Firearms Talk banner

Beretta vrs glock

6K views 92 replies 25 participants last post by  targa 
#1 ·
Beretta M9 Vrs G19 and beretta Nano vrs G43 give me your opinions and personal experiences with them as Duty and back up guns.
 
#64 ·
A lot of the NDs that I'm familar with have involved "Wyatt Earp" wannabe types. I've seen people draw a DA revolver and the hammer is halfway back before they get it out of the holster.

I've also seen MANY 1911 shooters with "competition" type holsters that had the thumb safety off and their finger on the trigger before the gun even started coming out of the holster.

Two different ranges that I belonged to in the past have rules against shooting "from the leather" because of this.

If you practice drawing from under a shirt, actually LOOK at the weapon and holster when reholstering and you'll never get your short tail tangled in your holster.

And just as you (SHOULD) keep your booger picker off of the trigger when drawing, keep it off when reholstering.
 
#72 ·
The picture of the police holster looks a lot like a Safariland nylon thumb break holster. (Not sure of the model number) they are semi-popular here as well, for police use.

The military holster picture seems to have moved the location of the release lever pressure point away from being directly over the trigger (good move).
 
#73 ·
The best new duty holster I've seen for a pistol with a weapon light is SureFire's MasterFire. Instead of shoving the pistol straight down into the holster, you lay the pistol in the holster's gutter and the steel studs in the holster engage locking recesses machined into the weapon light body instead of using plastic locking levers that engage any part of the trigger guard. It's basically a rock-and-lock mechanism that permits the use of lights, optics, lasers, and suppressors without interfering with any of those add-ons.

I'm sure there's someone out there who can also defeat the design features of SureFire's new holster design, but it eliminates that straight back motion that's commonly associated with ND's when people slam their pistol into their holster with their finger on the trigger. The trigger can still conceivably be actuated, but not as easily.

Lanyards, or "dummy straps" as the US military calls them, are useful for retaining your weapon when it is knocked from your hands. When I was in the Navy, we had lanyards on our M9's. There's nothing outdated about weapon retention or the use of lanyards to assist with that task.
 
#75 ·
I wonder how many people have actually known, or seen so-called Glock leg syndrome?????

I think it was dreamed up by writers at gunrags that are still disciples of "Goofie Jeffie."

I;ve nevcer seen it, and I';ve never known anyone else that's seen it.
 
#76 ·
Some people never learn.

It’s the second time that a Connersville, Indiana Police Chief shot himself in while handling a firearm. Now with the release of the gun store video surveillance footage (scroll down for video), it is clear that just because someone is the chief of police doesn’t mean they are firearms experts.

Police Chief Accidentally Shoots Himself For The Second Time ...
▶ 5:43
 
#79 ·
A Marine friend of mine related a story of taking a dump at a FOB over a slit trench with his M9 on his lap due to proximity of enemy forces. Mortar rounds began dropping on the FOB. One of his legs and his M9 fell into the slit trench. He ran to his fighting position, pulling up his pants, with his M9 dragging behind him from it’s lanyard. He stated that he got a few rounds fired out of it before getting back to his fighting position. He was happy that:

-The pistol followed him
-The pistol functioned
-He didn’t have to go back and dig through the slit trench to find the M9.

Lanyards may not prevent a crappy situation. But in his case it limited how crappy the situation got.
 
#80 ·
Danoobie,

My question was a response to your absurd request that I explain "Glock Leg Syndrome" to Glocks. Let me re-phrase the question with "party neutral pronouns".

Why should a person (as in you, I, or the little old lady who lives down the lane) worry about other people pointing or firing firearms at them if they're doing that to their self?

Firearms of any description don't cause ND's. People shoot themselves with their own firearms for one of two reasons, so far as I know:

1. Purposefully - Typically suicide, although I'm sure there's some hard core individual out there who shot through him or her self to kill someone else.

2. Negligently - Always incompetence (and if someone was careless with something that could kill them, then they're STILL incompetent). Since we don't blame cars and alcohol for drunk driving, we shouldn't blame firearms when people accidentally shoot themselves.

You keep personifying firearms in your comments as if they had behaviors of their own. Firearms don't do anything at all, ever, to anyone or anything, without human interaction. Human behavior is the only common factor in negligent and competent firearms usage.

In the previous case of Tex Grebner, his Kimber 1911 style pistol didn't shoot him. He shot himself with his Kimber 1911 style pistol because he inadvertently disengaged that little "safety" lever (that far too many people falsely believe will "protect" them from bad firearms handling practices) when he drew his pistol (or he never had it engaged to begin with), he pulled the trigger, and that Kimber did exactly what it was designed to do (which was entirely different from what he intended to do). Tex stated that he had previously performed the same "fast draw" drill with his Glock earlier that day without incident. There was nothing "safe" or "unsafe" about his 1911 or his Glock. I don't blame Kimber or 1911's or Glocks for people like him. His Glock didn't fire a bullet into his leg because he didn't pull the trigger when it was pointed at him. That is the ONLY reason he suffered from "1911 Leg Syndrome" versus "Glock Leg Syndrome". To me, there is only "Incompetency with Firearms Syndrome". People who have insufficient training or coordination to handle firearms can and do make mistakes because they don't have the skill required to operate firearms. Giving people firearms with more design features that they don't know how to use won't help and clearly didn't.

