Beretta 92 (Worth picking up?) - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Beretta 92 (Worth picking up?) (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:00:49 AM EDT

[#1]

My 90-two would say "whatup" if not for that tragic boating accident...

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:07:05 AM EDT

[#2]

Its a good pistol, I like mine. Its a large pistol, fits the hand pretty good, but it is a handful.

There are better, the M&P is outstanding, fits the hand a lot better.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:07:43 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
My 90-two would say "whatup" if not for that tragic boating accident...

http://i.imgur.com/81wlkRG.jpg

That's one fancy futuristic looking Beretta. Not going to lie it looks great.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:08:29 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My 90-two would say "whatup" if not for that tragic boating accident...

http://i.imgur.com/81wlkRG.jpg

That's one fancy futuristic looking Beretta. Not going to lie it looks great.

I have to agree. So for it's the only Dash2 I like.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:21:13 AM EDT

[#5]

You can only pick it up to throw it in the trashcan.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:22:35 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
You can only pick it up to throw it in the trashcan.

Taking that picture hurt my soul.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:29:16 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You can only pick it up to throw it in the trashcan.

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z341/GrinPhotoDump/0629131611_zpsa3897d91.jpg

Taking that picture hurt my soul.

If anything it was that bud light strawberry lime-a-rita that hurt your soul. Yuck!

Beretta 92s are too big, too bulky, and the slide sucks. I have a bunch of the fancy dry-lube desert factory mags leftover and a ton of holsters and accessories from the Army, and I still can't bring myself to buy a 92.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:30:33 AM EDT

[#8]

Cue the stacked pistols picture demonstrating the miniscule difference between the 92FS and the Glock 17.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:36:14 AM EDT

[#9]

Hah, I carry a 4506-1. I'm a skinny little bastard too. Dress around it, won't have a problem.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:42:32 AM EDT

[#10]

If the price was right I'd get one.

'Right' in my case would be around $300.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:43:57 AM EDT

[#11]

I love my Beretta 92f. It was a police trade-in that I bought about 8 yrs ago from CDNN. It eats any type of ammo I throw at it and is very accurate. I say go for it. They are very well-built pistols.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:45:45 AM EDT

[#12]

The only gun I hated while I was in the Army was that damn M9. If I had one now I'd be trying to sell it for $300 or a case of 9mm + a bottle of scotch.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:47:50 AM EDT

[#13]

They're good guns, generally very reliable and they shoot well. Biggest problems are the trigger return spring, which is a PITA, and the slide-mounted safety.

If possible, get a G model 92 as they are decocker only so you can't accidentally engage the safety on them. The Wolff gunsprings Trigger Control Unit is a good way to eliminate having to worry with the trigger return spring ever again.

The 96 has been problematic from the getgo, so skip any 96 models and stick to the 92's.

The military, it should be noted, had a bad habit of recycling parts that shouldn't have been recycled and didn't properly fit parts like replacement locking blocks.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:51:42 AM EDT

[#14]

Looked at one at an LGS..it was a firing range sell off. I laughed in the guy's face they were even trying to sell it, it would have needed more TLC than the cost of the pistol.
It had never been cleaned, lubed or cared for. Barrel was damned near shot out, the slide was warped and would not lock back and the mag was fused into the well.

I left and never went back to that place.

Posted: 7/5/2013 10:27:52 AM EDT

[#15]

I've carried a Beretta more than any other firearm. The military issued ones get used hard and in poor conditions. That said, they are solid, accurate and reliable pistols. They look awesome too. I'd love one in stainless.

Posted: 7/5/2013 11:17:51 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
They're good guns, generally very reliable and they shoot well. Biggest problems are the trigger return spring, which is a PITA, and the slide-mounted safety.

If possible, get a G model 92 as they are decocker only so you can't accidentally engage the safety on them. The Wolff gunsprings Trigger Control Unit is a good way to eliminate having to worry with the trigger return spring ever again.

