Posted: 2/18/2014 1:25:11 PM EDT
| Any body here know how to make a 92 fire more accurately? i have noticed some barrel wobble and think this may be the cause, any body know how to tighten the barrel? |
|
Not to sound like a dick. But are you sure that you're not the problem? Has anyone other competent shooter, shot it? The 92 series is generally plenty accurate. But I guess you could have gotten a bad one.
The all so slight barrel "wobble" is normal for the 92. There's a guy on the Beretta Forum that does conical bushings for the 92/96. People have had great results. http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=46034 http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/member.php?u=10664 
|
|
Well, then I suppose you could have gotten a "bad one". Did you try benching it as well? Are you new to the 92 series? Depending on what you're used to shooting, the little extra size of the grip could cause an issue. A better trigger may help as well. I don't know how many rounds are through the gun and if the trigger is stock. But dropping in a D spring may help the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItIVFNj15mE Of course if you're new to the 92 and your friends/are as well. Ya'll may just not shoot the gun well. Or the outside chance that you and others in the striker fired world we live in. May not shoot DA/SA guns well. (Not likely given your username). But some people just don't shoot certain guns well. Or again it could be a bad one.
What kind of groups are you getting? |
|
It's a combat pistol, not a bullseye gun. You seem like you've mistaken it for the latter?
If you want it more than "combat accurate", the only real options are a gunsmith fit KKM barrel or the conical bushing installed by WAL on the Beretta Forum (already linked to you in a previous post you probably ignored). I suggest the bushing. |
|
Quoted:
The problem is in the gun, even great shots are having trouble with it, i usually shoot pretty well(if I do not say so myself), and the gun is comfortable to shoot, so the gun is at fault. thank for the reply  Can you describe the problem? Are the groupings spread out? Is it shooting left/right/low/high from point of aim? |
|
Quoted:
The problem is in the gun, even great shots are having trouble with it, i usually shoot pretty well(if I do not say so myself), and the gun is comfortable to shoot, so the gun is at fault. thank for the reply Could you define "pretty well" - for example shooting what you consider an accurate pistol at 25 YARDS (not feet) at a standard NRA 25 yd timed and rapid fire pistol target, with a two hand grip - what would you typically score for ten shots? The 92FS is not a highly accurate pistol but it's not bad, should shoot into 3-4" or so at 25 yards for a good pistol shooter. |
| If it's consistent low left (as in multiple shooters) then the rear sight is probably off. Do you know anyone else with a 92? I'd recommend swapping barrels for a few rounds and see if the group spread tightens. Maybe you've got an out of spec barrel. If you're in Northeast NC I'd be willing to help you out there. |
| What ammo are you shooting? At what range? what is the group size? Need a lot more info to diagnose a problem. I have 92FS's that will shoot one weight from one brand into amazing groups.. and from another brand, open up quite a bit. There is a lot involved here. |
|
If I may?
The 92FS is indeed capable of incredible accuracy. I have hit sitting clay pigeons on a dirt berm @ 50 yards. Yes, yards, NOT feet. This is using common grade FMJ ammo, BTW. OP, if you're not hitting with your current ammo, try a different brand AND weight. My 92's shoot best with 124gr over the 115gr loads, for example. Different brands will also have different velocities, all have their own loading specs. I have had great luck with PMC ammo, both accuracy & reliability. Try a box or two of them to see if anything improves. Also make sure there's nothing wrong with the gun's assembly, it's clean & properly lubed. Especially the latter. 92's run best when wet. Obviously it's difficult to fix a gun from long distance, but I find it hard to believe there's something wrong with your particular gun, IMO. Beretta is well known for their quality control. Hope this helps. |
|
Quoted:
The groupings are spread and it shoots low left. If you are a right hand shooter than its you anticipating the shots, it sounds like it is not a consistent anticipation but it is happening. Berettas are a very accurate pistol, rack grade guns shoot very close to match guns and the special modified match ones hold most the military records for accuracy and the during the 2005 SOCOM pistol test, the test sample of M9A1s were able to meet the 10 round 3.10 inch 50m (while shot from a mechanical rest) group requirement. |
|
Low left, sounds like 2 problems.
1. The rear sight needs to be drifted a tad. 2. You may not be using the appropriate sight picture for the weapon and actually causing it to shoot low. See what I mean here. Post #5 http://www.handgunforum.net/beretta/27660-two-more-questions-beretta-m9.html You could also be tightening your grip and jerking the trigger but you stated you benched it and had other shooters try with same results. Try this = balance a coin on the slide aim and squeeze the trigger. Is the coin still on the slide? If not do it until it doesn't fall it's a nice little drill that will help you remain consistent pulls. 
|
| My issued M9 in the Marine Corps was more accurate than I. Same for the 92fs I currently own. If you are having a serious problem I say send it to the factory and let them diagnose and correct any issue that may be there with this pistol. I will say my 92fs is very accurate. |
|
Quoted:
It's been my experience that it's as accurate as most other pistols in its segment of the market. Quoted:
Quoted:
The 92FS is not a highly accurate pistol It's been my experience that it's as accurate as most other pistols in its segment of the market. That is probably a fair statement . . . "in this segment" |
|
Quoted:
 Quoted:
Quoted:
The 92FS is not a highly accurate pistol Sure .. . . Compared to a high quality .22 target pistol or for that matter a tuned and accurized bullseye 1911 it is not a highly accurate pistol. It is comparable to other service pistols and is perfectly adequate in that role. I carried it for a year in Iraq, I'm not a critic of the design. It's always funny when you dare to criticize somebody's pet pistol they saved up for - - - all of a sudden it's like you called Jesus a pig f**ker. I also own a 92 and I like it a lot. However it is a bone stock service pistol. Just because you occasionally hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards doesn't mean much. Go to an NRA sanctioned centerfire bullseye match and there you'll see what accurate pistols and accurate pistol shooters actually look like. (I'm not one of those shooters, but one day hopefully with enough ammo downrange). To answer the OP -- there are smiths who will make a 92 really, really accurate. As in like 10 rounds into 3 inches at 50 yards, every time. It's not cheap and it usually calls for some dramatic work. Like if I remember correctly the one guy was replacing the frame rails with steel ones for more precision, expensive.$$ Your money is better spent on more ammo and range time. |
|
I have won several awards shooting this pistol. That being said, it is the hardest pistol to shoot well that I personally have ever used.
The shooting low thing is very common with this pistol. Near as I have been able to figure out is that the stock triggers are so stiff and the over travel so great, that the trigger slamming in to the rear if the trigger gaurd after the sear breaks causes one to pull the shot low. I have to concentrate on holding the pistol with my weak hand and using my strong hand to ONLY manipulate the trigger to keep this from happening. I have to concentrate on making a smooth straight back pull on the trigger after taking up ALL the slack in the trigger. I shoot other platforms so much better than the 92FS. I shoot this pistol because I have to, not because I want to. Not trying to be disparaging, just the 92 FS does not fit me. The good thing about it is the 92FS makes you really concentrate on the basics of handgun marksmanship. If you learn to master the Beretta you will be able to shoot anything else even better. |
|
Quoted:
Just because you occasionally hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards doesn't mean much. Go to an NRA sanctioned centerfire bullseye match and there you'll see what accurate pistols and accurate pistol shooters actually look like. (I'm not one of those shooters, but one day hopefully with enough ammo downrange). "Occasionally" wasn't a word that was either used nor is descriptive of the gun's accuracy. Not to mention, the NRA bullseye guns are those costing thousands of dollars. Comparing a 92FS to those guns is like comparing a Chevy Impala to a NASCAR race car. IOW, apples to oranges. And for your edification, I own a great variety of superbly accurate pistols. H&K's, S&W Model 52 & 41, Walther GSP, Les Baer are merely some of them. So please, spare us your lecturing on who is acting butt hurt because your statement was laughed at. It was well worth laughing at, at least for those of us whom have decades behind us of shooting accurate guns. Have a good day, somewhere............... |
|
Quoted:
I have won several awards shooting this pistol. That being said, it is the hardest pistol to shoot well that I personally have ever used. The shooting low thing is very common with this pistol. Oddly, mine have shot high with 115gr ammo. I use 124gr to get POA & even then it's still an inch or two high @ 20/25 yards. I'm somewhat puzzled by your statement about it being difficult to shoot well. I've had many beginning shooters shoot it decently the first time they shot it. Obviously every shooter is different, otherwise we'd all be shooting the same brand & model of gun, no? |
|
Quoted:
Oddly, mine have shot high with 115gr ammo. I use 124gr to get POA & even then it's still an inch or two high @ 20/25 yards. I'm somewhat puzzled by your statement about it being difficult to shoot well. I've had many beginning shooters shoot it decently the first time they shot it. Obviously every shooter is different, otherwise we'd all be shooting the same brand & model of gun, no? Quoted:
Quoted:
I have won several awards shooting this pistol. That being said, it is the hardest pistol to shoot well that I personally have ever used. The shooting low thing is very common with this pistol. Oddly, mine have shot high with 115gr ammo. I use 124gr to get POA & even then it's still an inch or two high @ 20/25 yards. I'm somewhat puzzled by your statement about it being difficult to shoot well. I've had many beginning shooters shoot it decently the first time they shot it. Obviously every shooter is different, otherwise we'd all be shooting the same brand & model of gun, no? Oddly I have noticed the same thing about the "first time" shooter. I think it's the same reason why that most people who love this gun are soldiers who have never shot anything else. These shooters are not trying to un learn shooting say a 1911 while trying to learn a Beretta. I have that added obstacle  .
