Quote:
Originally Posted by S&Wshooter
It's still a nice looking gun. I probably would buy one if it weren't for the whole "too fragile for the Navy SEALs" and "everyone I know who owns/had to carry one hates it"
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere
You do know someone who owns a Beretta and likes it, me, and Matt sort of counts as he had a PT92 and liked it too.
|
...what YNH said. I had a Taurus PT92 that was 20 years old and functioned flawlessly, even with reloaded ammo. I'm curious to know how many people you've talked to that hate Berettas. That's not to say I don't know people who hate the M9, but they tend to be folks who think the military should have never abandoned .45 ACP, so they're discriminating against the Beretta for its
caliber, not its design.
Also, I don't know what you're on about with Berettas being "fragile". They're not as durable as Glocks, but they're about as rugged as any all-metal handgun should be. The SEALs ditched the Beretta because its slide retention device was not strong enough to handle higher-pressure ammo than recommended. I don't have a problem with them using SIGs, but I also don't think the Beretta sucks just because it didn't meet a requirement specific to them. After all, what they need isn't necessarily what everyone else needs. (and besides, the 92FS, which replaced the original 92F that the SEALs rejected, has a fixed slide retention device.)
If the Beretta really sucks so much, I doubt it would have passed the XM9 trial (and I should point that one of its competitors was S&W's modified 459).