TexasCHLforum.com

I was at the Academy Sports in Lewisville this afternoon and I saw these for $386!!

That seemed like a great price. I don't need one, but I thought someone might.

I am thinking about going back for the Ruger P97DC for $318 though...

Was the Beretta a refurb? Bass Pro had refurbs on sale last week for $399. If not a refurb then that's a great bargain. The refurbs only have a 90 warranty.

I have a Beretta 92... and I am EXTREMELY underwealmed by it in every respect....

Given that you can buy a new S&W M&P in either 9mm or .40 fro $419, with a lifetime warranty I can't see why anyone would buy a Beretta in either cal.

It isn't a bad price if you want a Beretta... but if you are just looking for a 9mm there are a lot of better options.

FWIW

Chuck

KRM45 wrote:I was at the Academy Sports in Lewisville this afternoon and I saw these for $386!!

That seemed like a great price. I don't need one, but I thought someone might.

I am thinking about going back for the Ruger P97DC for $318 though...

cxm wrote:I have a Beretta 92... and I am EXTREMELY underwealmed by it in every respect....

Given that you can buy a new S&W M&P in either 9mm or .40 fro $419, with a lifetime warranty I can't see why anyone would buy a Beretta in either cal.

It isn't a bad price if you want a Beretta... but if you are just looking for a 9mm there are a lot of better options.

FWIW

Chuck

KRM45 wrote:I was at the Academy Sports in Lewisville this afternoon and I saw these for $386!!

That seemed like a great price. I don't need one, but I thought someone might.

I am thinking about going back for the Ruger P97DC for $318 though...

The M&P has a TERRIBLE trigger. I would own a Beretta in a heartbeat! IMO, the Beretta is one of the better traditional semi-auto's there are.

That's a great price for a new one.

I had a Beretta 96 (same as 92 but 40 cal). I loved it. That is until I shot a 1911 and a Springfield Armory XD and a Baby Eagle.

I finally sold it because I just didn't shoot it anymore. The grip is WAY too wide. The function was perfect and I love the design, I just didn't shoot it.

IMO there are a lot better pistols out there for the same price or even less.

I would like to have a Beretta 92FS, just because it's a military issued weapon. It's on my list of the next 5 guns I'll acquire.

KRM45 wrote:I was at the Academy Sports in Lewisville this afternoon and I saw these for $386!!

That seemed like a great price. I don't need one, but I thought someone might.

I am thinking about going back for the Ruger P97DC for $318 though...

We picked up the Taurus 92AF at Acadamy for $368. It's made to the Baretta specs. It does come with the accessory rail, and three position safety/decocker
It came with two 17 round mags. (1 in the pipe makes 35 rounds ready.)

I really like this 9mm, and the way it shoots. There are plenty of aftermarket parts for the 92 line, also. I sort of wish i had asked for one with the Tritium night sights. just because. :-)

My 92FS was the first gun that I actually paid for myself (with college graduation money). All my others, at that point, were given to me by my father. I have no problems with it at all. I have to admit I haven't shot mine in a few years as I have others that I take out regularly.

Beretta has been making firearms for over 500 years so I think they know a thing or two about how to produce a good pistol. I think part of the reason why I bought it in the first place was b/c if it was good enough for the US military, then I felt it would be a good first gun for me. I like the capacity, ease of field stripping, large grip, etc. Of course now, it's waaaay down my list as I've got 1911's, Glocks and Sigs.

I think I paid about $550 new for mine at Carter's (I-10) and if you can get one for the price you mentioned, by all means go for it.

cxm wrote:
Given that you can buy a new S&W M&P in either 9mm or .40 fro $419, with a lifetime warranty I can't see why anyone would buy a Beretta in either cal.

i would wipe my butt with $419 before i'd spend it on a smith m&p.

and when you can get a beretta PX4 for $399 and have no use for a warranty, there's hardly a reason to waste it on a smith.

lrb111 wrote: We picked up the Taurus 92AF at Acadamy for $368. It's made to the Baretta specs. It does come with the accessory rail, and three position safety/decocker
It came with two 17 round mags. (1 in the pipe makes 35 rounds ready.)

sure they WERE made to beretta specs, 1970s beretta specs. beretta sold the molds to taurus when the brazilian contracts ran out. that's it. i've handled taurus', the quality isn't in the ball park with a beretta. not that they're bad guns by any means, but it's not a good comparison because they've morphed into different weapons than what they once were.

Does anyone here actually think the 92FS is not a good gun?

The 92FS is a fine weapon and the design is battle tested. It's accurate, and IT WORKS. I've put thousands of rounds though mine and never had a single failure. Everything from Wolff to Czeck tracer rounds and even subgun ammo. Never a hiccup.

And, if comparing the cost savings of buying a P97, imo, that's not even worth discussing. The Beretta is miles and miles ahead of the Ruger in every way.

HighVelocity wrote:Does anyone here actually think the 92FS is not a good gun?

I have limited underwhelming experience with one. Here's a good read:

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm

Glockamolie wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:Does anyone here actually think the 92FS is not a good gun?

I have limited underwhelming experience with one. Here's a good read:

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm

20 years ago under rigorous military testing a few EARLY models had slide problems. They fixed it, big deal.

I don't even carry a Beretta because I prefer the 1911 platform. But If I was required to carry a traditional DA/SA semi, it would only be the Beretta.

50 rounds of cheap ammo at 20 yards off hand. I'm pretty happy with it's performance and I think I'm going to carry it all week just because.

I put about a thousand rounds through my M9, which was previously issued to someone who had fired many thousands of rounds, both in the US and Kuwait.

I never had a hiccup. Was it the most accurate? No - but getting a hand-me-down from folks who don't care about their weapons tends to have poor effects on a firearm - especially when you get a half-competent armorer messing with stuff.

Was it consistent? You betcha, hit to the left of the bullseye ever time. Took 40 rounds to correct for that consistently.


I'd carry one again, no doubt. But for concealment, ouch. Thats not a small handgun. I mostly carried it in a shoulder holster.

I was active duty Army during the testing, selection, and beginning switchover to the M9. That left me with a lingering dislike of the Beretta, which I admit is not justified by personal experience.

I felt (and still do) that the selection process was flawed, and the decision to switch to 9mm NATO was a poor one.

Kevin