Beretta 92 vs Ruger P89
- Thread starter TruthTellers
- Start date
Funny how the budget brand Ruger P-Series for the decidedly poor and between jobs have a reputation for durability and reliability while the vastly superior Beretta 92 had to undergo many revisions in order to address numerous shortcomings including slides cracking in half, striking the shooter in the face.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Beretta 92, I just felt the need to point out the flaws of placing it on a pedestal while painting the Ruger P-Series as an objectively inferior pistol that falls between the Hi-Point and the Sigma Series just because it was cheaper and less refined than the Beretta 92.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Beretta 92, I just felt the need to point out the flaws of placing it on a pedestal while painting the Ruger P-Series as an objectively inferior pistol that falls between the Hi-Point and the Sigma Series just because it was cheaper and less refined than the Beretta 92.
Don Fischer
New member
I've got two 9mm's. A P-89 and a S&W shield 9c. My carry gun everyday is my S&W, the P-89 is simply to heavy and big. I shoot normally at lrge trget's close, withing maybe 20 paces at time's. There is only one reason for a 9mm and for me that is self defense. If I were to go to an area like Portland, I'd take the P-89 simply for the greater firepower! I would not even consider taking my S&W with it's 8 shot mag into a bad area like that. If you want very eacy shooting, using 124gr JHP The S&W is very controllable. For most practice though I shoot 124gr Keith Type SW and very very controllable. I have a strong belief about recoil. If it comes from a gun that bother's you to shoot, your not gonna know till after it it bothered you under pressure, that's not really the place to find out! I'd like to have a Beretta based just on their reputation! But my Shield does everything I need it to do and was no where near as expensive.
BTW, other than self defense loads everything I shoot in any of my handguns are cast bullet's.
BTW, other than self defense loads everything I shoot in any of my handguns are cast bullet's.
There are plenty of reasons many folks will prefer the Beretta 92-series to the Ruger P89 that have nothing to do with the name on the slide.
Is is a reliable and durable pistol, and its history shows Beretta’s commitment to continually developing and improving the design. From the perspective of most shooters, the balance, ergonomics, and overall feel are simply superior to the Ruger P-series guns. Whereas Ruger has essentially stopped support of the P-series pistols, Beretta still makes the 92-series, and it is well supported by Beretta and the aftermarket. It has a service pedigree that has never been matched by any Ruger pistol. The P89 is still a good gun. But for many reasons, a lot of folks will find the 92 to be superior.
That said, as indicated in my previous post, there are other DA/SA pistols that I prefer to the 92. As always, your mileage may vary.
357 Python
New member
I have an old Beretta 92F and carry it quite regularly. I changed a few parts to make it more suitable for me. When I worked as a federal police officer I was issued a Beretta 92FS (M9). I was also sent to the Beretta factory to be an armorer so I am quite familiar with the design. My vote would be go for the Beretta. You may also be able to pick one up cheap if the military surpluses them soon since they are going to the SIG 320.
lee n. field
New member
the P89 underwent some changes, I'm pretty sure, and it is itself a "replacement/upgrade/fix" for the P85, which had a couple versions.
I doubt anything in this field is perfect from the get go. Though, "Perfection!" is a better motto than the more true "constant iteration towards improved adequacy".
Death-Ninja
New member
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but comparing a P89 to a 92FS/M9A1 is a bit of a laugher, one was issued to American forces for over three decades, while the other was carried by none! You are comparing one of the worlds finest pistols against a budget brand pistol, and I might add that no, Ruger pistols are not more durable then any other either, they contain cheap mim component parts and generally break at greater frequency then any top tier pistol.
I hear this all the time about Ruger revolvers too, its a common refrain to hear from folks who have a GP100 what a super strong revolver it is, when in fact its really not, indeed if it were, Ruger would not have taken the hit to its reputation when they discovered it was not strong enough to be re-chambered into a .44 mag, as the S&W 686 was, or the latter 669 is, instead Ruger was forced to chamber it in .44 spl which absolutely nobody wanted, especially when you can get a .44 mag for same price.
