Berettas? - Handguns and Ammunition Forums
Forum Home    ::    Active Topics    ::    Hi-Powers and Handguns    ::    Stephen Camp's Blog    ::    Contact Us
Go Back   Handguns and Ammunition Forums > General > New Member Introductions > Our Legacy: New Shootists
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-30-2008, 01:40 PM   #1
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5

Ey, I've been looking around here a bit and have noticed that there seems to be little mention of berettas, I was wondering if there was a specific reason, if it was because it was generally felt they were an inferior firearm, a coincidental preference among the members or, well, whatever the reason might be.

I ask partly because of the three firearms I'm considering (Glock 17L, BHP and Beretta 92FS) I was currently undecided between the Beretta and the BHP. I've fired both the BHP and the Glock before, the Glock felt somewhat unusual, although not necessarily uncomfortable, to me and I'm somewhat wary of it's 'safe action'. (It should be noted that the reason behind wanting the 17L and not the shorter 17 was because it just 'felt' better to me, I preferred shooting it of the two.) The Hi-Powers for whatever reason I'm finding difficult to locate for a reasonable price in my area. The Beretta is much easier to find only I've never actually shot one, held one and found the weight and design comfortable, but never got a chance to shoot it. My biggest concern with the beretta is that I haven't been able to research it as well online as the other two and what little I have found seems to be that there is a large polarity as to it's reliability. Some people say they're chronically unreliable, others say they'll take anything you throw at them. The other uncertainty I have is that I can't seem to get a clear picture on whether the 92FS safety works so that it can be carried 'cocked and locked' if one so chooses or if when switched to safe it decocks the hammer, or if the 92 series has a currently available single action model.

Eh, I seem to have rambled a bit here, sorry, 'tis a bad habit of mine and I am moderately new at this. This will actually be my first handgun.
dionysus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2008, 02:14 PM   #2
pff's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 2,617

First, welcome!

The Beretta 92 is a tough piece and dead-nuts reliable. At least the ones I've used or owned. I bought a police trade-in some years back and would still have it had I not been offered a trade on a 6" 586 in .38 Special. I'd get another if the right deal came along, tho I prolly wouldn't carry it much if at all. Not a fan of the DA first shot, and I don't know of any variant that offers the option of carrying cocked'n'locked. Its safety is basically a decocker.

Now the made-in-USA M9 I have no personal experience with. I suspect a lot of the reported problems come from low-bid crap military magazines.

I like Grocks, especially the G19, and of course the BHP which is the gold standard. Finding a HP is more a matter of 'keep looking' than 'I'll order one tomorrow'. They are out there, and often at decent prices, but not under glass at all the big stocking dealers.

Josh carries a Taurus variant of the Beretta and (I think) its safety setup is a little different, so I'll let him speak to that.



pff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 12:12 AM   #3
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 932

Berettas are fine pistols, reliable a suitably accurate for self defense. Problems are that the 92 is awfully large for a 9mm, another is they have to compete head to head with the HiPower! NO competition. PS: Were I buying a Gluck, Glack, er.. Glock, there are only two that I'd consider-a model 19 for normal carry and for deeper concealment the model 26, both of these in 9mm. I've had issues with bulged cases in .40 Glocks. Glock .45's as well as models 22 and 17 simply feel like plastic 2X4's in my hands.
demented is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 01:38 AM   #4
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5

Ah, thanks. In my various looking abouts it seems the military failures of the M9 were centered around them running ammunition that beretta claimed to was too hot, however I believe they fixed that in the M9A1 and the 92FS. My brother is currently in the navy and was saying that some of the marines he talks to have bought their own mags for the M9, so the mag issue is quite possible. I've seen a couple rumors of a single action conversion that I might look into if I decide to go that direction.

The BHP's I've seen around these parts run around the $800 and up for a decent one, could get a really beat up one for maybe $600. There's a few people around that own 'em, but no one wants to part with one. I've seen berettas priced better for the condition, and the berettas I've looked at are all newer guns.

dionysus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 03:25 AM   #5
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: southern AZ
Posts: 2,064

Howdy folks,

Thought I would add my .02 cents to this one. I owned a Beretta 92FS for a very short period of time. I got it on the factory's LEO letterhead program, so the price was more than decent. But in shooting it, it just did not work that well for me. I found the grips too big to be comfortable for my hands, which also make the trigger reach seem a bit too long for me as well.

I took it out to quarterly quals once, shot it and became "legal" with it, and ended up selling it to another firearms instructor that same day on the range, lol. I think it still remains my shortest firearms ownership to date.

I do have personal knowledge that when Beretta was first shipping these to the military, the ones they were getting were "rough" to say the least. My agency sent me and several other firearms instructors to DC to debate/select an agency issued 9mm semi pistol. We spent a long day with the range master at Ft. Belvoir, MD, on one of his indoor ranges. One of the instructors had an issued 92FS (that some genius in DC had purchased to be issued to folks doing undercover work).

