horsemen61
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,766
I don't know anything about the Beretta 92 please school me 
.
.
school me on the beretta 92
- Thread starter horsemen61
- Start date
- Status
Very reliable, accurate, good capacity as 17 round flush fit mags are readily available. It is a high quality pistol at a reasonable price. Some do not like how the safety operates including me, so I don't use it. The pistol is DA/SA so perfectly safe to use with hammer down, and the safety OFF.
It is a large pistol, but not much larger than comparable offerings from CZ, Sig, HK, etc.
It is a large pistol, but not much larger than comparable offerings from CZ, Sig, HK, etc.
leadcounsel
member
Good gun, but far from the best for what it does or the price it generally commands.
In MY opinion, the safety is backwards (it flips UP to fire and down to decock), so it is not as ergonomically ideal and also subjecting it to inadvertent decocking while doing a clearing/racking drill. Most would agree that DOWN to fire and UP to make safe is more logical.
Pistol is larger and heavier for it's capacity of 9mm ammunition compared to competition (Glock, Springfield, S&W M&P line, CZ, Sig Sauer... which are all by the way better designs). Standard capacity is 15 + 1, and you can get 17 round mags for it for a premium. Avoid anything not Magtech or factory mags because it is VERY picky with regard to the types of mags, which causes malfunctions.
Beretta fans will chime up for sure and of course the reference to military service will surely sweep in to say that it's proven itself, blah blah blah... but it's rumored or maybe even true that Beretta won the US military contract due to the politics of the day rather than outright better performance, and many modern designs didn't exist to compete. I fully expect that had Sig Sauer or Glock or HK won the contract, their guns would have performed as well or better for our military. And it's noteworthy that the military has been looking to replace it for at least a decade, maybe more. It's just not economically prudent due to the inventory, training curve, and contracts. There are plenty of better guns, no question.
In fairness it is a soft shooting pistol and inherently quite accurate. The sites are small-ish, but adequate and good. The decocker rotates the firing pin away from the hammer, which is a smart design. The DA and SA factory trigger are above average. It is a sexy looking pistol, which is what initially attracted me to the gun in the 1990s when wielded by Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis and several other action heroes. And it doesn't have that silly magazine disconnector which detracts from other designs like the High Power and S&W Generation 3 series.
But the bottom line is FEW people who can CHOOSE which gun platform to use for serious work will CHOOSE the Beretta 92.
Few Special Forces or Special Operators will CHOOSE it. I saw first hand operators who choose the 1911 or Glock over the M9 in Iraq. FEW Law Enforcement Agencies use it, if any. Most or all have long dumped the platform. Not many individuals for self defense, carry, or competition. Glock, XD, M&P and CZ dominate all the shooting competitions. Berettas are rarely entered and rarely win.
My experience? The 92FS was my first pistol purchased in 1998. I basically learned to shoot on that platform. I also spent many years in the Army, qualified expert on the M9, deployed with the US Army to Iraq and carried the M9 on 3 of my deployments. I've also owned a few over the years, in 9mm and .40 caliber.
The M9 is a serviceable and good platform, but probably not even in my top 10 of best modern combat handguns and not in my top 20 for carry handguns.
If you want a better combat pistol, typically for less money, search elsewhere. If you really must have a Beretta, there are good clones out there for less money look for the ATI and Taurus 92 (which has a positive 1911 style safety, rather than a decocker).
In MY opinion, the safety is backwards (it flips UP to fire and down to decock), so it is not as ergonomically ideal and also subjecting it to inadvertent decocking while doing a clearing/racking drill. Most would agree that DOWN to fire and UP to make safe is more logical.
Pistol is larger and heavier for it's capacity of 9mm ammunition compared to competition (Glock, Springfield, S&W M&P line, CZ, Sig Sauer... which are all by the way better designs). Standard capacity is 15 + 1, and you can get 17 round mags for it for a premium. Avoid anything not Magtech or factory mags because it is VERY picky with regard to the types of mags, which causes malfunctions.
Beretta fans will chime up for sure and of course the reference to military service will surely sweep in to say that it's proven itself, blah blah blah... but it's rumored or maybe even true that Beretta won the US military contract due to the politics of the day rather than outright better performance, and many modern designs didn't exist to compete. I fully expect that had Sig Sauer or Glock or HK won the contract, their guns would have performed as well or better for our military. And it's noteworthy that the military has been looking to replace it for at least a decade, maybe more. It's just not economically prudent due to the inventory, training curve, and contracts. There are plenty of better guns, no question.
