Let's not forget that the 92 is a big bulky gun designed to fire 9mm. If it fired 10mm, or 440 Corbon, maybe I could just say "stuff happens", but come on! I have more rounds through my Ruger LC9 that is 1/3 the size and weight than the PT-99 when it broke.
I thought I'd seen every legitimate and illegitimate complaint about the Beretta 92 over the years. . . .
But blaming Beretta for Taurus' sins? That's a beyond the pale first. Why not go all of the way and blame Walther for the P-38?
AT BEST, the PT-99 is a license built copy of a Model 92 from the late 70s. Only made worse, with inferior machining and metallurgy. Arguably, the PT-99 is Taurus' most successfully selling auto loader only because Beretta designed it. Taurus' home brewed designs have been totally underwhelming by comparison.
AT WORST, the PT-99 is a shoddy clone, indifferently made and assembled, just like every Taurus product. The only thing certain that can be said of buying a Taurus clone over the original design, be it Beretta's or S&W's, is that the buyer was a cheapskate. Was Taurus' CS so bad that you had an unknowledgable gunsmith hacking on the barrel instead?
Whatever. Taurus doesn't incorporate any, ANY, product improvements made to the Model 92 over the years back in Italy or at BUSA. Blaming Beretta for crappy Brasilian clones is like blaming Colt's for crappy Filipino 1911s.
With the M9 rapidly approaching three decades of service, with improvements large and small made by the manufacturer, the quality gulf between the original and the clone in this instance is extreme.