The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 19, 2020, 12:15 AM   #1
jmstr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2001
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 1,226
89 Taurus PT99AF- Color me impressed!

Hello All,

Just a quick range report- only first impressions- less than 50 rounds through the pistol yet. But, color me impressed!

For those unfamiliar, the Taurus PT99 is the adjustable sight version of the PT92. The 92 is made on equipment first used by Beretta to make what we call the Model 92- before they moved the safety up to the slide [around '79] and went to the 'american' style mag catch, instead of the 'european' style heel catch.

Around '85 Taurus swapped to the same mag catch as we now think is normal, but kept the frame safety. Around 89-93 they modified it to be a safety/decocker.

Mine is the straight safety version- no decocking function.


First range trip this weekend. Didn't have much time but wanted to see if it was worth keeping or just move it along. [got for a 'good' price in my area.]

First handgun I fired that day was the PT99. Fired 10 rounds at a 6" metal reactive target at about 15 yards. All 10 rounds rang the gong.

With my sight issues and shaky hands, this is impressive for me- especially as I find the Beretta/Taurus 92 frame just a bit too large in my hands.

Being able to carry 'cocked and locked' like all of my handguns with safeties [other than P-38] makes this more comfortable than the Beretta Slide mount.

IF you are open minded and like the Beretta design, but on a budget- I think you could do worse than check out the Taurus PT92/99 series.

Beretta makes excellent stuff- btw. I am not a Beretta hater. I simple prefer cocked and locked and frame safeties.
jmstr is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 06:30 AM   #2
Wallyl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2011
Posts: 241
I had a 99AF...if you shoot it a lot the rear sight blade will eventually break off...it is extremely difficult to find a replacement for it. Contacting Taurus, they will tell you that they have none ...to look on line for one. Sadly you cannot attach a Taurus fixed rear sight on the 99AF. I now have a Taurus 92SS, which I like; even without an adjustable rear sight, it is an accurate shooter.
Wallyl is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 10:21 AM   #3
jmstr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2001
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 1,226
Thanks Wallyl,

I had heard about the rear sight issue.

I wanted to shoot it before deciding if it was a keeper. Once I realized it was, I went to every gun part dot com and picked up a PT92 parts kit for it for $128 shipped. [it was 50% off, most kits that aren't rust buckets are 190-260.]

This kit is everything except the frame, so I bought a fixed sight slide and got a barrel and everything else for free!

I will try it with the fixed rear sight and then see which configuration I will leave as my 'go to'. Prob the fixed rear sight- so that I can sell it as originally configured if I ever want/need to.
jmstr is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 12:46 PM   #4
lee n. field
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2002
Location: The same state as Mordor.
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallyl View Post
I had a 99AF...if you shoot it a lot the rear sight blade will eventually break off...it is extremely difficult to find a replacement for it. Contacting Taurus, they will tell you that they have none ...to look on line for one. Sadly you cannot attach a Taurus fixed rear sight on the 99AF. I now have a Taurus 92SS, which I like; even without an adjustable rear sight, it is an accurate shooter.
Looking at pictures, it looks almost like that model is using a revolver rear sight.

Let's see if it'll let me hotlink....

__________________
"As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. "
lee n. field is online now  
Old October 19, 2020, 01:34 PM   #5
Wallyl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2011
Posts: 241
jmstr My 99AF would throw brass up high with many falling on the top my head; some going under your collar. These were with cast loads, not factory loads. The new 92SS doesn't....that I really like! I load mine to 1,000 FPS with a 125~130 grain cast bullet sized to .358".

I forgot to mention....mine broke two locking blocks* that Taurus did replace. As I understand it now they require you send the pistol in for replacement, but Numrich does offer them and theirs are hardened.

*https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/350290C

Last edited by Wallyl; October 20, 2020 at 07:44 AM.
Wallyl is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 02:39 PM   #6
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,745
I do believe there is something about the adjustable sight version that makes it easier to get the firing pin out. The adjustable sight can be easily taken off while the rear sight would have to be drifted out. My memory could easily be off on this though.

