Taurus PT92 vs. Beretta 92

T

tstr

New member
Anybody have any experience with shooting both the Taurus PT 92 and the Beretta 92?

I'm told they're basically the same gun and am curious how similar they really are.

tstr
 
I've got a Taurus 99 (adjustable sights) and a Ber 92. Bought the Taurus back in 86, got the Beretta in 95.

As you know Brazil wanted the 92 as their Army contract gun and required Beretta to build it "in state", so Beretta shipped all of the necessary tooling overseas and set up a plant in Brazil. Once the contract was complete, they sold all of the tooling equipment and left it in Brazil. Hence the Taurus 92/99 line of "Beretta Clones" with the old frame mounted safety.

Ultimately Beretta updated their design (to compete for the US Military contract?) and modified the safety to be a slide mounted decocking style.

Both of my handguns exhibit a high level of finish and shoot better than I am capable (older eyes) of. One can be carried cocked and locked or using a bit of caution lower the hammer via trigger w/ thumb assist (gulp) for a DA carry mode.

I do prefer the Beretta grips to the Taurus and replaced the wood grips for a set of Pachmyers making it a tad bit thicker than the Beretta.

Finally, one cost $269 in 86, the other cost $489 in 95. Go compare them side by side at your local gunshop. Some people call the Taurus a POS; I call mine a shooter. It doesn't have the Beretta name or price tag, but they are practically the same handgun.

Adios Qweeksdraw
 
In a recent review, Gun Tests Magazine gave the Taurus version of the 92 better marks than the Beretta version. Said it was a better gun and also more bang for the buck.

Taurus, over the past 6-7 years has done a good job of getting their quality act together. Their revolvers are now getting pretty close to S&W with regard to fit and finish (and they are generally S&W designs...)
 
I own a Taurus PT-92afs and finally got to shoot a friends Beretta 92. I can't say that I noticed any real difference at least in my hands. My Taurus is a 1999 model, and has the frame mounted dual mode safety/decocker (can carry c&l or decock to DA/SA mode). I like the flexibility of this setup, but it is a matter of preference. The DA pull on my Taurus is pretty long, fairly heavy (don't have means to measure), but very smooth. The Taurus has also been very (read no failures) reliable with white box, speer gold dots, umc, and some decent reloads. Grips are OK, I haven't gotten around to switching them. Hi caps are still easy to find for the Taurus, I don't know if they are interchangeable with the Beretta (I'm sure someone here knows).

The Taurus was also about $200 less.

Good luck.
 
Gun Tests is full of horse manure. Beretta 92's have no stamped parts------------none. They are as accurate as any stock handgun out there and the chrome lined bore is as good as they come. I own a Beretta shotgun and it is the finest made semi auto in the world. This conclusion came after using Remingtons, Brownings and Benelli's in the duck blind. I had a 92 that was the most accurate stock weapon I have ever shot. I sold it and that was a mistake.
 
I bought a Beretta mag at a gun show from a guy who swore it was interchangeable with the Taurus. It will feed the rounds ok but does not hold the slide open after the last shot. Seems the follower does not have the height to lock the slide back. Comparing Taurus mags with the Beretta mag shows the Taurus mag to be a tiny bit taller. Gave the Beretta mag away, swallowed the $15...:mad:
 
I had both the 92 FS and the Taurus 92 AF, both handguns were accurate and built very well. I do regret selling them. Out of the two I prefered the Taurus over the Beretta, basically a value buy. But the availability of the standard capacity magazines for the Beretta would be their selling point to me now.
 
Will Beararms wrote:

Gun Tests is full of horse manure. Beretta 92's have no stamped parts------------none. They are as accurate as any stock handgun out there and the chrome lined bore is as good as they come...
Click to expand...
I won't argue that the Beretta is as accurate as any stock handgun out there. It may be. And as reliable. But the same statement can probably be said of the Taurus, too.

The biggest criticism I have of Gun Tests is that their samples are too small, and they get all hung up on stuff that has little relevance to the guns accuracy, reliability or function -- like criticising machining marks inside the slide in areas where it has NO effect on the guns performance.

But, that said, WHERE in the Gun Test Magazine article does it claim that Beretta uses stamped parts? I've just reread the article several times trying to make sure I didn't miss it. I can find no reference to stamped parts.

In my original mention of this article I said it was written a few months ago. I see, now, that it was more than a few months ago: January 2000. Perhaps there's been another since then, and I just can't find it.
 
Hey Walt,

I believe the implication was that Taurus' DO use stamped parts and the Berettas do not. I think it was more of a statement of Berettas quality rather than a response to what you said about Gun Tests.

By the way, I don't get Gun Tests magazine (big long story), but I agree with your criticisms of it.

Shake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top