92 or PX4?


PDA






wild cat mccane
March 23, 2011, 02:26 PM
Anyone with experience with both, or more helpful, owns both?
What is your selection?

I know the 92 (even PT 92) has a exponentially larger ownership, so anyone with both would greatly help. Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "92 or PX4?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 03:28 PM
I have seven Beretta 92s (different variants). I have owned a PX4 in 40 cal before. It is the only 40 cal gun I have ever owned because it handles the recoils o well (I have shot other 40s).

I sold it (the PX4) to have some extra money to go towards a custom 1911 back in 2008, but the gun was a nice gun. No issues with it.

However, I have discovered that the 92FS, with the regular frame, is my fav handgun of all time. It balances so well 1 handed, with the Hogue rubber grip panels (not the wrap arounds, just the panels). I even sold an Ed Brown 1911 this past weekend to have some money to pick up a couple more guns - one of which will likely be another Beretta.

Seems strange, but compared to even more expensive guns, the 92FS just "does it" for me...

I currently only have 1 polymer handgun. At one time, ALL of my handguns were polymer. BuT I have discovered that I prefer rubber grips on all my guns. And, I don't particularly care for the slip on grips that one can put on a polymer handgun. So, I have gotten away from polymer...

Be aware that the PX4 is a great gun. To me, in 9mm, the rotating barrel doesn't seem to trim as much of the recoil as it does to the 40 cal round. If you want a polymer gun - it's a very good one.

But both are great guns, and you just need to hold them both and see which one feels better to you.

If I ever get another fullsize polymer handgun, it would likely be a 9mm PX4. But for now, I'm sticking with my seven 92s, with the 8th one probably coming soon...

wild cat mccane
March 23, 2011, 03:36 PM
Hey Ship! You convinced me to pick up a P99 a while ago. Loved it, but it was flippy. Never have I picked up a gun and shot dead center at 25 yards like I did that P99.

I am now thinking of the 92.

92 or P99 again? The P99 thinking has me considering the PX4.

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 04:09 PM
Well, I no longer actually have any P(9s. The gun was super accurate, but had more recoil than any other 9mm I have shot. After I got back into Berettas in 2008, I didn't shoot the P99 much. Last year, I shot a P99 to zero in new night sights, and then shot a RUger P95 I had picked up as a beater gun.

The Ruger had a LOT less recoil than the P99. Since I had the Beretta bug already, I sold the P99 and picked up a second M9A1.

I have shot the PX4 in 9mm head to head with the P99 a few years ago (shot someone else's 9mm PX4). The PX4 does have less felt recoil, but I think the 92FS has even less, being a metal gun.

With the hogue grip panels (not the complete wrap around kind), the gun feels great. I think you will like the 92 and the lower recoil it has. Only my 50oz steel 9mm 1911 has less recoil.

Here is my collection...

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/wheel3.jpg

Z-Michigan
March 23, 2011, 04:47 PM
I've shot both, and both are good.

The 92 is an increasingly dated design, and a pretty good design but not a classic like the 1911 or Glock. It's very large for a 9mm. Recoil is soft, the trigger is pretty good, and overall ergonomics are pretty good. To me the biggest plus is that because of its age and US military use, there are a lot of spare parts, accessories, and most of all holsters to choose from.

The PX4 is a more modern design and very cool. It is also exceptionally blocky and bulky, again huge for a 9mm. It also has soft recoil, which is also a bit smoother than Browning-style designs, although there is a slight torque I feel when shooting it. As a range-only pistol it's great. Not sure about holster options. I think it would be too big for any reasonable CCW, and would actually choose a 92 sooner for that use (though neither would be in my top 50 for CCW pistols).

As for which one to buy, I don't know what you want to do with it.

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 05:16 PM
Well, peopel conceal 5" 1911s all the time. I carry my 92FS concealed everyday, at the 3 o'clock position IWB. Been doing it for around 16 months now. Not an issue. I actually like it. Strange as it may seem, I forget it is there. I am not a big guy either - 180lbs, 6'1".

I have carried shorter guns before IWB - The polymer holster actually stuck into my butt muscle and was uncomfortable after an hour of sitting in the car. The longer holster is MORE comfortable to me.

