Anyone carry a Beretta 92 as a "woods gun"?

[Triggernosis]

Just wondering how it would do as a sidearm while hunting and hiking compared to say, a K or L-frame sized revolver in .357/.38.....

[eric65]

I would carry one, but it would not be my first choice

[Terry Murbach]

I did with a Taurus PT99/92 which I MUCH prefer to any of the Beretta 92 series 9MM pistols.

[J Miller]

I would carry one as a "woods gun" only if I were in the military and it was my only choice.

I'd much rather carry a .357 with full magnum loads if that or the 9mm was the two choices.

Joe

[Nath]

I did with a Taurus PT99/92 which I MUCH prefer to any of the Beretta 92 series 9MM pistols.

Terry, educate me please as to why you prefer the Taurus?

Nath.

[Terry Murbach]

I did with a Taurus PT99/92 which I MUCH prefer to any of the Beretta 92 series 9MM pistols.

Terry, educate me please as to why you prefer the Taurus?

Nath.

Better sights, much better safety and safety access, and better metallurgy. My pistol has almost 10,000 rounds through it without a single stoppage of ANY kind.

[wilko]

*laughing* that does me good... i thought i was the only one that is extremely happy with my taurus...

and to answer the question... yep i would carry it. No big grizzly's around here

[Triggernosis]

I like the looks of the Taurus PT's, but I've got to get a Beretta 92 to shoot Service Pistol with eventually - I'm shooting Service Rifle currently and after I earn my Distinguished Rifleman badge I'll be switching over to pistol.
Rather than purchase a revolver for woods carry plus the Beretta for Service Pistol, I was thinking that maybe the Beretta would serve me OK as a woods gun too.

Would you shoot a deer with a 9mm....at the same kind of distances that you'd shoot one with a .357Mag?

[wilko]

Nope.. no handgun hunting allowed *sigh* My first choice would be a 44 mag for that though allthough the .357 would do just fine i guess..

[kaschi]

With 15 rounds in the mag plus a spare one, I'd say you would be well armed with a Beretta 92 for a walk in the woods in most places where you may cross paths with a 2 legged individual that may be wanting to do you some harm or for that matter some four legged ones like stray dogs, wolves, or coyotes. If the location were in big bear country, a revolver in 44 Mag or 45 Colt would be more comforting.

[2ndovc]

Worst Jam'O'matic I've ever owned.

I feel for the guys that have to carry one.
Accurate but totally unreliable.
Especially in temps belw freezing.

jb

[AJMD429]

Terry, educate me please as to why you prefer the Taurus?
Nath.

The safety is like the 1911's - intuitive, easy to flip on or off without shifting grip. The Beretta's is the awkward 'push forward' thing that is hard to put on or off without shifting grip, and if you're used to a 1911, is just plain AWFUL.

That is my main reason, anyhow. If someone gave me a brand-new Beretta 92, I'd trade it even for a well-used Taurus PT-92...

I agree that the metallurgy may be better, given the Beretta's 'slide cracking' issues, but I'll hopefully never shoot enough rounds to find out otherwise.

[Leverdude]

I have a Beretta 92F & while I dont use mine for woods walking & dont think I'd shoot a deer with it I have no complaints.
I heard alot about reliability issues so when I first got it, used, I decided to shoot it until it jammed. It took two months & had 652 rounds thru it before I had a malfunction. It failed to feed & jammed on a loaded round. I pulled the slide back, dumped out the jammed round & went thru another 150 rounds without issue before I was done for the day. Then I cleaned it.
I cant say folks are wrong if they experience problems with theirs but I dont think its a real common thing. If it was we wouldn't still be giving it to soldiers I think, but I digress because there are alot of folks here who served & used it that are in a much better position to talk about its performance in that theatre. I do think that the biggest thing against it is it replaced the 45 Colt that so many folks are very fond of.
I dont have one of those yet though.
Anyway I choose to carry revolvers in the woods but if a person were inclined theres nothing wrong IMO with a 92.

Now I need to check out a Taurus though & see whats the difference. Elevation adjustment would be nice but mine is pretty well regulated and with most loads I can scare bowling pins at 50 yards real good and hit them pretty regular when I'm on my game. I like it.

[Ysabel Kid]

Terry, educate me please as to why you prefer the Taurus?
Nath.

The safety is like the 1911's - intuitive, easy to flip on or off without shifting grip. The Beretta's is the awkward 'push forward' thing that is hard to put on or off without shifting grip, and if you're used to a 1911, is just plain AWFUL.

That is my main reason, anyhow. If someone gave me a brand-new Beretta 92, I'd trade it even for a well-used Taurus PT-92...

I agree that the metallurgy may be better, given the Beretta's 'slide cracking' issues, but I'll hopefully never shoot enough rounds to find out otherwise.

+1 I can carry my PT-99 "cocked and locked" if need be. I can't stand hammer-drop safeties!

