I began to wonder recently why Taurus (or Beretta) has not chambered the 92 series in .45. I think it would be a big seller.
Yes, too big. A .45ACP 92 would be bigger and more chunkified. It would just plain look wrong.Gray_Wolf said:^ Well .40 and 9mm use the same frame so they only changed the slide and barrel...
I agree with Joe on most points. with the exception about alloy frames; Sig has been very succesful making alloy framed .45's...All (stainless) steel would be better though.
IMO the one of the reason Taurus nor Beretta haven't made one is because it would have to be pretty BIG gun. Many people already complain about the grips size; .45 grip would be even longer (front to back-strap) and fatter unless they go singe stack, also slide would have to be widened and made longer to accommodate the fatter, longer .45ACP. I wouldn't be surprised if they both tried it and decided not to mass produce it because it would have a hard time competing with all the other smaller, more compact .45 on the market. I'd still like to see one though...
That said what they should do is make a 10mm model; they can modify .40 barrels and maybe even be able to use .40 slides. Add a recoil buffer, heavier spring and send one to me and Taurus 9mm one for testing.
look at the pt945, the lower is clearly derived from a 92 frame, although it uses a different locking system.HiVelSword said:Yes, too big. A .45ACP 92 would be bigger and more chunkified. It would just plain look wrong.
Actually, the PT908 came out first, then the PT940, PT945, PT911, and then the PT909. The PT911 actually replaced the PT908 and the Slide/Barrel Assembly is pretty much the same between the two.joe sixpack said:the 945 was not the first 9xx series to come out the 940 was, then the 945 showed up, followed by the 911 and then finally 909.