In fairness it is a soft shooting pistol and inherently quite accurate. The sites are small-ish, but adequate and good. The decocker rotates the firing pin away from the hammer, which is a smart design. The DA and SA factory trigger are above average. It is a sexy looking pistol, which is what initially attracted me to the gun in the 1990s when wielded by Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis and several other action heroes. And it doesn't have that silly magazine disconnector which detracts from other designs like the High Power and S&W Generation 3 series.
But the bottom line is FEW people who can CHOOSE which gun platform to use for serious work will CHOOSE the Beretta 92.
Few Special Forces or Special Operators will CHOOSE it. I saw first hand operators who choose the 1911 or Glock over the M9 in Iraq. FEW Law Enforcement Agencies use it, if any. Most or all have long dumped the platform. Not many individuals for self defense, carry, or competition. Glock, XD, M&P and CZ dominate all the shooting competitions. Berettas are rarely entered and rarely win.
My experience? The 92FS was my first pistol purchased in 1998. I basically learned to shoot on that platform. I also spent many years in the Army, qualified expert on the M9, deployed with the US Army to Iraq and carried the M9 on 3 of my deployments. I've also owned a few over the years, in 9mm and .40 caliber.
The M9 is a serviceable and good platform, but probably not even in my top 10 of best modern combat handguns and not in my top 20 for carry handguns.
If you want a better combat pistol, typically for less money, search elsewhere. If you really must have a Beretta, there are good clones out there for less money look for the ATI and Taurus 92 (which has a positive 1911 style safety, rather than a decocker).
Last edited:
Vol46
Member
I like mine. It fits my hands very comfortably, has an excellent trigger, functions flawlessly with a wide variety of ammunition including my own reloads, and shoots just about everything pretty accurately, although it does have its favorite factory brands and pet reloads.
It is a bit large for concealed carry, but with the right holster and clothing it can be done. I use mine primarily for punching paper at the range and plinking, so the safety/ decocker is not really a problem for me.
It is a bit large for concealed carry, but with the right holster and clothing it can be done. I use mine primarily for punching paper at the range and plinking, so the safety/ decocker is not really a problem for me.
JTQ
Member
Here is a good Beretta 92/96 article http://pistol-training.com/articles/kevhs-very-opinionated-guide-to-the-beretta-92
One of the biggest Beretta 92FS fans on the forum is member Shipwreck. If he doesn't find this thread you may want to send him a PM.
One of the biggest Beretta 92FS fans on the forum is member Shipwreck. If he doesn't find this thread you may want to send him a PM.
I would buy Taurus PT-92 instead of Beretta.I don't know anything about the Beretta 92 please school me
WestKentucky
Member
I have owned both beretta and Taurus in 9mm and a Taurus in 40sw. The quality of the two is comparable. Taurus is considerably cheaper. The best of the bunch is in my opinion the Taurus pt99. Simply a 92 with adjustable sights. As has been described, the safety is different and no decocker on Taurus. Taurus trigger guard is shaped different so most of the molded holsters don't work.
Taurus and beretta are equally accurate.
Barrel lugs on Taurus supposedly fail around 10-12000 rounds in. (At least twice as far as most handguns will ever go)
Mags don't interchange. A beretta mag can be turned into a Taurus mag easily but you can't go the other direction. Both have long soft triggers. I sometimes accidentally double tap when shooting for accuracy because of my form.
Recoil is very mild, especially in 9mm.
Too big and heavy for conceal. Great as a range toy, home defense, or as a hunting sidearm (not primary weapon)
22 conversions are available. Straight blowback and cheap but not super reliable.
Taurus and beretta are equally accurate.
Barrel lugs on Taurus supposedly fail around 10-12000 rounds in. (At least twice as far as most handguns will ever go)
Mags don't interchange. A beretta mag can be turned into a Taurus mag easily but you can't go the other direction. Both have long soft triggers. I sometimes accidentally double tap when shooting for accuracy because of my form.
Recoil is very mild, especially in 9mm.
Too big and heavy for conceal. Great as a range toy, home defense, or as a hunting sidearm (not primary weapon)
22 conversions are available. Straight blowback and cheap but not super reliable.
arspeukinen
Member
I own three 92s, two with 1911 style safeties and one with the decocker/safety on slide. All are accurate and reliable, fit my hand well, eat any ammo.
Taurus is not on par. Shake it and it rattles. The PT99 rear sight breaks after a while. Fit and finish are not comparable.
Taurus is not on par. Shake it and it rattles. The PT99 rear sight breaks after a while. Fit and finish are not comparable.
WestKentucky
Member
With this logic the Benelli nova would be a terribly dangerous gun. Finish I would agree is not as good on Taurus, but of the 4 Taurus I have owned, all locked up well and were great shooters indicating that fit was acceptable as a functional point, and there were no issues of wide or tight to any of the pieces.
