The worse trigger possible

S

sneaky pete

New member
Old sneaky here, recently picked up a new beretta u22 neos. Looks great. The trigger sucks the big one. Breaks @ 10.5 pounds & unbelievely rough. I called up Beretta & TT tech support. I was advised by an employee that Beretta, on the advise of the NRA and military shooting coaches, has designed this pistol for new shooters(it's Cheap) and will have a Double Action REVOLVER trigger, because "New Shooters" have poor muzzle control and could be unsafe. What an attitude. Trying to teach new shooters how to shoot accurately with s crappy trigger. All they're doing is installing bad habits and more than likely turning them o. :mad:
 
That doesn't sound right at all. I mean, it's a single-action trigger. I don't know it's possible for it to be 10.5 pounds, for one, and the idea that its SA trigger is supposed to mimic a DA revolver is preposterous BS.

I'd insist on speaking with someone else higher up.
 
I have a Neos that I bought used, and its trigger is nothing like what you describe or what Beretta told you. I agree that you should call back and if you receive a similar response ask for a supervisor.

Have you field stripped it and looked for shavings, excessive grease, etc?

And as much as I like my Neos, "Looks great" is not what I usually hear and read about it, either. :D
 
by the looks of a Neos maybe the trigger is supposed to have a long, pumping action to squirt water out the end of the barrel!:eek:
 
My uncle has a Neos that I've shot a bit. Its trigger is pretty bad too. I don't think it's as heavy as 10.5 lbs, but it is rough and has a very "hard" feel. It can't touch a stock Buck Mark trigger, or even a stock Ruger Mark III trigger, for that matter.
 
My wife's Neos trigger isn't the greatest, but it doesn't feel like anything close to 10.5 lbs., either. Personally, I've never shot any Beretta that had a trigger I liked, but the Neos is better than the 92, 96, and 8045 I have tried. The 92, 96, and 8045 all had too much take-up and over-travel to suit me, even in single action.
 
>Old sneaky here, recently picked up a new beretta u22 neos. Looks great. The trigger sucks the big one. Breaks @ 10.5 pounds & unbelievely rough.<

I bought a Neos about 9 months ago. My trigger breaks around 5 pds, but it still manages to be too crappy to shoot well with. I've got a Taurus 94 that SA at 20 ft I can shoot 1.5 - 2" groups with. I can't come close to that with the quasi-target Neos.

Big disappointment. There's a guy in Colorado Springs who does trigger jobs on this gun, but why the hell should anybody need to pay for a trigger job on a gun that's obviously designed to look like a target pistol? I didn't begrudge doing a trigger job on my AR15 - it's a military designed gun - but a Neos???

Maybe I'll just cut a few coils off the striker spring, like I did w/ my surplus Beretta 92S' hammer spring.
 
Last edited:
Something doesn't sound right. I'd find someone / gun club / a store with one and check their trigger.
 
that's BS, I just went with a friend and bought a neo from academy about a month ago, so it's fairly new and we shot it that day. The trigger seemed fine to me, I only shot about 20-30 rounds, but it seemed pretty nice. short travel, not to hard.
 
I bought a new 92FS years ago, shot low. I called Beretta and was told they only guarantee military accuracy. This one isn't. They finally told me I could send it back and they would replace the slide but no guarantee it would be any better. I bought a taller rear sight and fixed it myself. Have not and won't buy another Beretta. It's a shame cause they make some really appealing shotguns.
I hate it when a company won't stand behind their products.
 
pete2,

I've shot dozens of Beretta 92fs models.

The Beretta 92fs fixed sights are not calibrated for the 6 o'clock hold if that's what you were trying to do, i.e. hold at 6 o'clock and hit above that like target style shooting.

If you check the Beretta forum, you can probably find examples/illustrations of where those sights go.
 
>I bought a new 92FS years ago, shot low. I called Beretta and was told they only guarantee military accuracy. This one isn't. They finally told me I could send it back and they would replace the slide but no guarantee it would be any better. I bought a taller rear sight and fixed it myself. Have not and won't buy another Beretta. It's a shame cause they make some really appealing shotguns.
I hate it when a company won't stand behind their products.<

I had that problem w/ a Bersa. I use a hold that has the top edge of the front sight right where I want the bullet to hit. I just filed down the front sight - it worked fine.

In case anybody is interested, the formula for adjusting the front sight follows.

(low on target inches) x (sight radius inches) / (target distance inches)

At first I was low ~6" at 20 ft.

6" x 5" / 240" = 0.125" That's a fair amount for a sight and I took a small amount off at a time until my group moved up to where I wanted it.

The greater the distance you want to zero the gun for, the less sight you have to file off.

Obviously, if you have an adjustable rear sight, then the change is opposite, and hopefully you have enough adjustment room that no filing is neccessary.
 
Last edited:
I had a 2012 made S&W M&P40. I tried my hardest to get along with the gun. I loved everything about it except for the trigger. So I sold it and replaced it with the best trigger in any handgun on earth. The 1911
 
Uncle Ed, I'm talking 6" low with a center hold. It's still low with a 6 o'clock hold, I should bought an even taller rear sight.
 
Whoa, there. The OP asked about the trigger pull on a NEOS, not about the 92FS or the S&W M&P or sight heights. Let's stay a little bit on topic.

On the NEOS, I admit that I never liked that design when it was the High Standard Duramatic, and didn't change my mind through three manufacturers. The gun appears simple, but the balances involved are complex and there are several ways the trigger pull could be affected, not all of them obvious. I think I would start with a good cleaning and lube with a good gun oil.

I agree that the advice from Beretta sounds like BS and I would continue to follow up.

Jim
 
Pete2, didn't realize you were talking 6 inches. I thought maybe an inch or a bit more. You're right to have been miffed.
 
"...because "New Shooters"..." More like they're terrified of being sued by said "New Shooters". ALL new firearms require a trigger job for this reason. Mind you, the trigger on the HK VP-70 was like 5 miles of bad road due to it being designed as a machine pistol. So it's not just Berretta.
 
T. O'Heir said:
"...because "New Shooters"..." More like they're terrified of being sued by said "New Shooters". ALL new firearms require a trigger job for this reason. Mind you, the trigger on the HK VP-70 was like 5 miles of bad road due to it being designed as a machine pistol. So it's not just Berretta.
Click to expand...
ALL seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.
 
"ALL new firearms require a trigger job for this reason."

Really? I can't think of a better (or worse) way to wreck guns than for every owner of a new gun to do a trigger job, willy-nilly.

Some guns, new or old, can benefit from an expert trigger job; but ALL?

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