Page 1 of 2

Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:23 am
by Ansgar
A bit of background:
At the end of this summer I will be moving with Mrs. Ansgar and her mother from St. Louis to eastern NC to pursue an offer of admission for my master's degree. We will be moving to an area with considerably higher crime per capita (mostly nonviolent, but a conspicuous number of drugs, burglaries and robberies) than from whence I come (I live in a town west of St. Louis that is consistently listed in the "100 Safest Cities in America"). As such, my family got together and decided that it would be a good peace of mind for me to get my CCW once we arrive in NC. Since training is of great importance in the deployment of a firearm, we decided that I will be getting my CCW weapon as a graduation present for my bachelor's degree this May so I can train with it through the summer before I get the CCW.

Here's my criteria:
This will be EDC when I am not in a location where carry is prohibited (almost exclusively the college campus).
9mm
good recoil absorption
good warranty
good customer service
reliable
not a fucking PF9 :vmad: (see range report in my signature)
under $700

That said, I don't have much experience with comparing the 92FS/M9 to the PT92. I've held a PT92 a couple of times and it felt a little cheap, but I've never fired one, so I could be wrong. I have fired the M9 and the 92FS a few times, which I found to be smooth, but the trigger pull was a little long and a wee bit heavy for the first shot in DA. I previously owned a Glock 23(.40 cal), which was a great shooter, but I honestly liked the heavier feel of the Beretta. Thus, I ask the collective minds of the Zombie Squad to give forth thine sage advice.

As always, with my gratitude,
Ansgar

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:40 am
by Ten Eight
After my horrible Taurus experience, I'll never own one again.

There is a company that makes metal Glock frames.

http://www.ccfraceframes.com/articles.php

Go that route. The frame is $319 and with the rest you can build out a Lone Wolf 9mm slide and internals. Probably around $700. You can have the right choice (Glock 19:mrgreen:) with the heft of the Beretta.

Otherwise, between those two, Beretta all the way. In before, "Glock 19 or GTFO".

Edit: I have held the stainless, but have not shot it. Probably would shoot like a dream with all that added weight. Frame was quality. Didn't dig the grip angle.

Another edit:

Is your $700 budget just for the gun? If you're CC dubbin', budget 80$ for a good belt (thebeltman.net) and $60-70 for a good holster. Those are just as important. Head over to defensivecarry.com and learn you a book.

handgunlaw.us for carry laws. NC is tricky. Be careful.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:34 am
by Gingerbread Man
IMO, ifn' you want a full sized shuffler, look no further than a Glock 17. Absolute joy to shoot, all the "heft" you need and a deeep magazine capacity. I'm not at all a fan of a gun that has a safety that disables the gun as is the case with the Beretta. Taurus has even owned up to making poopy guns and promised to do better. I'm not holding my breath.
IF you're looking for a 3 position safety look at the FNH FNP 9. Decock, fire and cocked and locked. The FNP will carry much better than the Berta.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:34 am
by DarkAxel
Between the Beretta and the Taurus, I'd choose the Beretta. Simply because Taurus doesn't have a good track record wrt quality and to be quite honest their customer service absolutely sucks donkey dick, then moves on to blow every bull in the barn. Yes, it IS that bad.

You should be able to find a decent Glock for less than 700 bones, and since you plan on training a lot, if you don't like the ergos you can train around them.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:10 am
by Doctorr Fabulous
If you don't want the Glock route, there's also the Sig 226, CZ75 and P01, and the M9. Personally I like the M9 and I'll probably get one eventually. I have to work on the ergos (thumb broke and didn't heal right, so manual safeties are a fucking bitch) but I think that unless you get one from a unit armory that's been used as a hammer more than it's been used as a pistol, you should be fine.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:32 am
by Browning 35
Out of the two options listed above I'd pick the Beretta.

Why? Because fuck Taurus.

The Beretta's a good shooting gun but it might be a bit large for concealed carry. I owned a 92FS for forever and it was like carrying part of a 2x4 around in my waistband. The dimensions weren't *that* much larger than many other double stack 9's, but just a tiny bit larger than many of the other ones where concealing it was kind of a pain in the ass.

Here's a size comparison.

Image

Image

See what I mean? It's do-able, but it does take a bit more effort to keep concealed.

Go to a gun store and tell them you're going to buy a package deal and ask permission to put their display Beretta 92FS in a holster and then compare it to a Glock 19 or some other compact gun. It makes a difference, especially in IWB holsters.

If you don't like the Glock 19 or 23 then I might suggest the CZ-75 Compact.

