Taurus Firearm Forum banner

Would you buy a PT92 chambered in .45acp?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,043 Posts
To chamber a 92 (Taurus or Beretta) in .45 ACP they would have to build a whole new platform from the ground up. I don't see either company investing the time and money into this process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
well supposedly beretta did have a few .45acp prototypes during the military trials.. but they did not survive very long from my understanding.

people have said a alloy frame is'nt strong enough for a .45

i think taurus is in a much better position to do it then beretta.. beretta im sorry i love'em but they dont listen to the civilian market.. all they care is what makes the military happy since it's their cash cow.

but YES i would buy a .45acp 92.. the guys over on berettaforum dont seem to care much for the taurus 92's but i'd be wiling ot bet they'ed jump on a .45 92.

i do think taurus is doing more with the 92 platform these days then beretta which is pretty ironic when you take everything in consideration.

i'd also like to see a all steel 92 from taurus.. beretta rarely ever produces steel framed 92's.. they're always limited production special editions which cost a lot when they're new and even more after they're discontinued..

i dont think it would be to hard for taurus to make a .45 92.. the 945 is already chambered to 45 and although it has a closed slide and different locking system the frame is clearly derived from the 92.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,297 Posts
At this point, I would say No. Taurus would really have to beef up the Locking Block and Recoil Spring System, to handle the increased Slide Momentum. I already have their PT945 and that design works very well! Currently, I have a .45 24/7 Pro Longslide on my Shopping list, and I see that design, as well as the 24/7 OSS versions and PT845, as what Taurus has in mind for the Future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,737 Posts
I would just get another 1911. I know they are very different but, there is a certain nostalgia to it. 1911=.45, 92=9mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,150 Posts
I would. I've said the same thing on other forums in the past regarding a scaled-up PT92 or Beretta 92FS.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,632 Posts
If they scaled it up enough for a 40 cal, then they essentially have a platform for the 45 cal. I'd have to look at it, if such an animal ever existed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
^ 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. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
The slide would be very wide with to accomodate a bullet .45" wide and locking block to go with it. I think with the level of demand there would be, I'm sure someone can't produce one that wouldn't be too heavy or too bulky. Not to mention, 1911s probably account for 90%+ of 45s sold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
taurus already has something like that its the pt945. the lower is essentially a pt92 that uses a 45acp.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,297 Posts
According to my dealer, whom I traded in my PT945 to get my .45 24/7 OSS LS, the PT945 is now out of production and will be replaced by the PT845, which is not as yet available, but will be, soon. With the PT1911, PT845, and the various 24/7's in .45 ACP, I think that Taurus has their options in .45 ACP pretty well covered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
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. :D
Yes, too big. A .45ACP 92 would be bigger and more chunkified. It would just plain look wrong.

I'll have to find the post but I read instructions on how to turn your Beretta 96 into a 10mm. It was long and drawn out and there were no pics posted so I'm pretty leary.

Reminds me of the Ian Malcolm quote in the Jurassic Park movie, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. "

I'd love a 10mm 100 or 96 but not if it's going to blow up in my face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
HiVelSword said:
Yes, too big. A .45ACP 92 would be bigger and more chunkified. It would just plain look wrong.
look at the pt945, the lower is clearly derived from a 92 frame, although it uses a different locking system.

10mm would'nt blow up but it might become unreliable since originally the 92 was designed for 9mm type stresses.

taurus and beretta both had .22lr conversions, but you know with ammo prices the way they are i would'nt mind seeing a dedicated .22lr 92.. if they spend time on the mag get 20-30 rounds in one that would be the cats meow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
No, I would not buy one if made like the 92 series...The locking block system is the weak link in the system as it is, and in 45, it would not hold up at all. Beretta used a different system for the 45 (cougar) and taurus did too. (945). There was a reason both used a different system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
although you are correct the locking block is the weak spot in the 92 design it is purely speculation on your part as to why the beretta cougar and the taurus 9xx designs used different locking system..

