Is there a reason not to buy a Beretta


July 10, 2008, 12:04 AM
I have heard many people complain about the M9 or the Berettas in general, but has anyone got any specific reasons, other than personal taste not to buy a Beretta 92 series? Furthermore is there any difference between the M9 and a 92FS? I ask because on the Beretta website they list them as two seperate guns, and the M9 commands a higher price.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there a reason not to buy a Beretta" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
July 10, 2008, 02:00 AM
The main complaints about the Beretta 92/M9 is that its only a 9mm for its size. But with its size and weight, it has less recoil than other 9mm's, IMO. The only reason i can think of not to buy one would be if it didnt fit your hands. They are very accurate, extremely reliable, a good bargain and will last quite a while. Beretta USA is alo fairly easy to work with.

As far as the difference between the 92FS and M9, it just depends. They are basically the same thing, with the exception of some very minor parts. Depending on the model, one might have an accessory rail and the other might not.

July 10, 2008, 02:18 AM
Yeah the only thing that should keep you from buying a Beretta is well nothing. The 92 is an awesome handgun.

July 10, 2008, 02:23 AM
I had an M9 in the Marines & I carry a Beretta 92f everyday, 8 hours a day at work.

The qualification course for my job is like this;

12 rounds from 2 magazines of 6 each in 15 seconds from 3 yards.
12 rounds from 2 magazines of 6 each in 15 seconds from 7 yards.
12 rounds from low ready - double taps using 2 magazines of 6 each in 90 seconds from 10 yards.
18 rounds from behind a barricade - kneeling position. 12 strong hand 6 weak. No time limit from 15 yards.
6 rounds standing from behind a barricade at 20 yards, standing position.

I shot a 273 out of 300 last go round, my best score is a 297.

I would not buy a Beretta.

The gun is too big,
It is not any more accurate than another 9mm at the same price point nor is it any more reliable then another firearm.
I dislike the DA/SA pull especially for the first DA shot.
The external "de-cocker" is not a safety device.
It has been around for 20+ years and just recently came out with a railed model.

research here

beretta model 92/96 fan sites : (

July 10, 2008, 03:10 AM
I can't think of a single reason. It not fitting your hand is only an excuse to not carry it.



Joshua M. Smith
July 10, 2008, 03:21 AM
I prefer the Taurus PT92. IMNSHO, it's a better pistol. I CCWed one for 10 years or so until I decided to build a 1911.

The PT92 I have I outfitted with a target guide rod with integral frame buffer and a Beretta locking block (the old style Beretta and current Taurus, last I checked, break every 5000 rounds or so). I also did some smoothing and ended up with a pistol that would shoot five shots under 2" at 25yds, with three of those being under an inch.

I can't prove it, but I believe that the straight rearward motion of the barrel improves accuracy.

I prefer Hogue grip panels. Tacky, very good grip, and thinner than stock.

I'd recommend the Taurus over the Beretta, but both are good guns.

Josh <><

July 10, 2008, 03:21 AM
The safety is backwards. Up should be safe. down should be fire.

I read a post here on THR from someone wiser than myself, that it's a good idea to have all your sidearms function the same way. I think he refered to it as having the same "manual of arms." I never realized how true this is until I took my wife's Bersa to the range along with MY guns. I shouldn't have to "think" about what I'm doing when I draw a gun.

That's the ONLY reason I would not get a 92.

Oh, one more reason. The Stoeger Cougar.

July 10, 2008, 03:24 AM
My 9mm Brig has been great and I love the thing. The stock grips are just right for my hand size but whether or not you should buy one depends on your use. There are a few pistols I might buy first for a duty weapon (larger caliber) and a few more for a concealed weapon (smaller size) but for day to day reliability and getting the job done, the 92 series has been pretty good. I suspect most of our armed service people would still like a 1911 though.

July 10, 2008, 08:51 AM
I've got a 92FS and find it a very entertaining gun. Like everything else, it's has it's quirks, and I had to figure out what to do with it to correct those, but it's accurate, and for the most part, very easy to work with.

Cleaning and teardown is a snap, and it reassembles very quickly, so unless you have a problem handling the gun, it's a buy. As for the technology being around 20 years, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It provides a lot of spare parts, and a lot of information about loads, things you can change out without screwing up the works, etc., so it's "time tested", and you should be able to custom the gun to fit your particular style of shooting.

