Glock 17 or Beretta 92FS
- Thread starter Warhawk83
- Start date
- Status
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I'm surprised.......shocked, even that the Beretta has received so many votes.
The Glock is the superior and more durable design. The worst thing about a Glock for many people is that they point high. This can be overcome with practice and handling.
I understand that Glock is coming out with interchangeable back straps in 2010.......after everyone else has already done so, as per usual.
The Glock is the superior and more durable design. The worst thing about a Glock for many people is that they point high. This can be overcome with practice and handling.
I understand that Glock is coming out with interchangeable back straps in 2010.......after everyone else has already done so, as per usual.
DougDubya
Member
Quality earns its following. I can see that the Glock is more durable, but what else is superior in any way other than subjective?
Colton White
Member
I have the 92fs A1 and call me the devil himself but i just love that long ridiculous traditional double action trigger pull lol
They are both incredible handguns buy whichever feels best in your hands and never look back.
They are both incredible handguns buy whichever feels best in your hands and never look back.
My experiences with the burrito M9 over the past 12 years or so have been as follows...
1. Slide breakage.
2. Multiple locking block breakages.
3. Trigger spring breakage.
4. Safety / decocker pin failure.
5. Failure to fires due to environmental conditions, ie sand / mud in the trigger.
Some of these pistols have failed after having fired a gojillion rounds. Others have been "arms room queens" that have failed because...well, no excuse IMO.
The burrito is probably a nice gun for city use / low round count use, however, I would most certainly rather carry a glock, and would NEVER buy a berretta.
Of the rifles and pistols I have used extensively for work, the burrito is the ONLY one that has been a consistant "breaker", which is why it is not used by those that actually train extensively, and may actually need, a pistol.
If your choices are beretta and glock, get the glock...
1. Slide breakage.
2. Multiple locking block breakages.
3. Trigger spring breakage.
4. Safety / decocker pin failure.
5. Failure to fires due to environmental conditions, ie sand / mud in the trigger.
Some of these pistols have failed after having fired a gojillion rounds. Others have been "arms room queens" that have failed because...well, no excuse IMO.
The burrito is probably a nice gun for city use / low round count use, however, I would most certainly rather carry a glock, and would NEVER buy a berretta.
Of the rifles and pistols I have used extensively for work, the burrito is the ONLY one that has been a consistant "breaker", which is why it is not used by those that actually train extensively, and may actually need, a pistol.
If your choices are beretta and glock, get the glock...
Dwrice
Member
I used the M9 (92F) when I was in the Army and did not like firing it much. It is a very large gun for the 9mm round it fires. I have about normal size hands and it did not fit well in my hand. I like my Glock so much I bought it back when my Department changed weapons. I would find a place where you can fire both and see which works for you. The only thing that really matters is that you are comfortable with the weapon to hit what you are shooting at consistently.
spyderdude
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 315
I own and enjoy both pistols, but if it came down to choosing one, it would be the Glock 17. You get more firepower in a lighter package, and there are available 33 round FACTORY magazines that work with all the 9mm Glocks. Good luck finding a factory Beretta super hi-cap mag because I don't think they exist. This is assuming you don't live in a state like California that bans the possession of what I like to call the standard capacity magazines for Glocks.
Another downside to the Beretta is the inability to change sights because the front sight is part of the slide. However both pistols are very fun to shoot, and I really like the DA/SA trigger on the Beretta. I'll agree that the 92FS/M9 looks better too!
Another downside to the Beretta is the inability to change sights because the front sight is part of the slide. However both pistols are very fun to shoot, and I really like the DA/SA trigger on the Beretta. I'll agree that the 92FS/M9 looks better too!
sanerkeki
Member
I have both of them and I just like the 92 better. Shoots smoother and is nicer to handle. As far as accuracy they are both pretty much the same.
bigbob76
Member
Glock, for simplicity and consistency. Nothing to remember except finger off trigger when done shooting. Same trigger pull every time.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
First off I'm a Glock Guy. I have a 19 & 26. I bought a Beretta 92FS INOX as my full size 9mm. Why? Because it's a beautiful looking gun, shoots 1/2" low to the right @ 25 yards.
I will get a Glock 17 and if I had it to do all over would get one over the Beretta.
I vote for the Glock 17
I will get a Glock 17 and if I had it to do all over would get one over the Beretta.
I vote for the Glock 17
Which fits your hand better?
Which points more naturally for you?
What's your preference on a hammer?
What's your preference on a manual safety?
What's your preference on DA/SA vs. striker fired?
Your thread ain't about what I want - I ain't gonna be at your gun fight.
Which points more naturally for you?
What's your preference on a hammer?
What's your preference on a manual safety?
What's your preference on DA/SA vs. striker fired?
Your thread ain't about what I want - I ain't gonna be at your gun fight.
ijosef
Member
Glock 17. I'm picking up my new one this Sunday. I held both a 19 and a 17 and found that the 17 was a much better fit for my hand.
HippieMagic
Member
I also like how there is no question about when the Glock will fire... I haven't shot the Beretta but I have heard a lot of hit and miss things about it. Some people love them while others despise them mostly for reliability. I wanted a simple gun and went with the G19. It may not look the best but it has a very simple appeal to it... It won't win awards for it's amazing styling but since when does a gun's looks really matter? If you want it to look pretty buy a bedazzler and make it sparkle.
I am definitely not a Glock fanboy... to me a gun is a gun and as long as it fires I am happy with it. I bought a Glock as my first because it was cheap(in my case) and reliable. I couldn't ask for a better first handgun. It points naturally and is pretty accurate. I like the "stop before the bang" feeling the trigger has. If shooting slow it lets me pull to that point, line up, and take the shot... It feels natural to me and as long as it feels the same to you then you should be happy with it. Out of all the guns I have shot over the years I actually prefer the G19 because of the way it feels in my hand. I still need to buy a 1911 though... in time...
I am definitely not a Glock fanboy... to me a gun is a gun and as long as it fires I am happy with it. I bought a Glock as my first because it was cheap(in my case) and reliable. I couldn't ask for a better first handgun. It points naturally and is pretty accurate. I like the "stop before the bang" feeling the trigger has. If shooting slow it lets me pull to that point, line up, and take the shot... It feels natural to me and as long as it feels the same to you then you should be happy with it. Out of all the guns I have shot over the years I actually prefer the G19 because of the way it feels in my hand. I still need to buy a 1911 though... in time...
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Durability in a firearm used for defense is no small thing. A few years ago, Chuck Taylor wrote an article about how "durable" the Beretta was. Then he cited the plethora of parts breakage he'd encountered within 20,000 rds......and he STILL maintained how "durable" it was.
The beauty of the Glock is........it's a tool, not a "piece of art" that some seem to think the Beretta is. The Glock simply does what it's designed to do and does it well, for a long time.
I don't care for the grip angle on the Glock. Supposedly, in 2010, they will introduce an interchangeable backstrap. Yeah, already !
I like my Beretta fine and it points well for me, but I'll never carry it for serious purposes. BTW, www.CDNNSports.com had 20 rd Mec-Gar mags for the Beretta and they work fine.
DougDubya
Member
Given that this is the same man who wrote reviews on firearms he never even fired, and willfully misrepresented spent rounds as one caliber, not their original caliber, and that they were pulled from dead bodies, I generally take Taylor's "evidence" with several grains of salt, a twist of lime and a shot of tequila.
Again, it's a set of choices. I'm not saying the Glock 17 is EVER going to be a wrong answer at all.
Preferences were asked for, and preferences were given. If it were a question between the Glock 19 and the Beretta, I'd go to the 19 in a heartbeat - but again, that's a matter of aesthetics and what I consider to be size and shape efficiency.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Interesting comments on Taylor, I'd not heard those statements before.
That said, I also take issue with him on certain things.
And that article may have been written by Ken Hackathorn, I don't remember with 100% accuracy.
Yes, preferences were asked for, but superior design should (but not always does) trump mere "preference."
Once Glock addresses their backstrap issue, it'll be the near perfect gun.
That said, I also take issue with him on certain things.
And that article may have been written by Ken Hackathorn, I don't remember with 100% accuracy.
Yes, preferences were asked for, but superior design should (but not always does) trump mere "preference."
Once Glock addresses their backstrap issue, it'll be the near perfect gun.
A good thing about the Glock is the trigger pull is the same for all shots. Also, the G17 is very durable, easy to dissasemble and clean, mags are cheap and plentiful, it will digest most any ammo, and these days you never know what's available, and should you decide to sell it, very easy sell. Much more popular around me than a 92. I'm not a big Glock guy, but I do dig the tupperware. So my vote is Glock. I have to say, though, should you decide to go Glock, check out the 19, I think its a better choice than the 17.
okiewita40
Member
Having carried and shot both of them either will do the job. I currently carry a Glock 17 for work. They are lighter than the 92's. Plus i you have asigma now most anything will have a lighter trigger. That being said you can always install a 3.5 lb disconnect in the glock. plus you can take apart a glock with one tool.
