After years of a distinctly ‘meh’ attitude toward the Beretta Model 92, I’ve grown rather fond of the old warhorse. With the introduction of the Beretta Model 92FS Compact, I’m liking it even more. This CCW-compatible M9 gets the job done with a 13+1 capacity, and also accepts larger Model 92 and M9 magazines.

Pro tip: don’t use a ‘thumb-high’ grip with one of these, because your right-hand thumb will ride the slide release and prevent the slide from locking back on the empty chamber. My bad.

Recommended For You

20 Responses to New From Beretta: 92FS Compact

    • What counts as ‘too large for CCW’ is in the eye of the shooter. There’s pics of a Marine vet with a custom leather IWB rig for his Desert Eagle . 50 AE, and he’s not printing in the shots either.

      • In cooler months I’ve been carrying a full size Beretta IWB. While it works for me, the compact would be that much easier to conceal. Put 13+1 on the strong side hip and a couple 15’s in a weak side mag holder and you are plenty good to go.

        Unfortunately I saw one of these NIB the other day and when I came back a couple hours later it was already gone. Doh!

  1. I’ve been trying to get one of these but I’ve had no luck finding one other then a used. Not to mention mags are hard to find for it. But if beretta is going back into full production of the compact then I’m getting it.

  2. I’m afraid Chris is right; this isn’t anything new. During the ’80s and ’90s Beretta USA sold the 92SB, and 92 Compact Models L & M. In addition, a few years ago Beretta imported a boatload of old production Compact Model L’s that were sold out of Academy and a few other stores (they were rumored to be part of a production over run for a Pacific country).

    I have heard whispers that Beretta USA intends to produced a railed Compact Model L based on the 92A1 design. I cannot watch the video because I’m at work so can someone tell me if this is the railed version?

    • Additionally, I carried the new import Compact Model L for several years as a concealed carry weapon. My only complaint was that the firearm was a little thick for IWB but I did enjoy the way it handled.

  3. Pitty you lose 2 rds in your mag but I like it the M-9 is more ergonomic and accurate than other brands and Im glad to see a compact version coming.

  4. I have one of the 2011 Italian production compacts, and it’s great. I’m glad they are officially bringing back the compact L models, but really wish they’d reintroduce the compact L type M (single stack). I think it wouldbea big seller.

  5. I was issued a 92, and owned a single stack in the 1990s. Not bad, but there are better, slimmer guns available now. As for one with a rail – you can keep it. For concealed carry, as useful as tits on a bull.
    Unless you are a mall nina, and think a laser/light combo is the way to go !

  6. Guys, any info on a release date/MSRP?

    I actually just found a 2011 version in great shape and I have a deposit down on it. Just waiting for paperwork to come back. Wondering now if I should wait to get my hands on a new one….

    Anyone with info, let me know!!

  7. I’m loving my Beretta 92FS. It is a fair amount heavier than most pistols but the thing is deadly accurate for me. I too sometimes mistakenly ride the slide release on it. Does anyone know if this mistake can cause any damage?

  8. I’ve had one of these since 2004 I bought used (its one of the early 90s models). It’s much better than the M9 I was issued when I was an MP (USMC). The full size 92 only carries 2 additional rounds but is larger in every dimension and, imho, is too large for medium or small hands to manipulate effectively. The 92 fs compact feels perfect in my hands and I can actually shoot tighter groups with the compact than I can with the full-size.

  9. Yesterday my arthritis was killing me and a gun dealer noticed and offered me a seat. Right in front of my face was a M9A1 type 92FS compact L at a very good price. It was serendipitous and I hobbled out with a nifty new piece.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *