PDA

View Full Version : Beretta 92F (M9) not on CA DOJ approved list?!?!?!


hkfan33
03-30-2007, 7:58 AM
Ok here's the deal. I was at my FFL yesterday to start my DROS here in the Pasadena area on a Like New mid 80's production Beretta 92F being transfered from Conneticut. As my FFL starts to check in the CA DOJ's approved firearms list, he tells me that the 92F is not on there but the M9 is. Isn't the 92F also known as the M9 model?!?!?!:mad:

He understood my point but he tells me that CA DOJ requires all FFL's to input the excat model name stamped on the pistol's slide which is 92F (which makes sense to me). That being said, he will NOT start the DROS! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Did I assume wrong thinking that this Beretta 92F (M9) was on the CA approved list?

Lastly, returning the pistol to CT is my very last option since it'll cost me more that it already has & I'll be more on the deep end.

Soooo, now that I'm stuck with a pistol that I can't DROS & out with $$$... what are my options here besides trying to sell this pistol to my FFL?

Thanks in advance!

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 8:22 AM
Ok here's the deal. I was at my FFL yesterday to start my DROS here in the Pasadena area on a Like New mid 80's production Beretta 92F being transfered from Conneticut. As my FFL starts to check in the CA DOJ's approved firearms list, he tells me that the 92F is not on there but the M9 is. Isn't the 92F also known as the M9 model?!?!?!:mad:

He understood my point but he tells me that CA DOJ requires all FFL's to input the excat model name stamped on the pistol's slide which is 92F (which makes sense to me). That being said, he will NOT start the DROS! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Did I assume wrong thinking that this Beretta 92F (M9) was on the CA approved list?

Lastly, returning the pistol to CT is my very last option since it'll cost me more that it already has & I'll be more on the deep end.

Soooo, now that I'm stuck with a pistol that I can't DROS & out with $$$... what are my options here besides trying to sell this pistol to my FFL?

Thanks in advance!

The beretta model 92F is not the M9, the model 92FS is...

Your options are..

Return the pistol to the seller you got it from.

List it on one of the on-line gun auctions and then have the FFL ship it to the winning bidder.

Sell it to the FFL that received it (He''ll probably sell it the same way I mentioned above)

Sell it to a LEO (They are exempt from the approved list requirement...)

fun2none
03-30-2007, 8:28 AM
You can:

1) sell it to FFL and be done with it
2) sell it to an out of state buyer and have FFL ship it
3) transfer it to a LEO and then have the LEO PPT back to you
4) borrow a 92FS slide and ..... scratch that idea :rolleyes:

383green
03-30-2007, 8:28 AM
I don't have anything constructive to add here, but I have to say that this situation really angers me.

AJAX22
03-30-2007, 8:34 AM
are the frames the same?

if its just a frame being transfered why can't you you call it a 92fs?

Bill_in_SD
03-30-2007, 8:43 AM
I don't have anything to add that could help, I wish I could, I think your options have been covered, I do share some frustration with the situation.

I don't have anything constructive to add here, but I have to say that this situation really angers me.

It is only going to get worse. My frustration is that the Beretta Cougar is no longer manufactured by Beretta, but by a subsidiary of Beretta - Stoeger. Same tooling and everything, *half* the price. (Happy about that, but read on...)

The Stoeger will never make it to Cali since it does not have a mag disconnect or chamber loaded indicator. Same firearm as one I own; different name.

I can buy another Beretta Cougar until 12/31/2007. After that?
Not looking good for the home team.

They will not give up until that list is reduced to rimfire handguns, and then rimfire ammunition will be outlawed or be to small to 'microstamp' or some other garbage.:mad:


Bill in SD

hkfan33
03-30-2007, 8:45 AM
The beretta model 92F is not the M9, the model 92FS is...

Point well taken Howard.

So is this description wrong?
http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/beretta92f.htm

hkfan33
03-30-2007, 8:58 AM
You can:
3) transfer it to a LEO and then have the LEO PPT back to you


I like this idea the best.

Got a few questions though since this is the first time this ever happend to me...

1. How do I go about it?

2. Do I just bring my LEO friend to my FFL & tell them that he'll buy it from me or is there a simpler way?

3. Is there a required # of days to wait til my LEO friend transfers the pistol to me?

4. When the time comes for him to transfer the pistol to me, will the FFL handling the transfer question the 92F model again or is it good to go considering it has already past CA DOJ's inital DROS?