The reality behind this is simple, forgings are stronger and more durable then castings. Beretta pistols are finely refined forgings, P89's are castings. If you are happy with your P89 that is just great, but its not fair to compare it against the far superior Beretta, its not even in the same class as a Beretta 92 series pistol, no Ruger P-series is.
I don't have much experience with the newer Ruger products, but the old P-Series guns were very durable. Some years back I talked with the owner of one of the largest rental ranges in the DFW area and he stated that the Ruger P-Series autopistols were the most durable guns he rented.
Well, all else being equal (which it almost never is), this is probably true.
You have to hold everything equal to be able to make the statement about forgings and castings. A good quality casting can be stronger and more durable than an identical dimensioned poor quality forging. A casting that is well-designed for the application can be stronger and more durable than a forging with a poor design or a design flaw. A casting that contains more material can be stronger and more durable than a forging with less material. A casting made of a superior strength alloy can be stronger and more durable than an otherwise identical forging with a lower strength alloy. And so on and so forth. The simple reality is that reality isn't simple enough to be able to make sweeping statements like "forgings are stronger and more durable than castings". You need to have access to a lot more information to be able to compare the strength of two different parts--simply knowing that one is cast and the other is forged really doesn't tell you anything at all.
Anyway, the old Ruger was pretty good about making sure that they used enough material with the proper qualities, of the proper quality, and shaped properly to make strong durable designs regardless of the methods used to make them.
I'm not arguing that the P89 is a superior gun to the Beretta 92--I don't think it is. But the P89 is not lacking in the durability department. In fact, just the opposite is true--it's a very strong and durable handgun.
Not that it's especially relevant to a discussion about Beretta and Ruger autopistols, I suspect that the decision was not nearly so much about overall strength as much as it was that the GP100 design resulted in a much thinner forcing cone when converted to .44 than was the case in the L-Frame adaptation.
"The reality behind this is simple, forgings are stronger and more durable then castings. Beretta pistols are finely refined forgings, P89's are castings. If you are happy with your P89 that is just great, but its not fair to compare it against the far superior Beretta, its not even in the same class as a Beretta 92 series pistol, no Ruger P-series is."
In the case of the Browning Hi Power, they suffered frame failures with hot 9mm loadings with forged frames. When Browning decided to chamber in 40S&W they switched to cast frames. This is per Stephen A. Camp's Hi Powers and handguns, noted Hi Power enthusiast and SME.
In the case of the Browning Hi Power, they suffered frame failures with hot 9mm loadings with forged frames. When Browning decided to chamber in 40S&W they switched to cast frames. This is per Stephen A. Camp's Hi Powers and handguns, noted Hi Power enthusiast and SME.
SwissArmyTenor
Inactive
It may sound silly, but as you've got 2 great guns to choose from, here's a thought.
Go to the Internet Movie Firearm Database and look up each gun. You'll get a list of all the movies each gun has 'been in'. You might find a linkup between gun and movie that is interesting to you, and which may tip your decision one way or the other. Just a fun thought.
One of my all-time favorite movies is George Romero's 1977 "Dawn of the Dead". Went to the site once to see what guns were used in the movie, thinking it might be fun to have one. Unfortunately, it was a low-budget movie, and most all of the handguns used were about 10 steps below low-budget, haha!
Go to the Internet Movie Firearm Database and look up each gun. You'll get a list of all the movies each gun has 'been in'. You might find a linkup between gun and movie that is interesting to you, and which may tip your decision one way or the other. Just a fun thought.
One of my all-time favorite movies is George Romero's 1977 "Dawn of the Dead". Went to the site once to see what guns were used in the movie, thinking it might be fun to have one. Unfortunately, it was a low-budget movie, and most all of the handguns used were about 10 steps below low-budget, haha!