The 92 isn't a typical concealed carry gun - but if you carry a 5" 1911 - its really no different size wise. Granted, I can ONLY do it at the 3 o'clock position. But I carry it all summer even with a t shirt.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/Carrygear2.jpg

Z-Michigan
March 23, 2011, 05:33 PM
Well, peopel conceal 5" 1911s all the time. I carry my 92FS concealed everyday, at the 3 o'clock position IWB. Been doing it for around 16 months now. Not an issue. I actually like it.

The PX4 isn't especially long. What is is bulky - wide, tall, generally big. Yes, I too can conceal a 5" 1911 without too much trouble. The 1911 is narrow and not especially tall, and barrel length isn't a problem within reason (I wouldn't try CCW with a 9.5" revolver). This is the same reason the hammer-fired aluminum Rugers (P85-94) are such a problem to conceal. (I should know, I bought a P94 mistakenly thinking it would be my EDC).

ForumSurfer
March 23, 2011, 05:40 PM
I've sold many guns that I've owned. The 96 with crimson trace grips is the only one that I want back fwiw.

I've never owned a px4, so I can't vote on that. I've never shot one. I do love the way they feel in hand when I checked them out at the store. I wouldn't mind owning a px4c (not the sc, but the c).

I know a guy with a police trade in ninety-two for sale. It comes with a boat load of mags so I'm thinking about getting it. I guess if I loved the 96, a ninety-two should make me just as happy since it appears to be an improved/enhanced 92.

Smaug
March 23, 2011, 07:10 PM
No normal person would enjoy concealed carrying a Beretta 92 IWB. (nor would he own 7 or 8 of the same gun)

I would say a 1911 is a better CC weapon, since it has the narrower slide.

NG VI
March 23, 2011, 07:19 PM
Hey Shipwreck what's the difference between all the various 92 models anyway?

Do you carry with the original 15 round mags or do you use the 17 rounders Mec-Gar makes? I think Beretta has factory 17s now too because of the 90-Two.

How do you like the compact models? They look like my kind of compact, shorter grip with a less shortened slide.

ForumSurfer
March 23, 2011, 08:01 PM
nor would he own 7 or 8 of the same gun

They aren't the same gun. They're different variations of the same platform. I can relate to that.

OregonJohnny
March 23, 2011, 08:28 PM
17 rounders Mec-Gar makes

Mec-Gar actually makes 18-round magazines for the 92 series that fit flush, and they make a 20-rounder that extends about 3/4" below the grip. I own the 18-rounder, and it functions flawlessly. I actually just ordered 1 of the 20-rounders today, and will thoroughly test it, then it will stay in the gun 24/7, since my 92FS is the primary home defense gun.


No normal person would enjoy concealed carrying a Beretta 92 IWB. (nor would he own 7 or 8 of the same gun)

That seems a bit harsh. Why insult a person for their carry or collection choices? Unless this was sarcasm.

I know a few people who regularly carry full-size, metal-framed, double-stack guns IWB. And as far as owning more than 1 of the same series of firearm, I know a few people who do that, as well.

NG VI
March 23, 2011, 08:43 PM
Oregon I know they make an 18 as well, but the 18 has a different, somewhat thicker base plate while the 17's base plate is the same size as the stock one. The 18 isn't much thicker, but I'm comfortable losing a round of capacity for a small, even not noticeable edge in concealment when wwe're talking this size of handgun and this level of capacity.

OregonJohnny
March 23, 2011, 08:52 PM
Oregon I know they make an 18 as well, but the 18 has a different, somewhat thicker base plate while the 17's base plate is the same size as the stock one. The 18 isn't much thicker, but I'm comfortable losing a round of capacity for a small, even not noticeable edge in concealment when wwe're talking this size of handgun and this level of capacity.

Actually, that's not quite correct. I'm looking at the Mec-Gar 18-rounder next to a factory Beretta 15-rounder right now. The Mec-Gar base plate is a little rounder in lines, but is actually about 1mm shorter (top-to-bottom) than the factory Beretta mag. The Mec-Gar base plate is about 2mm wider (side-to-side), but still does not stick out any wider than the grip panels when inserted in the gun.

