Quantcast

Beretta 92fs from PSA

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by milemaker13, Nov 12, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,530
    Location:
    Vegas
    It is even better than that -- I still have my 1992 receipt for buying a new 92FS for $585, and I shopped all over the place to get that good of a sub-$600 deal.
     
    Mosin Bubba and JohnKSa like this.
  2. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    15,396
    Location:
    DFW Area
    That sounds about right. I couldn't remember exactly what the Bruniton finish guns were going for back then, but I know I bought a stainless 92FS for about $650 sometime in the '91 timeframe.
     
  3. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,478
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Got mine today. And I promptly tore it apart to thread the barrel and install a custom 5/8-24 extension. We'll try it out tomorrow with the can I just built.

    IMG_2386.JPG

    IMG_2390.JPG

    IMG_2392.JPG
     

    Attached Files:

    equin, 1KPerDay and glc24 like this.
  4. 1KPerDay

    1KPerDay Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,517
    Location:
    Happy Valley, UT
    way cool!
     
  5. milemaker13

    milemaker13 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,245
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    Did you get that 92 thru PSA? Made in Italy or USA?

    I have decided to get a Browning buckmark .22LR for fun at the range. I think I'll be happier being able to shoot more, more often (ammo cost). In the mean time I'll see if I can borrow my old man's 92.
     
  6. milemaker13

    milemaker13 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,245
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    Ha! Looks like they finally ran out of the $449 w/ free shipping 92's. They just kept extending the sale, drawing me ever closer to pulling the trigger. First night I saw it, my wife was out of town, I thought heck with it, I'll just buy it.....aah better not. Sale will end, 'nuff said. Then it was extended, and again, and again.... They really know how to push a man to the brink!
     
  7. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,478
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Yes, and it's Italian made. The fit & finish on my 2002 American made Inox 92 is better. That's not to say this one is bad; more like excellent compared to virtually perfect.

    That's what happened to me. I ignored it for a month and a half, finally got tempted too much.

    The 92 is a good host weapon for suppressors; hammer fired guns aren't subject to the same sear engagement & wear issues as striker fired pistols caused by an extra 10-16 ounces hanging off the snout, lifting the rear of the slide off the frame.

    I just have to figure out what sights I want to put on it and mill a front dovetail.
     
  8. equin

    equin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Messages:
    126
    Location:
    North Texas
    I had one and really enjoyed shooting it. It fit my hands well and was way more accurate than me. It was easy to disassemble and clean and very reliable. I regret selling it.
     
  9. DesertVet

    DesertVet Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    240
    033A0350-2EA8-4202-9D9C-491BC33D0097.jpeg 1CBAA272-443C-48CD-A69A-8C1ED8E1E8A1.jpeg 977CC9A6-346A-410A-BACD-E3FBF0020F55.jpeg 1CBAA272-443C-48CD-A69A-8C1ED8E1E8A1.jpeg View attachment 789601 977CC9A6-346A-410A-BACD-E3FBF0020F55.jpeg Nothing wrong with the 92FS.
    I used the M-9 extensively in peacetime and combat.
    Ran a 92FS as a duty weapon for a Civilian Law Enforcement Agency as well.
    They are fine pistols if maintenance guidelines are followed and quality magazines are used.
    If you like them, get one!
     
  10. lsudave

    lsudave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    I have one. I tend to prefer the CZ, all things being equal; but the 92FS is a classic. Mine's a nice shooter, very slick, and if it were my only pistol I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage. BTW I have some pretty small hands, but for whatever reason it doesn't give me a problem.
    It was the military issued sidearm for the US for several decades. Love or hate that, it's up to you; but it IS the gun our guys carried. For a lot of folks, that in itself is a draw. Regarding some troops' complaints about them, I remember hearing complaints about the 1911 back in the day, too. Doesn't stop it from being loved now.
     
  11. Alec

    Alec Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    Washington State
    Not yet mentioned here, I don’t think:

    The 92S does not have the design change present on the 92FS that prevents rearward ejection of the slide should the front of the slide crack and split apart. This is documented to have happened... IMO you should protect your faceteeth and skip the 92S.

    The plastic guide rod probably costs less, yes, but its flutes also prevent spring binding caused by sand or debris. If that is a problem for you, consider a fluted metal replacement instead of smooth.
     
  12. Blkhrt13

    Blkhrt13 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    The armpit of Satan (south Louisiana)
    The particular slide cracking issue was sorted out to early production slides on the fs that didn’t have enough radius in a corner. They were also found via high round counts and hammering on them with NATO rounds. Which are plus p pressures.
     
  13. Alec

    Alec Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    Washington State
    That's certainly good to add, but I think supports my opinion, mainly because it's nearly impossible to tell how much of what kind of ammo was run through surplus guns with mixmaster parts of unknown age and origin.
     
  14. mjsdwash

    mjsdwash Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,276
    on the M9 I used to have the trigger, and guiderod were plastic. I think the mag release as well, but on that one the decocker was steel, both of them. I second the CZ75-BD if you just want a good 9mm, and its not too much more than a used beretta at $550 or so new. Are the berettas new?
     
  15. Blkhrt13

    Blkhrt13 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    The armpit of Satan (south Louisiana)
    My 92s was 3 bills. And of a 70s era vintage.
     
  16. Blkhrt13

    Blkhrt13 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    The armpit of Satan (south Louisiana)
    The 92s guns are mostly as assembled. Not hodgepodge. I believe they may have been arsenal checked before sale. But fit, finish and wear are all very nice. There is obvious holster wear but looks like almost zero range abuse.
     
  17. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    13,043
    Location:
    Georgia
    The Beretta came out in 1972, the CZ in 1975. Both are outdated designs, but the Beretta does have historical significance. I've had both and neither would be my top choice for any practical application. But I'd take a Beretta over any CZ. The plastic parts function just as reliably as the older steel parts and help reduce the price.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice