Okay, I screwed up, I am supposed to explain my answer with a WHY:
If someone forced me to take a Beretta, I would grab like a Model 87 target or a shotgun.
Gripes, especially with the 92:
—literally like the Taurus more, frame mount safety is better
—classic 92 toooooo fat, it’s comically fat, it seems like a jokester was trying to make folks laugh with the fatness
—don’t like the external trigger bar, just not a fan
—Beretta locking block weakness was a real thing. Fixed, almost surely, but literally made more than one guy EAT a slide. If I recall the story correctly, it was US Navy that had them first and pounded them pistols and ate a couple slides. Just screw that!
—I sincerely do not find them accurate. I have owned two examples, one was Accokeek Maryland, the other was Italy. Both very standard 92F. “Combat accurate” is a term that may have been coined around this pistol. Yes, you can hit a bad guy at smelling distance. I want more from my handguns.
—I was in my formative years when the silly asses US Govt replaced the 1911 with these in 1985. In this you will agree with me… this is nothing I could grow out of, this was like being scarred as a child.
—3 years ago I was able to handle a 92X Performance, this was an expensive and high end gun. It was dog’s ass ugly and not even a good looking dog like my dog but an ugly dog’s ass. The slide to frame fit was NICE, felt very good.
The DA trigger pull was improved but nowhere as good as a CZ Shadow which cost like $500 less
But the kicker
Single action trigger was an absolute joke. I thought the safety was on. I could not believe how tragic it was, I personally own 20+ handguns with a better trigger.
It was disgusting.
If there was a 92 hater club, I would be on the board of directors.