Tried a Beretta 96A1, strange experience

C

chris in va

New member
Friend of mine let me try his 96A1.



I really didn't notice the caliber, ass-u-ming it was a 9mm so to my surprise he pulled out a box of 40's and filled the mag again. It was absurdly soft shooting for the caliber.

Despite the crazy manual of arms, I noticed my shots were all over the place. Granted he was using steel case Wolf, but I consider myself a very decent shot with my CZ's, so when I took aim at a 40 yard 18" gong, it went wide by at least 3'. Next few were in the dirt as well, or over by more than I was comfortable with. The grip angle and general feel wasn't all that different so I doubt it had anything to do with ergonomics.

Is Wolf really that bad, or is something else going on?
 
He's not the best shot, so not a fair comparison. I really should have sandbagged it but we were running out of time.

I also shoot a CZ97b so grip size was a non-issue. It was just surreal lining up the sights as usual only to have the shot hit so far away, and not even in one spot.
 
He's not the best shot, so not a fair comparison. I really should have sandbagged it but we were running out of time.
Click to expand...

Despite the crazy manual of arms, I noticed my shots were all over the place. Granted he was using steel case Wolf, but I consider myself a very decent shot with my CZ's, so when I took aim at a 40 yard 18" gong, it went wide by at least 3'
Click to expand...

Well normally when I'm trying out a new gun I try it a bit closer so that I can see what I'm doing. If I can't shoot well at 7 or 10 yards I know I won't get better somehow at 25 or 50.

The 40 is more powerful than the 9mm and can jump a bit in the hand. This is especially true, I've found, with some of the 155 and 165 gr. bullets and loads. Takes some time.

tipoc
 
Mine is pretty accurate with normal speer lawman 165gr ammo. I have never used steel cased in anything other than my Russian guns. Im sure its a factor but I doubt 3' at 40' difference.
 
I love 92's but have never used a 96.

I carry a 92.

To me it is a Cadillac of a pistol; accurate, buttery smooth action and low recoil.

Some have trouble with the girth of the grip and the bore axis.
It's not for everyone.
Most hate the safety
 
Some years back I had a Beretta 96 (made in Italy). It was a nice gun but VERY PICKY about ammo. With some brands it shot like a LASER, with others it was like a shotgun -- and it didn't matter who was shooting it. Strangest thing I ever experienced with a handgun. I remember that it loved 180 gr. Fiocchi ammo.
 
My old Beretta 96D Centurion and .40 Stoeger Cougar both shot great, especially with 180 grain ammo and, even with my small hands lol.

The Beretta Cougar 8000D I briefly had a few months ago was accurate as well, as is the PX4 D that replaced it.
 
I recently purchased a 96 A1 and out of the box the trigger was horrible. Even after cycling and dry firing a bunch of times it didn't improve much. I ended up swapping out the polymer trigger with an all steel one, adding a Wolff trigger spring conversion, smoothing and polishing the back of the trigger bar, and polishing the hammer/sear interface area. Now trigger pull is smooth, even, consistent and the let off crisp. It now shoots better then I do. As far as ammo goes, I avoid cheap import ammo as it's usually dirtier to shoot, less accurate, and more prone to failure.
 
I just have a non-report. I picked up a 96 a couple of years ago and found it to be quite accurate for me. Certainly not having the issues you are describing.

Obviously, bench-firing is next to see where the native accuracy is.....

I agree though, it IS a soft-firing 40!
 
I think many guns eat Wolf because they're designed to be idiot proof, but wolf sucks. I'd try other ammo, as a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top