It looks to be a Beretta 92 based pistol with has been shrank/redesigned.

It have a manual safety and a decocker so it may be carried cocked and locked or hammer down for DA first shot.
Steel forged slide and alloy frame.

92FS Beretta's were my first love, but for me are to large and bulky to carry. Looking at the Taurus 911 they seem to have done away
with the tilting block in place of a more traditional browning style locking mechanism.

Anybody have experience with this pistol? I assume if one likes the 92 serie's features this would make a wonderful CCW pistol.

Taurus is not the best quality firearms. They seem to be hit or miss if they work I would pass on Taurus all together. I have owned three over the years  and never again will I own one.

same as about any taurus; a sh*t sandwhich

... and the haters come out of the woodwork! Frankly, the 911 is nothing special. The trigger is typical Taurus. The accuracy is combat acceptable. The grip is short enough to be concealable but honestly there may be better options. I have one, it works just fine with no mechanical problems (except see below) to date but honestly, it's more of a novelty toy than anything else for me. The plastic recoil rod cracked on one end and Taurus happily and quickly replaced it for me. ( 5 days ) Though I won't be brutally hateful of the Taurus brand, ( I've owned quite a few over the years with only one nightmare gun out of the bunch ) I have to be honest and say that for YOUR money, you can most likely find a better designed carry gun.

PS: The recoil rod crack was more cosmetic than anything else as the gun functioned just fine but I took advantage of the warranty just the same. They also threw in a recoil spring, all for no charge. I've heard the horror stories about Taurus CS for years but have YET to experience it.

Ya ever wonder why, or are you stuck in "Well, mine works fine" mode?



 

My only experience with Taurus has been with my brother's PT 100, which has been 100% reliable for him. I'm not a Taurus hater, but I think there are better choices available. IMHO a Sig P239 would be worth a look.

I would pass on anything Taurus. the guns they make are either serviceable but rough and gritty or non functional pos.

Thought I explained myself quite well actually. I guess it's all in what you expect for the initial outlay of cash. I'm the type that if I find or have a problem with anything (Cars, Guns, Boats, lawn equipment, etc. ) I deal with it and fix it, taking a bit of pride in my abilities to acess a problem and overcome it. I don't piss and moan about the occassional lemon. I own/have owned 16 Taurus firearms over the course of 20+ years and have only had one (1) that was an absolute unfixable nightmare. I attempt to keep my answers honest and unbiased therefore keeping myself from being "stuck" in anything.
If I were to use the same reasoning that many use in their overall  assessment of Taurus firearms, I'd most likely NEVER own a 1911 pistol based the volume of examples of problems and failures related here in the forums of AR15.COM. But of course I do and will continue to do so, hopefully, for many more years to come.  

I think we are all not Taurus haters specifically but rather "lemon haters" in general.

This.

Any manufacturer will turn out the occasional lemon; but when you buy Taurus the odds of getting a stinker increase exponentially and the odds that you'll get lousy customer service approach a certainty.

Which is why friends don't tell friends to buy a Taurus.

I've still got the very first handgun I've ever bought for myself; an early 1960s vintage .32 ACP Llama XA that set me back around $45 NIB.

Because of its sentimental value it's probably my favorite handgun and has been remarkably reliable and after 45 years or so, still remains fun to shoot; but I'm not gonna' try to tell "the haters" that Llama produced exemplary handguns.

Because despite my good personal experience with the Llamas I've owned over the years;  they did not.

For the price of a new Taurus you can pick up a good used handgun from a more reputable manufacturer of more reliable handguns.

After dealing with their CS as a gun store commando, I must say that I am both...

yep...i'm a hater b/c taurus keeps putting out crap that breaks

like a like new, low round count model  85 that I broke while dry firing

granted, i had a PT1911 that worked pretty ok...of course, the hammer started to give me light strikes ~round 1500––easy fix

I have a PT938 (compact .380 ACP) that's of the same family.  It's my second favorite gun.  Second only to my Sig, and higher than my Glock.  The entire gun is smooth and crisp.  So much so, that I often wondered if the Taurus 9XX series and the Beretta 92s/96s were being made by the same company.  It was made in about 2003 or early 2004.

On the flip side, I sell guns for a living.  Taurus does have the highest rate of returns for warranty work, and some of the guns we've pulled out of the boxes could not possibly have made it out of the factory if the quality control people were doing their job.  Talking to the shop's owners, who have been selling guns for decades, they've told me that Taurus quality comes and goes.

So, my take on it is that the 9XX series, and later, the 8XX series, have been Taurus' attempts to say "we can make a quality gun, if people are willing to buy it."  But, by that time, Taurus' reputation was being based on things like the failure that was the original Millennium series, because people were only buying the cheap guns they made.  As a result, I think Taurus is just settling down to crank out cheap guns, because that's what people buy.

Or, short answer: I'd go for it, if you like it.  There are other options in the same price range (assuming the shop you're seeing it at isn't desperate to be rid of it and has dropped the price significantly) that won't have the stigma, though.

No matter what else it is, it's still a Taurus. I've owned two, one was good, one was not. Horrible Customer Service rep, too many other companies out there build them right to start with, and fix their problems responsibly. Why buy something with such a high chance of problems?