MustangHowie
Member
Glockman19;
I already have a G17 and a G19.
I already have a G17 and a G19.
Taurus 92 vs Beretta 92
- Thread starter MustangHowie
- Start date
- Status
peacemaker45
Member
Umm, I run a retirement program for guns that don't have their sights configured properly. This is clearly a major flaw in the gun, which can never be corrected. Because I'm a soft hearted altruist towards these patients, I've opened my home to a number of them. I perform some minor rehabilitation work with them, and then lovingly care for them until the ends of their lives. If you desire, your gun too can join this program. Send it to me, and then pay my $100 a month hospice fee, and it will have a good home for the rest of its days.
Free translation: If you can shoot other guns, but this one doesn't hit where it's aimed, the sights are off. Replace the rear with a taller variety, and/or file down the front. I've bought a number of guns with maladjusted sights, usually for cheap, fixed the sights, and had great guns. There doesn't exist a gun on which the sights can't be brought into line. There do exist many guns where this takes more than a screwdriver. Replacement sights, and or metalworking tools.
Shoot the thing on paper, not at clays or cans, and see where it's grouping. Make sure that you're using proper sight picture, etc. Then correct accordingly.
Otherwise, send me the gun, and keep me in ammo for it, and I'll happily do it myself. <G>
~~~Mat
Free translation: If you can shoot other guns, but this one doesn't hit where it's aimed, the sights are off. Replace the rear with a taller variety, and/or file down the front. I've bought a number of guns with maladjusted sights, usually for cheap, fixed the sights, and had great guns. There doesn't exist a gun on which the sights can't be brought into line. There do exist many guns where this takes more than a screwdriver. Replacement sights, and or metalworking tools.
Shoot the thing on paper, not at clays or cans, and see where it's grouping. Make sure that you're using proper sight picture, etc. Then correct accordingly.
Otherwise, send me the gun, and keep me in ammo for it, and I'll happily do it myself. <G>
~~~Mat
I went with the tauri type as it has the saftey where god and JMB intended it to be on the frame. Also the cocked and locked feature fits my likes much better than the Beretta set up.
I would expect with a sight adjustment and the same type of grips you could not tell the differance on a target anyways.
And I jave lots of files so I also run a hospice service for poor unfortunate guns that need sight work, I would only charge 50 bucks a month to care for it also.
I would expect with a sight adjustment and the same type of grips you could not tell the differance on a target anyways.
And I jave lots of files so I also run a hospice service for poor unfortunate guns that need sight work, I would only charge 50 bucks a month to care for it also.
Old Dog
Member
I just noticed this thread, and this comment:
Do I have to say this in yet another Taurus-bashing thread? First, to qualify my statements to follow, I'm a 1911 dinosaur, and my 9mm of choice (I do like shooting and will occasionally carry this caliber) is the SIG 226 and 228 platform. However -- I have one Taurus PT-92AFS, bought new in '91 and THREE Berettas (blue 92FS, Inox 92FS, park'd M-9, which is just a 92FS without all the writing on the slide).
My PT-92 shoots better than my Inox Beretta, as well as the blued (or Bruniton-ed, whatever) 92FS but not as well as my M-9. This PT-92 has had upwards of 20K rounds through it with ZERO malfunctions, ever.
I carried the Beretta for the last 13 or so years on active duty, including in the sandbox, I kinda feel sentimental about the M-9. I think my Berettas are slightly better looking, slightly tighter, a tad better finished, but that durn PT-92 (with the frame-mounted safety in the right place) is my wife's trusted bedside gun, and I'll stay loyal to it.
Taurus haters, unless you've actually owned 'em, have actually compared the two pistols side-by-side for more than just one mag downrange, just please stay home.
And Glock fanboys (you know who you are), why, why, why, in a thread comparing two NON-Glock pistols, do you ALWAYS feel compelled to promote Glocks? Sheesh!
