Glock 17 vs. Beretta 92FS


PDA






College Republican
April 5, 2008, 05:34 PM
I'm new to firearms, and I will probably be purchasing a 9mm because they are cheaper to shoot than .45. I'm leaning towards a Taurus PT92 (Beretta 92FS clone) or a Glock 17. I just want your opinions on which is the better pistol and why. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 17 vs. Beretta 92FS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
April 5, 2008, 05:54 PM
Since the two pistols you listed are just about as different as pistols get, only you can determine which features are better for your needs.

Both have excellent reputations for reliability, which includes my first-hand experience. That's a given. Both have lots of rounds available. After that the similarities diminish. A Taurus will probably be less expensive than a Beretta or Glock.

Handle each, shoot each if you can. Chances are you will greatly prefer one over the other, and only you can make that determination.

10-Ring
April 5, 2008, 06:02 PM
If it were between the Beretta and the Glock I'd say it would be personal preference, but if it's between Glock and taurus, I'd say Glock because I've had poor experiences w/ the Tauri I've owned.

Onmilo
April 5, 2008, 06:06 PM
I agree.
Between Glock and Taurus, choose the Glock.
Clones are never as good as the original.
So if you were to choose between a Beretta 92FS and a Glock 17 it would hinge on which pistol felt better to you.
Both are comparable in value.

ojdidit
April 5, 2008, 06:24 PM
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/411534858

mljdeckard
April 5, 2008, 06:28 PM
A T-92 was the first handgun I ever bought, and I had problems with it. The double action was slipping, wouldn't pull the hammer all the way back to the rear before dropping it. I got rid of it. This was on the tail end of being an armorer, where I traded 87 old 1911s in for 87 new-in-the-cosmoline M-9s, which also had problems, albeit mostly from soldiers trying to tinker with them when they shouldn't have been. (I had to send a few out for service because they took off the grip panels, pulled out the springs that push the trigger forward, and couldn't put them back in correctly, and dameged them.)

A Glock is a gun you can take for granted. Used, dirty, unknown origin, it has the highest likelihood of going bang every time. (I think we should be issuing our soldiers Glocks.)

D-Man
April 5, 2008, 06:29 PM
My first gun was a Baby Desert Eagle in 9MM. One of the reasons I chose this was because of the decocker/safety, which would be used in the same manner as the one on the 92FS/PT92. This was something I felt more comfortable with at the time. I did sell the gun, and now my heavy range 9MM is a Sig P226ST with decocker only.

The Glock 17 is a great gun....sure, it's a bit 'souless' (my opinion), but it will do everything you want it to. As long as you can accept the Glock trigger action, it's a great choice.

As others have mentioned, even though it costs more, I'd much rather have the Beretta over the Taurus. And while you're at it, take a look at the S&W M&P 9MM too.

RNB65
April 5, 2008, 06:35 PM
I'd take a Glock 17 over a 92 (Beretta or Taurus) any day because I've never cared for the 92. Glocks are ugly, but they just keeping going and going and going.
-

peashooter
April 5, 2008, 06:51 PM
I'd take a Beretta 92 over a Glock any day, because I never cared for Glocks. Glocks are ugly and my Beretta keeps going and going and going..........:neener:

Silvanus
April 5, 2008, 07:09 PM
I prefer Glocks. They are my favourite semi-autos. But Devonai is right, they are so different only you can determine what you want.

How are your fellow forum members supposed to know what trigger action, look, material, ect. you prefer?

legion3
April 5, 2008, 07:11 PM
Of the choices the Glock gives you two more standard mag rounds in a gun slightly smaller but a Glock 19 gives you the same amount of rounds as the Beretta/Taurus in a much smaller package.

Check out the 19 too...

Onmilo
April 5, 2008, 07:16 PM
mljdeckard, I was a small arms repairman, 45B2 in the Army.
Glock or Beretta it would not matter, soldiers would still tear it up.
Once they figured out they could push the pins on a Glock out with the bullet tip of a cartridge and pull them free with a Leatherman, you would start getting pistols back in the arms room, I promise you this.

