Is there a reason not to buy a Beretta
- Thread starter welshrabbit
- Start date
- Status
PointOneSeven
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 169
Old technology. Hammers are out, strikers are in.
I trained on the 1911, shot and qualified on it, then trained on the M9, shot and qualified on it. Even bought a 92SF, carried it, etc.
It's big for me (5'6",) and has a larger grip than a G19. Good weight for a range gun, little recoil like the 1911. Lots of controls all over, kinda busy. So, I got a G19. Much simpler, slightly more recoil, shoots as well, much easier to carry.
In uniform or on the range, a M9 is ok. As a CCW piece, not so much.
As for being "selected" as the "best" in the competition for the Army, please remember the AF started that trial, and Italy reminded some VIP's in the food chain they were hosting some important bases for the Army/Navy in the Med. It was a political decision to give Beretta the contract, and the AF is happy. Too bad Glock came on the market just after.
It's big for me (5'6",) and has a larger grip than a G19. Good weight for a range gun, little recoil like the 1911. Lots of controls all over, kinda busy. So, I got a G19. Much simpler, slightly more recoil, shoots as well, much easier to carry.
In uniform or on the range, a M9 is ok. As a CCW piece, not so much.
As for being "selected" as the "best" in the competition for the Army, please remember the AF started that trial, and Italy reminded some VIP's in the food chain they were hosting some important bases for the Army/Navy in the Med. It was a political decision to give Beretta the contract, and the AF is happy. Too bad Glock came on the market just after.
12131
Member
Thanks for the update.
Black Majik
Member
There were three main reasons for me to dump the 92FS. 1) The backwards safety/decocker 2)frame mounted safety 3) horribly long and gritty DA trigger
Otherwise it was a great gun, very smooth shoot and cycling. However it wasn't a gun I'd ever get serious with and attempt to learn, so it got used as a range gun every blue moon.
Meh.
Otherwise it was a great gun, very smooth shoot and cycling. However it wasn't a gun I'd ever get serious with and attempt to learn, so it got used as a range gun every blue moon.
Meh.
IMTHDUKE
Member
Here's one reason....
If you want a little more gun for a little more $
If you want a little more gun for a little more $
CountGlockula
Member
The finish of the metal.
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
The Beretta is kind of large for what you get. They are capable of pretty good accuracy. A lot of service people don't think much of them because the ones the military have, have been humped hard.
My own experience is that the trigger reset is not that good, and the magazine floorplates are junk. Personally, I think they are a pretty decent gun,and wouldn't feel underarmed if I had one, but there are just as good if not better guns out there for the same price or less.
My own experience is that the trigger reset is not that good, and the magazine floorplates are junk. Personally, I think they are a pretty decent gun,and wouldn't feel underarmed if I had one, but there are just as good if not better guns out there for the same price or less.
ROVERMAN
Member
Only if it does not fit your hand or you feel more comfortable with or shoot something better. The 92FS I have owned for 15 years has served me well. I have performed regular things like replacing worn/weak springs and replaced the lock block with the new Barsto barrel,(I only did this because I really wanted a Barsto barrel!!). Other than that the gun has performed flawlessly with ANY ammo I have put through it. Go shoot one and see how you like it.
Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
If you don't like the safety of the later ones, the original 92 had a 1911-style frame-mounted safety. Here's mine, cocked and locked:
Smaug
Member
I've shot them, and owned a Taurus PT92. I prefer the PT92, since it has the safety lower, on the frame, instead of the slide. That might be one reason not to buy one.
They are big; a true full-size pistol. Depending on what you're looking for, that might be a factor too. For a range gun, this is pefect.
They are heavier than guns with similar firepower, accuracy, and reliability such as the Glock 17. That might be a reason.
Lack of accuracy, reliability or capacity are certainly not reasons.
Every Beretta I've shot or handled has had above average fit & finish. They just operate so smoothly. They don't work any better than some guns that are not finished as well, but there is a certain feeling of satisfaction to owning such a smooth gun.
They are big; a true full-size pistol. Depending on what you're looking for, that might be a factor too. For a range gun, this is pefect.
They are heavier than guns with similar firepower, accuracy, and reliability such as the Glock 17. That might be a reason.
Lack of accuracy, reliability or capacity are certainly not reasons.
Every Beretta I've shot or handled has had above average fit & finish. They just operate so smoothly. They don't work any better than some guns that are not finished as well, but there is a certain feeling of satisfaction to owning such a smooth gun.
Lonestar49
Member
Got to laugh
Just remember, 3 strikes and yer OUT..
Out of sight, out of mind vs visual confirmation.. anytime, everytime.
Old technology, LMAO, you go George Jetson..
Ls
Just remember, 3 strikes and yer OUT..
Out of sight, out of mind vs visual confirmation.. anytime, everytime.
Old technology, LMAO, you go George Jetson..
Ls
Lonestar49
Member
Got to laugh
Just remember, 3 miss-strikes and yer OUT - 3 less rounds to go vs optional full DA pull, or manual hammer re-cock, and fire, same bullet.
Out of sight, out of mind vs visual confirmation.. anytime, everytime.
Old technology, LMAO, you go George Jetson..
Ls
Just remember, 3 miss-strikes and yer OUT - 3 less rounds to go vs optional full DA pull, or manual hammer re-cock, and fire, same bullet.
Out of sight, out of mind vs visual confirmation.. anytime, everytime.
Old technology, LMAO, you go George Jetson..
Ls
Deanimator
Member
1. Too big for the round.
2. WAY too long trigger reach.
3. Lousy trigger pull, at least on the DAOs.
2. WAY too long trigger reach.
3. Lousy trigger pull, at least on the DAOs.
Magnuumpwr
Member
You may want to handle both prior to purchasing. The main difference between the M9 and the 92FS are the sights. M9 is for people who have trouble using the 3 dot set up which the 92FS uses. Evidently the military wanted to keep confusion to a minimum with new recruits. "Point the gun at the target, use the front sight to complete the circle in the rear sight, and shoot!"
benderx4
Member
I too, carried one for many years during my military tenure. It never failed me but was, however, a bit large for the amount of capacity and caliber you got. Smooth action, decent trigger, good accuracy, and very reliable gun.
Having said all that, I've got a bunch of reasons NOT to buy a Beretta 92S (Same gun as M9):
1. HK P30L
2. SA XDm 9mm
3. CZ 75B SP-01
4. Sig 229
Good luck with your choice!!
Having said all that, I've got a bunch of reasons NOT to buy a Beretta 92S (Same gun as M9):
1. HK P30L
2. SA XDm 9mm
3. CZ 75B SP-01
4. Sig 229
Good luck with your choice!!
Wolfman_556
Member
I will never own a striker-fired pistol.
I like seeing that hammer, and knowing what position it's in.
I like seeing that hammer, and knowing what position it's in.
BoneDigger
Member
Beretta advertises either a 1 year or a three year warranty, and not lifetime. That is my one big hangup with Beretta.
Todd
Todd
propex
Member
I have two a 92 fs and a .45 Cougar and love them both
Old Navy
Member
Seals Don't carry Berettas
Navy seals carry Sig P226 Navy.
Navy seals carry Sig P226 Navy.
IdahoLT1
Member
PointOneSeven said:
Wait....so they arent making revolvers anymore because its "old technology"? Intersting....
- Status
