# beretta 92fs accuracy



## stokil

Hello guys,
I'm new to this forum and to Beretta also. Recently i bought two guns: Beretta 92fs and PX4 Storm (full size) both 9mm. 
Before i bought them, i read a lot of articles about accuracy of 92fs and was excited when finally get it in my hands. On the very first try i could be able to make a group of 3-4" with PX4 on 25 yards, but was very disappointed with my 92fs. I hardly could make a group of 8". Previously I was competing 25 yards target shooting 22cal for about 15 years and like accuracy. Any advise on my Beretta 92fs? What could be wrong? 
Thank you in advance


----------



## Grayhair

Do you have pics of the 92fs target?


----------



## beretta9mm

I've only been shooting handguns for a little over a year, And my 92fs is dead on. Until i start pulling the trigger.


----------



## denner

I would bench rest the 92FS to make sure your sights are on, and likewise to show it's you and not the pistol. You need to get accustomed to the 92FS trigger, once you do that you'll be fine. The 92FS is an exceptionally accurate pistol, at least in my long experience with them.


----------



## paratrooper

denner said:


> I would bench rest the 92FS to make sure your sights are on, and likewise to show it's you and not the pistol. You need to get accustomed to the 92FS trigger, once you do that you'll be fine. The 92FS is an exceptionally accurate pistol, at least in my long experience with them.


Yup.....what he said.


----------



## stokil

Unfortunately I didn't keep that target. But mostly it was looks like no particular direction for billets. 
Plus I tried my friends Sig 1911 45 call and could be able to get even tighter group, around 2". 
What is specific about trigger on 92 fs? I used to shoot sport pistols, which I admit have totally different feelings on triggers.


----------



## paratrooper

stokil said:


> Unfortunately I didn't keep that target. But mostly it was looks like no particular direction for billets.
> Plus I tried my friends Sig 1911 45 call and could be able to get even tighter group, around 2".
> What is specific about trigger on 92 fs? I used to shoot sport pistols, which I admit have totally different feelings on triggers.


Every one adjusts to triggers differently. On my 92FS, the double-action pull is quite long. I've gotten used to taking up the slack before it breaks.

Give it some time and don't get paranoid over it. Not that many people can take a new gun, or a _*new to them*_ gun, and be deadly accurate with it.


----------



## stokil

And may I add, it's looks like I'm pooling a trigger. I wouldn't question it if I couldn't make way better group with PX4 which has very similar trigger action. 
But I'm asking for advise, so if you say it's most likely me, I'll accept it and try to improve my technic. 
Thank you very much for your replies guys.


----------



## denner

stokil said:


> And may I add, it's looks like I'm pooling a trigger. I wouldn't question it if I couldn't make way better group with PX4 which has very similar trigger action.
> But I'm asking for advise, so if you say it's most likely me, I'll accept it and try to improve my technic.
> Thank you very much for your replies guys.


That's why I always suggest benching a new pistol to get a good feel for the trigger; feeling where it breaks, take up, seeing if the sights are on, sight picture and achieving good groups before moving forward. While the PX4 and 92FS trigger's may be similar, the 2 pistols handle differently and the trigger's especially in DA are different. You need to keep your sights on target and squeeze (straight to the rear) until the trigger breaks. I would not be surprised after you bench rest the 92FS and get a good feel for the trigger you will be achieving either sub moa or holes on holes, then you can move forward. Snap cap dry fire practice will help as well.


----------



## stokil

Thank you very much, I'll defenetly try your advise.


----------



## Lonestar3

I am not a competition shooter but Im not bad and I cant get the same good results with my 92 as I get with my other pistols. However, my 16 year old grandson is very accurate with it. Beats me every time with bulls. So, I figure the problem is me. I was ready to bad mouth it until my grandson started knocking the center out of the bullseye with it. I love the gun for its nearly flawless reliability. Now all I have to do is work with it and get better to keep my grandson from yapping on about how he's a better shot than me.


----------



## Lonestar3

I am not a competition shooter but Im not bad and I cant get the same good results with my 92 as I get with my other pistols. However, my 16 year old grandson is very accurate with it. Beats me every time with bulls. So, I figure the problem is me. I was ready to bad mouth it until my grandson started knocking the center out of the bullseye with it. I love the gun for its nearly flawless reliability. Now all I have to do is work with it and get better to keep my grandson from yapping on about how he's a better shot than me.


----------



## Shipwreck

I have seen magazine reviews of the Beretta 92 - 2" groups at 25 yards in one or two magazine reviews. Others are 2.5" groups

You don't see that many magazine stories on the gun anymore, as it has been out a long time. But, i'd say the gun is plenty accurate at 25 yards.

Not every gun works for every person, though. That's why there are so many different brands/models


----------



## shaolin

Mine is very accurate but you must do your part too. I would shoot closer to see if it's the sights or if it's trigger control.


----------



## GCBHM

The 92FS is an extremely accurate pistol. They are large, cumbersome and finiky, but other than that, they are great pistols. I don't like'em, but that really does't mean anything.


----------



## denner

GCBHM said:


> The 92FS is an extremely accurate pistol. They are finiky, but other than that


I don't know about the one you owned but I find them very far from finiky. I went over 15 years w/o a stoppage shooting anything and everything I fed it and changing nothing but the recoil spring on intervals. I believe when it did stop on one round(was the last round in the magazine) it was a worn mag spring or possibly a worn extractor? I remember it quite well as things like that just don't happen that often, like a shock to me. Perhaps one of the most reliable and tested pistols on the planet with an average reliability of 17,500 rounds without a stoppage, I wouldn't call that finiky. About the size of a G-17 and lighter than a P226. Conversely, the 92FS consistently bests the US military requirement of a 10-shot group of 3" or less at 50 meters (just short of 55 yards) and has done so since about 1986.


----------



## GCBHM

The open slide feature allows more dirt to get in and I find the pistol to be cumbersome with the slide mounted safety (a safety really isn't necessary anyway), its a very large pistol, significantly larger than the 17, and constantly breaks down from most I've talked to and read. I think it speaks volumes that the Navy SEALs opted to go with the P226 rather than the M9. The P226 is a large service weapon, but it just feels and handles better than the M9 for me. I know it has a loyal following, but if someone were to give me one I'd trade it for something else. That said, I do know from experience the weapon is accurate in the hands of a trained shooter. I've read that the dod is looking to replace it again, and I think they desperately need to. Along with replacing the 5.56 with am7.62.


----------



## Shipwreck

GCBHM said:


> The open slide feature allows more dirt to get in and I find the pistol to be cumbersome with the slide mounted safety (a safety really isn't necessary anyway), its a very large pistol, significantly larger than the 17, and constantly breaks down from most I've talked to and read. I think it speaks volumes that the Navy SEALs opted to go with the P226 rather than the M9. The P226 is a large service weapon, but it just feels and handles better than the M9 for me. I know it has a loyal following, but if someone were to give me one I'd trade it for something else. That said, I do know from experience the weapon is accurate in the hands of a trained shooter. I've read that the dod is looking to replace it again, and I think they desperately need to. Along with replacing the 5.56 with am7.62.


Much mis information here - the DOD is NOT looking to replace it. Some of the military magazines run almost the same article EVERY year. The military just ordered a bunch more recently. With money being the way it is - the M9 is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Also, the pistol does not "constantly break down." I've said it before - there is no mechanism to track the round count thru the general issue M9 pistols from what I have been told. Replacing the recoil spring every 3-5k rounds, the trigger return spring every 5k, and the locking block every 15-20K rounds is not happening. It is VERY important to change the recoil spring regularly to extend locking block life. So, the gun just keeps going with no maintenabce but cleaning - until something breaks. Then, "it's a piece of crap" - or so it gets called by some. What do you expect?

The Beretta is actually EXTREMELY reliable. ask people who own them.

Honestly - no matter what gun would have gotten picked - you'd hear the same complaints about that very same gun no matter what. People like to bitch. The nostalgia for the 1911 seems to ignore the WW2 era rattletrap 1911s that had been rebuilt so much that they had their share of problems. They were no where near what you can go pick up off the shelf commercially and be happy with a 1911. But, people forget that and only remember that the M9 replaced their favorite pistol.


----------



## GCBHM

Shipwreck said:


> Much mis information here - the DOD is NOT looking to replace it. Some of the military magazines run almost the same article EVERY year. The military just ordered a bunch more recently. With money being the way it is - the M9 is not going anywhere anytime soon.
> 
> Also, the pistol does not "constantly break down." I've said it before - there is no mechanism to track the round count thru the general issue M9 pistols from what I have been told. Replacing the recoil spring every 3-5k rounds, the trigger return spring every 5k, and the locking block every 15-20K rounds is not happening. It is VERY important to change the recoil spring regularly to extend locking block life. So, the gun just keeps going with no maintenabce but cleaning - until something breaks. Then, "it's a piece of crap" - or so it gets called by some. What do you expect?
> 
> The Beretta is actually EXTREMELY reliable. ask people who own them.
> 
> Honestly - no matter what gun would have gotten picked - you'd hear the same complaints about that very same gun no matter what. People like to bitch. The nostalgia for the 1911 seems to ignore the WW2 era rattletrap 1911s that had been rebuilt so much that they had their share of problems. They were no where near what you can go pick up off the shelf commercially and be happy with a 1911. But, people forget that and only remember that the M9 replaced their favorite pistol.


Um....ok.


----------



## TAPnRACK

No issues with mine... very accurate, very durable and eats whatever I run through it like a champ. The open slide never caused any issues in my experience and shoots just fine covered in dirt, sand... not a lot of guns can claim that.

YouTube some "firearm torture tests"... you'd be surprised which guns failed or had issues after being abused. No gun is perfect... all have the ability to fail at one time or another, but i'd be hard pressed to recall a failure or issue with my 92G.

Mines a keeper... for life. Regardless what the "internet critics" say.

I do agree with others who mentioned bench rest shooting to check sights... or have someone you know who has a high skill level try it out and compare shot placement. I've always found 92 series firearms to be as accurate as any other top tier firearm... out of the box.


----------



## denner

GCBHM said:


> The open slide feature allows more dirt to get in and I find the pistol to be cumbersome with the slide mounted safety (a safety really isn't necessary anyway), its a very large pistol, significantly larger than the 17, and constantly breaks down from most I've talked to and read. I think it speaks volumes that the Navy SEALs opted to go with the P226 rather than the M9. The P226 is a large service weapon, but it just feels and handles better than the M9 for me. I know it has a loyal following, but if someone were to give me one I'd trade it for something else. That said, I do know from experience the weapon is accurate in the hands of a trained shooter. I've read that the dod is looking to replace it again, and I think they desperately need to. Along with replacing the 5.56 with am7.62.


Length G-17 8.03 inches
Length M9 8.5 inches
Width G-17 1.18 inches
Width M9 1.5 inches
Height G-17 5.43 inches
Height M9 5.4 inches

As you can see the size difference is de minimis and not "significantly" larger than the G-17. Secondly, the open slide design is beneficial in preventing stove pipes and clearing malfunctions if they were to happen. Likewise, as opposed to your view regarding allowing more dirt to get in, the design would likewise allow more dirt to get out. The M9 has passed those type tests with flying colors I might add. If it hadn't it would not have been chosen as the US military's official sidearm which has seen and continues to see service for the last 26 years or so. Coupled with the fact the US military in recent history actually uses their weapons much more so than any standing military on earth. As far as the pistol "constantly" breaking down, the only place I could imagine you've run across that information is from a Glock website or from "ole" 1911 affectionados still bitter over the 1911's replacement.


----------



## GCBHM

denner said:


> Length G-17 8.03 inches
> Length M9 8.5 inches
> Width G-17 1.18 inches
> Width M9 1.5 inches
> Height G-17 5.43 inches
> Height M9 5.4 inches
> 
> As you can see the size difference is de minimis and not "significantly" larger than the G-17. Secondly, the open slide design is beneficial in preventing stove pipes and clearing malfunctions if they were to happen. Likewise, as opposed to your view regarding allowing more dirt to get in, the design would likewise allow more dirt to get out. The M9 has passed those type tests with flying colors I might add. If it hadn't it would not have been chosen as the US military's official sidearm which has seen and continues to see service for the last 26 years or so. Coupled with the fact the US military in recent history actually uses their weapons much more so than any standing military on earth. As far as the pistol "constantly" breaking down, the only place I could imagine you've run across that information is from a Glock website or from "ole" 1911 affectionados still bitter over the 1911's replacement.


There is a huge difference btwn 1.18" verses 1.5" width. And like I said, the pistol has its loyal following. The lion's share of people I have talked to about the pistol, who have to use it, hate it. A few service ppl like it ok, but even fewer "love" it. I've never seen bad mouthing on a Glock website. You like the pistol. I'm ok with that! But if someone were to give me one I would sell it or trade it for a better pistol. The SEALs and British SAS went with the P226 for a reason. I'll side with their choice. The 1911 is making its way back into military service. I know the US Army bought a new round of M9s but that isn't proof they will not replace it. I suspect that within ten years the M9 will be replaced by a .45 of some design. Now wrt why the M9 was chosen, it was bc Beretta undercut Sig on the overall package deal, but the P226 out performed the Beretta, which is ultimately why the Navy SEALs chose it over the Beretta.


----------



## GCBHM

denner said:


> I don't know about the one you owned but I find them very far from finiky. I went over 15 years w/o a stoppage shooting anything and everything I fed it and changing nothing but the recoil spring on intervals. I believe when it did stop on one round(was the last round in the magazine) it was a worn mag spring or possibly a worn extractor? I remember it quite well as things like that just don't happen that often, like a shock to me. Perhaps one of the most reliable and tested pistols on the planet with an average reliability of 17,500 rounds without a stoppage, I wouldn't call that finiky. About the size of a G-17 and lighter than a P226. Conversely, the 92FS consistently bests the US military requirement of a 10-shot group of 3" or less at 50 meters (just short of 55 yards) and has done so since about 1986.


If you're going to quote me, then quote me accurately. I said I don't like them, but that doesn't mean anything. My comments reflect my experience with the M9, and those with whom I discussed it. I find them to be too cumbersome and finicky, but I also acknowledged the pistol has its following. I really don't care how great you think they are. I'm not going to agree with you, but that's fine. I carry the G19 Gen4 bc it is the best conceal carry pistol for me. It so happens that it is one of, if not the most popular conceal carry pistol available; however, it isn't everyone's favorite choice. I'm ok with that. I don't feel the incessant need to defend the pistol. It works for me and that's all that matters to me. If I had a choice and could carry anything other than the M9 as a service pistol I would go with the P226. Why? I have experience with them. It fits me better than the M9, and it is a better pistol by most's assessment. Some folks swear by HK, but not me. I also find them to be big and cumbersome on the whole, so I don't like them either. That's fine! I don't have to. I love the 1911 and the BHP, but if it were up to me I would not press either into military service. While they are great pistols with vastly proven track records, they just aren't very practical today in my opinion. I don't think the US military will ever select a striker fired pistol as the British Army has, but there are plenty of great hammer fired choices, one of which is the FNP 45. I wouldn't hesitate to pick the Glock 21 or 41 Gen4 or the S&W M&P 45, but I don't think the conventional wisdom of the US military would agree with me. But back to the original premise, I do not like the M9. Most I've talked to don't either, but that's ok. It doesn't mean you can't!


----------



## Shipwreck

GCBHM said:


> There is a huge difference btwn 1.18" verses 1.5" width. .


Pretty much the extra width is from the safety levers - not necessarily the rest of the gun per se. If you lay the Beretta down magwell to magwell with many guns - it's not any wider. I've compared it to a 1911 - with the standard size grips on a 1911, putting the two magwells together yields about the same width.

I no longer have a Glock, and have no plans to buy one again. So, I don't have one to compare. The grip on the Glock is lighly not quite as wide, but it's not off by those #'s listed above, I would bet. I think that # likely comes from the slide safety. On an IWB holster - that's not an issue.... It's usually the width of the grip that's the issue when concealing a gun.