The range master was complaining about how rough his 92FSs were, and how he had to replace the upper slide assembly after each 3,000 rounds. They swapped pistols and fired some rounds. Both were amazed at the difference between the military and police version of the same pistol. They were clearly night and day.

I have not fired a recent military 92FS, but I hear they have come up a lot in terms of being more like the commercial versions now. I also hear through some friends in Special Forces that there was a definite problem with magazines, which were causing these pistols serious problems over in the sandbox.

Another issue I have some personal knowledge about that I consider a negative, is the problems that can be encountered with the frames cracking on various models. My agency hired a Border Patrol applicant, that I knew and recommended, as he was their office's head firearms instructor. When we hired him, I quickly got him blessed to wear the collateral duty hat of firearms instructor with us too.

At that point in time the Border Patrol was issuing the 96, the 92FS in .40 S&W. He told me that they began to have a real issue with the frames of several of their pistols cracking. When they contacted Beretta to discuss this problem, they were informed that their issued round was "too hot" for this platform. Beretta claimed it was an ammo related problem, and was therefore not a factory problem.

My problem with this response was the round that Border Patrol was issuing was a straight commercial load, readily available to anyone. By that I mean it was not a round that was being loaded specifically for the BP, just a standard, anyone could buy it off a gun store shelf load. So I reckon one serious concern I have with Beretta is their quick response that things are an "ammo problem", rather than simply fixing the problem that exists.

I am not in the least trying to sound harsh, just being realistic. I personally dealt with about 8 cracked frames on personally owned, authorized duty weapon Sig P226 pistols. Each time I called Sig to tell them I have another cracked frame on a personal 226 - the only questions they asked were - what is the agent's name, and does he have night sights installed. We want his replacement pistol to be identical to the one he is carrying that cracked. Sig's response was simply to send a NIB replacement pistol. They never once asked me what brand, weight, or lot number of issued ammo had been fired in their pistol - just does it have night sights.

I am not trying to "trash" Berettas, just providing the info I personally possess on them sir. I am not a fan of the Grock, uh...Glock line of pistols either. In fact I am even less so enamored of the Grocks than I am the Berettas. If I had to have one of them, I would chose the Beretta without any thought at all.

But given your choices, I think the HP is clearly heads and shoulders above the other choices listed too sir. There is a reason I think, why folks that own the HP do not want to sell them - they work, time and time again. As others have said, with patience and some luck, you will find a HP if you keep looking.

If you are looking at a value pistol (as your Beretta price statement could suggest), then you might want to take a long hard look at the CZ line of pistols, specifically the 75B or SP01. Both are built on the steel frame, in 9mm, and feel in my hands very much like a HP cousin. I am a fan of the CZ pistols, and would personally suggest them to anyone long before I would either a Beretta or Grock.

But if you ask 10 different folks, you are likely to receive 10 different answers too sir. So don't be surprised if the next member does not agree with my thoughts on various platforms discussed.

Hang in there, and let us know what you end up buying.

twoguns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 05:11 AM   #6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5

I've heard of the cracked frame problem with the .40 S&W berettas before, and actually heard of the problem with BHPs as well, when chambered in .40S&W. One reason I've been looking at 9mm. However I have been thinking that even if the military were running rounds that were 'too hot' by beretta standards then my grandfathers handloads would probably not agree well with it, whereas I know my dads Hi-power eats 'em up. The CZ-75 I have taken into consideration, for some reason I think it just slipped my mind when I was narrowing things down. As it looks now I'll probably hold out for a BHP, keep the CZ in mind and maybe pick up a beretta a little down the road and see how I like it when I have a little more experience.

Thanks for the help guys, I'll be grabbing the gun sometime after Christmas when I get my big overtime check. I'll probably still hang around here and lurk for awhile. I'll let you know how it goes when I pick up whatever I end up picking up, looking like a BHP right now.
dionysus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 07:46 AM   #7
oberstlt's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,430

I have owned two M9/92FS over the years. They were both dead reliable with just about anything I could put thru them. They were well made and I never had any issues qualifying with them for the Army. I never warmed to them as I found the DA/SA trigger system to be difficult to learn and they were big for what they were. In IDPA competition I have seen excellent work done with them by master class shooters. I have heard all the complaints about them but have seen many, many, many rounds thru them without failure.

I have learned to like Glocks. They are rugged and reliable if uglier than homemade sin. I have even gotten used to the BB gun triggers. I routinely observed first class work done with them in law enforcement and security work. I have and carry the Walther PPS which is a skinny little glock-off. I also class Glock with Springfield XDs and the newer S&W M&P line. Good reliable guns all.

