Is there a reason not to buy a Beretta

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

welshrabbit

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
36
Hello,
I have heard many people complain about the M9 or the Berettas in general, but has anyone got any specific reasons, other than personal taste not to buy a Beretta 92 series? Furthermore is there any difference between the M9 and a 92FS? I ask because on the Beretta website they list them as two seperate guns, and the M9 commands a higher price.
 
The main complaints about the Beretta 92/M9 is that its only a 9mm for its size. But with its size and weight, it has less recoil than other 9mm's, IMO. The only reason i can think of not to buy one would be if it didnt fit your hands. They are very accurate, extremely reliable, a good bargain and will last quite a while. Beretta USA is alo fairly easy to work with.

As far as the difference between the 92FS and M9, it just depends. They are basically the same thing, with the exception of some very minor parts. Depending on the model, one might have an accessory rail and the other might not.
 
I had an M9 in the Marines & I carry a Beretta 92f everyday, 8 hours a day at work.
92FS.jpg


The qualification course for my job is like this;

12 rounds from 2 magazines of 6 each in 15 seconds from 3 yards.
12 rounds from 2 magazines of 6 each in 15 seconds from 7 yards.
12 rounds from low ready - double taps using 2 magazines of 6 each in 90 seconds from 10 yards.
18 rounds from behind a barricade - kneeling position. 12 strong hand 6 weak. No time limit from 15 yards.
6 rounds standing from behind a barricade at 20 yards, standing position.

I shot a 273 out of 300 last go round, my best score is a 297.

I would not buy a Beretta.

The gun is too big,
It is not any more accurate than another 9mm at the same price point nor is it any more reliable then another firearm.
I dislike the DA/SA pull especially for the first DA shot.
The external "de-cocker" is not a safety device.
It has been around for 20+ years and just recently came out with a railed model.
YMMV

research here

beretta model 92/96 fan sites :

http://www.beretta-e.org/index.php?title=92/96

http://www.berettacollection.com/9mm/92.htm

http://www.berettaweb.com/armi/92%20only%2092.htm
 
I prefer the Taurus PT92. IMNSHO, it's a better pistol. I CCWed one for 10 years or so until I decided to build a 1911.

The PT92 I have I outfitted with a target guide rod with integral frame buffer and a Beretta locking block (the old style Beretta and current Taurus, last I checked, break every 5000 rounds or so). I also did some smoothing and ended up with a pistol that would shoot five shots under 2" at 25yds, with three of those being under an inch.

I can't prove it, but I believe that the straight rearward motion of the barrel improves accuracy.

I prefer Hogue grip panels. Tacky, very good grip, and thinner than stock.

I'd recommend the Taurus over the Beretta, but both are good guns.

Josh <><
 
The safety is backwards. Up should be safe. down should be fire.

I read a post here on THR from someone wiser than myself, that it's a good idea to have all your sidearms function the same way. I think he refered to it as having the same "manual of arms." I never realized how true this is until I took my wife's Bersa to the range along with MY guns. I shouldn't have to "think" about what I'm doing when I draw a gun.

That's the ONLY reason I would not get a 92.

Oh, one more reason. The Stoeger Cougar.
 
My 9mm Brig has been great and I love the thing. The stock grips are just right for my hand size but whether or not you should buy one depends on your use. There are a few pistols I might buy first for a duty weapon (larger caliber) and a few more for a concealed weapon (smaller size) but for day to day reliability and getting the job done, the 92 series has been pretty good. I suspect most of our armed service people would still like a 1911 though.
 
I've got a 92FS and find it a very entertaining gun. Like everything else, it's has it's quirks, and I had to figure out what to do with it to correct those, but it's accurate, and for the most part, very easy to work with.

Cleaning and teardown is a snap, and it reassembles very quickly, so unless you have a problem handling the gun, it's a buy. As for the technology being around 20 years, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It provides a lot of spare parts, and a lot of information about loads, things you can change out without screwing up the works, etc., so it's "time tested", and you should be able to custom the gun to fit your particular style of shooting.

