I've never owned a Beretta 92FS, so I don't know that my comment should be accepted. I did buy the clone made by Taurus 40 years ago and I still have it and shoot it. I would find it difficult to find fault with the Beretta. On the other hand I am a cheap whore when it comes to firearms , regardless of price or manufacturer. I like the look and style of it and I love big guns. That is why I carried a full size 1911 for more than 40 years and now carry a 686. Big guns don't scare me.
Who dislikes/hates the Beretta 92FS/M9?
- Thread starter UncleEd
- Start date
- Status
The Beretta 92FS and M9 have the slide mounted safeties that flip up and I never liked them. Its the same reason I didn't like the Smiths There are several 92 models now with the frame mounted safety that flicks down. If the Turks started making a 92GTS clone for less than $300 I would consider it. You can get a Tukish-made CZ copy for under $300 and they run like champs. The Taurus 92 versions go for $500+ and I'm never going to buy anything from Taurus ever again.
What does a $500.00 Taurus 92 do that a $275.00 SAR B6 doesn't do just as well ?
What does a $500.00 Taurus 92 do that a $275.00 SAR B6 doesn't do just as well ?
Last edited:
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Over the years of the shop, buying and selling I had my share of Beretta 92FS guns. I liked the gun, never a problem with any of them. While I am a 1911 type myself the 92FS is a fine gun. I do currently have a Beretta 96 which is also, while large, a fine pistol. Like any gun some love or at least like while some do not care for the gun, be it ergonomics, weight, or anything else. You choose a gun based on form, fit and function which works for you. 
Ron
Ron
EMC45
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,957
Carried and qualled with the M9 in the Navy and Air Force. They never fit my hand correctly. I want to see what the Vertec feels like though. The M9 is a full figured gun and I have small hands. No way around it. Good gun - accurate, capacity, robust etc. too big for me though.
Bought one years ago and wanted to love it, really I did. It was astonishingly inaccurate (for everyone that shot it) and too big.
Bought one years ago and wanted to love it, really I did. It was astonishingly inaccurate (for everyone that shot it) and too big.
Armorer 101
Member
I took part in the USAF testing of the 9mm guns submitted to replace the USAF 1911s. At Eglin AFB R&D Center, under the direction of deputy Director Jack Robbins. The results was the 92 Beretta.
Several items:
1) we used as issued 1911 mags that were 50+ years old in a mag fed gun tested against new mags in hand made 9mm guns that had custom barrels and chambers with custom built 9mm ammo. The old teacup 115s would not pass basic accuracy minimum test standards.
2) Next, the tests did not include sand and dust driven by rotor prop wash. which caused the 92s in holsters to become a one shot hip weight in later chopper operations in the desert.
3) Last the defective steel in slides and barrel blocks, did not occur until late production, when the slides fractured sending shrapnel flying and the barrel blocks sheared off the barrels making the 92s totally useless.
The PJs in Afghanistan, that had to practice four times a week, ran out of 92 barrels due to sheared blocks and had to borrow new barrels from the Marines, a bit of inter service consternation, that was.
I know the rescue detachment commander, now retired, so that data is not just a story. It is something that actually happened in a combat area to a deployed active combat group. Got to the point they PJs refused to carry the 92 and relied solely on their M-4s. A half reliable handgun in combat is not reliable at all.
I do not own, nor have I ever owned a Beretta 92. However I did build a Taurus 92 comp gun with a bushless slide, to have the frame safety. The gun was altered for single action only it had a supported chamber and was used to shoot 9mm Major when the 9 Major was within rules. That Taurus shot in one or two FIPT matches.
I own four Beretta shotguns carried them to Argentina on about a dozen trips and saw the Benellis replaced by 391 Berettas at several outfitters, so not a Beretta hater at all. I would just put several thousands rounds threw a single 92 before I would trust that gun with my life.
Several items:
1) we used as issued 1911 mags that were 50+ years old in a mag fed gun tested against new mags in hand made 9mm guns that had custom barrels and chambers with custom built 9mm ammo. The old teacup 115s would not pass basic accuracy minimum test standards.
2) Next, the tests did not include sand and dust driven by rotor prop wash. which caused the 92s in holsters to become a one shot hip weight in later chopper operations in the desert.
3) Last the defective steel in slides and barrel blocks, did not occur until late production, when the slides fractured sending shrapnel flying and the barrel blocks sheared off the barrels making the 92s totally useless.
The PJs in Afghanistan, that had to practice four times a week, ran out of 92 barrels due to sheared blocks and had to borrow new barrels from the Marines, a bit of inter service consternation, that was.
I know the rescue detachment commander, now retired, so that data is not just a story. It is something that actually happened in a combat area to a deployed active combat group. Got to the point they PJs refused to carry the 92 and relied solely on their M-4s. A half reliable handgun in combat is not reliable at all.
I do not own, nor have I ever owned a Beretta 92. However I did build a Taurus 92 comp gun with a bushless slide, to have the frame safety. The gun was altered for single action only it had a supported chamber and was used to shoot 9mm Major when the 9 Major was within rules. That Taurus shot in one or two FIPT matches.
