Berettas. Next purchase?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sactown

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,238
Location
NorCal
I'm thinking about purchasing a beretta. Either a 92FS or 92G Elite II. What are the pro's and cons of each? Any personal experiences? Any quirks?

I already have a CZ75, P226, P225, XD9Tac, and SA1911 9mm so this is just adding another 9mm to the collection.
 
The Beretta 92 had a rep once upon a time for slide breakage. You don't hear about it as much anymore, but as far as I know the US Military still mandates slide replacement fairly frequently on theirs? Somebody else might be able to confirm that. FWIW, the Taurus model, which has a preferable safety afaik, never seemed to have the slide breakage problem.

As an aside, I had a couple model 21's that were both decent little guns (though they were purchased years apart and as with many manufacturers, quality had declined noticeably), but once had to deal with beretta's customer service in regard's to a new rifle I had purchased, and it was an extremely negative experience, to say the least. I have sold all my beretta's and wouldn't buy anything else from them just based on that, fwiw. If you get one that works/isn't defective, they are fairly decent, though a bit pricey perhaps, but man, if you ever have to use the customer service (and I use that word euphemistically) you will live to regret it. Just one opinion.

As afurther aside, if you pay attention you will notice that when Beretta has taken over other companies, which they have done alot of the past few years, they tend to cheapen up the product, but still charge as much or more for it, which I think says something. Look at the Tikka Whitetail vs the T3, if you want an example.
 
Many guns have had breakage problems, Sigs, Glocks, Berettas, H&K, S&W etc. etc.

scubie02: No the military does not mandate frequent slide replacements on berettas.. the problem was resolved years ago with the redesign of the locking block and also the installation of a slide overtravel stop..

Elite has a bit more customisation but many say it shoots no different than the 92fs, in fact some complain the the Elite slide cycles sluggishly when compared to a 92fs.. One plus the Elite has is a removable, replaceable front sight whilst the 92fs has a fixed front sight..

If getting a 92fs, get an Inox version..the plating really helps to lock up the pistol..

suggest you shoot both and decide which one you like..
 
If you're gonna buy a higher-end 9mm, to me, the choices always come down to the 92FS or the SIG 226 ... To me, the "upgrades" of the Elite are not worth the extra $$ (unless you're going to be using the pistol for competition or serious target shooting), but like IB says, the Inox 92FS is an excellent pistol, and if I were going to have only one Beretta, that'd be the one.

As I'm sure others will chime in to note, keep a 92FS well-lubricated (I use FP-10) and always, always use only quality magazines (factory, Mec-Gar or MDS).

I'm on my third 92FS (one standard blue, two Inox) and have carried the M-9 for the past eleven years on duty. I've never had any issues with my personal guns, and they're all accurate and 100% reliable. I've seen the standard blue 92FS take incredible abuse and, IIRC, have seen only one military pistol locking block failure ... I'm not a huge fan of the platform (prefer 1911s), though I've probably trained more with the M-9 than any other pistol. but for a full-size 9mm service pistol, I just don't think there's anything out there any better than the Beretta 92FS ...
 
Every time I've gone away from the Beretta to try to find a better mousetrap: USP45C, P7M8, KZ45, 1911, I always come back to it.

If you wanna talk, 45R has my number. Call me during lunch.
 
Thanks anyway, Skunk.

I'm gonna go see if my local store has any and how much they cost.

45R gave your Elite the thumbs up. Hey, can't be any worse than a glock, right? :D

Elites sure are purty.
 
From the first time I shot a Beretta I was hooked on it. However when I went to buy one I checked out a Taurus PT-99. Some call it a cheap clone, I see no diffrence. The fit and finish are erfect, and the gun is just as smooth and accurte as the Beretta. It should be it is a Beretta(made by Berettas own machinery). I also perfer the saftey/decockers placment on the Taurus. Check out the Taurus line and save your self some serious money. Same gun, lower price....how does it get any better???
 
The differences with the Elite model:
- Brigadier slide (heavier, better recoil management)
- Skeletonized hammer (so what?)
- Improved sights, extended mag release, improved trigger (mostly for target sports)

But the single biggest difference (advantage, in my opinion) is that the 92G is the decocker-only version of the 92. So there's no external safety to worry about.

