Can anyone give me an honest review or comparison of both? I have a surplus Italian LEO Beretta 92s. I'd like to upgrade to a 92fs or M9. But my LGS has a used Taurus 92af for $325 out the door. I'm wondering if I should get it or just be patient and hold out for Beretta, which I'm seeing here and there for around $450 used.
Also, do the Taurus and Beretta share any parts? Grips, magazines?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Going from a 92s to a 92fs is not an upgrade.

If you already have a 92S, why would you consider “upgrading” it to a Taurus?

I've had both the Beretta 92fs and the Taurus PT92 during a buy/trade/sell phase we all go through. I've gone through the "just as good as at less $$$" phase too. Take my opinion for what it's worth. If you want a Beretta 90-series, be patient and buy a Beretta 90-series. If you buy a PT92, you'll never be happy.

When racking the slide of an out of the box Beretta 90-series, it feels like the slide is riding on buttered roller bearings. The Taurus PT92 isn't bad by any measure, but it does not have the buttered roller bearing feel that the Beretta has. The chrome lined barrel of the Beretta is far easier to clean than the Taurus.

The only feature the Taurus has over the Beretta is a frame mounted safety.

__________________
-John

I'm biased, I don't like Taurus products. Be patient and get the Beretta.

I think the Taurus and the Beretta share magazines but I'm not sure what else.

I know that some Taurus 92s can be carried cocked and locked and have the safety on the frame.

Beretta 92s have a decocker and safety on the slide.

That's basically my knowledge of the differences between the two.

__________________
Thread Killer.

I’ve owned both in the past and never had problems with either one, albeit the Taurus was during the early-mid 90’s. Lots of reviews say they’re junk now but lots of others are happy campers. The Beretta is a quality build for sure. I personally prefer the decocker/safety on the frame where it belongs. Me personally, I wouldn’t have a problem buying either one.

One is a Beretta, building firearms since the 1500’s, the other a Taurus made in Brazil, a knock off of the classic Beretta. Really? Wait for the real deal, the original, Beretta.

IIRC the Taurus 92AF are copies of the 1st Gen. of the Beretta 92s w/ frame mounted safety........... built in Brazil under licence from Beretta for the Brazilian military

Really? Why not?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I have owned both... the magazines are not the same... exact same shape & size but hole for the catch is different.. so if you want cheap & easy to find magazines go beretta... but to be honest I sold the Beretta... kept the Taurus... a model 99AF actually... adjustable sights... I had 2... gave one to a friend I have known since first grade... that was over 45 years ago...

Attached Images

20160121_175615.jpg (106.2 KB, 80 views)

The Taurus has a thumb safety like a 1911.
(Yay!)

I would't pick either one because they both are too fat for the small caliber, and for carrying around much, but if I had to pick an overly bulky gun, and those were my choices, I would go with the Taurus.

The Taurus is the better version.
Adjustable sights and better safety.

I have the beretta 92S. Mine has been solid and purchased for a very reasonable price. That said the triggers are heavier than other berettas and mine shoots about 5” low. Never shot or held the Taurus but my friend swears by their version of the 92. Me personally doesn’t see the point in investing more money in the same platform for a brand/company that has questionable reviews and costs more than the model you currently own.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Get the real-deal Beretta. You can find a used 92FS or M9 for not much more than the South American knock-off.

The Beretta will always be a Beretta, and the Taurus will always be not a Beretta.

Attached Images

	F90098C9-442A-4B25-BFFA-960B886AFCCD.jpeg (44.1 KB, 49 views)
	1796F2E7-00F3-40C1-81A0-18E031251F05.jpeg (62.1 KB, 69 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

I say that if you want a Beretta, then accept no substitutes and get a Beretta. That being said, you already own a Beretta 92, and the 92FS really isn't all that different, so you might be disappointed if you save up for one then buy it only to find that out for yourself.