Concur with previous poster who deemed this comment "a crock."
Do I have to say this in yet another Taurus-bashing thread? First, to qualify my statements to follow, I'm a 1911 dinosaur, and my 9mm of choice (I do like shooting and will occasionally carry this caliber) is the SIG 226 and 228 platform. However -- I have one Taurus PT-92AFS, bought new in '91 and THREE Berettas (blue 92FS, Inox 92FS, park'd M-9, which is just a 92FS without all the writing on the slide).
My PT-92 shoots better than my Inox Beretta, as well as the blued (or Bruniton-ed, whatever) 92FS but not as well as my M-9. This PT-92 has had upwards of 20K rounds through it with ZERO malfunctions, ever.
I carried the Beretta for the last 13 or so years on active duty, including in the sandbox, I kinda feel sentimental about the M-9. I think my Berettas are slightly better looking, slightly tighter, a tad better finished, but that durn PT-92 (with the frame-mounted safety in the right place) is my wife's trusted bedside gun, and I'll stay loyal to it.
Taurus haters, unless you've actually owned 'em, have actually compared the two pistols side-by-side for more than just one mag downrange, just please stay home.
And Glock fanboys (you know who you are), why, why, why, in a thread comparing two NON-Glock pistols, do you ALWAYS feel compelled to promote Glocks? Sheesh!
ArchAngelCD
Member.
MustangHowie,
What weight is the bullet in the rounds you are shooting in the Taurus? If they are light try going to a 147gr bullet and see if your POI comes up some.
What weight is the bullet in the rounds you are shooting in the Taurus? If they are light try going to a 147gr bullet and see if your POI comes up some.
BryanP
Member
Ironically enough, considering the comparison here, the gun he carried in BHC was actually an FEG, a Hungarian knock-off of a Hi Power. They can be okay, I used to own one myself but sold it after I bought a real Browning.
That said, I've owned several Taurus firearms (all revolvers so far) and have had one minor problem with one of them. If I wanted a Beretta pattern pistol I wouldn't have any qualms about trying a PT92 or PT99.
hankdatank1362
Member
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Hey, you know what, I've never shot or even touched a SIG either, because my H&K is superior.
seeker_two
Member
Out of curiosity...is it easier to convert a Beretta magazine to work in a Taurus or easier to convert a Taurus magazine to work in a Beretta?.... 
Thanks in advance....
Thanks in advance....
MustangHowie
Member
You can make a Beretta mag fit the Taurus but then it doesn't fit the Beretta any more. The notch is just a little higher on the Taurus.
I certainly would not want this to degenerate into a Taurus bashing thread so I will say that durability of the guns seems to be on par with the Beretta.
Taurus adapted the slide capture feature of the Beretta soon after Beretta introduced the feature.
They can do that as they produce LICENSED copies of the Beretta.
The locking blocks will not fail sooner on a Taurus, the gun will not blow apart sooner if the same mega reloads are fired in a Taurus and a Beretta, and the small parts are comparable in durability though looking inside you will find the Taurus parts to be much rougher in fit and finish than a comparable Beretta.
The biggest bad thing about the Taurus is the adjustable rear sight that comes on some versions of the PT-92.
There is a cross pin that will break fairly easy, doesn't take much of a bump to do so, and the adjustment screws are rough enough that repeatability of the sight adjustments is a catch as catch can proposition.
Taurus adapted the slide capture feature of the Beretta soon after Beretta introduced the feature.
They can do that as they produce LICENSED copies of the Beretta.
The locking blocks will not fail sooner on a Taurus, the gun will not blow apart sooner if the same mega reloads are fired in a Taurus and a Beretta, and the small parts are comparable in durability though looking inside you will find the Taurus parts to be much rougher in fit and finish than a comparable Beretta.
The biggest bad thing about the Taurus is the adjustable rear sight that comes on some versions of the PT-92.
