Taurus 92 vs Beretta 92


PDA






MustangHowie
November 19, 2007, 08:45 AM
I bought a Taurus PT-92AF 10 years ago. I always liked the look of the Beretta, but at the time I could not afford the Beretta so I bought Taurus. Over the years I have asked several people which is better. Nobody had an answer. Either thet owned one or the other.

I don't shoot the Taurus very well and didn't want to buy a Beretta and not like it. We don't have rentals around here. When the last CDNN catalog came in they had a deal on Berettas. I called to get one and the $299 ones were sold out so I got one for $329. I went with the '80s model 92F because I grew up with Axel Foley, Martin Riggs, and John McClane. The condition of the Beretta wasn't as good as I hoped, but that is internet shoping.

The test;

Yesterday I took both out in my backyard. I set up some cans and some clays. I shot the Beretta first and because I shoot low with the Taurus I tried to shoot the Beretta the same way. I was all over the place.

I shot the Taurus next and the usual hitting low.

I went back to the Beretta and gave it a firm grip and put the sights at center squeezed the trigger and the clay pigeon exploded. Hmm, lets try that again. Same thing. Lets try rapid fire. Cans were flying!

I handed the Taurus to my wife. She hit about 2 feet low. Good grouping, but low. I gave her the Beretta and look out the clays were exloding every where.

Results;
Beretta wins.

I won't sell the Taurus because it was my first real 9mm, but it won't see the range much. The Beretta is going to the range a lot in the future.

My wife wants me to call CDNN and get another one!

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus 92 vs Beretta 92" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GRIZ22
November 19, 2007, 09:01 AM
I went back to the Beretta and gave it a firm grip and put the sights at center squeezed the trigger and the clay pigeon exploded.

Maybe you should try this with the Taurus and see what your results are before you give up on it.

You don't mention what range but 2 feet low at any range short of 200 yds with a 9mm would lead me to believe you and your wife are doing something wrong. Pushing (anticipating the recoil before the shot) and jerking the triger straight back will cause you to shoot low. Have one of your friends who's a good shooter try both and see what he or she does with it.

I've used the Beretta and Taurus for about 20 years. I find the Taurus a bit more accurate than the Beretta. Reliability is about the same. If you want to dry fire you must use a snap cap with either as the firing pin design has a shoulder which will cause it to slam against its side of the breech causing it to break.

MustangHowie
November 19, 2007, 09:38 AM
I have tried it with the Taurus. I can't hit with it unless I limp wrist it or line the front sight above the rear at the top of the target. My wife has a Taurus with adjustable sights that are adjusted all the way up to hit anything. We both wanted to like the Taurus, but we can't hit with either mine or hers.

10-12 yards.

Have one of your friends who's a good shooter try both and see what he or she does with it.


:fire:I am not a new shooter, I hit clays with my 226 at 30yrds.

My wife is not as accurate with the 9mm as she is with the 45.

We both know what we are doing.

Onmilo
November 19, 2007, 09:42 AM
Copies are rarely as good as the original.
You will note similar results with Chilean and Egyptian copies of the Beretta 92 also.

10-Ring
November 19, 2007, 05:12 PM
Yeah, my Berettas (currently 4 in all configuration & calibers) have been great performers. The 2 Tauri I've owned give new meaning to the word "disappointment"

Autolycus
November 19, 2007, 05:13 PM
Berettas are nice looking pistols. They are also nice easy shooters.

SeanMTX
November 19, 2007, 05:38 PM
I just sold my Taurus PT92FS (Stainless version) and loved it. It shot bang on (not low at all), never jammed, never FTE/FTF (once with crappy ammo).

It wasn't a safe queen, it was an everyday shooter that I absolutely loved. It was easy to break down and clean, and cheap to buy and shoot. I can't say enough good things about it.

It fit exactly the role it was designed for...a cheap, functional shooter.

TimboKhan
November 19, 2007, 06:35 PM
2 feet off is a substantial amount. Like, 2 inches low I could see, but 2 feet low? Thats just weird.

Shipwreck
November 19, 2007, 09:06 PM
Yes, I prefer the Beretta over the Taurus too. But, them crazy Taurus guys will never admit it...

gudel
November 19, 2007, 09:35 PM
Get the real thing.

TimboKhan
November 20, 2007, 12:02 AM
Ha! Admit what? That the Taurus is on the whole is just as good a gun? You Taurus haters speak off your experiences, but you never listen to ours. My Taurus is great. I have shot the Beretta, and while I think it is a fine gun, I can't tell a whole lot of difference between the two, except for the frame mounted safety on the Taurus. Call me crazy all you want, but the fact is that there are a whole lot of satisfied Taurus 92 owners.

JerrfyLube
November 20, 2007, 12:12 AM
Ahh, Taurus....

The brand EVERYONE loves to hate! :D

Ive had my share of good and bad ones. Their handguns have gotten substantially better in the last few years from what they used to be. I picked up one of their 1911 copies a few months ago and its a great shooter and has options available on guns twice its price and shoots just as well. I also have an older M44 revolver and it has never once failed me and ive put it through hell and back.

I wont be the first to admit that their customer service and repair is about as close to crap as you can get, but if you get one of their good guns, they usually keepers.

Pimpstar00
November 20, 2007, 01:51 AM
Never shot a taurus, but I still like Beretta's better. Mine is accurate and reliable, and i like the way it fits my hand.

Shipwreck
November 20, 2007, 07:11 AM
I looked at a Taurus 92 in the 1990s, when tryiong to decide if I wanted the Beretta or Taurus. The fit and finish on the Taurus sucked compared to the Beretta.

Hell - on the sights on the Taurus - the white dots were NEXT to the holes (depressions) on the sights.

MustangHowie
November 20, 2007, 07:55 AM
2 feet off is a substantial amount. Like, 2 inches low I could see, but 2 feet low? Thats just weird.

My wife has always shot extremely low with that gun. She does fine with everything else. In 9mm she shoots Ruger, Sig , and Glock. In other calibers she has 2 Kimbers, a Baby Eagle in .40 and she even hits better with her Desert Eagle 44mag.

I hit 3 or 4 inches low with it. I have 10 other 9mms that I don't have that problem with.

The brand EVERYONE loves to hate!


The Taurus has never failed. It has fired every ammo I have put in it.

I own a few Taurus revolvers and never had a problem. I also have a PT-111 that shoots better than the 92 and it has that hard DAO trigger.

I do like Taurus, but for me the Beretta 92F wins over the Taurus 92AF.

Slugless
November 20, 2007, 08:42 AM
Have one of your friends who's a good shooter try both and see what he or she does with it.

+1. That's what I did, his Beretta & my Taurus shot exactly the same.

I've been mostly pleased with my 92. Accurate and totally reliable to date. However....

I hadn't shot the Taurus in years. For maintenance I usually wipe down the outside & run an oily boresnake through the barrel 'bout once a year.

This year I took it apart to wipe everything down. I was horrified, found a problem that made me take the pistol to the gunsmith that weekend.

The fit of the gun is such that the rail on one side of the frame has worn in such a way that it has actually raised a burr of aluminum at the top of the rail!

The gunsmith said, "well, this is part of the process of the pistol wearing in. How many rounds do you have on it?"
"About 1,000"
"Does it function reliably?"
"Yes"
"Then don't worry too much about it"

Fair enough but sheesh.

brigadier
November 20, 2007, 09:05 AM
Hitting 2 feet low is a real problem with both Taurus and Beretta pistols. Only 2 ways to fix that problem. Either replace the sites with adjustable sites or do as I did (I had the same problem with my Beretta 92) and lower the front site, which can be done by cutting away the front sight, replacing it with a dovetail and then hammer a site in. If course, a little mathematics needs to be done first so that the front of the slide and dovetail are cut so that the front sight will hammer in on sight.
Regarding the 2 pistols in overall comparison, I have HEARD that Taurus clones are made of weaker metal and have shorter lives then the Beretta but I have not seen any evidence that that is true. The Taurus is clearly lower quality but it makes up for that in all the available configurations. All in all, I would say that the Beretta beats the Taurus, but only in one area. The Taurus does not have the gripping on the handle nor the curve at the bottom/front of the handle, both which make the gun handle a little easier. Other then that, you would have to look up some forums for people dedicated to Berettas and Tauruses and compare the arguments.

