Beretta 92FS clone by Taurus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read many threads by people who own the Taurus 92 that they love them, and very few complaints.
That having been said, if I could buy the Beretta for close to the same $$, I would buy the Beretta every time.
I own a 92FS and love it. I couldn't care less about condition one carry, and my medium sized hand has no problem with the slide mounted safety.
 
The Beretta is a little better spit and polish to it and my experience with Berettas has always been positive. CDNN sells the Beretta 92s at a really good price now.
 
CDNN sells a lot of used Berettas at excellent prices.

The Beretta Model 92s that I've shot over the years were no more accurate than the PT92s that I've shot. In fact, the current generation of civilian Model 92s are using more plastic and MIM parts than the Taurus.

Prices are absolutely no indication of value, either. Beretta has, in many ways,come to rely on it's past reputation for quality as it attempts to cit production costs to remain competitive. Europe's work-force is much more coddled, and strike-prone, than anything that Americans have become accustomed to. The prices for products often reflects that.
 
The "plastic parts" are plastic coated metal, and designed to meet the M9 mil-spec. I have not heard of any MIM parts on Berettas.
Beretta 92FS's are made in USA.
 
I bought a PT-92 for my son's first gun several years ago. I wanted a 9mm. for the lower cost ammo, the ability to carry it in Condition 1 (first shot being SA), and overall, the best bang for the buck. Found a stainless Taurus PT-92AR (Accessory Rail), for less than $400. It's been a great gun with decent accuracy and no problems.
 
I also bought a PT99 back in the mid 80s. It had beautiful grips. The grips on the new ones I've seen, don't compare to the older ones. Easy fix there though. That gun never gave me a problem. Couldn't tell you how many rounds went through it. Many thousands for sure. It was a hard decision to sell it some years back, to finance a revolver for my wife. Bad move. She decided she didn't like the revolver, and I sure wish I had the PT99 back.

Tuckerdog1
 
Since I am the original thread starter here and having read all the comments so far, it would seem that most folks who bought the Taurus 99 years ago had no problems at all. SOME of the more recent owners though report more issues and problems with service. Thanks for the opinions and experiences so far. Keep them coming if you like.
 
taurus

the taurus is not a clone it is a licensed product made on original machines.
Buna Punta owned Taurus and Smith & Wesson.so the Taurus revolvers are
modifid S & W,same as the Berettas.:rolleyes: :uhoh: :eek: :D
 
Taurus revolvers have NEVER been modified S&W products. The association with Bangor Punta was that they were both owned by them. There is no documented information that any S&W machinery, technical help, or proprietary information went from S&W to Taurus. If there is, please show it.

I also own a PT101, in .40 S&W, that is a current style. I've used it to shoot thousands of various weight loads through it, with zero issues.

Clones, as used in gun-writers lingo, tend to be unlicensed derivatives of an original product. Licensed derivatives are NOT "clones" of anything.

The "plastic parts" are plastic coated metal, and designed to meet the M9 mil-spec. I have not heard of any MIM parts on Berettas.
Beretta 92FS's are made in USA.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why aren't the issue Berettas showing them? Are the Berettas made in the US clones, then?

I carry neither my PT92, nor my PT101 in Condition One. My choice, but I still prefer the frame-mounted safety for ease of release and application in a fluid situation. Also, the Taurus de-cocking returns the gun to Fire, and needs no further manipulation to re-engage. The Beretta safety de-cocks the weapon, and remains on safe. In a situation where re-engagement after moving, or engagement of another target happens after the first opponent is downed, the extra motion required to take the gun off-safe can be a problem.
 
I have an 80's model PT-99 in satin nickel. Been a terrific pistol, not a single problem over the last 20 years, and the finish still looks like new.

I can't speak for the quality of the newer ones, but I couldn't be happier with mine.
 
JR47, I dthink its more prudent to practice keeping your finger off the trigger when moving instead of decocking your weapon everytime. The only time you should decock it is when you reholster. Then its fine for it to be on safe.

