Beretta 96 vs. Beretta 92

[cartmanfan15]

Getting ready to trade my Beretta 92G for a Beretta 96. Going back up from a 9mm to a .40 again. The one thing I am slightly worried about is the recoil of the .40. I had a .40 before with a Taurus 24/7 and the recoil was too much for my wife. Hence the 9mm Beretta purchase. Don't get me wrong, I love my Beretta 92, but I was hoping to get some direct feedback on people who have had both. My main concern is the recoil from going back to a .40, but any other input on functioning and any other quirks about a 96 compared to a 92 would be most appreciated. Still planning to get the 96, but again just wanted some input from anyone who has had or may have shot both. Thanks.

 

[Grump01]

I haven't had either, but: I have been told a main reason Anderson PD and ISP switched from .40 to 9 had a lot to do with the recoil of a .40 taking them more off their target and thus more time to get back on the target..........

 

[BE Mike]

I have both. The recoil of the 96 feels about twice that of the 92, but I don't find it unmanageable. I really feel that in most cases recoil is more a mental thing than physical. If you shoot enough of a certain caliber, you should get used to it. All that is dependent on whether or not the grip size fits and the caliber isn't a super magnum. Use a very firm grip and focus your complete attention on the fundamentals of marksmanship, and you shouldn't notice the additional recoil. If you have low hits on the target, that means you are anticipating recoil.

 

[GBuck]

I guess my question is... You clearly have doubts about the 96, so why are you switching from the 92?

 

[the1kidd03]

many consider the .40 round to be "snappy"....I don't notice it in terms of "felt recoil" persay, but I do notice it in muzzle climb which leads to lengthy target acquisition.....in other words the .40 is managable, but it takes longer to regain your sight alignment/picture between shots.....so it's kind of a toss up for you if having faster follow up shots is important or not.....which it more than likely is if it is strictly a self defense weapon

that being said, the 92 design is about the "smoothest" shooting 9mm out there...so if you go to the 96, which is basically the same design but with a larger caliber..and so if you don't like the 96 due to recoil, I HIGHLY doubt that there is a .40 out there that you will like and so you should stick to 9mm

 

[the1kidd03]

I guess my question is... You clearly have doubts about the 96, so why are you switching from the 92?

I wondered this as well.....

in terms of self defense they are equally as effective with the proper ammunition choice...so why leave the platform you like, are already familiar with, and is considerably cheaper to practice with

 

[TRWXXA]

My 68 year old mother had no trouble handling my 96. And she had never shot a firearm before in her life.

 

[Leo]

I have both the 92 and the 96. The 96 with full power ammo is quite a bit more recoil. Since I reload I have a 165 grain plated bullet load as well as a 180 gr cast bullet load that is about 1/2 way between a NATO 9mm load and a heavy .40 load. Both are very accurate and a pleasure to shoot. With factory ammo, the 180 grain match RWS loads are pretty easy to handle and shoot well. Good Luck

 

[TLHelmer]

I haven't had either, but: I have been told a main reason Anderson PD and ISP switched from .40 to 9 had a lot to do with the recoil of a .40 taking them more off their target and thus more time to get back on the target..........

ISP were experiencing cracked slides and frames.

 

[the1kidd03]

ISP were experiencing cracked slides and frames.

how long ago was that? they've been on the G22 platform for a long time haven't they??

 

[stmoore]

Can you provide a source for your information?

They've not had their 92s and 84s since the mid 90s. I've owned over fifty (50) beretta pistols and have never had a failure of the frame, slide, or locking block (however, I have seen failures with the gen 1 and gen 2 locking blocks on the Beretta forum).

As for recoil, I would say there is a 25% increase in felt recoil between the 40 and 9mm. The two guns weigh (almost) the same.

ISP were experiencing cracked slides and frames.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Thanks for all the input. I am very comfortable with my 9mm but I would like to go back up to a 40. Had the 9 mainly for my wife, but now she has a 380 so I can go back to a 40. I guess my main thing is wondering how the 96 .40 recoil compares to other .40s. As long as it is manageable I can live with that.

 

[6guns]

I like my 92. I shot a 357SIG for quite a while, but have settled in with the 9mm as my primary round. Plentiful, cheaper, easier to shoot and still a stopper.

 

[Leo]

Cartmanfan, The recoil on a 96 is manageable. It is about the same as a glock or Springfield XD. The only .40 I have that is gentler on recoil is a Stainless Para 16/40. The Para is a lot heavier, so it absorbs more recoil. I would not want that one hanging on my holster 8 hours a day.

 

[Redskinsfan]

I own both the 92FS and 96G. The recoil of the 96 is more, but it is very easily managed because the gun is large and heavy. I agree with the poster who said he thought the 96's felt recoil was about 25% more.

Terry

 

[BE Mike]

I got this quote from another website: I just plugged in some numbers based on the highest max loads you can load in all three based on Hodgdon’s Reloading Data Center using the recoil calculator. If the program is correct, 9mm(147 grain bullet) has 6.4 ft. lbs of free recoil energy, .40(200 gr. bullet) has 11.28 ft. lbs, .45 ACP(230 gr. bullet) has 11.87 ft. lbs. The pistols should travel rearward at 19.30 fps,24.94 fps, and 23.74 fps, the .40 has higher rearward velocity in that load. The recoil impulse for 9mm is .66 lbs sec, .40 is .91 lbs sec, and .45 is .45 lbs sec.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Interesting. Now I find out my wife does not want me to get rid of my 92 so I guess I'll have to just buy both now lol. That's fine I love berettas

 

[rolodetective]

how long ago was that? they've been on the G22 platform for a long time haven't they??

About 6 years ago the 96G's were phased out. The 96G was long in the tooth and were replaced with Glock 22. There were......well..."issues". So now ISP gets to carry Glock 17. The 22 was carried for about 6 months.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Finally got to shoot my 96. I love it! Has the bigger round of a .40 and at least to me barely any more recoil than my 92. Thanks for all the input guys.