Beretta 92 FS, Any reason not to buy ?


PDA






2bfree
May 8, 2013, 04:45 PM
I was at the gunsmiths today and stopped in at the LGS next door, just to look. I have wanted a full size 9m and looked at the 92FS, I liked it. The gripe was fine and really liked the site radius much more then my compact. I wear trifocals and the radius seems to make a big difference, at least that is why I shoot my 1911 and Blackhawk so much better I think :confused: At 625.00 +tax any good reason not to buy. Thanks for any input, I have a hard time spending my money.
This will be a range gun only.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beretta 92 FS, Any reason not to buy ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kiln
May 8, 2013, 05:01 PM
I've never been a fan of the Beretta. Honestly though, I can't think of any good reasons not to buy one. I might go with a Taurus because of the lifetime warranty and frame mounted safety. The reports on the Taurus PT92 have been great.

The only reason I wouldn't buy an actual Beretta 92 is because there are better options in that price range, the CZ75B is a great gun and goes for over $100 less.

2bfree
May 8, 2013, 05:10 PM
But a shorter sight radius. I have a CZ 75 D compact and like it. Really want a 5 inch barrel and the Beretta at 4.9 is close.

allaroundhunter
May 8, 2013, 05:17 PM
If it fits you then no, there really is no reason not to take it. They are great firearms and have proven themselves over the years.

RetiredUSNChief
May 8, 2013, 05:19 PM
If you like the way it fits you hand and it's good with your eyes, then by all means...make the buy.

I've had mine for over 20 years and never regretted a moment. Sweet shooting, awesome feel in the hand, absolutely reliable, breaks down and assembles for cleaning like a dream. All that and a physical appearance that's very pleasing to the eye. Nothing to dislike in my opinion.

If you have the chance to shoot one, give it a try. Maybe that'll push you over the mark on the decision.

:):)

Pilot
May 8, 2013, 05:29 PM
After about 30 years of dedicated pistol shooting, I finally acquired a Beretta 92FS. I have other 9MM's like Browning Hi Power, and CZ-75 variants, and others. All great pistols, but avoided the 92FS due to the safety. Well, I realized on a DA/SA pistol, I don't need to use the safety, so have been shooting my 92FS for a few months now and love it. I'm not going to sell my other 9MM's as they are great also, but I like the way the Beretta shoots. It is accurate, reliable, and I like the recoil impulse. There is no reason not to get one.

If you want a smaller one, Beretta has the 92FS Compact L currently available also. You lose a couple of rounds in the mag, as the grip is a bit shorter, and the slide/barrel is a tad shorter too, as the barrel is 4.3 inches instead of 4.9. I highly recommend both pistols.

My LGS has 92FS's priced at $550 and CZ-75B's at $499. Either one will put a smile on your face.

Hacker15E
May 8, 2013, 05:38 PM
No reason not to buy, but there is a good deal on police turn-ins right now:

$469
http://gun-deals.com/deals/4660-beretta-92fs

tarosean
May 8, 2013, 05:47 PM
I have a hard time spending my money.


you came to the wrong crowd then... a bunch of enablers is what we are.

Buy it...
If and only if it feels comfortable to you. The gun will work

2bfree
May 8, 2013, 05:57 PM
Thank you to all the enablers ;) I just transferred some money from my savings in Texas to my account here in WA ( will need it next week ) think I know where I will be in the morning, then a range trip ( planned that part anyway ) Thanks, I think !

rugerdude
May 8, 2013, 06:23 PM
I have some experience with the M9A1 (same gun, but with a rail) and for a range gun, sure I think it will be a fine pick. They're accurate, and recoil quite modestly.

Ken70
May 8, 2013, 06:23 PM
Great thing about the 92 is when you empty the gun, you can still use it as a club to beat the living cr*p out of them. Try it!

sigarms228
May 8, 2013, 06:27 PM
The Beretta 92 looks to be a terrific pistol and great value at it's price if it fits you well and very likely will. I say go for it.

I will probably buy one someday as I love hammer fired pistols but have to buy a few more SIGs first.

silicosys4
May 8, 2013, 06:50 PM
I wouldn't pay that kind of money for a 92fs.
Then again, I have a taurus pt99, which I personally prefer anyways, at half the price.

1KPerDay
May 8, 2013, 06:57 PM
Only thing wrong with the 92FS is the rotary safety on the slide. I've accidentally swiped mine on and decocked the pistol during a malfunction clearance during a match.

you can train around it, and for a range gun it doesn't matter. They should have left the safety on the frame where it originally was, IMO.

Bentonville
May 8, 2013, 07:27 PM
Accurate, reliable, classic style, chrome lined barrel (not on Inox which has a stainless steel as far as I know), Low felt recoil, smooth operation which makes the slide seem like it moves on ball bearings, high cap magazines available for not too much money.
If you train to flip off safety every time you grip the gun, you will not be surprised by a useless trigger, if you know what I mean. I installed a " d " spring which causes no light hammer strikes whatsoever and the double action is quite pleasant while the SA is downright nice, at least to me. The grip is big but even to my smallish hands, it is comfortable. Around six hundred is the going price but I saw one this weekend for about five and a half. If you get some models other than the FS you can have night sights with no problems. On the FS you will have to send to a company like Tool Tech to have tritium vials installes, I understand they do a really great job.
My opinion only. Others hate the Beretta FS92.

Highland Ranger
May 8, 2013, 07:36 PM
Liked it so much I have two . . . . . big gun for what it is but its one of those guns I can't miss with . . . . not sure why, same with 1911.

1KPerDay
May 8, 2013, 09:16 PM
Oh yeah, I installed the D spring also. Makes a big difference in DA.

rallyhound
May 8, 2013, 11:30 PM
http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww15/rallyhound/biketrip343.jpg

leadcounsel
May 9, 2013, 01:26 AM
$625 is a VERY high price for an average pistol, which is what the 92fs/M9 is. I'd pass on it at that price. I'd only be interested it around $450.

It was my first handgun, and I only kept it for sentimental reasons but ultimately got rid of it. I've carried the M9 in Iraq. It's a mediocre pistol.

It's big and heavy for what it is, lower capacity, small sights, oddly placed safety, and a few other criticisms, and nowhere near as good as more affordable or similarly priced competion. Sig, Glock, SW M&P, XD, and CZ are much better guns.

If you MUST have one, get the Taurus clone. It's actually a better design, with a better 1911 style thumb safety, and it's more affordable at around $450.

basicblur
May 9, 2013, 01:32 AM
I agree with 1KPerDay - it may not matter to you, but I HATE slide mounted safeties, and especially 'backwards' operating ones.

I fired my first 92FS the other day - from what I remember the safety flips up for off?

I have a S&W 4013TSW with the same type safety - love the gun, hate the safety! I like all my thumb safeties to work / be located like a 1911.

LawScholar
May 9, 2013, 01:33 AM
$625 is a VERY high price for an average pistol, which is what the 92fs/M9 is.

It was my first handgun, and I only kept it for sentimental reasons but ultimately got rid of it. I've carried the M9 in Iraq. It's a mediocre pistol.

It's big and heavy for what it is, lower capacity, small sights, oddly placed safety, and a few other criticisms, and nowhere near as good as more affordable or similarly priced competion. Sig, Glock, SW M&P, XD, and CZ are much better guns.

If you MUST have one, get the Taurus clone. It's actually a better design, with a better 1911 style thumb safety, and it's more affordable at around $450.

No disrespect intended, but I disagree pretty much with this entire post. $625 is in the ballpark of the XDM, and I think the Beretta 92-series blows those guns out of the water. The idea of the XD being higher quality than the Beretta is laughable to me having had ample time with both. Better for some shooters maybe, but no way higher quality.

The 92-series are also not as big as they seem when placed next to similar guns like the Sig 226 and CZ-75B. Also, the newer Beretta magazines hold 17 rounds, not 15, and the excellent Mec-Gar makes flush fit 18 rounders and nearly flush 20 rounders.

I also think it's a terrible, terrible mistake to trust your life to Taurus, being as the 3 owned by my family have fallen apart like wacky slapstick guns. The PT-92 is not a BETTER design, inherently, than the 92FS, it's just an older iteration with a safety design some people prefer, and I've seen one in person that the rails were...can't think of a better word, melted. Taurus quality control remains their Achilles' heel.

Again, no disrespect to you personally, just strong disagreement from another shooter with ample experience with the platform. Particularly in feeding reliability, I can think of very few better guns and would trust an off-the-shelf Beretta with my life. Albeit after it was properly lubed, they can be temperamental when dry.

HOOfan_1
May 9, 2013, 02:04 AM
No disrespect intended, but I disagree pretty much with this entire post. $625 is in the ballpark of the XDM, and I think the .

So is the Walther PPQ...XDM is obviously overpriced IMO

helitack32f1
May 9, 2013, 02:14 AM
I always have thought of the 92 as one of those guns one must own in order to have a complete collection. I think it is an attractive gun, well made, reliable. It would just be nice to own a gun from a company that has been around for over 400 years! It is an icon, IMO, like the 1911 or the Hi-Power. That being said, I believe there are better guns for just about every purpose.

basicblur
May 9, 2013, 02:21 AM
Here's a thought?

Iff'n you're not married to the Beretta, ever consider a SIG SP2022?

Costs much less, I likes it better, and have a couple, one of which is now my bed gun.

mljdeckard
May 9, 2013, 03:23 AM
The main reason I might consider buying one if I find a good deal on a used one would be for after-hours training for my soldiers. I took rookies to war who carried it, having fired a grand total of 40 rounds through it.

I like the single-action trigger pull. There are few guns that shoot that well. This is where the bulk and size help it. It returns to target after recoil very well. I have never had one jam. Bad NATO ammo, cheap army-issue mags.

It's a big pistol for people with big hands. If this works for you, get one and enjoy it.

The problems I have with it don't apply to everyone. The one I was issued for Iraq was literally falling apart. The armorer made me keep it, because I knew how to keep it running. Most regular shooters will never expose it to the same wear and neglect that the army does. It is terrible for people with small hands. I had petite female soldiers who couldn't even reach the safety with their firing hand, I had to train them to use their weak hand. I dislike how it is so large, yet made in a way that it can't be re-chambered for .45.

I don't care for it, but I can't say it doesn't work.

Kiln
May 9, 2013, 06:23 AM
So is the Walther PPQ...XDM is obviously overpriced IMO
I love the XDM. I've got several pistols that hurt my wallet a lot more but none outshoot the XDM or come with the same amount of goodies. Oddly the only one that comes close is the CZ75B, which is several hundred dollars cheaper.

If a shooter asks me about which gun is the best for relatively low money, the CZ75B wins. If the same shooter asks me what I think performs the best in the $700 range, the XDM gets the nod every time. Great features, great gun, impressive quality, and awesome accuracy.

The XDM is an excellent pistol and makes the Beretta 92 look terrible in competitions. Everyone knows that the XDM's trigger could use some work to truly be called a "match grade" pistol but the Beretta 92 needs much more.

LawScholar
May 9, 2013, 06:47 AM
I love the XDM. I've got several pistols that hurt my wallet a lot more but none outshoot the XDM or come with the same amount of goodies. Oddly the only one that comes close is the CZ75B, which is several hundred dollars cheaper.

If a shooter asks me about which gun is the best for relatively low money, the CZ75B wins. If the same shooter asks me what I think performs the best in the $700 range, the XDM gets the nod every time. Great features, great gun, impressive quality, and awesome accuracy.

The XDM is an excellent pistol and makes the Beretta 92 look terrible in competitions. Everyone knows that the XDM's trigger could use some work to truly be called a "match grade" pistol but the Beretta 92 needs much more.

I've always shot the 92 better than the XDM, significantly. The XDM also has a roll pin that can snap and render the pistol inert. Whetever flaws the 92 has, I'm not aware of any that brick the pistol.

Then again I don't shoot competitively. Reliability trumps all for me.

As for the goodies, I already have a MagLULA, and I'd rather they keep their junk holster if it shaved a few bucks off the retail price.

I just can't see $700 for an XDM or even $600, for a pistol that, for my purposes, is inferior to the $575 Glock and even the $475 M&P.

No disagreement about the CZ-75B. Outstanding pistol, it'd be a bargain at $100 more than it typically retails for.

tarosean
May 9, 2013, 08:54 AM
How does an XDM even enter into the conversation? Seriously, could you have found something more dissimilar.

Pilot
May 9, 2013, 09:29 AM
No disrespect intended, but I disagree pretty much with this entire post. $625 is in the ballpark of the XDM, and I think the Beretta 92-series blows those guns out of the water. The idea of the XD being higher quality than the Beretta is laughable to me having had ample time with both. Better for some shooters maybe, but no way higher quality.

The 92-series are also not as big as they seem when placed next to similar guns like the Sig 226 and CZ-75B. Also, the newer Beretta magazines hold 17 rounds, not 15, and the excellent Mec-Gar makes flush fit 18 rounders and nearly flush 20 rounders.

I also think it's a terrible, terrible mistake to trust your life to Taurus, being as the 3 owned by my family have fallen apart like wacky slapstick guns. The PT-92 is not a BETTER design, inherently, than the 92FS, it's just an older iteration with a safety design some people prefer, and I've seen one in person that the rails were...can't think of a better word, melted. Taurus quality control remains their Achilles' heel.

Again, no disrespect to you personally, just strong disagreement from another shooter with ample experience with the platform. Particularly in feeding reliability, I can think of very few better guns and would trust an off-the-shelf Beretta with my life. Albeit after it was properly lubed, they can be temperamental when dry.
Totally agree with this post. Also, if you look around a bit new, Italian made Beretta 92FS's can be found in the $550 range which isn't much more than the CZ-75B which I also own, and really, really like. The Beretta shoots just as well as the CZ, is better finished and has a higher capacity with flush, factory or Mec-Gar magazines. I am not saying the Beretta is a better gun, as I own and like both, but they are close in function, and price. Both are excellent values, especially in today's marketplace.

The Beretta is NOT a mediocre gun.

2bfree
May 9, 2013, 03:15 PM
Thanks to all the non-enablers I am giving it some more thought. One of my points missed by most of the suggestions was that I really want a 5 inch barrel for the sight radius. The CZ is 4.6 and the XDM is 4.5, The beretta is 4.9 and I don't know of a glock in 5 9m without getting a new barrel. I will give it till Saturday, the money is in the bank and I am eager to buy, odd considering when I had walked in I REALLY was, just looking. Off to the range to shoot a bunch of reloads. Thanks

helitack32f1
May 9, 2013, 05:04 PM
If you are willing to look at Glocks, the G34 has a sight radius of over 7 inches and is a 9mm. Then there is the Glock 17L, which has an even larger space between the sights.

BCRider
May 9, 2013, 05:24 PM
Back in Post #14 1KperDay mentioned about accidentally switching the decocker to "Safe" during handling in a match stage. I've tried using my 92fs for some IDPA and ran into the same issue of switching the decocker down. It happens far too easily so as a result my own 92fs is a range plinker only. And as a result I'm considering selling it and moving on. I use my CZ's for IDPA and IPSC instead since they have regular safeties on the frames where such things belong.

It really is a shame about the decocker issue. If they'd made it a spring return decocker than it would not be so bad. Then at worse it would simply require a longer DA pull for the next shot. But as it is now when it locks in the lowered position it locks out the whole action. Safe? Undoubtedly.... unless you had to rack the slide for some reason in front of some bad dudes. At least when it happens in a competition it's simply "annoying".

MK11
May 9, 2013, 05:37 PM
Beretta does make a spring-loaded version, or at least they used to (the "G" model maybe?) Wonder if Beretta can convert existing models to the spring-loaded version.

cougar1717
May 9, 2013, 05:39 PM
If they'd made it a spring return decocker than it would not be so bad.
That was an option at one time; it was called the "G" action - decock only, no safety. Sadly, it doesn't appear that they offer it anymore.

mgmorden
May 9, 2013, 05:45 PM
Beretta does make a spring-loaded version, or at least they used to (the "G" model maybe?) Wonder if Beretta can convert existing models to the spring-loaded version.

Within the context of BCRider's case it wouldn't help. You can't disable a safety device in the "stock" divisions of IDPA or USPSA. If the pistols isn't marked as a "G" model to start out with then disabling the safety isn't allowed.

For defensive carry though, it'd be fine.

Truthfully I'm not a big fan of the Beretta either. The grips are wide, its heavy, trigger is lackluster (I'm not a fan of DA/SA in general), and the factory mags hold 15 rounds instead of the 17+ that most guns of that size hold (pretty sure there are aftermarket 17 rounders though). Plus on the base model the front sight is integrated into the slide and can't be replaced (and there's not enough material to mill a dovetail for a new one). I also just don't like the way it sits in my hand. The one I have I got for a deal too good to pass up ($200 like new), but at "normal" prices I certainly wouldn't buy one. I like most of the newer polymer striker guns more, and even amongst more classic designs the CZ-75 just "feels" a lot better IMHO.

tarosean
May 9, 2013, 07:22 PM
.
That was an option at one time; it was called the "G" action - decock only, no safety. Sadly, it doesn't appear that they offer it anymore.

G and D (without any safety or decocker) Slides are readily available around the net..

GambJoe
May 9, 2013, 08:43 PM
I never fired a 92 (9mm) I own a 96 (40s&w). I fire mostly ammo that has 400 or so Ft/Lbs without discomfort. Most 9mm ammo gets around between 325 and 400 Ft/Lbs. So I think both would be similarly comfortable to shoot. The 96 is big and fat and it works for my medium sized hands.

Both the 92 and 96 will fire ammo that has 500 FT/Lbs but to me the slide really slams into the receiver at this level with a 96. Maybe a heavier spring would work I have no idea. 400+ gets you up to 357 levels why not a 92FS. Heck the safety even goes in the right direction.

Honestly there are probably more accurate guns out there.

Kiln
May 9, 2013, 09:23 PM
I've always shot the 92 better than the XDM, significantly. The XDM also has a roll pin that can snap and render the pistol inert. Whetever flaws the 92 has, I'm not aware of any that brick the pistol.

Then again I don't shoot competitively. Reliability trumps all for me.

As for the goodies, I already have a MagLULA, and I'd rather they keep their junk holster if it shaved a few bucks off the retail price.

