Taurus 92 compared to Beretta


PDA






Hunter 35
October 24, 2011, 08:25 PM
Hello all, I'm new to this forum so I hope I'm asking this question in the correct place. If not I'm sure I'll find out soon enough.
I'm in the market for a new gun and was thinking about the Taurus 92 or 99. I know that Taurus is often talked about as junk but because the 92's are copies of the Beretta I thought they might be an exception to the rule.Taurus made a model called the 917 which is the 92 with a shorter barrel, but I believe it was discontinued?
Any thoughts or comments on these guns would be appreciated,
Thanks Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus 92 compared to Beretta" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mole
October 24, 2011, 08:30 PM
Many will say that the pt92 is the exception to the rule. I have one and it works perfectly. I got it over the Beretta because I like the Taurus safety better. Two of my buddies have Berettas and they both have better fit and finish than the Taurus, but you'll pay more.

hope it helps
mole

76shuvlinoff
October 24, 2011, 08:31 PM
Mine from the mid 80s was big but ran flawlessly. I own more expensive handguns now but I really regret selling it ....not to mention I sold it too cheaply.

Yoda
October 24, 2011, 08:57 PM
I got a PT-99 (92 with fixed sights) second hand, then noticed that the fired casings were ballooned out near the base. When i examined the feed ramp, it was clear that someone had polished the heck out of the ramp and the chamber, and the casings were not fully supported in the chamber when they fired. It was an unsafe condition.

I wrote a note to Taurus and explained the situation. I offered to pay for any repairs, since the problem was not caused by a manufacturing defect or material failure. It wasn't their fault.

Taurus fixed it for free. As far as I was concerned, they had no duty to do so, but they did it anyway.

I'm a Taurus fan.

BTW: Try one of their new .380s. The carry case is really nifty, and the felt recoil is less than a Bersa. My wife and daughters love them.

- - - Yoda

PT92
October 24, 2011, 09:01 PM
You can in no way go wrong by selecting the Taurus PT-92 over the Beretta as you can use the money saved for ammo or accessories:). That being said, the Beretta 92 is a great gun with only a few slight differences (no frame-mounted safety/decocker etc.). I have had great luck with all of my Taurus semis (92, 24/7, PT-25). Go for it!

-Cheers

Hunter 35
October 24, 2011, 09:05 PM
Thanks for the info. I have the Taurus Raging Judge Ultra Lite, but have never owned a Taurus auto... I appreciate your quick replies

Mike

David E
October 24, 2011, 10:02 PM
As I understand it, those Taurus "copies" are made from actual Beretta machinery. Why or how this came about, I don't recall.

I don't favor the current incarnation of Taurus's 92: I don't like a frame mounted decocker to also be the safety.

Ridgerunner665
October 24, 2011, 10:13 PM
Unless something has changed...the locking blocks are different too. Not saying either one is any better than the other...just that they are different in Beretta than in the Taurus.

I don't have a Taurus but a good friend does, I have a Beretta 96 Vertec...both are 40's and the locking blocks are different.

Nushif
October 24, 2011, 10:16 PM
I have both, and this is my take on it:

The Beretta is finished much better, but I hate the slide mounted safety. Overall it is the "better made" gun in terms of fit and finish.

The Taurus is functionally exactly the same, minus being dehorned and finished as nicely, with an inherently better safety position ....

So honestly I'd ask where do your priorities lie? Do you want the more intuitive safety as compared to a whole lot of pistols, or do you like the beautiful aesthetics of a nicely made gun more?

PT92
October 24, 2011, 10:34 PM
As I understand it, those Taurus "copies" are made from actual Beretta machinery. Why or how this came about, I don't recall...

Here's the long and short of the Taurus/Beretta connection:

http://www.taurususa.com/history.cfm

Beretta had won a huge contract in 1974 to produce small arms for the army of Brazil. Part of the deal was that Beretta construct a Brazilian factory and use Brazilian labor. This they did, in the southwestern coastal city of Sao Paulo. When the contract ran out in 1980, Beretta sold the plant, literally "lock, stock and barrel," to Taurus. Taurus now owned everything that once belonged to Beretta, including drawings, tooling, machinery, and a very experienced work force. Taurus was in the pistol business, and immediately sought to improve on the Beretta design, resulting in the popular and acclaimed Taurus PT-92 and PT-99 9mm pistols.


-Cheers

priler
October 25, 2011, 01:22 AM
generally i like the beretta better. i like the 92fs with the angled dust cover and no rail,the slightly deeper radius cut for the webbing of the hand,the forward flared bottom on the front strap,plus the option of other beretta 90 series family(evolution if you prefer) to choose from and they all come stock(current models NIB) with the latest beretta falling block. overall the berettas have been forced to go through a bit more "hell",forced to listen to it's main users a bit more and come out the other end a bit better for it.

not all new berettas come with everything above though,you have to know what you want and get it.

i've kinda always prefered the safety/decocker of the taurus on the frame but as time(years really) has gone by,i see it less and less of an issue and it's not a deciding factor for me any more.