I'm sure I got a few more & will post it as soon as I come across it.

Thanks again!

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 9:20 AM
Point well taken Howard.

So is this description wrong?
http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/beretta92f.htm


This is the first time I've seen that article, but I do believe it is in error....

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 9:26 AM
I like this idea the best.

Got a few questions though since this is the first time this ever happend to me...

1. How do I go about it?

2. Do I just bring my LEO friend to my FFL & tell them that he'll buy it from me or is there a simpler way?

3. Is there a required # of days to wait til my LEO friend transfers the pistol to me?

4. When the time comes for him to transfer the pistol to me, will the FFL handling the transfer question the 92F model again or is it good to go considering it has already past CA DOJ's inital DROS?

I'm sure I got a few more & will post it as soon as I come across it.

Thanks again!

Take your LEO friend to the FFL and tell the FFL you are sellling or giving the gun to your friend.... (You wouldn't want it considered a straw buy)

The FFL processes the DROS/ transfer for the LEO....

I am not aware of a requirement for a number of days before the LEO can "SELL" the gun....

Complete a PPT between the LEO and you as any other PPT... (Approved List doesn't apply)

hkfan33
03-30-2007, 9:58 AM
Thanks again HowardW56!

That sure brings new life to the situation.

I'll post the results as soon I get everything going here...

Best Regards!

RickD427
03-30-2007, 10:02 AM
What's being described here is a "Straw Sale". It's illegal and would likely lead to your LEO friend needing a new line of work, possibly after everyone involved gets out of jail.

There is no set number of days that a person has to own a firearm before it can be re-sold. It's the intent of the parties at the time the weapon is purchased. If the purchaser is completing the 4473 with an intent of transferring the weapon to another, the violation is complete.

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 10:05 AM
What's being described here is a "Straw Sale". It's illegal and would likely lead to your LEO friend needing a new line of work, possibly after everyone involved gets out of jail.

There is no set number of days that a person has to own a firearm before it can be re-sold. It's the intent of the parties at the time the weapon is purchased. If the purchaser is completing the 4473 with an intent of transferring the weapon to another, the violation is complete.

What is being described here is a purchase and subsiquent sale, or gift, and documented private party transfer of a firearm....

In a Straw Sale, the subsiquent transfer of the firearm is not documented and therefore illegal....

Rick I am interested in any basis for the statement that this would be a "Straw Sale". If you have any additional information, I am always open to learning something new....

tgriffin
03-30-2007, 10:36 AM
What is being described here is a purchase and subsiquent sale, or gift, and documented private party transfer of a firearm....

In a Straw Sale, the subsiquent transfer of the firearm is not documented and therefore illegal....

Rick I am interested in any basis for the statement that this would be a "Straw Sale". If you have any additional information, I am always open to learning something new....

I love it when people have BRILLIANT first posts.... we always learn so much from them.....*popcorn*

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 11:26 AM
I love it when people have BRILLIANT first posts.... we always learn so much from them.....*popcorn*


If he has a basis for that statement, other than his opinion, I'd like to know what it is.

I am always open to learning from available verified/documented sources...

Bill_in_SD
03-30-2007, 12:20 PM
I think this poses a good question about a 'straw purchase/sale'.

I was under the impression that a 'straw purchase' in the traditional sense is in regards to Federal law, and is a situation where a person knowingly makes a purchase of a firearm with intentions to sell or give said firearm to someone who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

Now what has been illustrated here is a situation where a person (LEO) would be making a purchase of a firearm with the intention of selling it to an individual who is *not* prohibited from owning said firearm. Or are they? What if this particular model is the same model the ultimate buyer already has, but is not on the *state* approved list? And how do you prove that this is the case? With a 'straw purchase', the proof is providing a firearm to someone who is prohibited from owning one.

Maybe someone else can give some insight on this, I will be researching the straw purchase definition in the law.....
Here is a wikipedia entry that discusses *Federal* implications regarding a 'straw purchase':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase



Bill in SD

gibbet
03-30-2007, 12:25 PM
Ck out this link:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/05/atfe_looking_in.php

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 12:27 PM
I think this poses a good question about a 'straw purchase/sale'.

I was under the impression that a 'straw purchase' in the traditional sense is in regards to Federal law, and is a situation where a person knowingly makes a purchase of a firearm with intentions to sell or give said firearm to someone who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

Now what has been illustrated here is a situation where a person (LEO) would be making a purchase of a firearm with the intention of selling it to an individual who is *not* prohibited from owning said firearm. Or are they? What if this particular model is the same model the ultimate buyer already has, but is not on the *state* approved list? And how do you prove that this is the case? With a 'straw purchase', the proof is providing a firearm to someone who is prohibited from owning one.

Maybe someone else can give some insight on this, I will be researching the straw purchase definition in the law.....
Here is a wikipedia entry that discusses *Federal* implications regarding a 'straw purchase':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase



Bill in SD

As I read it a key factor is providing the gun to a prohibited person without proper documentation. That isn't the type of transaction that we were discussing here...

Who is to say that if someone purchases a firearm and ultimately doesn't like it, they cannot sell that firearm?

As long as it is transfered properly, what is the issue?

Another thought.... We, the people in California, are not prohibited from owning handguns that are not on the approved roster, firearms dealers in California are prohibited from selling those firearms, with exceptions. The applicable exception in this discussion is to a LEO...

As a LEO would be purchasing the firearm personally, it is their property to dispose of in any legal manner available to anyone else in California.

If they made a practice of doing that, I’m sure there would be issues of them acting as a dealer.

Bill_in_SD
03-30-2007, 12:46 PM
So it comes down to proving intent, from the gist of what I am reading about 'straw purchases'.

While the practice of buying from a LEO in this fashion is not against the law, the question is whether the intent is there. The examples given in the wikipedia article include auto purchases, etc. but I cannot find any instance where this occurred outside of a firearms purchase. (granted, my limited search).

So your LEO friend can put 50 rounds through it and decide he does not like it, and then sell it to you. It is up to him to decide if he purchased that firearm with the sole intent to sell it to you, or you convinced him that one model in particular was a fabulous gun that he should own. And if he does not like it, you would buy it from him.

Bill in SD

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 12:49 PM
So it comes down to proving intent, from the gist of what I am reading about 'straw purchases'.

While the practice of buying from a LEO in this fashion is not against the law, the question is whether the intent is there. The examples given in the wikipedia article include auto purchases, etc. but I cannot find any instance where this occurred outside of a firearms purchase. (granted, my limited search).

So your LEO friend can put 50 rounds through it and decide he does not like it, and then sell it to you. It is up to him to decide if he purchased that firearm with the sole intent to sell it to you, or you convinced him that one model in particular was a fabulous gun that he should own. And if he does not like it, you would buy it from him.

Bill in SD

I believe the issue is intent to transfer the gun to another prohibited person or in an illegal manner...

A PPT, is the only legal method to transfer the firearm...

Wulf
03-30-2007, 12:53 PM
Have the FFL get out a sharpie and add an "S" to the end of the stamping on the slide.

pepsi2451
03-30-2007, 1:56 PM
If that was a straw sale wouldn't every ppt of a non listed handgun in this state be the same thing?

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 3:21 PM
If that was a straw sale wouldn't every ppt of a non listed handgun in this state be the same thing?

I think everyone was referring to the transfer of the handgun to a LEO, then a PPT to his friend

Bill_in_SD
03-30-2007, 3:26 PM
If that was a straw sale wouldn't every ppt of a non listed handgun in this state be the same thing?

No, the question is whether or not this qualifies as a straw purchase based on intent alone. There is nothing wrong with the scenario presented from a technical standpoint.

PPT of a non-listed handgun is fine in this state, as long as you use an FFL, which keeps you from selling to someone who cannot legally own a gun. (NICS check, etc.)

Bill in SD

*This is all my opinion and I am not a lawyer, just trying to make sense out of the law.

lpspinner
03-30-2007, 3:47 PM
HK to Leo: hey buddy, I just got this great gun transfered in, it's the total bomb! But Thanks to Kali laws, Beretta is no longer paying the blackmail money to DOJ, so let me sell you this gun at my cost. Otherwise, I'm going to lose money.

LEO: I don't know.... what if it isn't that great?

HK: Tell you what, you buy it, take it to the range, play with it, and if you still don't like it, we'll drive back down to the dealer and I'll buy the gun back from you? And I'll even pay for my own DROS fee, so you've got nothing to loose! How how about it?

LEO: Sounds like a good deal to me! Let's do it!

383green
03-30-2007, 4:12 PM
No, the question is whether or not this qualifies as a straw purchase based on intent alone.


No, the question is whether or not this qualifies as a straw purchase based on intent to give the gun to a third party who is prohibited from possessing the gun, without conducting a legal transfer through an FFL as required by law alone.

That clearly is not the case here, because neither guy is prohibited from possessing the gun, and both transfers would be performed legally through an FFL.

"Intent" is not a crime. You need to have intent to do something illegal before intent becomes relevant. No part of the proposed transactions are illegal, so intending to do them is also not illegal.

Bill_in_SD
03-30-2007, 4:40 PM
383green - while I too was under that impression, after reviewing the wikipedia article I linked to, it seems that a 'straw purchase' is a purchase made with the *intent* to hide the identity of the 'real' purchaser.

It was confusing for me too, since as I said before, they gave examples including car deals, and other financial transactions.

I personally think that there is little or no risk to what was proposed, unless somehow the LEO friend makes some statement that construes intent.

So is this a big loophole in the CA law, and a possible boon for underpaid LEO?

Bill in SD

HowardW56
03-30-2007, 4:57 PM
383green - while I too was under that impression, after reviewing the wikipedia article I linked to, it seems that a 'straw purchase' is a purchase made with the *intent* to hide the identity of the 'real' purchaser.

It was confusing for me too, since as I said before, they gave examples including car deals, and other financial transactions.

I personally think that there is little or no risk to what was proposed, unless somehow the LEO friend makes some statement that construes intent.

So is this a big loophole in the CA law, and a possible boon for underpaid LEO?

Bill in SD

I think if a LEO were to start doing that regularly, they would have a problem...

hkfan33
03-30-2007, 5:03 PM
Thanks again for all your input, suggestions & support!

This has become a very intersting & informative read for me thus far.

Any FFL's here at Calguns have their 2cents on the issue of selling to a LEO & so on??? Would really like to see (and know) what's what when it comes to an FFLs view point.

Thanks again all!

Bill_in_SD
03-30-2007, 9:04 PM
I think if a LEO were to start doing that regularly, they would have a problem...

I don't see how - unless there is a limit to the number of purchases they make a year - I am not saying it would not raise red flags.....

It is perfectly legal unless intent is proven.

I would love to hear from FFLs and some lawyer types as well - as residents of California, we need all the help we can get on these types of issues. (like OLLs!)

Bill in SD

hkfan33
03-31-2007, 2:12 PM
Btt.

Thanks!

Shane916
03-31-2007, 3:59 PM
Straw purchases directly relate to a person legally acquiring a firearm for someone else who is not allowed too. There is no law against purchasing a firearm legally and transferring it immediately and legally to someone who can legally own that weapon. Brady for instance purchased a rifle for her son. ATF determined this was not a straw purchase because the son was legally allowed to own firearms (rifle in this instance). Unless CA has some special law that would make this illegal..which I haven't seen before..?

fun2none
03-31-2007, 7:15 PM
You can:

3) transfer it to a LEO and then have the LEO PPT back to you
]

thats a straw purchase do not do that.

See the PDF from the Justice Department.

Don't Lie for the Other Guy
(http://www.dontlie.org/ConsumerCard.pdf)

HowardW56
04-01-2007, 6:03 PM
[quote=kimbercarry;556896]

See the PDF from the Justice Department.

Don't Lie for the Other Guy
(http://www.dontlie.org/ConsumerCard.pdf)

I wish you would read the text in the PDF file you attached....

According to that file, it wouldn't be illegal...

fun2none
04-01-2007, 9:47 PM
For some reason, my quote block got screwed up. I was responding to kimbercarry's assertion that the transaction was a strawman sale.

I was trying to make the point that according to the DOJ, it's not a straw sale.
;)

Bill_in_SD
04-02-2007, 5:47 AM
(from the linked .pdf)
"or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction,"

That sounds like this makes it a straw purchase in the eyes of the feds.

My point was that to prove it was a straw purchase, you have to prove intent. In any 'normal' straw purchase', the one we are all used to, intent is easy to prove, since the ultimate purchaser is *prohibited from owning* the firearm.

In our case, the ultimate purchaser is *not* prohibited from owning, but is still disassociating their name from the transaction (original purchase), since by state law they are unable to directly purchase an "off list" handgun. Do the feds care? Who knows?

Bill in SD

eta34
04-02-2007, 6:27 AM
You guys have it all wrong. The DOJ is absolutely correct on this issue. We LEO's are the only one's pro-fesh-uh-nal enough to carry the off-list guns. :)

tenpercentfirearms
04-02-2007, 7:41 AM
Anyone who tells you that they are going to buy a handgun as a gift or to hold onto for a friend that they plan on properly transfering the gun over to at a later time is not a straw purchase.