It's a high capacity weapon, so it's good for home defense or carry, and provides a lot of firepower. It carries Beretta's name, and I've had little or no trouble with their products.


July 10, 2008, 09:26 AM
Yes there is.
People on the internet will tell you Beretta pistols are pieces of junk that blow up and injure uncounted numbers of US SEAL operators.
You cannot count yourself a real man unless you buy an XD,CZ,17-19-34-21SF-20, Browning High Power, or 1911 Colt.

The only thing I would like to see done with the M9/92FS is adding a light rail and replaceable, dovetailed, tritium sights with the front on a strengthened slide ring.
They got it half right with the M9A1 with its light rail.

I have a genuine contract overrun M9 that was released by Beretta for civilian sale.
It has all metal parts except for the guide rod which was plastic.
The word I got was this contract run was rejected by some branch of the military because of the plastic guide rods.
I can believe that because the M9 pistols I worked with in service all had metal guide rods

Of the new versions, the only real difference I can see between the current 92FS and the current M9 offering are the markings, both have plastic parts in all the right places and they hurt the guns not one bit unless you are a purist.

July 10, 2008, 09:32 AM
Go to and run a search on the M9. Look for the comments by ToddG (who used to be a LE/military marketing director for Beretta and one of their team shooters). Also, I can provide a copy of an article Larry Vickers did on the M9.

You'll get a good overview of the pros and cons of the Beretta, things to look for, and remedies for some of the cons.

July 10, 2008, 10:08 AM
Of the new versions, the only real difference I can see between the current 92FS and the current M9 offering are the markings, both have plastic parts in all the right places and they hurt the guns not one bit unless you are a purist.
Or the latest more cheaply manufactured Beretta M9s break parts more frequently(I can only speak on behalf of new Army Berettas). They aren't just plastic parts breaking either. Brand new pistols breaking more frequently than the "old beaters". The commercial versions may be a different story altogether. That I don't know. But the fact of the matter is Beretta is saving money by taking some shortcuts. The plastic parts work but it could indicate that Beretta has also taken shortcuts elsewhere.

Berettas are good, reliable pistols. If you like the feel of them I don't see why you wouldn't buy one. People talk about locking block failures on them like it's a regular occurring problem but I have yet to see one. I have seen plenty of other parts break on them though. If I had any use for anything chambered in 9mm Parabellum I would probably own one.

July 10, 2008, 10:17 AM
People on the internet will tell you Beretta pistols are pieces of junk that blow up and injure uncounted numbers of US SEAL operators.
You cannot count yourself a real man unless you buy an XD,CZ,17-19-34-21SF-20, Browning High Power, or 1911 Colt.

You're the only person making these claims that I've noticed. :scrutiny:

July 10, 2008, 04:36 PM
the prices have gone down, you can get them on gunbroker .com under $500 new now.

Take your pick.

Josh, you need to help me setup my Taurus I just bought.

July 10, 2008, 10:04 PM
Keep searching MaterDei, the posts are out there and they aren't mine.

I have owned three Beretta 9mm pistols and one .40 cal M96 over the course of the last twenty five years, every one has performed admirably with no broken parts or major malfunctions.

When I was checking out the .40 S&W cartridge, I deliberately chose the Model 96 because I thought it was the best pistol for the task,( I didn't have access to an H&K USP at that time).
The pistol worked well, the cartridge left me less impressed.

Blue Brick
July 10, 2008, 11:14 PM
You’re not SEAL until you’ve tasted Italian steel.:)

July 10, 2008, 11:25 PM
well, the army used the beretta... they didn't pick it because it was pretty or anything, but because it worked and passed their testing...

perhaps a reason not to pick a beretta is because there are so many choices out there - BUT you must pick what works BEST FOR YOU in a high capacity 9mm. there's the sig p226, cz-75, if you're into steel guns. in plastic, of course there are the glocks, XDs, m&p, etc.

July 10, 2008, 11:36 PM
Yes, there are several reasons

a) you plan to use it for concealed carry and
you live in a climate/env that does not encourage
long coats/etc

b) you do not like 9mm and prefer 10mm (as an example)

c) you want easily available aftermarket .22 LR kit for under
$250 for the same gun

d) you cannot consistently get a natural point of aim with it
(that aquire target without using sights)

e) you want to carry it cocked and locked and cannot
imagine how you would use the safety on the frame
that goes in to the oposite direction...

in otherwords the only reasons not to purchase it are
very subjective to your own specific needs

there are really no 'objective' reasons why not to buy it
as compared it any other current offerring in the same price

July 11, 2008, 12:04 AM
The "plastic" parts that some speak of, are only polymer coated metal, not plastic. Yes, the guide rod is plastic in some models, but is easily swapped out for metal if you like (although i've yet to read of a plastic guide rod breaking).