Bullet Bob
Member
Love my Beretta 92, but if you don't have the energy to search and learn about things on your own (i.e., Beretta forum, google search, etc.) so you'll have at least enough information to know what you want to ask, I recommend a Hi-Point for you.
WestKentucky
Member
I agree with Bob. Look on the taurus-armed forum at the 92variants and on the beretta boards for their reviews. Expect one to bash the other...but look at facts and make the call based on what you feel best with.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
That attitude is neither helpful nor highroad.
It is possible that some new or interesting site content my be generated by the discussion here. It certainly wouldn't be if all the OP did was search old threads and other forums.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
The M9....
Id research the US armed forces M9. It's the exact same as the Beretta 92F/92FS. The M9/92FS has been in regular use with the armed forces since about 1985 or so.
The 92F 9mm(9x19mm) gained a lot of support in the mid to late 1980s with US law enforcement. It was a regular sidearm with PDs, state troopers, SWAT, Texas Rangers, etc for about 10-15 years then started to slowly decrease.
The M9s & 92Fs were common in Hollywood with movies like Die Hard & Lethal Weapon. CBS's hit cop series; Walker, Texas Ranger had star Chuck Norris using a Taurus PT92 9x19mm for a few seasons.
www.IMFdb.org
Beretta USA put a large plant in Maryland & started to create other models; a 92F Compact, a 92 L type(with a thin 8rd 9mm magazine), a 96F(a .40S&W format), a Inox version, and a "stainless" model.
Some LE agencies went with DA only 92D & 96D models. The INS(the largest federal LE agency) issued the 96D pistol for many years with + results. The US Border Patrol is well known for having the most documented gun battles every FY. The INS(Immigration & Naturalization Service) was eliminated & converted to the US Dept of Homeland Security's ICE & CBP(Customs & Border Protection). They now use SIG Sauer & HK(Heckler & Koch) pistols in .40S&W.
I was issued a Beretta M9 9mm for approx 24mo in the early 1990s while in the US Army. I didn't have any problems with mine(except for it missing 1 grip screw, ). I did see a few that had slide problems or jams due to broken extractors or bad primer strikes.
I owned 2 surplus 96D .40 pistols with no problems. The NP3 treated 96D pistol I had was meant for the PA Fish Commission. I shot JHPs, frangibles & FMJs in the gun with 0 issues.
As the 2000s came around, more LE agencies went with Glocks, SIGs, XDs, and Walthers. The M9/92F series soon went out the door.
I have heard of a few federal agencies & some small PDs that still use 92FSs & 96FSs. A DoD/DA 083 police officer I sent a few forum messages with informed me they still used Beretta 92FS 9mm sidearms. That was about 14-15mo ago.
The large sheriffs office in my area(1200 sworn deputies) had 92F 9x19mm sidearms but converted to Glock 21 .45acp pistols in 2002.
The Berettas are decent & the new M9a1 format are still in the holsters of many US service members. Unlike a few web rumors & chatter, the Beretta M9s will be in use for another 5/10 FYs.
David Olhasso; www.Olhasso.com is considered one of the top US pistolsmiths for 92Fs & 96F series pistols. Ernest Langdon is highly rated too but he's now a gun industry exec.
Holsters, parts, sights, etc are still available & easy to get for most Beretta 92FSs. I always felt the standard models didn't have a proper balance but many like them.
Rusty
Id research the US armed forces M9. It's the exact same as the Beretta 92F/92FS. The M9/92FS has been in regular use with the armed forces since about 1985 or so.
The 92F 9mm(9x19mm) gained a lot of support in the mid to late 1980s with US law enforcement. It was a regular sidearm with PDs, state troopers, SWAT, Texas Rangers, etc for about 10-15 years then started to slowly decrease.
The M9s & 92Fs were common in Hollywood with movies like Die Hard & Lethal Weapon. CBS's hit cop series; Walker, Texas Ranger had star Chuck Norris using a Taurus PT92 9x19mm for a few seasons.
www.IMFdb.org
Beretta USA put a large plant in Maryland & started to create other models; a 92F Compact, a 92 L type(with a thin 8rd 9mm magazine), a 96F(a .40S&W format), a Inox version, and a "stainless" model.
Some LE agencies went with DA only 92D & 96D models. The INS(the largest federal LE agency) issued the 96D pistol for many years with + results. The US Border Patrol is well known for having the most documented gun battles every FY. The INS(Immigration & Naturalization Service) was eliminated & converted to the US Dept of Homeland Security's ICE & CBP(Customs & Border Protection). They now use SIG Sauer & HK(Heckler & Koch) pistols in .40S&W.