I would get 1911A1s back to the repair shop every now and then with the sear springs pulled out into the magazine well because some GI though it was some sort of magazine brake!
Guys were constantly breaking the plastic grip panels by overtightening the grip screws and just by smacking the guns against all sorts of stuff.
They would end up unscrewing the grip bushings along with the screws because they would take the grip panels off and then cross thread the grip screws when reinstalling them.
Believe me, if something can be screwed up, a GI is more than capable of performing the assigned task.

michiganfan
April 5, 2008, 08:23 PM
Got them both. I prefer the Glock. I dont like the idea of an external safety to get in the way if I were ever to need the gun. I think in the heat of the moment when the world has turned to s*** I might forget to take the safety off. That being said my Beretta 92 goes to the range every time I go

19-3Ben
April 5, 2008, 08:45 PM
College Republican. You are looking at two VERY different pistols.

In common:
Semi-auto
relatively hi-cap
9mm

Different:
One is striker fired, one is DA/SA
One is a higher priced, highly regarded pistol. The other is an "economy" knock off of a fine european gun. (albeit, a generally well made knock off)
One is significantly larger than the other (the 92 being larger).
One is plastic and the other is metal.

If you want a better comparison, look to compare a Beretta 92fs with a CZ75, baby eagle, Ruger P89, S&W 5906, etc...
And compare the Glock with the S&W M&P9, Springfield Armory XD, Sigpro, Ruger SR9, etc...

But you really need to decide what features you are looking for first. Have you shot either of them? It really might help you decide for yourself.

College Republican
April 6, 2008, 01:49 AM
I have never been to a gun range to shoot. (I was raised by Anti-gun parents). I will have to go to a gun range to try them out. I just wanted to know what the differences and relative advantages/disadvantages one has over the other. I heard that the Glock is lighter and you feel more recoil, and has more trigger pull issues because of how it is built. Could someone explain how the safety on a Glock works?

bobn
April 6, 2008, 02:03 AM
The Glock does not have an external safety. If you pull the trigger (and that is easy to do everytime) the gun will go off.

The 92FS has an external safety-decocker mounted on the slide. If it's on, the gun will not shoot. If it is on, then taken off, the gun will shoot, but the first trigger pull will be harder.

Because the safety is on the slide, it is possibly to inadvertently turn on the safety while racking the gun. If you later need it in a hurry, you sadly have a paperweight, until you figure out what happened and fix it.

A solution is to find a 92G. This has a decocker only - it lets the trigger fall without letting the gun go off, requiring the heavier first shot. You don't end up with a paperweight, but it is a little more difficult to let off the first shot accidentally, during an adrenaline dump. This is the configuration I use for my home defense pistol.

The US military has tested and debugged the 92 thoroughly. They are reliable.

nalioth
April 6, 2008, 02:15 AM
The US military has tested and debugged the 92 thoroughly. They are reliable. ... so the push button slide launcher has been fixed? http://www.novarata.net/forum/images/smilies/devil.gif

possum
April 6, 2008, 02:18 AM
they are totally different hadguns, but with that said i would take the glock all day long. i am not a fan of da/sa and the ergos of the berretta suck for me, more so than the glock, also i love striker fired poly guns, so the choice for me would be clear.

takurpic
April 6, 2008, 02:27 AM
What is your purpose for the pistol in question? Range time, concealed carry, etc?

If this pistol is for CCW, I'd choose the Glock, but not a G17-too big. I would opt for the G19 or G26 and carry full-size G17 mags for back-up.

If you're looking for something else, the Beretta is a great choice, but I'd avoid it for CCW because of the size. I do like the Beretta trigger better than Glock, as well as aesthetics.

Just my opinion, of course.

FWIW.. I carry Glocks, but am in the market for a Beretta 92FS, 90-Two, or S&W M&P 9mm in mid or full-size.

Regarding the OP's question about the Glock safety- this is from Glock's website (http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm):

ACTION
Safe and ingeniously simple: Contrary to conventional, the trigger is the only operating element. All three pistol safeties are deactivated when the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated when it is released.

DawgFvr
April 6, 2008, 02:28 AM
True...they are different handguns. Hell...I'd take a Beretta over a Glock any time of the day...that is like comparing a Ferarri to a Chevy.

medmo
April 6, 2008, 02:40 AM
You really should shoot both of them before you buy either to find out which one you prefer. Theya are very different. I own both a Glock 19 and a Beretta 92G and haven't had problems with either of them. If I had to get rid of one of them I would keep the Beretta only because I enjoy shooting it more. I wouldn't consider a Taurus because of the bad experiences I have had with their customer service.

