92fs sucks. just my thoughts.


PDA






stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 03:57 PM
The beretta 92 sucks for the following reasons. They are not rust-proof, and they have an exposed barrel that aloows debris into the action. I do know that they are very accurate, and cool looking, but can they perform like a glock, or sig, or h&k/? Not even close.

love, Steven

If you enjoyed reading about "92fs sucks. just my thoughts." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
arthurcw
November 19, 2007, 04:06 PM
well...well... Glocks suck because they are not Sigs. Sigs suck cause they don't fit my hand. HK sucks because... No WAIT... I suck and they hate me!

NO WAIT!!!! ALL HANDGUNS SUCK!!!!

Love, Arthur.

spyderdude
November 19, 2007, 04:09 PM
No gun is rust proof, not even Glocks, just takes a bit longer for them to rust. Any gun can get debris in the action, and cause malfunctions. If you take care of your guns, they will take care of you.

Old Dog
November 19, 2007, 04:10 PM
Umm ... Steven, are you looking for debate? If so, I'm not really sure why you'd pick the Beretta to pick on ...

I live in Western Washington, never had a problem with rust on any of my three 92s. Nor while I carried one on duty in a marine environment, and certainly never had a problem with debris in the action while carrying one daily in the Middle-Eastern desert environment.

For a full-size service pistol in 9mm, the Beretta is about as good as they come. Mine have been more accurate than my Glocks were, and as reliable as my SIGs and H&K.

Not my first choice for a duty weapon, but I'd still prefer one to the USP that I have to carry now. Only issue I have with the 92 is the sights and the frame-mounted safety (which should be used only as a de-cocker).

Yeah, they are cool-lookin' though -- esp. in Inox.

Autolycus
November 19, 2007, 04:15 PM
Guess Steven did not read this thread. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=133354)

It is nice that he has an open mind. :rolleyes: I had a 92FS that I could not really get a good grip on it. Its not a bad gun and I enjoyed shooting it but it was not for me. I love the aesthetic appearance of the gun very much. I like the weight and the heft of the gun.

Either way I think this thread will be closed as I have reported it. Read the link I posted please.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 04:19 PM
yessir I am looking for a debate! I am tired of everyone giving the 92 the title of a "great gun" I am also not a fan of the ar platform and the small gas tube that works the action. Can we not arm our soldiers with a .45? why not a Glock 21 sf or a xd .45? can we not produce a rifle for our troops that operates on a piston action rather than a gas-operated jam-o-matic? Just cause a gun looks cool, doesn't mean it is a cool gun.

Steve in PA
November 19, 2007, 04:21 PM
So.......just how much handgun experience do you have?

Just what kind of "performance" are you looking for?

Every gun rusts.

I have a Beretta, along with Sig, S&W, Ruger, Walther, with several of each. I'll stack my 92FS against anything you want to throw at it.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 04:23 PM
I have not been inconsiderate, rude, or vulgar. Why report this thread? I guess the second ammendment is golden, but the first is ignored by some on this site.

D-Man
November 19, 2007, 04:24 PM
Parody poster? Troll?

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 04:26 PM
I believe that a 92, dropped in the muck, will fail to feed almost every time. I also believe that the Glock, and h&k will fire upon every attempt. The glock and hk are better than a 92, and a even a sig is better.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 04:27 PM
glocks don't rust overnight. A 92 turns into a nice shade of orange.

auschip
November 19, 2007, 04:32 PM
I guess the second ammendment is golden, but the first is ignored by some on this site.

Well, as soon as the .gov steps in to shutdown this thread I think you will have a valid arguement there (just a quick hint, you might want to read the 1st again).

WRT your initial post, I happen to own both a 92F, an XD 45, and I did own a glock (the .40 not the .45 but still). The 92F performed admirably in everything I asked it to do, with no problems. Just how much experience do you have with any of these pistols, anyway? :scrutiny:

10-Ring
November 19, 2007, 04:32 PM
I thought SIGs were the ones w/ rust issues...don't the 92fs' just blow up in your face when you shoot machine gun ammo through them? :scrutiny: Man, I really gotta get my blanket statements down :rolleyes:

andrewshogun
November 19, 2007, 04:34 PM
I've shot my fair share of guns, and the 92fs is surprisingly the most accurate pistol I've ever fired. Not necessarily my favorite, but it sure was accurate and very easy to shoot.

Ninja42
November 19, 2007, 04:35 PM
http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/blogfiles/dolorsgual/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Do not feed the trolls. Let this thread fall to the bottom or be locked.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 04:42 PM
I owned a 92 that I loved. It just got that surface rust that I hate, and would fail to feed. I kept it clean, got "better mags" and it still sucked. I got a Glock 17 and it was a complete success.

no more need to question my experiance, or wharever. I stand alone, and have owned more guns than most have picked up at a gun show.

Old Dog
November 19, 2007, 04:47 PM
The great thing about the internet is that only MY opinion represents reality and truth.

Everyone else, no matter what their experience, is WRONG.

