Beretta 92FS vs. Taurus PT1911

[MacTech]

I know you've made your decision (Beretta) and it is a nice gun, the slide feels like it rides on ball bearings, and it's highly improbable to get a stovepipe jam thanks to that long open-top slide

I've owned both of the guns you were thinking of, shot 'em, loved 'em, but I do have to reccomend another option

I've owned a Taurus PT-99 (adjustable sight version of the PT92) which is basically a Taurus manufactured Berreta 92 with the safety in the correct location (on the frame, up for on, down for off), it was a great gun, reliable, bit not as accurate as I would have liked, so it was traded off

I own a Kimber Custom II .45 ACP 1911, LOVE IT!, reliable, accurate, durable, my KCII is remarkably un-fussy about ammo, eats whatever i feed it, ball, hollowpoints, semi-wadcutters, and locks up as solid as a bank vault, the PT1911, being a 1911-style pistol, like the Kimber, should be decently reliable and accurate, the 1911 style pistol is *always* a good choice

Another gun worth looking at is the CZ-75 series, a 9mm like the Beretta, but with a couple advantages over the Beretta...
the frame is *STEEL*, not Aluminum, and helps to soak up recoil, the 75 series are very smooth, controllable guns to shoot, and remarkably balanced

the safety is up for on, down for off, just like the 1911, the way it should be

the slide rides *inside* the frame, making the 75 have a very tight, accurate lockup, the 75 is an exceptionally accurate pistol in the right hands

at least give the 75 a look, I went through a few different 9mm's trying to find the right one, I stopped when I found the CZ-75B
Tanfoglio's "Witness" 9mm's and Magnum Research's "Baby Eagles" are based off the CZ-75 series platform as well

 

[gmh1013]

I would run to the Beretta 92 or a Taurus 92.....
I perfer the Taurus 92

 

[gmh1013]

Magtech you are lucky with the Kimber, I would never ever even pick
one up after what I went through with their CS.
I traded for a Ruger SP101 at a gun show. Best trade I ever made.
I have noticed people swear by them or swear at them.

 

[wickedsprint]

Beretta is a fantastic gun. My issued one on my hip as I type this looks beat to heck and it is still a tackdriver. My grandfather had the Taurus version, I remember his being nice as well. I don't sweat the safety location too much, if I was carrying it in a civilian capacity I would have the safety off anyhow.

 

[PT1911]

a kimber for an sp101? I woulda made that trade in a heartbeat.... only in reverse.

 

[Bullet]

I recommend the Glock 17.

 

[JR47]

It was the slide that fractured on the Beretta, sending part of it into the shooter's faces. The locking blocks are on their THIRD modification, and the military still recommends replacement every 5000 rounds. The Taurus has had neither problem.

The Mil-Spec versions of the Beretta 92 don't have all of the plastic parts that the civilian Model 92 possesses, either.

While Taurus didn't invent the 1911, neither did Kimber, SA, Baer, Wilson, or Ed Brown. Yet, we don't hear that when people want to buy one. If we did, only Colt would be recommended.

Personally, as a left handed shooter, I like the location of the Taurus safety. The slide mounted safety is awkward for me, although ambi as well. I also dislike the fact that it's ALWAYS a decocker.

Other than being over-sized for a 9mm, either the Model 92, or the PT92 are good guns. The PT1911 is the darling of the Taurus bashers. They have reams of innuendo, myth, and Errornet lore to back them up. Just no facts.

 

[PT1911]

you didnt know? the taurus pt1911 is the only 1911 on the market that isnt an original design... all the others, kimber, springfield, etc came out with theirs at the same time as Colt... therefore they are the only real 1911's out there... Taurus and their COPY can never live up to the original...

 

[JR47]

Careful, there are those who would believe that, as unintelligent as it sounds.

 

[shooter429]

If the Taurus is the Vette it is a beater 77

More like comparing a Corvette to a Ferrari

No comparison. Beretta is far and away the better gun. If you want a quality 1911, you will have to spend much more.

The Beretta is battle proven as well. Yes, the 1911 is a timeless warhorse, but not the Taurus.

Shooter429

 

[hemiram]

I would, and did, pick the Beretta 92FS over the Taurus. I've owned two Taurus guns, a Model 83, that was amazingly bad, and a Model 58, it was ok, but nothing even remotely close to the gun it was nearly a copy of, the Beretta 84. Taurus CS was a nightmare when I was trying to get the 83 fixed, and that's made me avoid Taurus guns for the most part.

I bought a lightly used 92FS, no plastic, the frame is straight in front, not tapered, as it should be, and it shoots great. It came with a bunch of 15 round mags, for $400, in the case with all the paperwork and 3 grips, rubber, wood, and the original plastic ones. The grip screws were kind of rough looking, but I had a set of replacements, all ready to go anyway.

 

[JR47]

No comparison. Beretta is far and away the better gun. If you want a quality 1911, you will have to spend much more.

This has to be the most apples-to-oranges comparison available. Better gun for what? Care to ask the men issued the M9 if they would rather have a 1911?

If you want a quality 1911, quality meaning over-priced, then you'll have to buy a semi-custom, like Baer, or Wilson. For upwards of $3000, you'll purchase the "quality of fit and finish" that resembles a gun made of pipe, and assembled using a hacksaw and a coarse file, when compared to a Korth semi-auto.

See, there's always a "better" gun. The problem lies in the mis-guided idea that expensive equals better.

What do you want a self-defense gun to do? It has to be reliable, accurate enough to do the perceived needs, and durable. Right now, how many LEOs, or military, do you see with these semi-customs issued to them? Why, virtually none. They get by with guns doing everything that is needed, and in the $400-500 range.

It's absolutely criminal to espouse the junky claims that you need a $2000-3000 gun before you can find quality. The 1911 that actually established the legend wasn't a semi-custom. It had no more hand-fitting than was necessary in light of the technology of the day. They rattled, missed the bluing tank in favor of parkerizing, or war-time dull finishes, had tiny sights, and a tiny safety lever. They also cost about $40.00 to make.

One thing that they did, though, was work. The "modern 1911", with all of it's technological innovations has yet to endure the fields of combat. Stick with the three essentials, and ignore the calls for "more money". It won't, in the end, save your life.