Here's what I would do, go into the gunshop and ask to see both the PT-92 and a Beretta 92FS/M9A1, (most gun shops have at least one 92FS/M9A1 in stock) then make note of the differences between your 92, the 92FS/M9A1, and the PT-92. You may be surprised to find that the 92FS isn't all that different from your current Beretta 92, and perhaps that the PT-92 has more features.
After that, should you find yourself leaning towards the PT-92, then function test it, if all goes well, politely ask permission to field-strip the PT-92 and examine the internals. The owner should give you the go ahead, but if not, then take that as a red flag, otherwise proceed to take it down and examine the internals, paying special attention to the locking block (which has sadly always been the Achilles' heel of the 92 design in general) to insure that there are no cracks in it. If all is well, then go ahead and buy it.

In my experience, as long as you function test Taurus Firearms before you buy them, then you're good to go. Between my family and I, there are 5 Taurus brand firearms in my household, all of which have been 100% reliable, but I won't deny that Taurus has spotty quality control, so if you're going to buy one, make sure you check it first.
That said, you should honestly function test ANY firearm before you purchase it, regardless of the brand, especially if it's used, but if there is anything worse than Taurus' QA, it's their Customer Service, so while other companies will typically make anything wrong with one of their problem firearms right quickly and easily, Taurus tends to overcomplicate the process. So if there's one company that you shouldn't neglect to function test, it's Taurus.

The Taurus PT-92 isn't a knock-off, it's a straight up copy of the original (Gen 1) Beretta 92 with upgrades. Taurus actually bought a Beretta factory in Brazil complete with all the tooling, workers, and blueprints, which included blueprints for the original Beretta 92. Beretta had already updated the 92 at the time (I believe the current model was the 92B) and the patent on the original had expired, so Taurus used it as the basis for the PT-92, but made some changes to update the design.
A lesser known fact is that many of the features on the modern Beretta 92A1 originated with the PT-92. (Combat Trigger Guard, Push Button Mag Release, Extended 17 Round Magazine, Reinforced Heavy Duty Slide, all were standard features on the Taurus before Beretta introduced the 92A1.)

So yeah, say what you will about Taurus and their quality control, but at least know what you're talking about before you go making ignorant statements about their firearms being knock-offs based purely on supposition.

Thanks you all. Good feedback as always here.
A little more info - I like the 92s because it's a very soft shooter. Feels great in my hand after I put Lok thin grips on it. And like someone said previously, the action on the slide is smooth and easy like butter. I shoot it well despite the ****** sights. The reason I'd like to get a 92fs is for the better placement of the magazine release and taller, 3 dot sights. For me, that's an upgrade. And this is definitely not gonna be a carry gun. That's what my 9c is for.
I'll check out the Taurus hopefully tomorrow. Dry fire, field strip as always when I look at something at the gun shop. I'm a repeat customer and he always does right by me so I'm not worried about what he has for sale.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I have the Taurus PT92 and I have had zero problems with it. Mine doesn't have the adjustable rear sights. Fast shooting magazine after magazine with no flaws. From what I read the Taurus 92 series is made in an old Beretta factory that Taurus bought and the guns are made on the same machines Beretta made their 92 series on.

I wasn't thrilled about buying a Taurus but after reading the reviews and comparisons of the 92 series I bought the Taurus. Some reviews stated the Taurus actually out performed the Beretta right out of the box. I bought my Taurus PT92 new for $350 and the Beretta sells for around $750.

I wanted a quality high capacity 9mm but didn't want to spend big bucks on it. I have not been disappointed with my Taurus. It's very accurate and most definitely dependable. Less than half the Beretta price but equal IMO quality is a no brainer.

I did a Durablu finish and put new grips on it. Looks an performs very well.

Attached Images

	Taurusblu1 002.jpg (104.9 KB, 75 views)
	Taurus92 007.JPG (140.4 KB, 78 views)

It is not a knockoff.

