Nightcrawler
Member
How do these pistols stack up against each other these days? Obviously, the Taurus is a copy of the Beretta design, but both companies seem to be going in different directions with them.
One thing I like about the Taurus is that, unlike Berreta (except for a few select models), the Taurai use a frame mounted safety.
The problem with the frame-mounted safety is the way it's configured. Up is safe, middle is fire, down is decock. Problem is, if you have it cocked & locked, and mash the safety lever down to the decock position, and hold it there, the pistol is disabled. It could potentially happen in a stressful situation.
If I were in charge, I'd make two versions, thus. The decock version would just "press down to decock", like on the FNP-40 pistol. The SA version would enable cocked & locked carry, but if you wanted to carry hammer down, you'd have to manually lower the hammer, like on a CZ-75.
Note that the Taurus now comes standard with a 17 round magazine.
The other choice is, of course, the Beretta. Beretta recently came out with a standard-frame gun (as opposed to a vertec) that has a rail for mounting a weapon light. Of course, older Surefire type lights that don't require a rail are still available, but they're big by current standards.
Beretta still clings to the two-stage, slide mounted safety. They make a decock only version, and in this case, the position of the lever become less important. (I understand that the military requires a manual safety for its pistols, and that's why Beretta makes 'em that way.)
So, my question is this. Taurus' quality has been constantly improving. I've handled a Beretta 92FS and a Taurus togther, side by side, and couldn't tell any significant difference in fit or finish.
Could it be that the Taurus is every bit as good a gun as the Beretta now? Any thoughts?
I should say that I don't include military Berettas in my assessment, just because typically, the ones I've handled have been disappointing.
One thing I like about the Taurus is that, unlike Berreta (except for a few select models), the Taurai use a frame mounted safety.
The problem with the frame-mounted safety is the way it's configured. Up is safe, middle is fire, down is decock. Problem is, if you have it cocked & locked, and mash the safety lever down to the decock position, and hold it there, the pistol is disabled. It could potentially happen in a stressful situation.
If I were in charge, I'd make two versions, thus. The decock version would just "press down to decock", like on the FNP-40 pistol. The SA version would enable cocked & locked carry, but if you wanted to carry hammer down, you'd have to manually lower the hammer, like on a CZ-75.
Note that the Taurus now comes standard with a 17 round magazine.
The other choice is, of course, the Beretta. Beretta recently came out with a standard-frame gun (as opposed to a vertec) that has a rail for mounting a weapon light. Of course, older Surefire type lights that don't require a rail are still available, but they're big by current standards.
Beretta still clings to the two-stage, slide mounted safety. They make a decock only version, and in this case, the position of the lever become less important. (I understand that the military requires a manual safety for its pistols, and that's why Beretta makes 'em that way.)
So, my question is this. Taurus' quality has been constantly improving. I've handled a Beretta 92FS and a Taurus togther, side by side, and couldn't tell any significant difference in fit or finish.
Could it be that the Taurus is every bit as good a gun as the Beretta now? Any thoughts?
I should say that I don't include military Berettas in my assessment, just because typically, the ones I've handled have been disappointing.
aurus at the range. They both shot true, but I perfered the 92FS trigger. The Taurus left my trigger finger feeling numb. Vibrations? who knows, could have just been that gun; however, I would take the Beretta anyday!
