Beretta 92 Accuracy Mythbusting

Discussion in 'Beretta Forum' started by Amsdorf, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    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.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyggoBEvrlA"]Here is the video.[/ame]
     
  2. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2013

  3. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    That was well said.

    Hollywood has taught many bad lessons about handguns or any firearm for that matter.
     
  4. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2013
  5. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    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.

    :)
     
  6. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    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)
     
  7. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    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.
     
  8. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,925
    53
    48
    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.
     
  9. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,925
    53
    48
    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.
     
  10. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    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.
     
  11. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    Where's the like button?

    Thanks Jon.

    I think if I ever bought and used a ransom rest, it would just depress me knowing how bad my shooting actually is.

    I mean, it's not like you will ever say to a bad guy, "Could you wait a moment while I set up my ransom rest? Now, step back a few feet. OK, there, now ... hold it....hold it...say 'cheese!" ."
     
  12. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    Bingo!!!

    Correctamundo.
     
  13. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    Dude.....

    The myth is that the M9 / 92 is inherently crap as a combat sidearm.

    OK, fine...that means, to me, that it can't hit beans.

    So, I stepped out 25 yards and put rounds into a torso target, somewhat rapidly.

    If you watch the video you'll see said rounds hitting center mass and what is more, grouping pretty well around the pumping station.

    That pretty much tells me it is fine as a combat sidearm.

    Not sure what part of that you don't understand, but...there you go.

    Have a nice day.
     
  14. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0


    There's nothing quite as nice as a 1911 single action trigger that has been custom tuned. One of my 1911s has custom trigger work on it and it breaks right at 2.5 pounds, so cleanly and so crisply it just moves me to big girlie tears everytime.

    OK, well, maybe not, but you get the picture.:D
     
  15. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,029
    49
    48
    You will usually find the guy shooting the pistol is inaccurate not the pistol. I have shot the beretta at the range and have found it to be accurate. PS it is a service pistol not a target pistol.
     
  16. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    Manta, yes, I've noticed that.

    And thanks for that VERY wise comment about it being a service pistol.

    Some folks get really, really, REALLY upset by phrases such as "service pistol" and "combat accurate."

    Honestly, I just don't know what to do for them, other than put the pacifier back in their mouths and pat them on the head.

    ;)
     
  17. Jagermeister

    Jagermeister New Member

    6,811
    0
    0
    My father bought me a 92 back in 1990. I wanted the gun after watching all those late 80s action movies. Living in Germany, the gun came from the Italian factory. It was a fun gun to shoot, accurate, high quality and a unique design for that time. Never had a FTF. The only problem with the gun is the location of the safety. There was reports that troops were accidentally engaging the safety due to large gloves or big hands. I have seen it happen at the range a few times myself. Never heard troops complain about accuracy. I also observe them throughout the years qualifying at the range with positive results. It is a service pistol that does the job it was meant to do. Not to shoot dimes at 25 yards, but to hit center mass.

    Now, I have heard reports about the questionable quality control of the M9, especially during the 90s in the desert. But this is a different topic on the gun. Is this another "myth" to examine? I did find this report on the slides. Baretta and the Army seem to blame each other...

    http://www.thegunzone.com/m9-a.html

    I have heard that the US factory quality is less then the Italian factory. Another myth? I know my Italian made 92 never had a slide failure, even with the NATO ammo. I ended up selling my gun 5 or 6 years later, but it was still running perfectly.
     
  18. Amsdorf

    Amsdorf New Member

    584
    0
    0
    I agree re. the odd placement and operation of the safety. Up is down and down is up.

    I've sold a lot of my firearms, swapping them in and out for the fun of shooting a lot of different firearms.

    The Beretta 92A1 is still in my gun safe and I'm loving it.
     
  19. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2013
  20. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    some of the early issue m9 were prone to slides leaving the guns in a rearward direction it was also a problem with all civvy 92f and earlier versions. the fs version fixed that design flaw

    no truth at all in difference in quality.