The 96 has been problematic from the getgo, so skip any 96 models and stick to the 92's.

The military, it should be noted, had a bad habit of recycling parts that shouldn't have been recycled and didn't properly fit parts like replacement locking blocks.

And that is a huge part of the reason why alot of mil guys hate the 92. The first experience they have with a 92 is firing an M9 that's been abused for years by Joe. I can't count the number of times I've had to break down a M9 with a busted locking block at a range. FFS sake, I even had to explain the problem to a 18B that was a SF company armorer once (to be fair, he was the 1% of long tabbers that end up as shitbags).

Even though all my pistol niches are filled (or will be when I get back stateside and get back to my babies), I'd still pick up a 92 in a heartbeat if I found a good deal. Hmm on second thought, I do have a wall clock with a gun compartment that I could put my M&P in and use the 92 as a bedroom gun.....

I owned a 96 for about a year. Didn't get to shoot it much before I sold it (PCS to germany), but I had no complaints. I'm much happier with my M&P .40 instead of the 96, though.

Posted: 7/5/2013 11:28:59 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Over-engineered, very complex pistols - far to heavy for what they are - with a finite round-count life before locking block failure.

As long as you never have to deal with all the tiny sprngs and pins in the slide-mounted safety... after it breaks.

Posted: 7/5/2013 11:30:06 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

My only complaint about the gun is that it's extremely wide. It doesn't fit my hands. It might fit yours and if it does, great.

The gun shop talk about 'most reliable handgun ever made' and 'only one to pass the Army's tests' really makes me laugh, though. Of course it always comes from the same guys who say to use birdshot for home defense.....if racking the slide doesn't scare them off.

Actually, the M1911A1s were the ones that passed.

Posted: 7/5/2013 11:31:22 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Over-engineered, very complex pistols - far to heavy for what they are - with a finite round-count life before locking block failure.

As long as you never have to deal with all the tiny sprngs and pins in the slide-mounted safety... after it breaks.

Posted: 7/5/2013 2:57:46 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big fat complex fragile junk.

Bullshit.

Ill second that. My 92FS has been a very fine shooting pistol. I have carried it, and feel very comfortable doing so. I also carried an M-9 a lot, on duty, and I trusted the pistol to work when I needed it. The ball ammo on the other hand, well I was glad I had 30 rounds on me, cause I probably was gonna need them all.

With a proper round, the gun makes a damn fine defensive weapon.

Posted: 7/5/2013 3:08:16 PM EDT

[#21]

I beat the shit out of a night stand the other night with my M9. Scratched the painted-on 1 on the bottom of the mag. Everything else ok.

Posted: 7/5/2013 5:48:06 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Are you that bored? With 4 years and 13k posts, it's safe to say that you should already expect 87% of the posts in these threads.

Posted: 7/5/2013 6:07:21 PM EDT

[#23]

If you cant get the job done with the 92/M9, well, that aint the pistol's fault.

ETA: yeah, my EDC is a Gen4 G19

Posted: 7/5/2013 8:59:35 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big fat complex fragile junk.

Bullshit.

Ill second that. My 92FS has been a very fine shooting pistol. I have carried it, and feel very comfortable doing so. I also carried an M-9 a lot, on duty, and I trusted the pistol to work when I needed it. The ball ammo on the other hand, well I was glad I had 30 rounds on me, cause I probably was gonna need them all.

With a proper round, the gun makes a damn fine defensive weapon.

All things being equal and within the same competitive field......

Name a bigger 9mm.
Name a fatter 9mm.
Name a 9mm with a greater parts count.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:10:48 PM EDT

[#25]

I enjoy them more than most other DA/SA designs.

Are they going to be the ones I grab when the feces meets the ventilator? Probably not, but that doesn't mean they aren't decent handguns. They are well worth picking up, especially if you get a deal on them. Don't get hung up on the hive groupthink. Buy what you enjoy.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:11:23 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big fat complex fragile junk.

Bullshit.

Ill second that. My 92FS has been a very fine shooting pistol. I have carried it, and feel very comfortable doing so. I also carried an M-9 a lot, on duty, and I trusted the pistol to work when I needed it. The ball ammo on the other hand, well I was glad I had 30 rounds on me, cause I probably was gonna need them all.

With a proper round, the gun makes a damn fine defensive weapon.

All things being equal and within the same competitive field......

Name a bigger 9mm.
Name a fatter 9mm.
Name a 9mm with a greater parts count.

IIRC, and I could be wrong...CZ85 to all three, and its heavier.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:12:18 PM EDT

[#27]

I like the D models, all around awesome.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:16:19 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big fat complex fragile junk.

Bullshit.

Ill second that. My 92FS has been a very fine shooting pistol. I have carried it, and feel very comfortable doing so. I also carried an M-9 a lot, on duty, and I trusted the pistol to work when I needed it. The ball ammo on the other hand, well I was glad I had 30 rounds on me, cause I probably was gonna need them all.

With a proper round, the gun makes a damn fine defensive weapon.

All things being equal and within the same competitive field......

Name a bigger 9mm.
Name a fatter 9mm.
Name a 9mm with a greater parts count.

Name a softer shooting 9mm
Name a scientifically proven more accurate 9mm

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:17:34 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big fat complex fragile junk.

Bullshit.

Ill second that. My 92FS has been a very fine shooting pistol. I have carried it, and feel very comfortable doing so. I also carried an M-9 a lot, on duty, and I trusted the pistol to work when I needed it. The ball ammo on the other hand, well I was glad I had 30 rounds on me, cause I probably was gonna need them all.

With a proper round, the gun makes a damn fine defensive weapon.

All things being equal and within the same competitive field......

Name a bigger 9mm.
Name a fatter 9mm.
Name a 9mm with a greater parts count.

IIRC, and I could be wrong...CZ85 to all three, and its heavier.

Within .25" in all dimensions but smaller than the Beretta. The all-steel construction makes it tankier, however.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:24:47 PM EDT

[#30]

I had heard absolutely terrible things about them for YEARS.

Then I got a good deal on a Police trade.

These things are shooters. They aren't CCW guns... but they're shooters.

I went from having no respect for them, and wanting one only because the US Military carried them, to having one strapped to the passenger side of my bed*.

They are really nice pistols. And they shoot damn nicely for a service pistol. I still do agree with the safety... but it's a DA/SA - treat it as a decocker, and it's NBD. My safety is off, hammer down.

*-Because no matter how you try to justify it, 9mm is for women, and my side has a 14-shot 45.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:28:09 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big fat complex fragile junk.

Bullshit.

Ill second that. My 92FS has been a very fine shooting pistol. I have carried it, and feel very comfortable doing so. I also carried an M-9 a lot, on duty, and I trusted the pistol to work when I needed it. The ball ammo on the other hand, well I was glad I had 30 rounds on me, cause I probably was gonna need them all.

With a proper round, the gun makes a damn fine defensive weapon.

All things being equal and within the same competitive field......

Name a bigger 9mm.
Name a fatter 9mm.
Name a 9mm with a greater parts count.

IIRC, and I could be wrong...CZ85 to all three, and its heavier.

Within .25" in all dimensions but smaller than the Beretta. The all-steel construction makes it tankier, however.

Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:29:14 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I had heard absolutely terrible things about them for YEARS.

Then I got a good deal on a Police trade.

These things are shooters. They aren't CCW guns... but they're shooters.

I went from having no respect for them, and wanting one only because the US Military carried them, to having one strapped to the passenger side of my bed*.

They are really nice pistols. And they shoot damn nicely for a service pistol. I still do agree with the safety... but it's a DA/SA - treat it as a decocker, and it's NBD. My safety is off, hammer down.

*-Because no matter how you try to justify it, 9mm is for women, and my side has a 14-shot 45.