Another reason could simply be the size of my hands. The 92FS is just too big for me. I have learned to compensate for this and shoot one very well. But it requires allot of concentration and effort that I don't have to expend with other platforms. |
|
Quoted:
That is probably a fair statement . . . "in this segment" Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 92FS is not a highly accurate pistol It's been my experience that it's as accurate as most other pistols in its segment of the market. That is probably a fair statement . . . "in this segment" I would say so. |
| The shooting low issue is a pretty common problem with new shooters. The Beretta has one of the longest double action trigger pulls, and the as issue M9's don't have a clean single action trigger by any stretch of the imagination. Combine the two trigger issues and you see a pattern emerging. Once you can get some training into most of these young troops, they quickly improve. |
| Might sound silly but having coached for a military team using m9's blacken your sights. Often people focus on the dot instead of equal height equal light resulting in the front post being above or below level with the rear. Every m9 I shot or carried the first thing that I do is black out the dots. |
|
Quoted:
Might sound silly but having coached for a military team using m9's blacken your sights. Often people focus on the dot instead of equal height equal light resulting in the front post being above or below level with the rear. Every m9 I shot or carried the first thing that I do is black out the dots. What units are/did you shoot with? We may have crossed paths at some point. |
|
Quoted:
"Occasionally" wasn't a word that was either used nor is descriptive of the gun's accuracy. Not to mention, the NRA bullseye guns are those costing thousands of dollars. Comparing a 92FS to those guns is like comparing a Chevy Impala to a NASCAR race car. IOW, apples to oranges. And for your edification, I own a great variety of superbly accurate pistols. H&K's, S&W Model 52 & 41, Walther GSP, Les Baer are merely some of them. So please, spare us your lecturing on who is acting butt hurt because your statement was laughed at. It was well worth laughing at, at least for those of us whom have decades behind us of shooting accurate guns. Have a good day, somewhere............... Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you occasionally hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards doesn't mean much. Go to an NRA sanctioned centerfire bullseye match and there you'll see what accurate pistols and accurate pistol shooters actually look like. (I'm not one of those shooters, but one day hopefully with enough ammo downrange). "Occasionally" wasn't a word that was either used nor is descriptive of the gun's accuracy. Not to mention, the NRA bullseye guns are those costing thousands of dollars. Comparing a 92FS to those guns is like comparing a Chevy Impala to a NASCAR race car. IOW, apples to oranges. And for your edification, I own a great variety of superbly accurate pistols. H&K's, S&W Model 52 & 41, Walther GSP, Les Baer are merely some of them. So please, spare us your lecturing on who is acting butt hurt because your statement was laughed at. It was well worth laughing at, at least for those of us whom have decades behind us of shooting accurate guns. Have a good day, somewhere............... Yes but the initial statement was "highly accurate" - and highly accurate involves those expensive firearms you are referring to - not bone stock Beretta 92s. Go back and read . . . |
|
Quoted:
Yes but the initial statement was "highly accurate" - and highly accurate involves those expensive firearms you are referring to - not bone stock Beretta 92s. Go back and read . . . Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you occasionally hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards doesn't mean much. Go to an NRA sanctioned centerfire bullseye match and there you'll see what accurate pistols and accurate pistol shooters actually look like. (I'm not one of those shooters, but one day hopefully with enough ammo downrange). "Occasionally" wasn't a word that was either used nor is descriptive of the gun's accuracy. Not to mention, the NRA bullseye guns are those costing thousands of dollars. Comparing a 92FS to those guns is like comparing a Chevy Impala to a NASCAR race car. IOW, apples to oranges. And for your edification, I own a great variety of superbly accurate pistols. H&K's, S&W Model 52 & 41, Walther GSP, Les Baer are merely some of them. So please, spare us your lecturing on who is acting butt hurt because your statement was laughed at. It was well worth laughing at, at least for those of us whom have decades behind us of shooting accurate guns. Have a good day, somewhere............... Yes but the initial statement was "highly accurate" - and highly accurate involves those expensive firearms you are referring to - not bone stock Beretta 92s. Go back and read . . . You do realize that the accuracy figure you cited is within the capability of stock M9s? Rack grae M9A1s were able to meet a SOCOM 10 round 3.10 inch 50m (while shot from a mechanical rest) group requirement. |
|
Quoted:
Yes but the initial statement was "highly accurate" - and highly accurate involves those expensive firearms you are referring to - not bone stock Beretta 92s. Go back and read . . . I think some people are misinterpreting how you used "highly" in conjunction with "accurate"; believing "not highly accurate" to mean "not very accurate". |
|
Quoted:
If I may? The 92FS is indeed capable of incredible accuracy. I have hit sitting clay pigeons on a dirt berm @ 50 yards. Yes, yards, NOT feet. This is using common grade FMJ ammo, BTW. OP, if you're not hitting with your current ammo, try a different brand AND weight. My 92's shoot best with 124gr over the 115gr loads, for example. Different brands will also have different velocities, all have their own loading specs. I have had great luck with PMC ammo, both accuracy & reliability. Try a box or two of them to see if anything improves. Also make sure there's nothing wrong with the gun's assembly, it's clean & properly lubed. Especially the latter. 92's run best when wet. Obviously it's difficult to fix a gun from long distance, but I find it hard to believe there's something wrong with your particular gun, IMO. Beretta is well known for their quality control. Hope this helps. Yeah, they boast 3" groups of 10 shots at 50 meters as part of the testing process that had to be passed in the first place. |