I just can't see $700 for an XDM or even $600, for a pistol that, for my purposes, is inferior to the $575 Glock and even the $475 M&P.

No disagreement about the CZ-75B. Outstanding pistol, it'd be a bargain at $100 more than it typically retails for.
Earlier models are known for locking block failures that completely lock up the gun. I think Beretta has pretty much fixed this issue with a few changes to the locking block itself.

1KPerDay
May 9, 2013, 09:30 PM
Thanks to all the non-enablers I am giving it some more thought. One of my points missed by most of the suggestions was that I really want a 5 inch barrel for the sight radius. The CZ is 4.6 and the XDM is 4.5, The beretta is 4.9 If you actually measure the sight radius... you'll find the beretta is not as long as you might think, as the sight is on the slide, and the barrel protrudes half an inch or so out the front. Furthermore the rear sight is forward a bit from the rear of the slide. Plus the sights are smallish.

Very fun to shoot, feels like it's on ball bearings. But if you want a long sight radius, look elsewhere. As mentioned, the Glock 34/35/24/17L, XDM 5.5 competition or whatever, etc.

Everyone should have at least one Beretta 92 series though. It's iconic.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a206/1KPerDay/Guns/0a677153.jpg

hAkron
May 9, 2013, 09:43 PM
CDNN has the Inox for $489 (used)

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=99c3876c30b42968d4190988b&id=715e07247b&e=960f29f75e

LawScholar
May 9, 2013, 10:00 PM
Earlier models are known for locking block failures that completely lock up the gun. I think Beretta has pretty much fixed this issue with a few changes to the locking block itself.

That's true, but those are pretty old production. If memory serves the locking block is on generation three now. Still probably the weakest point of the design and good to replace regularly like springs.

RetiredUSNChief
May 10, 2013, 01:22 AM
I never fired a 92 (9mm) I own a 96 (40s&w). I fire mostly ammo that has 400 or so Ft/Lbs without discomfort. Most 9mm ammo gets around between 325 and 400 Ft/Lbs. So I think both would be similarly comfortable to shoot. The 96 is big and fat and it works for my medium sized hands.

Both the 92 and 96 will fire ammo that has 500 FT/Lbs but to me the slide really slams into the receiver at this level with a 96. Maybe a heavier spring would work I have no idea. 400+ gets you up to 357 levels why not a 92FS. Heck the safety even goes in the right direction.

Honestly there are probably more accurate guns out there.

There are probably more accurate guns than what...the 96 that you own, or the 92 that you've never fired?

helitack32f1
May 10, 2013, 02:22 AM
Thanks to all the non-enablers I am giving it some more thought. One of my points missed by most of the suggestions was that I really want a 5 inch barrel for the sight radius. The CZ is 4.6 and the XDM is 4.5, The beretta is 4.9 and I don't know of a glock in 5 9m without getting a new barrel. I will give it till Saturday, the money is in the bank and I am eager to buy, odd considering when I had walked in I REALLY was, just looking. Off to the range to shoot a bunch of reloads. Thanks
I assume what you mean by this is that you want a sight radius of 5 inches or more. Barrel length is going to have relatively little to do with sight radius. The 92FS has a sight radius of 6.1 inches so should work just fine for you. I suspect there are very few people who have bought one and truly regretted it.

Kiln
May 10, 2013, 02:39 AM
Hey I give credit where credit is due. The Beretta is just fine, I just prefer Taurus' version because of the location of the safety and the warranty.

As far as the best gun out of the box value wise, my preference still leans towards the CZ75.

texagun
May 10, 2013, 10:04 AM
At 625.00 +tax any good reason not to buy.

Yes, the price is way too high. At the Ft. Worth Gun Show last weekend new-in-the-box Italian-made Beretta 92FS's were going for $519. I was tempted but still prefer the Sig P226 by a wide margin for a bit more money. Your gun store is about $100 high on his price.

muggia59
May 10, 2013, 10:28 AM
Have to agree with the above posts recommending the cz75b. I have my compact on my side as I type. So many people recommending also explains why I cant seem to find a third for my collection. That all being said, I also own a 92fs. It actually was my first pistol buy and it was nostalgia from the old 82nd days. Still enjoy shooting it, and out of all my handguns (other than revolvers), it stands with my cz's as the only one to never have had ftf, fte, ftl or any problem whatsoever. CZ is still better once you change the sights.

leadcounsel
May 10, 2013, 11:14 AM
Side by side, the 92fs just cannot compete in most categories with other pistols, and the ONLY reason it's a service pistol is because of our then need to deal with the Italians for an Airbase in Italy. Other guns performed as well or better at the time, and that was a few decades ago. Beretta is the same, and other pistols have made serious advancements in ergonomics, striker firing, capacity, weight/polymer, safety designs and locations, decocking mechanisms, etc. And over $600 is waaayyy too much to pay. Again, I'd hold off at over $450, or maybe $500 for a nice one. Look at the following guns in the used market, and you can find them at $400-600 nearly every day.

Sig P series
Glock
XD
SW MP series
CZ 75 series
SW 1990 steel pistols (3000/4000/5000/6000 series)

Similarly priced, or even less expensive, and as good or much much better.

I will say though, that it is a sexy looking pistol, and for my large hands I do like the ergonimics. Heck, it was my first pistol I ever bought, largely because of the marketing campaign, and the wonder-nines that held 15+1 back in the 1990s, and Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis looked so cool with theirs on the big screen!

MagnunJoe
May 10, 2013, 11:38 AM
No, no reason. Here is my INOX

g_one
May 10, 2013, 12:03 PM
IMHO, the only reason not to buy a 92 is because you can do better without spending more.
I don't have anything against them, they fit good in my hand and I think they look really nice, but if I had enough money to buy one I would probably spend it on a CZ-75, a Glock 17, or a used Hi-Power instead.

GambJoe
May 10, 2013, 07:36 PM
There are probably more accurate guns than what...the 96 that you own, or the 92 that you've never fired?
Yo, chief both the 92 and the 96 have the same trigger and not so great ergonomics. I have a sp101 in 357 with a 2 1/4 barrel that I shoot more accurately than my 96. From what I read there is little difference between the 92 and 96 in accuracy.

I know I was just talking crap and wasn't trying to come of as an expert on the 92 but aren't they are more then similar in dimension and weight?

0to60
May 10, 2013, 07:59 PM
Side by side, the 92fs just cannot compete in most categories with other pistols, and the ONLY reason it's a service pistol is because of our then need to deal with the Italians for an Airbase in Italy.

Pure internet rumor. The truth about the 92 is that is it probably the most tested handgun in history. Read about it sometime, the 92 has been absolutely torture tested by the military, several times over.

The only guns that survived the testing were the 92 and the Sig 2something. The Sig was slightly less expensive per gun, but Beretta won the contract by beating Sig on spare parts.

It does seem to be a polarizing gun, and I'm not sure why. Some people complain about the ergonomics and say it doesn't fit their hand. Some people hate the frame mounted safety. Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that a foreign 9mm replaced the American 1911.

RetiredUSNChief
May 10, 2013, 08:13 PM
Yo, chief both the 92 and the 96 have the same trigger and not so great ergonomics. I have a sp101 in 357 with a 2 1/4 barrel that I shoot more accurately than my 96. From what I read there is little difference between the 92 and 96 in accuracy.

I know I was just talking crap and wasn't trying to come of as an expert on the 92 but aren't they are more then similar in dimension and weight?

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Yes, the 96 is modeled after the 92 and thus very similar in dimension and weight.

I don't know how the 96 shoots...never shot one. But I do know how the 92 shoots. At least how mine shoots, anyway.

Straight out of the box, mine has been absolutely reliable and I can punch the black center circle out of a bullseye target at 10 yards with it. It's a dream to shoot, the grip caresses my hand, it's a snap to break down and reassemble, and asthetically speaking is a beauty to behold.

In fact, one of these days I'm going to take it squirrel hunting, just because I can. Head shots will be no problem with it.

:):)

GambJoe
May 10, 2013, 08:38 PM
Maybe I'll join you, I'll take along my sp101. We Texans tend to take squirrel's at greater distance then 10 yards. Don't want them to get to close to us. Head shots of course. We just think 9mm doesn't have enough stopping power for the type of squirrel you find around here.:)

Paul7
May 10, 2013, 08:58 PM
My 92FS was very unreliable during the break in, even now its not that great. A fun range gun, but not one I would trust for HD. I like the PX4 Storm more.

tarosean
May 10, 2013, 09:34 PM
Side by side, the 92fs just cannot compete in most categories with other pistols..

odd... Wonder how it managed to win national events at Camp Perry, IDPA, IPSC, USPSA?

Course the argument could always be the Indian and not the Arrow.. (How else do you explain Robert Vogel?)

It is a combination of man and machine though.

RetiredUSNChief
May 11, 2013, 08:07 AM
Maybe I'll join you, I'll take along my sp101. We Texans tend to take squirrel's at greater distance then 10 yards. Don't want them to get to close to us. Head shots of course. We just think 9mm doesn't have enough stopping power for the type of squirrel you find around here.:)

I compensate for the 9mm by using Speer 115gr Gold Dot hollowpoints. I've been to Texas a few times (I have a brother who lives in Texas) and none of the squirrels out there look to be capable of surviving this.

:D

2bfree
May 11, 2013, 05:44 PM
Well, nothing so far. traveled 30 miles in heavy traffic to take a look at A CZ 75B and it had been sold by the time I got there, they did not have a Beretta in stock. The Beretta was 579.00 and the CZ was 499.00. This is a high volume place, I did get my 1911 from them 'cause they were the only ones in the area that had it. Any other suggestions for something under 800.00. I know Sigs are out. Must have a longer sight radius and a good range gun ? Not worried about CC as I have my CZ 75 D for that or HD.

LawScholar
May 11, 2013, 08:40 PM
Well, nothing so far. traveled 30 miles in heavy traffic to take a look at A CZ 75B and it had been sold by the time I got there, they did not have a Beretta in stock. The Beretta was 579.00 and the CZ was 499.00. This is a high volume place, I did get my 1911 from them 'cause they were the only ones in the area that had it. Any other suggestions for something under 800.00. I know Sigs are out. Must have a longer sight radius and a good range gun ? Not worried about CC as I have my CZ 75 D for that or HD.

Would you prefer that the suggestions stay DA/SA and hammer fired or are you open to DAO striker-fired like Glocks / M&Ps or DA/SA striker-fired like the Walther P99-AS?

2bfree
May 11, 2013, 09:27 PM
Prefer hammer fired but not locked in to it.

Tomcat47
May 11, 2013, 09:36 PM
Cannot think of a reason not to buy a 92.... other than someone asking more than its worth!

But when you need one they are worth more than they cost....:D

Atticaz
May 12, 2013, 12:12 AM
No reason not to buy, but there is a good deal on police turn-ins right now:

$469
http://gun-deals.com/deals/4660-beretta-92fs


+1... I got one used for $450 used at Cabela's.

Proud Southern Son
May 12, 2013, 12:35 AM
No reason not to buy a 92. I've owned eight or ten over the years. Have three now. Never regretted any I've bought. Overpaid for some and got great deals on others. Regretted selling every one I let go. Reliability is top notch. I shoot them better than any other I've tried. Drawing on my experience, the 92 is one gun I might trust right out of the box (S&W third generation autos would be the other). I own Glocks, S&Ws, and Rugers currently, and like them all. But if I had to choose one handgun, it would be this famous Italian beauty.

(Also, it carries better than some would have you believe).

SharpsDressedMan
May 12, 2013, 12:52 AM
I wonder how many retired LAPD officers who carried a Beretta daily have chosen to own a Beretta 92 after retirement. I wonder how many GI's who have toted the Beretta regularly have done the same. I have one, but I never carried it in either type of service, but I have a great respect for it. I currently enjoy the hell out of it as a range gun, for home defense, and even rotate it into the concealed carry occasionally.

chrisTx
May 12, 2013, 01:01 AM
I've carried a 96 and a 92 as duty guns. I still have the 92. It is stupid accurate, and I've never seen a single jam out of either. It gets a bad rap sometimes because idiots use them. I saw a teletype warning about a 'problem with the Beretta 92 series' once. Some screwball motor jock went to qualify and his gun was locked up solid. This department, in their infinite wisdom, said the gun malfunctioned because it was exposed to the elements and dirt and debris got into it causing it to seize. Since oiling and periodic inspection is for sissies, I guess they had a point.

lpsharp88
May 12, 2013, 01:37 AM
I wonder how many retired LAPD officers who carried a Beretta daily have chosen to own a Beretta 92 after retirement. I wonder how many GI's who have toted the Beretta regularly have done the same. I have one, but I never carried it in either type of service, but I have a great respect for it. I currently enjoy the hell out of it as a range gun, for home defense, and even rotate it into the concealed carry occasionally.
I carried one for a year in the sandbox, currently own one and don't think I'll ever sell. My issue M9 never jammed and was more accurate than what I am capable of. My personal one is just as good. No reason to turn one down if you get a good deal on it.

leadcounsel
May 12, 2013, 10:55 PM
The role of a sidearm is NOT exactly the same as the role it would play for a civilian range toy or self/home defense or carry piece.

The military has political reasons to get XYZ product, and unfortunately often gets INFERIOR products. MILSPEC is NOT always a good thing... and the military is very very slow to change and requires extensive independing testing. Personally, I can simply read testing results and pick the best gun...

Features desireable in the military may not be at home... the safey on the M9 is in a bad spot, and operates opposite of common sense. But the military requires an external safety and decocker. Also, sidearms are not a primary weapon in the military, unlike in personal home defense.

In the 1980s when the Army was in the hunt for a new sidearm, Smith & Wesson, Beretta, SIG Sauer, Heckler & Koch, Walther, Steyr, and Fabrique Nationale competed.

At the time, as you can see, the competition was not very stiff. I assert that in the 30 years since, new guns and designs crush the M9 in nearly every aspect/feature.

Google torture tests for Glock, XD, and CZ and you'll conclude that the 'tests' the Army used for the M9 are childs play.

Yes it's a sexy gun, and has good ergonomics. Sig Sauer was the only company with as good as a gun, and HK was overpriced.

The M9 is an okay gun, but there are just better guns in the price range. I don't dispute that some professionals can tune a gun and make it operate... but that is like saying that since a professional racecar driver wins using a Subaru, then ALL Subarus can operate at that level. It should be obvious that the professionals aren't using 'off the shelf' pistols. They are professionally fitted and tuned race guns.

Don't just rely on me.... U.S. Special Operations have a choice in sidearms, and they notably pick Glock, Sig Sauer, and HK... that should tell you something.

A quick look at Wikipedia, and around 50 nations use Glocks for military and police, 30 or so use Sig 229... and so on ...

And according to CZ, the CZ75 is the most used pistol in the world. Over 60 countries use it as the standard side arm of their Armies, National police forces, National security agencies or other Law enforcement organizations. No other pistol can make this claim.

Don't you find it odd that Italy and the USA and NO other nation uses the Beretta 92 as the sidearm of choice. And police departments have abandoned it in favor of Glock, XD, and Smith and Wesson...

So, either the rest of the world is wrong, or the rest of the world is right and the 92/M9 is not really that good of a value pistol compared to the other dozen outstanding choices.

But for my own tastes, I might own a Beretta again one day, but only if it's a GREAT price (under $450). I'd much prefer to get the other guns I mentioned. I have the resources to get any handgun I want, and I rely on lots of guns OTHER than the M9 (which I carried in Iraq, and also used to own).

tarosean
May 13, 2013, 12:41 AM
The irony is you rail against one government entity, then use another to attempt to make a point.

Did you even read the XM9 trials? Seems odd that you would say HK was over priced when they couldn't pass reliability or corrosion testing and were booted.

True sig and beretta were the only standouts.. Yet, both of which are carried by our troops today.

usurp31
May 13, 2013, 12:56 AM
They are absolutely good shooters; and I'm a Glock guy, but I also give Beretta its due.

jhb
May 13, 2013, 01:24 AM
the only reason I haven't bought the beretta yet, is I think its just plain ugly. Well that and its thick and blocky and with my small hands it not comfortable to shoot. To be fair I may be the only one with small gal sized hands that finds it uncomfortable to shoot, and I might also be the only one who thinks its butt ugly?

Those things aside, I find the cz75 and hi power to be at the bare minimum equal, but closer to reality, superior pistols to the beretta. Both of those have just as long various countries military and police useage and are so good they are still in use today. In the end too each his own, the beretta is a fine choice, just not for me.

Grunt
May 13, 2013, 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiln View Post
Earlier models are known for locking block failures that completely lock up the gun. I think Beretta has pretty much fixed this issue with a few changes to the locking block itself.

That's true, but those are pretty old production. If memory serves the locking block is on generation three now. Still probably the weakest point of the design and good to replace regularly like springs.


Um, nope, they still break, even with the recent manufacture style with the recessed cut on the locking block. Being a USAF CATM instructor, that's probably the number one thing we see break on these guns. In every class I teach, I have them check the "armpits of the locking block cross" for hairline cracks. A cracked locking block is easy to replace but a broken locking block in the gun will tie it up where at best I have had to pry it out with a screwdriver and at worst, cut the slide with a dremel tool! Speaking of slides, yes, they do still crack and break. It's referred to as a "slide separation failure" and yes, I've seen it happen before on several occasions. In every case, they will crack on the left side of the slide right at the "PB" stamp. Again, cracked slides are easy to replace but a separated one is rather interesting where the rear half is fully to the rear while the front half, recoil spring and guide rod are someplace downrange!
Now all that being said, I still own a civie 92FS version that hasn't had these problems or the infamous "the freakin' locking block fell out of the barrel because I gave it a nasty glance" problem I have seen most every military M9 have. It's accurate, reliable (as long as you stay away from aftermarket or early production checkmate mags and keep it lubed up) and fits my hands pretty well. Yes, the decocking lever is a PITA when you are doing malfunction drills but if you tuck a finger under the decocking lever while ripping the slide back, it's not much of an issue. It's not a total POS (even though it doesn't come in .45 ACP) but it's from an earlier generation of pistols where polymer wasn't used, rails weren't standard and 15 rounds was pretty much the standard fare in 9mm magazines but it does work and works fairly well, even if the M882 round isn't really much of a fight stopper. That's the great thing about civilians, you aren't limited to the M882 round and can actually use a more effective hollow point round and still rest assured that the M9 will have a pretty decent chance of feeding it without any problems.

okiewita40
May 13, 2013, 04:25 AM
I remember back when my Marine corps unit switched over to the M9. Had a safety stand down due to the slides flying off after about 1500 rounds. I wouldn't and don't trust the M9/92 design at all. There are too many other better designed guns out there. JMHO.