Image

Image

It's one of the more comfortable feeling 9's, it's accurate, reliable and small enough to conceal well.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:31 am
by northernxposure
Between a Taurus and a Beretta, go Beretta. I'm not especially fond of either because I don't like slide mounted safeties that go up, but the 92 does shoot nice.

FWIW, a good fullsized, heavy weight range pistol makes a suck ass carry gun - IMO.

If you want a metal frame full sized, with decock, the answer is Sig. Get you some P228 and be happy.

If you want a poly framed full sized, get whatever name brand you want. I will say that the G17 is much more tasty to shoot than it's smaller breathren, and a G34 is :crazy: . And money and common sense aside, I still want a PX4 (remember how I said I don't like frame SLIDE mounted safeties? I'll make an exception for this gun - it is awesome). And an FNP in 45. And, well, you get the picture.

Cheap "compact" stainless 9mm - find an old 3rd Gen S&W6904. If rocks had primers this gun (hell, any 3rd Gen metal S&W) could shoot them. And it can take the cheap 5906/4 full capacity mags that were running around earlier. And it can double as a short club.

ETA - Beretta did make a short barreled 92, the 92 Compact, which is rare as hens teeth but is out there if you can find one. Grip size remains the same, but the front gets chewed back quite a bit (but it's still as long as a G17, which has a longer barrel)

NXP

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:13 am
by Mikeyboy
I had a Taurus PT92 and its a great gun, and actually superior to the Beretta 92 in terms of how the safety is laid out, and the fact its still made with a steel guide rod and parts and not plastic like beretta recently did to save cost. Other that that both guns are identical in design.

That said unless money is a real issue I would go with the Beretta, over the Taurus simply because it will have a better resale value and more of a wow factor. The Taurus PT92 is a well made copy of the "original" beretta design, using beretta tooling. The PT92 is used by several South American miltary and police forces, but it still has the taurus logo and name on it, which in the USA unfortunately still means MUD.

However I don't think a PT92 or a Beretta 92 is a good EDC gun. For a 9mm 15+1 pistol the gun is huge, thick and heavy. The reason why I got rid of my PT92 (which was my first pistol) was because it was too big and heavy to carry concealed. If your budget is $700 like others have said look into a smaller/lighter yet similar capacity gun like a Glock 19, S&W M&P, or an XDm compact.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:27 am
by polliedes
I have a Beretta 96 in .40 cal.
I love it and have had no issues with the gun.
When i first got it, I had a few jams that I traced back to a burr in the magazine.
When I removed the burr, I have not had any issue since.
It's pretty darn accurate.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:10 pm
by feedthedog
I always found the M9 a bit large to carry when I was hanging out in the desert.... I can only imagine how I would feel trying to carry one in real life. I'm guessing you are a pretty big dude if you can comfortably conceal that big chunk of metal.

I have an XD9 that is light enough to carry, but I still find the bulk of it oppressive.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:21 pm
by iron_angel
Between those two, the Beretta, no contest. It *is* a bit of a brick, though. I'm particularly partial to the CZ-75B (standard or compact), or the nearly-equivalent Tanfoglio Witness series, myself. They feel as solid in the hand as the Beretta but aren't quite as big, and I like the sights better. You can get one with a safety XOR a decocker - if you must have both there aren't a ton of options. The Tanfoglio is also available in .45 and 10mm, as well as 9x19 and .40S&W like the CZ, if that's relevant. (And it might be, given the ongoing ammo shortage, grr.)

Obviously, Glock is a solid choice too - far be it from me to say otherwise - and the Gen4 Glocks do, IMHO, feel better in the hand than the earlier ones.

I'd avoid the PT92 - for the same price you can get a Glock, Beretta, CZ, XD, FNX, etc - no reason to roll the dice with Taurus. At least, not for a semi-auto. I'm decently confident in their revolvers, but the QC on the Taurus semis I've seen leaves a lot to be desired.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:23 pm
by IceWing
So, I bought a Taurus PT92 when I was 21. I'm now 37.

When I pull the trigger, it goes bang, and the round goes where I aimed it.

It fits my hand well.

Now, I do have to say, I had an issue about 6-7 years ago with the shell extractor. At this time I'd probably put a few thousand rounds through it (ammo used to be cheaper *laugh*). I took it to the local gunshop near work, they sent it into Taurus, who made the repairs and sent it back to me. They fixed the problem, and had a fairly quick turn around time. Good customer service as far as I'm concerned (and yes, a LIFETIME free repairs policy... all I did was pay shipping one way.)

It's still going bang when I pull the trigger.

The fact of the matter is, people have biases, some based on reality, some on perception. At the end of the day, you have to buy what you're comfortable with, for whatever reason you have. The important thing is that you get something, and then you practice with it.

Ice

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:48 pm
by Vicarious_Lee
I vote for the Beretta if you have shot and love the Beretta, and if you specifically do not like Glocks.

Otherwise, yeah get a Glock, but as the owner of both, there's a lot to not like about shooting a Glock for some people. I never recommend the Beretta as a first gun unless someone just already loves it, because there are better out there these days, and for a lot cheaper. 92s are still pretty expensive.

Like Doc said, Sigs, S&W M&Ps, Glocks, even HKs. Check 'em all out.

Also, CCW-ing a full-sized double-stack pistol isn't easy.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:08 pm
by alptraum
I voted other. Out of the Taurus and Beretta I'd choose the Beretta. With the sketchy reliability Taurus is known for between those two it's no contest. Having said that I would not recommend a 92 for CC. I own one and like it, but just as something to have. The DA trigger sucks and it's large and heavy for what it is. Also, I'm a big proponent of night sights for a carry gun and most 92s have a front sight that's part of the frame. Though I think they do have models with a dovetail for the front sight, I'm not sure which ones though. Anyways, even if the sights are not an issue the size and shitty DA trigger make it a pretty iffy CC gun in my opinion.

I'd suggest looking into some of the other makes already mentioned. Glock, SIG, CZ, S&W, H&K.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:37 pm
by Browning 35
I felt obligated. One of the great classics of ZS.

Taurus = Fuck the fucking fuckers (*Click*)

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:23 pm
by Achilles21
I don't know why you would try to CC either honestly. Both are a little too big in my opinion. That being said I'd go beretta because they're solid guns, and Taurus sucks generally. Why not get like a px4 though? Close enough to the 92, but shorter and lighter, it only makes sense.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:49 pm
by Ansgar
Doctorr Fabulous wrote:If you don't want the Glock route, there's also the Sig 226, CZ75 and P01, and the M9. Personally I like the M9 and I'll probably get one eventually. I have to work on the ergos (thumb broke and didn't heal right, so manual safeties are a fucking bitch) but I think that unless you get one from a unit armory that's been used as a hammer more than it's been used as a pistol, you should be fine.
As far as the Beretta goes, I would take an M9 over a 92 on the condition that I can find one.
Browning 35 wrote:I felt obligated. One of the great classics of ZS.

Taurus = Fuck the fucking fuckers (*Click*)
...dear sweet zombie Jeebus...the...the...shenanigans...

I believe we may have a winner in the Beretta here, +1 internets all around. For those who expressed concern regarding concealibility of the options proposed, I actually went to a couple of LGSs and tested both for comfort, printing, positioning and accessibility and can safely say that, given my personal manner of dress and body type(5'11", 195), niether weapon prints or exposes in any position within the range of my normal activities. I always wear some type of overshirt or jacket when I leave the house, be it a suit jacket, trenchcoat, windbreaker, thick jacket, or button-up of some variety worn open and untucked. I plan to carry IWB at the small of the back, right hand draw, bringing me to my next question:

Anybody know how much Gun_Nut charges for an IWB holster? I'm thinking either one of his or a crossbreed, probably the supertuck.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:15 pm
by MaconCJ7
Maybe we had different M9's, but our M9's were 92's. Heavy, horribly long trigger pull, but always went bang. I'm not a fan and don't plan to have one in my collection, but if the price was right, I suppose I wouldn't turn it down either.

There are so many better options available in your price range, I'm not sure why the 92 is on the table aside from nostalgic reasons. Glock, XD, M&P. I'd go with one of them. Same caliber choices, larger capacities, lighter frames...

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:24 pm
by Doctorr Fabulous
MaconCJ7 wrote:Maybe we had different M9's, but our M9's were 92's. Heavy, horribly long trigger pull, but always went bang. I'm not a fan and don't plan to have one in my collection, but if the price was right, I suppose I wouldn't turn it down either.

There are so many better options available in your price range, I'm not sure why the 92 is on the table aside from nostalgic reasons. Glock, XD, M&P. I'd go with one of them. Same caliber choices, larger capacities, lighter frames...
I tend to use M9 and 92 interchangeably, often by accident. There aren't honestly any real differences, but I want an M9 (trained on it, trained others on it, never qual'd with it) for the same reason I got a 590 instead of an 870. Realistically, I think you can even get the M9A1 (light rail) with night sights from the factory. If you take an M9A1 and put it next to a 92A1 witht he same sights, there is no difference except the engraving.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:05 pm
by MaconCJ7
I think of them interchangeably, but they were a couple comments making a distinction. Thought I was losing my mind. How do you train others on something you're not qualified on? We all had to be qualified on anything we trained. Firearms, trucks, equipment...

