[cache05]

How big of a difference is the recoil of a Betretta 92 9mm and a Beretta 96 .40 cali?

obviously the 96 will have more, but just how much more?

[cache05]

oh and BTW:

lets say the 92 is regular (blue) finnished

and the 96 is stainless steel with nickel-alloy finish.

(just incase the 96's stainless steel makes it heavier, thus less reciol)

[kahr404life]

I have a 92fs and I have owned a 96 Centurian. I did not like the 96 because of its sharp (with 180gr ammo) recoil. It slowed my shot recover time down. I'm no wuss (shoots .44 mags fine :neener: ) but it also hurt my wrist because of the sharp upward twist. I shoot my glock 23 and Kahr k40 (both .40s&w) without any of the above problems.

[_N4Z_]

well i've not fired a 92, but i can tell you the 96 recoil was not that bad imo.

the wife and myself put a good 1200 rounds thru a inox 96 in about a year before trading it away. it was traded not due to any recoil issues either. had a ftf hiccups (6 or 7 out of 1000) which bothered me.

i shoot usually shoot .357mags now and there is more appreciable recoil to those than that .40 ever offered up.

if i was to go beretta again i wud go 92 for the cheaper 9mm ammo and that bullets friendlier feed profile. :-)

[valor1]

Question is really kinda relative to the shooter. A 96 may handle better against a 92 on some shooter and may turn the other way around on some others. Best thing to do is try them on the range.

[solareclipse]

stick to 165gr. 180 is pushing it for general range use. the .40 does pull heavier but it's mostly the speed of the recoil more than the actual increase in force.