i do think that in black the beretta has a better,more durable finish but you can always go with the taurus stainless look,..although,the stainless on the taurus can have a strange rainbow effect that i don't like,some taurus stainless don't have this but you have to look for them. i'm sure you can find an AFS. of course,there's the 92fs INOX.

the newer 917 have finger grooves,bit shorter barrel/slide and dove-tailed front sight and they can come stock with fiber optic front. i was disappointed when the 917 disappeared from their site but you can still find them. i actually like this one over at least some berettas and it comes in black or stainless. the features on this one just seem to come together nicely.

i like the fact you can get pt99 with adj rear that doesn't cost much more but i wouldn't go into enduring harms way with those,shouldn't be an issue otherwise. great factory NIB option and one up on beretta for this.

i'm not a brand snob when it comes to either one but long story short,neither one are losers,both are great but the scale tips towards beretta for me.

if you like the taurus,go for it. absolutely nothing wrong with it and you don't need to like what i like. other taurus models may be popular to many people and may have had no problems but the pt92 series has been a shining star in the taurus catalog for a long time now and unlike some other taurus models,refuses to go away. the gold colored controls option look gaudy to me but another factory option if you like.

sorry i discussed the beretta but i like both. both should be reliable.

oldandslow
October 25, 2011, 01:54 AM
35, 10/25/11

I have owned the Taurus PT-99 for about fifteen years. It is the same as the PT-92 except it has an adjustable rear sight. I had problems with the rear sight roll pin walking out of its hole during firing, then having the rear sight fall off onto the ground. This really slowed down my competition times in the local pistol matches. I got tired of replacing roll pins and finally filed a dovetail into the slide and mounted a spare HK-USP 45 fixed rear sight. No further problems.

At about a 3000 round count the slide locked up solid in the frame after firing a round. The locking block had broken and it was a bear to get the slide off. It took three days of calling Taurus' customer service before anyone answered the phone but they said to send in the defective part and they would replace it. Three months later I had not received the part. I called them and finally got hold of a helpful gentleman who looked up the pertinent facts and found they had shipped my part to the wrong state. He arranged shipment back to me and several weeks later it came in.

I own some Berettas but not the 92, although I have shot the 92. I think the fit, finish and quality is better with the Berettas and would go with a used one over a new Taurus 92/96. Resale value will also hold up much better with the Beretta. While the Taurus PT-92/99 is a bright spot in their pistol lineup I would not buy another Taurus if it could be helped.

best wishes- oldandslow

Hunter 35
October 25, 2011, 03:22 AM
Wow!! lots of replies and very quickly. I appreciate all of your thoughts and ideas on Taurus vs Beretta. The difference in price isn't enough to make me pick one over the other, it's just always good to investigate all choices before making a decision. I really like the discontinued model 917 because of the shorter barrel, maybe I'll be able to find one of them still floating around...
Thanks again, Mike

2wheels
October 25, 2011, 10:06 AM
The slide mounted safety/decocker on the Beretta is now a deal killer for me on a defensive/CCW gun, after owning my Stoeger Cougar for a while. I only bought it as a cheap range toy so I don't worry about it too much. That's really my only beef with Berettas, might not matter to you.

I only have a little bit of experience with both Taurus and Beretta, Beretta no doubt puts out a nicer product but both have always worked for me.

wally
October 25, 2011, 10:07 PM
I've both. I shoot the Taurus because I dislike DA/SA operation. The Beretta looks prettier, but the PT-92 shoots just as good. Its the best Taurus makes and a very good pistol IMHO.

David E
October 25, 2011, 10:17 PM
The big problem with a frame mounted safety/decocker is that it's very easy to decock the gun while you're shooting it. This "feature" can be very detrimental, perhaps deadly, on a serious gun.

1KPerDay
October 25, 2011, 10:23 PM
Do you feel the same way about all the FN/H&K etc. pistols with a similar system?

I disagree that it's "very easy" to decock the gun while you're shooting it. I VASTLY prefer the frame-mounted safety/decocker vs. the Beretta slide-mounted variety (I own both).

I've never had a single malfunction of any kind with my Taurus PT101. I have, however, had unintentional decocks while clearing malfunctions in the beretta.

Big Mike
October 25, 2011, 10:49 PM
I've had both. Feedback above is good. My Beretta 92 was much better "finished" than my PT92, but I much preferred the frame mounted decocker of the Taurus to the slide mounted Beretta. I would say that both were equally smooth in their operation and reliability. Lots of PT92 info at taurusarmed.net re: model 917, and other pistols Taurus has created from the PT92 based design (and others).

Mr. Doughnut
October 25, 2011, 10:58 PM
Hunter 35:

In my opinion, the Taurus PT92/99 series is severely underrated. My circa-1990 Taurus PT92 (no decocker) has had thousands of rounds put through it and has performed flawlessly.

I have no personal experience with the Beretta, but I can tell you that my Taurus PT92 will shoot rings around a stock Colt 1911. I love the Colt 1911 and have owned more than a few over the past 35+ years, but the Taurus is a better gun, period. It has more than double the capacity, much better reliability and superb accuracy. Field stripping is easier, too.

If you like the PT92/99 configuration, get the Taurus (instead of the Beretta) and then alot the leftover $ to ammo and/or a good holster.

One caveat, though. The PT92/92 (and their Beretta counterparts) have a fairly wide grip. If the gun fits your hand, you'll be happy. But if it's a stretch, or simply uncomfortable, look for something else.

And as has been pointed out in this thread, the Taurus warranty is hard to beat.

Bottom line: You can't go wrong with a Taurus PT92/99.

Your mileage may vary. Just my $.02.

Mr. Doughnut

LawScholar
October 25, 2011, 11:16 PM
The PT-92 series is no longer made on authentic Beretta machinery. Not for some years now.

For my two cents, get the original, not a cheaply finished imitator. Will you remember the $100 you save in 5 years?

m2steven
October 26, 2011, 12:01 AM
I have a beautiful Taurus PT 92AFS and it's a great pistol. It's made with genuine "old world" machinery unlike some of the newer stuff Taurus makes. I think it's a sensational value. There is obviously nothing wrong with a "real" Beretta, but I'd sell mine to anyone with zero guilt and am sure the new owner would have a smile upon his/her face after shooting it. It's not for sale however. A GREAT pistol.

I've had trouble with some of the newer Taurus autos out of the box, but after a trip to Taurus - they work perfectly. Taurus pistols are well designed but the work during assembly leaves a lot to be desired.

David E
October 26, 2011, 03:58 PM
Do you feel the same way about all the FN/H&K etc. pistols with a similar system?

Both the FN and HK systems are similarly lacking. Could I work around it if I absolutely had to? Sure, but why get a gun I have to go out of my way to work around?

I disagree that it's "very easy" to decock the gun while you're shooting it.

It depends on the shooter. If they are diehard 1911 shooters who keep their thumb properly on top of the grip safety while firing, they can easily decock the multi-function frame mounted decocker.

I, however, had unintentional decocks while clearing malfunctions in the beretta.

Which is why the good instructors and shooters teach or add a separate additional step to the clearing procedure. My Beretta is decock-only, so the worst I can do is revert back to a DA pull. (that's never happened, since the lever has sprung back up before the slide returns to battery)

But there is ZERO chance of decocking/deactivating the gun while firing.

Were I suggest a modern 9mm to someone, the Taurus and Beretta would both be pretty far down the list.

1KPerDay
October 26, 2011, 04:29 PM
Which is why the good instructors and shooters teach or add a separate additional step to the clearing procedure. What would that be?

axeman_g
October 27, 2011, 02:20 PM
Law... can you educate me on this statement? Was this due to machinery being replaced, factories moving or other factors?

mr.scott
October 27, 2011, 02:44 PM
Look at the ATI C92. It's a direct clone of the Beretta centurion.

David E
October 27, 2011, 02:47 PM
What would that be?

After the clearance process is done, the slide goes into battery. Immediately perform a thumb-up motion to ensure the slide mounted safety/decocker is in the "fire" position. You can do this while pushing the gun out towards the target. Alternatively or in addition to, you can use your off hand (thumb and/or index finger) to do it while pulling the slide back

1KPerDay
October 27, 2011, 04:02 PM
Thanks

wally
October 27, 2011, 09:54 PM
I disagree that it's "very easy" to decock the gun while you're shooting it

It is if you learned the 1911 technique of riding the safety with your thumb.

I prefer the Beretta 9000S system of up past safe to decock, but I basically am a cocked and locked guy.

PT92
October 27, 2011, 10:04 PM
Were I suggest a modern 9mm to someone, the Taurus and Beretta would both be pretty far down the list.

Wow-For a full-size 9mm, I couldn't disagree more as the Beretta 92 (or Taurus equivalent) fits like a glove and the balance is such that I can almost fire it blind at the range. Now for CCW, it's not for me as I carry a compact 9.

But it's great that we all have our own opinions.

-Cheers

LawScholar
October 27, 2011, 11:45 PM
Law... can you educate me on this statement? Was this due to machinery being replaced, factories moving or other factors?

The former, as I understood it. Taurus design and materials revisions necessitated updates to machining.

jim243
October 27, 2011, 11:56 PM
Personal choice, both good weapons. My choice was the PT-92 because I do not like the Beretta safety, have the PX4 Storm but hate the safety.

Jim

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/IMG_0823.jpg

bullseye717
October 28, 2011, 01:01 AM
Neither and go with the Yavuz 16. Cheaper than the Taurus, better fit and finish than the Beretta.

David E
October 28, 2011, 03:27 PM
Wow-For a full-size 9mm, I couldn't disagree more as the Beretta 92 (or Taurus equivalent) fits like a glove...

It's too big for most people, the DA trigger reach, too far. The reset, needlessly long.

There are other guns that fit most folks better and are easier to learn to shoot.

BUT, if someone found the 92 fit their hand like a glove, I wouldn't talk them out of it, but I'd mention the additional gun handling protocols the gun requires. And I'd suggest the Beretta over the Taurus.

Shawn Dodson
October 28, 2011, 05:57 PM
I carried a Beretta 96FS on police patrol but I prefer the Taurus' frame mounted manual safety/decocker to the Beretta's slide mounted hammer drop safety.

