Beretta 92FS more accurate?
- Thread starter baryon
- Start date
- Status
Runningman
Member
Not in my experience. I was not to impressed with the accuracy of my long gone 92F.
I remember reading an article about some government sharpshooting team and their group of pistolsmiths having a hard time extracting accuracy from the 92. I think they were able to make a fair amount of progress; unfortunately I don't recall if the article had much by way of technical information.
SwampWolf
Member
Bullseye shooters have made great strides in making the 92 more accurate; doing much of the same things that enhanced the accuracy of 1911s "back in the day."
My 92 steel-I and 90-Two are very accurate but they are mostly built for reliability with the unsupported end of the barrel and open slide.
If you want to get some money into them (1000-2000) like a target 1911 you can get in line for one of the Beretta 92 Stock or Combats with a barrel bushing installed between the slide and barrel. I think Beretta will sell just the upper slide assembly but there is a waiting list.
Barsto also sells a barrel with a bushing but i don't know if they work with regular 92FS slides.
If you want to get some money into them (1000-2000) like a target 1911 you can get in line for one of the Beretta 92 Stock or Combats with a barrel bushing installed between the slide and barrel. I think Beretta will sell just the upper slide assembly but there is a waiting list.
Barsto also sells a barrel with a bushing but i don't know if they work with regular 92FS slides.
Last edited:
Raptorq7r13
Member
Sure, there are a number of guns more accurate than the 92, but it depends on what your doing. Concealed carry/ home defense gun? Works great! Bullseye shooting competition? Not so much.
It's reliability and combat optimized not accuracy optimized. That being said, it's plenty accurate for the casual or defensive shooter like myself.
It's reliability and combat optimized not accuracy optimized. That being said, it's plenty accurate for the casual or defensive shooter like myself.
My 92FS is my current concealed carry gun. I use an IWB Comptac holster - the Pro Undercover model, if I remember right.
The grip wasn't really any longer than the 45 cal HK USPc I carried for a while.
I was gonna start carrying the 92 after summer was over. But I started a few weeks ago, and I like it. It would be too big on an OWB holster in summer. But IWB is fine, even with just a t shirt
I guess they let a few accurate ones slip by accidently, because all of mine are VERY accurate, as well as most of my Buds are - now, there are a LOT of folks out there that don't get good results with ANY pistol, but it's usually them and not the pistol....I've proven at least a dozen times that it was NOT the pistol.....
i've carried my Beretta 96 in an OWB Alessi ACP for quite a while when i used it as my duty gun...it's actually easier than a Sig 226.
much of CCW has to do with holster and belt selection
i don't think the Beretta is any more accurate than a stock tilting barrel system, but in my hands it does feel smoother
my 96 has been my most accurate .40, when compared to a Glock 22, Sig 229 and 226
my 96 has been my most accurate .40, when compared to a Glock 22, Sig 229 and 226
EOD Guy in VA
Member
I shoot very accurately with my 92FS, but I think that it's more due to the ergonomics and the way it handles recoil than any inherent accuracy in the pistol.
leadcounsel
member
The Beretta 92FS was my first pistol. I was a novice, but I felt it was horrible with accuracy. I kept it for a long time, reluctant to sell/trade it for sentimental reasons. I did trade it away and glad it is gone.
Yes, the military uses the 92FS (designated the M9) as the standard sidearm. I have no idea why other than politics (we wanted a base in Italy, they were awarded a contract). It's probably one of the last guns I would pick. I would pick Glock, CZ, Sig, Ruger, and a few others first. Oh well. I didn't like carrying one in Iraq. I would have preferred something else. Big, heavy, fouls easily, etc. Oh well again.
The M9 is so wildly popular with gun guys that Special Forces and Special Operations quickly dump the M9 in favor of Glocks, Sigs, HKs, etc. at their first opportunity.
Back to the original question, again, even after years of shooting lots of guns my 92FS was just not an accurate pistol. I'll never own another.
Yes, the military uses the 92FS (designated the M9) as the standard sidearm. I have no idea why other than politics (we wanted a base in Italy, they were awarded a contract). It's probably one of the last guns I would pick. I would pick Glock, CZ, Sig, Ruger, and a few others first. Oh well. I didn't like carrying one in Iraq. I would have preferred something else. Big, heavy, fouls easily, etc. Oh well again.
The M9 is so wildly popular with gun guys that Special Forces and Special Operations quickly dump the M9 in favor of Glocks, Sigs, HKs, etc. at their first opportunity.
Back to the original question, again, even after years of shooting lots of guns my 92FS was just not an accurate pistol. I'll never own another.
It should be noted that the pistol shooting championship at Camp Perry was won several years ago for the first time with the Beretta 92 by one of the Military teams. Don't know what the current or more recent champions are shooting but it can be made as accurate as any other specialized target pistol for Bullseye competition.
leadcounsel
member
75B is worlds more accurate than the 92FS. No contest. It's due to the supported barrel and the slide on the inside of the CZ75 frame.
- Status
Similar threads