There is a cross pin that will break fairly easy, doesn't take much of a bump to do so, and the adjustment screws are rough enough that repeatability of the sight adjustments is a catch as catch can proposition.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
Then I'm glad you got the Beretta.
I agree with the OP
First off, if you want a closer comparison to the Beretta 92, the Taurus PT-99 is going to be the better bet, though the PT-92 isn't far off either, the frame mounted safety being the biggest real difference. I myself have had the opportunity to fire Taurus PT-99s and I have a couple Berettas. As I pointed out earlier, only in a minor difference in handle shape do I find the Beretta ultimately any better then the Taurus, though it IS true that the looser tolerances of the Taurus mean a little better reliability under abuse. Even still, this problem can be easily corrected on the Beretta if you know what you're doing. As you have pointed out, your Taurus shoots better then some of your Berettas, worse then others. This is a classic issue with simple gun to gun differences as opposed to model to model differences.
Regarding the Glocks, Glocks are a great gun (I would love to have a 17 myself) but they have shortcomings to the Beretta and Taurus. For one, they lack a manual safety and decocker. In addition to this, that ridiculous trigger safety (that keeps you from pulling the trigger unless you pull the trigger
) is reportedly a hazardous feature responsible for a number of shooting accidents, while the one real safety the gun has, which is a drop safety activated by the pull of the trigger, is also shared by the Beretta 92 (that rectangular block on top of the slide in front of the rear sight that lifts when you pull the trigger) and I am pretty sure I have seen it on the PT-92 though I am not sure if the 99 has it. Most modern guns have it so the Glock is not the least bit unique in this respect. The only real advantages of the Glock are as follows:It's factory finish is strongly resistant to corrosion.
The synthetic frame makes the slide move very smoothly.
It's made to tight tolerances, which make it very mechanically accurate and consistent.
The barrel is self clearing as well as being more potent under water then normal.
...
The negatives of the Glock are as follows:
The tight tolerances make the gun very unfriendly to loads with slow burning powder. As result, the gun has allot of problems with many reloads, most of which the Beretta and Taurus will eat up without ever even choking. The increased accuracy and consistence from the Glocks tight tolerances is hardly even noticeable outside of competition.
The ridiculous trigger contraption supposedly is hazardous. This is not an established fact though reports and some of the evidence is enough to make you weary.
The take-down system, like the trigger contraption, is reportedly hazardous and there is at least one highly credible case that I know of where a shooting accident most likely would have been prevented had the gun been made with a more classic take down system.
As result of the guns tight tolerances, it is more sensitive to aftermarket parts then many guns. A common example is the many reports of Glock barrels exploding.
Though not a true problem, by common standards, the Glock is an ugly gun. FWIW, I personally think that some Glocks are kinda pretty, but most people will beg to differ.
The Glock does not accept removable grips.
....
Glock is an Austrian company, and it seams as though while companies from that part of the world will pretty much sell their guns to anyone who can legally buy them in their country, they tend to be focused almost entirely on law enforcement and military and looking at the way the Glock was made, it seams as though the gun was designed to fit the tightest specs they could for the purpose of police and law enforcement, forsaking everything else. Likewise, while it is well fit as a side arm issued to the user without any goodies or custom work, but as a civilian gun used for defense, plinking and fancying up, you are entering a world the Glock wasn't designed for. I actually doubt the Beretta was designed with civilian toying around in mind but it seams that they were not as intense with specs. as Glock was when they invented the gun and used more traditional, time tested means which makes the Beretta much more of a versatile gun as opposed to the Glock being designed to near perfection around a single purpose.
So, while the Glock is a good gun, I personally would take a Taurus or Beretta over it any day.
For the record, I am not a gun loyalist, so do not take my comments as bashing or defensive. I really don't have an ax to grind. I'm just telling it like it is.
Last edited:
seeker_two
Member
MustangHowie: Thanks for the info....
- Status