You can also get that feature in the 92G Elite 1A, which has all of the Elite II features of the E2, plus the Vertec-style grip and accessory rail. If you want to forgo the Brigadier slide, you can look for a 92G Vertec model. It was a LEO-only version that is now available commercially. I have one and love it to death!

HTH,
Jim
 
Thanks anyway, Skunk.

I'm gonna go see if my local store has any and how much they cost.

45R gave your Elite the thumbs up. Hey, can't be any worse than a glock, right?

Elites sure are purty.

Depends--if you don't like DA/SA a Glock may be better for you.

Yeah Elites are purty. But you should see me shoot an XD9 :evil:

(ask 45R about that one)
 
Depends--if you don't like DA/SA a Glock may be better for you.

I had a Glock G34. Couldn't shoot it worth a darn and then it would take me longer to readjust to my Sigs and 1911s.

Yeah Elites are purty. But you should see me shoot an XD9
I sold the G34 to get an XD9 Tactical. :D The XD9 Tac is great. For some reason I find they're really fast to shoot. I can shoot pairs much faster with the XD than I can with my Sigs.

I'm gonna see if I can stop by my local store today to see what the E2s go fer. I hear they have Jet Funnels for USPs too. Might check that out for my USP40f.
 
Reliability

I've fired a few pistols, some high end some not so.....

One thing that really stands out is the reliability. It's also really nice how easy it is to tear down and clean. I hate having to have special tools and worrying about parts flying during a teardown. Simple and reliable.

I have a Beretta 92fs(Maybe 96 in the .40 S&W) Basically the same.... Also fired and maintain a 92FS while on active duty. Anyway, Beretta did good. Although they might have borrowed a lot of their ideas.....My thoughts anyway.

Sounds like you might have already made the decision, just thought I'd add..... :)
 
The Taurus may be cheaper and have the frame mounted safety, but it's still not a Beretta (even if it is made from old Beretta tools and dies) only a clone.
:evil:
 
I've got a Mod 96, reload for and shoot it real often. Never have had a problem . If it handles the number of 180g . full load 40s I put thru it then 9mm should not be a problem.

rk
 
Beretta 92 is a great gun and my second most favorite.

But, Ruger P89 is less than half the price, at least as reliable, and American-built. Guess which one is my most favorite gun :)
 
92 is a good piece

The problem the military had with the 92's was ammo related. The pistol was never designed to handle Nato ammo. Even with +P stuff you should be alright. It was never as comfortable to me as a 1911, but it was very accurate if I did my part.
 
Source? How do you know it wasn't designed for NATO ammo? I don't think the military would have overlooked that detail.

The manual for my Beretta 92FS INOX says it is chambered for 9mm Parabellum, Luger, NATO and 9x19 ammo.

What I have read over the years is that the early problems were due to poorer quality steel and +P+ machine gun ammo. The pistol was modified to keep a slide from flying back into an operator's face should it break.

NATO ammo is hot. Shooting alot of it will wear your gun out a little faster. A steady diet of factory and occasional +P ammo is ideal. My manual warns against regular use of +P+ or submachine gun ammo.

I have had two 92FS pistols. Both have been flawless. Buy with confidence.
 
I'm not pickin' on your gun!

Quote:
What I have read over the years is that the early problems were due to poorer quality steel and +P+ machine gun ammo.


+P+ Machine gun ammo. Exactly. What do you think NATO ammo is? There's not a NATO pistol and NATO SMG round, just 9mm. And yes, the government WAS in such a hurry to get a 9mil into service that they DID ignore the fact that the pistol wasn't made to take a regular diet of the ammo they intended to feed it.

It's a good handgun, so don't get all hot and bothered just 'cause I prefer Ol' Slabsides. It's just not a good platform for the ammo it's fed.
 
I would go for either the Brigadier, Vertec, or Elite models. The only thing I don't like about my standard 92FS is that it's a royal pain in the backside to put nightsights on. This is b/c the front sight is integral to the slide. You have to send the slide to a vender (Trijicon, for instance) to have the front sight drilled and a tritium vial inserted. I really don't like that. Not enough metal in the area to have a dovetail milled, I checked on that already. The three models I mentioned all have dovetailed front sights as standard. Other than that, I find these to be excellent gun, if a bit pricey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top