jwxspoon
November 20, 2007, 11:42 AM
I recently picked up a stainless Taurus PT92AFS and have found it to be A+ in every way. I love my Berettas as well but the 4 Taurus pistol's I've ever bought are still in my collection and are great shooters.

jw

seeker_two
November 20, 2007, 12:43 PM
MustangHowie: What kind of grips do you have on the Beretta and on the Taurus? Maybe changing out the grips on the Taurus will help the low-shooting problem....

Hokkmike
November 20, 2007, 12:58 PM
The Taurus is a substitute for the Beretta. N'uff said. Taurus, in its own right, is good enough. But it is what you buy when you want to save money. More expensive isn't always better but it is most of the time.

MustangHowie
November 20, 2007, 01:01 PM
I have the wood grips on the Taurus, and the Beretta has stock rubber grips.

glockman19
November 20, 2007, 01:18 PM
Results;
Beretta wins.

No Doubt. I would NEVER buy a Taurus.

I have the wood grips on the Taurus, and the Beretta has stock rubber grips.

Change the grips if you don't like them. Bottom line the Beretta will out shoot the Taurus 100% of the time even without grips.

NOW, when you're ready get the best 9mm made the Glock 17/19/16/34. It is more Reliable, Accurate and indestructible then all of them. Sig's and HK's are OK in 9mm but cost more and weigh more.
Sell the Taurus and get a Glock to go with your beretta. Don't get emotionally attached to poor firearms. Trade up.

BryanP
November 20, 2007, 01:29 PM
I went with the '80s model 92F because I grew up with Axel Foley, Martin Riggs, and John McClane.

Axel Foley carried a Browning Hi Power, which is better than either the Taurus or the Beretta. :neener:

TimboKhan
November 20, 2007, 03:51 PM
No Doubt. I would NEVER buy a Taurus.

Why? Because people on the internet hate them? I always find it odd that people who complain about them are apparently credible, reliable pundits, but when someone like me who has had nothing but good experiences with them says anything, I get ignored, at best.

Glockman, out of everyone here you should know to be a little more careful in stereotyping guns. After all, your apparent gun of choice melts when left on a dashboard and Kabooms constantly, right?

To say that the Beretta will outshoot the Taurus 100% of the time is, bluntly and simply put, a crock.

MustangHowie
November 20, 2007, 04:43 PM
Axel Foley carried a Browning Hi Power, which is better than either the Taurus or the Beretta.

Oh great, now I have to get a Hi Power too.:D

MustangHowie
November 20, 2007, 04:45 PM
Glockman19;

I already have a G17 and a G19.

Mat, not doormat
November 20, 2007, 05:10 PM
Umm, I run a retirement program for guns that don't have their sights configured properly. This is clearly a major flaw in the gun, which can never be corrected. Because I'm a soft hearted altruist towards these patients, I've opened my home to a number of them. I perform some minor rehabilitation work with them, and then lovingly care for them until the ends of their lives. If you desire, your gun too can join this program. Send it to me, and then pay my $100 a month hospice fee, and it will have a good home for the rest of its days.

Free translation: If you can shoot other guns, but this one doesn't hit where it's aimed, the sights are off. Replace the rear with a taller variety, and/or file down the front. I've bought a number of guns with maladjusted sights, usually for cheap, fixed the sights, and had great guns. There doesn't exist a gun on which the sights can't be brought into line. There do exist many guns where this takes more than a screwdriver. Replacement sights, and or metalworking tools.

Shoot the thing on paper, not at clays or cans, and see where it's grouping. Make sure that you're using proper sight picture, etc. Then correct accordingly.

