Beretta 92/96 Owners

[Timberline]

I am drawn to the 92/96 because I have big hands and like the grip as well as the barrel length and additional weight v. most other 9mm. I am probably only going to be able to buy 1 Beretta for awhile as baby is on the way and funds will be getting tighter. My budget is $550-575.00 which in Colorado allows me to look at most of the 92/96FS options i.e. Brig, Vertec, Inox Finish. I am looking for the best combination of durability and accuracy. I currently have a Steyr M9 which I like but want a slightly heavier and longer piece possibly in .40 for range and possibly action shooting work. What would you recommend?

 

[Lictalon]

I like 9mm. Cheap to shoot, and with a nice, heavy gun, you dont get bothered by recoil. Never been a .40 fan, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

The standard 92FS lacks night sights. That's it's biggest disadvantage...putting on night sights is a PITA. To correct that, you go with a Brig, and you get a beefier slide in the bargain. At that point you're all set...

Except...

You may want to add rails. If you do, then go with the GSD if you like the original grip, or try a vertec and see of you like that. Personally, if I were going to buy another Beretta, it would have rails, and become a bed-side gun. A light on a gun is a good thing, and unless you plan on holstering it, why not?

No matter what, you'll probably replace the hammer spring with a D model. All the rest--the Elites, etc. just add little things that I've never missed.

My .02

 

[cool45auto]

I'm a 9mm fan, hence the name, and I got a Vertec recently because I have small hands. The GSD may be just what you need. Check out LTT and the Beretta Forum for any questions you may have.

 

[ChuckB]

No reason that I can think of to not get a 92FS. Mine is flat out dependable and, loaded with +p hollowpoints- well, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. I have no experience with .40's, so I can't comment on the 96.

Chuck

 

[SouthpawShootr]

Whichever model you decide on, make sure you get one that does not have an integral front sight. This severely limits your options should you want to change the sights. I have the 92FS and I like it ok. I would have been happier if I'd gotten one of the Elite series guns. Vertecs came out way too late. How's your ammunition budget? .40 is going to be a couple of dollars more per box than 9mm - something to consider.

 

[SMLE]

I have a 96 and it is my primary carry piece. I kind of wish it was easier to fit it with night sights, but I have actually never owned a handgun WITH night sights, so I don't feel like I'm missing all that much. I personally don't care for all the tactical add ons like rails and light etc. I want a pistol that works and hits where I want it too. So far, the 96 has been 100% on both counts. I carry it in a Galco IWB on my right hip and wear my shirt tails out, The thing just vanishes. I am quite satisfied with mine and if I really did decide I needed night sights, I'd buy a second 96 either with them, or that I could get them installed on.

 

[SouthpawShootr]

The biggest sighting problem with my 92FS Inox is not the lack of nightsights, it is the fact that the front sight is somewhat difficult to pick out quickly during presentation. I have nightsights on my Glocks, and I like them, but the only reason I went this route is b/c the factory fixed sights don't agree with me. None of my other guns have nightsights. In the case of the Beretta, anything would be an improvement (I have remedied the situation somewhat by painting the front sight black).

 

[Kamicosmos]

I said this in another thread, and I'll say it again here:

Love my 96fs. 100% reliable. It's my nightstand gun. (And will be carried when/if MO gets this CCW thing cleared up!)

 

[Timberline]

Thanks for all the info. It seems that the collective advice can be summarized into 3 points.

1. Getting a model with dovetailed sights (those models are?) has no downside except for additional cost and adds flexibility for sight changeout.

2. Get the grip that fits best unless I have to have the rail then get the Vertec.

3. Only get the .40 if I decide I have to have it because of additonal ammo cost. I just bought the WWWWB 100 box today in 9mm for $10.94 +tax I think I remember somebody saying the .40 was in the $14-15.00 neighborhood.

There is a 96 Vertec with Blue Finish in town here for $500.00 plus tax. I may have to hold it in my hand again.

 

[9mmepiphany]

1. any model with the brig slidel will have dovetailed sights...for a narrow slide with dovetailed sights you'd have to go with the vertec

2. i believe the GSD also has a rail

3. if you decide to go with the .40, the 96 is supremely accurate and reliable...soft shooting too

the brig slide softens the recoil of the .40 and makes the 96 rugged enough to last as long as any 92FS...it also makes a 92 last forever

i thought i paid $12 for my last 100rd box of WWB 165gr .40 ...but i might be mistaken...i bought all the .40 that wal-mart had in stock

 

[Timberline]

Last question. What estimated lifespan am I looking at as far as first repairs, first major repairs and gun being plain worn out ( total round count) for the following:

1. 92FS/Vertec
2. 92 Brig
3. 96 FS/Vertec
4. 96 Brig

Thanks again!

