Beretta 92FS-Any Good?

I have a 92FS. It is well designed and well made; a thing to be proud of. It fits the hand excellently and shoots the same.

That said, I still prefer my glocks. I prefer the lighter trigger pull for the first shot, and cannot cock the 92FS without shifting grip. The glocks also have fewer knobs, buttons, and springs sticking out the sides, and a more impervious finish.
 
SHAKE:

I actually own 2 Beretta 92's, and have for about the last 5 yrs, and have put thousands of rounds through both. Never have I had one fail mechanically in any way, they are extremely reliable.

You said in your post that most guns will outshoot most of the people who shoot them, and I agree with that, the 92 being no exception.

But I absolutely believe 92 accuracy is only mediocre... I think Sigs and Glocks are only slightly more accurate, so now I guess I gotta get beat up by Sig and Glock people too.

Mediocre to me means average, and this is what should be expected from a factory handgun.

I can only get about 2.5 or 3" at 25 yds from a Beretta (on a good day). I dont know (or care) what they can do off a Ransom Rest, have never tested one that way.

I can get considerably better accuracy with a 1911, and I attribute most of this to better trigger.

Maybe we aren't on the same page as far as what we consider acceptable accuracy.

I am quite biased in favor of SA autos in general, and 1911s in particular. Maybe I should have referred to "unenlightened masses" instead of "uninformed masses"... I just don't see why they think a DA/SA mechanism could be better in any way from a SA. The fact that sombody can shoot a DA/SA real good is moot, I dont think most people can shoot one as well as a SA.

I mean, if you tried you could probably learn to ride a bicycle with square tires, but why not just use round ones??? it makes it a lot easier.
 
Thanks

Thanks for the posts folks.

The best prices in my area are $599 for a NIB 92FS Inox and $720 for an Elite II.


I really like the Elite, with the beefed up slide and the staked front sight it's hard not to like it. I just can't see myself owning a defense tool with the huge white lettering that's on the Elite. I'm leaning more towards the Inox, but I don't like that the sight isn't staked. How hard is to get night sights installed on a 92FS? Is it expensive to get done?
 
I bought a Beretta 92FS Inox about 3 weeks ago. I love it. For the price, I simply could not beat it. I paid $515 for mine. I was back at the store yesterday looking at their big sale. The Beretta 92FS Inox was on sale for $449. I don't see how anyone can beat that price. They do have a website:
www.outdooramericastore.com

Maybe that will help

Jeremy Reynolds
 
Tecolote,

The store Nifer linked you to appears to do online orders. At that price I'd consider ordering one through a local FFL from them.

Shake
 
WHEN I WAS A BOY...................

CB,


I remember fondly being issued my M16 (granted, early 70's) and disovering it to be a total POS; unreliable, inaccurate, and unreliable. And inaccurate.

Therefore, all M16's are crap. Right?

Oh, is the INOX or ELITE II a M9? I'm easily confused.
 
The Beretta 92 in its various versions is a classic. Rugged, reliable and accurate. Did I mention reliable? If you want an IDPA-type gun, the Elite II is an excellent choice. My choice for most handsome pistol is the 92 INOX (stainless steel). The Custom Carry is also an excellent variant, with slimmer grip which more people will find comfortable. You will not regret buying a Beretta 92 variant, but do handle one and, if possible, shoot one before buying. Check out the Beretta List sight at

http://beretta.squawk.com/

Did I mention reliable?
 
Shake,

The funny thing about this thread is that the people who have Berettas and shoot them love them, put a lot of rounds through them, feel that they are very accurate, durable and extremely reliable. The people who don't own them knock them and tell everyone how terrible they are. Seems interesting to me.
Click to expand...

I own a Beretta 92 and a 96FS. I've shot them both quite a bit. The 92 is not very accurate. I don't recommend them for anyone who only wants a target gun. Because of their size, they aren't even a good conceal carry weapon. The 96 is much better.

The accuracy does improve quite a bit with a good trigger job. I had one done on my 92 a couple of months ago. Better trigger pull, better accuracy.

In terms of reliability and durability, I agree with you 100%. I'm not saying the 92 is "terrible," but they aren't all that accurate and the trigger pull stinks.

Dennis D. Carter
 
WESHOOT2,

Depends on who made your AR. :p

The question was about the Beretta 92FS (read the title of the thread to avoid confusion), which is IDENTICAL to the M9. Therefore my experience is as valid as anyone else's. And it sucked. I made no claims about newer Beretta models, so I have no idea why you brought them up. :confused:
 
Hey Dennis,

I really won't argue with you about your particular gun's accuracy, obviously, you know how they shoot. I will say though that most of the Berettas I have fired were capable of very good accuracy. I own a very accurate Beretta (I may be cheating a little, mine is an Elite II with a very good trigger). I think, as you mentioned, the trigger has a lot to do with it.

When I initially took my Elite II to the range, I was pretty disapointed in the accuracy. After a subsequent trip, I was pretty heartened with the good groups I was getting. It was a matter of trigger time on the Beretta. With a little practice, I'll be shooting it as well as I can shoot my H&Ks.

As far as them being concealed carry guns. . . no, they were never intended to fill that niche. I wouldn't encourage anyone to use one as a primary concealed carry weapon (although I do know people who use them as "winter" carry guns and they get along fine).

I still prefer my H&Ks, but it would take a LOT to part me from my Beretta.

Shake
 
Shake,
If I'd had the extra money, I'd have gotten an Elite. Those are real nice.

My concern was with your statement that only people who don't own 'em, knock 'em. As an owner, I'm critical of the accuracy and that's due primarily to the trigger pull. After a trigger job, my shooting is significantly better.

