Beretta 92FS vs. Sig P226

[tlm225]

My preference is for the 226.

I've owned a 226 and used the 92 in the military. For my hand size (large glove) the 226 fit better. The 226 was far more natural to shoot accurately. (Both are accurate, the 226 was just easier for me to be accurate with)

[Osageshooter]

I have both and shot them both this weekend. I shoot the Sig better. If I shoot a magazine with the Baretta, first shot DA and the rest SA; I can see which one is the first shot in the group. With the Sig, shooting the same way; the first shot is not distinguishable from the rest. I am sure that this is just a personal thing, but the DA pull on the Baretta is a long one and I don't have small hands. I do feel well armed with either.

[Dust Monkey]

and yes Beretta had issues with their gun after it was issued to our military, and there's more to the story than that.

I guess I need to send my 92SB and my 2 92F's back to betetta to get fixed. I mean they have never had a problem after thousands of rounds, but better be careful.

[Jedburgh]

I shot a beretta for years in the military, and I've owned a Sig for about 7 years. Both pistols are world class and both products are well made.

My only problem with Sig is that the controls are "backwards" compared to the common safety and slide lock lever location. Most of the guys I've been around who preferred the Sig and get proficient at manipulating it end up buying lots of them.

I prefer the standard controls of the 1911, beretta, glock, s&w, etc.

Good luck.

DOL

P.S. The fact that the SEALs use it should be a vote against the Sig!

The Air Force OSI also uses the 226. Do you want to base your firearms decisions based on Air Force investigators?

Get what you like.

[Dust Monkey]

I could be wrong, but I believe AF OSI use the M11. Which is a Sig 228.

[Jedburgh]

DustMonkey - You may be right, I don't pay close attention to those guys. Thanks for continuing my education.


DOL

[Sturmgewehre]

Gun p*rn.



Carry on.

[jedi391]

If you're going 9mm the quality is the same with the Beretta much more affordable so I'd go Beretta. If you're going .40 I'd go Sig, better engineering for the .40.

[dgludwig]

We know that you said you have held and shot them all already. You said it yourself that the Sig feels better in your hand... you shoot the Beretta a little more accurately. Accuracy can be fixed... the feel in your hand cannot.

Hard to argue with this.

[Giorgio]

If dozens and dozen of countries entrust the lives of their soldiers to the Beretta 92, there will be a reason for. Who would take the responsibility to tell a soldier, "you died because I made a bad choice"? But may be my opinion doesn't count, I'm italian.

[stephen426]

I like the Sig P226 better. The trigger is better on the Sig. The Sig cannot be stripped as easily as the Beretta (by a bad guy). The Sig was more accurate for me. The Sig feels better in my hands. I like where the decocker is for the Sig. I don't know if this helps, but good luck.

[4INCHSMITH]

I don't own the 92FS so I can't really comment on it.

The 92FS is an absolute hunk of junk and really shouldn't be considered. If you shoot more than, say, 5,000 rounds through it the slide will separate. Granted, they have a device in there now to keep it from hitting you in the face, but who wants their pistol breaking in half even if you do get to keep your teeth?

In the same post? Really? I've easily put 3500 rounds through my Beretta 96 without a problem and apparently the platform can't handle the .40S&W, or so I've heard. Do you have a source for all that useful information?

[EdInk]

Owned 2 Berettas. One was my favorite for years, the other not so much. Never owns the Sig but have handles it a little bit. Honestly, my preference lean more toward striker fired guns nowaday. Especially the XD. That said between the two choices I would go with the Sig because IMO and limited use of it, the gun felt better made. Now if looks matter the the Beretta is rather hansome. FWIW everyone I know who has/had a Beretta loved it, until the tried something else that was equivalent.

[gc70]

I have owned both and like aspects of both.

The Sig P226 is sturdy and well made, but both Beretta 92FS pistols I have owned (US Inox and Italian Inox) were works of art with regard to fit and finish. Both guns were totally reliable. For me, the P226 shoots like it is laser guided, but I can't hit the side of a barn from inside with a 92FS (nothing wrong with how a 92FS shoots, but a lot wrong with how I shoot a 92FS). I can comfortbly reach the frame-mounted decocker on the Sig, while the slide-mounted safety-decocker on the Beretta was awkward and required me to shift my grip.

If both guns feel comfortable in your hand, flip a coin. The fact that you shoot a little better initially with the Beretta probably means nothing.

[XD Gunner]

I'm a little late to this, but I vote P226. I have one that's 20 years old, was dropped in the mud (right before I shot it for the first time) and I put all 15 rounds inside of a softball sized target at 7 yards. Without hiccup. The gentleman in the lane next too me, had a new Beretta 96 (although it was a 9mm) and he was shooting it poorly.

I do not own a Beretta and this was my first experience shooting one. The Beretta in question had the strait grip, and was a brigadier model. I put 10 rounds downrange and gave it back to the gentleman, it felt great, but I didn't feel that it was half the gun of the SIG Sauer. I want a 92FS Inox, personally, but I don't know if I would buy one over a SIG as a personal defense gun/only gun.

[M. Riggs]

I have owned both. Both are awesome, iconic 9mm pistols. You can't go wrong either way.

The Beretta isn't THAT big and heavy, give me a break. It's lighter than the almighty 1911 that it replaced. Plus it isn't picky with ammo. It will chamber an empty case with no issue.

If you think the trigger pull is soooo bad, then God forbid you every have to fire a double action revolver. Beretta 92s are about as smooth as you'll get with a service pistol.

15-18rd flush fit mags galore. I've had mine for 11 years, not one stoppage, bobble, FTF, FTE, stovepipe, etc. PERFECT. Oh and no my locking block hasn't shattered or the slide flown apart. Digests anything, and with the 5" barrel coupled with either 9BPLE or 127gr +P+ Winchesters, it nears .357SIG performance from a 4"> barrel.

The original P226s rusted out on the SEALS so they had to coat everything inside with phosphate (if I'm not mistaken...). They fixed the slide thing on the Beretta about 20 years ago, so enough of the "you'll get hit in the face with a slide" nonsense.

92FS with 115gr Federal 9BP std pressure load is about the most accurate service pistol I've ever fired. 10 and X all day long. Same with the P226.

The newer P226s don't look right with a rail, though I do like the Navy version with the symbol on the slide.

Can't go wrong with either one. Plus it isn't plastic.

[juliet charley]

I have both (9x19). I prefer the Beretta just because it works better for me. I do not think there is any meaningful difference between them--just personal preference and what works best for you.

[grumpa72]

I think that it really gets down to how they feel in your hand. Both are quality weapons.

Before the first Gulf War, I was getting ready to head to the sandbox in my AF Reserve unit. We still had S&W revolvers and I wanted something more. Soooo, off to the local fun stores. I handled virtually every semi-auto available 19 years ago.

I started with the Beretta since it is the military issue sidearm. It just didn't fit my hand, plain and simple. Oth, after many, many guns, I picked up a Sig and it was all over.

So, long story short, go with what feels the best, and, if price is an issue, why not look at a gently used pistol? I have four "new" used pistols including one that I carry daily and is 82 years old.

Grumpa

[MHbushmaster]

Sig P226 with tritium night sights, German manufactured:

[jman841]

I may be mistaken but isn't both weapons in use by the US Military? While the M9 is the primary issued weapon, i believe some units also have M11's (Sig p228) (I know some infantry guys got them in Iraq and some of my friends who are with MP units right now have had them as well).

Edit: By M11 i meant Sig P228, sorry for the typo

[phattacorider]

One of my buddies in Afghanistan right now has used both, and a lot. He hasn't complained about either one. I've talked to him about the exact same topic, as I love both handguns equally. He said with as good of quality as both are, it's really all down to price, style, and features.

[Zero One]

These are all excellent points.

I should clarify about "feeling better in my hand." I can manipulate the controls a little more easily on the Sig, though I have a little trouble getting to the controls on all guns with traditional levers - it isn't really the Beretta's fault. Other than that, they're about the same.

I am definitely more accurate with the Beretta, though I am pretty accurate with the Sig.

Believe it or not, I like the look of the Sig a little bit more.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Beretta. $500 vs. $750 is largely the reasoning at the moment. Price isn't a huge issue, but since they're really close already, it may just be the deciding factor.

[OldFool]

The 92 FS has been a dilaster for the US Military (I am retired Navy). Their primary use is as a hammer. Slides routinely crack. FTFs and FTEs are routine

[6onthehip]

for non-combat use i believe its tit for tat - both are great pieces

i am sig prone (own a 226 shot on a regular basis) but i like the 92 just as much
for combat or service duty i'd give sig a slight edge on reliability but i will add a 92 to my collection without hesitation

i agree with others - get the one that FEELS right in your paw-thats hard to modify

[dgludwig]

The 92 FS has been a dilaster for the US Military

An opinion not very widely shared among those that know anything about the application of a handgun in a military context. I guess that's why, after over two decades of experience with the Beretta in combat deployment, that the foolish military just ordered a few thousand more of them. I'm not arguing that the military has a "pope" status (infallible) nor that there might not be a better pistol or two out there that's even better than the Beretta but to aver that the pistol has been a "disaster" flies in the face of all credible evidence. Get real, OldFool.