Thoughts on Beretta 92?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can make the Beretta mags with with a dremel tool. The mag catch cutout just has to be enlarged a bit. I do know the barrels and locking blocks will interchange.

I have a circa 2007 Taurus PT92 and it does not have a rail. You want the ones marked PT92AF as the model. It will have the slide mounted safety and decocker.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
You can make the Beretta mags with with a dremel tool. The mag catch cutout just has to be enlarged a bit. I do know the barrels and locking blocks will interchange.

I have a circa 2007 Taurus PT92 and it does not have a rail. You want the ones marked PT92AF as the model. It will have the slide mounted safety and decocker.


Thanks for the tip on the mod for using Beretta mags in a Taurus. If I'm not mistaken, the 'AF' denotes the alloy frame as well (I guess some PT92s have steel frames). The Taurus models look to be a good $150+ cheaper than the Berettas on the used market...but there are also fewer of them (Taurii). I'd like to find a local copy to hold and hopefully shoot before I look more seriously. It looks like the one consistent comment is that they may be larger than they perhaps look from pictures or film.
 
I don't think there is much of a size difference - if there is, it doesn't stand out in my mind. I have a .40 Taurus (PT101?) and I don't recall any size difference with my 92.

I have a Centurion sized 9mm Tauri also, and it seems about the same size as the Beretta's when they imported those.

There were also some 92L's brought in the country a few years ago. Academy Sports had some. Compared to the 92FS, it has about a half inch shorter barrel, and about a half inch shorter grip. Even though it's the same width, it feels better in my hand than the 92. It feels better balanced. Same slide mounted controls, though, but it's my favorite of the 92/96 bunch.

Isn't there a 92 Compact now? I wonder if that is the 92L or 92M under a different name, or yet another variant of the old classic.
 
I am pretty sure the AF on the Taurus 92 means it has the automatic firing pin safety. Some of the early Taurus 92's have the frame safety only...no decocker. When they went to the AF, they got automatic firing pin safety and the hammer drop also.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
I LOVE the 92 model. It's one of the most reliable pistols on the market. Most complaints were when they were used with substandard contract magazines in the military. If the military had spent the money on better magazines and not "cheapest bidder" magazines, the gun would have a much better reputation.

As far as match grade accuracy, that is not true. The barrel doesn't lock up with the slide, so while they are pretty accurate, they are no Sig P210. Consider them combat accurate.

If you hate the safety (like I do), just buy a G model. They only have a decocker and don't have a safety. Or you can send a regular model with safety off to Wilson Combat and they will convert it to a G model for you.

My next gun if I can find one will be a Wilson Combat Beretta Brigadier G model.


This.

My wife bought one a few years ago: it's very reliable, it's accurate, she shoots Expert with it, so do I.

We have about half a dozen quality magazines, all Beretta, and never had an issue. It feeds ball ammo and JHPs just fine. The integrated rail on the front is a nice improvement, not that she would ever use it.

It's a high quality firearm.
 
One of the reasons they are so reliable with all kinds of ammo is the locking block system it uses. The slide goes straight back and forth instead of tipping like on a Colt/Browning/Sig system. That allows a very straight path for the round to enter the chamber.

Honestly, it is a system I wish had been used more than just on the Walther, Beretta, and Taurus guns.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: cb_13
The older Taurus 92 and 99's didn't have the rail.


Do you know how far back I'd have to go with a Taurus to find one without the rail? I'm not a rail guy, and think that squared-off piece detracts from what is otherwise a high-style gun. I prefer the Taurus's fire control system, but don't like how they use Taurus-specific magazines (which may not be very high quality, from what I've read). I also don't like the rail, but if the older ones didn't have it, that potentially opens those models up as an option. Thanks.

According to Wikipedia(not always reliable) the rail was an option as of 2005. I don't know when they all started coming with it though. Mine is from the 90's so it does not have one. I wish they could share magazines with a Beretta as my friend that has a Beretta bought a shoebox full of mags. We talked about making new retainer slots on them to try but didn't want to ruin a good one experimenting.
 
