[USMC_Richey]

I'd take the 92 any day. The tupperware paperweight that is the 19 feels like, shoots like, and looks like crap. But I am so biased against Glock that I could care less that it's "Gunny approved" or not. They hype up each gen like it's the cats pajamas when really all you get is an updated grip.

The 92 has history and proven reliability that cannot be denied by anyone. Beretta does make a compact version but even with that said, people that complain about the size are just being babies. The size and weight has remained large and heavy when compared to other handguns, such as the Glock in this case, because it proves to be highly effective. The weight and size allows it to shoot smooth and reduce the recoil of an already mild 9mm round. This makes it really easy to put on target and forgiving for the shooter.

There are good reasons why it hasn't been changed much over the years. Take the new M9A1 for example, and compare it to an older 92. You'll see the only difference is night sights, grip and small trigger guard updates. It's remained basically the same because it works so well. Why should they make a bunch of "gens" when it's not needed.

Long story short, I'd say go with the 92fs all day, any day. Proven performance.

[homelessguy01]

I think the glock is getting bad press here for no reason.
I like both guns and own both (a taurus pt 99same thing.)

The glock is lighter and just as accurate in my opinion. A design can always be improved on. Glock has undergone changes true, But the 92 has also gone through a few changes internally itself and beretta did cone out with the 90 two.

The polymer frame on a glock is known to reduce recoil.

And as for a rich history the glock gas one just as prestigious around the world as the beretta.

Just my opinion guys they are both great guns

[Watkima]

I keep coming across cheap alternatives to both, such as Taurus and Norinco. Should those be avoided?

[Kenney]

Different people will tell you things. I've never had a problem with a Taurus (and I rented too), but there's a horde of people who would beg to differ.

[blucoondawg]

I stay away from off brand guns, I don't know anything about Norinco so I definitely wouldn't buy one, a Taurus I could be tempted to buy only if the price was very right, I mean so cheap the guy selling it is stupid, and I would probably only buy a revolver, I wouldn't buy that 92 clone I'd save some more and get the real deal, but that's just me and I already own a 96, if that's all you can afford odds are it would probably work ok. There are plenty of more reasonably priced guns I own and will own again in the future, such as anything from the Ruger line, they are good quality at a decent price and made in the USA. Bottom line is don't limit yourself to the Glock and 92 unless those are truly the only 2 you like, there's a ton of good guns out there handle as many as possible before you buy something you may not like.

[blucoondawg]

Originally Posted by homelessguy01

The polymer frame on a glock is known to reduce recoil.

I have never heard this before, how is it the polymer frame reduces recoil? I thought the best selling point Glock had for recoil was the low profile slide transferred more kick straight back into the web of your hand therefore not creating as much muzzle flip of the higher profile guns. I find when I shoot side by side with my Beretta 96 which is 40S&W and my buddy's Glock 22 which is 40 as well that the Glock seems to flip considerably more, it's sort of what I expected out of a lighter weight gun in that caliber. One design I don't like is the Sig I have shot my father in law's 45 and it seems to have a ton of flip, it has considerably higher profile than the 92 or Glock though

[CHLChris]

Originally Posted by Watkima

I keep coming across cheap alternatives to both, such as Taurus and Norinco. Should those be avoided?

I am predisposed to liking the more expensive models, in general, and staying away from the knock-offs. We're talking about protecting your life here, right?

For example, I would NEVER buy a Taurus 92 when I could buy the real thing in a Beretta. I would never buy a Taurus revolver when I could get a Smith & Wesson. I would never get a Rock Island 1911 when I could buy a Colt or Kimber. I'd rather save up another $100-300 and buy a nicer gun.

I don't need the very best, though, just the BEST mid-range gun.

Thus: Springfield XDm 9mm

[therewolf]

I've got a 92FS, and a 92A1.

I'd say it depends upon your sensitivity to recoil.

My neighbor's Glock has less recoil than my 92s. It's the

composite soaking up the shock, VS the all

metal design.

If you decide to go Beretta, the 92FS and the 92A1 are

the same price, give or take, so I'd get the 92A1, for the

new features you don't get with the 92FS.

[Kenney]

Originally Posted by CHLChris

I don't need the very best, though, just the BEST mid-range gun.

Thus: Springfield XDm 9mm

Heresy calling a partial polymer gun the best out there. While it's true that you usually get what you pay for with guns, there's a number of exceptions and when you get to the higher price points, the differences turn rather minimal. If you do your research, you'll find some really decent guns with good price points, and with a little quality gunsmithing, they can put some of the higher end models to shame.

[CHLChris]

Originally Posted by Kenney

Heresy calling a partial polymer gun the best out there.

I didn't say that. For my needs it fits best into the category the OP put out there: Full-sized double-stack in the moderate price category. I suggested it to him.

Originally Posted by Kenney

and with a little quality gunsmithing

I'm almost never going to suggest anything requiring gunsmithing to a new poster who is asking about a Beretta vs a Glock. Come on now!