I have a 92fs and I have owned a 96 Centurian. I did not like the 96 because of its sharp (with 180gr ammo) recoil. It slowed my shot recover time down. I'm no wuss (shoots .44 mags fine ) but it also hurt my wrist because of the sharp upward twist. I shoot my glock 23 and Kahr k40 (both .40s&w) without any of the above problems.
well i've not fired a 92, but i can tell you the 96 recoil was not that bad imo.
the wife and myself put a good 1200 rounds thru a inox 96 in about a year before trading it away. it was traded not due to any recoil issues either. had a ftf hiccups (6 or 7 out of 1000) which bothered me.
i shoot usually shoot .357mags now and there is more appreciable recoil to those than that .40 ever offered up.
if i was to go beretta again i wud go 92 for the cheaper 9mm ammo and that bullets friendlier feed profile.
Question is really kinda relative to the shooter. A 96 may handle better against a 92 on some shooter and may turn the other way around on some others. Best thing to do is try them on the range.
stick to 165gr. 180 is pushing it for general range use. the .40 does pull heavier but it's mostly the speed of the recoil more than the actual increase in force.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.