Also, I didn't state CDNN had them at a good price like the price had anything to do with quality. I was merely steering the OP a good direction to get a good deal. I would rather have my Beretta a little cheaper than not. In my experience the Pt-92s are good but they are NOT up to the quality of the Berettas. The machining and finish aren't quite up to what a Beretta is.

Also, I believe the CDNN Beretta's are trade ins so your worries about the newer Berettas wouldn't be much of an issue with these.
 
Current gen Beretta 92FS's, INCLUDING the M9's delivered to the Gov have the plastic coated metal parts. M9's also have the plastic guide rod which was specifically designed to improve function in the desert.
Obviously, a US made 92 is not a clone, as it it manufactured by Beretta USA, a contracted version of the Italian original.
The Taurus 92 is a good weapon. It is in no way as high a quality as the original Beretta product.
 
I praise the Taurus PT92. I cannot say enough good things about this gun. I agree that a lot Taurus stuff IMO, from my experience is junk, but the PT92 is a great gun. A friend of mine has one with some trigger work, some hogue grips and that is about it and I can tell you that it is one of the smoothest, best shooting guns I have ever handled at the range. We have shot well over 10,000 rounds through it and it hasn't had a hiccup yet and 2000 rounds was shot back to back within the same day so for me this is a very good gun and much cheaper than the Beretta 92. You can find them used if you look hard enough for like $200 in good shape.
 
Actually, the Beretta re-sale isn't that much higher as a percentage of cost.

jon_in_wv, I was always taught to decock when moving between areas in rough terrain. "Keeping your finger off the trigger" is, in many cases, a fantasy for the range. You should also de-cock, if possible, as soon as the immediate threat has been dealt with. Single action triggers have been known to be a problem for all too many shooters who haven't trained with them. Ask your local PD.
 
You should also de-cock, if possible, as soon as the immediate threat has been dealt with.
Click to expand...

This is what we were trained to do in our agency.

QUOTE: The only time you should decock it is when you reholster. Then its fine for it to be on safe.[/QUOTE]

This statement is sort of confusing to me. You do know that decocking the pistol doesn't put it on "safe"?
 
Yes, if the threat has been dealt with. You stated,
In a situation where re-engagement after moving, or engagement of another target happens after the first opponent is downed, the extra motion required to take the gun off-safe can be a problem.
Click to expand...
implying you were decocking to move between engaging targets, NOT after the the threat was neutralized. Thats a different situation than what you are saying now. I was addressing your first stament that unless you are engaging the target, then keep your finger off the trigger, then decock when the threat is over. If you are flipping the safety on and off between engaging targets that sound like a recipe for pulling the trigger with the safety on and getting yourself hurt. There are thousand of LE officer training with NO decock function at all so training to keep you finger off the trigger is NOT a "range dream" its a reality. Just "accepting" that your finger will be on the trigger is a bad practice. Reloading, tactical magazine exchange, or even flinching could result in an unintentional discharge unless you decocked and placed the weapon on safe every time you weren't aimed directly at the target. I think in reality both systems are just fine. The Taurus will be easier for a wider rang eof hands to manipulate and does allow cocked and locked carry but I still have a tough time with your earlier statement. If the threat is neutralized that being on safe isn't an issue. If you train to disengage the safety before shooting and you can easily do so with the Beretta then it works just fine.
 
Last edited:
I have both, and both shoot very well. As was mentioned above, a lot of the parts are different than a Beretta, even the magazine and grips, so I would not consider it a clone. I bought my PT92 used, and it had crappy looking ("buggered up") grips screws. To replace them I had to get them from Taurus because I couldn't find anyone that had them in stock. Of course, the screws are different too.

I don't think you could go wrong with either, just be aware that parts will be a little harder to come by.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Glock 17 vs. Beretta 92FS
2 3
Replies
62
Views
11K
chingon
chingon
S
  • Locked
Beretta 92FS or Taurus 100SS?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
m2steven
M
T
  • Locked
Beretta 92FS / 92A1.....?
Replies
20
Views
5K
MidwestRookie
M
A
  • Locked
Beretta 90two vs 92FS
Replies
4
Views
1K
jay43
J
Morgo
  • Locked
New Beretta 92FS Combat combo
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
TCBPATRIOT
T
Back
Top