Petrushka's Sidearm

Why does Petra use a Taurus PT-92, a Brazilian copy of the Beretta Model 92FS rather than an actual Beretta? You'd think the Beretta 92FS would be easier for the SWA to get a hold of in, being made in Italy and all. Also, aren't PT92s often said to be cheap, lower quality knockoffs of the Beretta?

Could be a personal choice on Sandro's part.

While Italian civilians are restricted to 9x21mm IMI, the SWA has access to 9x19mm rounds and Italy's military use the 92 chambered in 9x19mm.

Both weapons have changed over the years, but the main difference between a PT-92 and a Beretta 92FS these days is the safety mechanisms. The Beretta 92 originally has a frame mounted safety. It later got a slide mounted safety that decocked the weapon when it was put on safe. The Taurus kept the frame mounted safety and eventually added a third position to decock the weapon. A Taurus has the option of being carried with the hammer cocked and the safety on (which allows for a single action first shot), as where a Beretta 92FS can't do this because the safety mechanism decocks the gun when put on safe. A lot of people also find a frame mounted safety faster then a slide mounted one (however, Beretta 92s are often carried with the hammer uncocked and the safety off for a double action first shot when drawn, which makes the convenience of the safety position less relevant).

Why this would actually matter to Sandro, don't ask me. He doesn't strike me as enough of an expert marksman to worry about whether his first shot is single or double action.

The biggest pro for the Taurus PT92 is the frame mounted safety. It's just the "natural" place to put one. I also hear Taurus made guns are pretty well made too, maybe not the best quality, but definitely serviceable.

Slide mounted safeties?

I think Sandro's just cheap.

feh. it's not like the 92FS is anything special anyway. if you're gonna buy a pistol whose main advantage is that a trained monkey can clean it thoroughly in under a minute, you might as well get the cheap one.

...and Taurus handguns are decent quality. their compact .45 is more reliable than its H&K equivalent, anyway... and they make nice revolvers.

I was under the impression that a slide mounted safety was ergonomically awkward, but had some mechanical advantages over a frame mounted safety. Something about being able to keep the safety engaged while chambering a round or some such? Can anyone with a bit more knowledge of the mechanical aspects involved clarify that issue?

If wikipedia is to be believed, the change to a slide mounted safety/decocker was basically done in order to attract customers who weren't satisfied with the original Beretta 92 safety set up.

I don't know the mechanics behind a Beretta's safety, but I will say that ergonomics is one of the most important things about a firearm (to me.) If it doesn't feel right to shoot, manipulate, or carry, then I'm not going to feel very confident in it.

Which is the whole point of a gun right? As quoted from the movie Superbad:

"What's it like having a gun?"
"It's like having two cocks, if one of your cocks could kill someone!"

PT-92
NOT THAT BAD DO YO OWN ONE? Well its a pretty rugged gun that works and holds lots of bullets.


frame mounted safety? I love them. I am an american and I love the 1911 and slide mounted safeties.
the old berettas had slide mounted safeties! having your safety on a thing that moves sounds kinda not good and It is just uncomfortable the way you have to use it.

Maybe Sandro dosent like beretta...maybe yu aida dosent like beretta? Maybe petra uses a millenium more often...

tsundere9kagami2 wrote:slide mounted safety? I love them. I am an american and I love the 1911 and slide mounted safeties.

I think you mean the frame (or thumb) safety. I agree, the safety on the "moving slide" is unnatural at least in my opinion.

I have a Stoeger Cougar 8000, the Turkish-made version of the Beretta Cougar (kinda like a 92 with a full-framed slide). I can't say I'm entirely happy with the slide-mount safety. It works, but you either have to have a long thumb or shift your grip to disengage it effectively every time.

It's easier to rack the slide with the safety on, but tears up your hand/fingers if it's off. I prefer frame safeties. The CZ-75 is about as good a safetied platform as anyone can get in a 9mm. John Browning had it right in the 1911, and CZ made it slightly better.

