Beretta 92 FS, Any reason not to buy ?

[Kiln]

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]

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]

How does an XDM even enter into the conversation? Seriously, could you have found something more dissimilar.

 

[Pilot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.
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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[hAkron]

CDNN has the Inox for $489 (used)

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

 

[LawScholar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No, no reason. Here is my INOX

 

[g_one]

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]

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?