One thing I've found very interesting is that the 96 was pretty accurate right out of the box. Quite different than my experience with the 92.

On occasion, I have carried it (or the 96) concealed with a Kramer IWB #2 holster. Not a bad combination. But my favorite is a CQB compact.

One thing I'll say about the 92 is that it is very, very reliable. You can shoot just about anything in it day and night and never have a problem. And, in a situation requiring it, I have no doubt the 92 would serve the purpose.

Dennis D. Carter
 
Hey Dennis,

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement about Beretta owners by saying "to this point in the thread. . . ".

As far as the rest of what you said, I'm in 100% agreement.

Shake
 
Shake,

Actually, "to this point in the thread" doesnt cover it. You sort of accused me earlier of not knowing what I was talking about, and not having experience with 92s. I own 2 beretta 92s, and their accuracy is only so-so, whether you like it or not.
 
lonegunman,

Actually, it does cover it. If you'll read the thread (hard I know) you'll see that what I told Dennis was that I should have qualified my statement. If you'll go back and read the thread to that point you'll find that those who owned Berettas and posted prior to my statement seemed to be very happy with their accuracy, durability, and reliability. I know this must all be very confusing to you since we are talking about Berettas, not 1911s or GLOCKs.

I really don't care what you think I "sort of accused" you of not knowing. If you'll look back at the thread you'll see that you initiated my statement in the first place by accusing (not "sort of") Beretta owners of being uniformed masses. You also mentioned some tripe about Berettas being more accurate than the people who are inclined to shoot them (they are, you just intoned that people who shoot them are mediocre shooters).

This all sounds a little fishy to me lonegunman. Explain to me why someone in a thread, on this board, would deliberately insult people who own a particular brand of handgun, label them as uninformed masses, then admit to owning not ONE, but TWO of the very handguns he is finding fault with.

You yourself stated that the accuracy of the Beretta is mediocre yet it surpasses the accuracy of those who shoot them. Well, YOU SHOOT THEM. I would wholeheartedly agree with you on that statement. The Berettas do exceed the accuracy with which you can fire them.

To tell you the truth, I don't care how your two Berettas (assuming you really have them in light of the contradictory statements you've made) shoot, because I know mine shoots as well, if not better, than many of the factory guns I own. Every Beretta I've fired has had GOOD accuracy. Must depend a LOT on the shooter.

I held off on it before, but I'll say it now. Anyone who doesn't believe they would be well armed with a Beretta 92FS with 15 rounds of +P is not a shooter (hint, this is you).

Does that cover it for you now, lonegunman?
:rolleyes:

Shake
 
Shake, gee calm down, I was talking about the accuracy of the weapon, not whether or not the dang this functions well enough to be considered an adequate weapon.

First, I own a bunch of guns, some I like more than others, and I have ended up with 2 Beretta 92s through trading. It is not a requirement for me to be in love with a gun before I buy it if the right deal comes along. I think they are plenty reliable, and I dont have any intentions of getting rid of either.

The fact that they are in widespread use by the military and lots of police groups means that it will probably be easy to get parts, even if hard times fall upon us, and to me this is reason enough to own one.

I would consider myself well armed with one. "Well armed" to me though implies more about the functionality of the weapon than whether or not I can get tight groups from it.

As I said before, Berettas will shoot at best about 3" at 25 yds for me, and I can do considerably worse than 3". Maybe you can do better, and I dont doubt it if you can. Maybe 3" is good enough anyway, certainly it is for most defense type applications. Most people I have seen can't shoot 3" groups with anything anyway, so if a gun can do that, it is exceeding the abilities of the average owner.

What do you consider good accuracy? I think 3" at 25 yds is average, but not good.

I apologize to you and other 92 owners for making disparaging comments earlier; they have only served to inflame others and confuse the point I was trying to make.
 
Last edited:
I'm pondering a Beretta 92FS to help the economy get back on its feet.

Then buy two; one for each hand! All-American made have serial numbers that start with BER (or used to).

Are they worth buying or should I pass on them?

Yes/No.

What's reliability and accuracy like with a 92FS?

Very good. Reliability they are Numero Uno IMO, accuracy just behind SIGs on avg. Some will beat some SIGs. Have seen em do 1.5 inches at 25 yds out of the box/off the rack in the right hands.

Are the trigger pulls smooth or rough?

Generally good; can vary like any production item. They all slick up very well though.

Do they stand well to use or do they rust easily?

The military says about 35,000+ for the frames and 75,000+ for slides w mil-spec ammo (about the same as BHPs, SIGs, alloy Smiths in my experience, less than Glocks, CZs and Rugers). Know of them going over 100,000 w std 9mm ammo. Might have to replace the locking block once or twice along the way.

Rust? Inox (stainless) is as good as any stainless. The Bruniton (polymer/Teflon) on the slide/some other parts is very good. Most of the barrels are just parkerized, will rust if not cared for in a few days. Our issue M9s got rust specks on the barrel now and again (just wiped off easily); never saw any on the slide/frame.

How much should I expect to pay for factory prebans?

Less than for anybody else but Ruger; plenty out there for $50 or less if you look hard enough.

Between about 87 and 92 at least 18 broke slides that I know of (6 in the field, 12 in testing). Some with suspect ammo, most with mil-spec issue ammo under controlled conditions. Some over 25,000 rounds, some as early as 2000 rounds. All were Italian made AFAIK.

Don't worry about it; I didn't. LAPD/LASO has been using em for more than 15 yrs w/o any of the same problems. They have had less problems w their Berettas than NYPD has had w their Glocks or Baltimore County PD has had w ther SIGs.

Nobody is perfect! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top