Beretta 92FS vs. Sig P226

I've owned both and sold both.

Beretta inox 92 and a West German Sig P226 9mm.

I've dabbled in replacing the Sig if I could ever find a decent deal like I did when I purchased it (around 500 bucks with 5 mags).

They're both over sized for the caliber, which is both good and bad. Both are good guns, well made, reliable.

The sig, in rapid fire, handled itself better- EG, on target quicker, faster on reload, more accurate. I'm not sure why. I think the Beretta, especially italian inox like mine was, is much prettier. The sig 226 is my favorite 'fightin' nine.

For my realistic needs I couldn't see NEEDING anything more than a glock 26...I'm not military or police.

Anyway, like I said I've sought to replace the Sig, and I really only miss the Beretta sometimes because boy howdy was it purty! :D

I would say sig unless having a safety is important to you.
 
At the moment, I'd have to flip a coin to decide... any more input?
Click to expand...

Get out a quarter, and flip it. If you don’t like how it lands, go for two out of three. If you still don’t like the results, go for 3 out of 5. :D

Since money is no object, get both. I’ve zero experience with either, but the P226 being used by the Navy Seals just has to be a very strong selling point. Neither is a slouch, as you know. I have held a couple of Sig’s, and am about to purchase one.
 
I owned a 226 and 220 for years, but have only rented a 92FS for an hour.

Skews my opinion a bit, but I still heartily prefer the sig after that exposure.
I don't like the 92 trigger, and the exposed barrel concerns me

the sig just feels better, or I was more used to it. Nevertheless, I prefer it.

jmo
 
I own both Sigs and Berettas. They are both great sidearms in my opinion.

Comparing one to the other is an apples to oranges deal.

Both are accurate and reliable. Buy the one you shoot best.

Good luck, let us know how things work out for you. :)
 
I would get the P226, here's why.

The P226 is better because Spec-Ops tend to use it. But honestly, I don't own the 92FS so I can't really comment on it.

It's my understanding the M9 only won the military trials due to political reasons and for cost. They low balled the bid thereby getting the contract because they were the cheapest.

The 92FS is an absolute hunk of junk and really shouldn't be considered. If you shoot more than, say, 5,000 rounds through it the slide will separate. Granted, they have a device in there now to keep it from hitting you in the face, but who wants their pistol breaking in half even if you do get to keep your teeth?

I hope this helps.
 
My preference is for the 226.

I've owned a 226 and used the 92 in the military. For my hand size (large glove) the 226 fit better. The 226 was far more natural to shoot accurately. (Both are accurate, the 226 was just easier for me to be accurate with)
 
I have both and shot them both this weekend. I shoot the Sig better. If I shoot a magazine with the Baretta, first shot DA and the rest SA; I can see which one is the first shot in the group. With the Sig, shooting the same way; the first shot is not distinguishable from the rest. I am sure that this is just a personal thing, but the DA pull on the Baretta is a long one and I don't have small hands. I do feel well armed with either.
 
and yes Beretta had issues with their gun after it was issued to our military, and there's more to the story than that.
Click to expand...


I guess I need to send my 92SB and my 2 92F's back to betetta to get fixed. I mean they have never had a problem after thousands of rounds, but better be careful.
 
I shot a beretta for years in the military, and I've owned a Sig for about 7 years. Both pistols are world class and both products are well made.

My only problem with Sig is that the controls are "backwards" compared to the common safety and slide lock lever location. Most of the guys I've been around who preferred the Sig and get proficient at manipulating it end up buying lots of them.

I prefer the standard controls of the 1911, beretta, glock, s&w, etc.

Good luck.

DOL

P.S. The fact that the SEALs use it should be a vote against the Sig! :D

The Air Force OSI also uses the 226. Do you want to base your firearms decisions based on Air Force investigators?

Get what you like.
 
Gun p*rn.

760226831_phPpd-L.jpg


Carry on.
 
If you're going 9mm the quality is the same with the Beretta much more affordable so I'd go Beretta. If you're going .40 I'd go Sig, better engineering for the .40.
 
We know that you said you have held and shot them all already. You said it yourself that the Sig feels better in your hand... you shoot the Beretta a little more accurately. Accuracy can be fixed... the feel in your hand cannot.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with this.
 
attachment.php


If dozens and dozen of countries entrust the lives of their soldiers to the Beretta 92, there will be a reason for. Who would take the responsibility to tell a soldier, "you died because I made a bad choice"? But may be my opinion doesn't count, I'm italian. :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • beretta92.jpg
    beretta92.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 2,335
I like the Sig P226 better. The trigger is better on the Sig. The Sig cannot be stripped as easily as the Beretta (by a bad guy). The Sig was more accurate for me. The Sig feels better in my hands. I like where the decocker is for the Sig. I don't know if this helps, but good luck.
 
I don't own the 92FS so I can't really comment on it.
Click to expand...

The 92FS is an absolute hunk of junk and really shouldn't be considered. If you shoot more than, say, 5,000 rounds through it the slide will separate. Granted, they have a device in there now to keep it from hitting you in the face, but who wants their pistol breaking in half even if you do get to keep your teeth?
Click to expand...

In the same post? Really? I've easily put 3500 rounds through my Beretta 96 without a problem and apparently the platform can't handle the .40S&W, or so I've heard:rolleyes:. Do you have a source for all that useful information?
 
Owned 2 Berettas. One was my favorite for years, the other not so much. Never owns the Sig but have handles it a little bit. Honestly, my preference lean more toward striker fired guns nowaday. Especially the XD. That said between the two choices I would go with the Sig because IMO and limited use of it, the gun felt better made. Now if looks matter the the Beretta is rather hansome. FWIW everyone I know who has/had a Beretta loved it, until the tried something else that was equivalent.
 
I have owned both and like aspects of both.

The Sig P226 is sturdy and well made, but both Beretta 92FS pistols I have owned (US Inox and Italian Inox) were works of art with regard to fit and finish. Both guns were totally reliable. For me, the P226 shoots like it is laser guided, but I can't hit the side of a barn from inside with a 92FS (nothing wrong with how a 92FS shoots, but a lot wrong with how I shoot a 92FS). I can comfortbly reach the frame-mounted decocker on the Sig, while the slide-mounted safety-decocker on the Beretta was awkward and required me to shift my grip.

If both guns feel comfortable in your hand, flip a coin. The fact that you shoot a little better initially with the Beretta probably means nothing.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little late to this, but I vote P226. I have one that's 20 years old, was dropped in the mud (right before I shot it for the first time) and I put all 15 rounds inside of a softball sized target at 7 yards. Without hiccup. The gentleman in the lane next too me, had a new Beretta 96 (although it was a 9mm) and he was shooting it poorly.

I do not own a Beretta and this was my first experience shooting one. The Beretta in question had the strait grip, and was a brigadier model. I put 10 rounds downrange and gave it back to the gentleman, it felt great, but I didn't feel that it was half the gun of the SIG Sauer. I want a 92FS Inox, personally, but I don't know if I would buy one over a SIG as a personal defense gun/only gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top