Is the WAL conical bushing worth it?

I shoot a lot of bullseye. I have several guns worthy of the task, such as my Volquartsen 22LR, my S&W Model 52 and my CZ Shadow 2 just to name 3.  I have a Beretta 92FS that by itself is quite accurate. It will shoot off hand 1" groups all day at about 30' shooting either 135 or 147 gr.  I would like to use it in some of the bullseye matches but don't 
think is is as worthy as the others mentioned. I read on the Beretta Forum that a member, WAL can do a bushing that will tighten the lockup of the end of the barrel. 
Does anyone here have any experience either first hand or know someone who has the bushing?  If so, is it worth it or should I just stay with the CZ S2 when I shoot the 9mm and save the money for ammo? Here is a 10 shot group measuring a tad over 1" and a pic of my 92FS.

Any info will be greatly appreciated.


[size=12]Enlarge this image Click to see fullsize


Enlarge this image Click to see fullsize
[/size]

I will presume that silence is either, A-you don't know anyone with this modification or B-the mod is not necessarily an improvement.  I guess at this stage I will put my $ in ammo and not in a bushing.

Given that group from your 92FS I say save yer money, just for an X or two.

But I will also say that on my CZ75, the bushing was downright sloppy and after having the Cajun Gunworks bushing installed (it did require my gunsmith's attention for clearance!), it was well worth it there.

I have the CZ S2 and so far the bushing is tight. My grouping for the CZ is far better than the 92. See photo: 
I agree, I will save my $ for other things.

I'm not a gunsmith but I've gotten the impression that the Beretta 92FS/M9 is not an easy pistol to accurize to Bullseye standards. Although getting one to group 2" at 25 yards isn't hard, the additional work to make one hold the X-ring at 50 yards involves fitting a new barrel, locking block and bushing plus adding some sort of steel reinforcement to the aluminum frame to allow a tight slide to frame fit.

The rear of the barrel needs as much work as the front to get to lock up in the same position. The bushing mod is just part of it.

I used to own a Kidd Beretta. I sent him my Brigadier and he put in a lot of work to make it shoot at 50 yards. I don't say this to put you down, just to make a point. 10 yards ain't 50. Many manufacturers, gun magazine writers and internet influencers are out there that tell you that it's the same, and it is a shame that it has mislead a lot of folks. I've heard that Dave Salyer can make a Beretta shoot with minimal (less expensive) customization. Maybe someone can comment on his work.

all who commented, thank you.
no offense taken...the local club I shoot with has an average age of 70+ (and some in the 90's) and eye sight is the biggest issue.  
We shoot shorter distances to compensate for that...the matches are all meant to maintain camaraderie, 
have fun and continue to shoot because we are all love shooting. We do shoot some matches at longer 
distances but they are more for fun and giggles. Every one who shoots with us wants the best accuracy 
they can get, but sometimes physical limitations get in the way-getting weaker in the arms and shoulders,
really bad eyesight, even not being able to stand too long. None-the-less, our club is for us to get together
and be "young" again and having a more accurate gun does not hurt.
Several of our club members have shot many times at Camp Perry, so they are no slouches in the pistol game.

I have one of the Beretta 92 Salyer budget modifications.  It consists of fitting and chambering a new match barrel which mates with the slide at the rear of the barrel, taller front and adjustable rear sights, and doing a trigger job.  KC mentions on his website that he does them also.  My Salyer-done 92 shoots far better than I can, but is not supposed to stay that way for as long as the pistols with the much more expensive hardened frame inserts.  I would suggest you contact one of the gunsmiths and talk to them directly about the various mods.  

You can achieve the trigger job, sending the pistol off or using drop-in parts from Langdon. Langdon says he can do about 80% of a full trigger job with drop-in parts.  I have several of Langdon's trigger jobs, and several pistols with his drop-in parts, and I would agree.  The big gain is in that first, double-action shot, which drops from about 12 pounds, to about 7 pounds.  The single-action pull is also lower and nicer.

NuJudge wrote:I have one of the Beretta 92 Salyer budget modifications.  It consists of fitting and chambering a new match barrel which mates with the slide at the rear of the barrel, taller front and adjustable rear sights, and doing a trigger job.  KC mentions on his website that he does them also.  My Salyer-done 92 shoots far better than I can, but is not supposed to stay that way for as long as the pistols with the much more expensive hardened frame inserts.  I would suggest you contact one of the gunsmiths and talk to them directly about the various mods.  

You can achieve the trigger job, sending the pistol off or using drop-in parts from Langdon. Langdon says he can do about 80% of a full trigger job with drop-in parts.  I have several of Langdon's trigger jobs, and several pistols with his drop-in parts, and I would agree.  The big gain is in that first, double-action shot, which drops from about 12 pounds, to about 7 pounds.  The single-action pull is also lower and nicer.

I have no issues with my trigger. I worked it myself and the single action is a crisp 3.5#. The double action, while I do not know its weight, is light and smooth.
I looked on Salyer's site and could not find any info on accurizing the 92FS. If you can direct me to that info I would appreciate it.