Firearms Talk banner

Beretta 92 Accuracy Mythbusting

10K views 46 replies 19 participants last post by  Dallas53 
#1 ·
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]
 
#4 · (Edited)
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.
 
#6 ·
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 ·
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.
 
#8 ·
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 ·
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 ·
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 ·
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!" ."
 
#13 ·
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.
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 ·
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.


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
 
#16 ·
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 ·
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 ·
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 · (Edited)
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." ;) [/ QUOTE]

I don't know about everybody else, but isn't some of the fun

in shooting competition specifically using standard "service" arms ?

Super-accurate, and custom builds are fine, but, IMO, they remove a

lot of the challenge and pleasure inherent to shooting.

Case in point: My scoped Ruger can easily drive tacks at 25 yards.

But there's no fun in it. It's great trying to tighten up groups at

100 yards, tho. :cool:
 
#20 ·
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.
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.
 
#21 ·
I just received a private communication this morning from an active duty Army soldier who shared his experiences with the M9. Basically, it all comes down to how well they are being maintained. He was issued one recently that had a barrel that moved so much he could get no better than an 8" group at 10 yards. He turned it in, was issued one with no "wobble" and got a good consistent 2" group at 10 yards, etc.
 
#22 ·
I own a M-9 and like it very much but I don't seem to shoot it as well as my other guns....though I tend to blame "operator error" as opposed to the gun. I do not like the trigger but I still like the gun and shoot well enough with it to suit me and it is a fine looking specimen!
 
#24 ·
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.
If it didn't live up to any of the DoD guidelines, they most likely never would have purchased it.

That said, the reason military and police are given training on how to properly use firearms is so they can become accurate with them. No matter how accurate a gun is designed to be, if you don't know how to shoot properly, you wouldn't hit the side of a barn.

As stated by Therewolf, Hollywood is to blame for most people believing it's accuracy sucks. Because we all know that you can shoot a person on a rooftop some 600 years with a handgun and get a head shot every time... :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: sambob
#25 ·
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...
Most of the issues with the M9 and M16 in the desert were from not properly maintaining them (Jessica Lynch proves this).

I was in the Army for too long, and have seen both newer and much more experienced soldiers not take care of their weapons... and it really doesn't take much to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sambob
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top