For example. A guy comes in and says his son-in-law is getting out of the military soon and is immediately reporting to correctional officers school when he returns. They don't have time for the son-in-law to come in, wait 10 days, and then report to school. The father in law buys the gun and then lawfully loans it to the son-in-law for school. Later on, they do a PPT and the firearm is now properly in the son-in-law's name. There is nothing wrong with that as everyone followed the law.

That is like when guys come in to buy multiple lowers from me. One guy might be kicking out all the cash, but all three of them, including the guy paying, DROS the lowers. That isn't a straw purchase in my mind because the guy putting the cash down is getting a back ground check as well as the other guys involved.

Now on to the subject at hand. This is not a straw purchase unless the officer ends up giving the firearm to the intended buyer without going through a proper back ground check. However, the officer should be aware that his department might not like him funnelling off-list guns into the state (or they might promote him, depends on the department). I would recommend this course of action to protect himself and the dealer.

You two go in and you tell the gun dealer, "There is no way for me to get it, so I sold it to this guy for cheap. I authorize you to process the transfer with him. Thanks anyway." Then the intended buyer should just walk out and walk away. You don't want to give the FFL any knowledge that this is going on as he might react as the FFL Dealer KimberCarry did above and deny it.

If the officer chooses to now sell that gun after this is all over, then the intended buyer should buy it and be sure to compensate the officer enough to cover his original transfer fees when he bought it. DO NOT GO BACK TO THE SAME SHOP FOR THE PRIVATE PARTY TRANSFER! Although I think this is legal and just another stupid law that was poorly written allowing people to follow it and still acomplish what they want, you do not want to send up red flags during an audit.

So why sneak around? You see the DOJ doesn't have to like the way we follow the law even though what we do is legal. They can do some shady things to put outside pressure on lawful sales. For example, The DOJ called Fulton Armory in December of 2005 and scared them into not making a lawful transaction with me, even though it was perfectly legal for Fulton Armory to do so. The DOJ could call this officer's chief or sheriff and say, "Do you know Officer Smith is helping import unsafe weapons into the state and selling them to regular citizens? Do you know if someone hurts themself with those unsafe weapons, they might sue the city/county?" Or some other BS charge.

So the officer won't get into legal trouble, but he might get into work trouble. Kind of like I can legally carry my Glock to my job at a continuation high school, but I will get fired for it if I get caught.

So the less the dealer knows about what you are doing, the better in my opinion. I personally wouldn't want to be aware of this process because then I can deny everything. And again, if the DOJ sees an officer buying non-approved guns and transfering them through my shop 10 days later on a PPT, that is a huge red flag that will be easily caught. If they come in and just see a PPT and there is no indication the seller is a LEO, then nothing comes up, it is just another PPT.

In the same regards, if they notice Officer Smith has bought a whole lot of non-approved handguns, they might go ask him why. Another thing to take into consideration is the DOJ just published their memo about officers only needing their ID to make these purchases (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/exemptpo.php), but if they believe that a large number of officers are using this to do something they don't like, they might take that memo back and start requiring a letterhead again.

These are all things to think about before you start a LEO non-approved handgun pipeline. Unless I had a chief that was like, "Screw this state", I don't think I would want to risk this and if I knew it might get my buddy in trouble, I probably wouldn't want to risk his livlihood either.

fun2none
04-02-2007, 7:48 AM
There are two separate transactions that are documented on individual DROS and 4473 forms for each buyer.

How is the second buyer "disassociating" himself from the transaction if he has to fillout a DROS and 4473 as required by private party transfer ?

If you buy a gun and transfer it to another party who is prohibited from owning firearms, which implies NOT using an FFL whom is required to perform background check, you have a strawman sale and have violated California laws covering PPT transfers. I could not find anything in the law that required intent as proof of committing a strawman sale.

I am sure many un-certified handguns have, and are being, transferred from LEOs to private citizens via PPT.

HowardW56
04-02-2007, 10:19 AM
There are two separate transactions that are documented on individual DROS and 4473 forms for each buyer.

How is the second buyer "disassociating" himself from the transaction if he has to fillout a DROS and 4473 as required by private party transfer ?

