Shooting Berettas

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Is it me or they are just damn loud and a lot more recoil than I expected for a 9mm? Last time I shot was about a year ago, but I just finished shooting a Glock 19C and a Mag Baby Eagle 9mm and they honestly felt a lot easier to shoot. I preferred the glock a lot more since it was smaller and easier to grip... too bad I didn't get to test the Sig P226 out cuz my friends used up all the ammo before I could try.

 

[Zim Hosein]

They tend to have more re-coil IMO, but I think it has to do w/ the way the gasses are expelled vs. a Glock.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

i've never even shot a gun but your post leads me to believe your comparing a non-compensated pistol to a compensated one?

 

[Ronstang]

I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

 

[Ophir]

The 19C is a compensated design so there will be significantly less "felt" recoil than even a regular Glock 19. The baby eagle is probably heavier than the 92FS which will resist some of the rearward momentum transfer from the bullet, i.e. less felt recoil.

Maybe the ammo you were running through the 92FS was loaded a little hotter, like +p.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

 

[summit]

you never shot one, stop playing cs, the recoil in the game changes kid

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
i've never even shot a gun but your post leads me to believe your comparing a non-compensated pistol to a compensated one?

Can someone explain this to me?

 

[OrganizedChaos]

nm

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
i've never even shot a gun but your post leads me to believe your comparing a non-compensated pistol to a compensated one?

None of the guns he mentioned are compensated.

Edit-My bad, the Glock 19C is compensated. The others are not though. I own a Glock 17 and it is very mild to shoot. You want recoil? Shoot an airweight S&W .38 with +P loads. Or, a S&W Mountain Gun. I have a .44 Magnum with 8" barrel that isn't too bad.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

The military selected the Beretta 92 because the unit cost was lower than the SIG (a superior firearm IMO). Both pistols passed the trials.

All the SF groups have switched to a pistol of their choice, mostly HK and SIG.

 

[JDub02]

Glock > *

I was pistol shopping about 6 months ago and shot everything I could get my hands on. Glocks, Sigs, Colts, Berettas, etc. Glocks are definately #1 in my book, with Sigs as a close 2nd. I like the trigger feel on the Glock better, but I shot the Sig just as well.

Wound up with a Glock 27 .40 with a +1 mag extension.

 

[bmacd]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

The beretta is one of the easiest weapons to shoot with. While on my Army weekend, we had our annual weapons qual, and I shot sharpshooter on the m16, expert @ night, expert on the m249/SAW, and expert on the 9mil. That was my first time ever shooting the 9, and it was easy as cake. It's all about body stance IMO.

-=bmacd=-

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Glock > *

I was pistol shopping about 6 months ago and shot everything I could get my hands on. Glocks, Sigs, Colts, Berettas, etc. Glocks are definately #1 in my book, with Sigs as a close 2nd. I like the trigger feel on the Glock better, but I shot the Sig just as well.

Wound up with a Glock 27 .40 with a +1 mag extension.

I've shot many different Glocks, Sigs, Colts and Berettas and I'd have to agree with you. If money wasn't an option I'd buy a Sig but for bang for the buck it's hard to beat a Glock. I've owned my Glock 17 for about 10 years, put thousands and thousands of rounds through it and I can't remember it ever jamming even once. Still looks as good now as the day I bought it (which isn't saying much-it's a good reliable weapon though).

I have 4 17 round magazines for it that I picked up before the Clinton high capacity ban took effect.

 

[edro]

The Navy Seals' official sidearm is the Sig Sauer P226, which was superior to the Beretta 92F in the 1984 M9 Trials. Then in the 1987 M10 Trials, the Beretta improved overall, so that brought them head to head. The Beretta was cheaper to produce, so they stuck with it. (or so the story goes)

I don't recall the 92F being "louder" than any other 9mm I have fired though. The P226 is thought to be superior in accuracy, durability and overall quality. All of the P226s I have shot have had a very very precise (and light) trigger pull.

Glocks have less recoil and feel much more smooth, and they are more fun to shoot in my opinion.

 

[Slappy00]

HK

4tw

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

The military selected the Beretta 92 because the unit cost was lower than the SIG (a superior firearm IMO). Both pistols passed the trials.

All the SF groups have switched to a pistol of their choice, mostly HK and SIG.

I've never shot an HK, but I own two Sigs and I agree, the 226 is a much better pistol than the Beretta.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'm not fond of the 92FS, but I've always found it has very gentle recoil, largely because it's so friggin' heavy. If anything I find it fatiguing because of the weight, not the recoil.

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: phantom309

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

Neither my Dad or I have ever had a reliability problem with any of the three 1911's we own between the two of us. You get the occasional FTF but I've usually found that's the magazine's fault and not the gun. I can't believe Beretta parts are more interchangable than in a 1911 - especially if they're all built to mil-spec.

I will give you the sand argument. Where we shoot Calvinball they have sand in places on the range. If it's not a retention reload, I'll drop the magazines just to save time and if sand gets in it and you don't clean them out, you can expect problems.

When we shoot calvinball, there's occasionally steel targets you've got to hit before they'll trigger actual paper targets. I've seen guys with 9mm's have to double tap them to get them to drop at a distance - my 1911 does the job every time

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
You want recoil? Shoot an airweight S&W .38 with +P loads. Or, a S&W Mountain Gun.

My backup gun is a Star PD .45, basically a compact 1911, and it kicks like a mule. I could shoot my G22 all day, but my hand takes a beating with that .45.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

The only place I have ever seen the Beretta 92 series described as "reliable" is in the movie Lethal Weapon. Everyone that I know that actually USES guns thinks they are crap.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

The only place I have ever seen the Beretta 92 series described as "reliable" is in the movie Lethal Weapon. Everyone that I know that actually USES guns thinks they are crap.

Heh...I picked up a 92 and a 96 because I got a really good deal (400 for the pair). I quickly sold the 92 (got almost even on the sale) and still have the 96.

I still much prefer my cheap old Ruger P89T to the 96 any day. I have more failures from the 96 than any other handgun I own.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I simply do not like them. They torque too much and that leads to inaccuracy. They are crap guns in my opinion.

But our Millitray uses them. They replaced the Colt1911 for this weapon

And it was a BAD decision. The only benefit the Beretta offers is a larger magazine. The Colt 1911 is still one of the best pistols EVER, if you know how to shoot it.

I think the military liked the Beretta because of it's reliability and easy interchangability of parts. I can't stand them personally because they're inaccurate and the stock trigger is much too heavy. But under most normal conditions the 92 is a much more reliable weapon than the 1911 - though I'm told out there in the "sandbox", nothing goes bang every time except an AK.

Another reason I heard the M1911 was replaced is because of NATO. All our other allies use 9mm. In WW2 we sent tons of .45 ammo to the Russians, which they couldn't use. Much of that is still sitting in warehouses.