[Chris Stephens]

Hi there all,

My son-in-law called yesterday from Charleston, SC to inquire about getting a second handgun to be used as a CWP piece, range gun and home defense handgun.

He currently owns a Star BM that I gave him for his birthday last year and he decided that he wanted to add another "9" to his small collection of firearms.

After thoughtful consideration, I gave him my "opinion" and limited the pros/cons to the choices displayed in the poll.

Keeping with the choices in the poll, what would have been your recommendation?

I have to go out today and get some prices in the area to call him with.

Chris

 

[erich]

Hi Chris,

Either would be great, and I've used both for the uses you ennumerate. I voted for the Beretta because - to me - they have nicer triggers and shoot slightly better.

Both guns should function equally well. As you know, I don't care for the Glock's trigger feel (though I can't deny the reset is short and I'm certainly well acquainted with its trigger and know one can do accurate work with it) or its striker-firing or lack of second-strike capability. On the other hand, the Glock is a bit smaller in all dimensions, and feels it, though - that might certainly be a consideration for concealment (though I've had no problems concealing a Beretta - but one does have to dress for it, as one would have to for a Glock 17).

Anyway: tastes great/less filling. Both are fine guns that would fill the roles set forth. Personal preference as to action type should be the only concern here - I'd get him whichever he preferred.

 

[dave]

Hello Chris,

Boy, that is a tough call. I'm not sure how experienced a shooter he is, so that will be a factor. Speaking strictly *for myself* (i.e. not a formally trained, highly skilled, or very proficient shooter) I like the simplicity of operation of the Glock, plus the consistent trigger. So those features factor into my initial preferences for the Glock. Esthetically, and pragmatically--since I have a Beretta Cx4 carbine--I would go with the Beretta for magazine compatibility. I don't care for conventional DA/SA, but many folks are OK with it. Of course, other folks don't much care for polymer/plastic pistols, which might be something that would play into the decision. I'd just add that the Glock 19 would merit a close look over the full-sized 17. Seems to me that Charleston gets mighty hot, so concealing a full-size pistol might be deciding factor.

 

[abninftr]

G17. Easier to carry concealed in the semitropics of the Charleston area.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

I dont make recomendations, I am all for folks researching and making up their own mind. A defensive pistol is a life and death decision and it should be made with more care than you give to buying a house or a car.

As for observations one should probably consider; both are fairly well made guns though the Beretta, being a very slightly moderninzed version of a P-38, is not such a hot design for fighting (wouldst that the bean counters who selcect pistols knew something about fighting).

OTOH, the Glock is carried "Cocked and Unlocked"! It takes a tremedous amount of training...far more than with the 1911 or that Star BM (which is actually a very good gun - better, I think than both of these options overall). Not that a Glock is not a good gun, it is. It is reliable, durable and accurate. A lot of my students have trouble with Glocks in that they point too high and the trigger finger rubs the frame back behind the first joint and pushes it to the side if one is not careful (right handers shoot left with them and left handers shoot right). But that can be overcome with diligent practice and training.

Negligent Discharges with striker fired pistols (Glock, XD, M&P) are far outnumbering those with 1911s or DAO guns. They have far outstipped even the former "king of the ND" the DA/SA auto. Still and all this is not the gun's fault...it is a lack of training or attention to detail on the part of the operator.

I am forced to work with more Berettas than any other pistol in my work. I can tell you we see a tremendous amount of malfunctions. The majority are operator error - that slide mounted safety can easily get you very dead! The next problem is still the operators responsibility and that is lube - or rather lack of it. They do not run dry for very long. The 3rd problem is breakage. An armorer friend had 600 M9s in his inventory, all with less than 6,000 rounds through them (actully 500 had less than 3,000 rounds)....25% of them were broken to the extent they had to go back to depot for repair. However, they had been dry fired a lot so that might have been the main problem. Also they had the old locking block which was prone to breakage, the new one is not.

With a new style locking block and by not dry firing without some sort of snap cap (or just an old fired case with the dead primer still in it) the gun should not break nearly as often. The only thing you can do about the tendency to inadvertently slip that safety on is get a "G" model which has a spring loaded "dingus" or get the D model which is DAO.

Just random thoughts and just personal experience. As always Your Mileage May Vary.

Jim H.

 

[twoguns]

Howdy Mr. Chris,

Man oh man, you worked hard to make this one really hard for me sir. I have experienced personal problems with both brands in the past. I have also seen numerous problems from both brands on various ranges. So the bottom line for me personally, is I would not suggest either brand for home defense/ccw carry.

But that is not what you asked, so if I only have those two options, I would lean towards the Beretta. The grips fit my hands a bit better, and I like the second strike capability it offers over the Glock for defensive duties. I also have to agree that carry a Glock is essentially carrying "cocked and unlocked". At one point, my agency transitioned over to Glocks - over the objections of our firearms unit personnel who had not selected the Glock for issuance. Once issued, that was the first time the firearms unit specifically prohibited a duty weapon being slipped into a waistband without a holster for undercover work, as they said it was simply too dangerous to do so with the Glock.

