Opinions on New Pistol

[Angus]

First off, I havent posted in a long time, soooo.......hey!

I am looking for a new pistol, and wanted opinions from folks that already own one of them.

1) Beretta 92fs

2) Ruger SR40

I like Glocks, Sig, and most models of pistols.I am just looking for 1 more for the collection. What I have heard about the Beretta92 is that the Italian made would be better than the US made?

Keep it clean kids.

Lets get it on!

[TNWNGR]

I purchased a 92 FS several years ago simply because it is the chosen sidearm of the US Military and I felt it prudent to own one. It is bulky for a 9mm P but functions very well and is very much a fun gun to shoot. I don't own an SR 40 or SR 40c but do have a SR9. After owning and shooting numerous Glock pistols I decided to field test the SR9. After shooting the Lc9, LCP and SR22 the SR9 is an excellent pistol that I am very pleased with. The SR40 has a slightly heavier slide but as with the Glock 22/17 uses the same frame which is slimmer than the Glock's. The Ruger SR9/SR40 have a better out of box trigger pull as well as aftermarket trigger parts but other accessories are not as avaliable as the Glock's. Look at a lot of different pistol's and try to shoot as many different one's as possible so that you can make an imformed choice.

[TNcitizen22]

I have owned both of those guns. If picking between the two, I would go for the Beretta.

The Beretta has a higher magazine capacity due to caliber (though the Ruger is of a different caliber). The 9mm is a very effective and cost efficient round.

Most importantly the Beretta is a gun that you can very easily find parts/accessories/magazines/ammo for.

I will say however, the Ruger IMO has a much nicer trigger, and is lighter/smaller than the Beretta if carry is a concern.

[Raoul]

Just depends on what you're gonna use it for. If you're looking for a shooter I'd sugggest the 92. I've had one for a while and love to shoot it.

[Lumber_Jack]

If its just another for the collection, of choose the 92. Classic design, iconic gun, great shooter.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If you decide on a beretta 92, dunno whether there would be much difference between the USA and Italy-made models.

The last few years most 92's from both places come with plastic guide rods, but AFAIK the plastic guide rod functions just fine, and its not expensive to find blue or stainless steel guide rods if it bugs you. It is possible the plastic works "smoother" than the steel one and might be a technical improvement, dunno. Think I read that the new ones can have a couple of more plastic small parts, which used to be metal, but its been a couple of years since studying it, and can't recall details. Somebody probably knows.

I had a blue 92 long ago, but traded it for an inox 92FS about Y2K. That one, every part except a couple of small internal parts in the action, was stainless or silvery aluminum. That one was Made In USA and it has been great, still looks and works like new. There have been other inox 92FS in later years, and maybe also previous to Y2K when I got mine, where the frame and slide are silvery (anodized aluminum alloy frame and stainless steel slide), but assorted other parts are black. Sometimes stainless barrel and sometimes black. Safety levers, trigger, and other assorted small parts black instead of all parts silvery.

It is possible some folks like part silvery and part black better than all-silvery in the inox, but I was partial to all-silvery in that gun. So some of the black'n'white inox guns were made in USA but maybe some of the black'n'white inox 92's were made in Italy as well.

Inox 92's got kinda scarce for awhile, but then Beretta did a pretty big run of inox 92's a couple years back for an anniversary year, and for awhile it was easy to buy new inox 92's and they only costed marginally more than black ones. Dunno if they have got rare again. Anyway I picked up a second inox 92, out of that "anniversary" run. That one was made in italy, works as good or better than my older made in usa model, and has "all parts silvery" rather than some of the small parts black.

So the two 92FS I have, separated in date of manufacture by at least 10 years, one made in usa and the other made in italy, are as close to identical as you could get. The only difference was that the new one had a black plastic guide rod. Which worked fine but I got a wolf stainless guide rod for it just because. So that is the reason am guessing that made in italy vs made in USA might not make any nevermind. Or maybe on some models there are more significant differences, dunno.

One thing of note about beretta 92's (and most beretta guns)-- There are many manufacturers who make clean product inside and out, and beretta is definitely among them. You won't open up a beretta and be likely to find functional-but-rough-looking details inside where it doesn't show unless you take the gun apart. Every part inside a Beretta is finished just as nice as the exterior. No rough surfaces or tooling marks.

There are other brands of gun that operate fine and are good product, where the company only finishes the outside, and inside features can look rather crude and ugly. Rough places inside that don't affect performance but since you don't usually see in there every day, I guess some companies don't bother to make em pretty on the inside and they save money on "unnecessary machining".

It is just real rare to see rough machining inside the Berettas, as far as I know. Which might be more aesthetic than functional, but shows some company pride.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Another thing to consider, if you decide to get a 92--There are two "new style" 92's been out a few years. Maybe it is just being set in my ways, but I don't think either of the new ones looks quite as good as the classic model. You can read about the differences at the berettausa web site.

The new one called "90-TWO" is a rather radical redesign, works about the same but tries to look "futuristic", wheras the classic 92FS looks "retro futuristic". The classic model looks like what people decades ago expected futuristic to look like.

The other new model, 92A1, looks more like the classic 92, though not exactly the same.

Both the new models actually do add modern features that are good ideas which some folks would value more than the classic 92, and the new ones might be more beautiful to some folks eye than the classic 92.

Just saying, as long as you are window shopping it probably wouldn't hurt to study the two "modernized" models to see if you like the appearance or features better than the classic model. Noticed last weekend that Academy Sports in chattanooga was selling both the classic 92FS and also the 92A1.

I'm not gonna sell my classic 92FS inox guns, but there are several new features perhaps worthy of consideration. There are only two that grab my attention, though I'm not "against" any of the improvements. Both the 90-TWO and 92A1 have replaceable front sight. I'd love to have a fiber optic front sight on my 92FS, but because the 92FS front sight is a non-removeable machined-in feature of the slide, I'd have to machine the slide itself to add a fiber front sight, something ain't got brave enough to try.

Another neat feature of the 90-TWO are replaceable different-sized factory grips. My hands are big enough but fingers are stubby and it would be easier to slim the grips on the 90-TWO, wheras the classic 92FS will have a "slightly fat" grip even using the thinnest grips available for the "classic" 92 FS.

The new features are just something to think about whether any of them matter to you one way or the other.

[Mike.357]

I vote for the Beretta, if for no other reason than I always wanted one. I love the looks of the exposed barrel. It's a double stack and feels good in the hand.

And it was good enough for the US military. So I'd lean to an M9

[Mark A]

Beretta gets my vote. The 92 reminds me of the Cadillacs my grandfather drove when I was but a young lad. Well made and so damn comfortable you could drive it all day.

Mark

[monkeylizard]

I love my Beretta 92. I put some Hogues on it. Those combined with the heft of the gun soak up the recoil. It's the only non-.22LR handgun that my wife actually likes to shoot. It's also my favorite shooter and seems to have a very natural aim for me.

The Italian ones were reportedly harder to find some years ago and sold for a few dollars more. Now I see Italians about as much as I see USA. There's a certain cachet about having an Italian made Beretta due to perceived increased quality, but that's it. I don't think you'll find an actual quality difference between them.

Edited October 2, 2012 by monkeylizard

[Angus]

Thanks everyone, great info. I was already leaning towards the 92fs(def not the 92-two), but the info on the Ruger was awesome too. I may end up with both, but one at a time for right now.

JH

[Guest bulluck533]

I'd go with the beretta simply due to the hammer fired system. I find myself much more accurate with a hammer fired weapon over a striker fired. Bother are reliable.

[JReedEsq]

Ruger for carry;

Beretta for collecting/shooting/style.

[atlas3025]

It is an old design, and there are more modern and customizable 9mm's out there, but the Beretta is a terrific pistol. My dad bought an italian model back in the early 80's when I was in middle school. As soon as I turned 18, I bought one of my one (US Model) and had it for many years, shooting a lot of IPSC with it. Frankly, both guns worked wonderfully. Like an idiot, I sold mine about 10 years ago. Then briefly had an INOX that I traded for a carry gun.

Though he still lives, my dad has left his in my posession, for which I am greatful. Beretta makes 17 rounds mags for them now too, which are really slick. They don't go way beyond the butt, extending no more than a quarter inch, and the floor plates make them look flush. Yes, they don't have tac rails, but they make mounts for them if you want to mount a flashlight or something. I prefer the look of them without any addons though.

The only thing they have going against them is that they can't go cocked and locked, but they are DA/SA, so you aren't left struggling to cock the thing before you shoot it, unless you want to.

