1. Any chance of a width comparison with a normal 92? or even a block or something? not that I will ever find one of these but damn they are cool.

  2. If you like the idea of a single stack 9mm carry pistol. Consider the Sig P239. Because not all of us have a mine of unobtainium in our office. 🙂

  3. Like Surfer said, would have been even more awesome if you’d shown the back of the single stack frame, especially had it been side by side with a 92FS.

  4. Good to know about this. A couple of years ago when I became interested in buying my first handgun, I went to a shooting range to try out several models. I went in with the goal to figure out which was best for me: Glock, S&W M&P, or Springfield XD. I came out being most impressed with the Beretta 92. It might be nice to try out this single stack variant if I can ever find one.

  5. > Surfer: Any chance of a width comparison with a normal 92?

    This was discussed at

    #118 . 08-24-2013, 07:42 PM

    Every now and then I get spun up about a Type M and have to go and have a lie-down until the urge goes away. As it is, my only Beretta currently is that adorable little 81.

    #119 . 08-24-2013, 07:46 PM

    The Type M is the goofiest gun.

    Beretta takes the 92 and makes it shorter in the butt and nose: 92 Compact.
    Someone says it should be thinner, single stack: Type M.

    Then some utter moron designs the grips for the gun to be extra wide so the grip feels identical to the standard double-stack 92.

    True story.

    A 92 Type is literally a 92 Compact in which you opt to run 8rd mags instead of 13rd mags. It’s like asking the car company to rip out your gas tank and replace it with an 8g one.

    #120 . 08-24-2013, 07:55 PM

    Didn’t say it made sense. That’s why I go and have my lie-down.

    (Last Type M someone traded in when I was still counter monkeying had a Hogue Handall on it. No lie.)

    (And, really, is it any goofier than a double stack .32 that is practically the same size?)

    #122 . 08-25-2013, 06:49 AM

    Todd, I actually just sold my Type M for the same reasons you mentioned. The grip was too fat given its decreased round capacity and the grip length itself didnt fit my hand too well.

    1. Hell, if the M isn’t appreciably thinner across the grips, I don’t understand it’s appeal over the readily available 13 round compact with its cheaper available magazines.

  6. While it may be a great “carry” gun. The gun is really only half the equation. You need to have a holster and/or accessories (e.g. mags, night sights, lights, etc.) to go with it. Now, I currently own a 96 Vertec and I love it. I even use it as my daily carry gun (IWB by the way and, yeah, I know, its HUGE to carry but it works for me). My only problem is that there are almost no holsters that are made for it unless you go custom. This is my problem with great but rare carry guns. They work great but you need to be ready to spend some serious dough on the accessories.

    1. My Type M fits in a regular 92 holster. It also shoots better than any of my other 9mm’s. Lack of mags, at any price, is the major drawback to the Type M.

  7. What about a Springfield XDs in 9mm or 45 for a compact carry gun? I love mine !!!!

  8. So basically there are three categories of handgun owner…

    “snowflake” category one who realizes there are many dozens of world class, high quality handguns to choose from based on individual preference.

    “snowflake” category two who wants one of the cheapest, reliable bullet spiting appliances available.

    Category three is the arrogant and ignorant asshat who believes whatever he owns is the perfect gun for everybody. Even if Mr. Asshat’s gun is world class, he’s still the asshat.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: