Why no love for the Beretta 92?

[VikesFan1]

grabbing the wrong end of a baseball bat.

I like this comparison better than 'gripping a 2x4'. ...Or maybe that's reserved for Glocks?

[Seismic Sam]

I'm just not thrilled with them for their general design, and in particular the open slide at the front of the gun with the barrel moving back and forth through that loop. The first pistol I bought at age 21 was a Browning Hi-Power, and yes I think my prejudices probably have a lot to do with who the inventor of that gun was. Plus the Browning is slimmer in the frame, slide, and grip, and conceals well. As far as Italian pistols go I love ALL my Tanfoglio's, but that's partly because of their broad choice of calibers and features, and also because they are Browning variants with the frame and slide rails reversed.

And as far as military usage is concerned, I have to beleive the number of Brownings out there issued to troops and LEO's since 1935 dwarfs the numbers of 92's produced.

[bstrawse]

I have a 92 purchased from a forum member here that was in great shape. I've only had the opportunity to shoot it twice - but it is an awesome tackdriver and fun to shoot..

Personally, I find it a bit too large for my hands and some of the function locations a bit awkward (safety, etc) -- but overall a great pistol.

It's not one that I would see myself carrying though.

B

[selurcspi]

When the military paid $187 for 1 frame, 2 complete sets of parts and 6 magazines, they were so poorly made, they broke everything in sight.
I personally saw a soldier get beaned by a slide and I've inspected many that had cracked slides, barrels and Frames.
The early ones I saw were so roughly finished that the steel slides abraded the aluminium frames so badly that they reduced the rail height by 50% within a 1000 rounds.

One word -- Junk

[justaguy]

.

[bensdad]

Come on Benny, go ahead and say how you really feel!

Thanks for all the answers guys. I feel a little bit better informed about why folks don't like it (and why others do).
Grip too big
Decockers (huh-huh) suck
mag capacity to gun size ratio not satisfactory
Too pricey for what ya get
Design suckiness

Accurate
Reliable

What do they call early research with actual products? Is it beta testing? Sounds like the 92 got some of that out of the way for for future guns (trim down the size, increase capacity, improve sights, etc.).

[David]

I love my M9, but I'd never compete with one. Having to fire the first shot double action is something I've never been able to get used to.

[rugersol]

I love my M9, but I'd never compete with one. Having to fire the first shot double action is something I've never been able to get used to.

Not the first time I've heard that.

I've seen Ben Stoeger do it with his ... uh ... what was it now ... "Elite" something? Not sure if he made/makes GM with that, but still.

I've done it once 'er twice ... Sig P226 ... not a big deal. Ya think about it ... but when ya forget, ya don't notice.

Westberg's boy made Master with his CZ SP-01 this year.

In fact, I'd say, in the last couple years, a good number of the top Production shooters have been shooting DA/SA pistols. ... mostly CZ/Tanfoglio.

[Drizzle]

I don't mind the double/single as much when I use my SIG 228, but probably because that fits my hand better. I agree, the 92 is a very accurate pistol, but only when I take my time. I could probably get used to it for competition, but why when I already like the Glock 19 I shoot now?

[Gecko, Extra Crispy]

I have had quite a few Beretta's over the years and have a few 92's and a 96 now(different configurations of course.) I do like them and shoot them well but for a match the DA first shot is a killer for me. Can barely reach the trigger for the first shot then finger is too far on the trigger guard for the follow up shots....

Never really carried one except when a 92 was all I had.

I have shot my earlier taurus 92 out at oakdale for uspsa but its the cocked and locked variety....no decocker. And looking back at the scores it did very well. It was my second match in about 15 years and the first time i was shooting limited and minor too.

[TeeBee]

I've shot the Beretta 92FS a few times, although it doesn't make me an expert, I have a few things about it I like and a few things about it that I don't like.

I don't like the size of the gun. It's just so dang big. Along with that is the magazine capacity. The one I've shot only holds 15 rounds in the standard magazine. I can get the same round count in my Glock 19 and in a smaller form factor. I know, it could be argued the guns have different purposes.

I do like the size for the weight. for me, it makes the gun sweet to shoot. It's very accurate and it sounds great when it's shot. I also like the looks of the Beretta 92. Pretty, but not what I want to take home. (I should talk...I own a Glock.)

I think the next handgun I get will probably be another Glock. I really want a SIG P229, but can't at this moment in time, justify the cost.

[chunkstyle]

I like mine.

Back when ammo was cheap and my work schedule gave me lotsa time, I'd go to Sportsman's Guide and get 1000 rounds, then over to BPR to spend a day. Good way to get a lot of trigger time.

Stripping it down to bare frame and rebuilding it is very easy, and the mag release is reversible for a lefty like me.

I carry it Condition 2, so the safety is really only used when I store it loaded. It's pretty chunky to carry, though, so I usually wait till winter for heavy clothes for cover.

The open slide has some advantages. Lighter. Fast field cleaning, with a boresnake or similar. Easy inspection of chamber condition. Easy field loading of single shots, if all magazines are lost. It does let more dirt in though, and it's easier to get your finger pinched.

Newer magazines hold more than the standard 15 rounds, so that's less of an objection.

Lots of parts and accessories on the market, at good prices, easy to repair.

In my hands, they are a considerably better fit than a Glock.

They do make 'em in .40, too.

But sure, they are showing their age, and are being surpassed by newer products. Evolution happens.

[fatboy97]

I've always wanted to add one to my collections, but IMO it's too heavy to carry and I already have at least one gun that fits that bill (SIG P226)... otherwise, my primary concern for any purchase is "How will this new gun work for me for carry?"

[peckerhead]

I had one not long ago, a 92F that dated to 88. I installed the lighter 'D' hammer spring, which dropped the trigger pull to about half the weight. I really warmed up to it once I learned to shoot it accurately in DA mode. It was a really sweet pistol, but unfortunately one that I had to let go during some rough times. I plan to replace it with another 92F one of these days.

[solidgun]

What everyone said above....

But mostly, after learning to not use the slide release 7 years ago, I noticed that on 92 type pistols the safety will engage when racking the slide for me. I have owned two and they have been sitting in the safe. I have sold the INOX version which fetched a nice price with all the mods.

Other dislikes:
Sights suck....could go aftermarket, but I don't shoot it.... and front sight is integrated.
I have burned my hand on the barrel while racking the slide
Crappy trigger (not worth the money on getting it worked because of safety and DA/SA)
DA/SA
Serves no purpose for me (can't use for competition, carry or bed side.......I have enough firearms that can be used for all the other purposes with better night sight, short trigger, lighter weight, compact length)

Likes:
Eats crap ammo for breakfast, lunch, dinner
All steel, solid feel
I do like the half cock feature, but I don't see it being used in any situation....personally.