The Beretta places the safety and decocker on slide (92) and the Taurus places the safety and decocker on the frame. Which is the better of the two systems? The other issue is the Beretta can shoot +P +P loads and the Taurus must stay within SAAMI +P limits, I thought the Taurus PT 92 and the Beretta 92 were basically the same pistol?
Safety and decocker placement.
- Thread starter jece
- Start date
- Status
againstthagrane
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 505
they are the same pistol the same way a taurus 1911 and an ed brown 1911 are the same pistol. lol
Lonestar49
Member
...
I agree completely, frame mounted safetys or decocker-only never require one to compromise a good/proper 2-hand grip while activating them, along with, no irritation in *racking a slide with them slide mounted, or worse, *accidentally activating the safety to ON when in a heated moment of need and cycling the slide.
Ls
Black Majik
Member
The sole reason why I sold my Beretta 92FS was the slide mounted, backwards safety/decocker.
kcshooter
Member
Me too. I traded mine for a Taurus actually, had enough left over to buy a few hi-caps with it.
againstthagrane
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 505
they are the same basic design, but how the parts fit together and the quality of components and craftsmanship are nowhere near the same. so that may contribute to the taurus not being able to handle the +P ammo even though they are basically the same gun.
i would get the beretta because i don't use manual safeties on DA/SA guns. i think it's redundant. so the placement of the safety is of no concern since i would only use it to decock and flip it right back off. if you have a decocker there is no need for a safety. plus, they're so close in price that i don't really see the selling points in the taurus.
i would get the beretta because i don't use manual safeties on DA/SA guns. i think it's redundant. so the placement of the safety is of no concern since i would only use it to decock and flip it right back off. if you have a decocker there is no need for a safety. plus, they're so close in price that i don't really see the selling points in the taurus.
againstthagrane,
Just because you don't use the safety doesn't mean other people don't. Two people on this thread alone sold their beretta because they didn't like the safety, that is a selling point. Also, $200 price difference isn't as close to some as it may be to you. If someone doesn't have another $200 to spend and they want that style of gun, that is another selling point.
You have made it clear you don't like taurus guns but for the record, have you ever owned one? If you have, great, I just wanted to know if you are speaking from experience or merely riding the "taurus haters" bandwagon.
Just because you don't use the safety doesn't mean other people don't. Two people on this thread alone sold their beretta because they didn't like the safety, that is a selling point. Also, $200 price difference isn't as close to some as it may be to you. If someone doesn't have another $200 to spend and they want that style of gun, that is another selling point.
You have made it clear you don't like taurus guns but for the record, have you ever owned one? If you have, great, I just wanted to know if you are speaking from experience or merely riding the "taurus haters" bandwagon.
On the Beretta, I decock then flip the safety off and half-cock the hammer when I carry it. This makes the safety less likely to be engaged accidentally. In the case of Beretta v. Taurus 92, I've never owned or fired the Taurus. If Uncle Sam decides to start issuing them, then I'll consider buying one.
gc70
Member
I have owned both a Taurus PT92 and a Beretta 92FS. I prefer Taurus' frame-mounted safety/decocker to Beretta's slide-mounted decocker, but that is purely a personal preference. Otherwise, both guns are fundamentally the same, although the Beretta generally has better fit and finish than the Taurus.
jaysouth
Member
I bought my Smith 39 in the late 60s. After a few range trips and a few nights of dryfire in front of the TV, I learned the safety/decock.
Seems to me that guns that arrived later on the scene got their safties BACKWARD.
If you aren't smart enough to learn a simple device like this, If you need it, you need a Glock or a revolver.
Nowadays I carry 908/3913/3924 in a good holster with the safety off. If you feel the need to carry with safety on (like in a glove compartment or console) you can master the safety in about three sets of two reps.
Regarding the Taurus 92, I had an early import with the huge wooden grips. I got the gun in a trade and remember that it was more accurate that I was, and did not bobble with any of my reloads or M-882.