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.

the 9xx uses a browning type locking system the cougar on the other hand uses a rotating barrel.

i'd point out that this is the case for all variants of the gun 9mm - 45.
why they used those specific locking systems in each of those guns is anyones guess but i dont think we can draw a conclusive link that it was because the block design on the 92 could'nt handle it, is only an assumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Speculation mixed with common sense. If it had been feasible to use the locking block system for the 45, it would have been far more cost effective for both Taurus & Beretta to have used it. I feel, and correctly I think, that it was in fact due to the weakness of the system. While the 45 is not a high pressure round, it does generate torque on the locking system. And to have beefed it up to work, then the gun would be as big as a Desert Eagle. Only 3 guns come to mind as ones using locking blocks; the WWII P38, the Walther P5, which was an updated P38, and the Series 92. Everyone else in the universe uses either rotating (Beretta & Stoeger) or some form of Browning system. It may be easier to make, cheaper to make, stronger, or a combination of the three, but I do recall the 40 is even tougher on the locking blocks to the point that Beretta has tried to discontinue the 96's for that reason. You are right though, I'm only guessing, but it's from decades of firearms experience that I have drawn my conclusions..And the 940 came first due to 40 being at the time, the darling of the caliber world. And the jump from 40 to 45 is easier than from 9 to 45. Easier to engineer down than up.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,297 Posts
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.
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.

I believe that Taurus at one time did study a PT92 based .45 as there were some pics in a Gun Mag (G&A Handguns) of Prototypes in .45 ACP and .38 Super, but then the PT908, PT940, and PT945 showed up, so apparently the idea was discarded.

BTW, famed Gunsmith George Martz used to make .45 ACP Lugers and P38's from two of each by sawing them in half and Tig-Welding them up. They cost a fortune. He also built a number of .45 ACP Lugers from templates made from the one sole surviving .45 ACP Luger made for the original US Pistol trials in the early 1900's. So, how badly do you want a .45 ACP PT92? You might be able to find a Gunsmith, somewhere, who will make you one. For a Price!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
jwc i'll take your word for it since i dunno much about the 908.

pt58, yes a lot of guns use one of brownings locking systems.. lets face it the guy was a damn genius and a lot of his designs and elements have stood the test of time and are still the foundation of todays guns.

with that said his most popular locking method would be the tilting barrel.. think about this for a minute.. you would have to make modifications the browning tilting barrel method simply can not work on a 92 because it has a open slide, neither will a rotating barrel, which from my understanding was also pioneered by john browning but which never caught on. (actually it's still rare) because again you have a open slide.
sure you could make modifications and get it to work but then again this is where the falling block locking method works beautifully.

you can not compare a pt9xx with a 92 series gun, the pt9xx has a closed slide where a browning lock can actually work.

with that said beretta did get a tilting barrel system to work on their 9000 the locking lugs was located on the side of the barrel rather then the top.. not unlike the wings on a locking block, however that is their own unique tilting barrel system and not a traditional browning.

browning lock is easier to machine and cheaper to produce, so that is one possible reason why the browning tilting barrel system is so common, it probably is more durable then a falling block locking system but then again if it was so great they would not have kept the locking block for the 90-two if it was such a horrible design.

anyway yes i've admitted the locking block is a weak spot in the design however the design it self is very strong, you overstate the weakness of the locking block, they do not break all the time it's just one of the areas most likely to break is all.

they last for 1000's and 1000's of rounds, the problem with the 96 as you brought up was actually not the locking block, it was the frame which early 96's suffered cracks in the dust cover directly infront of the trigger guard, this lead to beefing up the frame in that area and transitioned to a slanted dust cover vs the original straight.

personally i've never known anyone, seen anyone, or had broken locking block my self, yes they happen i've seen pictures but it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

btw the 96 was discontinued the 90-two is it's direct replacement, LE contracts are down, beretta really only cares about the military, they never have needed a good reason to do something, they do what they please as long as they keep the military happy they could care less about LE and civilian markets, most agencies have ditch beretta for glock, s&w, sig, hk, and i hear SA XD's are catching on but especially glock.

the only gun they even have in the running anymore is px4 for LE sells and they are lack luster at that.

the 92 has no worries of being discontinued currently because of military m9 contracts the 92fs is very similar and have always been more popular then the 96, however the 92 has been reduced to a shell of it self, polymer parts which many view as inferior, the inox model has been hollowed out, only the barrel and slide remain actually stainless on it.

a lot of great popular models have been discontinued by beretta much to the dismay of beretta collectors & supporters.


er anyway back to my original point the falling block was the most appropriate system for the 92 with it's open slide. pt9xx is totally different animals yes the frame is derived from a 92, but it is not the same as sa 92.

you are of course entitled to your opinion i still think it's speculation at best.

i will agree with you on one point, it's easier to build down then to build up, of course the 92 would have to get larger to fit a 45.. but then again this is true of ANY design, general rule is bigger the caliber the bigger the gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I also agree that the locking block system, though clever, would probably not handle .45 very well.  It's inherently a weak design, which is why no one else uses it.  (IMO)
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top