This is a good looking firearm. I had a Taurus PT92 years ago, it was a good shooting pistol, I also had a Beretta Cougar compact with the .40S&W and .357Sig barrels. That was a great little gun.
That looks like a nice pistol. I did like the 92 I shot years ago, but I'd rather have a .40. I know, there the 96, that is .40, but it's a low capacity mag. The px4 .40 looks nice too. I'm more of a walther ppx, s&w m+p, and Springfield xdm guy. All in .40 cal. I need to try out the ppx. Looks like a really nice gun.
These are two nice weapons. My unit did have some issues with it in certain conditions while on deployment. We were able to trade out our m9's for the sig p250. Our issue was the 9mm round itself not the weapon. Going to the 45 auto we all spent a considerable amount of time learning how to shoot it. As far as the slide mounted decocking lever, it was never an issue. Once the weapon is locked and loaded the safety came off as it went into your carrier!
Looks like s&w has a m&p version up for the government bid too. I hear that the big issue with the m9 is the round is chambered for, the 9mm. The military is considering the .357sig, .40 s&w, and .45acp, as will, and from what I can tell they are leading away from the 9mm. I know the 9mm is a bit less powerful, even though you can usually fit a couple more rounds in the magazine. I want to see what the s&w m&p submission is. I had an ex marine roommate that bagged on the beretta 92 every chance he had, saying they were unreliable. I never shot anywhere near as many rounds through a 92/ m9 as he did, but I find it hard to believe the military would use a sidearm for so many years that really was un reliable.
Most of the "unreliable" complaints stem from a period of time where the magazines supplied to the troops were very low quality and caused feeding issues. Beretta 92s are very reliable guns, but any gun will choke when you use cheap sand filled mags
Mags made of steel were the key. I never had an issue of one never going bang. My M9 saved my ash... a time or two!
He was in a very sandy country, that probably was the case. His experience came in the mid- late 90's.
I think the company that made the offending mags was checkmate. The mags made prior to 2004 were parkerized on the inside and it caused trouble in sandy environments. Post 04 checkmate mags are good though, and cheap
I love the Berettas for craftsmanship and the mechanical safety. I did not love my 92F Brigadier when I first got it though. Couldn't hit the 3 ft target at 50 feet. Couldn't even figure out which way it was missing! Confirmed the problem with another shooter too. Ended up sending it back to Beretta. They returned it with 2 targets showing tight patterns with freehand shooting and bench rest shooting, right on the bulls eye. The only other paperwork they sent me was a checklist that was checked off all ok. I figured I was just a terrible shot since they did not indicate anything was wrong or fixed. Disgusted, I put the pistol away for a few months. The dealer that I bought the gun from suggested my problem was the Wolf ammo and I should bring the gun in and run some match grade ammo through it. I did that and fired a tight group on the bull from 25 yards. I loaded a clip of the Wolf ammo and shot an even tighter group! Only thing I can figure is that they fixed something but did not lay claim to it. No way it was shooter error. Bottom line is the gun is versatile, accurate, great looking and carries a history in the field that is second to none.
