The PT-92 thread

[Trooper224]

I have an early production 92 (1976-77) with the frame mounted safety. It has no hammer drop feature so it isn't really a good comparison to the Taurus. Ride the safety all you want, it has no effect. The trigger quality is shit compared to a new production 92. It is pretty though.

[john c]

I have an early production 92 (1976-77) with the frame mounted safety. It has no hammer drop feature so it isn't really a good comparison to the Taurus. Ride the safety all you want, it has no effect. The trigger quality is shit compared to a new production 92. It is pretty though.

I'm interested to hear more about this. You mention the trigger is bad. How so?

What are your other impressions of the gun?

[Trooper224]

I'm interested to hear more about this. You mention the trigger is bad. How so?

What are your other impressions of the gun?

Impressions?

Except aesthetics, it's inferior to a current production 92 in every way. The DA trigger is as gritty as sandpaper, something typical of TDA pistols of that era. The SA trigger isn't bad. The sights are beyond suck. It lacks a decock feature, something I consider mandatory on a TDA service pistol. The uncluttered slide, round trigger guard and polished blue finish make it sexy as hell. As a vintage piece it's high on the cool scale, as a weapon there are far better choices today.

[beenalongtime]

Impressions?

Except aesthetics, it's inferior to a current production 92 in every way. The DA trigger is as gritty as sandpaper, something typical of TDA pistols of that era. The SA trigger isn't bad. The sights are beyond suck. It lacks a decock feature, something I consider mandatory on a TDA service pistol. The uncluttered slide, round trigger guard and polished blue finish make it sexy as hell. As a vintage piece it's high on the cool scale, as a weapon there are far better choices today.

Makes you want a Langdon blued version of the Performance 92x though, don't it? (need a poke smiley)

[john c]

Impressions?

Except aesthetics, it's inferior to a current production 92 in every way. The DA trigger is as gritty as sandpaper, something typical of TDA pistols of that era. The SA trigger isn't bad. The sights are beyond suck. It lacks a decock feature, something I consider mandatory on a TDA service pistol. The uncluttered slide, round trigger guard and polished blue finish make it sexy as hell. As a vintage piece it's high on the cool scale, as a weapon there are far better choices today.

From a function perspective, it sounds a lot like a PT 92. Have you ever shot one to compare?

We tend to think that the PT 92 is crap compared to the B92, but maybe they're as good as the original B92, but never got better?

[Trooper224]

From a function perspective, it sounds a lot like a PT 92. Have you ever shot one to compare?

We tend to think that the PT 92 is crap compared to the B92, but maybe they're as good as the original B92, but never got better?

Yes, I've shot a PT92. I wouldn't have an opinion on it if I hadn't. I used to say it was the only Taurus that wasn't a complete piece of shit, only because it was essentially built on Beretta machinery. This old 92 is lacking in features compared to its modern successors, but that doesn't mean it's junk. It's well machined and assembled from quality parts, by people who knew what they were doing. I can't say the same about any Taurus handgun I've ever handled.

This old 92 is inferior because time has past it by, but I'd choose it over a Taurus. The PT92 started as a lower tier product and remains so.

[john c]

Thanks for the insight.

[LangdonTactical]

Poor Seconds got burned, obviously. 😉

Attachment 54074

My own joke that got the response above by SC.

I think I might be going back to the first centerfire pistol in my family. Why not? It shoots great, 30+ years of reliability, plenty of holsters, and the safety is in the right place. All it really gives up to a Beretta is finsh and a rougher DA trigger.

My question: what parts DON'T interchange with M92 parts? I doubt I will fill this sucker up with Langdon upgrades, but it would be good to know what I can swap out, especially as the gun closes in on 40 years.

I plan to replace all the springs in the gun in the not too distant future. Debating about new springs for the old mags, but I feel like buying new 17 rounders might make more sense, as I only have one.

Another question: should I preemptively replace the locking block? It seems fine. Gun is at 3000-5000 rounds, approximately. Bought used in 1988.

For a nightstand/carry gun, anything else I should be thinking about? No, I don't have money for a new M92 right now, although I would love a 92c! ($499.99 new at LNGS before the COOVID curse struck, underpriced IMO)

Sorry, but I cannot and will not work on the PT-92. It is based on a Beretta 92 from 1975, but that is where it stops. We even bought a brand new one last year to check it out and see if any parts would interchange. The only part that I remember would interchange was the recoil spring and maybe guide rod. Nothing else does, not even the grips, mag button, sear, magazines, hammer strut, hammer spring, trigger bar...... NOTHING! . It's all different from the Beretta 92.

On top of that, once you get inside the gun, that is where the wheels start to come off. It is clearly not built to the same standards as the Beretta. You mention the finish, you should see the parts inside the gun.

My gunsmiths and I all took a hard pass after taking one apart.

[Baldanders]

Sorry, but I cannot and will not work on the PT-92. It is based on a Beretta 92 from 1975, but that is where it stops. We even bought a brand new one last year to check it out and see if any parts would interchange. The only part that I remember would interchange was the recoil spring and maybe guide rod. Nothing else does, not even the grips, mag button, sear, magazines, hammer strut, hammer spring, trigger bar...... NOTHING! . It's all different from the Beretta 92.

On top of that, once you get inside the gun, that is where the wheels start to come off. It is clearly not built to the same standards as the Beretta. You mention the finish, you should see the parts inside the gun.

My gunsmiths and I all took a hard pass after taking one apart.

Heh. I didn't actually expect a response. Don't worry, I am not sending in my PT92 for work at LT. Too bad parts don't interchange.

I will probably be ordering some items for my px4, however. I am waiting on a new firing pin block spring after somehow breaking one while putting in the M92-style safety (Thanks to @beenalongtime for the donation!) earlier this week. Despite my earlier statements, a Langdon trigger bar is a "when" not "if."

And I would love a Langdon Tactical worked over 92c!

But I think my 1984 (if my research is correct) PT 92 will do OK as a back-up for training as I get back on the TDA wagon.

Thanks for the details!

[Baldanders]

Impressions?

Except aesthetics, it's inferior to a current production 92 in every way. The DA trigger is as gritty as sandpaper, something typical of TDA pistols of that era. The SA trigger isn't bad. The sights are beyond suck. It lacks a decock feature, something I consider mandatory on a TDA service pistol. The uncluttered slide, round trigger guard and polished blue finish make it sexy as hell. As a vintage piece it's high on the cool scale, as a weapon there are far better choices today.

The golden age is now.