Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!sequent.com!roc
From: roc@sequent.com
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Is the Taurus 92 as good as the Beretta 92???
Message-ID: <35384@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 91 20:30:34 GMT
Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 29
Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu

In article <35313@mimsy.umd.edu> boyd@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd) writes:
#Well, the Taurus 92 is almost identical in DESIGN to the Berreta 92F.  The 
#difference is that the Taurus has a real safety, whereas the Berreta has a 
#hammer-dropping dongle (thus implying a double action first round).  As for 
#fit and finish, the Berreta wins hands down.  

The "hammer drop dongle" in the 92F also renders it impossible for the hammer
to move the firing pin (by rotating the interconnecting post out of the way)
so it has to be called a safety.  While it's on, you can't fire the gun.

Double action vs. cocked-and-locked is a religious issue.  If you must have
cocked and locked, there's a well known procedure to convert the 92F to the
cocked and locked operating system, like earlier models.  (Or buy the Taurus,
which is a copy of an earlier Beretta design.)  If you must have double
action *and* a safety, the 92F works the way you need out of the box.  If
you must have a hammer drop without a safety, get a 92G.

(The Beretta 92G is physically identical to the 92F, except the slide mounted
lever is a decocking lever *only*, and is spring loaded to return to the
"fire" position.  Single action fans could consider it as carrying "stage
two", I guess.)

Then, you have the OS of the Berettta 84F, which has a "real" frame mounted
safety which also decocks to half cock, not hammer completely down.  The
best or worst of all world, depending on how you look at it.  But I digress...



				Ron