Taurus 92 vs Beretta 92

[MustangHowie]

I bought a Taurus PT-92AF 10 years ago. I always liked the look of the Beretta, but at the time I could not afford the Beretta so I bought Taurus. Over the years I have asked several people which is better. Nobody had an answer. Either thet owned one or the other.

I don't shoot the Taurus very well and didn't want to buy a Beretta and not like it. We don't have rentals around here. When the last CDNN catalog came in they had a deal on Berettas. I called to get one and the $299 ones were sold out so I got one for $329. I went with the '80s model 92F because I grew up with Axel Foley, Martin Riggs, and John McClane. The condition of the Beretta wasn't as good as I hoped, but that is internet shoping.

The test;

Yesterday I took both out in my backyard. I set up some cans and some clays. I shot the Beretta first and because I shoot low with the Taurus I tried to shoot the Beretta the same way. I was all over the place.

I shot the Taurus next and the usual hitting low.

I went back to the Beretta and gave it a firm grip and put the sights at center squeezed the trigger and the clay pigeon exploded. Hmm, lets try that again. Same thing. Lets try rapid fire. Cans were flying!

I handed the Taurus to my wife. She hit about 2 feet low. Good grouping, but low. I gave her the Beretta and look out the clays were exloding every where.

Results;
Beretta wins.

I won't sell the Taurus because it was my first real 9mm, but it won't see the range much. The Beretta is going to the range a lot in the future.

My wife wants me to call CDNN and get another one!

 

[GRIZ22]

I went back to the Beretta and gave it a firm grip and put the sights at center squeezed the trigger and the clay pigeon exploded.

Maybe you should try this with the Taurus and see what your results are before you give up on it.

You don't mention what range but 2 feet low at any range short of 200 yds with a 9mm would lead me to believe you and your wife are doing something wrong. Pushing (anticipating the recoil before the shot) and jerking the triger straight back will cause you to shoot low. Have one of your friends who's a good shooter try both and see what he or she does with it.

I've used the Beretta and Taurus for about 20 years. I find the Taurus a bit more accurate than the Beretta. Reliability is about the same. If you want to dry fire you must use a snap cap with either as the firing pin design has a shoulder which will cause it to slam against its side of the breech causing it to break.

 

[MustangHowie]

I have tried it with the Taurus. I can't hit with it unless I limp wrist it or line the front sight above the rear at the top of the target. My wife has a Taurus with adjustable sights that are adjusted all the way up to hit anything. We both wanted to like the Taurus, but we can't hit with either mine or hers.

10-12 yards.

Have one of your friends who's a good shooter try both and see what he or she does with it.

I am not a new shooter, I hit clays with my 226 at 30yrds.

My wife is not as accurate with the 9mm as she is with the 45.

We both know what we are doing.

 

[Onmilo]

Copies are rarely as good as the original.
You will note similar results with Chilean and Egyptian copies of the Beretta 92 also.

 

[10-Ring]

Yeah, my Berettas (currently 4 in all configuration & calibers) have been great performers. The 2 Tauri I've owned give new meaning to the word "disappointment"

 

[Autolycus]

Berettas are nice looking pistols. They are also nice easy shooters.

 

[SeanMTX]

I just sold my Taurus PT92FS (Stainless version) and loved it. It shot bang on (not low at all), never jammed, never FTE/FTF (once with crappy ammo).

It wasn't a safe queen, it was an everyday shooter that I absolutely loved. It was easy to break down and clean, and cheap to buy and shoot. I can't say enough good things about it.

It fit exactly the role it was designed for...a cheap, functional shooter.

 

[TimboKhan]

2 feet off is a substantial amount. Like, 2 inches low I could see, but 2 feet low? Thats just weird.

 

[Shipwreck]

Yes, I prefer the Beretta over the Taurus too. But, them crazy Taurus guys will never admit it...

 

[gudel]

Get the real thing.

 

[TimboKhan]

Ha! Admit what? That the Taurus is on the whole is just as good a gun? You Taurus haters speak off your experiences, but you never listen to ours. My Taurus is great. I have shot the Beretta, and while I think it is a fine gun, I can't tell a whole lot of difference between the two, except for the frame mounted safety on the Taurus. Call me crazy all you want, but the fact is that there are a whole lot of satisfied Taurus 92 owners.

 

[JerrfyLube]

Ahh, Taurus....

The brand EVERYONE loves to hate!

Ive had my share of good and bad ones. Their handguns have gotten substantially better in the last few years from what they used to be. I picked up one of their 1911 copies a few months ago and its a great shooter and has options available on guns twice its price and shoots just as well. I also have an older M44 revolver and it has never once failed me and ive put it through hell and back.

I wont be the first to admit that their customer service and repair is about as close to crap as you can get, but if you get one of their good guns, they usually keepers.

 

[Pimpstar00]

Never shot a taurus, but I still like Beretta's better. Mine is accurate and reliable, and i like the way it fits my hand.

 

[Shipwreck]

I looked at a Taurus 92 in the 1990s, when tryiong to decide if I wanted the Beretta or Taurus. The fit and finish on the Taurus sucked compared to the Beretta.

Hell - on the sights on the Taurus - the white dots were NEXT to the holes (depressions) on the sights.

 

[MustangHowie]

2 feet off is a substantial amount. Like, 2 inches low I could see, but 2 feet low? Thats just weird.

My wife has always shot extremely low with that gun. She does fine with everything else. In 9mm she shoots Ruger, Sig , and Glock. In other calibers she has 2 Kimbers, a Baby Eagle in .40 and she even hits better with her Desert Eagle 44mag.

I hit 3 or 4 inches low with it. I have 10 other 9mms that I don't have that problem with.

The brand EVERYONE loves to hate!

The Taurus has never failed. It has fired every ammo I have put in it.

I own a few Taurus revolvers and never had a problem. I also have a PT-111 that shoots better than the 92 and it has that hard DAO trigger.

I do like Taurus, but for me the Beretta 92F wins over the Taurus 92AF.

 

[Slugless]

Have one of your friends who's a good shooter try both and see what he or she does with it.

+1. That's what I did, his Beretta & my Taurus shot exactly the same.

I've been mostly pleased with my 92. Accurate and totally reliable to date. However....

I hadn't shot the Taurus in years. For maintenance I usually wipe down the outside & run an oily boresnake through the barrel 'bout once a year.

This year I took it apart to wipe everything down. I was horrified, found a problem that made me take the pistol to the gunsmith that weekend.

The fit of the gun is such that the rail on one side of the frame has worn in such a way that it has actually raised a burr of aluminum at the top of the rail!

The gunsmith said, "well, this is part of the process of the pistol wearing in. How many rounds do you have on it?"
"About 1,000"
"Does it function reliably?"
"Yes"
"Then don't worry too much about it"

Fair enough but sheesh.

 

[brigadier]

Hitting 2 feet low is a real problem with both Taurus and Beretta pistols. Only 2 ways to fix that problem. Either replace the sites with adjustable sites or do as I did (I had the same problem with my Beretta 92) and lower the front site, which can be done by cutting away the front sight, replacing it with a dovetail and then hammer a site in. If course, a little mathematics needs to be done first so that the front of the slide and dovetail are cut so that the front sight will hammer in on sight.
Regarding the 2 pistols in overall comparison, I have HEARD that Taurus clones are made of weaker metal and have shorter lives then the Beretta but I have not seen any evidence that that is true. The Taurus is clearly lower quality but it makes up for that in all the available configurations. All in all, I would say that the Beretta beats the Taurus, but only in one area. The Taurus does not have the gripping on the handle nor the curve at the bottom/front of the handle, both which make the gun handle a little easier. Other then that, you would have to look up some forums for people dedicated to Berettas and Tauruses and compare the arguments.

 

[jwxspoon]

I recently picked up a stainless Taurus PT92AFS and have found it to be A+ in every way. I love my Berettas as well but the 4 Taurus pistol's I've ever bought are still in my collection and are great shooters.

jw

 

[seeker_two]

MustangHowie: What kind of grips do you have on the Beretta and on the Taurus? Maybe changing out the grips on the Taurus will help the low-shooting problem....

 

[Hokkmike]

The Taurus is a substitute for the Beretta. N'uff said. Taurus, in its own right, is good enough. But it is what you buy when you want to save money. More expensive isn't always better but it is most of the time.

 

[MustangHowie]

I have the wood grips on the Taurus, and the Beretta has stock rubber grips.

 

[glockman19]

Results;
Beretta wins.

No Doubt. I would NEVER buy a Taurus.

I have the wood grips on the Taurus, and the Beretta has stock rubber grips.

Change the grips if you don't like them. Bottom line the Beretta will out shoot the Taurus 100% of the time even without grips.

NOW, when you're ready get the best 9mm made the Glock 17/19/16/34. It is more Reliable, Accurate and indestructible then all of them. Sig's and HK's are OK in 9mm but cost more and weigh more.
Sell the Taurus and get a Glock to go with your beretta. Don't get emotionally attached to poor firearms. Trade up.

 

[BryanP]

I went with the '80s model 92F because I grew up with Axel Foley, Martin Riggs, and John McClane.

Axel Foley carried a Browning Hi Power, which is better than either the Taurus or the Beretta.

 

[TimboKhan]

No Doubt. I would NEVER buy a Taurus.

Why? Because people on the internet hate them? I always find it odd that people who complain about them are apparently credible, reliable pundits, but when someone like me who has had nothing but good experiences with them says anything, I get ignored, at best.

Glockman, out of everyone here you should know to be a little more careful in stereotyping guns. After all, your apparent gun of choice melts when left on a dashboard and Kabooms constantly, right?

To say that the Beretta will outshoot the Taurus 100% of the time is, bluntly and simply put, a crock.

 

[MustangHowie]

Axel Foley carried a Browning Hi Power, which is better than either the Taurus or the Beretta.

Oh great, now I have to get a Hi Power too.