41magsnub
November 19, 2007, 04:49 PM
And? So? What? You singular experience does not make a gun "suck". It is too bad you had such a bad experience with it, but seriously now (and think before you answer), what are you trying to accomplish here Steven?

Is it to share your poor experience with the unwashed masses so they do not make the same mistake? Noble of you but your methodology could be a lot better. I think you are more looking for a confrontation which is not what this site is all about.

no more need to question my experiance, or wharever. I stand alone, and have owned more guns than most have picked up at a gun show.

Arrogance is unbecoming and detracts from your argument. If you have to resort to statements proclaiming how much experience you have you have already lost.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 04:55 PM
wow! I have been chastised, called a troll? and had my shooting experiance questioned here, and have yet to find a reason that the 92 is better than a glock.

note that i haven't gone whining to close the post 'cause you mean guys hurt my feelings either. whatever.

auschip
November 19, 2007, 05:01 PM
wow! I have been chastised, called a troll? and had my shooting experiance questioned here, and have yet to find a reason that the 92 is better than a glock.

note that i haven't gone whining to close the post 'cause you mean guys hurt my feelings either. whatever.

The ergonomics are better on the 92F, and the trigger is better. We questioned your experience, because you make blanket statements based on a user group of one, and subjective experience (incidentally, I did the same thing above - but I did it on purpose).

Hugs and kisses on all your pink parts. :neener:

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 05:05 PM
what blanket statements? let your 92 get misty, and put in a gun case overnight. Try that with a Glock, and see the results.

esq_stu
November 19, 2007, 05:13 PM
I guess the second ammendment is golden, but the first is ignored by some on this site.

We all want to vent now and then.

What keeps this site worthwhile is civility. What keeps this site civil is rules about what is and is not appropriate.

I think this website can pretty much be considered private property. The first and second amendments pertain to what the government cannot do. The owner of private property has the right to decide who gets to say what (or carry a gun) on his property.

I appreciate that there are rules of civility here and that they are enforced. I thank the owners and moderators for that.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 05:20 PM
So, let me get this straight. I post a thread on how the 92fs sucks, and I am now uncivalized? I am a horrible troll? Wow! I am on the wrong site.

Geronimo45
November 19, 2007, 05:28 PM
They are not rust-proof,
There's stainless models, IIRC.

and they have an exposed barrel that aloows debris into the action
It also allows debris to be blown out of the action. Some designs are to keep the dirt from getting in, some want to keep it from staying inside.

Lonestar49
November 19, 2007, 05:44 PM
Quote: *I believe that a 92, dropped in the muck, will fail to feed almost every time.

I also believe that the Glock, and h&k will fire upon every attempt. The glock and hk are better than a 92, and a even a sig is better.

*what blanket statements? let your 92 get misty, and put in a gun case overnight. Try that with a Glock, and see the results.
-----------
...

To begin with; *just how many times did you drop your 92 in the muck? Might that be the problem, along with the rust?

Me, and most everyone else would find dry shelter of some sort, and lovingly wipe up their weapon, as to be clean and dry before putting her in a closed, tight, non-aired, no air circulation environment for some 12hrs plus.. Or at least put the gun somewhere with air circulation, until better circumstances prevailed.. IMHO

But, from all that I know, and have read, that own 92's, not one has complained of rust, nor of mags that cause jamming, unless mag springs are old, or not clean. But, they must be doing something right, like preventive maintenance, along with round counts, as to replace old mag and recoil springs, because the issue of jamming, or rust has not come up, both from long time owners, and new owners.

If I read such a rust horror story, I would bring it up, as I call them the way I see them, even with my own guns, as I would not recommend a Sig P232 SL 380 to anyone, as I have had my issues with that gun, and they appear solved, but none the less, it was a long journey to get that gun constantly at 100%, but the scare still remains.

From where I stand, I would say you and your gun are a rare occurrence, as the rest fall under:

~ A thousand flies cannot be wrong ~ which can mean something is good, or something is bad, but they cannot be wrong..


Ls

19-3Ben
November 19, 2007, 05:49 PM
Guess what. The Glock IS better than a 92FS......for you!!!!

Different people have different taste. I personally like the 92 platform and I am only sorry that it doesn't fit my hand well so I can't good accuracy with it. My dad has a 92F Compact that he carries. He can shoot it very accurately. Unfortunately, I can't (but I do well with my wheel-guns). But one thing I can say is that it doesn't jam, and it just plain works for him. he's also had it for about 10 years and it has never shown a spot of rust. He also bought it used incidentally.
Me? I'm a CZ fan and have no desire for H&K or Glock. I do love my little Sig P232 though.
Everybody has taste. Just because YOU think the Glock is better, doesn't mean it is. It's just better for you.

41magsnub
November 19, 2007, 05:50 PM
Here is a short class on how to debate Steven old son since you don't seem to get it.