Its not a Beretta, either.

If knockoff bothers everyone, we can go with “Third World Version, requiring close examination upon purchase due to poor quality control.”

I own a couple of Taurus revolvers. I’d never confuse them with Smith and Wessons.

To the OP - if the difference of $125 is within your budget, why not get a gun that will always be worth what you paid?

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

If one has to do what amounts to a pre-purcahse cavity inspection to ensure it's not poop while issuing a warning about the manufacturers atrocious customer service, why take a chance in buying a product (and a used one at that!) that has a well earned legendary reputation for iffy products?

It IS a knock off. It's a cheaper i.e. less expensive version/clone/copy of the original.

__________________
Thread Killer.

Back when I was broke all the time, my competition gun was a taurus 99. Not a bad pistol, and cocked and locked was nice. I no longer have one. I have several Berettas and like them very much, but if you are on a tight budget the Taurus doesnt suck. Heck even the late great Stephen Camp liked the Taurus. Mine never failed on me, but during the mag ban it was easier for me to find standard capacity beretta mags, so I switched.

Hey Okie21, apparently some are offended by the word, knock off or copy pertaining to a comparison of the Taurus PT92 and the Beretta 92 model. It wasn’t an ignorant statement, it was simple math. The Beretta 92 was designed in Italy in 1972. Production began in May 1976. Even the short lived Compact 92SB was manufactured for 10 years, 1981-1991. The Taurus PT92 manufactured in Brazil, which has design elements of the original Beretta 92 began production in 1983. Mathematics proves the Beretta 92 was born and disturbuted before the Taurus clone model. Not a big deal, just a fact. Look it up.

I figure Beretta didn't have a problem with Taurus making the PT92 then I will not have a problem owning one for less than half the price of the Beretta 92fs.

As far as resale holding value I believe I have a much better chance of getting what I paid for or close to it for my Taurus than what I could get resale for a $700 Beretta. I am more into owning quality products than being a fan boy of a name and paying hundreds more for basically the same product. Okay lets call the Taurus a clone but the quality was cloned also. Funny how the internet is not loaded with owners of the Taurus PT 92 trashing it as a piece of junk. Quite the contrary from what I have read.

While working at an LGS a few years back, picked up a traded-in Taurus PT92 for <$200. (it's either SS or satin nickel, not sure which) I'm no Taurus fan, nor am I a fan of the design often called 'the world's largest 9mm'. But, a friend and I were teaching alot of CC classes and we needed a 'loaner' 9mm. I really didn't want to supply one of my own favored pistols, so figured we'd try this.

To say it did well would be an understatement. Many thousands of rounds through it and many dozens of students used that Taurus to excellent effect. Never a problem, which we greatly appreciated. Malfunctions at a teaching range take time and make for long days.

Not instructing anymore, but have enough faith in this gun that it resides in the bedroom, filled with Win. Ranger 127 gr. +P+ JHP's in it.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

Never owned a Taurus but do own a 1985 Beretta 92F. This one was made in Italy. (At that time Beretta was not making them in U.S.) It is hard to imagine a smoother, well crafted semi-automatic pistol than this one. Unbelievable. If you can find an older Model 92 made in Italy I recommend getting it. I paid less than $500 for this one at an auction 3 years ago. Well worth the price I paid.

Attached Images

IMG_2977.jpg (81.4 KB, 41 views)

I own a few Berettas and the stainless INOX 92 serves as my EDC. The Beretta features superior quality over the Taurus in every aspect. The PT92 is the Taurus that sucks the least, but that's a pretty low hurdle to jump over. Beretta parts are of superior manufacture, especially magazines, with the Taurus mags being noticeably inferior. Tauris guns are the ones you buy when you can't afford decent ones.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Taurus, even if I already owned a 92FS. Their 92 is a design they have made for 30+ years - I'm pretty sure they worked out the kinks.

The main reason to buy the Taurus is the safety - the frame mounted safety is a huge appeal IMO. I would buy one in a second if it was $250.

$325 used seems high, though. Bud's has them for $397, they ship for free but then you'd have a transfer fee. So ~$420 total. Used for $320 is right around $100 off, which is a fair price, but not a good deal.

You might first see where repairs can be made on the weapon.

I live in Reno and my only option was their Florida shop for repair of a broken magazine release.
This little minor part took 85 days......... before I got the PT92 stainless back.

If it breaks down again, I will sell it..... since they refuse to have a West Coast repair shop of any kind to shorten the down time, w/o a weapon.

Well, I enjoyed the banter between those that say get the real thing and those that say get the knock-off. Unfortunately, an unforseen legal expense has come up. So there won't be another gun purchase in the near future. Divorce is expensive!!!!

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Divorce is expensive for a reason. It’s worth it! (3 times for me).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the Beretta. I’ve handled the Taurus and it’s probably the best model Taurus offers.

The new Berettas have the 3rd generation locking blocks. I prefer the Beretta, only because it’s been tested so rigorously by .gov

M9 will go 19,090 rounds before a malfunction.

Attached Images

25D89DB5-0FF9-47EF-AD3A-343D5DD62C31.jpg (72.1 KB, 27 views)

Ouch. Sorry to hear that.

I think the PT92 is the best gun Taurus has ever made, because it is a Beretta clone. For someone who is on a budget it is a good gun I suppose.

But the Beretta is a Beretta. Despite what some internet commandos might say, the 92/M9 is one of the most tested and trusted service pistols ever made. It is truly a world class handgun, especially for the price.

Also, I remember when the 92FS and the Sig P226 were roughly the same price new. Now they charge much more for a base model P226, and the Beretta is still reasonably priced. I love them both, but will take the Italian any day.

Agree, between those, the P226 will be the right choice

I've had both, and sold both!

I wish I had the Taurus back!

Oh well?

Never figured out why Barretta made such a heavy boat anchor for a 9mm?

__________________
Dave Ramsey Cultist

I agree. Numerous SEALs bounced Beretta slides off their face, usually with well under 10,000 rounds. Negligence was ruining the careers of talented and expensive special operations personnel. Guess what unit dropped those same faulty Berettas for the second place OEM?

The US Government paid massive additional costs to get Beretta’s design and US manufacturing to an acceptable level. If it wasn’t for the influence of a certain Maryland legislator who had the newly established Beretta plant, the Army and likely all of DOD could have avoided funding new locking blocks in the M9.

It was 30 years ago and Beretta retrofitted all the production, but their products have been suspect in my eyes. If you cannot get your biggest, most high profile contract correct, then I have worried about the Italian focus on quality control.

Based on my US Army experience, the Beretta’s outdated manual of arms and huge hand dimensions make it a liability. Nearly every military task that actually needed pistols switched to something else over the M9 Beretta - SIG M10s for Investigators and aircrew, Glock 19s for special operations and aircrew and SIGs for Coast Guard maritime security missions.

On topic, I have had one Taurus 85 revolver that has been flawless. I have no faith that would hold for all Tauri.

I thought about it and chose an Italian-made Beretta 92A1:



I don’t regret it.

It weighs less than a 5906 or CZ-75, and the same as a Sig 226. None of those are generally considered boat anchors.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Plus it was never meant to be concealed either. It was actually designed for your basement level grunt.

Exactly. I’ll never understand how some criticize the 92s as being “too big” or “too thick to conceal” as a knock against the guns. They were absolutely not designed as a concealed pistol, but a full-size combat handgun for uniformed police and military forces. Hideability was never a design factor.

Take a 3” HB, RB S&W K frame and lay it on top of a Beretta 92 FS, then measure the width of both handguns, then weigh them.

Attached Images

FE529558-3E31-4E07-8258-AE2DC504B9A9.jpg (88.8 KB, 39 views)

Well at the time there were actually only a handful of slide failures . It is my recollection that the issue with the slide failures.... were due to a small batch of slides ( bad (?) metallurgy in early guns produced in Italy ) combined with the use of thousands of rounds of "hot" NATO sub-machinegun ammo (in training) in the guns that failed.. The F became the FS and no more failures occurred.

Some later issues in the "Sandbox" were traced to low bidder Checkmate magazines.

The updated locking blocks came years later....... with continual updating Beretta is now on a Gen 3 locking block.

In case you haven't noticed the 226 currently produced is at Gen 3 ( with changes to the hammer and grips along with milled slides vs the old folded slides) and the Glock is up to a Gen 5. gun.

As to the M-11 (Sig 228/229) was at time labeled a political move to appease someone; Sig or the Germans...... there is a Beretta Compact about the same size..... with 13+1 using a majority of the same parts.

Didn't the Coast Guard in it's "law enforcement role" as part of Homeland Security go to the .40S&W with hollowpoint ammo??????.


IMHO the current Beretta Centurion G-model(decocker only) with it's 4.2 inch upper are what the M9 should have been....

Radius-ed backstrap (late 90s IIRC) and thin G-10 grips fix the grip issues. .......current factory magazines are 17 rounds with Mec-gar making a really good flush fit 18 round mag.

Funny how once a 'rumor" or "bad press" takes hold it never seems to go away........... when I first got into shooting handguns in the 70s "word on the street/Gun Rags" was that the S&W Model 39 was badly flawed and/or junk..... with the extractors breaking right and left....... and the 9mm ("115gr Silver Tip) wouldn't stop a raging ..... chipmunk!!!!!

The 39-2 today has an almost cult following and the 124gr BPHP is still around and while not the latest and greatest 9mm will hit and expand.

Hello, I currently have two Taurus, a pt92 and a pt96, only because of the frame mounted safety and decocker. I never got used to the slide mounted beretta safety.
Semper paratus

__________________
NRA Life Member
CPO

Back in the 1990s, I was shooting 1911-patterned guns a lot, and the Taurus frame-mounted safety/decocker was a no brainer. My thoughts: 1) the fit and finish on the Taurus is fine, but the Beretta fit and finish is fiiine, if you catch my meaning. 2) The factory magazines are inferior, but Mec-Gar makes after-market 18-round mags that are of the typical excellent Mec-Gar quality that are around $25 or less. 3) The newer PT 92 pistols have a rail on the dust cover, but they will also have an internal lock, if that matters to you. 4) I don't know about the new ones, but my PT 92 has a plastic rear sight, and the dovetail in the slide is not the same as the Beretta. 4) My PT 92 has worked 100% flawlessly for well over 4,000 rounds now, including a few hundred rounds of HOT Corbon +P. So there's that.

On its own merits, the Taurus PT92 is a great gun for the money. And so is the Beretta. They are comparable in many respects, but they are completely different guns these days. It's hard to go wrong with either one, but if you like your Beretta, get a Beretta. By the same token, if you don't, don't. The Taurus is not a Beretta, and vice versa.

May I ask one pertinent question.

While it has often been said (by persons selling a Taurus) that a Taurus is "just as good as a Beretta";
has any person selling a Beretta ever said "it's just as good as a Taurus"?

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Beretta was designed first Tomkins. Your point is moot. The imitator gets compared to the example.

I have owned several Tauraii. They are not junk. The ones I owned (855, 605, 85, 94s in .22LR, .17HMR, .17 HM2, PT25) were fully functional, they lacked the fit and especially finish of a Smith. I can understand people with budgetary constraints buying Taurus, Rossi, Charter products. They work. But nobody on this side of a Mental Institiution can honestly say they are "the same as".

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

“But nobody on this side of a Mental Institiution can honestly say they are "the same as".”


Just to clarify, since no one else asked, are you inside or outside the wire?