Otherwise, send me the gun, and keep me in ammo for it, and I'll happily do it myself. <G>

~~~Mat

buttrap
November 20, 2007, 11:19 PM
I went with the tauri type as it has the saftey where god and JMB intended it to be on the frame. Also the cocked and locked feature fits my likes much better than the Beretta set up.
I would expect with a sight adjustment and the same type of grips you could not tell the differance on a target anyways.
And I jave lots of files so I also run a hospice service for poor unfortunate guns that need sight work, I would only charge 50 bucks a month to care for it also.

Old Dog
November 21, 2007, 02:25 AM
I just noticed this thread, and this comment:
Bottom line the Beretta will out shoot the Taurus 100% of the time even without grips.
Concur with previous poster who deemed this comment "a crock."

Do I have to say this in yet another Taurus-bashing thread? First, to qualify my statements to follow, I'm a 1911 dinosaur, and my 9mm of choice (I do like shooting and will occasionally carry this caliber) is the SIG 226 and 228 platform. However -- I have one Taurus PT-92AFS, bought new in '91 and THREE Berettas (blue 92FS, Inox 92FS, park'd M-9, which is just a 92FS without all the writing on the slide).

My PT-92 shoots better than my Inox Beretta, as well as the blued (or Bruniton-ed, whatever) 92FS but not as well as my M-9. This PT-92 has had upwards of 20K rounds through it with ZERO malfunctions, ever.

I carried the Beretta for the last 13 or so years on active duty, including in the sandbox, I kinda feel sentimental about the M-9. I think my Berettas are slightly better looking, slightly tighter, a tad better finished, but that durn PT-92 (with the frame-mounted safety in the right place) is my wife's trusted bedside gun, and I'll stay loyal to it.

Taurus haters, unless you've actually owned 'em, have actually compared the two pistols side-by-side for more than just one mag downrange, just please stay home.

And Glock fanboys (you know who you are), why, why, why, in a thread comparing two NON-Glock pistols, do you ALWAYS feel compelled to promote Glocks? Sheesh!

ArchAngelCD
November 21, 2007, 02:44 AM
MustangHowie,
What weight is the bullet in the rounds you are shooting in the Taurus? If they are light try going to a 147gr bullet and see if your POI comes up some.

BryanP
November 21, 2007, 10:45 AM
Oh great, now I have to get a Hi Power too.

Ironically enough, considering the comparison here, the gun he carried in BHC was actually an FEG, a Hungarian knock-off of a Hi Power. They can be okay, I used to own one myself but sold it after I bought a real Browning.

That said, I've owned several Taurus firearms (all revolvers so far) and have had one minor problem with one of them. If I wanted a Beretta pattern pistol I wouldn't have any qualms about trying a PT92 or PT99.

hankdatank1362
November 21, 2007, 12:05 PM
Never shot a taurus, but I still like Beretta's better.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Hey, you know what, I've never shot or even touched a SIG either, because my H&K is superior.

seeker_two
November 21, 2007, 12:48 PM
Out of curiosity...is it easier to convert a Beretta magazine to work in a Taurus or easier to convert a Taurus magazine to work in a Beretta?.... :scrutiny:

Thanks in advance....

MustangHowie
November 21, 2007, 01:39 PM
You can make a Beretta mag fit the Taurus but then it doesn't fit the Beretta any more. The notch is just a little higher on the Taurus.

Onmilo
November 21, 2007, 11:49 PM
I certainly would not want this to degenerate into a Taurus bashing thread so I will say that durability of the guns seems to be on par with the Beretta.
Taurus adapted the slide capture feature of the Beretta soon after Beretta introduced the feature.
They can do that as they produce LICENSED copies of the Beretta.

The locking blocks will not fail sooner on a Taurus, the gun will not blow apart sooner if the same mega reloads are fired in a Taurus and a Beretta, and the small parts are comparable in durability though looking inside you will find the Taurus parts to be much rougher in fit and finish than a comparable Beretta.

The biggest bad thing about the Taurus is the adjustable rear sight that comes on some versions of the PT-92.
There is a cross pin that will break fairly easy, doesn't take much of a bump to do so, and the adjustment screws are rough enough that repeatability of the sight adjustments is a catch as catch can proposition.

glockman19
November 22, 2007, 12:46 AM
Glockman19;

I already have a G17 and a G19.

Then I'm glad you got the Beretta.

Results;
Beretta wins.

I agree with the OP

brigadier
November 22, 2007, 01:08 AM
Taurus haters, unless you've actually owned 'em, have actually compared the two pistols side-by-side for more than just one mag downrange, just please stay home.

