Beretta or Taurus

Although I am not a huge Taurus fan, the PT-92 shoots identically well with the 92FS.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree that that's the case on average.

The Taurus PT-92 pistols generally work well, but the guns are made on Taurus machinery to Taurus specs. Fortunately for Taurus, the 92 design, with in-line feeding and a >180º ejection port, is inherently a little more forgiving of loose/imprecise tolerances than are their own in-house designs. But the superior fit of the Beretta 92 pistols has implications for mechanical accuracy. (And the Beretta is in a different class in fit and finish, despite the fact that Beretta is working with harder and tougher 4340 and 8640 carbon steels for the slide and barrel, respectively, whereas Taurus uses 4140 carbon steel for each.)

Furthermore, Taurus parts/components that are often either poorly machined or made of low-quality MIM (in recent PT-92s) mean the Taurus pistols lack the overall smoothness of the Beretta, which impacts practical accuracy (rough trigger pulls, etc.).
 
The Beretta is a little more costly than the Taurus. The Beretta is more likely to work than the Taurus. Quality on Taurus guns varies greatly. The Taurus design convinced me to buy a PT100, never ran 100 straight ever, had a trigger job done on it. Finally traded it for an LC9. I wish Beretta had the same safety/decock system as the Taurus.
 
I am maybe older than some of you. I have owned sixteen Taurii and have only had trouble with one (a revolver). Around 1980 or so they started making Beretta "clones" such as the PT92 and PT 22. I believe that is also about the time they started making an effort to improve the overall quality of all of their firearms.

I own one Beretta, a Tomcat. The Tomcats don't have the excellent reputation of most of the other Berettas, but after I gave mine a very thorough cleaning it hasn't malfunctioned again.

Everyone should buy the one that feels good to them. If you want to save a little money and buy the Taurus, great. If you want to invest a little more in the Beretta, great. It is win/win.

I have owned my PT92 for about 25 years. It has a nice trigger and has given me no problems. I have little doubt that the story would be the same if I had bought the Beretta instead.
 
Something to consider is the after purchase cost of ownership:
You can buy factory 17 round Beretta mags from Midway for $19.99 for example.
The availability of grips and drop-in upgraded parts for the Beretta.
Wilson is making some pretty nice parts for it now.

I had the same debate recently and these considerations pushed it over the edge to a M9.

As a side note, the lock on the PT92 didn't, for me, help it's cause in deciding to buy it.
 
Around 1980 or so they started making Beretta "clones" such as the PT92 and PT 22. I believe that is also about the time they started making an effort to improve the overall quality of all of their firearms.
Click to expand...

Not quite the full story, as any such effort was not sustained.

Before the introduction of the PT-92 in 1983, Taurus only manufactured revolvers. The earlier PT-92 pistols were much more well-made than more recent ones. The second-generation PT-92 pistols (early 1990s to ~1997) in particular are easily the best pistols Taurus has ever made. Taurus was not yet churning out guns at a rate that far exceeded their ability to maintain acceptable quality standards, given their equipment and workforce, nor was Taurus yet substituting low-quality MIM components for steel components in every possible instance. The PT-92 guns were still easily inferior to the Beretta 92 pistols in fit and finish (and materials, as discussed above) at that time, but they were reasonably well-made guns, especially for the price.

Since that time, and over the last decade in particular, Taurus has strongly prioritized cost-cutting at the expense of quality in construction (cheap MIM for milled steel, where possible), marketing over engineering, and sheer volume of production over quality control. In the case of an existing design, like the PT-92, the guns suffer from the first and third problems; in the case of a proprietary design, the guns suffer from all three problems. Since Taurus copied an inherently very sound design in the 92, the guns still generally work, but they aren't nearly as well-made as earlier PT-92 pistols. Add to these issues the fact that the guns have steadily climbed in price relative to the Berettas, and the PT-92 pistols don't represent nearly the value they once did.
 
I went to buy a new 9mm a few months ago. The one Taurus 92 in stock had a scratch on the frame. The two Beretta 92s had grip screws that looked like they needed to be tightened at least a full turn on one side but would not tighten to fit into the grip. Neither looked like a finish I would accept on a new gun. Ended up buying a Sig instead. I would have bought the Beretta 92 if the grip screws had fit all the way into the grip but not when you can see behind the screw head. I hope all the Beretta 92s don't look like that. I always thought their quality was better. Maybe I am wrong and that is just something Beretta owners accept.
 
Austin, thank you for the well-thought post. My Taurus 92 is early 90's. Neither of us is particularly surprised about its quality, the. :-)

No offense, but do you have figures (unit sales per year, for instance) to back up your statements?

Maybe I have just been extraordinarily lucky. Two of my Taurii were stolen, and I still have 14. A small frame 32 ate its own cylinder ratchets. Even though I bought it used, I was able to send it to the factory under its lifetime warranty. My small frame 22 revolver has a horrid trigger. A few of them, including the Judge, have mediocre trigger pulls. The rest of them have light smooth triggers.

My first adult handgun was a Taurus because a coworker sold me his brother's (going through a divorce) model 66 for $200. It was barely used and had a great trigger. I kept it loaded by my bed and had to chase intruders away with it twice. Later I bought a Taurus 85 (small frame snub 38) that also had a very nice trigger and never gave me any problems.

I am not saying that Taurus firearms are better than Beretta, Smith, Ruger, etc. But my experience via 16 handguns over the course of 27+ years is that I got firearms that were reliable and moderately priced.
 
@kmax: pretty ridiculous to judge a whole company over grip screws on 1 gun you've seen once. I wouldn't exactly say newer sigs are the best examples of a company that doesn't cut corners.
 
Fullclip610: Pretty ridiculous of you to misconstrue what I said. I was telling of one experience at one store and it was not one gun. It was 2 guns of the same model. Other than the grip screws not fitting in the grip to suit me the guns were fine and I would have bought a Beretta. The Sig didn't have any qualities that I found objectionable. That is why I bought it. You buy what you want and I will buy what I want. If you will read enough posts on these forums you will see entire companies blasted on what someone else may have told the poster. Keep your insults to yourself.
 
Last edited:
@kmax: I didn't insult you. I was just pointing out that negatively judging a whole company and posting about it on the Internet based on grip screws is pretty ticky tacky.
 
If they go bang and I can shoot them well, I call them good. I bought my Taurus pt92 new in 1990. My wifes dad bought a Beretta 92 in 1993. I have shot mine many many rounds and I have put 2-300 through his Beretta. I really can't see any difference in them as far as accuracy or dependability. I like the safety better on the Taurus. I wish my Beretta PX4Storm had a grip safety.
 
I was just pointing out that negatively judging a whole company and posting about it on the Internet based on grip screws is pretty ticky tacky.
Click to expand...

And I was pointing out that the QA in higher quality firearms may also be lacking in these times. I work at a manufacturing plant that makes a supposedly higher quality product (not firearms) and there are times of quality fluctuation depending on demand for one. People talk about how bad Taurus' QA is yet other more respected brands have quality issues as well. I have heard of quality control issues with Sig, Colt, Kimber, Beretta, and even the revered S&W. Should we not expect better quality from a more expensive item?

I do agree that the Beretta will hold value much better than the Taurus although I question exactly how much when the Beretta I looked at was priced $200 higher than the Taurus. Also where are you guys finding the $500 new Beretta 92s. Best I can find is $650. Guess I live in the wrong part of the country. Please don't anyone misunderstand. I am not saying the Taurus is as good as the Beretta. I don't believe it is and it is not an argument I want to start even if I did believe it.

P.S Sorry if I upset anyone about any sensitive issues.
 
$650 is way too much. Basically any decent online gun retailer has them for way less. I got mine for $535 + $20 transfer fee in 2013. Bud's has the 92FS for $548 right now, that's $570-580 with fees, shipped. Grabagun has one for $545. I'm sure you could do even better on Gunbroker.
 
My problem is that I like to physically inspect a gun before I plop down the cash. I have no experience purchasing firearms online, but one of my fears is to receive a gun that has previously undisclosed flaws that I can't live with and having to deal with getting it corrected. Maybe I am paranoid or something but that is the way I am.
Have you ever purchased a gun on line and it not arrived in as good condition as expected? How was the matter resolved and at what additional costs to yourself? I ask this because I know nobody personally that has purchased online. Thanks for info.
 
When buying NIB it is less of an issue because it is a other new or it isn't. Even NIB some guns like a CZ 75 B it is best to handle the gun because the calming of the trigger varies from one gun to another.

Used guns get a bit trickier but really the same rules apply. If for any reason the gun does not meet your expectations do not transfer the gun. Call the seller from your FFL and talk it over. Come to an agreement or simply refused to transfer the gun pay the local FFL to ship it back USPS, which is th cheapest method and move on with life. Pay with a credit card because you have a lot of protections built in and you can disputed the charge if the seller will not make it right.

I have bought 20+ guns new and used over the years using a transfer dealer and will continue to do so. This does not mean I don't buy local but it is nothing to be worried about IMHO.
 
LockedBreech said:
$650 is way too much.
Click to expand...

Depends on the model. I payed about $650 for my M9A1 a couple years back though that was a couple months after Sandy Hook and we all know how that went. The 92A1's go for about the same price even to this day. But I agree for a basic 92FS $650 is a bit pricey. I see them all day for $550 and in many cases lower than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top