opinions on 92fs vs pt 99

U

UltimaSE

New member
I've always liked the beretta 92fs design but after getting used to the hk locked and cocked option I searched around to see if I could find something like a beretta 92 fs that had this feature. I did stumble onto the taurus pt 99.

Now it seems like whenever I mention taurus people either don't know who they are or they immediately start going off on them about them copying the beretta. I understand they did but at the same time when I ask them if it's a quality pistol most of the time they don't have really much to say.

Here's the reason why I'm possibly considering the taurus over the beretta.
1. The cocked and locked option.
2. The price, can't argue here, the taurus can be had in stainless for less than the beretta blued.
3. The lifetime warantee.

Anyone have any opinions or comments or experiences it would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
UltimaSE
 
Now, I've heard that quality over at Taurus has been on the upswing, but of the Tauruses that I've shot, I've found their quality to be suspect. Loose parts, rattles, etc. Nothing major, just mediocre quality control. I don't own any Tauruses (though I briefly considered the Milleneum before I bought my Kel-Tec), but I do have a stainless Beretta, and love it.

P.S. Walker, Texas Ranger uses a stainless PT99!
 
I've shot at least 3000 rounds through my PT99 and cant say enough good things about it. It's never had any problems, with any ammunition, even re-loads that i've made myself.
 
I had a PT-92 a few years ago. It was very reliable in the 2000+ rounds put through it. Had to sell the thing a few years ago, while in college, because I was told by my ex-wife we were becomming poor. Should have never believed her. My bad.

Anyway, it's a decent pistol. Mine wasn't incredibly accurate, but it suited me. I really like the frame-mounted safety of the PT-92 over the slide mounted 92FS safety. Of course, the 92FS is more cleanly made, but is it worth the cost to you?

If so, get the 92FS, if not, the PT92 is just fine.

------------------
For God so loved the world that he gave his onlly begoten Son...
 
I can't say enough bad things about Taurus. I have owned 4 of thier revolvers and only two were reliable. I have shot 6 of thier auto's and only one was reliable. There triggers and sights suck. There are second rate pistols.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
Last month's Gun Test Magazine actually rated the PT99 OVER the 92FS in most important respects, and rated it as a better value.

The Taurus certainly has a better warranty.

Its just hard to avoid the "snob" factor which favors Berettas of Tauruses, or SIGS over Rugers, etc. The differences aren't really that great, in most cases.
 
I have shot the Beretta, I liked the feel, the one I shot was a POS range rental, but thats not the guns fault. Oh, the Taurus is not really a copy, Taurus bought the Beretta manufacturing planet in Brazil, and I guess what came with that is being able to use the Beretta design.
 
Thought the early Taurus's were exact copies. The new ones have what Taurus believes to be upgrades. I like the frame mounted safety better too.
 
Walt Sherrill

Sigs vs Rugers Taurus vs Beretta. There are some huge differernces. in Reliability (Taurus auto's are not reliable at least the 5 out of 6 I have shot have not been.) Accuracy Rugers are not as accurate as sigs. Triggers Sigs have a much nicer trigger than Rugers. Ergonomics Rugers have crappy ergonomics and fell like a block of wood in your hand with terrible sights.
You get what you pay for.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
Brazil selected Taurus as their service weapon. When the contract was complete, Taurus bought the plant and started making the guns that were an exact copy of the Beretta at the time the contract was signed/plant was built. The B and T have changed some over the yrs. Safety, mag catch, locking block, extractor, etc have changed, are different.

A very good value for the money, especially the stainless models, either 9/40. I've shot both a lot (B and T, 9/40), think your reasons for going T are sound; enjoy it.

------------------
>>>>---->
http://home.att.net/~brokenarrrow/
 
I wish I could find an early PT92 import. Those pistols are great. As I've said before, one of my buddies beat one to the ground, only to sell it to another friend, that still uses it as test bed for his ratty hand loads. It's going stonger than ever.

I do not like the new Taurus PT pistols because of the three position safety. Look at the right side grip panel. It leaves a nice gap where dirt and grit can collect.

If you want a Beretta that allows for cocked and locked look for a 92. The workmanship is superb.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
you ever notice that walker puts away his pistol and kicks their ARSE, bare knuckled.... Point made.

i am the EX owner of 2 taurus revolvers, one was new the other used both were trash.

------------------
454Casull when it absolutely Has to be destroyed.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 355sigfan:

Sigs vs Rugers Taurus vs Beretta. There are some huge differernces. in Reliability (Taurus auto's are not reliable at least the 5 out of 6 I have shot have not been.)
[/quote]

There USED to be huge differences. I think they're slowly disaappearing. Taurus' quality seems to be improving, and the new Polymer framed Rugers are a substantial improvement over the older P-series pistols.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Accuracy Rugers are not as accurate as sigs. Triggers Sigs have a much nicer trigger than Rugers. Ergonomics Rugers have crappy ergonomics and fell like a block of wood in your hand with terrible sights.
You get what you pay for.
[/quote]

The ergonomics issues seems to be a matter of what feels best for the individual shooter. As a general statement, I don't think you can support what you're saying.

The older standard P-series Rugers aren't that impressive with regard to accuracy, but my experience with the new P-95s and P-97s and comparable SIGs show that the Rugers are close matches in accuracy, trigger, and durability.

These are a new genreation of Ruger, not to be comfused with the older steel and alloy framed models.

They are as good as SIG or even BETTER with regard to their ability to feed just about any kind of ammo.

I've had several SIGs, including a SIG P-220, P-239, a P-210, and I've shot 228s and 226s a lot. They're all nice guns. (I still have the P-210.)

I have also shot a friend's Ruger P-97. I'm not sure I'd buy a P-220 if I could get aP-97 for $200-$300 less -- and that seems to be the going price difference. The differences in fit, function, and feel just aren't that great.

I find the typical SIG double action/single action transition more difficult than some other guns. In my local IDPA club, none of the SIG shooters seem to be particularly good with the first double-action shot. (My CZ-75 and CZ-85 seem much smoother and much more likely to "group" shots.)

The P-95 is as almost as good as most SIG 9mms (excepting the SIG P-210), and you can buy them for a LOT less. For comcealed carry, they're a little larger, but that's not a big problem. They look a lot larger; they aren't -- if you compare measurements you'll find them quite close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top