Onmil,

Your post reminds me of the words from a captain years ago: "You damn enlisted. If you can't eat it or fornicate with it you will break it." This was after a Lcpl took a part his NVGs to see what was inside and couldn't get them back together.

Bullet
April 6, 2008, 02:53 AM
True...they are different handguns. Hell...I'd take a Beretta over a Glock any time of the day...that is like comparing a Ferarri to a Chevy.


Oh, really -

http://s104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Video/?action=view&current=MOV00686.flv

http://s104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Video/?action=view&current=MOV00684.flv

CWL
April 6, 2008, 03:26 AM
Neither are better. Both designs are good enough for Armies and police depts. to issue them.

Since you aren't a draftee, you actually have a choice. Choose the one that feels best in your hands. They are both more accurate that you are.

medmo
April 6, 2008, 03:35 AM
Bullet,

The only thing I found convincing from those links is you shouldn't lend any of your guns to that guy in the video.

That was really unsafe for him not to check the bore before dumping the mags of either pistol.

Zundfolge
April 6, 2008, 03:37 AM
Frankly the Taurus is an improved copy of the Beretta ... slide mounted safeties are for Makarovs, PPKs and el chepo pocket pistols. Taurus was smart enough to move the safety to the frame where it belongs.

As for the Taurus vs the Glock ... can't go wrong with either (the Taurus will have the better trigger out of the box, but Glocks are boringly reliable).


Honestly, Beretta handguns are somewhat over-rated ... they aren't bad pistols but they're not any better than the Taurus clones.


Or you could forget both and get a CZ.

TimboKhan
April 6, 2008, 03:38 AM
Different pistols, but the Taurus PT92 is a perfectly good pistol If you look around, you will find guys that hate Glock, HK, Ruger, Wilson, Kimber, Smith & Wesson and every other manufacturer, often justifiably, but occasionally not. Everyone can get a lemon, I guess. The PT92 is a good pistol, and even ol' Massad Ayoob says as much in the 5th edition of Combat Handgunnery. As a matter of fact, some even like it better than the Beretta because the Taurus has a frame mounted safety.

I trust mine enough that I have a locked and loaded one sitting about a foot away from me right now.

DougDubya
April 6, 2008, 04:20 AM
Beretta. Better looks. Better single-action trigger. Better quality. 500 years of history.

Toyoland66
April 6, 2008, 04:23 AM
To add to bullet's post check this out
http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item

I sort of had a dislike for glocks until I read this. Although you should shoot one before you buy, they have a different feel to them than a lot of other guns (at least I think so)

I think they are pretty hard to beat for a carry gun

SwampWolf
April 6, 2008, 05:36 AM
Got them both. I prefer the Glock. I dont like the idea of an external safety to get in the way if I were ever to need the gun. I think in the heat of the moment when the world has turned to s*** I might forget to take the safety off.

If failing to activate the safety in times of stress is a concern, carry the pistol with the safety off- it's every bit as safe in that mode as any other conventional da only pistol or da revolver is.

TimboKhan
April 6, 2008, 06:07 AM
Beretta. Better looks. Better single-action trigger. Better quality. 500 years of history.

Sigh... Beretta sold their Brazilian factory to Taurus and licensed them to make the PT92. It's made on Beretta machinery and it's made to Beretta specs. The 500 years of history argument is meaningless, since Taurus reaped direct benefits from Berettas 500 years of history. Having shot both, I can honestly and objectively say that one is just as good as the other, and with the exception of the location of the safety, I honestly don't think I could tell the difference between the two if I was blindfolded. I would also add that you get a perfectly good gun for a couple of hundred dollars less. If a marginally better finish is worth it to you, party on.

Steve C
April 6, 2008, 06:17 AM
I own all 3 though my Glock is a 19 and my Taurus is an earlier PT92 without the hammer drop safety feature. Each one has over 10K rounds through them without any problems and are extremely reliable.

The Beretta is definitely a little better in fit and finish than the Taurus and it does have a smoother trigger which results in a bit more accuracy. The Taurus gets carried in my car, the Glock gets the most on person carry time and the Beretta mostly just takes trips to the range.

I have no trouble recommending any of these pistols and you should do fine with whichever you choose.

stevereno1
April 6, 2008, 01:12 PM
Shoot them both and then decide. The glock has a reputation for excellent reliability, the beretta has a reputation for excellent accuracy. the G-17 holds 17+1, and the 92 holds 15+1. I like Glocks personally.

Pimpstar00
April 6, 2008, 01:22 PM
The 92fs can use the 90 two mags for 17+1. Beretta beats taurus anyday. I like both, you cant go wrong!

DawgFvr
April 6, 2008, 01:32 PM
Bullet: What, "scratching my head", was that video all about? Certainly that was one of the more unsafe things to do let alone post on a weapon's forum. For shame. First thing I learned in the Army was to not...not ever, drop my weapon...let alone in water. I guess my conception of a "superior" weapon is much different than yours...eh? Perhaps I offended with my Ferrari vs. Chevy analogy. Ok...let's just say the Beretta is more akin to Fine Art as Glock falls into the Graffiti column.

Bullet
April 6, 2008, 03:45 PM
DawgFvr

The link I posted has been posted here before. I just used it to show what I believe is Beretta’s weakness vs. Glock. I like them both and if only used as range guns take your pick.

First thing I learned in the Army was to not...not ever, drop my weapon...let alone in water.

Probably because it was a Beretta :rolleyes:.

Ford
April 6, 2008, 04:19 PM
Like some of the others already said.
Beretta vs. Glock
Get the one you like better.
For me it would be the Glock just because I have never like da/sa triggers. Beretta 92fs is a nice gun though.
Taurus vs Glock
Get the Glock...just because the other choice is Taurus.
lol..others can flame away if they like..I was treated way to poorly by Taurus customer service to ever say anything nice about them again.

Erik
April 6, 2008, 05:33 PM
The G17. It is affordable, reliable, size efficient, with readily available and affordable parts and accessories.

glockman19
April 6, 2008, 05:43 PM
First, I have a Glock 19 & 26. I shoot them both well and love the fact that there is no safety and when a round is chambered it acts like a DA revolver, pull the trigger & boom!

My standard line is, "Glock makes the BEST 9mm pistol. They are accurate, reliable, and prictically indestructible". I Also have a Beretta 92FS INOX. It's a beautiful gun. That's why I bought it because it is "Beautiful". It does shoot 1" to the left @ 7 yards and the grip is larger than the glock.

I would NOT get the Taurus. IMHO Taurus firearms suck. Now between the Beretta 92FS & Glock 17 I'd choose the Glock. Unless you shoot them both and happen th shoot the Beretta Better then go with the one you feel most cumfortable with.

DougDubya
April 6, 2008, 05:45 PM
Timbokhan - I like the Taurus PT92 almost as much as the Beretta. I was saying it over the Glock, which itself ain't bad. That's just how I feel right now, though. I could flop back toward the plastic side of the Force.

DougDubya
April 6, 2008, 05:47 PM
Also, if worried about the safety on the Beretta "coming on" in times of stress - Ayoob teaches that the high thumb hold, like on the 1911, keeps the safety in the "bang" position. Those little shelves at the top of the 92 grips are great for keeping your thumbs up so the slide levers don't go down.

bobn
April 6, 2008, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by bobn
The US military has tested and debugged the 92 thoroughly. They are reliable.


... so the push button slide launcher has been fixed?


15, 20 years ago, I think.

If you weren't a Linux person and an IRC person, I'd have to give you grief over that cheap shot.

blkbrd666
April 7, 2008, 12:28 AM
Shoot them both at the range, but also shoot a S&W M&P9mm while there. I have them all...bought the M&P new for $400 at a gun show just because I "had" to buy something and it has turned out to be one of the most comfortable pistols I have ever held in my hand. It's not as sexy as the Beretta and it's not as ugly as the Glock, but it actually feels better than either and shoots just as well. S&W is also offering a factory rebate of $50 and 2 spare mags through the end of April '08 with the purchase of a new M&P. Ferrari to Chevy is a fair comparison...Ferrari will need a lot more pampering and attention than a Chevy...but they look better. Italians are artistic...period.

DSAPT9
April 7, 2008, 12:33 AM
I do not disagree with most of the folks here. What I feel you need to do is go to your local gun shop and handle both. They use different internal mechanics to accomplish the same thing, get bullets down range. Take a sheet of paper and write down what you like about each and what you don’t and while you’re there look at other options. Find what you like and then make your choice. Both guns are great but there are others out there that may fit you better. The first firearm is always the hardest. Most of us have bought and sold many guns until we find the one we really like.

So good luck!

sturmgewehr
April 7, 2008, 02:02 AM
Bullet,

The only thing I found convincing from those links is you shouldn't lend any of your guns to that guy in the video.

That was really unsafe for him not to check the bore before dumping the mags of either pistol.
You obviously know little or nothing about handguns if you think something horrible was going to happen after the guns were dunked in leafy water. Both guns have survived FAR worse in military/police trails than being dunked in silty water without blowing up as you apparently think was going to happen.

Here's a tip, get out in the real world and use your guns as they were designed to be used before you ride other people about "safety".

I'm the guy in the video and I know more about the limits of the M9 and G17 than you'll ever know because unlike you, I've actually used them in adverse conditions.

Don't talk trash on me or anyone else about safety just because you're too scared to drop your handgun in water.

sturmgewehr
April 7, 2008, 02:09 AM
Certainly that was one of the more unsafe things to do let alone post on a weapon's forum. For shame. First thing I learned in the Army was to not...not ever, drop my weapon...let alone in water.
LOL, you have to be kidding me. What branch of service were you in? In the Marines (0311) we crawled through mud, water, sand, silt, etc. with our weapons. We often had to fire our weapons after coming ashore from the water... The last time I checked combat took place in places other than your local airsoft range or painball field... The complete lack of experience here cracks me up.

Bullet
April 7, 2008, 02:27 AM
sturmgewehr

I liked your test :D. Nice to see actual results.

jackdanson
April 7, 2008, 03:05 AM
I've got a Beretta px4 and I love it, used to have a glock 22, liked it fine but I wanted something SA/DA with a manual safety. I feel safer carrying a round chambered that way. I've never had ANY issues with either. They are both fine guns, pick the one that feels better.

Radagast
April 7, 2008, 07:56 AM
I've got both the Beretta 92FS & the Glock 17A. I like both.
If I was buying as a carry pistol either would do, but the Glock will be more concealable.
If I was buying on the basis of asthetics or pride of ownership, then the Beretta wins.
If buying for gun games such as IPSC or IDPA the Glock wins due to the faster trigger reset and the reduced muzzle flip it's low bore/high grip offers.

The only modification I would make to the Beretta is to install a factory 'd' or reduced power hammerspring to bring the double action trigger pull down from 12 pounds to 8 pounds.

The Glock would receive after market sights such as Heine straight eights and a 3.5 pound factory trigger connector, which will drop the double action trigger pull down to around 5.5 pounds.

I am not a fan of Taurus pistols or revolvers, a search on this forum will bring up many threads concerning poor quality control, long lead times on repairs, etc, etc.

Personally I think you should buy both. Then a 1911, then a CZ, then a Webley, then a S&W........

easyg
April 7, 2008, 11:10 AM
Forget the Taurus....the 92 is too heavy and too fat.

The Glock is the way to go....when both pistols are unloaded the Glock weighs 12 oz less than the 92.
Who needs an extra 12 oz on their side for no additional performance gain?

DawgFvr
April 7, 2008, 11:38 AM
sturmgewehr : A little experience: US Army...22 years. Are you telling me that dropping weapons is an acceptable practice in the Marine Corps? I always thought Marines had respect for their weapons. When I was a drill sergeant, I used to love catching a trainee dropping their weapons...it called for his/her instant education on the subject. Not worried about water...I don't much care for the soldier losing their weapon while climbing cliffs, rope bridges, etc. It makes them hard to fire in over watch positions or flanking maneuvers when you don't have them in your hand. See...we just do not train coming out of water onto shore...jeesh! Have you ever witnessed a barrel split after being plugged with mud?

