Beretta 96 series .40SW vs Taurus PT 101 .40SW

[Silverbullet1]

Nothing's perfect. My son, in a dangerous occupation, was about to clean his Colt .45. Wouldnt properly chamber manually so he didnt know if it would under fire. He got rid of it and bought a .357 Colt revolver. With a double shoulder rig aka "Last Man Standing" I was looking for 'twins'. Double the money on Beretta was a load of cash for two. Did my research. Taurus bought out Beretta's SA manufacturing facility lock stock and barrel. Along with that they got some improved Beretta designs which they further improved producing the PT. Although I wasnt completely convinced, I went for the Taurus. I got one w/o adjustable sights for my strong hand and one with for my weak hand. With so much lead to put downrange, Ive never looked back. THIRTY TWO ROUNDS DOWNRANGE without changing magazines! What's not to love? Jams, misfires, only one was the bullet not the firearm.

 

[Joe13]

The Taurus lower frame is much lighter then the Beretta handling them side by side.

I want to say the Taurus is aluminum vs steel but I could be wrong.


Pretty much a necro thread either way

 

[User 1234]

Beretta 92/96 frames are aluminum.

 

[Silverbullet1]

The Taurus lower frame is much lighter then the Beretta handling them side by side.

I want to say the Taurus is aluminum vs steel but I could be wrong.


Pretty much a necro thread either way

Ya think? Sometimes the old way is the best way. EXAMPLE: (SIG) Senate Armed Services Committee, called the MHS program a "costly misfire in which it has taken 10 years and wasted potentially tens of millions of dollars in order to purchase simple handguns." And even after the Army finally selected SIG Sauer's design, the problems continued. How many people would have run out to buy this 'new military' pistol with its inherent flaws? If you want almost ultimate reliability git yourself a .45 Colt SAA. Loads up to equal a .44 mag. Ive shout mine for over 50 years without a whimper.

 

[Joe13]

Ya think? Sometimes the old way is the best way. EXAMPLE: (SIG) Senate Armed Services Committee, called the MHS program a "costly misfire in which it has taken 10 years and wasted potentially tens of millions of dollars in order to purchase simple handguns." And even after the Army finally selected SIG Sauer's design, the problems continued. How many people would have run out to buy this 'new military' pistol with its inherent flaws? If you want almost ultimate reliability git yourself a .45 Colt SAA. Loads up to equal a .44 mag. Ive shout mine for over 50 years without a whimper.

Bless your heart, your absolutely precious

Welcome to the forum

 

[User 1234]

Definitely a necro thread, but entertaining.

If anyone thinks the military handgun selection process was bad, look at the uniform acquisition process. Instead of finding a successful exercise clothing product on the market, and soliciting bids for those manufacturers to produce it in the US (Berry Act compliance) in a different color scheme, the US tried to reinevent the wheel. The Air Force PT uniforms in 2006 had no pockets, so everyone doing PT left their ID cards and keys next to the running track. This of course created a security problem. The shorts did not fit and rode up everyone's crotch even if they were not fat. The shirts did not breathe. The Army's ACU did not match any terrain in the world and stuck out like a sore thumb in Afghanistan. The vetting process was all about shuffling paperwork and asking desk-bound administrative personnel for their opinions, along with senior officers who are often a bit outdated on fashion and sportswear, and haven't low crawled in 30 years. Then they ignore the input from the deployed field testing units or persuade the junior enlisted testers to say how wonderful the general's choice is.