extremely accurate, a good slide to frame fit, you would only have to replace the hammer with a spur type and the grip safety to match and your cmp legal, id say total extra investment even with gunsmith fees and parts around 200. you would have much more in a milspec as even used ones bring 500-600.00 just a suggestion

I have a new RO coming in next week and I think we could hit the price points David has mentioned with spur hammer and grip safety. Message me if you might be interested.

Joe

I realize this is an old thread, but it fits my current dilemma pretty well;

I am rifle Distinguished and am currently perusing another 26 pistol points. Video evidence has proven that my 65 year old body is unable to recover quickly enough at the short line when shooting my 1911. The techniques used by many, are apparently for younger competitors. The do not work for me.

The recoil impulse of the .45 Hard Ball is just too much for me. I do well at the long line, but lose most of my points at the short line.

My question is, should I try with the M9/M92? I have only fired these pistols twice on the same occasion, one was a match gun and the other was an issue gun. I was shocked at how much better I my scores were. But I do not have the wealth of experience the forum members have to make a decision. I do not have access to a pistol to practice with (yet). So I would like to know what you think. I don't even own any 9mm ammo!

Thanks, Andy

You do realize that the CMP rules allow one to reload reduced loads, don't you? For the long line, most folks agree that the 230 gr. FMJ bullet has to be driven pretty fast to group well, but at 25 yards, reduced loads (with less recoil) will shoot in the 10 ring.

BE Mike wrote:You do realize that the CMP rules allow one to reload reduced loads, don't you? For the long line, most folks agree that the 230 gr. FMJ bullet has to be driven pretty fast to group well, but at 25 yards, reduced loads (with less recoil) will shoot in the 10 ring.

I was not aware of that, thank you.

I was/am sort of in the same boat. In Sep 2013 I thought I would try a EIC match but I did not want to buy a special build ball gun. I have a Dan Wesson that I did not shoot a lot so I put some GI parts from a gun show in it to meet the EIC rules but will allow me to return the gun to stock when I want. The biggest challenge was to get a load that shot ok and after that was done, I entered a match. Did okay but no points so I tried 2 more to shoot my three for the year. Had better luck with these including getting a hard leg. 

So winter hits and I see a 92 INOX supposedly not fired for sale in a local ad. Bought the gun to compare it with the 1911 and out of the box, it did not group as well as the 45. A couple of weeks ago I called KKM and talked to a nice person on the phone from there.  So I order a KKM barrel and it arrives in 3 days. The snow has been so bad here I did not even try it at 50 yards yet but where the 92 was shooting 3" groups give or take at 25, it is now 1.5" or better with the same load. I have not yet worked up a load for the KKM barrel. My adjustable sight is still on back order but a Wolff spring put the trigger at 4.75 lbs. I don't know if the Beretta will be any better than the Dan Wesson but I am looking forward to playing with it. Hope this helps.

I shot a hardball 45 and 9mm back-to-back and could feel a definite difference in recoil. Although the 9mm recoil felt sharper, recovery in sustained fire was quicker.
Wasn't reduced recoil much of the reason the Army changed to 9mm?

I last shot a stock M9 at the SAFS match at Perry.  Those are stock guns with no trigger work and I was still able to shoot an 89 slow and a 86 timed.  I won't tell you that I shot a 70 rapid to lose the match--and a free colt gold cup, but I will tell you that it wasn't the guns fault.  The super fat grip didn't help but it wasn't the reason I lost that match by only 9 points.

One point of clarity--the slow fire stage is shot at 25 yards in that match, but I honestly don't think the accuracy is all that different with those guns from 25-50 if you have ammo that works with it.

davekp wrote:I shot a hardball 45 and 9mm back-to-back and could feel a definite difference in recoil. Although the 9mm recoil felt sharper, recovery in sustained fire was quicker.
Wasn't reduced recoil much of the reason the Army changed to 9mm? 

They changed to 9mm because the M-9 is the standard service pistol.