Beretta 92 Reviews

by **tigwelder56** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:25 pm

I just read an article in this months Shooting Times. It referenced a competition called "The All Army Matches". It's quite an article and if there are any of our military brothers and sisters reading this, I'd like your take on something they said. One part of the competition is with the M 9 pistol, which is the military designation for the Model 92 pistol. What totally blows me away is that the distance to target, a Type D silhouette, is 500 yards! That's not a typo, 500 yards!! This is not from a rest either, it's from a sitting position without a spotter. How in the hell can they expect someone to hit a target at 500 yards with an off the rack 9mm pistol? I don't care what make of pistol, 500 yards seems like a ridiculous distance for a stock service pistol competition. If anyone has any additional information on this competition please share it. I'm very curious what kind of performance they get at that distance? My first thought was what a waste of ammunition! Can you even see the target using those stock sights. It just seems a little hard to believe that there would even be a category for this caliber, weapon and distance!

by **aalewis28** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:27 pm

Sounds like those 92's might be worth a little more than just anchors for the navy, eh tig?

by **aalewis28** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:28 pm

Sounds like those 92's might be worth a little more than just anchors for the navy, eh tig?

by **S&W910** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:06 pm

DOUBTFUL

by **SamFisher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:24 am

Just because the gun has range doesn't mean it is reliable or accurate.

by **jvv** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:44 pm

check out my newly posted photo

by **Ice4Blood** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:59 pm

I have 5 Berettas and one is a 92SF Inox with a factory crimson trace.. I also have more than a few other makes in most calibers but it's the 92SF I want to focus on here. This is a damn great handgun. It is extremely accurate, it's reliable beyond any expectations, (over 1000 rounds and zero malfunctions), it's easier to take down than my Glocks which I also love, and it's a thing of beauty. But it is not my gun of choice to use for concealed carry because of it's size and so what? I didn't buy it for that purpose and I frankly I can't imagine that anyone else would either I also own a Colt 6" Anaconda and a S & W 6" model 29. Both 44 magnums and neither were bought for concealed carry but they're still both great revolvers. I carry a Beretta PX4 40 caliber in a DeSantis M8 and it conceals under an open shirt over a tee, a Guayabera shirt or any sort of jacket perfectly. Seems to me that it isn't the size of the 92SF that's the problem. The problem is asking something of the 92SF that it wasn't intended to do.

by **aalewis28** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:25 am

well said ice! I've now cycled 7 or 800 various rounds through my newer 92 (no steel casings though). It has proved just as flawless as any glock out there. not to mention the better and more consistent ejection. I've been known to be a skeptic, but the fact is gentlemen, this is a great pistol. Undispuited.

by **jvv** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:58 am

well... to each his own. tha's all i can say

by **hammerdrop** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:20 pm

i owned a beretta 92fs, reliable. but was not to impressed with how accurate it was, with three different loads. also a little big for me, as a ccw pistol. but maybe ideal for some people.