Enachos
Member
I've shot my buddies Glock 17 numerous times and I can tell ya glock is the way to go. Personally I prefer .40 S&W so i went and got me a G27. Great gun and it packs a hell of a punch. I would suggest a Glock 23 or 27 for concealed carry. But if it's really a 9mm you want (or need) then go with the Glock 17 or 19.
New here, but I've owned both weapons in question, so thought I'd chime in.
Both are terrific handguns IMO. If you thought the Glock was a little thick, the Beretta may be too large to handle comfortably. The grip is very thick compared with most other autoloaders. I ended up selling mine because of this. I went with the Glock as I intend to compete and parts and accessories are plentiful and inexpensive. Otherwise, I really thought it was an ugly gun. I preferred steel, exposed hammers, and wood stocks on a handgun. Now, after shooting it extensively the last 6 months, I absolutely LOVE the Glock. Here are just a few observations of each handgun:
Beretta 92:
Nice appearance
Accurate
Reliable (in my experience)
Large grip may be better suited for someone with large hands (a thinner grip is available from an aftermarket vendor that I don't recall at the moment)
SA trigger easier to shoot accurately, smooth DA when necessary
Limited sight options due to front sight integral with frame
Safety/Decocker on slide can be difficult to reach in firing position
Mine was very loud (due to open slide design)
Generally more expensive than the Glock
Requires more frequent cleaning/oiling to function properly
Glock 17:
Ugly! (IMO)
Accurate
Extremely reliable
Abundance of available accessories/modifications
DA trigger more difficult to master than SA mode on Beretta (but still OK, and numerous trigger modifications are available)
No external safety (negative or positive depending on your viewpoint)
Functions even when dirty, requires little lubrication
Much easier to carry in a concealed fashion (IMO)
Stock sights suck, but numerous aftermarket options are available
I really felt the Glock didn't have much "character", and I wasn't really excited to purchase one. I just felt it was the best option for me to begin practical shooting competition with. I didn't like that it didn't have an external safety, but I quickly became comfortable with this. I really didn't like polymer, striker-fired guns at all, but the Glock has made me a convert. Between these 2 options, I come down solidly on the side of the Glock. However, if Glock is on your list, I'd highly recommend you also check out the Smith & Wesson M&P and Springfield XDm. I enjoyed shooting each of these more than the Glock, but again went the Glock route due to availability of parts and accessories. Hope some of this information helps.
Both are terrific handguns IMO. If you thought the Glock was a little thick, the Beretta may be too large to handle comfortably. The grip is very thick compared with most other autoloaders. I ended up selling mine because of this. I went with the Glock as I intend to compete and parts and accessories are plentiful and inexpensive. Otherwise, I really thought it was an ugly gun. I preferred steel, exposed hammers, and wood stocks on a handgun. Now, after shooting it extensively the last 6 months, I absolutely LOVE the Glock. Here are just a few observations of each handgun:
Beretta 92:
Nice appearance
Accurate
Reliable (in my experience)
Large grip may be better suited for someone with large hands (a thinner grip is available from an aftermarket vendor that I don't recall at the moment)
SA trigger easier to shoot accurately, smooth DA when necessary
Limited sight options due to front sight integral with frame
Safety/Decocker on slide can be difficult to reach in firing position
Mine was very loud (due to open slide design)
Generally more expensive than the Glock
Requires more frequent cleaning/oiling to function properly
Glock 17:
Ugly! (IMO)
Accurate
Extremely reliable
Abundance of available accessories/modifications
DA trigger more difficult to master than SA mode on Beretta (but still OK, and numerous trigger modifications are available)
No external safety (negative or positive depending on your viewpoint)
Functions even when dirty, requires little lubrication
Much easier to carry in a concealed fashion (IMO)
Stock sights suck, but numerous aftermarket options are available
I really felt the Glock didn't have much "character", and I wasn't really excited to purchase one. I just felt it was the best option for me to begin practical shooting competition with. I didn't like that it didn't have an external safety, but I quickly became comfortable with this. I really didn't like polymer, striker-fired guns at all, but the Glock has made me a convert. Between these 2 options, I come down solidly on the side of the Glock. However, if Glock is on your list, I'd highly recommend you also check out the Smith & Wesson M&P and Springfield XDm. I enjoyed shooting each of these more than the Glock, but again went the Glock route due to availability of parts and accessories. Hope some of this information helps.
- Status