OregonJohnny
March 23, 2011, 09:00 PM
Beretta factory 15-round magazine on the left, Mec-Gar 18-round magazine on the right:

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee179/mgtmel/photo.jpg

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee179/mgtmel/photo-10.jpg

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 09:13 PM
No normal person would enjoy concealed carrying a Beretta 92 IWB. (nor would he own 7 or 8 of the same gun)

I would say a 1911 is a better CC weapon, since it has the narrower slide.

Hahaha.... You should go check out the Beretta Forum... There are guys there with more than me :)

Truthfully - there is not much difference in size. While the front strap is thinner - the grips on the 1911 make the grip, as a whole, about the same width as a 1911 with standard grips.

The slide may be a little thicker, but not by much. I used a polymer holster - using a leather holster (which is thicker than a polymer holder), I'll be that it's all about the same dimensions as a package.

They aren't the same gun. They're different variations of the same platform. I can relate to that.

Thanks. You da man! And yea, they are variants :)

I enjoy collecting the various models of my fav gun.

NG VI
March 23, 2011, 09:17 PM
Aha, looks a little different than the 18 I remembered seeing, but it's been awhile.

Yep I would definitely go with those 18s>anything.


Love Mec-Gar. Golden Sabers are pretty good too.

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 09:28 PM
Do you carry with the original 15 round mags or do you use the 17 rounders Mec-Gar makes? I think Beretta has factory 17s now too because of the 90-Two.



I personally stick with 15 round mags...

I actually discussed this on this thread last month:

http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=71164&highlight=round

I just look at the standard 15 round mags as tried and true through the test of time. Its been thru shorter followers, and more spring compression that they have fit more rounds in the mag. I do have several factory 17 rounders (they come with the 90-Two and 92A1), as well as a 20 round MDS mag. I have never had an issue with any at the range. But for carry, in mags lodaded for months, I am just more comfortable with the factory 15 rounders...

You can see more comments about that in that thread...


How do you like the compact models? They look like my kind of compact, shorter grip with a less shortened slide.

I haven't shot them yet - I plan to do that the first weekend of April. But, the grip lenths with the pinky extensions on the mags are around the size of an Hk P2000 or Hk USPc grip lenths. Just a tiny bit shorter than a standard 92FS.

I received my hogue grip panels for 1 of the 92 compacts, and should get the 2nd set tomorrow. With the grip panels on and a loaded mag, they seem to balance in a 1 handed grip as well as the regular 92FS. So, I am looking forward to shooting them. I have "D" springs in both already too...

To me, while all the railed models are super sweet - the plain 92FS has the PERFECT balance in an outstretched 1 handed grip. I have spent a LOT of time holding all of them and checking this out.

It's irritating, because even after spending tons of money on expensive 1911s and many other guns I have bought and sold over the years - I can't find again that fits me and balances as well as the regular, non railed 92FS. I actually would kinda like to carry a 45 over a 9mm - but I like the damn 92 too much :D

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 09:43 PM
[QUOTE]Hey Shipwreck what's the difference between all the various 92 models anyway?

Well, I don't have really good up close pics of the compacts yet - as I will probably do that in a couple of weeks...

But - here is a pic of a 92FS without nightsights (my carry 92 has factory night sights, but is otherwise the same gun)... This is the 92FS we all know... It is a more recent model - Sometimes around 2000-2003 (I forget), they changed the dustcover to a curved on, instead of straight. And, they made a slight change to the back strap. There is an indentation near the top, to let your hand get closer to the trigger. The M9 does not have this change.

I have small hands, so I can tell the difference. While I prefer the look of the straight dustcover, I do not like the gun as much without that rear indentation.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/Beretta-89000-1.jpg

----------------------

Here is an M9A1 - basically a railed 92FS. The slide IS actually a 92FS slide, and says "92FS". But the frame is marked "M9A1." And, the trigger guard is shaped like the older Vertec frames. There is checkering on the front and rear straps. But I personally prefer the regular serrations to the checkering. It's too shallow and not sharp enough IMHO. Finally, the magwell has a slight bevel,. like many 1911s do.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/M9A1-9001.jpg

--------------------------

90-Two came out in teh summer of 2006. I have had two of these since they came out. I personally hate the plastic grip. there are NO aftermarket grip options other than a slip on rubber grip. Several people have tried to MAKE their own solutions, and I tried 3 or 4 options, but never found anything satisfactory.

There is an internal recoil buffer, and a rail. I also personally like the styling of the gun. I just wish they had left regular 92 grips as an option.

Also - the front sight is dovetailed instead of being built into the slide, and the guiderod is captive as well.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/90-two-902-1.jpg

--------------

92A1 - These came out in the summer of 2010. Essentially a 90-Two (the improvements of the guiderod, dovetailed sight and internal recoil buffer), but in a more classic 92 style. You can finally use the regular 92 grips. The slide is just slightly beefier than a regular 92 slide, as is the 90-Two slide.

The upper and lowers of the 92A1 and 90-Two can interchange.

One can only put a 92FS slide on a 92A1 or 90-Two frame, and then there will be a cap near the dustcover. One CANNOT put a 90-Two or 92A1 slide on a regular 92FS frame. Because of the guiderod change, the slide is shaped differently.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/92a1-9000.jpg

----------

92FS Type F Compact - As stated above, I haven't had a chance to take good pics yet. The gun holds 13 rounds instead of 15, and the barrel is 4.3 inches long instead of 4.9. It is essentially a shrunk down 92FS - as the gun is still double stack.

Years ago, there was a "Type M" - which was a single stack 92 compact of similar size, but with a narrower grip. The type M could not use a regular 92FS magazine. The 92Fs compact Type F can, however.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/92compact.jpg

------------

Finally, there is a 92FS Inox -which is a stainless model (stainless upper, silver anodized frame). I have had some before, but I prefer Berettas in black. I have no plans to buy an Inox again.

I generally prefer stainless/silver colored semi autos in all guns but Beretta 92s. To me, I only like a Beretta 92 in all black. All I will own... :)

IdahoLT1
March 23, 2011, 09:45 PM
I shot my 92F next to my buddies PX4 9mm to compare recoil. Using the same ammo, I noticed the PX4 had less recoil, despite being 6 ounces lighter.

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 09:46 PM
Here is another mag comparison pic the owner of the Beretta Forum made in response to a magazine question someone asked this week:

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/magbasecomparison.jpg

NG VI
March 23, 2011, 09:55 PM
Aha, that's why I thought the 18 was bulkier! I only had a Mec-Gar 17 to compare it to, with it's steel basepad!


Thanks for the comparison, at a glance they all look very much alike besides the INOX and railed versions.

ForumSurfer
March 23, 2011, 10:02 PM
Thanks. You da man! And yea, they are variants :)

I enjoy collecting the various models of my fav gun.

Self justification, brother. I have multiple glock 19's. :)

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 10:44 PM
Hahahaha :D

tactidrool
March 23, 2011, 10:57 PM
I haven't shot them yet - I plan to do that the first weekend of April. But, the grip lenths with the pinky extensions on the mags are around the size of an Hk P2000 or Hk USPc grip lenths.

Isn't that the subcompact? The compact has a longer grip, and no magazine pinky extension.

Shipwreck
March 23, 2011, 11:18 PM
No, there is no subcompact 92. The closest to that is the discontinued 9000. There is a subcompact PX4, though....

There is the Type L compact (the one above - 13 round double stack) and the Type M - a single stack compact

happygeek
March 24, 2011, 01:32 AM
No normal person would enjoy concealed carrying a Beretta 92 IWB. (nor would he own 7 or 8 of the same gun)

I would say a 1911 is a better CC weapon, since it has the narrower slide.


I CC my Beretta 92FS and I like to think of myself as somewhat normal.

It's actually more comfortable for IWB than my 1911 since the hammer doesn't jab me in the side. I've found it's surprisingly comfortable IWB at 3:00 actually and about the only time I CC the 1911 anymore is when I'm shooting the Beretta at the range.

Of course that's just me (5 ft 8 in, 195 lbs, probably 10-12% body fat) and everyone is different.

XTrooper
March 24, 2011, 07:51 PM
I have a Px4 Storm Type G Full Size .40 S&W which serves as my current "house gun." I'm very satisfied with it and would buy it again.

It is extremely accurate, has low felt recoil, and is utterly reliable. What more could you ask for? :)

http://xtrooper.net/Beretta_Px4_6.jpg

Jeb21
March 24, 2011, 09:13 PM
I carry a 92fs IWB quite often, in fact I am carrying one now. With the right holster is it very comfortable.

If you enjoyed reading about "92 or PX4?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!