GCBHM said:


> There is a huge difference btwn 1.18" verses 1.5" width. And like I said, the pistol has its loyal following. The lion's share of people I have talked to about the pistol, who have to use it, hate it. A few service ppl like it ok, but even fewer "love" it. I've never seen bad mouthing on a Glock website. You like the pistol. I'm ok with that! But if someone were to give me one I would sell it or trade it for a better pistol. The SEALs and British SAS went with the P226 for a reason. I'll side with their choice. The 1911 is making its way back into military service. I know the US Army bought a new round of M9s but that isn't proof they will not replace it. I suspect that within ten years the M9 will be replaced by a .45 of some design. Now wrt why the M9 was chosen, it was bc Beretta undercut Sig on the overall package deal, but the P226 out performed the Beretta, which is ultimately why the Navy SEALs chose it over the Beretta.


That is not true about Sig. I am on an iPad now, so I will dig up the link later. But read the GOA investigative report about the matter. You will find out that the Sig did not out perform the Beretta. In fact, the sig 226 failed on one of the tests, but the pentagon did not want to have only one choice, so they gave the Sig a pass to keep it in the running... I will find the link later...


----------



## Shipwreck

Read the GOA report at that link below... Do not forget too, that in the 80s when these things went on, Sig had some issues back then too... In the 80s, I happen to remember a lot of people with broken Sig frames. Does that make all Sigs suck? No. And, that was also a long time ago.

Here is the direct link to that report if anyone is interested: http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf

It really doesn't matter to me if someone hates the Beretta 92. I don't care about that. However, when people use factual errors as the basis on why they think that, that is when I try to point things out as being wrong.

There are plenty of guns I do not like that others do. No buggy" and, I can share my personal opinions as to why that is true. But, I don't claim my opinions are fact as a blanket statement...


----------



## denner

Shipwreck said:


> You will find out that the Sig did not out perform the Beretta. In fact, the sig 226 failed on one of the tests, but the pentagon did not want to have only one choice, so they gave the Sig a pass to keep it in the running....


Interesting, I've just read the same "facts" from the GOA report. Those seals may wish to reconsider?


----------



## GCBHM

Ok...well enjoy your 92fs!


----------



## GCBHM

Shipwreck said:


> Read the GOA report at that link below... Do not forget too, that in the 80s when these things went on, Sig had some issues back then too... In the 80s, I happen to remember a lot of people with broken Sig frames. Does that make all Sigs suck? No. And, that was also a long time ago.
> 
> Here is the direct link to that report if anyone is interested: http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf
> 
> It really doesn't matter to me if someone hates the Beretta 92. I don't care about that. However, when people use factual errors as the basis on why they think that, that is when I try to point things out as being wrong.
> 
> There are plenty of guns I do not like that others do. No buggy" and, I can share my personal opinions as to why that is true. But, I don't claim my opinions are fact as a blanket statement...


I have said why I don't like the M9. I've seen the reports you've listed, and I'm really not interested in this fruitless debate. There is a reason the SEALs chose the P226. I've talked to some who actually used the weapons, and it isn't all in official reports. Seriously, if you guys actually believe everything written in official findings you're pretty gullible. I've written enough of them to know what is fact and what is what they want you to know as fact. Either way, I really don't care. Like I said, enjoy your 92fs.


----------



## Shipwreck

Your entire argument is based on "the SEALS." You have it in every one of your posts. 

I've shown you an actual report with DETAILs. Details that you cannot argue against with facts - other than "the SEALS."

Say what you want about it - but people "misremember" things and make it into fact all day long. I can't tell you how many people "knows someone who was hit in the face with one of these Beretta slides." Despite the fact that the # of affected guns that had these issues were very, very small. Everyone "has a friend" who was there when it happened.

Anyway, the report is actual FACT. It's official, and it is from the time period where this occurred. It gets into SPECIFICS of the test itself - it talks about the stages of the test, and what guns flunked out. It explains that the Sig did NOT pass a test, but was given a pass to continue anyway - so they would have more than 1 gun to choose from at the end of the test. Apparently the brass didn't want to not have a choice and be stuck with just 1 specimen at the very end.

Also, back in the 80s, at the time these tests were done, many people were having problems with their frames of the aluminum framed Sigs breaking. That's a non issue now, but it wasn't back then.

Despite all that - the Sig may be the best to you. And, there is nothing wrong with that... But, I do take exception to denigrating the Beretta on misplaced facts.

Anyway - no one is saying you can't like the Sig better. However, you keep essentially stating that the Sig itself is better, and that the 92 is inferior and flawed, and that the Sig beat the Beretta in the military trials. You stated that the "Sig outperformed the Beretta" in the military trials. Then, when I post the actual facts of how what weapon was chosen, you ignore the entire report... 

I am not claiming that the Sig 226 isn't better in your eyes. But better is a matter of opinion here. We all have our own personal likes and dislikes. That is why there are so many different makes and models of guns on the market. But, I just see the wrong info pop up on forums all the time about the Beretta 92. And, when I see it, I try to point things out that are not always true. 

I've shown that your facts are not true, but you won't let it go. 

Enjoy the Sig 226 - it is a good gun. But, please don't start making up facts about the Beretta 92.


----------



## Shipwreck

I apologize to the original poster. We've gotten way off topic now...