I get it, you played with them and want to play with them again. Nothing wrong with using nostalgia as a reason. It's just as good of a reason as "Because I like it, that's why". It's just not something I would go after without first having a better option on hand (I assume this is to be the OP's first designated CC weapon). If a 92 were to ever drop in my lap, it would be a range toy or newbie training gun. It's everything a 1911 is, but with a larger capacity. Big, heavy, reliable, brick. I carry a 1911 and am just happy. It's just not my only option, and my other options are much more comfortable to CC than the 1911. Mainly because it's a big, heavy, brick.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:08 pm
by Tobias05
I swapped out hammer springs in my beretta and that really helped tame the monsterous trigger pull on that first DA shot. The SA tightened up also. The spring is only a few dollars, well worth the effort it takes to remove hand grips and a roll pin.

I love my beretta, but once I bought my glock 19 the 92 became my office gun.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:32 pm
by Doctorr Fabulous
MaconCJ7 wrote: How do you train others on something you're not qualified on? We all had to be qualified on anything we trained. Firearms, trucks, equipment...
Fam fire and go. Well, there was a basic "not a jackass" qual given by the gunner for a large number of things (DMRs, Milkor M32, M9, etc), but I was mainly referring to the fact that I never got a pistol marksmanship badge.

I too went through a "hunk of steel" phase. Nothing wrong with the Sig 226, but by the time I got my G26 I was having trouble getting a 228 to share mags with, and I had G17 mags already...and got enough for the 226 to pay for a G34 when the panic dies. Eventually I'll try a CZ or two for more than just a couple of mags.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:09 pm
by alptraum
MaconCJ7 wrote:I think of them interchangeably, but they were a couple comments making a distinction.
The differences are minor. I believe this info is still current, though Beretta may have changed something again. The main differences are the sights, the dust cover, the backstrap, slide markings, and location of manufacture. The 92FS has 3 dot sights, the M9 has dot and post. The 92FS has an angled dust cover and radius cut backstrap, the M9 has a straight dustcover and straight backstrap. The 92FS is made in Italy, the M9 is made in the US.

So there are some differences, but they are all relatively minor. While I've never noticed much of a difference in the ones I've handled there seems to be at least a mild consensus that the Italian made 92FS tends to have better fit and finish. The sights and backstrap are personal preference, but neither makes a huge difference. They are not identical guns, but they are pretty close.

Re: Debating between Beretta 92 and Taurus PT92

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:13 pm
by Ansgar
The debate seems to have gone from Beretta 92 v Taurus PT92 to Glock 19 v Glock 19 with questioning of my sanity. I cede the point on sanity. But my primary reasoning for shying away from Glock as a previous Glock owner myself is weight. I prefer the 92/M9 over the Glock for two reasons, the first and foremost already being stated as weight, which to me, heavier means more recoil management and that translates to slightly faster follow up shots. The second is that the Beretta is DA for the first shot then goes SA for follow ups while the Glock is DAO. As far as direct comparison, as I'm no fanboy for any brand follows:

Model___________Beretta 92FS__Glock 17__Glock 19
Length_____________8.5"________8"______7.36"
Height_____________5.4"________5.4"_____5.0"
Width______________1.5"_______1.2"______1.2"
Barrel______________4.9"________4.5"_____4.0"
Sight Radius________6.1"________6.5"______6.0"
Empty Weight_______33 oz______22 oz____21 oz
Standard Capacity____15_________17______15

For concealment purposes, the B92 and G17 are the same height, with the G19 coming in 0.4" shorter. Length is not really a major factor for visibility for IWB carry but for comparison sake the B92 is 0.5" longer than the G17 and 1.14" longer than the G19. For width, the G17 and G19 are both 1.18"(rounded to 1.2) making them both 0.32" thinner than the B92. None of these print on my when held IWB at the small of my back canted toward my draw hand(right). This takes us to weight, which I have already explained. Therefore, I have concluded, based on what limited personal experience I have, that the Beretta 92 type pistol is a better fit for me personally, not necessarily for others, than in the Glock 19. If any of you believe I am incorrect for some reason, feel free to explain your opinion so that I may conduct further research before finalizing my decision on which firearm I will purchase, as I said in my initial post, in May to train with (yes, I plan to take actual classes) until I go for my CCW in the fall, so that I will be more proficient than Pvt. Joe Snuffy when I actually start carrying. And, no, I do not plan to train others (there was a post that referenced training people, but I'm not sure where it was directed, so covering the bases here) as I am not trained to train others, and thus am not qualified to do so.