3KillerBs
October 28, 2011, 06:39 PM
It's too big for most people, the DA trigger reach, too far. The reset, needlessly long.

That sounds strange to me.

I'm a woman with smaller hands and a particularly short trigger reach yet the Beretta/Taurus 92's are the best-fitting guns I've handled/shot. When I pick one up it fits into my hand as though they'd taken a cast when they designed the grips.

And, unlike the full-size 1911's, I can reach all the controls without any difficulty. If I shot a match with one I wouldn't have to have the RO lock my slide back to show clear for me.

If I get one, and I hope I do (but a purely range gun with no other purpose in my life is low on the priority list), I'll get the Taurus because the position of the safety works better for me.

David E
October 30, 2011, 12:03 AM
That sounds strange to me.

I'm a woman with smaller hands and a particularly short trigger reach yet the Beretta/Taurus 92's are the best-fitting guns I've handled/shot. When I pick one up it fits into my hand as though they'd taken a cast when they designed the grips.

While many people can shoot the gun comfortably once the hammer is cocked, can you properly reach the trigger when the hammer is down without rotating your hand on the grip? Many folks can't.

And, unlike the full-size 1911's, I can reach all the controls without any difficulty. If I shot a match with one I wouldn't have to have the RO lock my slide back to show clear for me.

The 1911 was really the first modular handgun made. If you can't reach or work this or that control, there is a replacement that'll likely solve the issue for you. I installed a "low mount" thumb safety for my small handed daughter and it solved the problem. As far as locking back the slide, that's simply a technique issue.

JaxNovice
October 30, 2011, 08:15 AM
The single dumbest things I ever did was sell my Beretta INOX. It was the smoothest pistols I have ever owned.

3KillerBs
October 30, 2011, 12:46 PM
As far as locking back the slide, that's simply a technique issue.

No, its a size of hand issue. I cannot physically hold the slide, hold the grip, and reach the slide release lever at the same time unless I lay the gun down and pin it to the table with my forearm -- not the safest practice. The RO who owns that gun is a NRA certified instructor and there was at least one other instructor there at the time.

I have absolutely no problems shooting the 92. When I rented one at a range I was handed the cased gun and the mandatory "buy it here or don't shoot it at all" box of ammo, took it into the range, and did everything necessary to shoot it. It was a perfect fit. :)

The big Colt was a not a problem for trigger reach, shooting it was fine. But a compact Kimber 1911 that I did have to scoot my hand around to reach the trigger left the joint at the base of my thumb sore for a week after one magazine. I've also has trigger reach issues with other small guns, notably the Kel-tecs and one of the Bersa's.

Yet that monster 92 is perfect. If it didn't weight half a ton and could be concealed under anything short of a hoop skirt I'd have gotten it second, after my Ruger Mark III. :D

I think it may have as much to do with the shape of my hand as with the overall size. Rather than the narrow hand and long, slender fingers of a normal woman's hand, I have a wide palm with relatively shorter fingers -- like a miniature man's hand. I wear boy's gloves rather than women's because women's are too tight even while the fingers are too long.

David E
October 30, 2011, 01:52 PM
No, its a size of hand issue. I cannot physically hold the slide, hold the grip, and reach the slide release lever at the same time unless I lay the gun down and pin it to the table with my forearm -- not the safest practice. The RO who owns that gun is a NRA certified instructor and there was at least one other instructor there at the time.

With all due respect, maybe a different instructor(s) is in order. I've taught many folks with small hands how to lock the slide on a 1911, some in an impromptu lesson at the gun counter. (employees know me and often ask) 99.9% of the time, its a technique issue. The rest of the time, two alternatives are available to you: 1) replace the standard slide stop with an extended one, or 2) insert an empty magazine to operate the slide stop for you when you fully retract the slide. #2 is an easy, no cost solution that beats the hell out of "pinning it on a table with your forearm." I'm amazed these "instructors" didn't think of that.

I have absolutely no problems shooting the 92. When I rented one at a range I did everything necessary to shoot it. It was a perfect fit. :)

The big Colt was a not a problem for trigger reach, shooting it was fine. But a compact Kimber 1911 that I did have to scoot my hand around to reach the trigger left the joint at the base of my thumb sore for a week after one magazine.

IF your hands are truly that small, it seems incongruous that you find the Beretta a "perfect fit," to presumably include proper trigger finger placement when the trigger is fully forward. (which you didn't specifically address) while a 1911 is not, as the trigger reach is measurably shorter.

The full-size and compact 1911's have the same trigger reach, if set up the same. (same mainspring housing, same grip thickness, same grip safety, thumb safety and same length trigger.) It sounds like the compact was simply not set up the same.

I would guess you need a 1911 set up with a short trigger, thin grips, flat mainspring housing, low mount thumb safety and Ed Brown beavertail grip safety. I doubt the compact or even full-size was set up that way.

NG VI
October 30, 2011, 02:37 PM
I really like the discontinued model 917 because of the shorter barrel, maybe I'll be able to find one of them still floating around...
Thanks again, Mike


ATI's been making and importing some Centurion-type 92 clones recently, that are supposed to be excellent and are maybe half the cost of a Beretta. Centurions are the shorter barreled versions, the way you like 'em.