----------



## TAPnRACK

Good thing I own both, lol.







Best of both worlds.


----------



## GCBHM

No doubt!


----------



## GCBHM

Shipwreck said:


> Your entire argument is based on "the SEALS." You have it in every one of your posts.
> 
> I've shown you an actual report with DETAILs. Details that you cannot argue against with facts - other than "the SEALS."
> 
> Say what you want about it - but people "misremember" things and make it into fact all day long. I can't tell you how many people "knows someone who was hit in the face with one of these Beretta slides." Despite the fact that the # of affected guns that had these issues were very, very small. Everyone "has a friend" who was there when it happened.
> 
> Anyway, the report is actual FACT. It's official, and it is from the time period where this occurred. It gets into SPECIFICS of the test itself - it talks about the stages of the test, and what guns flunked out. It explains that the Sig did NOT pass a test, but was given a pass to continue anyway - so they would have more than 1 gun to choose from at the end of the test. Apparently the brass didn't want to not have a choice and be stuck with just 1 specimen at the very end.
> 
> Also, back in the 80s, at the time these tests were done, many people were having problems with their frames of the aluminum framed Sigs breaking. That's a non issue now, but it wasn't back then.
> 
> Despite all that - the Sig may be the best to you. And, there is nothing wrong with that... But, I do take exception to denigrating the Beretta on misplaced facts.
> 
> Anyway - no one is saying you can't like the Sig better. However, you keep essentially stating that the Sig itself is better, and that the 92 is inferior and flawed, and that the Sig beat the Beretta in the military trials. You stated that the "Sig outperformed the Beretta" in the military trials. Then, when I post the actual facts of how what weapon was chosen, you ignore the entire report...
> 
> I am not claiming that the Sig 226 isn't better in your eyes. But better is a matter of opinion here. We all have our own personal likes and dislikes. That is why there are so many different makes and models of guns on the market. But, I just see the wrong info pop up on forums all the time about the Beretta 92. And, when I see it, I try to point things out that are not always true.
> 
> I've shown that your facts are not true, but you won't let it go.
> 
> Enjoy the Sig 226 - it is a good gun. But, please don't start making up facts about the Beretta 92.


Dude, your opinions are no more valid than mine, I don't care how right you think you are. Your right to your opinion does not make your opinion right, got it?

Now, I stated in my initial response I don't like the weapon but that it is accurate. My opinion of the weapon is based primarily on MY EXPERIENCE with it. That was not good enough as you and y'boy denner felt the need to prove my opinion of the pistol wrong. Well you can't!!!!! My opinion is what it is. It is based on what I think of the actual weapon after using it.

The other opinions about the open slide allowing dirt to get in are based on my experience, reviews I've read, people I've talked to, etc. Once dirt gets in it gets in the oil and can cause the gun to get gummy and jam. And it has!!! The open slide does not allow dirt to get out as there is no dirt in it after it has been cleaned. That's pure poppycock devised by someone who just wants to be right. Nevertheless, I could not care less.

I've read the reports where the Sig failed a test. I've also read reports that prove an elephant can hang by its tail by a dandelion over the side of a cliff. Dude, reports are not always accurate. Some intentionally mislead to justify the actions people take, but you go ahead and stick with the 92fs. I DO NOT CARE!!! It isn't just my opinion the P226 is a better service pistol. But again, I don't care. I just answered they original posters question with the truth. Past that you and y'boy denner turned this into a national defense of the Beretta bc you didn't like my opinion.


----------



## rustygun

I've read the reports where the Sig failed a test. I've also read reports that prove an elephant can hang by its tail by a dandelion over the side of a cliff. Dude, reports are not always accurate. Some intentionally mislead to justify the actions people take, but you go ahead and stick with the 92fs. I DO NOT CARE!!! It isn't just my opinion the P226 is a better service pistol. But again, I don't care. I just answered they original posters question with the truth. Past that you and y'boy denner turned this into a national defense of the Beretta bc you didn't like my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Unless they are reports on "BALISTICS"? Just can't shoot from the hip.

To the original poster I would say it is not the gun it is the way your shooting it. I have found grip and trigger pull are everything.


----------



## GCBHM

rustygun said:


> I've read the reports where the Sig failed a test. I've also read reports that prove an elephant can hang by its tail by a dandelion over the side of a cliff. Dude, reports are not always accurate. Some intentionally mislead to justify the actions people take, but you go ahead and stick with the 92fs. I DO NOT CARE!!! It isn't just my opinion the P226 is a better service pistol. But again, I don't care. I just answered they original posters question with the truth. Past that you and y'boy denner turned this into a national defense of the Beretta bc you didn't like my opinion.


Unless they are reports on "BALISTICS"? Just can't shoot from the hip.

To the original poster I would say it is not the gun it is the way your shooting it. I have found grip and trigger pull are everything.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what ballistic reports have to do with why someone likes or dislikes a particular pistol, but I do agree the problem is not the gun. The 92fs is an extremely accurate pistol. I would also argue that grip and trigger pull is critical for all pistols, although some aren't as sensitive as others. Glocks are notorious for jamming if it is "limp-wristed". I've found the 92fs is a fairly user friendly pistol wrt shooting it. I just don't like it.