Seems to me that guns that arrived later on the scene got their safties BACKWARD.
If you aren't smart enough to learn a simple device like this, If you need it, you need a Glock or a revolver.
Nowadays I carry 908/3913/3924 in a good holster with the safety off. If you feel the need to carry with safety on (like in a glove compartment or console) you can master the safety in about three sets of two reps.
Regarding the Taurus 92, I had an early import with the huge wooden grips. I got the gun in a trade and remember that it was more accurate that I was, and did not bobble with any of my reloads or M-882.
don95sml
Member
jaysouth said:
Are you saying that the Colt 1911 and the Browning Hi-Power arrived later on the scene? These venerable handguns confirmed that the safety should operate up for ON and down for OFF. S&W is the one that got it backwards.
jaysouth
Member
If you are not smart enough to use the safety on a Smith or Beretta, maybe you should not be playing with guns.
Millions of folks are carrying these slide mounted devices and not straining bandwidth complaining about them.
Millions of folks are carrying these slide mounted devices and not straining bandwidth complaining about them.
kcshooter
Member
If you aren't smart enough to see why someone would want safeties on their guns to be consistant, maybe you shouldn't be carrying one for self defense!
Last edited:
IdahoLT1
Member
if guns were suppossed to be consistent and everything be the same, then there should only be one type of gun made!
IdahoLT1
Member
Im fine with the Beretta's slide mounted safety. To me, it would seem more logical to turn the "safety off", on a firearm with a slide mounted safety, by pushing the lever up. If you carry a Beretta with the safety on and had to draw your weapon. It would seem to go smoother to flip the safety up as you adjust your grip and draw down on the target.
I have small hands(medium sized gloves are just a bit too big and small are just a bit too snug), and i have to adjust my hand more, to flip the lever down(turn the safety on). Meaning, i would have to change my grip and it would take longer for my pistol to aquire its target, if the the "safety off" position was down and the "safety on" was up.
And the whole Taurus vs. Beretta has been discussed more. I paid ~$410 for my 92F, slight used which is about the same for a NIB Taurus. The fit and finish are on two very different levels. And yes, my buddy has had 2 Taurus 92's and i have shot them both quite a bit.
I have small hands(medium sized gloves are just a bit too big and small are just a bit too snug), and i have to adjust my hand more, to flip the lever down(turn the safety on). Meaning, i would have to change my grip and it would take longer for my pistol to aquire its target, if the the "safety off" position was down and the "safety on" was up.
And the whole Taurus vs. Beretta has been discussed more. I paid ~$410 for my 92F, slight used which is about the same for a NIB Taurus. The fit and finish are on two very different levels. And yes, my buddy has had 2 Taurus 92's and i have shot them both quite a bit.
againstthagrane
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 505
lions,
i didn't mean to rag on taurus. i just had a bad experience with them. i was probably one of the first people to get a pt1911. i don't know if i got a super lemon or what, but my gun was wretched.
list of defects:
1. front strap checkering was WAY off.
2. neither front or rear serrations were even.
3. curvature of the top of the frame was WAY off.
4. front sight wasn't even close to being on center.
5. barrel wasn't centered in frame.
those are things that should have never been allowed to slide at the factory.
needless to say, that soured me on all tauri ever since.
i'm not a brand snob by any means. sorry if i came off as snobby. i think they make pretty cool revolvers though.
i didn't mean to rag on taurus. i just had a bad experience with them. i was probably one of the first people to get a pt1911. i don't know if i got a super lemon or what, but my gun was wretched.
list of defects:
1. front strap checkering was WAY off.
2. neither front or rear serrations were even.
3. curvature of the top of the frame was WAY off.
4. front sight wasn't even close to being on center.