I still like my 1911s and my BHP. I think that is because I am an enthusiast or aficionado of fine stuff. I am also a revolver fan as well.

The CZs are a fine gun and can be had at a good price. They sort of feel like a BHP, are dead reliable, flexible in operation (SA/DA or SA) but they are a steel and not polymer gun.

At the risk of starting an argument, I prefer the 9mm to the 40 as I do not think the compromise made by the 40 is worth the extra cost of ammo. Some PDs require and provide 40. That is all good but paying 45 prices for 40 ammo is a half measure in my estimation.

Finally, the M9, G17 and BHP all provide the best reliability with 9mm. The 40s were a retrofit and in my experience (other than some G22s) somewhat problematical on the reliability side. Consider the M&P 40 by S&W which appears to have been designed to compete with the G22 - the standard gun of modern US Law Enforcement.

These are only my opinions but it would be hard to beat one of the FNH BHP 9s at this time.
oberstlt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 10:26 PM   #8
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Seguin TX
Posts: 525

Ok, if twoguns gave you two cents worth, then I guess what I will say is wooden nickel's worth! Anyway...

I have a Glock 17, an FN-SFS Hi Power in 9mm, an FN-SFS in .40, and I have fired (a little) the M-9 in the military. I much prefer the 9mm Hi Power, Glock second, and M-9 distant 10th place, behind my revolvers and Kahr P-9 and such.

As someone noted above, the fact that Hi Power owners hang onto their pistols, and charge more when they do sell them, versus Beretta 92 owners selling theirs for lesser prices probably says something about which is a "value pistol." Of course to be fair, part of that may be volume -- there are a bunch of Berettas, and Glocks too, so the unit price should come down.

Again as noted by others, I find the M-9/92 just too big for what it is, and do not like the DA/SA method of shooting. I qualifed expert with it a few times in the military, so I know I can shoot it, but I did not enjoy it, and had to work at it. The grip is too big for my hands, have to "crab" to get my finger far enough on the trigger for that first DA shot. Plus the overall pistol seems huge to me. I do believe the M-9 had teething problems in the beginning, with cracked frames and self-jettisoning slides, but that seems to have been licked. All the problems I have read of with the M-9 seem to center around magazines.

I really like the Glock for its dependability and its ruggedness, and probably would have stopped with the G-17 or its slightly smaller brother the G-19 for a carry pistol, except I also find it just a tad too big for my fingers. Not as bad as the M-9/92, but just a bit.

Then one day I somehow heard of the Hi-Power, and while researching it I stumbled onto Stephen Camp's website, and then to this one. I liked what i read, and when I found one at a gun store, I was hooked. It exactly fit my hand, it was very trim and balanced in my hand, and is so flat it conceals easily, and it can carry 13 or 15 or 17 rounds plus one. I wasn't thrilled with the the cocked-and-locked business -- not because I thought it was unsafe, but because remembering to swipe the safety off was a new skill to me, compared to revolvers and the Glock. However, once I bought a Hi Power I practiced drawing and thumbing off the safety 50 times a night for about two weeks, and that pretty much engraved it in my muscle memory.

I do find the 9mm Hi Power to be just a bit more svelte than it's .40 cal brother -- it just feels a better, slightly more maneuverable or something, and it is what I carry daily. However, the .40 does have the advantage of being able to take a 9mm barrel, a 357 Sig barrel, and a .22LR Ciener conversion kit (slide/barrel and magazine), so you can be somewhat more flexible with that platform. I have both, plus a HP hungarian clone, and love them all -- I just love the 9mm a little bit more. :)

I don't think you can go seriously wrong with any of them, just pick the one that truly fits you and practice with it.

Happy hunting.

elb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 09:04 PM   #9
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17

Beretta's new polymer pistol the PX4 is what I do have experience with. I have put about 1000 rounds through mine, no problems.

I just picked up a BHP, have yet to shoot it (going to install night sights first); but in comparing the two with snap-caps in it is a tough call. The PX4 has a silky smooth DA trigger, and a really clean SA pull. The safety isn't awkward for me because that's what I'm used to. The PX4 is slightly slimmer than the 92FS, and carries more rounds.

I am having trouble getting used to the BHP's safety because it's the opposite of the Beretta's that I am used to. I am sure either method is fine.

The trigger pull on the BHP is smooth. It would probably be better without the mag disconnect safety, but I prefer it for now. As far as Glocks go, I think they are great. I love the reset on them. They aren't pretty, but they work. I do like having a manual safety on something with a 5.5 lb trigger pull though.

I would go shoot each one of them side by side and pick the one you like. I will be more knowledgable after I shoot my BHP tomorrow - but it is definitely the best looking one of the bunch.

shusky57 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.