taurus pt92 vs beretta 92fs

[2fast4u]

this is for my grandpa, hes going to get one or the other and sell me his p89

they look the same, and besides the safety i haven't seen any definitive yes or no's to either
ive seen alot of people say Beretta because its a Beretta but thats it

whats everyone think? figure $200 difference.....

 

[piratedude]

I've got a PT-92. Its a great gun actually. I've never had a malfunction. And I like the safety on the Taurus better. Its also very accurate and has a nice trigger.

That said the Beretta will hold its value better and it uses standard mags.

Overall, the Beretta is a better investment, but both guns shoot great. I like my Taurus and would recommend it, just know that it won't hold its value (kind of like a Ruger semi) and it uses its own mags. The mags are not hard to get though.

 

[96/44]

I've owned both, and still own the Taurus. More accurate, and better safety, in my experience. Either one will shoot any ammo you can stuff in the mag. Spend the difference in ammo and spare mags.

 

[P94/GP100]

The quality of design, manufacture, fit and finish is consistantly quite high on Beretta 92s. When you handle the two side-by-side, and check some of the more reputable forum sites and reviews, I think that you'll conclude that for quality and longevity the Beretta route is the one better taken-not that the Taurus pistols are inherently bad (they were, after all, initially based on an earlier Beretta 92 model, built on Beretta-installed/sanctioned machinery in Brazil for a Brazilian military order, with the machinery/rights later sold to Taurus, who not only continued to manufacture and sell them, but also has refined them over the years, notably regarding converting the frame-mounted safety into a safety/decocker, and aesthetically varying the grasping grooves, grips, sights, etc.).

A good place to start would be to visit the www.berettaforum.net site; it's a well-run and regulated forum that has some very objective threads on the subject; another is www.m4carbine.net.

Best, Jon

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

Glad this came up here.

I had a Beretta 92 a long time ago, the slide cracked and I didn't know it at the time. I was also unaware of the fact that it was an issue at the time. Well Beretta seemed more interested in catering to their LE contracts than to me, their phone system queue was BS. I finally wound up ditching the slide in the trash can and selling the frame and everything else to one of the LGS. A friend of mine had a Taurus PT92 and had some issues with his, Taurus has a full warranty and he had his gun fixed and back to him in very short time....

That said, I don't have experience with any of their new poly guns or their "NEW Beretta Business platform" But if thy get good reviews (FROM THE CIVILIAN Market) I don't see any reason foir my to hesitate buying from them.

 

[P94/GP100]

My understanding is that the slide-cracking issue was predominantly limited to limited numbers of relatively early production M9 pistols utilizing non-BUSA produced slides containing trace amounts of the element tellurium, which weakened them.

The issue was a highly contentious (and litiginous) one between Beretta and DoD, and concerned the inherent quality of the slides, potentially overpressure ammunition in the military lots, and deliberate use of overpressure ammunition by Navy SEALs. Frankly, from what I've read, I'm not sure that any one entity involved had totally blameless hands, and Beretta instituted the slide retention flange and slide groove on the 92 FS, which was a mechanical solution of sorts (and arguably somewhat unneeded once the slide/ammunition issues were sorted out).

I'm certainly not saying that you didn't have the problem as described with your slide, but I think that it was more of an anomoly than a systemmic issue, particularly with commercial 92s at the time. It's unfortunate that Beretta did not step up to the plate with your individual specimen. Out of curiosity, do you remember 1) if your problematic 92 was a commercial 92 (and was it made in Italy or by BUSA in the US), or 2) was it a M9 or BUSA-produced Police Special (whose slides were made on the same line and to the same standards as the M9 slides)?

Best, Jon

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

With mine, I suppose it very well could have been an anomaly, It wasn't a FS model. I believe it said Made in Italy. I didn't even know Beretta was made in the USA until recently.

 

[kg4kpg]

My first pistol was a PT92 and I hate that I don't have it anymore. I would trade my P85 for one in a second. Great gun, never jammed and with the Hogue grips it was super comfortable. Just got broke and toys had to go.

 

[Chris1]

I have owned a taurus 92 and a beretta 96(the 96 is the .40 cal) and i have extensive experience with the berettan 92. My experience is such that I would never ever again own a taurus automatic of any kind. They have been inferior pistols to me and are much more picky on what type of ammo they shoot well while the berettas will eat anything. JMHO.

 

[leejack]

This question has come up in forums for quite some time now.

Usually Beretta wins the discussion. It costs more and holds it's value better. Plus, the M9 is the sidearm of the US military. The Taurus is the copy (although I too, like the safety location better on the Taurus).

Having said that, in the 90's I owned a Taurus PT99 (adjustable sight 92). I shot countless trouble free rounds through that gun for the better part of the decade. Mine was outstanding.

If they were both side by side on the table free of charge, I would take the Beretta, but I don't think you'll go wrong either way.

Lee

 

[cz75luver]

The bottom line is which one is better for you since they are basically of equal quality. Don't listen to the Beretta snobs that praise the Beretta over the Taurus simply because it's a Beretta.

Customer Service and Cracked Slides
When it comes to customer service, as bad as Taurus' may be, it still beats Beretta. Read this Beretta thread of a 92FS slide crack and how Beretta considered it "normal wear and tear" (http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=50431&page=6). They told the OP it would be $450 for a new slide! If you read through the thread you'll also read of another Beretta owner that had an Inox version manufactured between 2001-2003 that also had a fractured slide. That time they took care of the user. Beretta owners like to say that the cracked slide issue happened a long time ago during military trials, but they still happen many years later on civilian pistols that have much lower round counts. The Lifetime Warranty on a Taurus is nice peace-of-mind.

Lastly is the discussion on locking blocks and which is better. Taurus hasn't changed the locking block from the original design and Beretta is up to a fourth version. Some say the new version will last somewhere around 50k rounds. Read this thread on how some are breaking at less than 1k and some are even considering switching to Taurus blocks (http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=45325).

For me, I lost confidence with Beretta when I use to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan for the military and was issued an M9. This wasn't a range gun. The armorer had us check the chamber for cracks, check the slide for cracks, check the locking block for cracks, etc. Needless to say, the trust just wasn't there and if you read other posts on the Beretta forum, you'll read how there aren't always signs for a pending failure. The lack of customer service on the part of Beretta pretty much seals the deal for me to never buy a Beretta hence my love of CZ.

 

[revhigh]

I agree ... just get a CZ75B and be done with it. More accurate, more ergonomic, more reliable, and less expensive to boot. No skeletons in the CZ75's closet.

REV

 

[Cheesewhiz]

I carried a an M9 for quite awhile in the Army but I really have an affinity for the CZ75 series. That being said, I never saw an issue with any Beretta in my time in service, I have read some reports and I do know changes have been made, it has as far as I know been a fine weapon for the military. The Navy SEAL reports were before it was approved by the Army.