I own four Beretta shotguns carried them to Argentina on about a dozen trips and saw the Benellis replaced by 391 Berettas at several outfitters, so not a Beretta hater at all. I would just put several thousands rounds threw a single 92 before I would trust that gun with my life.
Thomas Mayberry
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 299
I neither hate or dislike the 92. I carried one as an issued weapon on ocassion in the Air Force. My only problem with it was it was too big for my grip. I did fine in SA mode but DA was another matter.
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
I unfortunately quite like it. It seems soldiers who were issued the early ones ran into dozens of problems with them and thus are permanently turned off of it.
To be honest after these complains I've tried to find fault with the Beretta 92 pattern but I can't.
When I was a kid, a big 1911 fan, I thought it was really stupid reading about how the military chose the M9 to replace the 1911. To me the 1911 was the perfect handgun and changing to 9mm proved our army became a bunch of pussies. As I got older though, I no longer feel that way. Such a opinion about .45 vs 9mm is outdated emotional conjecture from the older generations of American gun owners who still felt loyal to the American .45 acp.
The M9 just works elegantly. I can see how the shape can be a big problem for some, but for me it isn't an issue. It's not really concealable for me though, so there's that. I compare it alot to the Walther P38 and I hold both in the same regard, the P38 being a grandfather to the M9 in many ways. If I was issued an M9 (not assuming it's an old beaten one) I'd feel adequate with it. The oldest 92 model I've experienced is the 92s models that were surplused out of Italy a few years ago. There are differences, the slide doesn't feel as robust. You can tell by 40 years the pistols get very well used and probably better to replace them at that point. But the 92s isn't a bad pistol by any means, just that it's older.
To be honest after these complains I've tried to find fault with the Beretta 92 pattern but I can't.
When I was a kid, a big 1911 fan, I thought it was really stupid reading about how the military chose the M9 to replace the 1911. To me the 1911 was the perfect handgun and changing to 9mm proved our army became a bunch of pussies. As I got older though, I no longer feel that way. Such a opinion about .45 vs 9mm is outdated emotional conjecture from the older generations of American gun owners who still felt loyal to the American .45 acp.
The M9 just works elegantly. I can see how the shape can be a big problem for some, but for me it isn't an issue. It's not really concealable for me though, so there's that. I compare it alot to the Walther P38 and I hold both in the same regard, the P38 being a grandfather to the M9 in many ways. If I was issued an M9 (not assuming it's an old beaten one) I'd feel adequate with it. The oldest 92 model I've experienced is the 92s models that were surplused out of Italy a few years ago. There are differences, the slide doesn't feel as robust. You can tell by 40 years the pistols get very well used and probably better to replace them at that point. But the 92s isn't a bad pistol by any means, just that it's older.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Thanks for the clarification.
If we are changing guns, you could also get a Beretta 92 with a thinner grip and a decocker that only drops the hammer to the half cock position. You'd also get to keep a full size gun and not shift to a compact gun like the PCR.
Beretta 92GTS Full Size Standard
<p>Experience the next generation of the Beretta 92 series with the Beretta 92GTS Full Size. Seamlessly blending legacy and innovation, this pistol features Twin Sear Technology, DLC trigger components, and an optic-ready slide for unparalleled performance.</p>www.beretta.com
If that Beretta had been available years ago, I might not have gone CZ.
Like others, I’m not a Beretta hater. I’ve bought 6 different types of Berettas over the years. My outright favorite of the ones I’ve owned is my CX4.
Last edited:
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Same here in regards to slide mounted safeties. That type of safety helped drive me away from all safety levers on all handguns I’ve purchased with the intent of self defense.
I do have handguns with safety levers, but only for recreational purposes.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,143
I liked my service issue M9. It was accurate enough. Didn't fit my hand great but when you have to have a one size fits all pistol for everyone, choice doesn't matter. I still have my holsters and magazines that I bought separately for it and would like to have one in my safe. Even just for deployment nostalgia.
I must say I disliked the M9 when they were first issued to my company. I hated giving up my 1911 and to make matters worse I could not hit my target the first time I was trying to qualify. Turned out I had to aim at the bottom corner left of the target to hit the X ring. Sights were off. Still didn't sway my judgement of the Beretta 92. Who ever assembled the sights on the M9 assigned to me must have done it on a Monday and was hungover.
They are easy shooters and I have found them to be very accurate with ammo they like. They are easy to work on, very reliable and one can customize them fairly easily with parts either on the aftermarket or from the factory. Parts are reasonably priced, as are magazines. Personally, I think the stainless 9x series pistols are some of the best-looking handguns on the market.
I don't care for the fact that the front sights tend to be integral to the slide (not true on all models) which makes putting night sights on the gun more difficult/expensive. I also don't like that they don't point especially well for me and that when doing malfunction clearance there's a chance of decocking the gun and/or putting it on safe unintentionally by accidentally manipulating the safety/decocker while running the slide.
I have a 92FS and a 92G that I enjoy shooting.
I don't care for the fact that the front sights tend to be integral to the slide (not true on all models) which makes putting night sights on the gun more difficult/expensive. I also don't like that they don't point especially well for me and that when doing malfunction clearance there's a chance of decocking the gun and/or putting it on safe unintentionally by accidentally manipulating the safety/decocker while running the slide.
I have a 92FS and a 92G that I enjoy shooting.
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,877
I have come to really like the 92 series. I recently picked one up, added some LTT goodies and replaced all the plastic parts with metal ones. It is a great shooter and has been 100% reliable so far. To be fair, it worked just fine in the stock configuration.
I too was perplexed by the flip up safety. A search for a solution led me to this video:
After a little practice I now just flip the safety down like most other guns.
Mine shoots soft, is very accurate, and carries well in a good holster/belt combo.
I too was perplexed by the flip up safety. A search for a solution led me to this video:
After a little practice I now just flip the safety down like most other guns.
Mine shoots soft, is very accurate, and carries well in a good holster/belt combo.
Old Dog
Member
Sorry, not buying that. What year did your acquaintance claim that this was occurring? By the time OEF began, the locking block issued was pretty much resolved; every armorer I knew was simply automatically swapping 'em out after 5K rounds. When I was deployed for OEF, I believe Beretta was on the Gen 3 locking blocks, and I personally never saw one fail after probably around 2001-2002. Also, there is usually no reason to replace an M9's barrel just because the locking block broke. The jarheads must surely have gotten some laughs about this (not that we all needed a reason to laugh at the AF).
I've seen the trigger return springs break after a lot of rounds fairly often, but with proper maintenance (and keeping the pistol lubed) the locking blocks should last for at least 20K rounds.
Last edited:
There's an aftermarket trigger spring that's designed different from the stock spring and should eliminate trigger spring breakage. I think Wilson Combat makes them. If I recall, there's one installed in one or both of my Beretta 92 pistols. It's easy to install and I couldn't tell that it changed the character of the trigger.
There's some weirdness with the locking block issue. I've seen some folks claim they got crazy high round counts, even with the old blocks while others say they just break right and left. I think that part of it could be that they need to be fitted so that the stress is fairly even on both "ears" of the block. I think that there may be some of the pistols out there that are prone to breaking locking blocks. I've never had one break on me but I do have a spare around here somewhere just in case.
Agree that a broken locking block doesn't require a barrel replacement unless the armory doesn't have any loose blocks. Then they might replace the (barrel, block, plunger, pin) as one assembly.
There's some weirdness with the locking block issue. I've seen some folks claim they got crazy high round counts, even with the old blocks while others say they just break right and left. I think that part of it could be that they need to be fitted so that the stress is fairly even on both "ears" of the block. I think that there may be some of the pistols out there that are prone to breaking locking blocks. I've never had one break on me but I do have a spare around here somewhere just in case.
Agree that a broken locking block doesn't require a barrel replacement unless the armory doesn't have any loose blocks. Then they might replace the (barrel, block, plunger, pin) as one assembly.
Haven't seen another since.....
The plastic fantastics have pushed them to the dusty corner of the safe.....
Yes they only imported a handful of them so they are rare birds to come across.
I am the opposite as I couldn't even tell you the last time I shot one of my Glocks..
ExtremeSquared
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2008
- Messages
- 264
My experience with M9s was so failure-prone that I distrusted the platform for years after using them.
It was then pointed out to me that the average M9 is a nexus of physical abuse which has seen a series of random component replacements by armorers of varying skill.
It's a valid point.
It was then pointed out to me that the average M9 is a nexus of physical abuse which has seen a series of random component replacements by armorers of varying skill.
It's a valid point.
hawg
Member
I don't like the slide mounted safety. I don't like the decocker or DA/SA. I like the Taurus 92 FS a lot better. It still has a decocker and is DA/SA but at least the safety is frame mounted and I don't have to use the DA.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
I had one shear the actual lug on the barrel itself once, splitting all the way into the chamber. I thought we were going to have to cut the slide in half to get it open, but a enough wacks with a rubber mallet eventually got it. It was a clearly used and abused Sheriffs Dept. gun. We replaced the barrel and block as a set and she's up and running again now.
Had another one, also a retired LE example, that looked great on the outside, but the firing pin was bound up solid with a dried cosmoline-like substance packed into the channel.
They are a rather complicated device, for a handgun, with lots of moving parts. Poor maintenance will do them in if one tries hard enough.
That was one of the biggest complaints when we switched from the 1911A1 to the M9. My unit didn't get the M9 until late 1992 or early 1993 while stationed in Germany with the 1st Armored Division. Of course engineer battalions are usually some of the last units to get updated equipment. We had to turn our M3A1 "grease guns" at the same time we turned our 1911A1's in.
I guess I don't know what that is. What are you calling the "barrel lug"?
When I was shooting Beretta 92 pistols a lot, I would sometimes blow out the firing pin channel by taking something like Gun Scrubber and spraying it directly into the firing pin hole in the breech. Any crud (and there was usually a lot) in the firing pin channel would run out around the back of the firing pin at the back of the slide. There really shouldn't be any lube in the channel--I wonder what the guy put in there.
- Status