[Mykltn]

After owning a few Beretta's the 92fs gets my vote.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The only thing they have going against them is that they can't go cocked and locked, but they are DA/SA, so you aren't left struggling to cock the thing before you shoot it, unless you want to.

That has made me want to (also) sometime get a Taurus PT92, actually the model number of the one that is stainless with adjustable sights. PT-99?

As far as I can tell, the Taurus though a 92 clone, has the safety on the frame and can be carried cocked and locked if desired, in addition to running DA/SA with hammer down, and still retaining the decock feature. Actually sounds superior in options to the Beretta 92FS,

I have read users claiming the Taurus 92 to be well made, reliable and accurate. I don't recall reading on the internet of many owners complaining about them. Kept thinking about getting one as a 92 "spare" before I found my second 92FS inox. I don't like mail-ordering guns and it took a couple of years watching locally before finding the second 92FS inox a couple of years ago.

Please note I'm not "slagging" taurus, but the times I've seen a stainless Taurus 92 "in person" when I was inclined to want to buy one, looking at it close, the finish of the examples I saw was rough. Didn't take em apart but considering the machining defects on the outside lord knows what the inside would look like. In a reliable gun who cares, but every time after actually handling the gun decided against it with the reasoning, "This thing looks rough as a cob and its not THAT much cheaper than a Beretta 92, so why buy it?"

So if I encounter a taurus 92 that is rough but solid and it happens to be WAY cheaper than a beretta 92, and I have the money, would likely buy it. Or if I encounter a taurus 92 that has a nice finish for "typical taurus price" would likely buy it.

I'm ignorant and inexperienced and don't know the "average finishing quality" of Taurus 92's. Maybe a lot of them or even a majority are about as clean-machined as berettas and I just accidentally saw bad examples. But its one of the reasons I don't mail-order guns. Going from pictures, I could have ordered a Taurus 92 that looked great on the computer screen and maybe be disappointed when it gets delivered.

[monkeylizard]

I have a blued Beretta and a stainless Taurus. The finish on the Taurus is good, and the internals are pretty clean, but the Beretta is better. The trigger on the Beretta is a world apart from the Taurus. It's much smoother. The parts also fit a bit tighter. There's a tiny bit more slop to the Taurus. Not enough to affect performance, but if you're really looking close you'd notice. The Beretta is a superior gun. How superior ($$$) is a matter of opinion.

Note that the way the safeties behave is different. I don't care about frame (Taurus) vs. slide (Beretta) location, but the Beretta is up for fire, down for safe (which also decocks). The Taurus is up for safe, down for fire, then all the way down for decock. I like that you can be on cocked and locked with the Taurus, but not that you have to pass from safe through fire to get to decock. Besides the obvious safety concern there, I find it more natural when grabbing the gun to flick my thumb up (Beretta) instead of bringing it over the top (Taurus) of the safety lever and down to go from safe to fire. I also hate how Taurus feels the need to emblazon their giant TAURUS logo on their slides.

Edited October 3, 2012 by monkeylizard

[tnhawk]

I have two Beretta M9 pistols and they are well made, accurate pistols. It would not be my choice for carry due to it's size, however I enjoy shooting it at the range.

[atlas3025]

I have looked at the Taurus version several times, and my story is the same as Lester's. I have owned other Taurus guns, and have had good experiences with all of them. Having read by so many say that the PT92 by far Taurus' best gun, I figured my experience with one would be even better than the positive experiences I have had with the other Tauruses (Taurii?) I have had (Raging Bull 454, 45 Tracker, 1911, and Millinium). I like that you can go cocked and locked with the PT92 and the newer PT92's have a tac rail as well. But everytime I have run across one at the Gun Show that was priced right, something about the grip panels or finish has always turned me off. Something just always made me "wait and think about it."

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hadn't thought about a "slight" safety issue on Taurus 92 of having to go past "fire" to hit decock. It doesn't seem like a huge safety issue as long as one keeps finger off bang button. I like the "push safety down to fire" direction. Have fat stubby fingers and it is a reach to flip off the Beretta 92 safety, but OTOH the 92 is generally safe to carry with safety off. Though I keep the beretta 92 safety on when it is sitting on the desk or nightstand as a home defense gun. When on "safe" the 92 is "very safe".

The Taurus 92's I've considered buying, am not too snobbish to have one and they are supposed to be good guns. Just that the price was a little high in comparison with a Beretta, considering the slight roughness of the finishing.