92fs VS M9

[RePete]

There is only cosmetic difference between the
M9 and the 92FS.
The M9 has a matte finish that feels like a cheap paint and will scratch off much easier, where the blued 92FS or the stainless look and feel much higher quality. I would say its a big difference.

In my opinion, the M9 should be far less in price than any other 92 pistol because of the poor quality of the finish.

Hate to tell you but they both have the same finish.

I was watching them finishing both models at the Beretta factory in Accokeek, Maryland.

The decision was made to simplify production. Anything that the Military wanted also went on the commercial product.

 

[ShooterPHD]

yes it is chromed.

No...it is not chromed

 

[Gundoggy]

The Beretta 92FS USED TO have a nice satin black/blue finish. I bought one in 1990 that had this kind of finish. Very smooth trigger too.

Sadly they don't make them like this any more.

 

[hoochie]

Hate to tell you but they both have the same finish.

I was watching them finishing both models at the Beretta factory in Accokeek, Maryland.

The decision was made to simplify production. Anything that the Military wanted also went on the commercial product.

ahh. after reading the post from BK, I understand the problem. I've had 3 berettas (92FS stainless, 96D, and the M9). My M9 was the last one I got, and I was very disappointed in the finish. My other ones, were prior to the standardization of that matte finish. The "old" blued finish was much smoother, softer and seemed much more durable.
I have not seen a 92FS with the matte finish on it. The guys I know who have the 92FS have the blued ones, so I guess it dates their firearms.