I had an ancient PT92 about 25 years ago so I was familiar with the basic design. And I have to say our test gun was a much better pistol and showed a quality of workmanship and materials that my earlier gun simply didn't exhibit. While that first gun of mine seemed to run just fine (I used it to shoot at early IPSC matches and carried it some off duty) our test PT92 would certainly give me a much higher level of confidence. My early gun shot rather casual 4- to 5-inch groups at 25 yards, which, in retrospect, just might have been the shooter, so I was curious to see what the test PT92 would do on the range.
I scrounged up a lineup of ammo from Federal, Lapua, Black Hills, Wolf, Winchester, Remington, and even some Egyptian military ball and trundled off to the range. The test gun was brand-new so I dribbled a few drops of Tetra-Gun lube around, made sure the hole in the barrel went all the way through, and loaded up.
My procedure is to always make the first couple of magazines "one-rounders" in a new autopistol on the odd chance it decides to go full-auto. It's happened, trust me. No such luck with the PT92 (it can be fun ...).
After about 400 rounds of assorted 9mm ammo shot by a variety of shooters, I came to some conclusions about the PT92.
First off, it could shoot. Fifteen-yard groups hovered around the 2-inch mark, and we actually got one, golden 3-inch group at 25 yards with some Federal 147 Sub-Sonic ammo. Sub-Sonic 9mm ammo usually delivers excellent accuracy, and it was proven yet again during our test. One shooter carries a Beretta 92 as a duty pistol and was very curious about the PT92. He admitted sheepishly he actually liked the ergonomics of the safety on the PT92 more than on his own pistol and wondered idly why Beretta didn't make a model to match the PT92. For some, that "thumb-up" safety on most DA/SA autos is awkward at best, and the Taurus safety solves the problem nicely.