Taurus 92 question

[phorvick]

OK, I got a smart alec answer on a different f orum, so will try here.

I have two Taurus model 92's. One is new, one dates from 1989. Both exhibit the same characteristic; i .e., ejected casings are only going out about a foot..no oomph to the motion. They never fail to eject...they have been 100% reliable (and all of this with Winchestar 9mm value packs).

I was at a range the other day and I saw an officer shooting a fairly new Beretta 92 and was also using the same ammo...the value pack...and the casings were also only going a foot or so.

Is this normal? Is the ammo a bit underpowered for a stronger ejection? They fly out of my GLocks, but barely trickle out the Taurus.

 

[mtnbkr]

I'm not anywhere near an expert on autos, but you might check your ejector. If it's the same as the Beretta 92 I have at home (old, old model), the ejector is a bar on top of the frame. If it were chipped or broken right at the tip, I could see it barely ejecting as the case gets less of a "shove" on the way out.

Does that make sense to you? Dunno if I am explaining it clearly...

Chris

 

[phorvick]

I understand, but there is no obvious mechanical problem. Heck, since they work fine there is, I suppose no real problem, it is just t hat I am used to a stronger ejection than I am getting. At first I though it might be the recoil spring on the old model, but then the new model is the same; then I saw the new Beretta do the same and it occured to me that this may be systemic. Yes, I know I can go buy stronger ammo...I may do that later, but was hoping someone could just state with authority that (a) it is normal; (b) replace the xxx spring; (c) don't complain as things work!

 

[mtnbkr]

D'oh, I just caught the comment about the Beretta doing the same. I didn't pay attention to this on the Beretta I'm currently shooting (checking it for a potential purchase). When I hit the range this weekend, I'll pay attention to the ejection. I'm using WW Whitebox ammo too.

Chris

 

[stans]

Not being a smart alec, but if it works reliably 100% of the time, I would not worry about ejection distance. Different designs are just that, different. What is normal in one design is not necessarily normal in another. So your pistol drops its brass one or two feet from the gun? Makes it easier to pick up the brass!

 

[denfoote]

I was not aware that my reply was offensive.
W^2 W^2 B is somewhat anemic. But, that does nothing to exempt it from being used as inexpensive plinking ammo!! If it cycles in the gun, go for it!! I use it!!

 

[gharsh]

I just purchased another one, traded the other one awhile ago. I shot it for the first time last weekend at an IDPA match and did very well with it. No problems at all. This is just a thought, but would it have anything to do with the way the gun is designed. What I mean is the open slide. Perhaps the casings are flying more up than out and coming down next to you instead of away from you. Don't really know how to describe it, but that is the only thing I can think of if the ammo is the same in the glock as the taurus.

If anyone is looking for Taurus 92 mags, CDNN has them on sale for $6.95 a piece. Probably trying to deplete stock in the anticipation of the expiraton of the AWB.


I'll keep checking back in case you get a more definitive answer. You've stirred my curiousity.

 

[SouthpawShootr]

Been a while since I've shot 'em, but I recall thinking the same thing about both my Beretta 92 and Taurus 92 (had a PT99 a long time ago, but remember nothing more than that it was above average in accuracy and absolutely reliable). Somewhat wimpy ejection, but never, ever a jam. Shot 50 rounds through a PD Beretta 92 about 2 years ago and it was no different. I think it's normal. I'm used to my autos tossing brass half way across the city (my Glocks do and my 3rd Gen S&Ws do).

I don't like to cite the la-la land of hollywood in these matters, but if you remember in Training Day, Ethan Hawke cleared his Beretta by racking the slide and catching the ejecting round with the same hand that racked the slide. I've been able to replicate this (with A-zoom snap caps - using live ammo for this trick is foolish) with my Beretta 92 (not repeatably mind you). However, I've not been able to do it with my Glock 17. This is probably possible b/c of the anemic Beretta/Taurus ejection (also it does get the job done).

 

[cratz2]

I've put more rounds through my PT99AF than any other handgun I own, centerfire at least... I can't say I've ever noticed exactly how far the empties are ejected but it's certainly not as solid as, say, a 1911.

Zero failures though... Never hit in the face with an ejected case either. That's 100% success in my book. As long as the gun was 100% reliable at ejecting empties, I'd imagine in a battle arm, I'd prefer the shorter ejection distance. Unless the guy to your right is literally arm to arm, no one is going to be hit with the empty.

 

[mtnbkr]

Today at the range, I put about 75 rnds of WW White Box through the early model 92 I'm "evaluating". Ejection was weak compared to most autos, but not a problem. Brass was getting tossed low over the top of auto and about 2' to the right. I didn't have a single hiccup and managed to put half my shots on a 4" x 2.5" piece of board at 25yds (how come I'd barely stay on the paper if it were a target and indoors?).

Chris

 

[wally]

how come I'd barely stay on the paper if it were a target and indoors?

Just a guess, but brighter light outdoors makes for a better sight picture.
The older you get the larger the effect

--wally.