SharpsDressedMan
May 13, 2013, 07:40 PM
I could see a slide flying off if the person who REASSEMBLED the gun after cleaning didn't engage the take down button all the way back in place, and it returned during recoil to the "take down" position. BUT, that would be a stupid, human error, not the gun's. And rather than figure out what happened, the Marines shutdown training, and blamed the guns.:rolleyes:

0to60
May 14, 2013, 02:56 AM
the safey on the M9 is in a bad spot, and operates opposite of common sense.
.
.
.
Yes it's a sexy gun, and has good ergonomics.


That's pretty contradictory, no?

The safety on the 92 is actually pretty common. Check out the Walther PPK, all those steel framed SW semis from the 60's - 90's, the Desert Eagle, and I'm sure many more. True, it works opposite from a 1911 type safety, but I think it makes a lotta sense for a drophammer safety.


Don't you find it odd that Italy and the USA and NO other nation uses the Beretta 92 as the sidearm of choice. And police departments have abandoned it in favor of Glock, XD, and Smith and Wesson...

So, either the rest of the world is wrong, or the rest of the world is right and the 92/M9 is not really that good of a value pistol compared to the other dozen outstanding choices.


COMPLETELY false. After the US military's extensive testing, LOTS of agencies worldwide adopted the gun. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92#Users

Pilot
May 14, 2013, 08:04 AM
I've owned pistols, and been shooting them for over thirty years. That doesn't make me an expert, however, I do have experience owning and shooting pistols from Colt, Ruger, Sig, HK, CZ, Browning/FN, Beretta, Walther, and many others. I avoided the Beretta 92FS due to the Walther safety it has. It operates like my P-38 safety which I hate. So recently I bought a 92FS after shooting a friends, and love it. Guess what? I realized that I can just use the Beretta's safety as a decocker, and not leave it engaged. A DA/SA pistol doesn't need a safety device, so it remains OFF. End of issue.

The Beretta is a good pistol and at $550 new in box, a darn good value in today's market.

tarosean
May 14, 2013, 10:17 AM
Speaking of slides, yes, they do still crack and break. It's referred to as a "slide separation failure" and yes, I've seen it happen before on several occasions.

There were 14 documented cases out of a batch of 3 million pistols of the slide separating.

SharpsDressedMan
May 14, 2013, 04:42 PM
I am seriously starting to look for a surplus 92D slide to put on my 92FS frame. No safety at all. That would mean I'd have to carefully lower the hammer to the DA position, but that is something people who shoot revolvers have had to do for more than century, should they find it cocked, but change their mind about shooting it. This would be a slicked down 92, and very attractive in my eyes.

LawScholar
May 14, 2013, 06:27 PM
Don't you find it odd that Italy and the USA and NO other nation uses the Beretta 92 as the sidearm of choice.


Have all the opinions you like, but make sure the facts you state aren't wrong before you say them with such authority. Off the top of my head without even researching, Frances uses the 92 under the name PAMAS, Brazil uses the Taurus variant 92, and Wiki lists many more countries. Didn't you bother reading the 92 Wiki article when you read the CZ-75 Wiki article and Glock Wiki article? Since it's the pistol you're attacking?

Also, if the 92's safety location and grip size is a fair target of criticism for those with small hands, as a guy with large hands, personally I can never rely on the CZ-75 as a combat pistol. That tiny slide is hard me to grab in a hurry.

My larger hands probably do result in some pro-92 bias for me. Rarely have I felt such natural control and comfort it a pistol.

Grunt
May 15, 2013, 08:56 AM
Quote:
Speaking of slides, yes, they do still crack and break. It's referred to as a "slide separation failure" and yes, I've seen it happen before on several occasions.

There were 14 documented cases out of a batch of 3 million pistols of the slide separating.

Here's our procedures for replacing any part, and slides (cracked, broken or otherwise) also falls into this same process:

1. Replace part.
2. List part by description, NSN, quantity, etc. on the parts inventory list as to what weapon this part was being used on.
3. Annotate the parts replacement on the weapon's 105 that will also be entered into SFMIS for an electronic copy of the 105 as needed.
4. Put crap part into DRMO box for processing at a further date where it is sent away as scrap.

Do we run to Beretta or depot making up a report of the why's and how's of how what part broke and all the particulars? Oh yeah, I love to make more work for myself and the guys in my shop doing this sort of thing rather than cutting them loose so they can get back to their families after duty hours.:rolleyes: We just make the trains run and the pistols go bang. I'm not going to waste my time or my troops time telling Beretta all about a problem that is already known to exist with this design.

tarosean
May 15, 2013, 11:29 AM
I'm not going to waste my time or my troops time telling Beretta all about a problem that is already known to exist with this design.

Those numbers were from NSIAD GAO reports, not anything from Beretta.

Walt Sherrill
May 15, 2013, 11:54 AM
Side by side, the 92fs just cannot compete in most categories with other pistols..
odd... Wonder how it managed to win national events at Camp Perry, IDPA, IPSC, USPSA?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I've had several Beretta 92s, a Vertec and a 96. They're nice guns. I just happen to like others, better.

That said, I would note that the guns used at Camp Perry (and probably at some of the other competitions cited) were built by the US ARMY Marksmanship Training Unit's gunsmiths, and they are finely-tuned custom guns, comparable to some of the best available from big-name gunsmiths. Some of those guns are not representative of the basic Beretta used by the military.

RetiredUSNChief
May 15, 2013, 01:56 PM
The role of a sidearm is NOT exactly the same as the role it would play for a civilian range toy or self/home defense or carry piece.

Don't just rely on me.... U.S. Special Operations have a choice in sidearms, and they notably pick Glock, Sig Sauer, and HK... that should tell you something.

Don't you find it odd that Italy and the USA and NO other nation uses the Beretta 92 as the sidearm of choice. And police departments have abandoned it in favor of Glock, XD, and Smith and Wesson...

So, either the rest of the world is wrong, or the rest of the world is right and the 92/M9 is not really that good of a value pistol compared to the other dozen outstanding choices.

You are correct...the role of a sidearm in the military is NOT the same as the role of a handgun for civilian use, in general.

However, be careful about using the Special Forces as any kind of justification for or against any particular sidearm. I served aboard a SpecOps submarine for a number of years, deploying SEALS on various missions. SEALS, like any other SpecOps organization, have a great number of resources available to them with respect to firearms; what they may or may not carry varies not only on mission parameters, but personal experience and opinions as well. And they will carry a Beretta, Colt, and other firearms not mentioned above as well. There is no exclusivisity (is that a word?) with respect to this.

And the military isn't like smaller police organizations, either. They don't budget to replace firearms nearly as frequently, especially is what they have is entirely servicable, has plenty of logistics support, and there is contract support for the maintenance and upkeep of the systems. Unless there is a pressing need to replace a sidearm, it isn't done. Otherwise there would be a continuing cycle of bimply buying the "latest and greatest" every few years when the next new and improved firearm comes out. And the various police agencies in this country aren't necessarily an "issue only" force...many allow for variances in sidearms, whether issued, personally owned, or particular types/brands. The military does not operate that way.

Do I find it odd that only two countries use this firearm? Nope. Not at all. In fact, you can make similar statements about a variety of other firearms which are "only used by (X number) of countries", either by police or military organizations. This doesn't mean, by itself, that any particular firearm is (or is not) any good. Just using that logic, the Sig SP2022 must not be a "good firearm" because of it's limited use in military organizations around the world.

There is as much to be said about economics, politics, and personal choice in the selection of any given firearm. And yes, even the "latest fad" aspect.


BOTTOM LINE:

As with any pistol: Is it reliable? It is accurate? Does it have a good service life? Does it fit your hand?

If the answer to these questions is "yes", then it really boils down to personal particulars in the choice.

:)

RetiredUSNChief
May 15, 2013, 02:03 PM
the only reason I haven't bought the beretta yet, is I think its just plain ugly.

Heh! EXACTLY the same reason I won't buy a Glock...they're awesome pistols in reliability, accuracy, concealed carry, and so much more. But to me they're uglier than sin and I won't buy one because of that!

I can still appreciate Glock performance and reputation, however.


One of the very reasons I bought my 92SF in the first place is because I think it's a thing of beauty, along with it's performance and reputation.

;)

Corpral_Agarn
May 15, 2013, 02:09 PM
I like 92F's because of Die Hard, the way it looks, and the way it feels in my hand.

I don't like them because the DA is not that great and I think that a safety on a DA/SA is silly.
I do like Sig 226's for the same size, style (Hammer fired, DA/SA), and purpose (Full size large capacity 9mm).

I think i might own one in future for a range toy.
If you dig it and have the moneys, go for it!