It's a high capacity weapon, so it's good for home defense or carry, and provides a lot of firepower. It carries Beretta's name, and I've had little or no trouble with their products.

WT
 
Yes there is.
People on the internet will tell you Beretta pistols are pieces of junk that blow up and injure uncounted numbers of US SEAL operators.
You cannot count yourself a real man unless you buy an XD,CZ,17-19-34-21SF-20, Browning High Power, or 1911 Colt.

standard.gif

The only thing I would like to see done with the M9/92FS is adding a light rail and replaceable, dovetailed, tritium sights with the front on a strengthened slide ring.
They got it half right with the M9A1 with its light rail.

I have a genuine contract overrun M9 that was released by Beretta for civilian sale.
It has all metal parts except for the guide rod which was plastic.
The word I got was this contract run was rejected by some branch of the military because of the plastic guide rods.
I can believe that because the M9 pistols I worked with in service all had metal guide rods

Of the new versions, the only real difference I can see between the current 92FS and the current M9 offering are the markings, both have plastic parts in all the right places and they hurt the guns not one bit unless you are a purist.
 
Go to m4carbine.net and run a search on the M9. Look for the comments by ToddG (who used to be a LE/military marketing director for Beretta and one of their team shooters). Also, I can provide a copy of an article Larry Vickers did on the M9.

You'll get a good overview of the pros and cons of the Beretta, things to look for, and remedies for some of the cons.
 
Of the new versions, the only real difference I can see between the current 92FS and the current M9 offering are the markings, both have plastic parts in all the right places and they hurt the guns not one bit unless you are a purist.
Click to expand...
Or the latest more cheaply manufactured Beretta M9s break parts more frequently(I can only speak on behalf of new Army Berettas). They aren't just plastic parts breaking either. Brand new pistols breaking more frequently than the "old beaters". The commercial versions may be a different story altogether. That I don't know. But the fact of the matter is Beretta is saving money by taking some shortcuts. The plastic parts work but it could indicate that Beretta has also taken shortcuts elsewhere.

Berettas are good, reliable pistols. If you like the feel of them I don't see why you wouldn't buy one. People talk about locking block failures on them like it's a regular occurring problem but I have yet to see one. I have seen plenty of other parts break on them though. If I had any use for anything chambered in 9mm Parabellum I would probably own one.
 
People on the internet will tell you Beretta pistols are pieces of junk that blow up and injure uncounted numbers of US SEAL operators.
You cannot count yourself a real man unless you buy an XD,CZ,17-19-34-21SF-20, Browning High Power, or 1911 Colt.
Click to expand...

You're the only person making these claims that I've noticed. :scrutiny:
 
Keep searching MaterDei, the posts are out there and they aren't mine.

I have owned three Beretta 9mm pistols and one .40 cal M96 over the course of the last twenty five years, every one has performed admirably with no broken parts or major malfunctions.

When I was checking out the .40 S&W cartridge, I deliberately chose the Model 96 because I thought it was the best pistol for the task,( I didn't have access to an H&K USP at that time).
The pistol worked well, the cartridge left me less impressed.
 
well, the army used the beretta... they didn't pick it because it was pretty or anything, but because it worked and passed their testing...

perhaps a reason not to pick a beretta is because there are so many choices out there - BUT you must pick what works BEST FOR YOU in a high capacity 9mm. there's the sig p226, cz-75, if you're into steel guns. in plastic, of course there are the glocks, XDs, m&p, etc.
 
Yes, there are several reasons

a) you plan to use it for concealed carry and
you live in a climate/env that does not encourage
long coats/etc

b) you do not like 9mm and prefer 10mm (as an example)

c) you want easily available aftermarket .22 LR kit for under
$250 for the same gun

d) you cannot consistently get a natural point of aim with it
(that aquire target without using sights)

e) you want to carry it cocked and locked and cannot
imagine how you would use the safety on the frame
that goes in to the oposite direction...


in otherwords the only reasons not to purchase it are
very subjective to your own specific needs

there are really no 'objective' reasons why not to buy it
as compared it any other current offerring in the same price
range.
 
