I just watched the movie Lethal weapon 2 again. I always wondered how good did the 92F perform? How would it stack up to todays auto pistols. And was there any reason why they stopped making them? Thanks for any info
The 92F has become the 92FS which is pretty much the same design, just some metallurgical differences and a change to keep the slide from flying off the back of the frame should it somehow break in half (not that it's likely).
The 92 is still in service with the US, and as to how it stacks up to today's autos; it stacks up very well.
The slide mounted safety is the most disliked feature, and the grip is pretty large. If neither of those bother you, the 92 series pistols are very accurate and reliable and will hold their own against the best of the best.
The 92F has become the 92FS which is pretty much the same design, just some metallurgical differences and a change to keep the slide from flying off the back of the frame should it somehow break in half (not that it's likely).
The 92 is still in service with the US, and as to how it stacks up to today's autos; it stacks up very well.
The slide mounted safety is the most disliked feature, and the grip is pretty large. If neither of those bother you, the 92 series pistols are very accurate and reliable and will hold their own against the best of the best.
That safety is the only thing keeping me from having one. Even if you routinely leave it off, it can easily be accidentally engaged by operating the slide.
The 92F has become the 92FS which is pretty much the same design, just some metallurgical differences and a change to keep the slide from flying off the back of the frame should it somehow break in half (not that it's likely).
The 92 is still in service with the US, and as to how it stacks up to today's autos; it stacks up very well.
The slide mounted safety is the most disliked feature, and the grip is pretty large. If neither of those bother you, the 92 series pistols are very accurate and reliable and will hold their own against the best of the best.
That safety is the only thing keeping me from having one. Even if you routinely leave it off, it can easily be accidentally engaged by operating the slide.
The M9A3 is now available in the G-model(Decock only) Also has the Vertec grip and dovetailed sights.
The 92F has become the 92FS which is pretty much the same design, just some metallurgical differences and a change to keep the slide from flying off the back of the frame should it somehow break in half (not that it's likely).
The 92 is still in service with the US, and as to how it stacks up to today's autos; it stacks up very well.
The slide mounted safety is the most disliked feature, and the grip is pretty large. If neither of those bother you, the 92 series pistols are very accurate and reliable and will hold their own against the best of the best.
That safety is the only thing keeping me from having one. Even if you routinely leave it off, it can easily be accidentally engaged by operating the slide.
The M9A3 is now available in the G-model(Decock only) Also has the Vertec grip and dovetailed sights.
That safety is the only thing keeping me from having one. Even if you routinely leave it off, it can easily be accidentally engaged by operating the slide.
I never much cared for the big Berettas. I shoot them well, and maxed out the qual the last time I shot one,but they are overly large for what they are.
I would take a G19/G17 any day over the Beretta, or if choosing an all metal pistol, I would take a CZ-75.
That said, if they scratch an itch, it does not really matter what other people like.
Plus, if worked over by a competent smith, such as a former AMU guy from Benning, they can be stellar shooters. I think (don't really know) that they hold most the service pistol records these days. I recall hearing that, but my memory is fuzzy about where.
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL.
The Tikka T3 in .308 Winchester is the Glock 19 of the rifle world.
I love the 92F, they safety doesn't bother me and I am used to the grip. It is very reliable and accurate. I put the D min spring in mine. The trigger is very good. If has never failed to feed or extract with factory ammo and I never getvhit with brass in the face.
The weapon is not well-liked by the rank and file, at least in the USN/USMC.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Thanks for all the info. Everytime I see Mel Gibson just let em fly and clip after clip and never jam his Berretta I know its Hollywood but had to find out how realistic this gun is to the movie. Thanks again
Naples, 1944, outside of a USO Show: a crowd of GI's mobbed Humphrey Bogart, who was appearing there. One of the guys asked him where he could get one of those Colt semi-auto's that fired 24 times without reloading, like the one Bogie used in "Sahara". Bogart's reply: "Ain't Hollywood grand?!"
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
The weapon is not well-liked by the rank and file, at least in the USN/USMC.
Mostly because they can't shoot for sch!dt. The average Marine is a decent rifleman, but pistol training is just about non-existent, hence the frustration. The 92 has a wart or two but when it was introduced, it was top-shelf. Idiot Army officers are responsible for that schidt safety.
The weapon is not well-liked by the rank and file, at least in the USN/USMC.
Mostly because they can't shoot for sch!dt. The average Marine is a decent rifleman, but pistol training is just about non-existent, hence the frustration. The 92 has a wart or two but when it was introduced, it was top-shelf. Idiot Army officers are responsible for that schidt safety.
The 92 was around long before it was adopted by the US Military. What was the safety like before?
Looks like the Taurus 92B-17 is an improved version (at least by design) of the Beretta 92, as it has the frame mounted thumb safety, like the Beretta 92 originally had.
All this talk of the 92 motivated me to go out and do some shopping around. The local store had a new Beretta 92 with the crappy slide mounted backwards working thumb safety and a new Taurus 92, with a proper thumb safety (option for cocked and locked or traditional double action with decocker function) for more than a hundred dollars less. $470.00 out the door. Steel guide rod vs the Beretta, which comes with a plastic one. Comes with two 17 round magazines (Beretta comes with one 15 round mag). Two 32 round Pro Mag magazines on the way.
Seems real nice. I'll get it to the range tomorrow. Carries great in my El Paso Saddlery C-Force, designed for my Glock 17. Just as comfortable and concealable. No plans to replace the Glock, though.
Guess my son was the odd man out...he spent a number of years in the USN, pretty much armed up every day. He had a choice of the Beretta or the Sig and always carried the Beretta. He qualified with both and had the pistol expert ribbon among several square inches of color on his chest. He even stayed with the Beretta when he had to carry concealed (but he's a big boy.) I don't know if he actually used the Beretta in combat during his adventures in the Middle East. I believe that was all M-16 and M-4 and if he'd had to use a pistol at all I would have heard the story. All that said, he had a Beretta 94 of his own which he's since gotten rid of, and since he's been out of the Navy, he has nothing but plastic auto pistols.
![[Linked Image]](http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w188/TheRealHawkeye/IMG_0495_zpsafbkok22.jpg)