[L_Kilkenny]

A good friend of mine shoots a Beretta 92 and until recently it was his only hand gun. After dozens of shooting sessions I've never seen it malfunction and it is moderately accurate (even if he isn't ). Being that I refuse to own a centerfire, bottom feeding brass chucker I wouldn't carry one but it does have some advantages. Mainly, it's ability to be easily dried out after he takes takes his customary unintentional swims on our river trips

LK

[horsesoldier03]

IMO the Beretta 92 is indeed a great pistol. The biggest complaint that I had while carrying one on active duty was the plastic guide rod. I never had a malfuntion but I did have one that had a bent plastic guide rod when the slide was pulled to the rear. It continued to function properly and the unit armor would not replace it for that reason but it definately causes one to be a bit insecure. It is a well known fact that most Soldiers would prefer a .45, however IMO that is not because of the weapon platform. The problem I seen is the fact that the ammo issued for the M9 is a 115grn FMJ bullet. When loaded with proper ammo, I would prefer the M9 to my 1911. If your shooting FMJ that has limited to no expansion you will want the biggest bullet possible.

[AJMD429]

Recently, a friend bought a brand-new Beretta 92, and when he brought it over to fire it, it would only RARELY feed two rounds consecutively. I didn't see excess or thick lubricant, but thought it was likely the 'issue', as the gun handled fine otherwise. He took it to the place of purchase, and they 'fixed' it, but didn't tell him what they did. A few weeks later, he said it functioned quite well, so that's cool.

I think the Beretta's are obviously decent guns, although I STRONGLY prefer the layout and function of the Taurus' safety. I only mention this to point out that pretty much ANY brand can seem like 'junk' out of the box, yet with some kerosene-cleaning, polishing, or whatever, wind up being a 'gem'.

[FWiedner]

IMO a 9mm is barely suitable as a sidearm for self-defense. I believe it is wholly unsuitable as a "woods gun".

I have not yet seen a single shot from a 9mm pistol kill anything, meaning that multiple shots were needed in every instance that I have personally witnessed.

I have several times watched as hunting companions unsuccessfully attempted to dispatch feral pigs with a 9mm pistol from point blank range.

Having witnessed this gruesome process several times, I don't even own a 9mm pistol.

[SFRanger7GP]

I've put some rounds through a Beretta 92 and here are my free opinions. FWiedner's experience on the 9mm's killing ability with ball ammunition is similar to mine. Everyone wants the clean, one shot stop and most normal people are programmed to "shoot and check" all the while wondering "why isn't my target going down" when they should be on the front sight and pulling the trigger. A 9mm will work fine, you just need to be aware that you may need more of them. This often complicates the situation.

Other's experience with it not being reliable I don't have. I have seen thousands upon thousands of rounds fired through Beretta M9's (military name) and have never seen a jam not caused by human error (weak wristing, etc). I have seen catastrophic failures where the locking block shattered. This is very common after 20,000 rounds and even occurs in as few as 10,000 rounds. We replaced them at 10,000 rounds whether they needed it or not. Most gun owners and military will never fire 10,000 rounds in their life times so that problem seldom arises.

It is very difficult to train people to use proficiently. Over size grip, DA to SA trigger, and awkward safety are the big problems. As far as the safety, why use it for anything other than a de-cocking device? With it off, its as safe as any DA revolver.

The Taurus copy of the Beretta is a lot easier to train people with. However, I was working with two different foreign units one time. The police unit had Berettas and the military unit had Taurus's. The Taurus's did not prove their famous reliability. Failures to feed, jams and catastrophic failures (parts shattering) were happening regularly before we hit the 5000 round mark. Taurus sent a factory rep from Brasil to look at the problems and repair or replace on the spot. The military lost confidence in the Taurus and finally purchased Glocks. That was my one and only experience with the Taurus.

[Sarge]

I've seen several dozen 92's run hard on police ranges, with various ammunition including lead-bullet reloads by the case. They are among the most reliable conventional autos you can get; any of them were accurate enough for 50 yard head-shots on a B27 or B21E.

My favorite was a 92G Centurion I owned for awhile in the late 90's. For those unfamiliar with them, the G has a decocker only and otherwise works like a DA revolver. That gun had good DA/SA trigger action, shot precisely to the sights at 50 yards. It digested well over 5000 rounds of everything I could throw at it, from cheap ProMags or factory mags.

I haven't owned many 9's but there was one I should have kept. I used it for a 'woods gun' some. Shot several squirrels with it and whatever junk critters that needed dispatched. They're all still dead so it must have worked.

I treat 9mm ball just like a "big .22 LR" and in that context, I have never been disappointed with it.

[rjohns94]

I had a pair of them in '88 that between them, digested a case of ammo every weekend for about 6 months. I don't ever remember a jam and those guns took alot of abuse. I love the way they feel in my hand. I had an Uzi at that time too and traded all three of them for Colt CAR-15 in .223 and a Walther PP in .22lr. I had heard that the early models developed cracks in the slides and that is when they went to the brigadier? model. I may be remembering that wrong but I haven't shot one since that time. I have a Sig 226 Combat now in 9mm. Not really sure why I went to the 9mm other than I got a great deal on the Sig and the 20 round (and 30rd) mags are fun to empty down range.

[JReed]

The 92 is a very good gun. They are my issue weapon and I have put many rounds threw them. As Terry said the sights on the Taurus are better. If it was my money I would look into the 96 in 40S&W it is a much more effective round the the 9mm.

[Buck Elliott]

Good as the Beretta and the 9mm cartridge may be for their intended purposes, BOTH are a little "light in the loafers" for application as a "woods gun," around these environs...

Semi-autos are NOT reliable when clogged with wolf/bear hair...

[Paladin]

I Carried a 92 for a woods gun for about 6 months when on public trails that say no firearms, and I have to leave my rifle at home, as my ATV gun while riding everyday with my daughter and nephew. Shot a few things that needed it with it the biggest being a large feral dog that came after us while riding using 124gr Gold Dot HPs. It took a few rounds so I now carry nothing smaller than a .357 in the woods; the bear population is a little high now anyway. I like the revolver a little better for snake loads, for the ones that that I have surprise me when I am to close.

[Iron_Marshal]

Out of necessity, since I did not own any pistols other than my duty weapons over the years, I have often carried my Sig Sauers both in 9mm and .45 with me into the woods. The way I saw it, it was better to have ANY pistol than NO pistol. When I went hunting deer, turkey, rabbit, or squirrel I used different rifles, muzzleloaders, and shotguns, but I always had a pistol with me. Not for the game animals mind you, but for the unfriendly two legged varmints I may run into. I recently bought a .44 mag Ruger Redhawk and it will be my companion in the woods now, (it matches my 1894 Marlin .44 mag *big grin*) but I had to wait years to buy one. Kids, Wife, Life, Etc… have a way of postponing purchases. If you are legally allowed to carry a sidearm then CARRY one. It might not be an “IDEAL WOODS” gun, but by GOD it is “A” gun and it may make all the difference.

[jeepnik]

For "woods" guns, I tend to stay away from autos. Not that they wouldn't work, but a revolver just seems more natural to me. But, if I were to carry an auto, it would be a 1911, or if the 9mm was the required round, it would be a Hi-Power. I have to agree with the Col. with regard to double action autos.

[Travis Morgan]

It'd be better than a stick.

[Triggernosis]

Well gentlemen, the reason I'm asking specifically about the Beretta 92 ask is this: Mainly, I need a new pistol of some sort for "general" protection and plinking as I've recently sold my S&W 317 that I carried with me in the woods...and my wife has claimed my compensated Rossi .357 revolver as hers. I was looking into getting a new "woods" revolver (some of y'all have helped me in my other post regarding this).
In addition, I'm planning on starting to shoot Service Pistol within the next couple of years or so after I finish earning my Distinguished Rifleman award. Sooo, I'll likely be purchasing a Beretta M9/92FS in the near future anyway. Having limited funds available, I thought thay perhaps the Beretta 92 would serve me well as a general daily carry gun too rather than purchasing two different handguns right now.

[FWiedner]

It'd be better than a stick.

I don't know...

Can you describe the stick?

[Travis Morgan]

Well gentlemen, the reason I'm asking specifically about the Beretta 92 ask is this: Mainly, I need a new pistol of some sort for "general" protection and plinking as I've recently sold my S&W 317 that I carried with me in the woods...and my wife has claimed my compensated Rossi .357 revolver as hers. I was looking into getting a new "woods" revolver (some of y'all have helped me in my other post regarding this).
In addition, I'm planning on starting to shoot Service Pistol within the next couple of years or so after I finish earning my Distinguished Rifleman award. Sooo, I'll likely be purchasing a Beretta M9/92FS in the near future anyway. Having limited funds available, I thought thay perhaps the Beretta 92 would serve me well as a general daily carry gun too rather than purchasing two different handguns right now.

Just bottle your own water for a while and buy a Tracker or an uglied up smith. You probably don't eat enough PB&J anyhow!

[Sarge]

Well gentlemen, the reason I'm asking specifically about the Beretta 92 ask is this: Mainly, I need a new pistol of some sort for "general" protection and plinking as I've recently sold my S&W 317 that I carried with me in the woods...and my wife has claimed my compensated Rossi .357 revolver as hers. I was looking into getting a new "woods" revolver (some of y'all have helped me in my other post regarding this).
In addition, I'm planning on starting to shoot Service Pistol within the next couple of years or so after I finish earning my Distinguished Rifleman award. Sooo, I'll likely be purchasing a Beretta M9/92FS in the near future anyway. Having limited funds available, I thought thay perhaps the Beretta 92 would serve me well as a general daily carry gun too rather than purchasing two different handguns right now.

It'll do fine. Try to avoid shooting bears or PO'ed hogs with it. If it can't be avoided, apply a full mag of ball to head, ears & neck.

[mescalero1]

Shakespeare

[piller]

If I remember correctly, the model 92s which had the cracking issues were the early models and the cracking was attributed to 9mm rounds for the H&K MP5. Those were supposedly high pressure sub-machine gun rounds. I also heard it was due to the high sulfur coal used in the heat treatment. Either way, the issue was fixed. But for my woods carry gun, I like my 4&5/8 inch barrel Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt with 300 grain Speer JFP pushed by 20 grains of H110. Big entrance holes, bigger exit holes, and the gun doesn't weigh too much. Accuracy is better than I can shoot.