You might want to compare a 226 and 92F at the range and see which you like better though.

leadcounsel
May 15, 2013, 04:37 PM
For the record, I don't HATE the 92FS. I just believe, from extensive civilian and military experience owning the weapon, carrying the weapon in combat, and shooting the weapon extensively (to include expert qualification repeatedly) that there are better guns, especially for the money.

To clarify, I have large hands and can palm a basketball... I do actually like the ergos of the grip. I give credit where it is due. The gun isn't sinful, and actually the reason I purchased one, as I said, is due to the very attractive lines and designs, and Hollywood definately helped to sell this pistol.

But, my analysis is that, in summary, the bulk, girth, weight, and operation of the pistol is simply outmatched by more modern designs that do the same job, better. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 92 and it's competition have a failure rate of exactly the same, then why wouldn't you pick a lighter, stronger design gun with better safety mechanims and designs, even at the same pricepoint?

Comparing it to the competition the competition just flat out wins:
Trigger - not counting specially 'tuned' triggers, Beretta's trigger is nothing special. Among Stock triggers and reset, I believe the competition like Glock or CZ wins. Many people like XD but it's squishy. MP are good triggers too.
Safeties - With grip safeties, loaded chamber indicators, trigger safeties... Beretta is below it's competition. If it's loaded and cocked and dropped... who knows.
Grip - personal preference, but modern guns are adjustable
Decocker - Sig or CZ win. The Beretta decocker is in a bad place and operates counter-intuitive and is easy to accidently decock when operating the slide.
External safety - 1911 style like CZ. Beretta is counter intuitive.
Accuracy - tie
Sights - competition
Frame material/weight - polymer/competition
Ruggedness - most combat guns pass incredible standards so this is a tie
Price - seems Beretta is typically more expensive than Glock/XD/CZ/MP, and equal to Sig and less than HK, most of the competition wins.

Can't find the article now, but I read an article a few years ago that said that Glock and CZ were the MOST popular competition handguns. That may have changed and opened up to newer guns, but unlikely would open up to an older design like the 92. There MUST be a reason people gravitate to guns that AREN'T the 92... So this isn't just MY bias here...

Here's some evidence I found on the web in a quick search.
http://idpashooting.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/top-10-most-popular-idpa-guns/
Under 5% of IDPA shooting was done with a Beretta 92 in this 2008 compilation, and it barely edged out Caspian and Rock River!

http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2012/04/20/Glock-and-SW-Make-Up-67-of-IDPA-World-Shoot-Guns.aspx

In the Tactical Journal (Vol. 15, Issue 4) you'll find on pages 26-33 the equipment survey results from the 2011 IDPA World Shoot. Looking at the brands of handguns used by competitors one fact stands out above all else, two manufacturers, Glock and Smith & Wesson, dominate the list. Beretta barely make the list here and has 1/2 the representation as Caracal or Predator Tactical!!!!! !!!!???? Beretta comes in at .03% representation, behind Tangfolio with 3-4 times the representation! Tangfolio!!!! Does Caracal, Predator Tactical, or Tangfolio even have any serious military or police contracts in the world?!?! Beretta lost out to Caspian!!! And tied with Chiapatta!!!!! Good lord. Not a good showing for the 92, and that says something in a competition. CZ has tripple the representation and so does Sig.

Despite its decades of service in the US military and police and the world, the 92 FAILS to even make it into the American Rifleman's Top Ten list. 1911 is there at #1, Glock is there at #3, the Browning HP is there, but the Beretta was beaten by the Broomhandle Mauser...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/top-10-handguns-2/

The web is filled with evidence that the 92 just isn't the gun that people wish it was. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Heck, Taurus "improved" it by putting the correct safety on it.

I give the 92 it's credit. It's a veteran of decades of service and heck a better designed product than I will ever make. It is just not the king of handguns anymore and should be retired... It's a mediocre or good gun, just not an overly impressive gun in my mind. Many better guns available.

In summary: It's more expensive than the real competition, has unpopular design features, and is not used by most of the world military and police or competition shooters... so it's not just me. It was my first gun and I have since owned a couple, and may one day own another... but it will never be my intended go to gun nor would I ever pay anything other than a rock bottom price for one...

Pilot
May 15, 2013, 04:56 PM
Decocker - Sig or CZ win. The Beretta decocker is in a bad place and operates counter-intuitive and is easy to accidently decock when operating the slide.
External safety - 1911 style like CZ. Beretta is counter intuitive.


I hear what you are saying about the issues with the 92FS, and most of them are related to the location of the safety and its operation (Walther style) which is backwards to most. I have learned just to not use the safety, or use it just as a decocker, so most of the downside of this pistol, if not all of the downside is mitigated. Remember, this is a service pistol, designed for external holster carry.

In my area Italian made Beretta 92FS's are $550, new in box at dealers. This is well below many of its competitors in its class except for CZ which I have several. New 75B's are $500 locally. Comparing the 92FS next to my CZ-75B, it is a hard choice as to which to pick up. My solution? Both always come to the range with me, and I shoot both about equally well.

tarosean
May 15, 2013, 05:55 PM
I give the 92 it's credit. It's a veteran of decades of service and heck a better designed product than I will ever make. It is just not the king of handguns anymore and should be retired... It's a mediocre or good gun, just not an overly impressive gun in my mind. Many better guns available.

okay your opinion which gun is the "King"?

I dont consider it the king of handguns much less in 9mm. That honor in 9mm goes to one that is 78yrs old IMO. I guess that should have been retired too?

JTQ
May 16, 2013, 09:28 AM
leadcounsel wrote,
It's more expensive than the real competition,
I would say Beretta's real competition is other duty sized metal framed 9MM pistols.

In my neck of the woods the CZ75 and 92FS sell for the same price.

The SIG P226 is a couple of hundred dollars more than either of those two.

The Browning Hi-Power is another hundred or so above the SIG.

Admittedly, the Taurus version of the 92 is a hundred or so less than the Beretta.

I can't think of too many other full size metal framed 9MM's. You really can't cost compare metal framed guns to polymer pistols, because there is such a difference in material and manufacturing costs between the two.

RetiredUSNChief
May 16, 2013, 12:40 PM
For the record, I don't HATE the 92FS. I just believe, from extensive civilian and military experience owning the weapon, carrying the weapon in combat, and shooting the weapon extensively (to include expert qualification repeatedly) that there are better guns, especially for the money.

Fair enough.

However, the remainder of what you've posted must be taken into context with the OP's opening statement back in Post #1:

Exerpted:

Beretta 92 FS, Any reason not to buy? I have wanted a full size 9m and looked at the 92FS, I liked it. The gripe was fine and really liked the site radius much more then my compact. I wear trifocals and the radius seems to make a big difference, at least that is why I shoot my 1911 and Blackhawk so much better I think At 625.00 +tax any good reason not to buy. Thanks for any input, I have a hard time spending my money. This will be a range gun only.


While I both respect and honor your opinions as to what is and is not a "better gun", none of these things are really germaine to the OP's topic, the pertinant items of which I've put in bold.

He likes the gun, including the grips. The site radius of the 92FS works well with his eyewear, which is very important to him. It's going to be a range gun only and it's selling for $625. With these qualifications, is there any reason he should NOT buy this pistol, as he values the investment of his money very highly?

So, is there anything mechanically wrong with the pistol which would make it a bad investment? And is there anything about the price which would likewise be a problem?

Don't mistake me here...I think giving your opinion on what would be a better gun is important AFTER you've first addressed his concerns.


I love talking guns. But for any given gun, you or I could go on about how this or that is better and easily get side tracked from the initial concern. Ever go to a dealership to look at a new car? Tell the salesman what you want and after giving you a cursory pointing in the general direction of the vehicles you're looking for, he'll immediately start in on all kinds of other stuff you never asked about and really wouldn't care about if the vehicle didn't meet your basic requirements you came to check up on.

:)

Shipwreck
May 16, 2013, 01:23 PM
I've owned probably almost everything at one time or another... Over the years...

Beretta 92s are currently my favorite... I've also owned many of the 92 variants - recently sold them off and am only getting the basic, no railed model now. Balances the best, IMHO.

All have D springs in them... Triggers are very nice because of that (no very heavy DA 1st shot). I love the platform... Even more than 1911s, if you can believe that.

I even sold off an Ed Brown and a 9mm Springfield Custom Shop 1911.

The back and forth over the platform can go on all day. Some guys like to give me grief about the 92s. I don't really care. I have a smile on my face every time I hit the range - and I am reminded each and every range trip why I love the gun so much.

No gun is perfect for everyone - my favorite may not be your fav. Nothing wrong with that...

But, in order to keep with the theme of this thread, I guess I'll say that Berettas suck so much, I just had to get 6, with one more to come (so, I can have my "Beretta Wheel" again :) :) )

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/6Berettas-text_zpsa1d376ca.jpg

leadcounsel
May 16, 2013, 03:03 PM
Beretta 92 FS, Any reason not to buy? I have wanted a full size 9m and looked at the 92FS, I liked it. The gripe was fine and really liked the site radius much more then my compact. I wear trifocals and the radius seems to make a big difference, at least that is why I shoot my 1911 and Blackhawk so much better I think At 625.00 +tax any good reason not to buy. Thanks for any input, I have a hard time spending my money. This will be a range gun only.

While I both respect and honor your opinions as to what is and is not a "better gun", none of these things are really germaine to the OP's topic, the pertinant items of which I've put in bold.

@RetiredUSNavyChief - ALL of my points go directly to the OPs question.

1. He has poor vision. The Beretta sites are TINY. Other guns have much better sights with the same site radius, about 5". Competition wins.
2. Cost and investment. $625 is far too much for a 92FS. He'd immediately lose from an investment standpoint. You can get these for under $500 online - $470 plus shipping here: http://www.jgsales.com/beretta-92fs-semi-auto-pistol,-9mm,-good-to-very-good-condition,-used.-p-6973.html
3. Cost of other guns. Yesterday I saw a CDNN ad for $500 Sig Sauer 226 and $400 Smith and Wesson M&Ps in near new condition. I can't shout it loud enough. Other guns are similarly priced or cheaper AND better from an objective standpoint, according to THE WORLD of gun shooters, not just me. Just look at the stats of numbers of serious users, from nations to law enforcement to competitors.
4. Comfortable grips are a consideration, but not the entire analysis. A person can learn to adjust to standard grips. I find that Glock grips are average, but the guns are among the best overall.

At the end of the day, it's his money, and it's just a range toy. I have a lot of range toys that are not guns would not be 'go to' guns but would serve in an emergency if nothing else was available, and that is where I would personally place the 92FS.

We're all on the same team here, we all love guns and love talking guns. My advice is NOT meant to offend, but just to share my opinion and experience and help steer a guy in the right direction.

2bfree
May 16, 2013, 04:38 PM
Thanks to every one who has posted, really did not mean to cause a debate, but it has been helpful. I think I will go up towards Seattle in the morning ( man I hate that drive ) to a larger store and take a look at the beretta, sig 226, maybe a Glock 17 or what they have. It will be busy as the Ruger Rep is going to be there with free range time and ammo to try out there guns.
I just finished loading 45ACP and switching over to 9m, would sure be nice to have the new gun and make sure my OAL will work on a new gun before loading 6 or 8 hundred.
For now, time to open a beer and start the BBQ while the sun is out and not raining.
Thanks again.

Certaindeaf
May 16, 2013, 04:56 PM
The bad thing about those DA/SA pistols is that they suck. It's pretty funny. Just go squirrel hunting with someone with a Browning Hi-Power and you'll throw it in the creek.

RetiredUSNChief
May 16, 2013, 05:25 PM
We're all on the same team here, we all love guns and love talking guns. My advice is NOT meant to offend, but just to share my opinion and experience and help steer a guy in the right direction.

I agree.

And, in light of the happy satisfaction of the OP in his last comment, I'll leave it at that.

;)

History.Doc
May 16, 2013, 06:23 PM
I have a 92fs that I enjoy shooting. The only problem, and I don't know if this really qualifies as a problem, is that it has a much longer trigger pull than any of my other guns. Yesterday I was shooting a variety of guns (glock, ruger, CZ, and Smith) and the only trigger that really threw me off was the Beretta. It isn't bad, it is just very different. If that is something that might bother you, you might consider it.

tarosean
May 16, 2013, 06:35 PM
Toss a "D" main spring in there History Doc will make quite a bit of difference in the DA pull


you can order one here

http://www.olhasso.com/PS/parts.htm

The first on the list.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
May 16, 2013, 06:51 PM
I have owned 3 Beretta 92's and one Taurus 92. Out of the four total guns I only had problems with one. The third Beretta(fixed sights) I bought shot low and left 7"+ at 15 yards. It was sent back to Beretta and a month and a half later I got it back. It shot fine then. The barrel was replaced and unsure what other work was done. The only flaw I had was I owned the pistol less than two weeks and was either going to have to pay shipping g back to them of drive 35miles to the gun store I bought it t and have the, return it. I opted for the latter as I needed the owner to shoot it to talk to the beretta rep. Beretta for almost a week did not want to admit that there could be a problem with the pistol. They kept using "shooters error". I included a note with the gun. I did get an appology note when it was returned. They are great pistols.either you like them or you don't. I have no problem with them ,but have moved on to Hk's and Sig's. They are very reliable, and tough as nails.

dprice3844444
May 16, 2013, 07:08 PM
just an fyi folks,former cops and military(dd214)to a police distributor should get you police price on glocks,beretta etc

SharpsDressedMan
May 16, 2013, 10:36 PM
I think if a manufacturer ever pushed a "shooter error" excuse on me, after I had wrung out a pistol and found it defective, I would have cussed them out on the phone, and said either check the gun out or shut the **** up. For a maker to assume they didn't error, and infer that the CUSTOMER was wrong, is totally out of line UNTIL they check it out. I like my Beretta, but customer service and PROFESSIONALISM is another matter. Beretta, are you reading this?

CharlieDeltaJuliet
May 16, 2013, 11:10 PM
That was the only reason I switched to Sig... I won't bad mouth the 92 at all. Even the one that I bought that had issues, every manufacturer makes mistakes. I just swore off the company after my bad experience. They make fine weapons. What really irked me was the Beretta rep I had spoken with (I think his name was Mike, bear with me it has been almost 10 years) still didn't want to do a return on it until the owner of the gun store (licensed Beretta dealer) called and told them about his experience shooting the pistol. That was why I brought it back to him, he shot 4-5 different types of ammo and all performed equally horrible. After that Beretta had no issues doing a return and repair on the pistol. When I received it back, I sold it and the other one I had and never looked back.

But please know it might just have been that CS guy. I still swear they make great firearms. I just will not do business with them anymore.

2bfree
May 17, 2013, 05:04 PM
Well I bought the Beretta 539.00+ tax, I shall see if it was a mistake. Did not like the Glock 17 at all, the grip was just off for me and really, not a nice looking pistol (sorry Glock fans, we all see things differently ) The CZ 75 B was ok, I like CZ's, but just didn't feel right. The only model Sig 226 they had was more expensive then the standard and I really don't need a threaded barrel, just was not worth 300.00 more for a range gun for me.
The place was packed with the Ruger demo going on today. I got there 10 minutes before opening and a line was 30 deep. This place is the most stocked and lowest prices in the area, Lots of AR's with M&Ps starting at 699.00.
God, I wish I was rich or didn't care about my savings but being retired I never know when I might need it, Plus, would like to leave my daughter something other then a house.
Thanks again.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
May 17, 2013, 05:09 PM
As stated before, they are great pistols. They are very,very reliable.

Pilot
May 17, 2013, 07:12 PM
Yeah, install the "D" spring (hammer spring) and the skeletonized Elite II hammer, and you're good to go. Congrats, they are great guns, and represent a good value for what you get.

Beach Nut
May 18, 2013, 06:21 PM
I just picked up a Taurus PT-92 AF today after comparing it with the Beretta.
I liked the feel of the grips, the position of the safety and the asthetics of the
gun better than the Beretta. The price was the deciding factor for me. I did
like the sights and finish better on the Beretta but I went with the Taurus instead.
I own several Taurus revolvers and have had no problems with them so I have
decided to give one of their semiautos a chance. My best friend has a PT-92 and
I have shot it on several occassions and liked it so I figured I would roll the dice.

History.Doc
May 18, 2013, 08:14 PM
Toss a "D" main spring in there History Doc will make quite a bit of difference in the DA pull


you can order one here

http://www.olhasso.com/PS/parts.htm

The first on the list.

Thanks for the tip.

Bentonville
May 19, 2013, 12:38 AM
I concur concerning the D spring. Makes a world of difference and it's a factory spring with no light strikes, etc.

CleanHarry
May 27, 2013, 02:53 AM
I am a new gun person. Saving $200 on a used vs. new gun purchase just doesn't make any sense - to me.

Walt Sherrill
May 27, 2013, 10:54 AM
I am a new gun person. Saving $200 on a used vs. new gun purchase just doesn't make any sense - to me.

No reason NOT to buy new, and if you get extra comfort from doing so, or are concerned about warranties, go for it. While warranties are wonderful, they're a bit like car warranties: reaassuring but less used than might have been the case some years ago. With the exception of some Kel-Tec guns, I don't remember when I last bought a gun new -- it's been years.

I bought a P-11, a PF-9, and a P3AT, all new, and a 9mm and .40 Sub2000, used. Never had problems with any of them, and still carry the PF-9. Didn't care for the P3AT or the similar Ruger LCP. In retrospect, I wish I had kept that 9mm Sub2000... may have to get another one, one of these days.

Pilot
May 27, 2013, 11:44 AM
I have bought many used guns, sight unseen until I go to my FFL to do the transfer. Never had any problems.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
May 27, 2013, 11:58 AM
I even had a bad run in with Beretta Customer Service, and I still recommend the 92 to anyone that asks. Buying used could save some money. I have bought a few pistols and rifles used and never had an issue. Get one, and enjoy it, you won't regret it.

SwampWolf
May 27, 2013, 03:06 PM
Don't you find it odd that Italy and the USA and NO other nation uses the Beretta 92 as the sidearm of choice...

So, either the rest of the world is wrong, or the rest of the world is right and the 92/M9 is not really that good of a value pistol compared to the other dozen outstanding choices.

If global popularity is so relevant when deciding which of many pistols is "best", I have to wonder how many nations issued the 1911 pistol to their troops over the years, other than America and a couple of Banana Republics in South America? Is the rest of the world "right" and the U.S. "wrong" just because we relied on the 1911 platform as a military fighting pistol when most of the rest of the world opted for something "better"?

Chevelle SS
May 27, 2013, 03:33 PM
I don't like the trigger.

lpsharp88
May 27, 2013, 03:51 PM
I don't like the trigger.
As Pilot said earlier, get the D spring, it REALLY does improve the trigger. I put one on mine, and the DA pull is greatly improved

2bfree
May 27, 2013, 04:14 PM
Well, I got a chance to fire this thing, I really like it. The grip is great, weight is great, Trigger in SA is very good, could use some help in DA. Accuracy is very good using factory ammo, my reloads not so much. They were worked up for a much shorter barreled pistol so I have some work to do on them. I shot 200 rounds 50 factory, 150 reloads, not one problem. Easy to clean, what more can I ask ? I like it.

RetiredUSNChief
May 27, 2013, 04:25 PM
I like it.

And that, my friend, is all that matters.

Happy shooting!

:)

MagnunJoe
May 28, 2013, 01:20 AM
I have one, love it, but they have a fat butt.

RetiredUSNChief
May 28, 2013, 10:53 AM
I have one, love it, but they have a fat butt.

I like big butts and I cannot lie...

:D

Shawn Dodson
May 28, 2013, 01:40 PM
Back in Post #14 1KperDay mentioned about accidentally switching the decocker to "Safe" during handling in a match stage. I've tried using my 92fs for some IDPA and ran into the same issue of switching the decocker down. It happens far too easily so as a result my own 92fs is a range plinker only.

You simply need to modify your immediate actions to include making sure the manual safety is disengaged before your recover from the stoppage and attempt to shoot again:

1) Tap
2) Roll & Rack
3) Safety Off
4) Recover

No big deal.

I carried the identical 96FS on police patrol in Bremerton, WA for several years. I chose it because I wanted the longer 5-inch barrel and the longer sight-radius. It never hiccuped - not once.

One problem I had was my holster - a Safariland SSIII 0705 - when snapping the thumb snap closed it would occasionally disengage the manual safety if I didn't pay attention. Since the pistol was equipped with a manual safety I always carried it with the manual safety engaged and I trained to always disengage it during presentation. I'd initially taught myself to key on the "feel" as I disengaged the manual safety with my thumb - however when the manual safety was in the disengaged position there was no "feel". The first time it happened (reality didn't meet my expectation) I paused and looked at the pistol to see what was "wrong" - the manual safety was already disengaged. Hmmm... I decided I needed to change my technique to make it insensitive to the position of the manual safety lever. My solution was to simply slide my thumb along the top edge of the grip panel - this action would always ensure the manual safety was disengaged. I learned to "key" off of the feel of my thumb sliding along the grip panel (instead of my thumb touching and moving the safety lever). After that I drove-on and never had a problem.

Good luck with your new 92FS!

Pilot
May 28, 2013, 01:44 PM
Well, I got a chance to fire this thing, I really like it. The grip is great, weight is great, Trigger in SA is very good, could use some help in DA. Accuracy is very good using factory ammo, my reloads not so much. They were worked up for a much shorter barreled pistol so I have some work to do on them. I shot 200 rounds 50 factory, 150 reloads, not one problem. Easy to clean, what more can I ask ? I like it.


Congrats! Great choice!

Stony Lane
May 28, 2013, 09:23 PM
I shoot the Beretta 92 Elite II in competition - USPSA, IDPA, Steel+. It's a G model so the safety is only a decocker. It has some nice features such as a lightly beveled mag well, the lighter D hammer spring, checkered front- and back-straps, extended mag release... Super reliable and more accurate than I am. (Of course, Beretta, in their "wisdom," no longer makes this pistol.)

Levi
May 28, 2013, 09:42 PM
I just picked up a Taurus PT-92 AF today after comparing it with the Beretta.
I liked the feel of the grips, the position of the safety and the asthetics of the
gun better than the Beretta. The price was the deciding factor for me. I did
like the sights and finish better on the Beretta but I went with the Taurus instead.
I own several Taurus revolvers and have had no problems with them so I have
decided to give one of their semiautos a chance. My best friend has a PT-92 and
I have shot it on several occassions and liked it so I figured I would roll the dice.
I shot the .40 Taurus version, PT-101 I believe. Loved it. It's big and heavy, but shoots well and holds much ammo. Really liked the feel of it, too.

Pilot
May 29, 2013, 10:12 AM
I shoot the Beretta 92 Elite II in competition - USPSA, IDPA, Steel+. It's a G model so the safety is only a decocker. It has some nice features such as a lightly beveled mag well, the lighter D hammer spring, checkered front- and back-straps, extended mag release... Super reliable and more accurate than I am. (Of course, Beretta, in their "wisdom," no longer makes this pistol.)
Many convert their 92FS's with the D spring, and Elite II hammer as I have. Converting to a "G" for decocker only is a bit more work. Yes, Beretta should make the G again.

Texshooter
May 29, 2013, 12:08 PM
The only reason I can think of not to buy is because Beretta is still located in MD. They have not put their money were their mouth is.

I think they are good pistols however.

SwampWolf
May 29, 2013, 02:58 PM
Quote:
Back in Post #14 1KperDay mentioned about accidentally switching the decocker to "Safe" during handling in a match stage. I've tried using my 92fs for some IDPA and ran into the same issue of switching the decocker down. It happens far too easily so as a result my own 92fs is a range plinker only.

You simply need to modify your immediate actions to include making sure the manual safety is disengaged before your recover from the stoppage and attempt to shoot again:

1) Tap
2) Roll & Rack
3) Safety Off
4) Recover

No big deal.

When I retired in 1998, my agency was still mandating the third generation, da/sa Smith autos as our carry sidearm. With these very reliable and well-made pistols, especially when performing malfunction drills on "stove-pipe" jams, on rare occasions the safety could be inadvertently moved to "safe" by the palm of the hand sweeping over the top of the pistol. Knowing this could happen resulted in adhering to an additional step to our malf drill protocol, as explained above (step no. 3).
And, as Shawn Dodson said, it's "no big deal". Enjoy your new Beretta. It's a great pistol.

Highland Ranger
May 29, 2013, 03:42 PM
The only reason I can think of not to buy is because Beretta is still located in MD. They have not put their money were their mouth is.

Not a good reason.

They moved their warehouse out to VA during the last round of legislation in the 90's. It sounds like they are going ahead and finishing the move this time although I am not sure they announced the new home.

Latest is this: http://www.berettausa.com/berettasstatementonsb281/

Pilot
May 29, 2013, 04:17 PM
Well from what I am hearing, Beretta will be moving some functions out of MD, but certainly not expanding anything there anymore.

Esoxchaser
May 29, 2013, 06:11 PM
Beretta 92's are the AK's of the pistol world. They will fire and cycle no matter what.

0to60
May 30, 2013, 09:15 AM
After hearing a lot about the Sig in this thread, I decided to go check one out, a P226. I was thoroughly unimpressed. The trigger reset was LOOOONG and very vague. When you press the decocking lever, it felt like something very cheap and plasticky was happening inside. Also, the decocking lever is actually in front of the slide release, which I found a bit confusing but would probably get used to.

It definitely didn't have the brick @#$*house feel of the beretta.

Walt Sherrill
May 30, 2013, 11:25 AM
After hearing a lot about the Sig in this thread, I decided to go check one out, a P226. I was thoroughly unimpressed...

I've had a number of SIG P226s, over the years -- always seeking the one that was right. They seldom were. I've had a number of SIG P220s, too, and liked them better. Some folks absolutely love them.

I now have a P226 X-Five, and it's right, and a P220 Super Match. It's right, too. I had to pay a lot more for those guns than I would for a Beretta 92 to get that "rightness."

That said, I've had a number of Berettas (several 92s, an Italian 96, and a Vertec), and they all seemed like a big "brick" to me, too, but not in a good way. Great fit and finish, though -- and they always went bang. (The sense of "bigness" was always a puzzle for me, as the guns fit the same holsters I used with my CZs...)

I much prefer CZs and Witnesses, the small-framed Glocks, a SIG P228, and the BHP to the Berettas... but it all boils down to personal preferences and not the innate qualities of the guns in question.

Pilot
May 31, 2013, 05:16 AM
Guns are really a personal choice. I am a huge CZ fan, and avoided Beretta 92's for years, although having other Beretta pistols. I recently bought a 92FS. Love it. I have had Sigs also, and just don't get them. To each their own.

Brasso
May 31, 2013, 09:03 AM
Wonderful shooters.

The safety is what keeps one out of my hand. Such a stupid place for it. They really do need to go back to the putting it on the frame where it belongs.

tuj
May 31, 2013, 09:11 AM
This will be a range gun only.

Well the DA trigger on the 92 sucks pretty bad IMHO and the SA mode is just 'acceptable'. Safety control placement not a concern if this is really just a range gun. DA might not be a concern either. I'd still want a trigger job on the SA action. Also, the 92 feels too 'upright' in my hand, but that's a personal thing.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beretta 92 FS, Any reason not to buy ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!