I was issued a Beretta M9 9mm for approx 24mo in the early 1990s while in the US Army. I didn't have any problems with mine(except for it missing 1 grip screw,
). I did see a few that had slide problems or jams due to broken extractors or bad primer strikes.I owned 2 surplus 96D .40 pistols with no problems. The NP3 treated 96D pistol I had was meant for the PA Fish Commission. I shot JHPs, frangibles & FMJs in the gun with 0 issues.
As the 2000s came around, more LE agencies went with Glocks, SIGs, XDs, and Walthers. The M9/92F series soon went out the door.
I have heard of a few federal agencies & some small PDs that still use 92FSs & 96FSs. A DoD/DA 083 police officer I sent a few forum messages with informed me they still used Beretta 92FS 9mm sidearms. That was about 14-15mo ago.
The large sheriffs office in my area(1200 sworn deputies) had 92F 9x19mm sidearms but converted to Glock 21 .45acp pistols in 2002.
The Berettas are decent & the new M9a1 format are still in the holsters of many US service members. Unlike a few web rumors & chatter, the Beretta M9s will be in use for another 5/10 FYs.
David Olhasso; www.Olhasso.com is considered one of the top US pistolsmiths for 92Fs & 96F series pistols. Ernest Langdon is highly rated too but he's now a gun industry exec.
Holsters, parts, sights, etc are still available & easy to get for most Beretta 92FSs. I always felt the standard models didn't have a proper balance but many like them.
Rusty
BSA1
member
The fact that the military is looking for a replacement of the Beretta 92/M9 is totally meaningless. The military has been looking for replacements of the M-16 for decades along with just about all of it's weapons.
The Military Industrial Complex is a grossly bloated organization whose leaders want to spend billions of dollars on new toys while retiring battle tested weapons such as the A-10 Warthog. ( can anyone in Washington, D.C. say Russian Tank Buster).
The Beretta has earned it's racing stripes through several decades of hard use.
The Military Industrial Complex is a grossly bloated organization whose leaders want to spend billions of dollars on new toys while retiring battle tested weapons such as the A-10 Warthog. ( can anyone in Washington, D.C. say Russian Tank Buster).
The Beretta has earned it's racing stripes through several decades of hard use.
Last edited:
JTQ
Member
I like this video from Ben Stoeger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8_uN0OIVs
He's apparently moved on to a Tanfoglio pistol, but he can really shoot the Beretta.
He's apparently moved on to a Tanfoglio pistol, but he can really shoot the Beretta.
WestKentucky
Member
Downsides of the gun...size, weight,
Upsides of the gun...balance, accuracy, capacity, recoil, ease to clean, price, parts availability, fits most hands
Neutrals...external safety, open slide design, decent sights
Neutrals are neutral because they are argument points. Some don't want a safety to prevent them from dispatching an intruder. Others refuse to buy a gun without a safety. Still others don't really care. Open slide is great for cooling and floating, but it sucks when it gets muddy or gets sand in it. Sights are ok but can be better. Luckily there are companies making better sights for it.
Upsides of the gun...balance, accuracy, capacity, recoil, ease to clean, price, parts availability, fits most hands
Neutrals...external safety, open slide design, decent sights
Neutrals are neutral because they are argument points. Some don't want a safety to prevent them from dispatching an intruder. Others refuse to buy a gun without a safety. Still others don't really care. Open slide is great for cooling and floating, but it sucks when it gets muddy or gets sand in it. Sights are ok but can be better. Luckily there are companies making better sights for it.
Schwing
Member
I am a huge proponent of the 92, especially for new shooters. It was one of the first guns I purchased decades ago and has been the most reliable of my semi-auto handguns. Up to 18 round flush magazines are available and there are others ranging from 10 up to 35 if you want to go hard core.
Where some people don't like the safety/de-cocker, I strongly disagree. I also like having the DA/SA option, especially when doing dry fire exercises. Pulling the slide back every trigger pull gets awfully tedious with striker fired pistols. I read a lot of opinions stated as fact as to how unsafe/unwieldy/stupid the safety is on the 92 and I just have to chuckle. As we all know, any gun will blow your knee cap off if handled unsafely... having said that, how many stories have you read about this happening with a 92 vs. a Glock? You have to either argue that Glock owners as a whole are just less safety conscious or you have to agree that the 92 safety is AT LEAST as safe. You also can't argue that there are just more Glocks out there than 92s since the military has been issuing them as their standard side arm for a long time now.