NG VI
October 30, 2011, 02:40 PM
Sorry ATI's been importing some 92 clones, not making.

3KillerBs
October 30, 2011, 02:58 PM
...

I would guess you need a 1911 set up with a short trigger, thin grips, flat mainspring housing, low mount thumb safety and Ed Brown beavertail grip safety. I doubt the compact or even full-size was set up that way.

Or I can just buy a 92 instead of a 1911. :D

I can use a 1911 if I'm ever in a situation where that's all I had available to pick up. But there's no point to spending any of my money on a gun that doesn't fit and has to be heavily modified to make it comfortable to use.

I tell the story of using that borrowed Colt to make the point that being able to shoot a gun isn't the whole story where good gun fit is concerned.

I comment about the incongruity of the 92 fitting so well despite my hands being rather small (I loaded and fired several magazines in the rented 92 then cleared the gun safe to return it to the rental counter so I must surely have had the trigger in the position you're mentioning at some point though I didn't consciously note it), to illustrate the fact that the size of the gun doesn't necessarily correlate to the length of the trigger reach or the size of hand needed to use it. :)

Jaymo
October 30, 2011, 03:10 PM
13 years shooting 2 of them and not a single malf.
Of all the Taurus pistols/revolvers I've owned since 1991, I've never had a single problem.

PowerG
October 30, 2011, 03:18 PM
I have owned both pistols, I also much prefer the safety on the Taurus.

The design itself, for me, fits very well. I'm more of a 1911 guy, but I prefer shooting the 92 over almost all other 9mm handguns. It is a large pistol.

David E
October 30, 2011, 03:30 PM
I comment about the incongruity of the 92 fitting so well despite my hands being rather small (I loaded and fired several magazines in the rented 92 then cleared the gun safe to return it to the rental counter so I must surely have had the trigger in the position you're mentioning at some point though I didn't consciously note it), to illustrate the fact that the size of the gun doesn't necessarily correlate to the length of the trigger reach or the size of hand needed to use it. :)

As I stated in my first response to you, many folks CAN shoot the 92......once the hammer is cocked, as that moves the trigger pretty far to the rear. Since you have no conscious recollection of trigger finger placement, it sounds like you only fired the gun from the single action mode. Load mag, insert mag, chamber round, shoot.

Had you decocked the gun on a chambered round, I bet you would've remembered the long DA trigger reach, given your small hand size/short fingers.

You do hit on the gun fit issue, but only partially: on any given gun, you need to thoroughly test it in all modes the gun is capable of. In the case of the Beretta, if you didn't fire it in DA mode, then you don't know if it really "fits" you, or that it's truly suitable. You'd also need to test the decocking lever, etc, as you'd need to reliably activate it as a matter of routine.

I said earlier that if I were asked to recommend a modern 9mm for someone who is open to ideas, the Beretta/Taurus 92's are pretty far down the list. This has more to do with the proper gunhandling protocols those models require than gun fit.

Whiskey11
October 31, 2011, 01:34 AM
The reset, needlessly long.

I'm not sure what M92 you've shot, but mine literally resets quite literally a MM off of the release point. I'm not sure that is what I'd qualify as needlessly long. My XD45 Tactical has a longer reset by about a mm.

happygeek
October 31, 2011, 02:47 AM
As I stated in my first response to you, many folks CAN shoot the 92......once the hammer is cocked, as that moves the trigger pretty far to the rear. Since you have no conscious recollection of trigger finger placement, it sounds like you only fired the gun from the single action mode. Load mag, insert mag, chamber round, shoot.


?

You have to take the safety off and manually cock the hammer to get it to single action mode, that or take the safety off and pull the trigger with a round in the chamber (disclaimer: don't actually execute option 2 unless you're on a hot range). The 92fs is on double action after you insert a mag and hit the slide release with the safety on. Of course once you do that you can always take the safety off and carry it around Glock style, I know many that do. I don't know anyone who carries a 92fs/M9 around with the safety off and the pistol in SA mode.

I routinely CC my 92fs IWB with jeans and a t-shirt. Then again open carry is legal here and there's no law against 'printing'.

David E
October 31, 2011, 10:36 AM
I'm not sure what M92 you've shot, but mine literally resets quite literally a MM off of the release point. I'm not sure that is what I'd qualify as needlessly long. My XD45 Tactical has a longer reset by about a mm.

I suppose it depends what you're used to. They have a long reset (about 1/2") followed by a long take up (about 1/4"). Compared to a Glock or PPQ or 1911, it's needlessly long. My personal 92 has been fitted with an over-travel stop, handily minimizing these shortcomings.

David E
October 31, 2011, 10:44 AM
?

You have to take the safety off and manually cock the hammer to get it to single action mode, that or take the safety off and pull the trigger with a round in the chamber. The 92 is in DA mode when the slide is dropped with the safety on.

That presumes she dropped the slide with the safety applied. If she did not (she hasn't told us either way) then it's easy to totally bypass the DA mode for the 2-3 mags she put thru it. And no offense, but firing 2-3 mags thru a given gun does not make one an authority on given gun.

A short fingered person who finds the trigger reach on a compact 1911 too long, it's difficult for me to visualize that same person NOT having a problem reaching the 92 trigger when in DA mode.

For small handed folks, I suggest the M&P, XDM, XD, Kahr or even Glock.

JTQ
October 31, 2011, 11:20 AM
3KillerBs, while everybody's hands are different, I'm inclined to agree with DavidE, that a 1911 would most likely be easier for the small handed to use than the Beretta 92.

The size of Beretta and the problems it creates for folk's with small hands is reported in practically every article on the 92. Beretta even came out with the Vertec model to accommodate those with smaller hands. The Vertec, in my opinion, is a huge improvement for those with small hands over the standard 92. I believe the Vertec grip shape was even patterned after the 1911 to improve comfort for those with small hands.

I will grant you that locking the slide back on an empty gun does require some effort. An empty mag makes it very easy.

RX-178
October 31, 2011, 11:36 AM
Ideally I'd probably most prefer an early Beretta with the frame safety. I just prefer carrying in condition one and I always have.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with the PT92, and for the prices nowadays if I had a choice, I'd go with the PT92 without hesitation.

If I were to carry a Beretta 92 with the slide safety, I'd probably carry it decocked with the safety off in DA/SA mode.

Ben86
October 31, 2011, 12:41 PM
I really like the Taurus decocker/safety. It allows you to carry it cocked in single action mode with the safety on. That's how I prefer to carry my CZ75. It also sweeps down to deactivate the safety, which is my preference. I consider it an improvement of the slide mounted Beretta safety.

I've shot a friend's Taurus 92 in .40 and liked it very much. It was reasonably accurate and the recoil was so light it felt like a 9mm. I imagine the 9mm feels more like a .380. It is also very reliable. I plan on buying a 9mm T92 in the near future.

jonn5335
October 31, 2011, 09:38 PM
I bought a beretta. My buddy bought a taurus. My buddy wishes he had a beretta. I'm happy with my beretta. The taurus just feels cheap in your hands. When it come down to it would you rather own a car made in Italy or a random third world country? I think the same thing comes to mind with handguns.

PT92
October 31, 2011, 10:04 PM
I bought a beretta. My buddy bought a taurus. My buddy wishes he had a beretta. I'm happy with my beretta. The taurus just feels cheap in your hands. When it come down to it would you rather own a car made in Italy or a random third world country? I think the same thing comes to mind with handguns.

Can't go wrong either way but I suggest you read up on the history behind the Taurus version (PT-92) as unanimous consent is that it is not some gun made in a "random third world country." You can argue the merits of the frame mounted vs. slide safety/decocker etc. and just be brand loyal, but you will find that no one (that I have ever heard at least) refers to the PT-92 as "cheap." Just my two cents...

-Cheers

Feanor
October 31, 2011, 10:54 PM
in the market for a new gun and was thinking about the Taurus 92 or 99. I know that Taurus is often talked about as junk but because the 92s are copies of the Beretta I thought they might be an exception to the rule.

Superior parts, superior fit & finish, superior customer service, and the Beretta 92FS is exactly the same pistol as we issue our service men & women.

Taurus manufactures a clone, their customer service is likely the worst in the industry.

Whiskey11
November 1, 2011, 02:06 PM
I suppose it depends what you're used to. They have a long reset (about 1/2") followed by a long take up (about 1/4"). Compared to a Glock or PPQ or 1911, it's needlessly long. My personal 92 has been fitted with an over-travel stop, handily minimizing these shortcomings.

Perception is obviously everything, and my perception of a mm was off. The actual distance as measured at the bottom of the trigger was 3/8" with an 1/8" of pickup before shooting again. My XD45 Tactical is 1/2" with a 1/4" take up. The XD is a pretty popular service handgun and the Beretta's is much shorter. So obviously it feels much much shorter. The M92A1 does fit in my hand much better than the XD did, but I added the Hogue Handall to the XD and the Hogue grips for the M92A1 and they both fit well. I do prefer the M92A1's reset and action smoothness to the XD, but I don't have a holster for the M92A1 and I do for the XD. I don't see that as needlessly long. The reset on my buddy's Glock 23 wasn't any shorter than my XD was.

The 1911 has, arguably, the best trigger of any firearm in the world, so comparing the M92A1 to a 1911 is like comparing a Lambo to a V6 1990's Mustang.

Hk Dan
November 1, 2011, 02:17 PM
I am unabashedly anti-Taurus. They sold me a lemon a while back in the form of a PT945 and I've vowed never to own another one.

The safety debate--I carried a Beretta 96 for 2 years and I too hated the slide mounted safety. Who in their right mind would put that thing THERE? <g> I solved the problem by carrying it on Fire, DAO. Not ideal, but the pistol was fearfully accurate and wonderfully soft shooting so I stuck with it. I shifted to a USP40 later and never looked back. No Compromise, baby! LOL

PT92
November 1, 2011, 02:18 PM
Superior parts...

How so?