 

[IMtheNRA]

Don't forget the Elite I or II

I frequently see these in your price range, lightly used. You get a lighter trigger (on E-II), a "G" configuration (decock only), brig slide, extended mag release on E-II, and of course, the Elites are very easy on the eyes.

Green Mountain Guns and Gunworks in Lakewood often have these in their consignment cases for about $500-$550.

Don't worry about major repairs, it's very difficult to wear out a Beretta, or just about any other quality modern pistol. In my Elite, I replace the recoil spring and mag springs at about 5,000 rounds, and that is probably too frequently.

Check out the beretta forum for some detailed descriptions of the various models of the 92 series.

 

[JNewell]

Have owned 96 and own 92s.

The 92 is more reliable than the 96.

9x19 is easier to find cheaper than 40, although they're getting closer.

All are very high quality, durable pistols.

A 92 Brig would be probably more durable than a 96 non-Brig, but the liklihood of your shooting one of these to junk is almost zero.

The Vertec is really a different grip -- make that cut based on how it fits and feels.

 

[355sigfan]

If you want durable skip the 96. The 92 will last much longer and even it is not know for its long term durablity. If you want durability get a Glock.
Pat

 

[voodooman]

get this one.

no night sites,
no rails,


just pretty to look at....my preciousssss.....

 

[cracked butt]

I have the satndard 92FS.
Only complaint is the integral to the frame front sight.
The sights seem to be regulated very close to poa for me, so this is pretty much a nonissue unless someone wanted night sights.
The trigger pull from the factory is terribly stiff imho.
Trigger pull can easily be fixed with a new $2 96D hammer spring.
My 92 is dead solid realiable and very accurate.
I've probably put 5 thousand rounds through it of all flavors and have had exactly 1 jam.
It jammed on a handload that had a minimum powder charge.
I've even had a 'little' KB with it using questionable remanufactured loads- no permanent damage to pistol, and no harm to shooter(me) other than being badly shaken by the incident.

 

[ProCharger]

I seriously doubt you are gonna tell the difference in a 92 and 96 as far as falling apart from durability. Unless you drop it into a crusher or something similar there really won't be a difference. You are expected to get roughly 30k shots out of the gun from what ive read before any problems do occur and slide wear is suppose to be appearant. I have roughly 5000 rounds through my 96 brig and I have not had a single malfunction....gun is completely stock, not a single modification or spring change. www.langdontactical.com has a lot of modification for your beretta pistols, and has the night sights for the brigadiers (you do have to send in the slide and have them install the sights with a turn around of 3 weeks). The guns are very reliable.....own a 92 and 96 with favor going to my 96. I'd rather have the larger hole, but thats just me.

Brett

 

[surfinUSA]

My 92fs is one of the guns I truely regret getting rid of. It had thousands of rounds through it, never had a mafunction, was accurate beyond belief at 90-100 yards. The trigger was smooth as glass from use, even without using a D spring. I should have kept that gun and put target sights on it.

Like a moron I got rid of it when 45s were approved by my department to get a SIG 220. Don't get me wrong the SIG is outstanding in everyway also. But if I could do it all over again I would have saved for the SIG and kept the Beretta.

My vote would be for the 92.

 

[355sigfan]

Actually a lot of departments junked their 96's because of durability problems.
Pat

 

[ProCharger]

Not to be a richard cranium here but explain durability. The way I see it the 92/96 are gonna last just as long as one another in the brigadier model as long as ya dont go throwing it at walls or anything stupid with it. Wouldnt normal use get about the same amount of shots out of them, especially in the brigadier model with the heavier slides? I am not understanding how people can "break" the guns. I do understand reliability.....maybe we are thinking same thing for a different term.

Brett

 

[355sigfan]

Little things break and most take the gun out of action till its fixed by an armorer. Trigger return springs break thats why the boarder patrol insisted on a after market wolf spring in their 96's. Locking blocks break ext. All through normal use. The 92 is best left as a 9mm its not up to the standard of constant 40sw pounding.
Pat

 

[Frederick]

cracked butt....did you say that the the hammer spring of a 92fs can be replaced with a 96D hammer spring? will it improve the trigger pull? where can i get this? btw, i love my 92fs. i got it 3 years ago (used) and until now it still looks brand new and super nice .