Although I really think for his intended usage, you and he should simply meet at a gun store and handle a lot of various platforms. What works well for person A, B and C, may end up feeling terrible to person D. He may discover that neither brand fits his hand well at all, or that both feel great. But he really should spend some time handling various platforms for the one that feels "natural" to him in my view.

I think if I were creating a poll for him personally sir, the choices would be Sig, CZ 75B, BHP or 1911 in a pistol. But that is not what you requested.

twoguns

 

[Chris Stephens]

Hello Mr. Twoguns,

My son-in-law called me yesterday and told me these were the two finalists in his decision. I would have dearly enjoyed pointing him in the direction of a BHP, CZ 75B or SIG, but to be honest--why would I want to spare him the years of enjoyment ahead in trying everything???

Chris

 

[huntershooter]

Good point Chris. IMO both pistols are absurdly oversize for caliber (think BHP). The G-17 is blocky and large, but simple to operate. The 92-F is huge, has a long double action/reset and the safety operates backwards from his Star BM. Neither is a decent candidate for concealed carry-unless it's winter or you are extremely large. Having owned both, I would vote for the Glock.

 

[Guest]

Looks like I'm casting my vote kinda late, but I would go with the Glock for its increased magazine capacity, slimness, durability, and (in my experiences) outstanding reliability. Jim and Twogun's safety concerns should definately be noted, but with the proper training and mindset the Glocks are safe enough. As has been already mentioned, the 19 would be better for CCW and matches the mag capacity of the Beretta. All this being said, I don't own a Glock and might never, because they just feel like a small brick in my hands. ~Pistolero

 

[oberstlt]

I prefer the Glock 17 to all hicap wonder guns. The M9 always felt more bricklike to me than the G17 but I have little use for all of the hammer drops and the like. Proper training will prevent most safety issues over any technological solution in my experience. Some will quibble over the caliber but until one moves up to the 45, I just don't think it matters much given modern ammo. Now, the G21 - there is a brick!

 

[wilsoncqb1911]

Close call for me. I love both... a lot. I've got the 17, 19, and 26. The 17 is a great range and home gun, but not a great concealed carry gun. It's just too big. 19 or 26 are better and I find them just as accurate.

Between the 92 and the G17, I'd give a slight edge to the 92. You can get flush-fit mags in 15, 17, and 18 for it, so the mag capacity is pretty much the same as the Glock. It's a big gun, but the single action trigger is very nice with a short reset. The reason it wins is simply that I shoot it so well. The Glock is combat accurate, but I find that the 92 is incredibly accurate. Both are quite reliable.

 

[Guest]

Of the two choices, I'd go with the Beretta. But I must admit that it wouldn't be my personal choice as I actually don't care for either choice.

I would suggest taking your Son-in-law to the local range or gun shop and let him handle some pistols and shoot them if possable. Let him find what he likes.

 

[strider72]

Glock 17... carries better to me.. though I would suggest the Glock 19 myself.

 

[Guest]

I carried a Beretta Elite for a year or so, nearly every day, it just got to be too much, particularly when it was too warm to carry OWB covered by a jacket. Super gun to shoot, but it's a boat anchor to lug around. A full frame steel 1911 is more comfortable than a 92. It's hard to beat a G19 for a gun that's likely to be carried a lot.

 

[weshowe]

Chris,

I'm a bit late to chime in on this one, but will be mouthy anyway...

A choice between the B-92 and a G-17 is a lot like politician today. You don't get to vote for the best choice, but rather the lesser of two evil's.
I've shelved my Beretta for the same reason Jim H. and Twoguns mentioned. Can't get excited about shaking hands with that Murphy character.
The G-17 is NOT a good choice, either, but is the lesser of the two evils.
So, if I have to go to hell I guess it would be with the G-17. At least you don't have to worry about the slide mounted safety issues or ruggedness of the pistol. With the G-17 your son-in law with have to learn it's manual of arms and remember to keep his finger out of the trigger guard.
Chris, can't you talk some sense into that young guy or at least intimidate him as the father-in-law?

Wes

 

[zadig39]

The Beretta, its got a steal frame, and Glocks are just ugly. Niether would be my first or even fifth choice.

 

[romeofoxtrot]

Although I agree, at least in part, with many of the objections to the 92FS's design and operation, it is -- like it or not -- the primary handgun of the US armed forces and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future now that the new pistol program is on hold or scrapped or whatever happened to it. As far as I'm concerned, every able-bodied citizen would best be advised to become and remain familiar with the small arms (rifles & handguns anyway) used by the military. And in the process one might learn that the Beretta is not such a bad pistol after all. I actually like them, but just don't prefer them.
--Ray

 

[strider72]

The Beretta, its got a steal frame, and Glocks are just ugly. Niether would be my first or even fifth choice.

Actually the Beretta has an aluminum frame, anodized I think.

 

[zadig39]

my bad

 

[Guest]

Chris, if you read this string you will know my thoughts: http://handgunsandammo.proboards36.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&thread=1189409914
Regards, Richard

PS When it comes to accuracy, my G17 will hold its own with any handgun.

Full clip from my G17 at 7 yards: