Sportsman's Outdoor Superstore

In stock and $1250. I know nothing about Beretta's but it looks like a sweet gun and I like DA/SA hammer fires.

I was very impressed by the Wilson 92 I got to shoot.

What is with all the text including the legal disclaimer on the side?

I owned a Wilson 92 Brigadier and I was not impress with it. Build quality was not good and Wilson made sure that I knew that the problems with the pistol were Berettas problems and not theirs.

At that price I would get a Landon Tactical which in my experience is a much better pistol

I've heard these are the bees knees. Like butter!

Realize that it is still just a Beretta made with a handful of Wilson parts. It is assembled by Beretta and not made by Wilson. In fact, Wilson has admitted they do not even open the box the gun comes in.

I have owned one before (I have owned 28 Beretta 92 variants over 25+ years). I like the M9A3 more.

I once wrote a detailed comparison between the Wilson Brig and the M9A3, and why I liked the M9A3 more. I can find it and copy and paste it here if you want.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

I once wrote a detailed comparison between the Wilson Brig and the M9A3, and why I liked the M9A3 more. I can find it and copy and paste it here if you want.

---

That would be great! If you could add any notes comparing both to the 92X that would be even better!

---

Ok... I will copy and paste what I previously wrote... And, as for the 92X - I do not care for the sights they come with on that gun. And, I always use the conversion grip on the Vertec frames now - to make it like the traditional 92FS grip. I have found the vertec grip feels good in the hands... But when shooting it, I don't shoot it nearly as well as the traditional 92 grip.

The 92X does come with a conversion grip, but it is not the same rubber grip that comes with the M9A3. I would never buy a 92X, personally. By the time I order the new grip and change the sights, I may as well just buy a M9A3

And, here is my copy and paste:

Why I prefererd the M9A3 over the Wilson Brig Tactical pistol:

1. I like the sight picture of a standard type 92 slide the most, which the M9A3 also has. The squareness of the front sight area on the Brigadier slides makes the front sight not as quick to pick up. The base where the front sight sits at is squared off on the Brig slide. It doesn't have that curve on it like a normal 92 does around the front sight area.

Also, the front sight IS a little bit shorter on the Brig slide (compared to the M9A3 slide). If you put the slides next to each other, you can see that

I think it is much easier to see the front sight on a standard 92FS slide, with the curved area under the front sight... (this is 1 thing I like about a 1911 - the top of the slide is curved, and it makes it so quick to pick up the front sight). On this M9A3, the Vertec style slide (dovetailed front sight) still has the curve of a regular 92FS. I like this much more.

2. Also, the front sight (facing the shooter) on the M9A3 has about a 45 degree cut to it. The Wilson front sight has a 90 degree cut (shadows effect seeing that white paint more). The white circle around the tritium on the M9A3 pops out more - because of the 45 degree angle facing the shooter. It picks up more light since it's at a 45 degree angle.

3. I REALLY like the different angle of the safety levers on the m9A3. By raising it upwards a bit, it does cause less issues when tying to clear a jam (if need be). I've messed around with this, and the levers do what is intended by that slight change

4. The grip of the M9A3 feels better to me. Generally, I prefer standard serrations over the checkering Beretta uses. But, with the rear strap being covered by that Hogue conversion grip on the M9A3 - I don't mind the front strap checkering.

When I hold both guns (either with a loaded mag in each or no mag in each), I prefer the feel of the M9A3 in my hand more than I do the Wilson. Granted, I do NOW have Hogue grip panels instead of the VZ grips on the Wilson (I like them better than the stock VZ's)... But, the M9A3 feels much better to me in the hand.

5. The rear sight of the M9A3 is just perfect. I didn't think I'd like the lack of white circles on the rear tritium. But the silver rings work great around the rear tritium on the M9A3. The eyes still gets drawn to the white around the front dot - but you still have 2 rear dots.

I'd never use the Wilson with the all black rear sight as a home defense gun - as you have absolutely no way to see the rear sight in low/no light. Granted, I have solved that problem by having Trijicon replace that rear Wilson sight with a normal tritium rear. But, as I am talking about the Brig Tactical and how it comes FROM the factory with the all black rear... The M9A3 wins this IMHO. It's too bad the Wilson sight doesn't come with a single tritium rear dot - like Straight 8 sights.

Also, I wish the rear Wilson sight had a square cut instead of a curved cut (in the sight channel). I just don't like it. Again, this was solved by me having Trijicon replace that rear sight on the Brig Tactical.

6. I shoot the M9A3 a little better than I do the Wilson with the factory sight - especially at 15 yards. I think this may because of that rear sight - with the curve in the sight picture.

Now, do I like the Wilson - yes. But if I was offered a choice of just 1 of them... Between the 2.... I'd choose the M9A3, hands down... No real hard decision for me...
__________________

One caveat the WC 92G Centurion does NOT use the Brigadier profile slide.

It is a traditional 92fs profile.

Ah, I missed that.

I have had some compacts and other models. Personally, I prefer the fullsize 92 variants. I don't care for the fullsize frame with the shorter slide (the Centurion).