There is a bit of a "gotcha" if you're swapping out grips. The upper left grip screw doesn't screw into the frame it screws into an insert with a collar on it and the insert screws into the frame. The collar on the insert holds a spring in place. Sometimes when you unscrew the upper left grip screw the insert unscrews and when you remove the grip the insert comes with it and that leaves the spring unsecured. Just something to watch. (I'd like to take credit for the picture but it's from some other site and I don't remember where I got it.)



Attached Images
File Type: jpg TaurusLeftGrip007-1.jpg (101.6 KB, 266 views)
DaleA is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 03:12 PM   #7
jmstr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2001
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 1,226
Lee n. Field- You are right- it looks like an Ellison or something. That's an idea to have it fixed. Have a revolver sight fitted to the frame. Cool thought!

Wallil- mine ejected just fine, but I will watch for that issue. Good insight for loading. When I get set up for that I'll keep this in mind.

DaleA- thanks for taking the time to pull up some images to help! However, I don't remember mine looking like that. Is that image from one of the decocker models? The frame cutout looks like it would allow that. Mine is safety or off- but decocking would be like doing it for a 1911- hold hammer and pull trigger to slowly let hammer down.

IOW- I won't decock it for carry. I am comfortable with cocked and locked now. 15 years ago I would have been too skittish.
jmstr is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 05:19 PM   #8
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,745
That picture DOES match up with a decocker model. So you are correct, yours might be different.

Quote:
I am comfortable with cocked and locked now.
In my humble opinion that is the way to go.

Funny story about my encounter with the Taurus 92. I was there the first time it was at the range and I got to fire it a few times. I was impressed. The thing ate all the different 9mm we fed it and was decently accurate. I didn't have much experience with a DA/SA trigger so it was fun trying it out and it sure seemed okay to me. In single action I thought the trigger pull was very, very long but almost effortless. It was definitely different but I kind of liked it and shot it well.

Here's the interesting part, the first time at the range all that had been done to the gun was a dry rag was run up and down the barrel to get rid of any factory preservative that might have been there. That's when I saw the gun and like I said I was impressed. After the first outing the gun got a thorough cleaning with good old Hoppes #9, brass brush, rags and gun-dedicated toothbrush.

The second time out, (I heard about this later) the proud, almost cocky, Taurus owner, showing the gun off to other friends, the gun went click, click, click on the firing line and the primers were pristine, untouched, no firing pin mark at all on them.

Since the gun was virtually new it went back to the gun store where near as it has been figured the Hoppes #9 dissolved some lubricants/preservatives, they ran into the firing pin channel, dried out and solidified, and they jammed up the firing pin block pin. That means the firing pin was being blocked from moving forward. The gunsmith's solution, ironically, was more Hoppes #9 to flush out the firing pin channel.

It's a good enough story that I have checked back several times and the gun has been shooting regularly without problem for a couple of years now.

Good luck.
DaleA is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 06:49 PM   #9
lee n. field
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2002
Location: The same state as Mordor.
Posts: 5,391
Re the rear sight, Amazon reviews for this claim it works with the PT99 with "minor modification": https://www.amazon.com/Accro-Kensigh.../dp/B005FGVEEU
__________________
"As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. "

Last edited by lee n. field; October 20, 2020 at 09:56 AM.
lee n. field is online now  
Old October 19, 2020, 08:14 PM   #10
44caliberkid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2017
Location: Iowa
Posts: 561
I've had one since '88 or '89. It has had 1000's of rounds through it including 1200 reloads that were very hot. No sight problems. I did install Wolff springs to smooth out the DA pull and rubber stocks. My son still carries it for defense when he doesn't have to be concealed. I agree the Beretta grip frame is pretty fat.
44caliberkid is offline  
Old October 19, 2020, 10:34 PM   #11
veprdude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 229
I have a PT92 and a few Beretta 92 FS. I like the Beretta better but I could see recommending the PT92 to someone more budget oriented. They're both well built. Trigger on the 92FS is better. Some like the frame mounted safety over the slide mounted safety.
veprdude is offline  
Old October 21, 2020, 10:17 AM   #12
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,965
You might want to consider replacing the locking block. If one of the newer beretta locking blocks will fit, I'd go with one of those. My PT99 was ruined when my locking block sheared its ears off. Beretta upgraded the locking blocks on its pistol around 2004.
Skans is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2020 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08246 seconds with 11 queries