Stainless Taurus PT92/Beretta INOX Two-toned

[Confederate]

Anyone have one of the Taurus pistols? If so, how do you like it?

I have one that's a companion piece to my Beretta air pistol which, like the stainless Beretta 9mm, is a two-tone pistol. Below is a photo of both. The air pistol is as heavy as a fully loaded 9mm Beretta. It's a great rapid fire pistol and is very accurate. I'd always wanted one of the military ceremonial stainless or nickel pistols (like in A Few Good Men). Has anyone ever handled one of those guns? Are they only available to the military?

I'm not a fan of two-tone stainless guns. I do, however, love my Taurus. Which do you like better?



The two guns are ringers, but the Beretta is two-toned. The newer air pistols have a black faux slide release while this older model has it plated.

_

 

[NWcityguy2]

I have a Taurus 99 (adjustable sight 92). I say skip the whole design. Yeah they shoot bullets but there are better choices out there for the same or even less money. I certainly wouldn't get the Beretta which can't even roll cocked and locked.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

As a collector and shooter of military weapons, I'd go with the regular M9, but I already have one. I'm thinking about adding an M9A1 to the collection. The INOX guns sure are pretty though. I don't care for the Taurus versions.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Need a choice for "some of each".


I happen to like the M9 platform as a duty handgun, and have examples stashed more or less permanently in my trucks, car, bedside, and boat. Not as a CCW, but as a defensive platform carried in a vehicle or left at bedside. The Berettas have been good but I confess that the SS Taurus has really been a pleaser. I've a pair of them on my salt-water boat and they have proven themselves for durability and reliability. I prefer them to the Beretta product for this use. The manual of arms is far superior (safety placement aligned with the original Model 92, unlike the essentially unusable slide mounted safety of the M9) and the manufacturing quality is excellent.


Willie

.

 

[JDR]

I would rather have the Beretta 96FS, like the Sig P226, I always liked the .40 S&W version better than the 9mm.

 

[Confederate]

I have a Taurus 99 (adjustable sight 92). I say skip the whole design. Yeah they shoot bullets but there are better choices out there for the same or even less money. I certainly wouldn't get the Beretta which can't even roll cocked and locked.

What are some of those "better choices" in your opinion?

I agree with what you say about the Beretta, as I've become very fond of the cocked and locked concept. Had Glock built that into its design, I might even consider owning one. The very idea that you'd have to jack a round into the chamber just before using it is indeed a deal breaker. I can't imagine carrying one "ready to shoot."

 

[NWcityguy2]

The reason I'd recommend a number of guns over a 92 is because...

1. User adjustable backstraps
2. Higher capacity with flush fitting mags
3. Replaceable front sights
4. No locking block to break
5. Thinner in the hand

I also take that you want some kind of manual safety by your last comments. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case look at an M&P in 9mm w/ a thumb safety. With a simple Apex trigger job they are very fast to shoot. (My duty gun is an M&P45 and I do love it, but I assume you want a 9mm) Another option would be the Taurus 809, which I own myself. The thumb safety works the same as the PT92. Plus it is truly a ambidextrous gun. Out of the box it has a safety lever, mag release and slide release on both sides of the gun.

 

[jhb]

i find the most of the other 9mm. both old and new, designs to be far superior in many ways. of course everyrone has their own needs/wants and opinions on the matter.

i chose a 5906, cz75/85, hi power, or glock 17(or other branded plastics), etc each and every time over the beretta m9 design and copies......but that's me......and of course you are you......

 

[JTQ]

I voted for the M9 blued, but I'd rather have the 92FS, and they are different. I may even prefer the 92A1, but I'm not a big fan of the rail.

I don't think the Taurus can use the Beretta mags, which is a big downside as Beretta 92 mags are everywhere and not very expensive.

The Taurus always has felt "square" in the hand. I believe the front strap is flatter than the Beretta which gives that feeling. I prefer the Beretta feel.

Here are Beretta 18 round mags for those concerned with the capacity issue. http://www.topgunsupply.com/mec-gar-beretta-92fs-m9-18rd-magazine-anti-friction-coating.html

They also have 20 rounders and I believe there are some available with higher capacities.

Here is some Beretta 92/96 love from Wilson Combat http://wilsoncombat.com/new/custom-...cid=5f0f8f2d6b&mc_eid=04e8246583#.U-pMZFavvHg

and from Bill Wilson himself http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12358-Beretta-92-reliability&highlight=bill+wilson

and from Ben Stoeger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8_uN0OIVs

 

[Fiv3r]

I'd go with the M9 blued. I went with a 92fs over it though. I'm one of those guys that prefers the original design that the copy is modeling, and I haven't found a Taurus that I have liked.

For me, the M9 platform just works. I like the reliability, I like the heft, I like the accuracy, and I like a traditional DA/SA for most applications. Not my favorite carry pistol, but it lives in my truck and is always at the ready.

If I have to replace the locking block, so be it. It's a $20 part that can be replaced in about 3 minutes. I don't shoot my 92FS enough to ever wear it out if I replace the recoil spring and trigger springs every 3-5000 rounds.

 

[NWcityguy2]

The Taurus is closer to the original than the Beretta is.

 

[JTQ]

The Taurus is closer to the original than the Beretta is.

That is true.

On the other hand, the Beretta has benefitted from ongoing improvements to the design (locking block improvements, grip reduction, etc.), while the Taurus has not.

 

[NWcityguy2]

I'll agree with that, especially the locking block.

 

[Willie Sutton]

On the other hand, the Beretta has benefitted from ongoing improvements to the design (locking block improvements, grip reduction, etc.), while the Taurus has not.


But gained an unusable safety... and no Condition 1 carry.

Beretta Dumbed-Down a good design to meet the need of the armed farces.


Willie

.

 

[NWcityguy2]

It isn't like the Taurus is SOL either. My PT99 is sporting a Beretta locking block. All you need to do is replace the locking block plunger and Beretta locking blocks drop right in. Albeit most people don't shoot their pistols enough be break either.

 

[roadliner]

Both are fine, but I've never taken a liking to the design. Nothing personal, just too many other guns out there that I'd rather own.

 

[gamestalker]

I have a pretty good collection of Taurus pistols, including the 92's. All have been great to me, no problems of any type, accurate, good CS, and priced right. I have two 92's a SS, and one not. I personally prefer the SS though.

GS

 

[OARNGESI]

I have a pt92 in stainless that is almost 30 years old shoot it today and it was great i would get the taurus

 

[JR47]

I bought a PT92 before they had the decocker, but after they dropped the Euro style mag release. I've been shooting it for upwards of 30 years, on the original locking block. Taurus guns never seemed to have that issue. I also prefer the slide mounted safety, even without the decocking function.

For the uninitiated, the PT92 comes with 17 round mags today, and Mec-Gar makes 18 and 20 round mags for them. If I need more ammunition in a single magazine, I need a belt-fed gun, and marksmanship lessons.

Many of the Beretta magazines for sale today have issues, like an overly thick anti-corrosion coating, that makes feeding spotty. Taurus has never had that issue. Nor have they ever had any slide breakage issues.

I also own a PT101, the adjustable sighted version in .40 S&W. That has also been a stellar performer as a teaching gun, along with the PT92.

There are other guns that some people like, and that's good. However, these , the M9 and the PT92, function well, are accurate, and send bullets downrange with boring regularity. That's just about all you can ask of a gun.

 

[JTQ]

I also prefer the slide mounted safety, even without the decocking function.

Typo I suspect?

 

[WestKentucky]

I have had 3 Taurus 92 variants and have shot and handled plenty berettas to know that there are really 4 things that realistically happen when you buy a 92. Option 1 is you buy beretta and you decide that the cost difference makes it better...or decide you don't like the platform and move on (option 2). Option 3 is you buy the Taurus, get a good one and love it for life and wonder why in the hammered hell people spend the money on a beretta. Option four is you buy Taurus, get a bad one that goes back to Taurus, they replace it or repair it and then your back to option 3 a couple weeks later.
My first Taurus was a 92. Traded up to a 99. Traded it for a motorcycle worth a grand, bought another 99 on the way home with the bike. My only regret is not waiting for polished stainless on my last 99. The berettas truthfully are built a minuscule amount better but there is not a bit of difference in function or accuracy until around 10-12 thousand rounds at which the Taurus needs a new barrel and the beretta is showing signs of wear and the barrel will need replaced in another 5000 rounds. Normally I say a mans hours buy the best he can afford, but in a lot of respects Taurus IS the best for me. They are dead reliable in the 92 variants and revolvers. They are very accurate. They have a lifetime warranty, and they still are cheaper than the beretta plus the safety location lets you go Hammer back safety on if you choose to do so, and the safety is more ergonomic ally located. I'm no fan of poly guns at all but the Taurus guns are among the worst in that realm (my opinion, lots of folks love them). I buy Taurus over beretta in 92 variant hands down. I buy Taurus over S&W for price in wheel guns. I buy S&W autos over other Taurus autos because I like them.

I guess I'm pretty much a Taurus guy. I drive a 10 year old Chevy pickup too. Both are there and ready when I need them and aren't expensive to keep around, but the truck gets pretty thirsty sometimes.

 

[WestKentucky]

And the 92 platform fits fat guys with big hands...well the big hands part is relevant. My wife can't shoot it very well with her kitty cat paw sized hands and short little arms.

 

[bannockburn]

I have used a Taurus 92 and found it to be a capable 9mm., though a bit large for my hand size, making for a bit of a reach to the trigger. The only comfortable grip I found on the Beretta 92 was the Vertec model.

 

[NGIB]

I've owned both the Taurus & Beretta and I prefer the frame mounted safety/decocker on the Taurus. These are large chunky guns but fun to shoot and make a great home defense gun. I've had this two-tone PT-92 for quite a while...

 

[mesinge2]

Hey NGIB!

I love the Taurus PT92 and Beretta 92 series of guns. It is the only Taurus I would buy again. They are accurate, reliable, very easy to maintain, and durable.

My formerly owned PT-92 (which now belongs to the member above)





and my currently owned Berettas: