Taurus haters, unless you've actually owned 'em, have actually compared the two pistols side-by-side for more than just one mag downrange, just please stay home.
And Glock fanboys (you know who you are), why, why, why, in a thread comparing two NON-Glock pistols, do you ALWAYS feel compelled to promote Glocks? Sheesh!
First off, if you want a closer comparison to the Beretta 92, the Taurus PT-99 is going to be the better bet, though the PT-92 isn't far off either, the frame mounted safety being the biggest real difference. I myself have had the opportunity to fire Taurus PT-99s and I have a couple Berettas. As I pointed out earlier, only in a minor difference in handle shape do I find the Beretta ultimately any better then the Taurus, though it IS true that the looser tolerances of the Taurus mean a little better reliability under abuse. Even still, this problem can be easily corrected on the Beretta if you know what you're doing. As you have pointed out, your Taurus shoots better then some of your Berettas, worse then others. This is a classic issue with simple gun to gun differences as opposed to model to model differences.
Regarding the Glocks, Glocks are a great gun (I would love to have a 17 myself) but they have shortcomings to the Beretta and Taurus. For one, they lack a manual safety and decocker. In addition to this, that ridiculous trigger safety (that keeps you from pulling the trigger unless you pull the trigger
) is
reportedly a hazardous feature responsible for a number of shooting accidents, while the one real safety the gun has, which is a drop safety activated by the pull of the trigger, is also shared by the Beretta 92 (that rectangular block on top of the slide in front of the rear sight that lifts when you pull the trigger) and I am pretty sure I have seen it on the PT-92 though I am not sure if the 99 has it. Most modern guns have it so the Glock is not the least bit unique in this respect. The only real advantages of the Glock are as follows:
It's factory finish is strongly resistant to corrosion.
The synthetic frame makes the slide move very smoothly.
It's made to tight tolerances, which make it very mechanically accurate and consistent.
The barrel is self clearing as well as being more potent under water then normal.
...
The negatives of the Glock are as follows:
The tight tolerances make the gun very unfriendly to loads with slow burning powder. As result, the gun has allot of problems with many reloads, most of which the Beretta and Taurus will eat up without ever even choking. The increased accuracy and consistence from the Glocks tight tolerances is hardly even noticeable outside of competition.
The ridiculous trigger contraption supposedly is hazardous. This is not an established fact though reports and some of the evidence is enough to make you weary.
The take-down system, like the trigger contraption, is reportedly hazardous and there is at least one highly credible case that I know of where a shooting accident most likely would have been prevented had the gun been made with a more classic take down system.
As result of the guns tight tolerances, it is more sensitive to aftermarket parts then many guns. A common example is the many reports of Glock barrels exploding.
Though not a true problem, by common standards, the Glock is an ugly gun. FWIW, I personally think that some Glocks are kinda pretty, but most people will beg to differ.
The Glock does not accept removable grips.
....
Glock is an Austrian company, and it seams as though while companies from that part of the world will pretty much sell their guns to anyone who can legally buy them in their country, they tend to be focused almost entirely on law enforcement and military and looking at the way the Glock was made, it seams as though the gun was designed to fit the tightest specs they could for the purpose of police and law enforcement, forsaking everything else. Likewise, while it is well fit as a side arm issued to the user without any goodies or custom work, but as a civilian gun used for defense, plinking and fancying up, you are entering a world the Glock wasn't designed for. I actually doubt the Beretta was designed with civilian toying around in mind but it seams that they were not as intense with specs. as Glock was when they invented the gun and used more traditional, time tested means which makes the Beretta much more of a versatile gun as opposed to the Glock being designed to near perfection around a single purpose.
So, while the Glock is a good gun, I personally would take a Taurus or Beretta over it any day.
For the record, I am not a gun loyalist, so do not take my comments as bashing or defensive. I really don't have an ax to grind. I'm just telling it like it is.