BERETTA 92 VS. PT92 QUESTION

Beretta, because the ten gazillion hicap magazines in circulation for it is A Good Thing.

Like you said the Beretta cost about $40-60 more. Get the Beretta. You will forget that $60 quicker than you think.

You need a couple more options on the poll, like '____ because it fits me better'.

The Beretta SUCKS. The safety is so high that you need pretty good sized hands to use it efficiently. The Taurus on the other hand has the safety where ANYONE can use it.

Some of the hard core competition shooters say that the Taurus actually lasts longer than the Beretta, and that they certainly didn't expect that to be the case. Either way neither is all that durable, 50K rounds is a good long life for the design.

I don't really care for the gun outside of competition use, it is WAY too big for a 15 shot 9mm. That said, it is an extremely easy gun to shoot, typically is very reliable, and popular.

I have a hard time with fixed sights and competition loads, so mine is a PT99.

Any information on these hard core Taurus Competition folks would be helpfull.

Either is a fine weapon. And for someone to say one is better then thee other is ludicrous. Their equally good is what can be said.
I've had good hands on time with PT-92's(plural, not singular) for someone to talk bad about that particular model. 50 to 60 dollar difference isn't much, but I normally see hundred's of dollars difference between the two.

Fifth choice: Taurus because it'll do cocked and locked! I've both. the Beretta looks better (older made in Italy model) but the Taurus shoots every bit as good.

I saw some stainless 92-like Beretta's that appeared to do cocked and locked, but when I saw the $900+ price tag I didn't enquire further.

--wally.

who cares about the safety? we are men... glocks and xds dont have safety do we complain no.... the beretta is much better in every aspect. mags and parts anywhere and everywhere. great customer service, high quality and 15 and 17 rd mags? you can buy either from mecgar or just buy the new mags. berettas have a history of reliability unlike the taurus and a history of being highly accurate.... try finding match parts for the taurus, you cant no matter what you do to that hunk of crap its still gonna be a taurus take a good look.... berettas dont suck its taurus... if you want a good resale value, good accuracy, and a quality product go with the beretta... if you want to cheap out and buy a boat anchor go ahead

If you shop around I think you can get a 92 for almost the same price, plus mags are plentiful and pretty cheap.

I would go Beretta all the way in this case!

i got a black 92 a while back for 380 nib

The Beretta, hands down! The two Italian 92's I have are great performers & the classic good looks make them easy to look at too! Plus, the luck I've had w/ Tauri firearms has been less than stellar.

PS...excuse the 2 HK's in this photo...it's the only current pic's I have of my 2 Beretta 92s together

dont tell me that is a p7m7?

oooo M7? No, P7M8, I just wish I had a chance to acquire a P7M7

dont we all? wasnt there only 5 ever made?

beretta, head over to the Enos forums and search there. Plenty of reading on the design in question when used heavily in a competition format.

Thanks

The safety doesn't bother me, because it's "not a safety", it's a decocking lever, and I carry both my issued and personal with the hammer down and decocking lever up!

The DA/SA Beretta 92/96 trigger gets a little getting used to... but don't listen to the BS about the M9 from "less than stellar military members". 2 Weeks ago I put 6 rounds on 6 targets from a high rig in 3.53 seconds, at the local steel challenge.

I do alot of shooting. After 40k rounds in my 2003 manufactured 92FS, I've replaced a few recoil springs, the plastic mag release and for no reason at all I replaced the plastic guide rod with a steel one, I'd like to replace the plastic trigger and plastic lanyard loop/mainspring retaining houseing. I added Crimson Trace Grips. I've had 5 failures with this pistol in over 3 years... what a pile of crap huh? and I use military issued 15 round mags only!

I'm actually thinking about getting a second 92FS and adding a compensated barrel, and the match trigger kit from brownells

I've seen the 92FS and M9 down to around $550 out here in California new and used ones going for around $295

I believe there is a Beretta 92 made gun with a safety on the frame as opposed to the slide. I am not sure but I am sure someone here could elaborate.

In Maryland...

In Maryland Berettas are expensive... I'm talking $715 - $750 for a plain jane M92 (I have seen regular Inox Beretta's for around $900 ). Taurus 92's on the other hand are around $440-460 depending on if you want blued or stainless with rails. I prefer the Taurus safety system myself and I think the rails look good on the gun. Therefore, if I were to purchase a 92 style pistol, I would go with the Taurus.

That said, if the prices were similar for the two, I believe I would be inclined to go with Beretta. The whole Die Hard/Lethal Weapon thing, ya know.

But IMO, the Beretta is not worth the $300+ premium here in Maryland.

I'd go with the Taurus. Don't listen those anyone who says the PT92 is not a quality firearm. More than likely they have no personal experience with them or Taurus in general and rely on other people's hearsay. Do your research on the history of the PT92 and you'll find that if the Taurus sucks then the Beretta does also.
The only problem I have with the availability of extra parts is that I haven't needed any yet after 8 years of shooting my Taurus, other than that you can find Taurus parts anywhere. I get my extra mags for $25. You can get Taurus mags that hold 10, 15 or 17 round mags, just like the Beretta.

16 to 5 hmmm taurus is not quality its a knockoff its like saying a vw bug is better than a truck...... taurus copied the design in 1980 about a decade before beretta already had multiple models out.... whoever has been making the gun longer has had a longer time to perfect it and you can tell the quality between the two and see the beretta is better and if berettas suck why did the military adopt them instead of the taurus? quality, reliability, and accuracy.

taurus copied the design in 1980 about a decade before beretta already had multiple models out...

Click to expand...

What you mean to say is that Taurus bought Beretta's tooling. Quite different than just knocking off, like say S&W's Glock knockoffs. And I've never heard of Taurus having the slide problems (slide to the face) and the trigger transfer bar failures that the Berettas (only American made Beretta???? Not sure.) have had.

That being said, I find all the fullsize Berettas and all PT92s to be very, very accurate. Maybe it's just the longer sight radius, but probably not. Those approach match grade accuracy (of course not trigger pull) out of the box. It's a good service pistol, despite the bulk.

Shooter 1: "That's a nice Beretta you got there"
Shooter 2: "It's a Taurus"
Shooter 1: "Oh, it's a Taurus"

Get the real thing.

Taurus and beretta are both fine guns for quality. I think they are big and clunky for a 9mm though.

I shoot these in the military matches. We have to use bone stock M9's Berettas.
The triggers wear in pretty nice after several hundred rounds. Other than that I don’t think they are very special. If I didn't shoot these in matches I would never have bought one. It's not really good enough for a match gun and too big for CC. I don’t see the appeal of either the Taurus or beretta 92's other than looks. I would take a Taurus over beretta just because of price.

I really don't understand why the beretta fanbois are so down on Taurus. I guess it makes them feel better about their toys.