I CCW mine, with 18+1, so I get 4 to 5 more shots before I have to reload than you do.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:30:07 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:34:28 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

If you want to get closer in size, the Sig 226 is slightly wider, taller, and heavier, but by a slightly smaller margin than the CZ.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:40:22 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You can only pick it up to throw it in the trashcan.

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z341/GrinPhotoDump/0629131611_zpsa3897d91.jpg

Taking that picture hurt my soul.

If anything it was that bud light strawberry lime-a-rita that hurt your soul. Yuck!

Beretta 92s are too big, too bulky, and the slide sucks. I have a bunch of the fancy dry-lube desert factory mags leftover and a ton of holsters and accessories from the Army, and I still can't bring myself to buy a 92.

Feel free to shoot me an email if you want to get rid of some of that.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:41:00 PM EDT

[#36]

yes great gun

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:43:03 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

If you want to get closer in size, the Sig 226 is slightly wider, taller, and heavier, but by a slightly smaller margin than the CZ.

You sayin' the 226 is wider than the 92?

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:45:14 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

If you want to get closer in size, the Sig 226 is slightly wider, taller, and heavier, but by a slightly smaller margin than the CZ.

You sayin' the 226 is wider than the 92?

If the man is saying it is, it is. He knows what he is talking about, in great detail.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:45:59 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

If you want to get closer in size, the Sig 226 is slightly wider, taller, and heavier, but by a slightly smaller margin than the CZ.

You sayin' the 226 is wider than the 92?

No, sig and beretta did. I just posted it here.

Posted: 7/5/2013 9:58:25 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

If you want to get closer in size, the Sig 226 is slightly wider, taller, and heavier, but by a slightly smaller margin than the CZ.

You sayin' the 226 is wider than the 92?

No, sig and beretta did. I just posted it here.

Sig and Beretta both say 1.5".

Posted: 7/5/2013 10:06:57 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Overall width on the M9 is 1.5" because of the decocker. Grip width is 1.3", vs 1.38 on the CZ.
Overall length, the M9 is longer, due to the 4.9 inch bbl vs the 4.6 inch bbl on the cz. 8.5 vs 8.1
Height, the M9 is 5.4" vs 5.43" with the CZ.

Forgive me, I'm still half drunk and contending with real life drama.

If you want to get closer in size, the Sig 226 is slightly wider, taller, and heavier, but by a slightly smaller margin than the CZ.

You sayin' the 226 is wider than the 92?

No, sig and beretta did. I just posted it here.

Sig and Beretta both say 1.5".

Look up grip width. M9 is 1.3.

Posted: 7/5/2013 11:21:36 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Look up grip width. M9 is 1.3.

The barrel is slender, we should just measure that.

Posted: 7/6/2013 12:20:37 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They're good guns, generally very reliable and they shoot well. Biggest problems are the trigger return spring, which is a PITA, and the slide-mounted safety.

If possible, get a G model 92 as they are decocker only so you can't accidentally engage the safety on them. The Wolff gunsprings Trigger Control Unit is a good way to eliminate having to worry with the trigger return spring ever again.

The 96 has been problematic from the getgo, so skip any 96 models and stick to the 92's.

The military, it should be noted, had a bad habit of recycling parts that shouldn't have been recycled and didn't properly fit parts like replacement locking blocks.

And that is a huge part of the reason why alot of mil guys hate the 92. The first experience they have with a 92 is firing an M9 that's been abused for years by Joe. I can't count the number of times I've had to break down a M9 with a busted locking block at a range. FFS sake, I even had to explain the problem to a 18B that was a SF company armorer once (to be fair, he was the 1% of long tabbers that end up as shitbags).

Even though all my pistol niches are filled (or will be when I get back stateside and get back to my babies), I'd still pick up a 92 in a heartbeat if I found a good deal. Hmm on second thought, I do have a wall clock with a gun compartment that I could put my M&P in and use the 92 as a bedroom gun.....

I owned a 96 for about a year. Didn't get to shoot it much before I sold it (PCS to germany), but I had no complaints. I'm much happier with my M&P .40 instead of the 96, though.

Both of my deployment M9s were brand new when I drew them. I still didn't like them. For example, the first one, less than 2 months into the tour, failed to retain the magazine release button. So there I am, cleaning my M9 when the mag release button (both sides, one piece) just falls out onto the floor. So I take it to this MA National Guard Armorer and he says the frame wasn't made right to retain it, takes a punch and hammers the frame until it retains the magazine release button. She wasn't pretty no more after that.

Also had an AF LTC with a brand new M9 that legitimately shot about 6" to the left at 10ft. We all thought it was him, then we all tried it and got the same results. Non-adjustable sites.

Posted: 7/6/2013 12:23:11 AM EDT

[#44]

I bought a 92F in '92 as my first handgun. I paid $325 for it out the door with three 15 round mags. Since then, I've boughten twelve new 15 round mags for about $12 apiece, four 17 rounders for $23 a piece, and four 20 rounders for $27 a piece. I've added night sights and she is still a great shooter.

I've boughten fourteen other handguns since, but still find my way back to the 92F when plinking at the range.

I'd pick it up if you are getting a good price.

John

Posted: 7/6/2013 1:01:49 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Look up grip width. M9 is 1.3.

The barrel is slender, we should just measure that.

Don't be pissed at me because your 2nd hand gun counter bullshit is fucked up. The widest point on an m-9 is at the decocker is 1.5". The grip is 1.3".
You asked for a 9mm that was bigger than a M9. I named two. Now stop acting like a bitch.

Posted: 7/6/2013 1:03:27 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Also had an AF LTC with a brand new M9 that legitimately shot about 6" to the left at 10ft. We all thought it was him, then we all tried it and got the same results. Non-adjustable sites.

Drift adjustable rear. In case it, you know, shoots left or right.

Posted: 7/6/2013 1:14:26 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also had an AF LTC with a brand new M9 that legitimately shot about 6" to the left at 10ft. We all thought it was him, then we all tried it and got the same results. Non-adjustable sites.

Drift adjustable rear. In case it, you know, shoots left or right.

Dude, AF LTC. Don't confuse the zoomies.

Reminds me of a funny M9 story. The DIV HQ for 1AD in 03 had crimson trace grips on all their assigned M9s. We return to Germany and all the M9s are signed over to a depot to be reblued. The armorer only signs over X number of M9s, not X number of M9s and X number of lasergrips.

All of our M9s came back with stock grips.

Posted: 7/6/2013 1:22:54 AM EDT

[#48]

My 92FS po-po trade-in was my first pistol. It's a decent enough gun- just too big for me. In DA/SA I prefer 3rd gen Smiths & CZ's. Never really messed with Sig since they are a bit spendy.

Posted: 7/6/2013 1:37:49 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Look up grip width. M9 is 1.3.

The barrel is slender, we should just measure that.

Don't be pissed at me because your 2nd hand gun counter bullshit is fucked up. The widest point on an m-9 is at the decocker. The grip, which everyone bittches about, is thinner than a sig.
You asked for a 9mm that was bigger than a M9. I named two. Now stop acting like a bitch.

Lighten up Francis, I'm not the one with panties in a wad cuz some gun counter reject pissed on my pistola.

Posted: 7/6/2013 2:06:32 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Look up grip width. M9 is 1.3.

The barrel is slender, we should just measure that.

Don't be pissed at me because your 2nd hand gun counter bullshit is fucked up. The widest point on an m-9 is at the decocker. The grip, which everyone bittches about, is thinner than a sig.
You asked for a 9mm that was bigger than a M9. I named two. Now stop acting like a bitch.

Lighten up Francis, I'm not the one with panties in a wad cuz some gun counter reject pissed on my pistola.

You're still acting like a bitch.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Beretta 92 (Worth picking up?) (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us