-Cheers

tnxdshooter
November 1, 2011, 02:44 PM
Thanks for the info. I have the Taurus Raging Judge Ultra Lite, but have never owned a Taurus auto... I appreciate your quick replies

Mike

Ive got a taurus pt 1911. You can put wilson combat parts on it or leave it stock. No issues with it ever. My buddy owns a kimber he was pissed cuz he had a few.ftf at the range last time while the 1911 taurus was hammering nails. In the 90's i wouldnt have touched a taurus that isnt the case today. Their president used to be president at colt and alot of their revolvers and 1911s are made on old colt dies they bought from colt. I have my eye on a taurus pt 740 slim as kind of a pocket pistol for summer carry.

Sent with Droid Incredible using Tapatalk.

David E
November 1, 2011, 03:41 PM
The unaltered 92 and XD both have an unacceptably long reset and take-up. One thing about an unaltered Glock is, when it resets, there is no take-up; you're ready to fire from there.

Happily, it doesn't take much to fix the triggers on Glocks, XD's and M&P's. The Beretta can be improved, of course. Not as much, but enough to matter.

Outside if the 1911, the best reset I've found on the poly guns from the box is the Walther PPQ and the near clone by Magnum Research.

Guillermo
November 1, 2011, 03:47 PM
I recall that when the Army went to Beretta they had frames break. Eventually they shipped the guns with 2 slides.

During the same period Taurus was ramping up the power with the 41AE with no slide issues.

Makes one think about which one is the better gun

tx_pistolero
November 1, 2011, 04:17 PM
I've used both 92's extensively (former 45-Bravo, Small Arms Repair MOS in the army). I prefer the Taurus PT-92, because I feel like it is an improved design. The safety position and action just works better. having said that, if you train with the Beretta you get used to the safety, it's just not as natural. I have several thousand rounds through one of my PT-92s, and can count on one (maybe two) the FTF's. Most, if not all, with budget ammo.

I think it is a ineffective argument that flipping the the safety on by accident is a danger during a defensive situation. If you have a problem hitting random buttons you are probably going to be thwarted by magazine releases and slide locks and/or any other buttons you go around accidentally pushing during the normal operation of your weapon. In that case, you should probably go with a glock. They are designed for those types of users in mind. Either way, you are going to have problems operating a handgun.

MidwestRookie
November 1, 2011, 06:04 PM
Anyone who thinks the Taurus is a better gun is dumb.

There, I said it.

Now back to your originally scheduled delusional lives..

David E
November 1, 2011, 06:32 PM
I recall that when the Army went to Beretta they had frames break. Eventually they shipped the guns with 2 slides.


The frames didn't break, the slides did. This was due to using proof loads (apparently a LOT of them) until a handful of slides separated. Beretta attended to the issue and no further problems occurred.

This prompted a ridiculous parts replacement schedule, tho.

David E
November 1, 2011, 06:41 PM
I think it is a ineffective argument that flipping the the safety on by accident is a danger during a defensive situation. If you have a problem hitting random buttons you are probably going to be thwarted by magazine releases and slide locks and/or any other buttons you go around accidentally pushing during the normal operation of your weapon. In that case, you should probably go with a glock. They are designed for those types of users in mind. Either way, you are going to have problems operating a handgun.

Ah, how utterly pompous this is.

Either you don't understand the problem, or have insufficient experience that shows it can be a problem for some shooters, primarily 1911 shooters that keep their thumb atop the frame mounted safety.

If you refer to activating the slide mounted safety while clearing a jam, it can easily be activated in that process.

You'd only have to get off your couch and teach or attend one shooting class to observe any of this for yourself.

Guillermo
November 1, 2011, 06:42 PM
The frames didn't break, the slides did.

You are correct. I mistyped.

tx_pistolero
November 1, 2011, 09:55 PM
Ah, how utterly pompous this is.

Either you don't understand the problem, or have insufficient experience that shows it can be a problem for some shooters, primarily 1911 shooters that keep their thumb atop the frame mounted safety.

If you refer to activating the slide mounted safety while clearing a jam, it can easily be activated in that process.

You'd only have to get off your couch and teach or attend one shooting class to observe any of this for yourself.

Talk about pompous. You should re-read what you just wrote. I think you are jumping conclusions in several areas. Not everyone in the world is coming from a 1911. In fact, I have a feeling that these days, 1911 users are on a whole, experienced/advanced users and would little reason to be moving sideways to a completely different platform that is not much farther advanced technology wise than the 1911.

Besides:

Your quote" If you refer to activating the slide mounted safety while clearing a jam, it can easily be activated in that process." highlights the fact that the safety on a PT92 is NOT on the slide, which is why it is exactly what makes it a BETTER DESIGN.

PT92
November 1, 2011, 10:01 PM
Anyone who thinks the Taurus is a better gun is dumb.

There, I said it.

Now back to your originally scheduled delusional lives..
Mods--I would like to FLAG this mesage as offensive and troll-like totally unbecoming of this board.

-MW

MidwestRookie
November 1, 2011, 10:18 PM
sorry Taurus fanboy...it is what it is.

stolen design, inferior product. just gonna have to live with it..

PT92
November 1, 2011, 10:40 PM
sorry Taurus fanboy...it is what it is.

stolen design, inferior product. just gonna have to live with it..
Up until rookie, it was an intelligent conversation.

I could care less if one prefers a S&W, Taurus, Beretta but I HATE internet beer goggles whereby rookie-like 'Goliath's' think they can insult fellow posters by calling them "dumb" simply because they have a countering opinion.

I reiterate that the mods admonish rookie for his sophomoric and demeaning tone.

-Cheers

MidwestRookie
November 1, 2011, 10:45 PM
You're demeaning.

I can't help that there's no tone on internet text..

Don't get all upset over 1's and 0's converted into shapes on a computer screen. Maybe I was joking..

Maybe I like that all versions of the 92 are popular and feel like some testosterone was needed to liven the conversation? Huh, tough guy? What now?

at least one of these things is true

3KillerBs
November 1, 2011, 10:49 PM
3KillerBs, while everybody's hands are different, I'm inclined to agree with DavidE, that a 1911 would most likely be easier for the small handed to use than the Beretta 92.

...
I will grant you that locking the slide back on an empty gun does require some effort. An empty mag makes it very easy.

*shrug*

As I said, I had no difficulty at all shooting that borrowed Colt (it was the compact Kimber that hurt my thumb joint). And I can rack the slide on every gun I've attempted (the tiniest .380s feel the most difficult, perhaps because there is less to get ahold of?). I simply could not manage to reach the slide release lever while holding the slide and the grip because none of my fingers were long enough.

If I were in a position where I ABSOLUTELY HAD TO to lock the slide back on a gun of that model I could do it by laying the gun on a firm, non-slip surface, pulling the slide back, pinning the grip down under my wrist, and using my now-freed-hand to operate the lever.

But that would be a ridiculous thing to do to someone's favorite target gun when I had an option. And, being at a match, the magazine had to be dropped and the slide locked back to show clear when the range was cold. Solution, let the owner do it. No big deal.

I'm somewhat tempted to go to the gun shop for a dry-fire and photo session with a 92. :D

MidwestRookie
November 1, 2011, 10:55 PM
Speaking of dry-fire..I admit that a 92 trigger isn't adequate without a D spring...I see no reason in leaving the trigger stock when a $5 spring can make it so much nicer. Others will obviously feel it's OK, but I don't like the feeling of the stock pull knowing what it can be with a new mainspring.

I wonder if the D spring can be installed in a Taurus?

priler
November 2, 2011, 09:50 AM
yes,you can install the "D" spring on the taurus pt92 series,all of them.









something i'd like to point out that i mentioned on my previous post for those of you trying to get a better grip on any of these. many beretta 90 series have a factory mod that was implemented some time ago. it's a tiny mod but it might make a difference for you,..or it might not at all.

right below the beaver-tail,the radius has been cut slightly deeper. this allows you to "dig in" a little more and possibly even allows for a little better trigger control. it's kind of the same difference between the CZ based tanfoglio pistols(and those based on the tanfo) and the CZ pistols. the tanfo having a deeper radius,although the difference is a bit more pronounced on the tanfo than the beretta.

not all berettas have this,even NIB,so you have to know what i mean and get the right one.

the difference is just slight but i can actually feel it and it allows me slighty better trigger control. i don't have small hands by the way but i do prefer using a specific trigger technique i've developed over the years(even in DA mode) and that slightly deeper radius actually helps. for those of you that it's not about trigger technique but rather about having small hands,it might help a little.

none of the taurus pt92 series have this.

MIgunguy
November 2, 2011, 10:23 AM
I've got a PT-92C the oldest version AKAIK... frame mounted safety, no decocker. Don't plan on carrying it but love it for the range & shooting pins & plates.

Ben86
November 2, 2011, 01:11 PM
Anyone who thinks the Taurus is a better gun is dumb.

There, I said it.

Now back to your originally scheduled delusional lives..

I feel so enlightened now, if only I would have had use of your sharp wit before I started enjoying Taurus firearms.

1KPerDay
November 2, 2011, 01:31 PM
I laughed... and I took it as intended, as a joke. Pity that's what this thread has become.

PT92
November 2, 2011, 01:56 PM
I laughed... and I took it as intended, as a joke. Pity that's what this thread has become.
1K, That's your opinion but not mine.

-Cheers

David E
November 2, 2011, 02:04 PM
*shrug*
. I simply could not manage to reach the slide release lever while holding the slide and the grip because none of my fingers were long enough.

This is simply a matter of applying the proper technique. I'm surprised neither if your "instructors" were able to show the proper technique. For the .01% chance you couldn't do it, then said "instructors" should've suggested inserting an empty mag to help you lock back the slide.

And, being at a match, the magazine had to be dropped and the slide locked back to show clear when the range was cold. Solution, let the owner do it. No big deal.

The best way to "unload and show clear" in your case (or if the gun has a mag disconnect safety) is to eject the partially loaded mag, rack the slide to eject the chambered round, pull an empty mag from your back pocket, show the RO it's empty, insert mag, rack slide (which will now lock open) remove mag and continue with the procedure.

I'm somewhat tempted to go to the gun shop for a dry-fire and photo session with a 92. :D

that's a dandy idea. Be sure and take a pic of you holding the gun, hammer down, proper firing grip and see where your finger lands on the trigger.

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