PT92
Member
I see--I was just wondering because I have never shot a "properly" functioning Taurus or Beretta 92 that was anything short of bulls-eye accurate (honestly, it's the kind of platform that I was born to shoot so I am admittedly biased here--yet we all have that "fits like a glove' type gun). The 1911 is a close second for me but I am a bit more accurate with the 92 (and I can disassemble/reassemble it blind-folded). I could flip a coin as far as which one to buy but back when I purchased mine (mid-90's) the price differential was far more substantial than we see today so I was able to apply the difference towards lots of accessories.Honestly, i noticed the trigger was gritty and had a lot of take up in it. And part of it was myself, not having fired the gun on a regular basis, as it belongs to my friend.
The gun in question btw, is a restricted capacity PT92AFS.
We were shooting clay targets, set on a target board roughly 25 feet out. The clays were about 5 inches in diametre and i couldnt hit them. I could see my front sight moving because of the trigger, even in SA mode. I feel that the issue lay with the trigger, but part of it was me, that said, with a Colt Double Eagle i borrowed from a fellow shooter on the range, i was able to hit the targets every time.
Of course this is FAR from any type of accuracy test, but i always feel like im working ten times as hard to put lead on target with the Taurus' my friend has, the other being a PT58 in .380ACP. Both triggers feel the same to me so, im not really sure what the overall issue is, but i know that i prefer the Beretta, the trigger feels cleaner to me.
While I don't buy guns based on any one particular piece of advice/opinion, I recall that when I was researching which one to buy that I found Massad Ayoob's preference of the Taurus 92 over the Beretta to hold quite a bit of credence.
-Cheers
-Cheers