PT92/99 vs. 92FS/M9 Make the case one way or the other!

[leejack]

I've researched this subject in several forums.

The Beretta comes out on top every time. I do suspect that there is allot of bias and "internet echo chamber" involved.

I love both of these brands, but own the Taurus.

Lets see if we can get some "fair and balanced opinions". I would really like to hear from the Beretta owners in the forum as well as the Taurus owners.

Tell us why you prefer one or the other!

[olfarhors]

I believe this has been discussed before!
Simple, I like the safety position on the Taurus better.
Other than that i can really tell absouletely no difference in the performance of either gun!
But i do prefer the 99 over the 92 for the adjustable sights.

[leejack]

I voted for the Taurus for the same reasons.

I do rate the guns fairly even, but I too prefer the frame mounted, 3 position control.

[Smokewagon]

I like the frame mounted safety. Didn't the early Berettas have that too? Then moved it to the slide?

[leejack]

I believe so!

[leejack]

Lookie what I found!

[olfarhors]

Lookie what I found!

HMM! now who put those Beretta grip panels on that Taurus 92?
OK, just kidding!

[leejack]

The question is why would Beretta move it to the slide when so many of us like it on the frame better?

hmmm!

[cz75luver]

I rated them as equal overall because I took cost into consideration.  I have a Beretta Inox (Italian, all metal) and M9A1 as well as a Taurus 2-tone PT92 and a stainless PT917CS. 

Beretta
The fit and finish on the Inox is just perfect in every way.  The action, trigger, etc. is super smooth and . . . well, just perfect.  For the M9A1, there are some minor machine/swirl marks on the slide near the muzzle end, but the action and trigger are perfect and likewise super smooth.  The SA trigger is crisp/clean and I'm uber accurate with either.  The action likewise is as if on ball-bearings.  As far as aethetics, I prefer the finish of the Inox over the Taurus bling.  I really don't care for the mirror finish on the Taurus PT917 frame.

Taurus
For the price, the Taurus is an excellent buy, but the actions on the ones I've bought were not as smooth.  For the PT92, retracting the slide initially was a little rough and two hundred rounds later had the top of the front guide rail (?) anodizing removed.  Not just the corner, but the entire top.  The slide motion is now smooth.  The SA trigger isn't as light as the Beretta and takes a little more effort, but nothing training can't take care.  Just takes a little more effort to get an accurate shot.

The PT917 was initially bulging cases because the recoil spring was too light.  No biggy.  The pivot area for the locking block was very rough with machine marks and digging/scoring into the locking block.  Changed for a Beretta Centurion barrel and Beretta locking block.  The SA trigger was horrendous.  I'm talking probably around 9 pounds to break.  Taking everything apart, found a big old hump on the top of the sear like a glob of metal on the top that engaged the hammer.  Removed with a stone and then buffed.  Now the SA is crisp, but still a little heavy.  The last item is that the PT917 is the only pistol I have that has a preference for ammo.  With 115gr ammo, it shoots low and to the left.  With 147gr or 124gr +P, it shoots to POA.


I can only go by what I've experienced.  With the Berettas, the pistols were smooth and ready to go from the very beginning.  Refined is the word that comes to mind.  The Taurus PT92 needed a little break-in to smooth out the action which resulted in the anodizing being removed (thereby exposing the softer metal) and the PT917 flat-out needed work.  The triggers and action are still better on the Berettas, but rounds down range can help the Taurus.  I'll need to reopen the PT917 to improve the SA, but it'll work for now. If not wanting to tinker with a gun, then the Beretta is the way to go (safeties aside). If willing to put in some time, effort, ammo, etc., then the Taurus is the way to go (again, safeties aside).

[leejack]

Excellent!