July 11, 2008, 12:15 AM
I've got a px4 and like it. Never had any reliability problems, easy shooting, 20 rounds, more accurate than I am, etc., etc.

July 11, 2008, 01:22 AM
I'll tell you my experience with them.

In the summer of 1992, my arms room in Germany switched out 87 WWII era 1911s for new-in-cosmoline M-9s. I was the assistant armorer and I volunteered to do the bulk of the work to clean them up for issue. Furthermore, being in the position where I would have to sleep with my weapon in the field, and being able to pick pretty much whichever weapon I wanted, I took the pistol.

They feel great and shoot great. Probably not the best for people with small hands though. Particularly, the single action is very easy, and using military issue ammo, when it shoots, it pops right back down on target every time naturally. (I never tried any variety of other loads in one.)The controls are very natural and ergonomic.

However, as stated above, the frame is unforgiveably large for only being a 9mm/.40. Much bulkier than a 1911 in .45. The army should include night sights, but they don't generally. We started having problems with soldiers tampering with them, taking off the grip panels, removing the springs and putting them in backwards, dinging up the exposed mechanics, etc. These were NOT particularly accurate. (Although at least as accurate as the old 1911s with old bushings and barrels they replaced, and within the old and very low accuracy army standards for a sidearm.) Where any problem that I ever had with a 1911 could be fixed with a detail strip and parts replacement, every time something went wrong with an M9, I had to send it to support-level maintenence.

I also had a Taurus T-92, and while I liked the safety better, I had a lot of problems with it. Light firing pin strikes, the double-action was slipping for no explicable reason, I got rid of it.

It's not that the Beretta design is bad, it's mostly that there are so many other designs that are so much better. I don't think anyone can honestly say it is tougher than a Glock, A USP, or an XD. I THINK, that U.S. troops should carry the simplest, most idiot-proof, and cost-effective sidearm available. (Glock.) As for me, I tried a dozen other pistols for carry before I decided that real men carry 1911s. (Sarcasm intended, put your flame-throwers away.) It just feels better, shoots better, and carries better. (For me, anyway. I can tinker with it without destroying it. I WISH the army would let me take it to war, but I know it won't happen.

July 11, 2008, 01:32 AM
non I can think of off hand

October 2, 2008, 04:59 AM
I personally HATE THEM. the trigger pull is very long in DA (to me), the finish wears off too easily (under holstered conditions and combat), the aluminum frame can be damaged too easily, and the locking block seems to like to blow one of its tabs off from time to time....

this is from combat experience and from fixing them under harsh conditions. +1 on *** plastic parts. The new parts I get for the guide rod are plastic and the safety levers are that polymar coated stuff....yuck.

I also HATE how many parts are in the system....that slide has WAAY to many for the average user to go doing a full clean on it from time to time.

females shoot good with them and they are accurate. First pistol I ever fired was a 96 .40cal and I shot great with it.

I just don't like them....but then again I am a 1911 man :)

October 2, 2008, 09:22 AM
The only reason not to get one is the CZ 75.

I have owned a 92, Taurus92, and CZ.

The CZ I still have.

October 2, 2008, 12:05 PM
The only reason not to get one is the CZ 75.

I'd go along with this - the CZ 75 is one very fine pistol while the Berretta is a pretty good pistol.

Have one:

October 2, 2008, 12:15 PM
I'd take an XD or Glock without question.

October 2, 2008, 01:42 PM
Old technology. Hammers are out, strikers are in.

October 2, 2008, 02:11 PM
I trained on the 1911, shot and qualified on it, then trained on the M9, shot and qualified on it. Even bought a 92SF, carried it, etc.

It's big for me (5'6",) and has a larger grip than a G19. Good weight for a range gun, little recoil like the 1911. Lots of controls all over, kinda busy. So, I got a G19. Much simpler, slightly more recoil, shoots as well, much easier to carry.

In uniform or on the range, a M9 is ok. As a CCW piece, not so much.