The beretta 92 sucks for the following reasons. They are not rust-proof, and they have an exposed barrel that aloows debris into the action. I do know that they are very accurate, and cool looking, but can they perform like a glock, or sig, or h&k/? Not even close.

love, Steven

This is a statement designed to piss people off. It is poorly formed, and will be taken wrong (unless this really is a troll attempt).

Maybe you should try something such as this rephrase:

Based on my experience I believe the beretta 92 is a lesser pistol than a glock, Sig, or H&K for the following reasons. They are not rust-proof, and they have an exposed barrel that allows debris into the action.

What do you guys think?

love, Steven

That statement might actually start a legitimate debate with the sorts of answers you are probably looking for.

stevereno1
November 19, 2007, 05:51 PM
Whatever, Close this post please!!!

joab
November 19, 2007, 05:56 PM
I guess the second ammendment is golden, but the first is ignored by some on this site.Not ignored just irrelevant, this is private property

let your 92 get misty, and put in a gun case overnightI have done just this
What am I looking for?

The only gun I have ever had that rusted overnight was a parked Remington Express

Perhaps your thread would be better received if you presented it in a mature fashion

This is nothing more than a "Glock Rules, Dude" thread

Autolycus
November 19, 2007, 05:59 PM
Did you read the post at the top of the hangguns forum called "NO MORE HATE THREADS"? I linked it in my first post. I am sorry but you chose not to obey the rules and obviously that is why I asked the thread be closed.

seeker_two
November 19, 2007, 06:09 PM
So, the entire reason that the Beretta 92fs sucks is that it rusts if you leave it in wet muck and .45ACP ammo won't fit in it?.... :scrutiny:

Well, I say that Glocks suck because they're made by Austrians...and everyone knows that Austrians can't do anything but sit around eating chocolate & Vienna sausages and listen to classical music while riding around on their prancing Lipppizan ponies. And there are no sexy Austrians.... :barf:

...but Italians are cool and sexy and have the best cooking and wine in the world. Plus they have Lamourginis and Alfa Romeos and Sophia Loren and Clint Eastwood westerns and the sexiest guns ever made!!!!! :cool:

So there.....argue that.......

http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/blogfiles/dolorsgual/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Don't give a leprecauhn the bird?.... :confused:

Autolycus
November 19, 2007, 06:12 PM
It seemed that the biggest problem was the fact it was not a .45 ACP. I think that the Beretta is ok but I would rather see the troops given HK USPs. Thats just me though.

25ACP
November 19, 2007, 06:42 PM
I do not have any experience with the Beretta myself, but I looked into them while searching for an auto to carry in the mountains (my .357 is nice, but godawful uncomfortable with a pack on) and I asked a gentleman that I work with who is in the reserves and just came back from Iraq about his opinion of them. He said they were adequate and reliable (if you could keep the sand out of them) but their accuracy is not up to par, and in his opinion he preferred a Glock. He said many of the other soldiers did not care for the 92 either and preferred various other pistols. He did add that a number of them loved the gun and were quite profficient with them however, so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. As far as rust goes, it is a serious concern for me as I carry my gun in all weather conditions for days, and sometimes weeks at a time outdoors. I ended up with a Sig P-229 in .40S&W which is stainless and polymer and therefor not prone to oxidation. I believe the 92 is available in stainless as well, which would solve the rust issue. I do feel that EVERY gun manufacturer produces the occasional lemon from time to time. Perhaps you just got a bad egg. Incedentally, Steve, I agree with you about arming our soldiers with a higher power round. Speaking strictly in terms of ammunition, I am a little unsure that the increased capacity of the Beretta is a fair trade for the power of the good 'ol 1911. My Sig holds twelve rounds of .40 - I think that would be a nice compromise.

Autolycus
November 19, 2007, 06:47 PM
25ACP: You have a polymer Stainless P229? Do you mean a 2022 or Sig Pro?

dwave
November 19, 2007, 06:49 PM
I am going to go off topic of the 92 for a moment:

Can we not arm our soldiers with a .45? why not a Glock 21 sf or a xd .45? can we not produce a rifle for our troops that operates on a piston action rather than a gas-operated jam-o-matic?

Jam-o-matic? I was in the Air Force, and my Dad was in for 20 years. The M-16 was not a jam-o-matic. My Dad loved it so much he is planning on getting one very soon. He didn't have a jam-o-matic (not saying they don't happen, but they can happen with ALL guns regardless of the hype). I have never had a jam shooting them myself. So what is your exp. with the m-16?

Hunter0924
November 19, 2007, 06:59 PM
gas operated jam-o-matic? If you are referring to the M16/AR15 I believe you are mistaken.

Johnny Guest
November 19, 2007, 07:00 PM
Please go to the top of the Handguns: Autoloaders forum and note there is a single-post thread there concerning HATE THREADS.

Here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=133354), I'll save you the trouble.

In the meantime, this one is CLOSED

Johnny Guest
THR Staff
Moderator, Handguns: Autoloaders forum

If you enjoyed reading about "92fs sucks. just my thoughts." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!