That was you in the film? Sorry for you...it was bad.

Top_Notch
April 7, 2008, 12:15 PM
"Better" is a subjective term, as what is better for me may not be better for you.

Either choice is fine, but seriously consider a smaller platform for the 9mm. If you decide on a Glock 17, make sure you try out a 19 (compact 9mm) first as the firearm is more balanced and proportioned better than the 17 IMNSHO.

clemsonu0219
April 7, 2008, 01:11 PM
glock.... glock.... and Glock

stevereno1
April 7, 2008, 02:58 PM
I have seen those videos on youtube as well, and I enjoyed them immensely. I think that the reason that many on here don't like your videos is because you debunk their beliefs of the berettas and strengthen our beliefs in our Glocks. If you want to hear some REAL whining, perform the same tests with an AK-47 vs. the AR-15!

Black Majik
April 7, 2008, 04:31 PM
It's nice to see all the Beretta and Glock Kool-aid drinkers coming out of the woodworks. :D

Both are excellent pistols, both are reliable, both are very accurate, and both have their followers.

I'd pick a Glock before I'd pick a Taurus though. No contest.

DougDubya
April 7, 2008, 04:32 PM
Beretta is vino, not kool-aid.

Sweet, sweet nectar of the vine. :D

easyg
April 7, 2008, 04:40 PM
Beretta is vino, not kool-aid.

Sweet, sweet nectar of the vine.
But since it's a Taurus from Brazil, it's more likely "jungle juice"! :D

College Republican
April 7, 2008, 05:15 PM
I'll have to go to the gun range this weekend and try both of these guns out. They both sound great, and it may come down to which pistol fits better in my hands (I have big hands). Is there a significant recoil differnce between the two since one is mostly metal (92FS) and the other mostly plastic (Glock 17)? :confused:

DougDubya
April 7, 2008, 06:33 PM
But since it's a Taurus from Brazil, it's more likely "jungle juice"!

Or fine horchada (sp?). Rice beverage. Ice cold, non-alcoholic, but oh my SWEET goodness, it is so tasty.

Then again, at cons, I've had many a fine "Jungle Juice."

College Republican - both the 17 and the 92FS are light recoiling. One is due to the heavy slide and flexing frame, the other is due to the mass of the slide and some other magical factor.

Kilted Cossack
April 7, 2008, 07:30 PM
Two good pistols, in my experience. If possible, I'd rent and shoot both of them, and then pick the one I preferred and never look back. Both are big (or biggish), accurate, soft shooting high capacity 9mms---and that ain't a bad thing.

platform
April 8, 2008, 12:30 AM
Sigh... Beretta sold their Brazilian factory to Taurus and licensed them to make the PT92. It's made on Beretta machinery and it's made to Beretta specs.


actually I believe it is 'old' beretta machinery and 'old' beretta specs
Beretta's have designed changes to improve reliability of the locking
block and may be other things -- in several iterations after Taurus bought their machinery.

Consequently the berettas especially made in the last 6-7 years
reliability wise should be able to outperform Taurus PT92.

I do not have any detailed sources to reference the above -- but have read
taurusarmed.net and berettaforum.com boards on the issue of locking blocks and the steps that Beretta has taken in the last 10 or so years to dramatically improve the operating longevity of those things

Radagast
April 8, 2008, 01:16 AM
Apart from some high end competition models, Berettas have an alloy frame, as do Taurus copies, so there isn't that much weight difference between them. All have steel slides and barrels.
The muzzle jump is more noticable on the 92 series guns as the barrel is higher above the hand than on the glock, which means tyiu have a bigger lever.

I have big hands, the Beretta is nice and filling for me, I still shoot the Glock faster. Of course, that may have something to do with 20,000 rounds through the Glock and only 5000 or so through the Beretta.

Radagast
April 8, 2008, 01:17 AM
The Beretta forum is http://www.berettaforum.net/
www.berettaforum.com is an advertising site.

chingon
April 12, 2008, 07:13 PM
Or fine horchada (sp?). Rice beverage. Ice cold, non-alcoholic, but oh my SWEET goodness, it is so tasty.


Horchata, mexican horchata is made from rice.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 17 vs. Beretta 92FS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!