Beretta M9A3 or SIG P226/229/320?

S

sonichanxiao

CGN Regular
Rating - 66.7%
4   2   0
Not sure about the P320's striker action, but not really like the edge at the rear of the standard P226/229, kind of outstanding and feel it is kind of sharp, except the compact one looks OK.

Heard the Beretta M9 series even the 92FS having lots of moving parts, issues from US military. Not sure about reliability.

Any suggestions/experience/issues/recommendations?

Thanks a lot.
 
Decide if you polymer or steel (no right or wrong answer) if polymer go with the 320x5.
There's nothing wrong with the Beretta the issues they have were from sand ####ing ups mags but and people with small hands on the grip but the a3 new grips solves that.
 
Have both, andlove both. Never had an issue with the Beretta or the 229. The 229 with the srt trigger is one of my favorite guns.
IMG_0050.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0050.jpg
    IMG_0050.jpg
    122.4 KB · Views: 384
The Sig 226 and the Beretta M9 competed against each other in military trial. They performed equally with both being as reliable as the other, both went about the equal amount of rounds before failure, and both were well liked.
Beretta came in under Sig's price for their spare parts package and that's why the M9 was chosen.
Otherwise they're both fine pistols.
The issues you hear about the M9 are a result from a bad batch of ammo being over pressurized to the point of them being proof loads (which Beretta sued over, and won), poor heat treat on outsourced locking blocks, third party magazines being used in the desert, and just plain neglecting to replace parts like recoil springs after high round counts. All of which were remedied, so you needn't worry.
I prefer the Sig myself, since it fits better in my hands (Beretta is pretty girthy) but they're both great guns.
 
I think the M9A3 is a little different than the gun that did the military trials against the P226. It was not accepted by the military I think. Nice gun though.
 
I really like the Beretta pattern.
Didn't much think of the Sig shooting it, yeah they've got the "reputation" but I don't know how much that's worth.

The 92 is not known as a jam-o-matic, again whatever that's worth. The only thing to remember is to throw in a new locking block ($50) every 15-20k rounds.
All handguns could use a re-spring job by this point, too.

I'm gonna get a M9A3 or something once my T97G2 sells. I've got a 92F right now and it's great I just want something a bit more Gucci.
 
Thanks a lot guys. Your inputs are really helpful.

For those who used or owning or owned the Beretta, is the trigger really hard to pull or having longer distance to pull? I read some people said the double tapped on the SIG when used it for the first time.
 
sonichanxiao said:
Thanks a lot guys. Your inputs are really helpful.

For those who used or owning or owned the Beretta, is the trigger really hard to pull or having longer distance to pull? I read some people said the double tapped on the SIG when used it for the first time.
Click to expand...

The trigger reach on the DA pull on a Beretta can be considered long especially if you have short fingers. The D spring replacement can help the weight of the pull.

Personally, I don’t like a DA/SA trigger pull and I don’t like a slide mounted safety/decocker system. I have a 92SBC and a SIG 220 but I mostly shoot striker fired polymers in competition and training. So my vote would be the 320.
It’s a personal thing. There is nothing wrong with any of your choices mechanically. They are all good reliable guns. And you can practice to shoot DA/SA easily. Another good DA/SA choice to consider if you like metal guns is the CZ Shadow series.
 
I have the three you mentioned as Still Alive correctly pointed out all three are reliable, well proven pistols. All three are not small guns. If I had small hands none of the three would be my first choice. For that there is the M&P Pro series. Assuming you have medium to large hands I would go with the 92FS or SIG 226 if it was my first pistol. DA/SA guns are inherently safer pistols to learn on and both will last most shooters a lifetime of shooting. Now if the OP has shot some and knows the is and outs of handgun shooting the SIG X Five is an excellent choice along with it's siblings in the 320 series. The US Army chose the 320 series for a very good reason it is an excellent pistol. It most certainly will garner a huge inventory of after market support over the next 35 years or more service with the US military. US civilians will garner to t like flys to dead meat.

That said for me the PPQ Match has several good points going for it that might interest the OP. IMHO the trigger is the best of the striker fired pistols. The grip, for me is excellent. Accuracy off the bench is scary. I never thought I would see a striker fired pistol shoot with a CZ off a bench and the PPQ MAtch does that and more even with my experienced eyes. The downside to the PPQ is whether or not warranty work and parts availability matches other pistols in the marketplace here in Canada.

The SIG X Five runs a close 2nd to the PPQ IMHO with a decent trigger and excellent accuracy. It is one of the flattest shooting pistols I own. By that I mean the design manages recoil extremely well. It is the tinker toy gun of the pistol world with it's modularity concept. If that is a plus for you and it was for me, then the X Five trumps all three choices the OP lists. The gun is dead nuts reliable, with a very good trigger out of the box, quality sights, and excellent accuracy with proven reliability, whats not to like. For a little less money the 320 lies in wait.

Take Care

Bob
 
I own a 92A1, a P226 MK25 and a P320. I love them all, have had zero issues and will never part with either of them. In my opinion all 3 are a solid choice and you really should try to own them all.
 
Canuck44 said:
I have the three you mentioned as Still Alive correctly pointed out all three are reliable, well proven pistols. All three are not small guns. If I had small hands none of the three would be my first choice. For that there is the M&P Pro series. Assuming you have medium to large hands I would go with the 92FS or SIG 226 if it was my first pistol. DA/SA guns are inherently safer pistols to learn on and both will last most shooters a lifetime of shooting. Now if the OP has shot some and knows the is and outs of handgun shooting the SIG X Five is an excellent choice along with it's siblings in the 320 series. The US Army chose the 320 series for a very good reason it is an excellent pistol. It most certainly will garner a huge inventory of after market support over the next 35 years or more service with the US military. US civilians will garner to t like flys to dead meat.