As for being "selected" as the "best" in the competition for the Army, please remember the AF started that trial, and Italy reminded some VIP's in the food chain they were hosting some important bases for the Army/Navy in the Med. It was a political decision to give Beretta the contract, and the AF is happy. Too bad Glock came on the market just after.

October 2, 2008, 02:18 PM
....Hammers are out, strikers are in.
Thanks for the update.:rolleyes:

Black Majik
October 2, 2008, 02:32 PM
There were three main reasons for me to dump the 92FS. 1) The backwards safety/decocker 2)frame mounted safety 3) horribly long and gritty DA trigger

Otherwise it was a great gun, very smooth shoot and cycling. However it wasn't a gun I'd ever get serious with and attempt to learn, so it got used as a range gun every blue moon.


October 2, 2008, 02:47 PM
If you want a little more gun for a little more $

October 2, 2008, 03:15 PM
M9 and a 92FS?

The finish of the metal.

October 2, 2008, 03:57 PM
only reason I would not buy a Beretta is if I found a SIG at the same price and could only own one gun....since that's not the case, I have two

Phil DeGraves
October 2, 2008, 03:57 PM
The Beretta is kind of large for what you get. They are capable of pretty good accuracy. A lot of service people don't think much of them because the ones the military have, have been humped hard.

My own experience is that the trigger reset is not that good, and the magazine floorplates are junk. Personally, I think they are a pretty decent gun,and wouldn't feel underarmed if I had one, but there are just as good if not better guns out there for the same price or less.

October 2, 2008, 04:22 PM
Only if it does not fit your hand or you feel more comfortable with or shoot something better. The 92FS I have owned for 15 years has served me well. I have performed regular things like replacing worn/weak springs and replaced the lock block with the new Barsto barrel,(I only did this because I really wanted a Barsto barrel!!). Other than that the gun has performed flawlessly with ANY ammo I have put through it. Go shoot one and see how you like it.

October 2, 2008, 04:29 PM
If you don't like the safety of the later ones, the original 92 had a 1911-style frame-mounted safety. Here's mine, cocked and locked:

October 2, 2008, 04:48 PM
I've shot them, and owned a Taurus PT92. I prefer the PT92, since it has the safety lower, on the frame, instead of the slide. That might be one reason not to buy one.

They are big; a true full-size pistol. Depending on what you're looking for, that might be a factor too. For a range gun, this is pefect.

They are heavier than guns with similar firepower, accuracy, and reliability such as the Glock 17. That might be a reason.

Lack of accuracy, reliability or capacity are certainly not reasons.

Every Beretta I've shot or handled has had above average fit & finish. They just operate so smoothly. They don't work any better than some guns that are not finished as well, but there is a certain feeling of satisfaction to owning such a smooth gun.

October 2, 2008, 06:55 PM
whats not to like?...nice trigger up to 17 round mags in handle......i love mine especially in a thigh holster

October 2, 2008, 08:24 PM
Old technology. Hammers are out, strikers are in.

Just remember, 3 strikes and yer OUT..

Out of sight, out of mind vs visual confirmation.. anytime, everytime.

Old technology, LMAO, you go George Jetson..


October 2, 2008, 08:29 PM
Old technology. Hammers are out, strikers are in.

Just remember, 3 miss-strikes and yer OUT - 3 less rounds to go vs optional full DA pull, or manual hammer re-cock, and fire, same bullet.

Out of sight, out of mind vs visual confirmation.. anytime, everytime.

Old technology, LMAO, you go George Jetson..


October 2, 2008, 08:30 PM
1. Too big for the round.
2. WAY too long trigger reach.
3. Lousy trigger pull, at least on the DAOs.

October 2, 2008, 09:05 PM
Biggest reason !!! I do not have the money to go get one

October 2, 2008, 09:16 PM
You may want to handle both prior to purchasing. The main difference between the M9 and the 92FS are the sights. M9 is for people who have trouble using the 3 dot set up which the 92FS uses. Evidently the military wanted to keep confusion to a minimum with new recruits. "Point the gun at the target, use the front sight to complete the circle in the rear sight, and shoot!"

October 2, 2008, 09:27 PM
I too, carried one for many years during my military tenure. It never failed me but was, however, a bit large for the amount of capacity and caliber you got. Smooth action, decent trigger, good accuracy, and very reliable gun.

Having said all that, I've got a bunch of reasons NOT to buy a Beretta 92S (Same gun as M9):

1. HK P30L
2. SA XDm 9mm
3. CZ 75B SP-01
4. Sig 229

Good luck with your choice!!