Love my 92FS.

20150110_173134.jpg



The locking-block issue is extremely rare and is only a factor in high-round count or poorly maintained 92's. You are supposed to keep track and replace these parts (like you would the recoil spring in a 1911, Glock, Sig, H&K, etc) per the manufacturers instructions every so many thousands of rounds anyway. Very easy parts to replace and with the 92 there is nothing that can't be replaced that requires special tools or fitting. Much more user friendly than the 1911 in that respect. Replaced the trigger in mine with the all-metal kit as well as the "D" hammer spring and the guide rod/spring. As far as weight, my 92 is lighter unloaded and loaded compared to that 1911 in the same conditions.
 
Last edited:
I just ordered this from Wilson Combat for $1200 (freaking OUCH). That's about $600 more than I ever wanted to spend on a Beretta, but I really REALLY like this gun and had to have one. It's the much preferred G model that lacks a safety and just has a decocker.

Beretta/Wilson Combat 92G Brigadier Tactical
wilson-combat-beretta-92g-brigadier-tactical.jpg


brigtac_zps0f4a765d.jpg
 
That Wilson Combat 92G looks like a sweet piece.

I'm shooting with a friend of mine on Sunday, and a friend of his has a 92FS that he's going to loan us so that I can try. I look forward to shooting it and seeing how much I like it. I'm sure I'll be hooked.

I'll also be shooting my CZ 75 BD for the first time, and I very much look forward to that. I've been doing a ton of dry fire practice at home with it and it feels like it has a really sweet SA trigger.
 
without question the most comfortable pistol I have ever owned was a 92. With that said it was fun to shoot, easy to clean easy to own.. a great range gun. Now for C.C. ? I prefer smaller choices. I no longer own a 92 as ive found other semi auto's I prefer and am more accurate with.. the joy of guns, shop, buy, shoot, repeat.
 
Originally Posted By: OtisBlkR1
without question the most comfortable pistol I have ever owned was a 92. With that said it was fun to shoot, easy to clean easy to own.. a great range gun. Now for C.C. ? I prefer smaller choices. I no longer own a 92 as ive found other semi auto's I prefer and am more accurate with.. the joy of guns, shop, buy, shoot, repeat.


Amen!

I've yet to add "sell" to that list...so far, it's just been shop, buy, shoot, enjoy...and now, I need a bigger safe...
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Bubba, is that a Wilson Combat serial number on the frame? Does WC make the frame (or the whole gun)?


It's made by Beretta to Wilsons specs. Then they ship it to Wilson, who does final quality control specs/trigger work and then Wilson ships them out.
 
I shot a 92FS yesterday. Gun felt GREAT in my hand. It shot WAY low, though. I had to line the sights up about 6" higher than the metal plate to hit it. I've never had that with any gun before. I shot it back to back with my CZ 75 and my 75 is dead-on. I couldn't figure out the Beretta.

It seemed comfortable, though.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I shot a 92FS yesterday. Gun felt GREAT in my hand. It shot WAY low, though. I had to line the sights up about 6" higher than the metal plate to hit it. I've never had that with any gun before. I shot it back to back with my CZ 75 and my 75 is dead-on. I couldn't figure out the Beretta.

It seemed comfortable, though.


My Taurus PT92AF shoots a bit low also. I keep meaning to put an adjustable rear sight on it to fix that.
 
Interesting. This Beretta seemed to be spot-in in terms of windage. But man, it really needed some height elevation. Other than that, I did enjoy shooting it. I really enjoyed the wide, and deep, beavertail on it. My CZ's beavertail is very narrow, so it sort of digs into the web of my hand.
 
I have two Berettas (Cougar and PX4) and the Taurus clone. I have gravitated towards them because the grip and mag release are perfect for my hands. I do not have to shift my grip at all to drop the mag. I cannot seem to do that on my other guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top