Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is it just me, or is there a certain degree of irony in Wilson's newest, hottest pistol being their customized Beretta 92's? Since what was it, 1985 (when the armed forces replaced the 1911 with the Beretta), everybody has been *****ing & moaning about how the 92 is junk, unreliable, sub-par caliber, and any other complaint because it had replaced the (in their eyes) greatest handgun ever. Now you can get some very cool, custom guns, and died in the wool 1911 guys like Vickers & Hackathorn talking about the 92 being the coolest thing since sliced bread.
I realize they're getting paid for the endorsement, but with all the hate surrounding the pistol for so long, I just find it odd.
Any of you guys have one, or have shot one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,463 Posts
Not the Wilson version, but I have one. It's fine. I think two things drove the military to adopt it over the 1911. One was capacity the other was wanting 9 mm just like the popular kids. The 92 has since been replaced by a Sig, so...
 

·
I feel pretty.
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Wilson and his buddies have bad taste. Just another oddity in 21st century bizzarro world. You can't even make this stuff up.

Most of their 1911's are ugly with obsolete 3 dot sights. I'd rather have a Dan Wesson. For Wilson pricing, I can get a Guncrafter that's far superior.

Idpa sucks, and so does the M9. I'd rather have a custom Cz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I have an M9 marked one (civilian, not legit military) and while it's a bit big for my small girly hands, I enjoy shooting it. And as much as I love my Glocks, there's just something sexy looking about them.
And I wouldn't mind picking up an M9A3 one of these days!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,709 Posts
..... with obsolete 3 dot sights.
Id be interested to here your reasoning here.

What other iron sight set up gives you both horizntal and vertical alignment in all lighting conditions?

As far as the 1911 vs whatever, I still have a number of them, and a number of 92's and SIG's, and while all are great guns in their own rights, these days, I still prefer a box stock 17 (with three dot night sights :)) over the lot.
 

·
I feel pretty.
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Plain black rear sight always. Front night sight only if you want night sights. Front fiberoptic if you want fiberoptic sights.

It's just a matter of training. 3 dots are obsolete newb setups.

If you have a broken wrist, or plain old gimpy arms: A single lamp only is acceptable in the rear sight. No white paint. Warren Tactical has a good example of such.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,548 Posts
You are behind the times, Wilson Berettas are old news.
The latest and greatest is the Wilsonized Sig P320. And not to forget Wilsonized Glocks.

Pity poor Nighthawk, they were going to diversify out of the crowded "semi custom" 1911 market into fancy Brownings. Then FN discontinued the gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Looks like I was late to the party! Life pulled me away from guns & collecting for a bit, so I guess all the "old" youtube videos are "new" to me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,675 Posts
I don't find it ironic at all. To start with "everybody" wasn't moaning that the 92 was junk. Now, I know people that were in the armed services that aren't really gun people, who complained "yeah...the 92 isn't very accurate", because they don't know how to shoot. There were plenty of people that made the same comments about 1911's that shot them in the military too.

As far as Wilson goes, it is a good business position. They aren't in the business of being 1911 advocates. They are in the business of manufacturing guns and gun parts. They might as well go to where the market demand is.

Side note: I have one of the Wilson Brigadier's and I love it. It is the best DA trigger I have out of all my handguns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
As far as 92s being unreliable that is BS! They have proven to be one of the MOST reliable auto pistol designs ever!
In the desert, they did suffer stoppages with AFTERMARKET mags...
The feeding to darn near as straight in as can be and there is no slide material in the way for the brass to exit.
The locking block was a weak spot (after 15,000 rds or so) but the latest version seems to have fixed that.
I have always liked them but would have been much happier if they'd left the safety on the frame like the earliest ones the way god intended!
 

·
M62/76
Joined
·
12,672 Posts
I’ve owned one or two in the past (92FS and M9). Sold them as I just shoot Glocks more often but they’re fine pistols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,675 Posts
As far as 92s being unreliable that is BS! They have proven to be one of the MOST reliable auto pistol designs ever!
In the desert, they did suffer stoppages with AFTERMARKET mags...
The feeding to darn near as straight in as can be and there is no slide material in the way for the brass to exit.
The locking block was a weak spot (after 15,000 rds or so) but the latest version seems to have fixed that.
I have always liked them but would have been much happier if they'd left the safety on the frame like the earliest ones the way god intended!
A safety on the frame would indeed be my preference too. On the Wilson, the lever is just a hammer drop, but it does get in the way a bit when racking the slide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 45caldan

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,463 Posts
Plain black rear sight always. Front night sight only if you want night sights. Front fiberoptic if you want fiberoptic sights.

It's just a matter of training. 3 dots are obsolete newb setups.

If you have a broken wrist, or plain old gimpy arms: A single lamp only is acceptable in the rear sight. No white paint. Warren Tactical has a good example of such.
Newb...that's hilarious. Is that the best you can do? If I had to pick one, it would be three dot. I don't like all black sights and I'm not crazy about blacked out rear sights. Never white paint or fingernail polish in any situation. I don't own any single dot rear or "Straight-8" sights. The reason I prefer three-dot is familiarization (where the gun /ammo hits), since even "newb" know that POA/POI can vary from one brand/caliber/loading/bullet weight. I shoot black powder .44s. Loading 15 gr vs. 20 gr vs. 30 gr of powder on a .454 ball makes all the difference in the world. In actual "practical" use, such as self-defense or tactical training though, the rears probably won't see much use. In self-defense, the front sights probably won't be used either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Plain black rear sight always. Front night sight only if you want night sights. Front fiberoptic if you want fiberoptic sights.

It's just a matter of training. 3 dots are obsolete newb setups.

If you have a broken wrist, or plain old gimpy arms: A single lamp only is acceptable in the rear sight. No white paint. Warren Tactical has a good example of such.
I own pistols with 3 dots and my CZ has a fiber optic front with plain black rear sight and while I like it I am fine with 3 dots as that is what has been on the majority of pistols I've owned since 1980.
Familiarization is WAY more important than what someone says is the latest and greatest...

Frankly my guess is YOU are more of a "newb" to shooting than most members on this forum!
 

·
I feel pretty.
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Well, good luck. Might want to find a local class with a night house though. I like these guys.
https://www.tdiohio.com/product/level-6-handgun/

3 dot sights are the crappiest things my eyes have ever seen. I literally hammered every one of them off and into the garbage after one single frustrating class. All I see is the damn rear glowing, front disappears and is very slow to find.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,379 Posts
Yup, I've got Wilson CQB I bought used 15yrs ago. 3 dot sights. The other 9 1911's I've got have the same. I'm definitely not a newb, and I have no problem hitting anything with them.

Hell, I don't have any trouble hitting with the old combat sights!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,059 Posts
Id be interested to here your reasoning here.

What other iron sight set up gives you both horizntal and vertical alignment in all lighting conditions?

As far as the 1911 vs whatever, I still have a number of them, and a number of 92's and SIG's, and while all are great guns in their own rights, these days, I still prefer a box stock 17 (with three dot night sights :)) over the lot.
I don't care who wins this, and it is news to me that 3 dots are obsolete.

But, for me personally, I used to prefer 3 dot but no longer do. The one thing I don't like is in some lighting situations (in some awkward presentations) the confusion of which dot is the front sight.

I've actually begun to prefer the Glock ball and bucket. (Standard square U and dot). Get that dot in the U (ball in the bucket)and that is more than enough precision. If ever doing any precision daytime target shooting, then any 3 dots, or any U dot, or any bar dot, or any straight 8, or whatever all all ignored anyway, and just the outline of the irons is used.

Just my 2 cents.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top