[MAILMAN]

Do any of you own it.....I'm thinking about buying it, heard of any problems????
Thanks!

[younggunz]

used one for years

hate the open slide

low rated for the price range

[XTrainer]

That would have been your issue pistol, correct younggunz?

Mind relating yor experiences with it in a bit more detail? As an outsider looking in, there seem to be so many great pistol designs out there, so why go with the 92 in the first place?

[younggunz]

Originally Posted by XTrainer

That would have been your issue pistol, correct younggunz?

Mind relating yor experiences with it in a bit more detail? As an outsider looking in, there seem to be so many great pistol designs out there, so why go with the 92 in the first place?

some contracts never die...

it's an easy weapon to use, pretty reliable, and fairly accurate..

I just have no love for it...ergonomics don't fit me

[MAILMAN]

I have shot a steel 92 9mm.....And I want something pretty close to the same, but with more power!.....so Im thinking about going with the poly version with the 40 round, I shot a sig 45, and shot hk 45 and did not like, I have yet to shoot this one

[MAILMAN]

or thoughts on.....

[Gregster]

Originally Posted by younggunz

used one for years

hate the open slide

low rated for the price range

Here we go again..."And in this corner, weighing in at 196 pounds and no avater: Gregsterrrrrrr, 'The 92 Advoctahhhhhhh'!!!"

I carried an M9 in the Corps ('87-'91) which as a tanker was my primary TO&E personal weapon. I liked it, and recall most of my fellow Jarheads did too, despite the negative hype; this was shortly after adoption by the DoD, when the early "slide breakage" incidents got overblown to where is was made out to sound like you couldn't walk within 50 yards of a military pistol range without the danger of getting bonked in the head because the air was thick with busted M9 uppers flying around.

Well, that and there were always a few lifers who refused to shut up about how great the old M1911 .45 was. Seems they had an impact, since of late, more and more Marine units outside of billets like MSG and ship security (who I don't think ever gave them up completely) have been quietly re-adopting them.

I bought a Taurus Model 92 (a licensed Baretta knock-off) right after I returned from the Gulf War with a big, fat roll of bonus swag I'd been accruing while deployed in a combat zone hundreds of miles from any place worth spending it. After agonizing over choices and came down to that and a CZ-75 (another excellent, reasonably-priced pistol) I took the M-92 'cuz I knew I liked it and could hit with it.

I have never once regretted my choice. I can't imagine I've shot less than 15,000 rounds through it and with the exception of one or two boxes of pissant ammo that I doubt would have reliably cycled through *ANY* gun (a box of dirt-cheap aluminum-cased reloads and some ancient surplus Argentinian Army ammo) it has fed and spit out everything of every brand and description I have stuffed in it (ball, hollowpoint, high-velocity, bargain-price, top-shelf...). The design is simple and robust, and I have yet to replace a single part except the rear aperture, which on mine is adjustable and which I think broke due to my own carelessness, costing me $27. Had it been *ANY* other part, Taurus would have fixed it pro-bono, and had it been a fixed sight, I doubt it would have ever happened.

I like the new Barettas, 'cept the "DA-only" (I never like that design in any sidearm). and oh, how I wish they all had integral rail mounts in the lower receiver when *I* was in the market.

Anyhoo: I'd recommend them, and especially recommend yo check out Taurus. They sell the same piece, usually for a couple hundred smackeroos less.

[sleepwalk]

I loved the 92FS that I was originally issued. It was my first gun ever and it felt like I always thought it would. Then we went to the M9A1. VERY similar but not quite the same. I hate the new one and almost didn't qualify the first time out and I consistently shoot 58/60. Beretta was always popular due to safety rep, reliable in all kinds of conditions, can keep firing if spring breaks and the popular double/single action and external safety. 92series. Always classic.

[younggunz]

Originally Posted by Gregster

Here we go again..."And in this corner, weighing in at 196 pounds and no avater: Gregsterrrrrrr, 'The 92 Advoctahhhhhhh'!!!"

I carried an M9 in the Corps ('87-'91) which as a tanker was my primary TO&E personal weapon. I liked it, and recall most of my fellow Jarheads did too, despite the negative hype; this was shortly after adoption by the DoD, when the early "slide breakage" incidents got overblown to where is was made out to sound like you couldn't walk within 50 yards of a military pistol range without the danger of getting bonked in the head because the air was thick with busted M9 uppers flying around.

Well, that and there were always a few lifers who refused to shut up about how great the old M1911 .45 was. Seems they had an impact, since of late, more and more Marine units outside of billets like MSG and ship security (who I don't think ever gave them up completely) have been quietly re-adopting them.

I bought a Taurus Model 92 (a licensed Baretta knock-off) right after I returned from the Gulf War with a big, fat roll of bonus swag I'd been accruing while deployed in a combat zone hundreds of miles from any place worth spending it. After agonizing over choices and came down to that and a CZ-75 (another excellent, reasonably-priced pistol) I took the M-92 'cuz I knew I liked it and could hit with it.

I have never once regretted my choice. I can't imagine I've shot less than 15,000 rounds through it and with the exception of one or two boxes of pissant ammo that I doubt would have reliably cycled through *ANY* gun (a box of dirt-cheap aluminum-cased reloads and some ancient surplus Argentinian Army ammo) it has fed and spit out everything of every brand and description I have stuffed in it (ball, hollowpoint, high-velocity, bargain-price, top-shelf...). The design is simple and robust, and I have yet to replace a single part except the rear aperture, which on mine is adjustable and which I think broke due to my own carelessness, costing me $27. Had it been *ANY* other part, Taurus would have fixed it pro-bono, and had it been a fixed sight, I doubt it would have ever happened.

I like the new Barettas, 'cept the "DA-only" (I never like that design in any sidearm). and oh, how I wish they all had integral rail mounts in the lower receiver when *I* was in the market.

Anyhoo: I'd recommend them, and especially recommend yo check out Taurus. They sell the same piece, usually for a couple hundred smackeroos less.

yeah, once again...

haha..

it's down to personal preference.
Perhaps I hate it because of all the time I spent with it, cleaning and not using it.