And Glock fanboys (you know who you are), why, why, why, in a thread comparing two NON-Glock pistols, do you ALWAYS feel compelled to promote Glocks? Sheesh!

First off, if you want a closer comparison to the Beretta 92, the Taurus PT-99 is going to be the better bet, though the PT-92 isn't far off either, the frame mounted safety being the biggest real difference. I myself have had the opportunity to fire Taurus PT-99s and I have a couple Berettas. As I pointed out earlier, only in a minor difference in handle shape do I find the Beretta ultimately any better then the Taurus, though it IS true that the looser tolerances of the Taurus mean a little better reliability under abuse. Even still, this problem can be easily corrected on the Beretta if you know what you're doing. As you have pointed out, your Taurus shoots better then some of your Berettas, worse then others. This is a classic issue with simple gun to gun differences as opposed to model to model differences.

Regarding the Glocks, Glocks are a great gun (I would love to have a 17 myself) but they have shortcomings to the Beretta and Taurus. For one, they lack a manual safety and decocker. In addition to this, that ridiculous trigger safety (that keeps you from pulling the trigger unless you pull the trigger :rolleyes: ) is reportedly a hazardous feature responsible for a number of shooting accidents, while the one real safety the gun has, which is a drop safety activated by the pull of the trigger, is also shared by the Beretta 92 (that rectangular block on top of the slide in front of the rear sight that lifts when you pull the trigger) and I am pretty sure I have seen it on the PT-92 though I am not sure if the 99 has it. Most modern guns have it so the Glock is not the least bit unique in this respect. The only real advantages of the Glock are as follows:
It's factory finish is strongly resistant to corrosion.
The synthetic frame makes the slide move very smoothly.
It's made to tight tolerances, which make it very mechanically accurate and consistent.
The barrel is self clearing as well as being more potent under water then normal.
...

The negatives of the Glock are as follows:

The tight tolerances make the gun very unfriendly to loads with slow burning powder. As result, the gun has allot of problems with many reloads, most of which the Beretta and Taurus will eat up without ever even choking. The increased accuracy and consistence from the Glocks tight tolerances is hardly even noticeable outside of competition.
The ridiculous trigger contraption supposedly is hazardous. This is not an established fact though reports and some of the evidence is enough to make you weary.
The take-down system, like the trigger contraption, is reportedly hazardous and there is at least one highly credible case that I know of where a shooting accident most likely would have been prevented had the gun been made with a more classic take down system.
As result of the guns tight tolerances, it is more sensitive to aftermarket parts then many guns. A common example is the many reports of Glock barrels exploding.
Though not a true problem, by common standards, the Glock is an ugly gun. FWIW, I personally think that some Glocks are kinda pretty, but most people will beg to differ.
The Glock does not accept removable grips.
....

Glock is an Austrian company, and it seams as though while companies from that part of the world will pretty much sell their guns to anyone who can legally buy them in their country, they tend to be focused almost entirely on law enforcement and military and looking at the way the Glock was made, it seams as though the gun was designed to fit the tightest specs they could for the purpose of police and law enforcement, forsaking everything else. Likewise, while it is well fit as a side arm issued to the user without any goodies or custom work, but as a civilian gun used for defense, plinking and fancying up, you are entering a world the Glock wasn't designed for. I actually doubt the Beretta was designed with civilian toying around in mind but it seams that they were not as intense with specs. as Glock was when they invented the gun and used more traditional, time tested means which makes the Beretta much more of a versatile gun as opposed to the Glock being designed to near perfection around a single purpose.
So, while the Glock is a good gun, I personally would take a Taurus or Beretta over it any day.

For the record, I am not a gun loyalist, so do not take my comments as bashing or defensive. I really don't have an ax to grind. I'm just telling it like it is.

seeker_two
November 23, 2007, 04:55 PM
MustangHowie: Thanks for the info.... :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus 92 vs Beretta 92" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!