I agree.Originally Posted by Tamara
I agree.
This is the kind of thing I really come here to find. Fascinating. Never even wondered about this before.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD
"Your hands than mine are quicker for a fray.
My legs are longer though, to run away."
--Helena of Athens
Ditto. Lurking around here is like walking by a library when a book you've never heard of, and never would have thought to pick up, smacks you in the head, and lands open to just the right page you didn't know you were looking for-kismet is another good word for this, I believe.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
The answer to this question along with a complete history of Beretta firearms development can be found in Gene Gangarosa's book, Modern Beretta Firearms. http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Beretta...retta+firearms
Basically, Beretta's first 92 series had the frame mounted safety that was not a decocker and enabled cocked and locked carry or hammer down carry. However, to get the hammer down, you had to thumb it down. It was the desire for military and police contracts that ultimately led to the current slide safety/decocker design.
"Because of these and other safety arrangements, the chances of the early Beretta 92 entering military or police service were limited. Indeed, only a relatively small number of the model 92 pistol using the original safety configuration was purchased by military or police forces. Some organizations, notably the Italian Policia di Stato (State police), told Beretta early on that they liked the model 92's double action trigger system, its functional reliability and its high magazine capacity. These features combined with a hammer decocking system, were strongly recommended and, for that reason, Beretta decided to alter the safety system" (Modern Beretta Firearms 80).
The change to the slide mounted safety/decocker came in 1976 and was designated the model 92S. The model 92S eventually supplanted the older model 92 because military and police forces preferred the slide mounted safety system of the 92S.
Personally, if there is going to be a safety on the gun, I prefer it to be out of the way on the slide. I never carry with the safety on and would actually prefer a G-model if they were available. In lieu of a G model, a Wilson/AGW low profile safety lever on the slide is the next best option for me.
God Bless,
David
I just installed one of these on my 92FS and agree. If a non-G model is used I can't think of a modification that's more of a must have than this one.
OP
Can the Taurus and Beretta swap parts?
Although I never own the Taurus , But I've heard from owners that they are good pistols.
BTW
The Safety / Decocker on the Beretta or Gen 3 S&W 5906/6906 and a P85 has never given me any problems.
But I can see how it could for others.
Afaik, the parts won't interchange. And the Taurus 92 clones I've handled felt like someone let Joe Biden build Berettas.
Good motto to live by right there, IMHO.
While I am not 100% for sure, I don't think so.
Their magazines didn't interchange (I remember that vividly because I could find lots of pre-ban Beretta 15rds around but no Taurus PT92 mags)
I agree with others, while the gun was definitely functional and I didn't have any issues with it, it was no comparison to a Beretta 92. I did like the safety/decock better though.
The only reason that I had mine for so long is that my Dad took a liking to it and I gave it to him only to have him pass away and I got it back and forgot that I even had it until a couple of years ago.
IIRC, the Brazilian military contract was for original Beretta 92s with the heel-mounted mag release, so when Taurus started making their own version using the old tooling, they had to engineer their own mag button and that resulted in the incompatibility.
Reply With Quote