There is no arguing that the 92 is a heavy gun. This doesn't bother most 92 owners in the slightest since it decreases perceived recoil significantly and, I would estimate that most 92 owners are not trying to carry it in their pocket
The 92 has been in circulation for a long enough period of time and has been heavily enough used that finding parts for it in the future is virtually guaranteed for the next 3 lifetimes. In my own case, I have 10's of thousands of rounds through mine and have had to replace one part... The Magazine release spring which cost me a total of .87.
I am not a one brand pony. There are many manufacturers of 9mm handguns in the same price range that make fine products. For those hunting for a CC, fore example, there are much better options available. For me, however, the 92 has and probably will always be my recommendation for people shopping in that price range for an HD, car, or fun gun.
Where some people don't like the safety/de-cocker, I strongly disagree. I also like having the DA/SA option, especially when doing dry fire exercises. Pulling the slide back every trigger pull gets awfully tedious with striker fired pistols. I read a lot of opinions stated as fact as to how unsafe/unwieldy/stupid the safety is on the 92 and I just have to chuckle. As we all know, any gun will blow your knee cap off if handled unsafely... having said that, how many stories have you read about this happening with a 92 vs. a Glock? You have to either argue that Glock owners as a whole are just less safety conscious or you have to agree that the 92 safety is AT LEAST as safe. You also can't argue that there are just more Glocks out there than 92s since the military has been issuing them as their standard side arm for a long time now.
There is no arguing that the 92 is a heavy gun. This doesn't bother most 92 owners in the slightest since it decreases perceived recoil significantly and, I would estimate that most 92 owners are not trying to carry it in their pocket
The 92 has been in circulation for a long enough period of time and has been heavily enough used that finding parts for it in the future is virtually guaranteed for the next 3 lifetimes. In my own case, I have 10's of thousands of rounds through mine and have had to replace one part... The Magazine release spring which cost me a total of .87.
I am not a one brand pony. There are many manufacturers of 9mm handguns in the same price range that make fine products. For those hunting for a CC, fore example, there are much better options available. For me, however, the 92 has and probably will always be my recommendation for people shopping in that price range for an HD, car, or fun gun.
tommy.duncan
Member
I had an Italian 92f in the early 90's. I had to sell it.
I still regret selling that pistol. The finish was amazing.
I have a new 92f and it fires as good, it's just as accurate, & it fires whatever I put into the mag.
I love my 92fs.
Good luck
I still regret selling that pistol. The finish was amazing.
I have a new 92f and it fires as good, it's just as accurate, & it fires whatever I put into the mag.
I love my 92fs.
Good luck
Welding Rod
Member
IME the 92 is an excellent gun. Probably among the best in terms of build quality, and I have never tried a production service pistol with cleaner single action trigger pulls out of the box. I have tried many with no perceptible creep and only one with any - and it was a "LE special" gun.
I have only actually owned two 92s but have never had a malf of any kind, even with a very light hammer spring. The loading path from magazine lips to the chamber is almost a straight path. I imagine this helps.
The down side? It is a 9mm. No matter how good a gun it is, it will always be just a 9... Comparatively low powered and for that reason it is hard to love it's somewhat chubby grip frame.
I have only actually owned two 92s but have never had a malf of any kind, even with a very light hammer spring. The loading path from magazine lips to the chamber is almost a straight path. I imagine this helps.
The down side? It is a 9mm. No matter how good a gun it is, it will always be just a 9... Comparatively low powered and for that reason it is hard to love it's somewhat chubby grip frame.
Last edited:
m9meatball
Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 47
I have the M9 version and I love it. It is currently serving as my range and HD gun. It looks great, is easy and comfortable to shoot, and for me it has been 100% reliable. I must say though that I shoot my new PX4 better. Probably because it fits my small hands better.
george d dennis
Member
I have a 92a1 and love it.
rskent
Member
I think it's a great 9mm service pistol. If you can reach the trigger it would be a very good choice.
Unfortunately My fingers are nowhere near long enough. You know what they say “tiny fingers big ….”.
Unfortunately My fingers are nowhere near long enough. You know what they say “tiny fingers big ….”.
Not to mention cost, but new, Italian made 92FS's can be found in my area for $550 all day long. Try buying a new Sig, or HK for that price. Even Glocks are in that range now. The only better value in a firearms may be CZ at this point, but even new 75B's are starting to push over $500 typically.
Oh, forget Canik/Tristar. They are excellent values right now also. I don't know if cost is an issue for you, but a buck is a buck.
Oh, forget Canik/Tristar. They are excellent values right now also. I don't know if cost is an issue for you, but a buck is a buck.
- Status