The "plastic" parts that some speak of, are only polymer coated metal, not plastic. Yes, the guide rod is plastic in some models, but is easily swapped out for metal if you like (although i've yet to read of a plastic guide rod breaking).
 
I've got a px4 and like it. Never had any reliability problems, easy shooting, 20 rounds, more accurate than I am, etc., etc.
 
I'll tell you my experience with them.

In the summer of 1992, my arms room in Germany switched out 87 WWII era 1911s for new-in-cosmoline M-9s. I was the assistant armorer and I volunteered to do the bulk of the work to clean them up for issue. Furthermore, being in the position where I would have to sleep with my weapon in the field, and being able to pick pretty much whichever weapon I wanted, I took the pistol.

They feel great and shoot great. Probably not the best for people with small hands though. Particularly, the single action is very easy, and using military issue ammo, when it shoots, it pops right back down on target every time naturally. (I never tried any variety of other loads in one.)The controls are very natural and ergonomic.

However, as stated above, the frame is unforgiveably large for only being a 9mm/.40. Much bulkier than a 1911 in .45. The army should include night sights, but they don't generally. We started having problems with soldiers tampering with them, taking off the grip panels, removing the springs and putting them in backwards, dinging up the exposed mechanics, etc. These were NOT particularly accurate. (Although at least as accurate as the old 1911s with old bushings and barrels they replaced, and within the old and very low accuracy army standards for a sidearm.) Where any problem that I ever had with a 1911 could be fixed with a detail strip and parts replacement, every time something went wrong with an M9, I had to send it to support-level maintenence.

I also had a Taurus T-92, and while I liked the safety better, I had a lot of problems with it. Light firing pin strikes, the double-action was slipping for no explicable reason, I got rid of it.

It's not that the Beretta design is bad, it's mostly that there are so many other designs that are so much better. I don't think anyone can honestly say it is tougher than a Glock, A USP, or an XD. I THINK, that U.S. troops should carry the simplest, most idiot-proof, and cost-effective sidearm available. (Glock.) As for me, I tried a dozen other pistols for carry before I decided that real men carry 1911s. (Sarcasm intended, put your flame-throwers away.) It just feels better, shoots better, and carries better. (For me, anyway. I can tinker with it without destroying it. I WISH the army would let me take it to war, but I know it won't happen.
 
I personally HATE THEM. the trigger pull is very long in DA (to me), the finish wears off too easily (under holstered conditions and combat), the aluminum frame can be damaged too easily, and the locking block seems to like to blow one of its tabs off from time to time....

this is from combat experience and from fixing them under harsh conditions. +1 on *** plastic parts. The new parts I get for the guide rod are plastic and the safety levers are that polymar coated stuff....yuck.

I also HATE how many parts are in the system....that slide has WAAY to many for the average user to go doing a full clean on it from time to time.

females shoot good with them and they are accurate. First pistol I ever fired was a 96 .40cal and I shot great with it.

I just don't like them....but then again I am a 1911 man :)
 
The only reason not to get one is the CZ 75.

I have owned a 92, Taurus92, and CZ.

The CZ I still have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
differences between Beretta 92 models
Replies
5
Views
3K
BacSi67
B
B
  • Locked
Beretta 92FS vs. Taurus 92B-17
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
Taurus92 in KyleTX
T
ChCx2744
  • Locked
Good 9mm pistol price comparisons?
Replies
14
Views
1K
atblis
A
G
  • Locked
Basic question about the Beretta M9/92FS product line
Replies
24
Views
1K
JDGray
J
C
  • Locked
Magazine compatability
Replies
0
Views
376
CYANIDEGENOCIDE
C
Back
Top