Trying to compare the Beretta 92FS and the Sig 226 accuracy
- Thread starter hjm
- Start date
92f vs 226
I own a 92F and a 92fc(compact). In addition I own a Sig 225. The Beretta and Sigs based upon my shooting are bot equallly accurate and both easy to shoot. I have not done serious bench shooting, but have shot both out to 50 yards. I think that it's just a matter of personal choice. Short of a Sig 210...I think the most accurate 9 would be a P7, because the barrel does not move. But you could buy both a 92f and a 226 for the price of a new P7.
I own a 92F and a 92fc(compact). In addition I own a Sig 225. The Beretta and Sigs based upon my shooting are bot equallly accurate and both easy to shoot. I have not done serious bench shooting, but have shot both out to 50 yards. I think that it's just a matter of personal choice. Short of a Sig 210...I think the most accurate 9 would be a P7, because the barrel does not move. But you could buy both a 92f and a 226 for the price of a new P7.
M9's
I read an article somewhere about the AMU (Army Marksmanship Unit) efforts to make the M9 "as accurate" as their well-developed M1911's. It took a year of effort, but they were successful. As it necessitated attaching steel rails in lieu of the stock slide rails and other reengineering, and as the P22x series has an excellent reputation for out-of-the-box accuracy, that's where I'd put my money. In fact, I did - I bought a P220.
I read an article somewhere about the AMU (Army Marksmanship Unit) efforts to make the M9 "as accurate" as their well-developed M1911's. It took a year of effort, but they were successful. As it necessitated attaching steel rails in lieu of the stock slide rails and other reengineering, and as the P22x series has an excellent reputation for out-of-the-box accuracy, that's where I'd put my money. In fact, I did - I bought a P220.
duckdawg:
First, the Army Marksmanship Unit competes in NRA/CMP bullseye competitions. The accuracy of a basic combat pistol is not good enough for that type of competition.
Second, the US Army hasn't bought any 1911s since WWII. So most of the US Army 1911s were pretty worn before the AMU got to them. They HAD to be rebuilt. The AMU gunsmiths have had decades of experience accurizing 1911s.
Yes, your average 1911 from a good company is accurate out of the box. I have no doubt they're just as accurate as 92F. But neither a base model 1911 nor a 92F is accurate enough out of the box for top-level bullseye competitors.
M1911
First, the Army Marksmanship Unit competes in NRA/CMP bullseye competitions. The accuracy of a basic combat pistol is not good enough for that type of competition.
Second, the US Army hasn't bought any 1911s since WWII. So most of the US Army 1911s were pretty worn before the AMU got to them. They HAD to be rebuilt. The AMU gunsmiths have had decades of experience accurizing 1911s.
Yes, your average 1911 from a good company is accurate out of the box. I have no doubt they're just as accurate as 92F. But neither a base model 1911 nor a 92F is accurate enough out of the box for top-level bullseye competitors.
M1911
The US military transitioned from the M1911 to the M9 as the standard issue pistol. THere were some special use pistols in service by individual branches (like those .38 revolvers the USAF used for aircrews), but the M1911 served all the way up until the 80's, when the M9 took over.
spooker609
Retired Screen Name
I've shot 92s including the E1 and Sig 228s and 229s, and sad enough to say they were all more accurate than i will ever be
ohen cepel
New member
My brother is/was competing for the Army.
He was given several M9's to choice from and a few Sigs since they are also considered an "issue" weapon.
We both thought the Sigs would out-shoot the Beretta's and both preferred the Sig's. However, they didn't outshoot the M9's and he has used a Beretta since.
Now, these weren't customs and it's not a reflection on them all, nor it is that scientific. However, we didn't have 100 of each to compare.
It did take the Army some time to learn the "tricks" to increase the Beretta's accuracy. Anything takes a little time.
He was given several M9's to choice from and a few Sigs since they are also considered an "issue" weapon.
We both thought the Sigs would out-shoot the Beretta's and both preferred the Sig's. However, they didn't outshoot the M9's and he has used a Beretta since.
Now, these weren't customs and it's not a reflection on them all, nor it is that scientific. However, we didn't have 100 of each to compare.
It did take the Army some time to learn the "tricks" to increase the Beretta's accuracy. Anything takes a little time.
I have a P226 and two 92s, a full size and a Centurion. If any one of them is more accurate than the others, I can't tell. I suspect that they all shoot better than I do.
The first consideration in picking between them is your subjective evaluation: how you like the way each fits and feels.
If it's still a tie, keep in mind that hi-cap mags for the Beretta are generally cheaper and easier to find.
My recommendation, obviously, is to get one of each. No regrets about the one you didn't get.
The first consideration in picking between them is your subjective evaluation: how you like the way each fits and feels.
If it's still a tie, keep in mind that hi-cap mags for the Beretta are generally cheaper and easier to find.
My recommendation, obviously, is to get one of each. No regrets about the one you didn't get.
I've shot several Berettas (Elite I and II and a M9) and have shot a few Sig p226s. CAn't tell any difference. I qualified expert marksman with the M9 the first time I ever shot it (though the course is pretty easy except for the gas mask part). I shot a p226 that grouped well, but always a few inches left. It wasn't mine so maybe the rear sight was off a bit. Go with which ever one feels better and prepare yourself for buying them both eventually. LAter.
9mmepiphany
New member
i have the 226 in 9mm, the beretta 96 in .40 and the 220 in .45.
coming out of the holster (as opposed to sitting at a bench) the 226 was more accurate than the 92fs. the 96 was more accurate than the 229 and the 220 is actually is more consistent than either (although i should admit than i had the action tuned and trigger polished ).
i've been looking at custom work and i think the beretta has more potential for accuracy, due to it's recoil pattern, than the sig
coming out of the holster (as opposed to sitting at a bench) the 226 was more accurate than the 92fs. the 96 was more accurate than the 229 and the 220 is actually is more consistent than either (although i should admit than i had the action tuned and trigger polished ).
i've been looking at custom work and i think the beretta has more potential for accuracy, due to it's recoil pattern, than the sig