If you buy a gun and transfer it to another party who is prohibited from owning firearms, which implies NOT using an FFL whom is required to perform background check, you have a strawman sale and have violated California laws covering PPT transfers. I could not find anything in the law that required intent as proof of committing a strawman sale.

I am sure many un-certified handguns have, and are being, transferred from LEOs to private citizens via PPT.

EXACTLY

I have purchased several "UN-LISTED" handguns from LEO.... Each time it was done by a PPT at a FFL DEALER....

I picked each of the guns up 10 days after the transfer.No holds or other problems with DOJ....

E. Fudd
04-03-2007, 8:59 AM
So is this description wrong?
http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/beretta92f.htm

Yes. Minor typo. Should have been '92FS'. The FS (aka M9) is the improved version of the F with the slide catch thingie that prevents the slide from flying off the back in case of a kB! and hitting you in the head/eye/mouth. :eek:

Years back I saw the remnants of an F that did exactly that from a kB!. The sharp back end of the slide still had some dry blood on it... Nasty...

hkfan33
04-03-2007, 11:55 AM
Yes. Minor typo. Should have been '92FS'. The FS (aka M9) is the improved version of the F with the slide catch thingie that prevents the slide from flying off the back in case of a kB! and hitting you in the head/eye/mouth. :eek:

I did hear about the defective slide issues on some of the 92F models. Does this pertain to both US & Italian made 92F models or is it more common to just one?

Anyway, I'm still uncertain if the Beretta 92F is indeed the M9 or am I just confussed & not reading between the lines???

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92F/FS#92F_.2892SB-F.29

92F (92SB-F)
Beretta modified the model 92SB slightly to create the 92F (and 92G) by making the following changes:

Redesigned all the parts to make them interchangeable between 92 variants to simplify maintenance for large government organizations.
Modified the front of the trigger guard so that one could use finger support for easier aiming.
Modified the front angle of the grip to allow for better instinctive aiming.
Hard chromed the barrel bore to protect it from corrosion and to reduce wear.
New surface coating on the slide called Bruniton, which allegedly provides better corrosion resistance than the previous plain blued finish.

U.S. Military use

Marine Security Guard students perform rapid-fire exercises on the Department of State pistol qualification course Feb. 4 as part of their MSG graduation requirementWhen the U.S. Air Force (USAF) began the Joint Service Small Arms Program, Beretta entered the competition. The Beretta 92SB (92S-1) won, but the Army contested the Air Force's methods. There would be several more competitions, and Beretta refined the design of the Beretta 92SB into the Beretta 92SB-F and in slightly modified form the Beretta 92G. These designs were ultimately selected by the United States(Beretta 92F, U.S. Military designation of M9 Pistol) and France (Beretta 92G, French military designation of "PAMAS"). The M9 Pistol was intended to replace the M1911A1 and .38-caliber revolvers and pistols. Over 500,000 M9 pistols were made and the switch-over was largely achieved.

The USAF has scheduled switching over from the early model M9 (92F) to the 92FS standard, according to planning documents. In May 2005, the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) posted its intent to award a sole-source contract to Beretta for 3,480 "M9A1" pistols (M9 with an accessory rail, also available to the public from June 2006).

E. Fudd
04-03-2007, 3:02 PM
I did hear about the defective slide issues on some of the 92F models. Does this pertain to both US & Italian made 92F models or is it more common to just one?

Anyway, I'm still uncertain if the Beretta 92F is indeed the M9 or am I just confussed & not reading between the lines???


There appears to be several online sources for 92 histories that are rather loose with the designations, thus the confusion. Many seem to lump 92F/92FS/M9 together and use them interchangeably.

This source explains the change from 92F to 92FS. See '1989'. Also goes into the 92F slide issue and the fix.

http://www.berettaweb.com/92%20Successo/Beretta%2092%20a%20global%20success%201b.htm

So, basically the 92FS and M9 are the same. The 92F is the older model made back in the 80's, but is often mis-referenced as the current model.

hkfan33
04-03-2007, 3:26 PM
There appears to be several online sources for 92 histories that are rather loose with the designations, thus the confusion. Many seem to lump 92F/92FS/M9 together and use them interchangeably.

This source explains the change from 92F to 92FS. See '1989'. Also goes into the 92F slide issue and the fix.

http://www.berettaweb.com/92%20Successo/Beretta%2092%20a%20global%20success%201b.htm

So, basically the 92FS and M9 are the same. The 92F is the older model made back in the 80's, but is often mis-referenced as the current model.


Got it!

Thanks for the clarification.