Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/30/2001 3:27:20 PM EDT
Major or Minor differences?

Please tell me.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 3:43:25 PM EDT
The Taraus has a frame-mounted safety, and the Barretta has a slide-mounted one.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 3:51:07 PM EDT
The Taurus frame safety is a three position safety:Fire,safe,decock. The Baretta's slide safety is only two position:fire and decock.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 3:57:43 PM EDT
About $200?
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:18:38 PM EDT
Taurus Manufacturing got it's start in business when they bought out the Beretta factory in Brazil which was producing the Beretta M92 for military sales. I've not been able to get a M92 in my hands as there are very few in the US.

WAIT! I can head the disbelief right now . The pistol Beretta sells today is not the M92. The M92 was changed when submitted for the US military trials and the safety was moved from the frame to the slide and the pistol became the M92F. Later modified to keep the slide in the pistol and becaue the M92FS. There are more models as well.

The Taurus M92 pistol has the standard North American magazine release behind the trigger guard and the safety of the Beretta M92. I personally feel the Taurus is the better system, although I own a Beretta M92FS as a personal service pistol. Pushing the safety down to fire is a very natural motion. Flicking it up makes it difficult to get off safe, a plus with nervous soldiers.

The Walther P38/P1 pistol has this safety and it's only benefit is the firing pin can be taken out of the system for complete safety, frame safeties only block something.

Of there's no reason even a slide mounted safety has to be moved up to fire, the Soviet Makarov works the right way.

-- Chuck
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:01:45 PM EDT
I have had several Berettas and 1 Taurus. I can say that I like the Beretta better overall becuse of fit, finish and function (mine's Italian),but I did like the safety better on the Taurus.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:44:54 PM EDT
In addition to what was mentioned above, the Taurus does not have the slide retention device as is on the 92fs. Only a concern if you plan on firing a lot of hot loads. This was put on as a quick fix after slides were braking after having thousands of near proof (hot sub gun loads) loads fired through them while in service with the seals. The seals switched to another approved gun, the sig 226, but encountered frame failures sooner than the slide failures on the 92. I have seen mainly sigs in use by the seals, but have heard that some use the beretta.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 9:14:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ARben:
The seals switched to another approved gun, the sig 226, but encountered frame failures sooner than the slide failures on the 92. I have seen mainly sigs in use by the seals, but have heard that some use the beretta.



They recently (a year or two ago) bought a large special order of Berettas. These have the heavier Brigadier slide and have the decocker disabled so that they can be carried cocked and locked. Since the barrel doesn't tilt in the Beretta action it works very well with silencers so I can see why they'd choose them.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 9:17:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoplophile:

Originally Posted By ARben:
The seals switched to another approved gun, the sig 226, but encountered frame failures sooner than the slide failures on the 92. I have seen mainly sigs in use by the seals, but have heard that some use the beretta.



They recently (a year or two ago) bought a large special order of Berettas. These have the heavier Brigadier slide and have the decocker disabled so that they can be carried cocked and locked. Since the barrel doesn't tilt in the Beretta action it works very well with silencers so I can see why they'd choose them.



Very good thinking on their part. Where did you hear this? I love reading about weapons choices of special forces types.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 9:51:19 AM EDT
Some years back I had intended to buy a Beretta 92, but in checking them out in the store, I did not like the decocker. The owner suggested I look at the Taurus 92F. I saw what was essentially the same pistol, but with the safetly exactly to my liking. I walked out with a new Taurus, and about $200 spare change in my pocket. I have never regretted that decision.

The only negative... the wood grip was beautiful, and as slippery as a greasy ice cube. I installed Pacmayers.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 10:00:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ARben:
Very good thinking on their part. Where did you hear this? I love reading about weapons choices of special forces types.



The Beretta-L at http://beretta.squawk.com/ It was posted at Wed, 07 Oct 1998 by Todd Green who was the list owner/moderator and now works for Beretta in LE relations or whatever they call his department.

Also, they have info on their site about the new Vertec. It is bascially a regular 92 that has a slightly smaller grip so that it fits small hands better, has a removable front sight so that night sites are easier to install and has an accessory rail on the front of the frame for mounting a flashlight. Uses the same mags as a regular 92.
Top Top