October 2, 2008, 09:27 PM
I will never own a striker-fired pistol.

I like seeing that hammer, and knowing what position it's in.

October 2, 2008, 11:07 PM
FUGLY, other than that no reason.

October 2, 2008, 11:10 PM
Beretta advertises either a 1 year or a three year warranty, and not lifetime. That is my one big hangup with Beretta.


October 3, 2008, 02:09 PM
I have two a 92 fs and a .45 Cougar and love them both

Old Navy
October 3, 2008, 09:00 PM
Navy seals carry Sig P226 Navy.

October 3, 2008, 11:59 PM
Old technology. Hammers are out, strikers are in. they arent making revolvers anymore because its "old technology"? Intersting....

October 4, 2008, 02:01 AM
I disagree with whoever said they are not any more accurate than other 9's. I have a 92fs and am able to hit shotgun shells at 25 feet easily. Hitting 2 inch targets at 25 feet and keeping the group within that circle isn't a problem with practice. I lined up x3 shotgun shells at 25 feet to show my wife and made them all "jump" with 3 shots..1 for each shell. This is not an exaggeration. I get tired of hearing bad reports on Berettas. When they were first introduced( many, many years ago)....there were problems......but it was fixed.....period. Mine NEVER jams. I had two Jams when breaking the gun in in the 1st 200 rounds.....but never had one again. I have fired thousands of rounds through it ,without a hiccup. I also have a 45 Ruger P345, and a 40 XD. The Beretta is still the most accurate pistol "out of the box" I have ever shot. My uncles's 45 ACP Kimber ($1600.00) is very accurate also..... but not more so, than my Beretta.:rolleyes:

October 4, 2008, 02:18 AM
My friend, John, has one and told me that he was going to take it with him as he was going hunting. He used his military style holster, clipped it on his belt and went to his car. He returned it to the house. He said that it was too heavy and bulky to carry. I have never shot one, but large guns do not bother me, I have a Desert Eagle.

October 4, 2008, 02:59 AM
DA/SA triggers SUCK. Give me a consistent, short trigger pull for the first and every shot. I won't own another gun with a DA/SA-trigger ever again.

October 4, 2008, 03:50 AM

Military heritage.


Big and heavy for it's capability.
Accuracy average to below average, gets worse with wear.
Slide mounted safety.
No capability of being carried cocked and locked.
No rail.
Not the most durable finish.

It is a decent sidearm, but there are better choices available...especially for concealed carry or competition.

October 4, 2008, 03:57 AM
I own a 96FS and am dissapointed with it.

The gun is too large (mostly too wide) to carry IWB. In addition to the size there are levers, knobs, bumps and protrusions that poke out in every direction which does not make for a "slab-sided" gun. I find this desirable for concealed carry as it makes drawing it easier and faster.

I bought a stainless beretta and was diasppointed when I found that the lower frame was aluminum instead of steel. I cant clean the lower in the ultrasonic tank.

I relegated mine to a silencer host but found that some ammo messes with the timing and it becomes unreliable. No such problems with browning action guns.

I tried hard to like this gun but it has been a disappointment. Oh well, live and learn.

If I had to do over, I'd get a Glock 22C, a HK USP-40, a stainless CZ-75 in 9mm or something off the wall like a FN FiveSeven.

Im going to sell my beretta. :barf:


October 4, 2008, 04:02 AM
The beretta 92/96 series was not meant for concealed carry. It was designed and built as a duty pistol. Meaning it was meant to be carried in a holster, OWB on the hip. I find it odd that people will try to make it be something its not and then complain about it when it falls short. It would be like me trying to take my Firebird off road and through the mud, then complain because it gets high centered or stuck.

October 4, 2008, 10:09 AM
I am a former Marine and have been shooting a Beretta 96 as a principal weapon and have a ton of rounds, full service rounds through the weapon with no failure of the locking block or slide issues. We have to qualify with carry rounds every quarter, no WWB which I shoot recreationally quite a lot as well. I have only had a great experience. As to the safety/decocker, I carry with a round in the chamber and safety off. The trigger has to be fully actuated to release the firing pin block and I have never had any problem. Also I have a LaserMax LMS-1441 guide rod laser sight in it and it has performed perfectly, no problem turning on as the switch is right under my trigger finger when held alongside the frame.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there a reason not to buy a Beretta" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!