Maybe yu thought that Taurus sounded badass.

as for slide mounted safeties....yup typo but ive seen the people who like them and they have a technique for the m9 safety that happens when they unholster or holster it

While we're on this topic, I'm kind of curious about the actual effectiveness of the open top slide design used on the Model 92 (among many other Berettas). Beretta claims it helps eliminate jams and stovepiping, and I've heard it makes the pistol easier to clear, but you also hear a lot of complaints about it letting crap into the weapon. Then again, perhaps that explains in part why some people praise the design for reliability while other people deride it. (I say in part because there are other issues at play as well, like whether the weapon is being equipped with aftermarket magazines that were built by the lowest bidder.)

Maybe yu thought that Taurus sounded badass.

More likely he's a firearm Otaku like us. He just wants to put as many in as possible, maybe even testing his ability at detail. The Millenium Pro on the Volume 7 cover was identifiable on sight. On opening the mailer, I proceeded to be amazed at the detail in the pages, then stated "WTF, is that a Millenium Pro?"

While I can see the advantage against stove-pipes, the lack of grip on an open-top slide annoys me. I use an overhand grip to rack a slide and the available purchase on the open slides is not enough for flawless racks, especially with the affore-mentioned safety biting into your fingers.

Some say they hate the open top some say they like it ...I think its cool. but one of my friends burned himself because of it. and not for the reason you are thinking.

but there is one thing that I hate about a berettas open top. and that is that so many people mistake it for a dessert eagle because of it. and they are stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfFJO_HVthA
one of my friends thought this. the people in this video thought this

...and anyone who has ever handled both a Beretta 92 and a Desert Eagle does this:

next time some idiot makes that mistake, show 'em this comparison:

92FS- slide goes all the way to the front, despite being open-topped. Front sight is part of the slide.

Desert Eagle- slide is mounted low on the frame as it goes forward, front sight is part of the frame.
...to say nothing of the difference in size.

I'd say the grip of the 92f is almost as big as one for a Desert Eagle. :dance:

Loc thats what pisses me off! they are 2 very very different gunbs and yet....Beretta m92 fs is NOT A DESSERT(tasty) EAGLE

rusty-spring wrote:I'd say the grip of the 92f is almost as big as one for a Desert Eagle. :dance:

I take it you've found the 92F grip too large at some point... I always found it funny that the stock mags only hold 15 rounds, though the grip is easily as large as a 20 round XD 9mm's grip (and much larger than a Glock 17's).

all that aside, though, the Desert Eagle's grip is monstrous. If you couldn't wrap your hand comfortably around a 92F, I doubt you could reach the trigger on the Eagle (I couldn't, at least not comfortably).

Never held a Desert Eagle, but I'm sure I can take your word for it that their grips are huge. I find the 92F's grip a tad too large (damn these "medium" sized hands ) by itself.

So I'll just take some sound advice and say that if I ever needed to have a gun that fired as large of bullets like a Desert Eagle can, I might as well just grab a shotgun. Though I am missing out on the "ridiculous" factor.

DEagles are a barbecue gun. They're over-hyped, overly-flashy, and the ammo costs waaaaay too freaking much.

A lot of manufacturers are now finding new ways of cramming high-capacity in a thinner grip. The Springfield XDm is one of those, and I've glanced past articles on several others.

For a casual gun, the two items you need to look for are whether your hand fits, and how controllable it is for you. Personally, I'd rather shoot fast and straight than look good missing.

This is the main reason why I prefer the 1911 (especially the Defunct American Arms Model 1981/84 series), especially the double width high capacity models- for it fits in my hand perfectly.

Other guns maybe nice looking or function better than a 1911, but if you're uncomfortable in holding it, then shooting it may also be a problem. Anyone with some minimal of point and pull the trigger training can shoot any gun, but how many are actually going to hit a target?

I remember years back holding a friend's semi 9mm automatic (He claimed it was a SiG, though I did not see and SiG logos on it- maybe it was a cheap knock off clone), and kept hitting the floor under the target because (to me) the sites were off and the handle was in an angle I could not fire with my wrists straight. After some working, If I twisted my wrists upwards and lined up the muzzle site to be above the hammer's sites, it shot to hit the target where I aimed it. Very uncomfortable for me, but my friend found no problems with it. Go figure it.

I was taught to aim with the muzzle and hammer sites to be level and even with the area to hit on top of it, and it will always score on point. My friend's gun, to me, broke that law in every way possible. There were other guns I had to learn how to shoot (compared to a 1911), but my friend's gun was an extreme. My mom's .38 had a notched handle which turned it into a rear site. If one did not know this, you would not be able to shoot the gun. Yes, it was an old gun...

The desert eagle was a test of engineering. Can we engineer an automatic pistol that shoots such a large round? I think it would be cool to be the first to do such a thing and hey! we might even sell a few! So it was a feat that became an Icon.

Original Muzzle Loading Flintlocks used to shoot a damn lead ball from 1/2 to 1 inch in diameter (depending on the gun's barrel)!

I was taught to aim with the muzzle and hammer sites to be level and
even with the area to hit on top of it, and it will always score on
point.

Sounds like a three-dot sight. It can vary per model, but generally a three-dot sight will impact behind the front dot when they are lined up, out to 50ft or so, rather than the top of the front sight. Past a certain distance, they will impact above the front sight.

I've had mixed feelings about mine, but haven't changed it out, debating whether to go Tritium or rechargable, or even to go with night-sights at all, on my M&P, that is.

ElfenMagix wrote:Original Muzzle Loading Flintlocks used to shoot a damn lead ball from 1/2 to 1 inch in diameter (depending on the gun's barrel)!

Not semi automatic with a magazine that holds lots o bullets.

But yes they did and they freaked me out.

Now how would Airsoft do an old fashion flint lock muzzle loader?

Actually....
They would have an internal tank of green gas and the flintlock stricker would hit a valve releasing all the gas.

you would just muzzle load the bb and some wadding into it fill it with gas and all the gas comes out when the hammer hits the valve chucking out the bb.

well guys I have fondled an m9 for almost a day now and I can honestly say While I still don't like slide mounted safeties the beretas works. it does the job very well. But I prefer a safety that keeps the slide from moving because whenever I put the beretta in a holster the slide moves and the round gets unbreached. Also I dont like the trigger pull double action is a good thing but whe they go into single action it still had a lot of creep.

(1911 safety=awesome)

tsundere9kagami2 wrote:well guys I have fondled an m9 for almost a day now and I can honestly say While I still don't like slide mounted safeties the beretas works. it does the job very well. But I prefer a safety that keeps the slide from moving because whenever I put the beretta in a holster the slide moves and the round gets unbreached. Also I dont like the trigger pull double action is a good thing but whe they go into single action it still had a lot of creep.

(1911 safety=awesome)

Coming in pretty late here, but if you're managing to rack the slide when holstering, you're using a holster that's far too small for the weapon. Also, while I agree that the slide-mounted safety is not particularly ergonomic for users with smaller hands, it's actually in the perfect position to be disengaged with the thumb of your shooting hand as you grip and ready the weapon. I do have a question, though; what handguns have you handled that the safety locks the slide closed? The basic operation of a safety is to disengage the trigger from the sear, and I have personally never handled a firearm that could not be cycled with the safety engaged.

You mean Petra shaking her ass all over the place doesn't count as a sidearm?!

boomer_gonz wrote:You mean Petra shaking her ass all over the place doesn't count as a sidearm?!

I daresay that's her primary weapon.

Variance wrote: I do have a question, though; what handguns have you handled that the safety locks the slide closed? The basic operation of a safety is to disengage the trigger from the sear, and I have personally never handled a firearm that could not be cycled with the safety engaged.

cough 1911 cough

and yeah I was using a made of suck universal holster with the beretta and it kept moving the slide back and putting it into half cock and who knows what else happened to the cartrige. I'm too used to the 1911 being made of awesome. I my airsoft sidearm (it gets used more than my real guns) is currently an H&K USP in design and I'm more used to the non locking safety cause its been a while since I dumped 1911.

The smaller Beretta 84 (the cheetah over here) has a frame-mounted that locks the slide in battery. I'm not entirely sure why since it's a DA/SA gun. Maybe it's a hold over from the pre-80's models that had the cock n lock on it. Different design philosophies, I guess. Though with an open-top slide like that, keeping the gun locked in battery will prevent gunk from getting in the works should the holster try to move the slide. The last thing you need is some lint or something jamming the slide out of battery, or even worse, in battery, but just shy of the reach of the firing pin.

A

lso, while I agree that the slide-mounted safety is not particularly
ergonomic for users with smaller hands, it's actually in the perfect
position to be disengaged with the thumb of your shooting hand as you
grip and ready the weapon.

This depends on the size of your hands. I shoot a full size M&P with a medium backstrap, so my hands aren't exactly small. I have to shift my hand slightly on the grip of my Cougar to disengage the slide safety reliably. I can do it without shifting, but my thumb can sometimes not fully disengage it, due to the way the transfer bar provides resistance as part of the design. I have to say that I much prefer the frame-mounted Browning style safety, as your thumb is on it the moment you draw and does not require losing the leverage and control provided by the thumb.

tsundere9kagami2 wrote:
cough 1911 cough

and yeah I was using a made of suck universal holster with the beretta and it kept moving the slide back and putting it into half cock and who knows what else happened to the cartrige. I'm too used to the 1911 being made of awesome. I my airsoft sidearm (it gets used more than my real guns) is currently an H&K USP in design and I'm more used to the non locking safety cause its been a while since I dumped 1911.

Huh, that's interesting; the safety on my friend's Kimber doesn't lock the slide. In fact, the safety on said pistol is essentially inoperable unless the hammer is cocked. Given how long the design has been around, though, I wouldn't doubt that there are differences in safety mechanisms among the hundreds, even thousands, of 1911 variants.

maverick375 wrote:This depends on the size of your hands. I shoot a full size M&P with a medium backstrap, so my hands aren't exactly small. I have to shift my hand slightly on the grip of my Cougar to disengage the slide safety reliably. I can do it without shifting, but my thumb can sometimes not fully disengage it, due to the way the transfer bar provides resistance as part of the design. I have to say that I much prefer the frame-mounted Browning style safety, as your thumb is on it the moment you draw and does not require losing the leverage and control provided by the thumb.

You've piqued my interest; I'll have to keep my eyes open for a Cougar that I can handle and experience first-hand what you're describing. The only Berettas I've actually shot are a CX4 and 92FS, so my experience with other models is limited. I did actually come across a video on youtube showing a technique very similar to what I use, however. In case you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0VxLkqm--U

I know how to disengage the beretta safety (I have team mates who use them m9s and annoyingly bug me about the m9 as much as this thread does to me its always you should learn this and its technique that! shut up I don't care to use the US side arm just because it looks cool!) its just a pain for someone like me who knows and loves slide mounted (I also have rather small hands) safeties to retrain oneself and learn a new safety. (my bro has a taurus pt92 so its kinda best of both worlds)

The vid is interesting, but right off the bat I see a major difference in the shape of my Cougar's safety lever. It's not contoured nearly as well and doesn't appear to be as long, though that might be the lack of scale in the vid. The grip on this really is too wide for my comfort. Maybe I can get a slightly thinner set of grip panels for it.

I can't complain so much, though. It's hella accurate, digests anything I shove into it, and was only $329 when I got it. Now they go for $400 or so.