That said for me the PPQ Match has several good points going for it that might interest the OP. IMHO the trigger is the best of the striker fired pistols. The grip, for me is excellent. Accuracy off the bench is scary. I never thought I would see a striker fired pistol shoot with a CZ off a bench and the PPQ MAtch does that and more even with my experienced eyes. The downside to the PPQ is whether or not warranty work and parts availability matches other pistols in the marketplace here in Canada.

The SIG X Five runs a close 2nd to the PPQ IMHO with a decent trigger and excellent accuracy. It is one of the flattest shooting pistols I own. By that I mean the design manages recoil extremely well. It is the tinker toy gun of the pistol world with it's modularity concept. If that is a plus for you and it was for me, then the X Five trumps all three choices the OP lists. The gun is dead nuts reliable, with a very good trigger out of the box, quality sights, and excellent accuracy with proven reliability, whats not to like. For a little less money the 320 lies in wait.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input.

I had a thought between the Beretta M9A3 and Sig P320, not sure about the P320's striker fire part. Seems hammer fire pistol is kind of easier or convenient than the striker fire pistol as you can decocking the gun without eject the ammo in the chamber?
 
sonichanxiao said:
Thanks for your input.

I had a thought between the Beretta M9A3 and Sig P320, not sure about the P320's striker fire part. Seems hammer fire pistol is kind of easier or convenient than the striker fire pistol as you can decocking the gun without eject the ammo in the chamber?
Click to expand...

The significant reason for me suggesting a hammer fired pistol for a first pistol is the guns have an active safety system. The Beretta has a decocker/safety while the Sig 226 has the decocker only feature. In addition both have long DA trigger pulls which provide a measure of safety as well. I don't follow the portion of your post indicated in red above. There is no active safety on the 320 series of pistols. If you are leaning towards the Beretta take a look at the 92FS as well as the M9A3. The former can be had for less money and is virtually the same pistol aside from the grip and light rail. You may find the added price is not worth it to you.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
The significant reason for me suggesting a hammer fired pistol for a first pistol is the guns have an active safety system. The Beretta has a decocker/safety while the Sig 226 has the decocker only feature. In addition both have long DA trigger pulls which provide a measure of safety as well. I don't follow the portion of your post indicated in red above. There is no active safety on the 320 series of pistols. If you are leaning towards the Beretta take a look at the 92FS as well as the M9A3. The former can be had for less money and is virtually the same pistol aside from the grip and light rail. You may find the added price is not worth it to you.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

The 92FS front sights also cannot be changed out easily as they are part of the slide.

Bob definitely has a point if you are new to handguns and especially if you want to learn to shoot from a holster or take courses. A long DA first pull and the ability to apply a safety or decocker has its merits.
It's not my thing as already mentioned in my previous post but I can definitely see why some people want to train that way.

Bob, good thing the Kidd got banned or you two would be having a 5 page discussion right now!
 
Yup. :>) Handguns can bite you pretty quick and like you, I try to reduce the odds knowing I am not infallible or so says she who knows best.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
The significant reason for me suggesting a hammer fired pistol for a first pistol is the guns have an active safety system. The Beretta has a decocker/safety while the Sig 226 has the decocker only feature. In addition both have long DA trigger pulls which provide a measure of safety as well. I don't follow the portion of your post indicated in red above. There is no active safety on the 320 series of pistols. If you are leaning towards the Beretta take a look at the 92FS as well as the M9A3. The former can be had for less money and is virtually the same pistol aside from the grip and light rail. You may find the added price is not worth it to you.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Thank you.

what I mean is the P320 have to shoot all the bullets to empty the chamber or pull the slide to eject the one in the chamber. Seems not that continent when comparing to hammer fired one.

Yeah, M9A3 doesn't seem have much difference comparing to 92FS, especially it's almost double the price.
 
Got a Sig P227R Enhanced Elite in 45 ACP, awesome firearm.

The question is why shoot 9mm when you can shoot 45 ACP, you may save some money, but you will lose a lot of fun factor:)
 
Last edited:
sonichanxiao said:
Thank you.

what I mean is the P320 have to shoot all the bullets to empty the chamber or pull the slide to eject the one in the chamber. Seems not that continent when comparing to hammer fired one.

Yeah, M9A3 doesn't seem have much difference comparing to 92FS, especially it's almost double the price.
Click to expand...


To unload both types of guns you remove the magazine then pull the slide back to eject the cartridge in the chamber. The 92FS is an excellent version of the 92 Series and would serve you well. Good used ones can be had from $750 - $800 om our EE most of the time.

Take Care

Bob
 
xldbldbl said:
Differences between 92fs and M9A3 include threaded barrel, night sights, beveled mag well, oversize extended mag release plus the vertec frame with rail and no palm swell. Price difference new was around $375 when i bought mine
Click to expand...

Thank you for your explanation.

Threaded barrel doesn't seem quiet useful as we don't allow suppressor here, not sure anything else we could put it on.
Didn't try the night sights while I was at one of the store and trying to get some idea of both, but holding both guns, doesn't seem too much difference, the M9A3 maybe easier for medium or small hand people. Haven't checked what else I could mount on the rail but it would be a plus for M9A3 comparing to 92FS.


Right now the difference is about $500 at least for new ones before tax. $900 comparing to $1400-1500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom