New from Wilson Combat: Beretta/Wilson 92G Brigadier Tactical

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 9.33.08 AM

Wilson Combat should have created a new brand for their range of Beretta 92 parts and full-zoot 92 models. As marketing maven Al Reis will tell you, the tighter the brand, the more powerful it is. Brand extensions – such as Diet Coke destroyer Coke Zero and Wilson’s Beretta-oriented move away from 1911s – create short-term gain, long-term pain. Brand partnerships – such as Febreeze-infused Tide and the new Beretta/Wilson 92G Brigadier Tactical – can dilute both brands. None of which changes the fact that Beretta/Wilson’s new $1195 gun is, as Carlsberg beer drinkers might put it, probably the best Beretta 92 in the world. According to the press release, the gat’s got . . .

steel ambidextrous decocker-only levers (G model), enhanced Brigadier slide, a modified M9A1 style checkered frame with accessory rail and rounded trigger guard. This model also features enhanced accuracy with an “Elite” style match grade stainless barrel with recessed target crown, the action features a “D” hammer spring for lighter trigger pulls, and Trijicon dovetail tritium front sight and Wilson Combat rear sight. Wilson Combat G-10 grips, Wilson Combat steel guide rod and numerous other features to enhance performance.

And we know a man who has one! Full review to follow.

comments

  1. avatar Michael B. says:

    If they created a “Bulletproof Locking Block” I might think about actually buying a Beretta.

    Until then, I’ll stick with my Glock and BHP.

    1. avatar Greg says:

      Have yet to have a locking block fail on either M92 I own and even if one or both did
      they can be had for under $30. I do however have a spare locking block and some springs in a spare parts kit but I have spare parts for every firearm I own.

      1. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

        The locking block may only cost $30 to replace, but how much will it cost to replace your front teeth?

        In all seriousness, failing locking blocks are one of those 10% truth stories. The U.S. military has fired the barrels out of M-9s, and the only stories of failing locking blocks came out of a few SF units.

        The best information I can find is that only 3 ever failed, and those were all early Italian produced slides in use with NSWG during initial testing with civilian 92 models. 11 more failed in testing in labs, but since slide production was moved to the US to fulfill the contract, this problem was eliminated entirely.

        http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm

        1. avatar The Yankee Marshal says:

          And people used to get brain damage from having indoor plumbing. Get with the times and stop making your tactical decisions based on inflated and outdated info.

        2. avatar Walt says:

          Not sure what you are baseing this on but I personally saw 4 break in one day while qualing with one

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Our Uncle let me carry one for a while, and I grew to love ’em, had to have one when I made-home. Have seen 92’s a-bused! and they keep on kicking. A police-remand 96 has never faltered.

      [It is my understanding that] Beretta in its re-cert entry into U.S. service-weapon competition (again, I wasn’t there, I have only heard, so ~) included an actual 100′ drop from a helicopter [without a negligent discharge and] with no other entry willing to duplicate the test with their firearm, and Beretta putting (again I have heard) several thousand more rounds through it.

      They are an AWESOME weapon (yes, strangely, even in 9mm but I dig the 96) and Beretta has my thanks.

  2. avatar Lance says:

    Looks pretty. Think Wilson brings new possibility’s to the 92 design. Awesome.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      Agreed. Do want. I think I will pick one up early next year unless the upcoming review on here bombs.

  3. avatar SurfGW says:

    I want a steel frame Beretta 92 from them that is CA Legal

  4. avatar ST says:

    Nice gun.This model is a fabulous choice for people stuck in the 20th Century who haven’t discovered striker fired service pistols. Ones with lower pricetags,better grip ergonomics and easier triggers to manage.

    Wilson Combat will make its money back, and this 92G is a pretty model. For those reasons the enterprise is hardly a total waste of effort.

    1. avatar SD3 says:

      H8ters gots ‘ta h8.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        h8 has to glockster

    2. avatar ISuppose says:

      I suppose it’s also a fabulous choice for those who don’t blindly think newer = better. Striker fired pistols may have lighter triggers, but they’re also all (or almost all) polymer framed, which means they are more likely to malfunction if you hold them “wrong”. Until polymer-framed, striker-fired handgun manufacturers start designing their pistols to operate even when “limp wristed” (and I hope it’s soon – people know about the problem now more than ever so I would have to imagine it will happen eventually), metal-framed handguns will continue to be the more reliable option.

    3. avatar J E says:

      Explain how striker fired pistols are so “new” and awesome — they are better than a hundred years old.

      E.G. The Colt Pocket Hammerless 1903: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/06/robert-farago/gun-review-1903-colt-automatic-pistol/

      Hammer or hammerless is hardly a deciding point for what makes a great gun.

      I like both mechanisms — but I’m not a Glock-brand Glock fan due to the extra-wide grip and odd grip to frame angle. ( or the weird need to pull the trigger to field strip ). I like the ergonomics of the M&P series but they really need to make a GEN2 with a better standard trigger…

      Run what works for you and let other enjoy what fits best for them.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        @JE, the Colt Pocket Hammerless was hammer-fired, not striker-fired. The hammer was covered so it couldn’t snag anything, but it’s there.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I’m not sure about pistols, but the US military switched to a striker fired rifle in 1892. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krag-J%C3%B8rgensen

        2. avatar John Doe says:

          Nice, Ralph. While the Colt M1903 wasn’t striker fired, the FN M1900 WAS. People always consider striker fired guns “New”, when they’ve been around as long as hammer fired! (Well, in semi autos at least.

    4. avatar John Doe says:

      ACTUALLY…
      Beretta 92F (M9)- 1985
      Glock 17- 1982
      Hmm. Looks like your “state of the art” Glock is showing some age there. Even the original 92 was only made in ’79!

    5. avatar DJ says:

      I’m not sure what’s supposed to be so superior about striker fired pistols?

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Like everything else, there is a tradeoff. Personally I don’t care for striker pistols, but, for instance, some people would rather have the same crappy trigger for every shot than the DA/SA setup where only the first shot has a crappy trigger.

    6. avatar Independent George says:

      Why does every friggin’ gun discussion turn into a pissing contest about how one person’s favored gun is superior to everyone else’s?

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        Welcome sir, to the internet forum.

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        If you think this is bad, check out the comments on the car websites.

    7. avatar ShaunL. says:

      So by that “logic” I should get rid of my Sig 938 and “upgrade” to a g42 because my Sig was based on a century+ old design?

      I’ll just rush right out and do that then…. want me to pick you up a bag of unicorn farts while I’m out?

  5. avatar cmeat says:

    i’ll never own a striker fired pistol. zero desire. discovered them years ago. more plastic for y’all.
    howza bout they doll up a p35 or a 75b?
    pass on the de- cocker. don’t want a slide safety either.
    if you’re used to the p92 you should be very interested nice gun.

    1. avatar Dan A says:

      I tend to prefer metal framed, hammer fired pistols myself (I go back and forth between SIG and CZ) but I do occasionally cheat on them with a Walther PPQ and I don’t even feel bad about it.

  6. avatar Gregolas says:

    My Beretta 21A .22 was a sweetheart. I regret ever letting it go. It fit my raccoon-size hands. As for a 92, I never could reach the trigger, and the pull was way too long if I could reach it. For concealed carry, a large box of Wheaties would ride less obtrusively.
    My GLOCK 19 does everything better, and ties it in round count.
    No thanks, Wilson.

    1. avatar Fug says:

      I always thought the M9 was just too big as well but they have brought back the compact model, now M9A1 style with rail and checkering, Bruniton and Inox. Honestly it looks pretty nice and I think TTAG should do a review.

  7. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

    That’s a great promotional photo.

  8. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    I must have it.

  9. avatar Ryan says:

    Who is this lucky bastard!? And where is $1200 when I need it?

    1. avatar JWTaylor says:

      I’m your huckleberry. I can’t wait to run it against my other WC 92FS custom.

  10. avatar Sean says:

    At $1195, seems like a cheaper option then their 92/96 upgrade packages to an existing gun. Also allows me to be a first time WC & Beretta owner with one gun.

    Take my money!

    1. avatar Dan A says:

      Exactly what I was thinking. I’ve been a fan of the 92 for awhile but have never owned one, and since the stock 92/M9 has some deficiencies IMO (The trigger, sights, safety, and grips are not to my preference) this WC seems to fit the bill perfectly

  11. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Can somebody explain why it looks so damn good? I mean, hell, it’s not engraved or inlaid or anything, but wow!

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      The laminated wood grips do look sweet…

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      As any fashion photographer could tell you, clever lighting, staging, and choosing the right angle can make all the difference. That’s a really well-done product photo.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      The “Brigadier” slide is meatier and there’s an undercut in the frame that is distinctive.

    4. avatar Independent George says:

      The Beretta 92 just looks good in general. The Italians know how to make their machines look stylish.

    5. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I had the same reaction. I have never liked the looks or “style” of the Beretta 92, it just doesn’t catch my eye like a 1911, or Colt single action revolver, or a Luger. But THIS Beretta looks gorgeous. Maybe the photographer can take a picture of me that makes me better looking?

  12. avatar Stinkeye says:

    I’m not sure why moving into the 92 market would be brand-diluting “long term pain” for Wilson. They’ve spent decades building a recognized, well-respected brand, why not leverage that into a ( very slightly) different market segment? It’s not like they’re branching out into building lawn mowers or washing machines. The 1911 and 92 both serve very similar markets, especially on the higher end where Wilson plays, so what’s the conflict? Should they remain solely “that 1911 company” forever? Why not branch out and use their skills and expertise to benefit people who enjoy newer gun designs (you know, ones that are only four decades old instead of a full century)?

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      I agree and I think it’s a smart move. The M-9/FS-92 is the new 1911 to many veterans. It won’t achieve the legendary status of the 1911 but many people will want them. This will be the pistol to match every ex-Grunt’s AR-15.

  13. avatar SurfGW says:

    For you haters of the Beretta, keep in mind that handgun selection is as personal as underwear. You wear what fits and shouldn’t care what someone else wears.

    The important thing is the ability of the shooter to place 2 rounds in the 6 inch chest area and 1 round in the T box of the head at a rapid rate without any misses that will injure bystanders or innocents. Many people have tens of thousands of rounds of practice muscle memory with the Beretta that was paid for by taxpayers; it would be both expensive and time consuming to develop similar proficiency with another platform on their own time and dime. This is the market Wilson is after and I commend them for making a much nicer shooting pistol.

    1. avatar ST says:

      They must have been stationed in a different place then me, because my military unit sent people overseas with zero handgun time.

      Unless .mil folks are working in Special Ops, frontline units , or military police a citizen with a state mandated CCW training class has more pistol time then a typical military member. As to the Beretta , while a competent choice, we should endeavor to leave semi auto double action and slide mounted switches behind in the 1980s with sock-less loafers and the Ferarri Testarossa.One can run a DA semi auto well, but its a long training road compared to easier SAO and striker fired options .

      1. avatar JWTaylor says:

        I hate to tell the US military loving world, but what ST is saying about trigger time among most units is the very sad truth.
        However, during my career I fit into more than one of the categories listed, and I put tens of thousands of rounds through my issue guns. I started hating it, but ended up really trusting it. It was unfailingly reliable, and, when I did my job, it put rounds where I wanted them to go.
        I don’t like the slide switch either, which is why I had mine removed on the right side of my WC 92FS, and shaved flush with the frame on the left side.
        When deployed, we all minimized that problem by carrying it with the safety off, as in the photo above. Since our unit provided and required a SERPA holster, which completely covered the trigger, it wasn’t a safety concern at all, especially considering the long LOP in the stock gun.

      2. avatar ropingdown says:

        What the hell’s wrong with sockless loafers?

        1. avatar Wood says:

          SO much.

      3. avatar DJ says:

        In garrison, most military units fire their duty weapon (rifle or pistol) once a year for support units, 2-4 times a year for combat units. Downrange, things are different. We had, effectively, an unlimited training budget the year we were deployed, and we made the most of it. Sig P226s and M9s. Lots of time on both and no failures.

  14. avatar SurfGW says:

    You’re right about line companies deploying with no pistol time, but many go on MEUs, Advisor Teams, FAST Company, MP, Security Forces, etc. All of these assignments have literally weeks of sun up to sun down pistol and transition (rifle and pistol) training with great muscle memory built and regular shoots after this initial training to retain proficiency and most of this training is with the M9 (contrary to what you hear, there are not many .45s around).

  15. avatar Chris says:

    I can just see it, in 50 years the Baretta 92 guys are going to be fighting the “new fangled space age gun” guys. “It was good enough for our boys in the desert.” “My grandpa carried one and he says it was shit.” “Fixed barrel.” “Yeah but it’s hammer fired and that’s so last century.” “Shoots the proven 9mm round.” “You’re limited to 15 only rounds.” “Double strike capability.” “Weighs too much.” I can’t wait…

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      50 years from know the M-9s will be escorted to the graveyard by security personnel carrying a 1911.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        . . . Cause funeral detail shouldn’t need to shoot anyone . . .

        Besides, after the bugle, they’d all go to the range and shoot their own ccw 96’s

        ; P

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I firmly believe that whatever the next military issue sidearm is there will be a sizable group that insists it’s a POS and swear by the old 92. Getting and keeping that military contract ensures that the 92 will live on for decades if not centuries, just for nostalgia if nothing else.

  16. avatar Bigfoot of Borg says:

    Don’t get me wrong I love my Glock and of the modern striker fired guns I prefer them, however the Beretta is the one I favor. I got an M9 about half a year ago and it just fits my hand a bit better and even though the pull is long it’s smooth enough that it doesn’t cause me any trouble.

    I’ll grant that the beretta is heavy for a 9mm and the Glock is easier for everyday carry but like the dealer said “it’s hard to beat the Riggs-McClane special.”

  17. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I don’t know. The 92 just doesn’t look right with the last 2/10ths of an inch of barrel cut off. I guess if you can afford a $1200 92 you can afford to put just about any barrel you want in it though.

  18. avatar FoRealz? says:

    I like the Beretta. My only beef is I wish they went with a frame mounted safety. Even Taurus figured that out.

    The Wilson rebuild looks real nice. Bet it shoots good too.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      for 1200 bucks I’ll stick with Taurus. BTW I’ve had several folks tell me to go with the Taurus.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Taurus didn’t ‘figure it out’ they never had the license to build the 92, only a prototype. Personally I prefer the slide mounted safety because it’s out of the way but for me, easy to reach. It is kind of nice though to have both options, so it’s all good.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        …and easy to engage by accident. That is one of the Army’s chief gripes about the pistol. The Wilson Combat version will only have a de-cocker so that shouldn’t be a big issue. After some thought I might buy one for my wife if I come up with some extra money.

        1. avatar JWTaylor says:

          Be quick about it then. The first batch sold out in less than an hour. JWT

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          When I carried a 92 I kept the safety on, but several times it got bumped off safe. No big deal with a 10 pound trigger, but I always figured that if it can get bumped off it can also get bumped on, so I’d recommend if you’re going to carry a gun with a safety you should use it and get used to disengaging it. It takes far less time to flick the safety off than it does to draw and aim the weapon, but if you’re not used to flicking it off and you draw and fire and nothing happens it will probably take a second or two just to realize why your gun didn’t fire.

          The other complaint with the slide mounted safety is that it can be accidentally engaged while racking the slide. I prefer to use the front scallops on the slide on the 92 but that doesn’t work well at all if your hands are sweaty. However the only reason you’d need to rack the slide under pressure is if the 92 jammed, which it never does.

          It would be nice if Beretta just offered the 92 in both versions. Or if they were smart a conversion kit. They’d sell a bunch of them.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          I guess I missed it and will have to back order one for my next Valentines Day present.

  19. avatar Wut says:

    The longer I read this blog, the more unintelligible Robs writing becomes. I have no idea what tide and coke have to do with what he’s talking about.

  20. avatar Shakey says:

    WC has been making Beretta parts for a long time. This looks like it is for (1) people who want a pretty Beretta and (2) people who want a “factory custom” gamer gun for IDPA/IPSC. It’s similar to the modified-but-legal-for-production “factory” CZs from CZ Customs.

    In car terms – it’s a homologation special. 🙂

  21. avatar The Yankee Marshal says:

    This gun makes me so tingly in my bathing suit area that I started to feel unsafe. I almost had to tell an adult.

  22. avatar David says:

    Strong co-brands done well are fine, for Robert to suggest failure before the collaboration even gets off the ground tells me 1 thing…

    Every TAG article with his name on it is worth skipping and going to the next article in google that may present FACTS and not wildly conjured opinion and prejudice…

  23. avatar The Yankee Marshal says:

    Did the author of this article ever take a marketing class? How about a journalism class? I am thinking the answer to both questions is “no.” Wilson’s reputation is as much for being a top notch customization shop as it is a production line of firearms. The examples of cross branding he mention are completely irrelevant to this project and show a complete lack of understanding of both the business and the market. The same market that tends to favor the 1911 platform are also likely to favor the Beretta. Perhaps he should have done some research before sitting down to write this article.

  24. avatar Heather says:

    I really hope this isn’t another limited production item that ends up as yet another one of Beretta’s “unicorn” 92 variants. There is a real reason why competitors are flocking to polymer striker fired pistols. It’s not because the 92 is unreliable (I have 4000+ rounds through my A1 without a single jam and I’ve seen plenty of Glocks and M&P jam up after the start of the timer’s buzzer). Don’t spew out the gun “know it all” rumors unless you have first hand experience.

    The real reason they are going out of favor isn’t really because the safety might accidentally get tripped (with a little training this has yet to ever happen to me). Its that either the safety is accidentally engaged at start if rules allow it off, or because it has to be engaged while holstered. This is the hurdle the 92 has in the competition world. This is worse than 1911 (“2011”) double stack 9mm because the safety is consistently engaged and you retain consistent trigger pull. Or even SIGs that are all decocker only. For the 92, it’s both the initial DA trigger AND the safety that may either have to be engaged or forgotten when holstered at the start.

    Also consumers seem to buy based on what they see competitors use. There’s a reason why companies have special models named after people.

    If Beretta wants increased or even renewed interest in 92s among consumers, this WC model needs to stick around or they will miss another opportunity.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email