Taurus PT92

>>31166296
Yeah, they're garbage. I bought one but hated it due to magazine incompatibility with regular beretta's, and they feel like shit. Considering that you can get an actual used 92fs for about $300, I traded that piece of shit for the real deal. Don't try and save the extra $100, get the real thing.

They failed to eject every single time I shot them.

>>31166296
All Tauruses in general are shit. They occasionally put out a good one but even a broken clock is right twice a day

>>31166296
Speaking as someone who's dad owns one: I've shot it loads of times and it functions just like my 92fs. Only difference, and most people like this, it has a FRAME MOUNTED safety.

I'm told they're made from the same machines Berettas were made from, but that might not be all PT92s.

Keep in mind this is a 90s PT92, and I've no idea if the above is true, or maybe my dad just lucked out and got a great one. My only gripe is the finish, but you can just coat that shit with whatever you want.

>>31166296
It's made in Brazil. Nuff said.

My pt99 has only had 3 failures in 2400 rounds.

>>31167665
That's a 24/7 not a 92

>>31166296
Not if you get it gold plated + high cap mag

Mine has run perfectly through over 1k rounds, but I'm not gonna defend the reliability of others.
The finish is beat up and internals are worn but shooting, it feels fine.
Its a Russian roulette of quality.

>>31166296
its fine as long as you dont expect parts compatibility with a real beretta. some parts are interchangeable but not all. the mags arent interchangeable

>>31166296
its a copy of a shit gun, only taurus improved one of the main issues with the original gun, which is a shitty slide safety. so the taurus is shit, but not as bad as the original beretta

>>31167927
the original 92 had a frame safety
Beretta is the one who updated to the "improved" slide safety
taurus just kept shit the same

>>31166296
I've got a newer (mid-2000's) stainless version and love it. Only had one FTF, and I'm pretty sure that was my fault. It's eaten steel and aluminum ammo without a problem.

When my Uncle came up over the Summer, I got to shoot it side-by-side with his Beretta. Everything was equal, but the Beretta did fit my hand slightly better. Not $200+ bucks better, but better.

I cleaned them both afterwards and compared the workmanship. Didn't see any major differences. Actually, my Taurus had less tool marks.

>>31169342
This.

Uses Beretta tooling as well, there are a few interchangeable parts, most notably the barrel and hammer spring.

Side by side comparisons they're supposed to be every bit as reliable and accurate, probably one of the few Taurus weapons worth their salt, and cheaper than the already cheap Beretta 92 series.

Don't buy if:
>You want to customize it with parts designed for the Beretta (most manufacturers will say if a part is for both)
>You don't like the frame-mounted safety
>You would rather it say "Beretta"
>You prefer a higher LPI for the slide serrations (current models)

>>31166296
I own one as well and this thread is pretty much Taurus in gereral. Some people get ones while other people not so much. I've only had one malfunction but I was also using shitty ammo. As others have stated, the frame mounted safety is nice but being a Sigbro, I've gotten use to decocking and carrying hammer down. Still a really fun range toy without the Baretta price

>>31166296
I have one that was made in the late 80s. It's reliable and accurate, though the finish is rougher compared to my new production Beretta 92FS. I've CC'd it a few times but it's mainly a range gun.

>>31167935
Beretta actually intended for the safety to be mounted on the frame, an improvement over the P38 they felt. The Army are the ones who originally asked that the safety/decocker be relocated because they felt it was a safer and more out of the way position for the safety.

20th century military loves slide mounted safeties, P38, Makarov, 92fs, 5906, etc.

I personally have never had a problem with the Beretta safety, but lots of "experts" will tell you otherwise.