Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   Beretta Forum (
-   -   Beretta 92 Accuracy Mythbusting (

Amsdorf 06-26-2013 12:31 AM

Beretta 92 Accuracy Mythbusting
It always surprises me to read here and there on various gun forums, etc. that the Beretta 92 is "inaccurate" to put it, well, politely. I've always enjoyed my Beretta 92A1 and have been shoot it well enough to suit me.

But after reading some trash talking about the Beretta's accuracy I made this video to bust the myth.

therewolf 06-26-2013 12:41 AM

IMO, movies like the "Lethal Weapon" series inflame this myth.

I love my 92s, and if I do my part, they do theirs.

I think people see outrageous accuracy depicted onscreen,

then cast their expectations upon the 92FS or 92A1.

Then they are disappointed, because the 92 isn't a

magical solution to their own accuracy issues.

Amsdorf 06-26-2013 01:17 PM

That was well said.

Hollywood has taught many bad lessons about handguns or any firearm for that matter.

Overkill0084 06-26-2013 02:16 PM

I never really bought into that theory in the first place. However, for the purpose of busting the myth, I would have preferred to see a more conclusive method used.
First, what is the expected level of accuracy? It's a milspec pistol. I'm certain there is an expected standard of accuracy it must achieve IAW DoD contract guidlines. I would assume it to be a specified group size group at a standard distance with a specified ammunition.
In other words: Just how accurate was it designed/required to be? Does your particular example meet the established standard? Does that established standard meet your particular standard of "accurate?" How about that of the general shooting public?
Bonus question: How do the results compare to similar pistols (CZ Sig etc.)?
Until we have an average group size to compare to a set standard, we won't really know.

To be fair, I do believe that it is more accurate that many people give it credit for, but then most quality pistols are.

Amsdorf 06-26-2013 02:34 PM

Who cares? I put plenty of rounds in a fairly good group into the target in heart area from 25 yards.

If you want to pursue it further, go for it.

My work is done here.


JonM 06-26-2013 02:35 PM

ive always found 92's to be pretty accurate. not on par with a handgun chambered in 45 but good enough for any real need. 9mm isnt a terribly good round for extreme accuracy due to the bullet design. nothing to do with the guns its chambered for.

the bullets just lack the mass for the diameter to make them accurate. this kinda goes away if your using 147 grain bullets making them a bit more stable.

i own a M9A1 beretta and a compact inox M9A1 both are more than sufficiently accurate for self dense which is why i bought them. their 20+1 capacity with mecgar mags sold me on them.

anyway i wouldnt ever have called a M9 innaccurate. not target guns but not innaccurate. im not a great pistol shot by any stretch but i find the M9 easy to shoot. not as easy as a XDM but easier than a 1911.

good video btw!! (except for the revolver part... heh)

Overkill0084 06-26-2013 02:51 PM


Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 1287269)
Who cares? I put plenty of rounds in a fairly good group into the target in heart area from 25 yards.

If you want to pursue it further, go for it.

My work is done here.


Who cares? You claim to be busting myths here. Apparently I mistakenly thought it would have been you. Banging away at a human sized target and claiming to have settled the M9 accuracy issue is hardly myth busting.

SSGN_Doc 06-26-2013 02:57 PM

9mm is not any less accurate than .45 inherently. At pistol ranges wind isn't going to have a huge effect. Usually the wind will have more effect on the shooter with their hands extended in the wind. In service pistol matches I've seen Beretta and Sig pistols do very well. Where a 1911 gets its advantages is in the shorter lighter trigger travel and pull, which puts less influence on the pistol. In bullseye shooting, another advantage a .45 has is in the actual diameter of the bullet. With it being fatter it has a better chance of breaking a higher scoring ring even though the centers of a 9mm or .45 may hit with their center at the same point on a paper target.

Check out a Sig 210 or a Smith & Wesson 952 if you want a more fair comparison to a 1911.

SSGN_Doc 06-26-2013 03:05 PM

If the video is just a test of combat effective accuracy being good enough to score lethal hits, then it does that.
That was what I thought he stated the video to be about.

If we wanted to show the inherent accuracy of the M9 then more controls could be used to remove human error.

JonM 06-26-2013 03:16 PM

i wasnt speaking of 1911s in terms of accuracy. i have a couple of nice 1911's but prefer my beretta's xdm's and bersa's ruger's and a few other guns to shooting them. i kinda find them a little unpleasent to shoot for much past 50 rounds due to the very slim backstrap.

45 is my favorite bullet diameter whether its 451 pistol or 458 rifles.

measure center to center not edge to edge to get accuracy across calibers.

you can easily see a difference in guns like the xdm and glocks which are identical in just about every aspect except caliber. 45 xdm's tend to have better center to center acccuracy than 9.

the difference is there is more bullet mass in a 45 to offset minute variences in jacket thickness. 9mm has a harder time retaining stability due to far less lead mass in the center which is why accuracy loadings in any pistol are always lead unjacketed loadings. since almost all offerings in 45 and 357 (9mm) are jacketed thats what im refering to

but its not that much of a difference and there is no practical difference when talking self defense.

combat accuracy with handguns is far more interesting to me than shooting from a ransom rest.

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.