data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/afd18/afd18f66850bc28a0efb29e854a79146b6b3314f" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6c700/6c7008384337d50e2bc16406de09f6e66f4704b0" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4b2c3/4b2c3a89dfc69063da4d245c955e86d33ab60559" alt="Image"
Return to “Is it worth the additional money?”
Ah - that makes sense. It seemed like such a random gun to clone. I too have heard good and bad. With companies like that I usually stay a way and put my money towards established companies, even if it comes at a premium.frazzled wrote:For a bit of history. At one time Taurus was a Beretta subsidary. Hence why they started off with imitation Beretta 92s-it what was on the assembly line. As Taurus has matured, its product line has evolved away from those clones to a full range of products (fair warning-I've heard both good and bad about Taurus).lkd wrote:Actually, Taurus has been making Beretta 92's (called PT92) since Beretta won the contract with the US Government, who also bought in quantity from Taurus. It's as good as any other M9 on the market.gigag04 wrote: I get making a 1911, but cloning the M9/Barretta 92/96 series...why?! They also seem to imitate S&W revolvers. "It's the exact same but cheaper" rubs me wrong I guess.