----------



## Lonestar3

I had a hard time shooting accurately with my 92 so I bench tested it. I shot 5 rounds each at 15' 25, 30 and 50 feet. The gun knocked out the X at 15 and 30 feet and fell off to a 4 inch group with a couple of bulls at 50 feet. I then shot 15 rounds, no bench, at 25 feet with my usual poor results. So, the problem is me, not the gun. I could say the PF is a "bad" gun and it is..but just for me. It may be the perfect gun for someone else. Some positives are; the pistol never fails with any type or brand of ammo and I keep it ready for home protection due to the 15 round capacity. I do carry it in the car as well. My overall opinion is this big honker is just hard to shoot for some people.


----------



## denner

GCBHM said:


> Dude, your opinions are no more valid than mine, I don't care how right you think you are. Your right to your opinion does not make your opinion right, got it?


With all due respect, I believe you need to decipher between reliable information/fact and personal opinions. If I or anyone else would have a choice between your personal observations and/or your second hand information to form an opinion, as opposed to myself owning two 92's(1993 & 1997) and one 96FS(1998). Shipwreck, who owns or has owned more 92's than anyone I know of and is very well respected, an experienced trainer and LEO in TapNRack; Beretta's and the U.S. military's' data and testing and a GOA report to boot? Unfortunately, you've chosen a pistol in which there is a long, long, line of reliable information to dwell upon.

Likewise, the GOA report in which you believe is not reliable, or inaccurate because it does not conform to your own false information? In my mind it clearly shows you are spouting false information which would unfortunately persuade those who are naïve or just new. Just who would you believe and/or take credence in their opinions? 1. You stated Sig outperformed Beretta in the military trials and faced with the GOA report(if you read it) is just misleading. 2. You say Beretta's 92's are finicky, or at least the one you owned, if in fact you have ever owned one. 3. You state that Beretta 92's break all the time. As a whole, I don't care if you care, but I care if everything you've stated is false and/or misleading even though in your mind you hold it as true.


----------



## denner

Lonestar3 said:


> I had a hard time shooting accurately with my 92 so I bench tested it. I shot 5 rounds each at 15' 25, 30 and 50 feet. The gun knocked out the X at 15 and 30 feet and fell off to a 4 inch group with a couple of bulls at 50 feet. I then shot 15 rounds, no bench, at 25 feet with my usual poor results. So, the problem is me, not the gun. I could say the PF is a "bad" gun and it is..but just for me. It may be the perfect gun for someone else. Some positives are; the pistol never fails with any type or brand of ammo and I keep it ready for home protection due to the 15 round capacity. I do carry it in the car as well. My overall opinion is this big honker is just hard to shoot for some people.


Come on Lonestar, you can master it. Keep the sights on target and squeeze the trigger straight back to the rear and start at close range until you master the trigger and then and only then move out to further distances. You'll get it.


----------



## rustygun

denner said:


> Come on Lonestar, you can master it. Keep the sights on target and squeeze the trigger straight back to the rear and start at close range until you master the trigger and then and only then move out to further distances. You'll get it.


Yes yes +1 , You can learn to shoot anything , put in the time , put in the rounds.


----------



## GCBHM

denner said:


> Come on Lonestar, you can master it. Keep the sights on target and squeeze the trigger straight back to the rear and start at close range until you master the trigger and then and only then move out to further distances. You'll get it.


On this I have to agree!


----------



## Shipwreck

Well, not every gun works for everyone. There have been many guns I have shot that I did not like at all - and it was someone else's favorite gun.

So, life is to short to keep a gun you do not like for whatever reason. Not every gun works for every person - even if it is a good gun by itself. 

I once had a Hk USPc 9mm. Took me a long time to get good with the gun. The gun always shot low for me, and I swore the sights were off, until 1 day I benched it on sandbags. It was about 700-800 rounds before I overcame the shooting low think. I had an HK USPc 45 too - and this gun didn't cause this problem for me. It was just the 9mm version. 

So, sometimes it just takes time. It was fun to see a gradual improvement, but I did have to shoot the gun with a different grip in order to get it to work for me. I finally got rid of it in the end, though... But, I think I had it a couple of years. I just needed the $ to pay for another gun I wanted....


----------



## Shipwreck

denner said:


> With all due respect, I believe you need to decipher between reliable information/fact and personal opinions. If I or anyone else would have a choice between your personal observations and/or your second hand information to form an opinion, as opposed to myself owning two 92's(1993 & 1997) and one 96FS(1998). Shipwreck, who owns or has owned more 92's than anyone I know of and is very well respected, an experienced trainer and LEO in TapNRack; Beretta's and the U.S. military's' data and testing and a GOA report to boot? Unfortunately, you've chosen a pistol in which there is a long, long, line of reliable information to dwell upon.
> 
> Likewise, the GOA report in which you believe is not reliable, or inaccurate because it does not conform to your own false information? In my mind it clearly shows you are spouting false information which would unfortunately persuade those who are naïve or just new. Just who would you believe and/or take credence in their opinions? 1. You stated Sig outperformed Beretta in the military trials and faced with the GOA report(if you read it) is just misleading. 2. You say Beretta's 92's are finicky, or at least the one you owned, if in fact you have ever owned one. 3. You state that Beretta 92's break all the time. As a whole, I don't care if you care, but I care if everything you've stated is false and/or misleading even though in your mind you hold it as true.


+1000 to this. Now we can move on


----------



## GCBHM

denner said:


> With all due respect, I believe you need to decipher between reliable information/fact and personal opinions. If I or anyone else would have a choice between your personal observations and/or your second hand information to form an opinion, as opposed to myself owning two 92's(1993 & 1997) and one 96FS(1998). Shipwreck, who owns or has owned more 92's than anyone I know of and is very well respected, an experienced trainer and LEO in TapNRack; Beretta's and the U.S. military's' data and testing and a GOA report to boot? Unfortunately, you've chosen a pistol in which there is a long, long, line of reliable information to dwell upon.
> 
> Likewise, the GOA report in which you believe is not reliable, or inaccurate because it does not conform to your own false information? In my mind it clearly shows you are spouting false information which would unfortunately persuade those who are naïve or just new. Just who would you believe and/or take credence in their opinions? 1. You stated Sig outperformed Beretta in the military trials and faced with the GOA report(if you read it) is just misleading. 2. You say Beretta's 92's are finicky, or at least the one you owned, if in fact you have ever owned one. 3. You state that Beretta 92's break all the time. As a whole, I don't care if you care, but I care if everything you've stated is false and/or misleading even though in your mind you hold it as true.


And with that same due respect, your assumption that my the information I've gathered is second hand says more about you than me. Frankly, I don't care what you care about. From my experience, and those that I have talked to who have to use the pistol, it is inferior to the Sig P226. I can respect the fact that you disagree, but who the heck are you to presume to assume all your information and opinions are right, and that mine aren't? Surely you're no serious. Perhaps you should take a step back and realize your's is not the only opinion who counts, and that I am just as right to hold the opinions I do as you are for your own. And finally, LET IT GO DUDE! I really do not care.


----------



## GCBHM

Shipwreck said:


> +1000 to this. Now we can move on


Bro, I have tried a number of times to move on. But as you can see...simply submitting my own personal opinion wasn't good enough. Now, with that said, what is up with your name, "Shipwreck"? I'm a Navy veteran. Are you perhaps one?


----------



## GCBHM

Shipwreck said:


> Well, not every gun works for everyone. There have been many guns I have shot that I did not like at all - and it was someone else's favorite gun.
> 
> So, life is to short to keep a gun you do not like for whatever reason. Not every gun works for every person - even if it is a good gun by itself.
> 
> I once had a Hk USPc 9mm. Took me a long time to get good with the gun. The gun always shot low for me, and I swore the sights were off, until 1 day I benched it on sandbags. It was about 700-800 rounds before I overcame the shooting low think. I had an HK USPc 45 too - and this gun didn't cause this problem for me. It was just the 9mm version.
> 
> So, sometimes it just takes time. It was fun to see a gradual improvement, but I did have to shoot the gun with a different grip in order to get it to work for me. I finally got rid of it in the end, though... But, I think I had it a couple of years. I just needed the $ to pay for another gun I wanted....


On this I will agree 1000%! You know, there really is nothing wrong with the Beretta or any other gun that works for someone. I don't like it and listed reasons why, but that does not mean it isn't a good pistol for others, which is why I tagged my statement with "but that doesn't mean anything". There really are very few pistols I don't like, and what's funny is I used to LOVE the Beretta until I got more versed with other models. I was one of the few people who was excited that the military was replacing the 1911s with the Beretta, but then I didn't have to use it all that much beyond qualifying with it. I used to hate Glocks, but now it is what I prefer to carry. I still love the Sig, but when I compare the standard Glock 19 to its direct counterpart in Sig, the Glock fits better and just makes more sense. Not that the M11A1 isn't a fine pistol. I'm not a big HK fan b/c to me the pistols are just ugly, bulky and too many moving parts, but that is probably b/c I'm accustomed to Glocks. They are fine pistols, but just not for me. I guess that is what I was really saying about the Beretta. It is one heck of an accurate pistol, but not everyone can shoot well with it just like every other pistol. Oh well...at least we can all agree guns are good, and we like to shoot.


----------



## Pistol Pete

Mine will shoot Xs at 25yds. Maybe it's a exception.


----------



## berettatoter

Wow. If I do my part, my 92 is a tack driver.


----------



## denner

Pistol Pete said:


> Mine will shoot Xs at 25yds. Maybe it's a exception.





berettatoter said:


> Wow. If I do my part, my 92 is a tack driver.


Interesting, all mine as well.


----------



## GCBHM

denner said:


> Interesting, all mine as well.


I must admit that whenever I have shot the M9, I have been able to hurt the target's feelings as well.


----------



## Svenskman

Shipwreck said:


> The Beretta is actually EXTREMELY reliable. ask people who own them.


Yep. Been my experience.


----------



## rauchman

To the OP, I didn't see it mentioned, but have you tried the D spring? It aided my accuracy on the 92 considerably.


----------



## oldphart

stokil said:


> Hello guys,
> I'm new to this forum and to Beretta also. Recently i bought two guns: Beretta 92fs and PX4 Storm (full size) both 9mm.
> Before i bought them, i read a lot of articles about accuracy of 92fs and was excited when finally get it in my hands. On the very first try i could be able to make a group of 3-4" with PX4 on 25 yards, but was very disappointed with my 92fs. I hardly could make a group of 8". Previously I was competing 25 yards target shooting 22cal for about 15 years and like accuracy. Any advise on my Beretta 92fs? What could be wrong?
> Thank you in advance


Stokl, the gun takes some getting used to, but if you persevere you'll find the pistol extremely accurate. Some people have a problem with the large grip. The long D/A trigger pull and the position of the safety/de-cocker is another issue. But hang in there, things will improve.


----------



## Higgy Baby

This thread is 7 years old!


----------



## Shipwreck

Interesting


Higgy Baby said:


> This thread is 7 years old!


Yep. 

But, interesting to see the back and forth discussion after all these years later. I just finished rereading the entire thread.


----------



## oldphart

I've been getting better with mine. 500 rounds so far. I can hit bullseyes at 15 feet, slightly less accurate at 30 feet, 45, feet, 60 feet, etc. but have a hard time at 90 feet and miss the whole target half the time. Will use sandbag next time. Part of my problem hitting at a distance is 78 year old eyes. Anyhow, my contention is the gun is more accurate than I am.


----------



## Higgy Baby

Yes that 92 is a fine gun. I have one, and it's little sister the 85 Cheetah. They will pass to my only grandson in a few years.


----------



## SSGN_Doc

I’ve had some folks tell me the 92 isn’t accurate, but I’ve found that it can keep up with most of the competition (The flyer was definitely me.). I’ve also had people tel me Glocks aren’t capable of good accuracy. I say, it takes some practice and sometimes finding the ammo the gun really likes.


----------



## casurvivor

It not the arrow is the Indian


----------



## SSGN_Doc

casurvivor said:


> It not the arrow is the Indian


I‘ve made my own arrows to go with a self made bow. There is a lot that can be done wrong or right in making an arrow. So it takes a good Bowyer, fletcher and Indian/Archer.


----------



## guydodge

you all are not talking about the new USA 92fs they are trash in almost everyway i own 2 of them and both were and are still plagued with problems
my 92fs will not group well at all shots are very random "horrible weapon" and my 92x centurion had to be sent back 3 times to get one that actually 
worked.do yourself a favor and buy something else USA beretta are not a beretta...period !!!


----------



## guydodge

so here we are still waiting for USA beretta to contact me so i can send my 92fs in to have it checked out pretty sure the barrel is bad put about 1000+ rounds
thru it and still cannot zero this thing it will never hit the same spot twice.as far as my 92x centurion it seems to work fine guess 4th times a charm.put all the upgrades 
in the FS none of that makes a difference if you cant hit your mark


----------



## Shipwreck

I don't know what to tell you about what is going on. The barrel cannot be shot out after just 1k rounds. But, there may be something else going on.

Just a siggestion - that looks like a Vertec grip.Have you tried shooting it with the conversion grip on the gun? I don't shoot a Beretta with theVertec grip as well as I do with the original style grip. On my M9A3, I have the included conversion grip installed.

Also, have you shot it without the optic? Is it still inaccurate?


----------



## guydodge

Shipwreck said:


> I don't know what to tell you about what is going on. The barrel cannot be shot out after just 1k rounds. But, there may be something else going on.
> 
> Just a siggestion - that looks like a Vertec grip.Have you tried shooting it with the conversion grip on the gun? I don't shoot a Beretta with theVertec grip as well as I do with the original style grip. On my M9A3, I have the included conversion grip installed.
> 
> Also, have you shot it without the optic? Is it still inaccurate?


the 92x is fine with the red dot its the 92fs without the red dot and its been bad since day 1 the shots are random all over the target im guessing the rifling is bad
there is a imperfection in the barrel you can feel if you run your finger down the barrel thought it was only cosmetic and still do but clearly somethings wrong here.
its only 5 months old.im hoping they will eventually contact me sent them 2 emails now to no avail.im at the point im about to just ship it to them and hope they contact 
me afterwards.


----------



## guydodge

Shipwreck said:


> I don't know what to tell you about what is going on. The barrel cannot be shot out after just 1k rounds. But, there may be something else going on.
> 
> Just a siggestion - that looks like a Vertec grip.Have you tried shooting it with the conversion grip on the gun? I don't shoot a Beretta with theVertec grip as well as I do with the original style grip. On my M9A3, I have the included conversion grip installed.
> 
> Also, have you shot it without the optic? Is it still inaccurate?


and those are wilson combat ultra thin grips they are amazing gives the 92fs the best grip you ever feel on a 92fs no joke completely changed that cumbersome feel
you get with the oversized handle of the fs


----------



## Shipwreck

guydodge said:


> the 92x is fine with the red dot its the 92fs without the red dot and its been bad since day 1 the shots are random all over the target im guessing the rifling is bad
> there is a imperfection in the barrel you can feel if you run your finger down the barrel thought it was only cosmetic and still do but clearly somethings wrong here.
> its only 5 months old.im hoping they will eventually contact me sent them 2 emails now to no avail.im at the point im about to just ship it to them and hope they contact
> me afterwards.


Ok, sorry to hear this. I hope you get this resolved. 

And, you need to call them. Most companies are not the best on customer service with emails. If it's important, give them a call. I think you will get much better service.


----------



## guydodge

Shipwreck said:


> Ok, sorry to hear this. I hope you get this resolved.
> 
> And, you need to call them. Most companies are not the best on customer service with emails. If it's important, give them a call. I think you will get much better service.


took it to the range again today to try1 last time shot at 7 yards was all over the target 6-8inch groupings at best
pulled out my brand new RIA 1911 9mm i bought because i wanted a 9mm w/standard sights to practice and at 7 yards stacked all 10 rounds
in the bullseye and first ring maybe 1-1 1/2 inch groupings... A new gun i never shot !!!! calling beretta tomorrow.


----------

