Tuesday, November 15, 2011

To 96 or to 92?

I have been looking into the lifespan of the Beretta 96. It is built on a design and frame intended for use with 9mm (like a lot of other .40 S&W guns out there) and hence the lifespan is known to be shorter than that of its 9mm brethren.

So I have started thinking about switching to a 9mm Beretta platform to get more life out of the gun, preferably a 92D. What say you that read this blog? Yay or Nay? Feel free to comment.


  1. Not only will the 92D have greater service life, but it will have substantially less recoil, probably better reliability, greater capacity, and cheaper practice ammo.

    On the flipside, gunshop commandos will tell you that 9mm bounces off of angry people. To which I usually reply, "Let's get you angry and see..."

  2. I think I know a few of those gunshop commandos:)

    Ammunition cost right now isn't an issue, although it will likely become one in the future. I am really interested to see how long the 96 will last, so my plan for now is to stick with it. By the time it breaks I hope to have my hands on a 92D. I do see a pretty significant improvement in my performance between .40 and 9mm.