5. barrel wasn't centered in frame.
those are things that should have never been allowed to slide at the factory.
needless to say, that soured me on all tauri ever since.
i'm not a brand snob by any means. sorry if i came off as snobby. i think they make pretty cool revolvers though.
M203Sniper
member
I carry the Beretta 92 and qualify with it on a simple 60 round speed and accuracy course.
I really dislike the slide mounted decocker.
I shoot the gun well and it's accurate enough to carry but it has a few flaws and some things go against my personal tastes aesthetically and functionally.
the best system of course is the one used by Glocks and revolvers, but if you must have something external - put it on the frame.
I really dislike the slide mounted decocker.
I shoot the gun well and it's accurate enough to carry but it has a few flaws and some things go against my personal tastes aesthetically and functionally.
the best system of course is the one used by Glocks and revolvers, but if you must have something external - put it on the frame.
NavyLCDR
member
I carry and qualify expert with the Baretta at work. I own a Taurus PT-92. I prefer the PT92, it seems to be more accurate and I like the safety better than on the Baretta.
Much prefer the frame mounted safety. It is right there under your thumb, and moves easily. Slide mounted safeties dig into your hand when manually working the slide and work in the wrong direction. Sweeping the thumb down is a natural part of the gripping process for me, moving it up would mean I'd have to move it back down...adding a precious heartbeat more time to readiness.
Old Dog
Member
Eh, neither.
Comes down, simply, to the familiarity aspect for those of us who came up on 1911s and then were forced to transition to the M-9 after years of operating the Gov't Model ... For me, the PT-92's frame mounted safety system is my preference, 'cause you never forget your first ...
I've owned 3 Berettas (and kinda like 'em all, esp. the Inox), but my trusty Taurus (from 1991) is still pretty (polished flats, no "billboard" writing) with no plastic parts such as sported by current production matte-finish Berettas ... Can't speak to the newer PT-92s, but I'd say my old one compares quite favorably to the newer 92FS pistols in terms of fit/finish, accuracy and reliability.
In any case, Beretta v. Taurus is the deceased equine, muchly flogged postmortem.
kcshooter
Member
Not what I said. Not even close. Read carefully.
What I said was that someone such as myself would want consistancy between their guns. I prefer to have guns that the muscle memory in my hand functions the safety without thinking about it. Since I mostly carry 1911's, I'd like a safety that is consistant with that.
Nobody said every gun should be the same. I said many prefer similarities between their guns when someone else said you must be unintelligent if you can't operate a safety on a s&W or a beretta. I wouldn't have said anything if the previous post hadn't been insulting to a large number of those who had posted in this thread.
The original Beretta 92 has a frame-mounted safety, and it functions exactly like the safety on a 1911 or CZ-75; you push it up to engage it and it blocks the sear and slide, allowing for cocked-and-locked carry. It does not function as a decocker.
The Taurus is based upon that design, and Taurus added the decock feature. IIRC, the Taurus decocker drops the hammer to half-cock.
I own an M9, and while the slide-mounted safety is not my favorite, I do find the I can easily 1) reach it with my thumb to engage it/decock the gun and 2) disengage it while gripping. I tend to shoot with a high thumbs grip the knuckle of my right hand thumb pushes the safety and clicks it off as I put my thumbs in position.
It is not my favorite feature of the gun, but I find it much easier to reach/manipulate than similar safeties on the Jericho, Baby Eagle, or S&W autos.
The Taurus is based upon that design, and Taurus added the decock feature. IIRC, the Taurus decocker drops the hammer to half-cock.
I own an M9, and while the slide-mounted safety is not my favorite, I do find the I can easily 1) reach it with my thumb to engage it/decock the gun and 2) disengage it while gripping. I tend to shoot with a high thumbs grip the knuckle of my right hand thumb pushes the safety and clicks it off as I put my thumbs in position.
It is not my favorite feature of the gun, but I find it much easier to reach/manipulate than similar safeties on the Jericho, Baby Eagle, or S&W autos.
- Status