Tex is not unique. When the US military issued 1911's, we had inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with 1911's. Before that, we had inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with revolvers. When Berettas were issued, we had inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with Berettas. Now that we're issuing SIG's and Glocks, we'll have inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with SIG's and Glocks. There's a pattern there, but it's not the side arms issued.

I think this entire line of reasoning that one design is better than another when the person buying the pistol doesn't know how to use a firearm to begin with is just asking for ND's. I don't care what type of pistol someone uses. I only care that they know how to use what they have and that starts with training. When someone starts telling everyone else about how one design is better than another design because it has extra features or "looks cooler than the next", I'll point out all the instances where no specific design has ever produced better results in untrained hands. The cost, weight, size, and complexity of operation of a machine generally affects real world usage and firearms are not an exception to that general rule. Those are the only characteristics for which modern design and materials have positively affected firearms and they are quantifiable things. Even so, modern machinery still isn't good for much without a competent operator.
 
#81 · (Edited)
kbd512,
I don't know why you keep addressing individuals, rather than
addressing the topic, but it makes you appear to be sanctimonious and
patronizing.
You don't have to explain gun safety to me, took my FIRST NRA safety course
when I was 11.
You don't have to explain glocks, don't have one, never will.
Now, there are some of us who only believe that the "only safety is
in their head".
Then there are some of us who aren't leaving gun safety to be a figment
of their imagination, and who prefer that a physical safety actually be
installed on the pistol. My apologies if my preferences upset you and others so.

BTW, see Manta's video? Certainly looks like SHIRT HAPPENED, with
a trained officer, with a glock, to me. But perhaps my powers of observation
aren't that keen. Is that what happened? Now, do I need to stop my EDC
CCW because of Deputy Dawg, and his poor choice of sidearms, there?
 
#82 ·
If you prefer levers, buttons, etc on your weapon, then more power to ya. That's your choice.

But don't criticize those who properly, carefully handle their weapon and feel no need for mechanical "crutches."

In Bill Jordan's book, "No Second Place winner" he reccomends wax bullets powered by only a primer for the "Wyatt Earp" wannabe type of practice.
 
#84 ·
Danoobie,

These threads are nearly always started by new shooters and I want new shooters reading these threads to rely upon awareness of what they're doing, adherence to prudent firearms handling practices, and training, rather than the provably false belief that a particular type of pistol will ameliorate the potentially severe consequences of imprudent firearms handling practices.

The evidence doesn't support the assertion that one pistol is "safer" than another when the person using it doesn't have the knowledge and skill required, so I refuted that line of commentary about design affecting negligent discharges. If I did it in a crass way, it's because I'm tired of people blaming their tools for human behavior.

If everyone who reads this thread buys a Beretta instead of a Glock, then I'll consider that a major win for our cause as long as they learn how to use their Berettas. Once again, I don't care what people buy. It's their money and they can buy whatever pleases them. Berettas and Glocks are just tools to me and that's all they'll ever be.
 
#86 · (Edited)
So do you think the guy in Manta's video would have had a
ND, if he had been carrying a Beretta, with a DA and safety?

I beg to differ, in that while perhaps some of you may want to take the
inherent risks of handling a glock design safely, there are safer, and less
safe pistols out there. I literally won't buy a glock, because I don't trust
that specific design, nor could I in good conscience sell one to somebody
else.

You say "just a tool" , like that somehow relegates them to a plane of added
simplicity, and makes them safe. There's
a lot of very dangerous tool designs. Talking about safety doesn't make them
any safer.

There ya go, Locutus. Post # 85 is a beauty.
 
#87 ·
Danoobie,

Whether or not a manually operated hammer or striker blocking mechanism will be useful depends greatly on whether or not the user knows how to use the features of their pistol to begin with. Before adding more features to a pistol, which necessarily requires more knowledge and training for the new shooter to use, I think it's best if new shooters are first taught to not point the pistol at themselves or anyone else and not to touch the trigger until their sights are on target and they intend to fire or until their pistol is unloaded.

If someone puts a round in the chamber and forgets to engage the safety lever or subsequently deactivates it when they grip the firearm or by accidental contact with something that moves the lever to the firing position, then they effectively have a Glock. It's not overly difficult to forget to re-engage it or for it to be knocked out of position. To simply load or unload a 1911, you have to disengage the safety lever. At that point, handling a 1911 is no different than handling a Glock. To me, that doesn't mean the 1911 is "unsafe".

We're always going to come back to trigger discipline and muzzle discipline because prudent firearms handling demands that we're aware of where our muzzle is pointed and where our fingers are at when we're handling the weapon. The manual safety features of a pistol only work when we remember to use them, nothing else manages to disengage the exposed lever, and there is no damage to the components that prevents them from functioning as intended.

I'm not going to point a 1911, Beretta, or Glock at myself and then start playing with the trigger to find out how well the safety devices work or don't work, either. That should be a lot more important than the number of steps required to fire the weapon. It's obviously not common sense or something people "just know not to do" since so many people are pulling the trigger on loaded firearms when they shouldn't.
 
#88 ·
long before semi-auto pistols are as common as they are now, there was a time when revolvers were the more common pistols that law enforcement carried and people shot for fun and target practice. now most revolvers that i know of do not have any safety features.

and growing up with more revolvers being prevalent of being owned and shot, and what i started with, i just don't remember a lot of stories about people being shot with their revolvers. i am sure it did happen on occasion, but like any negligent discharge, i would still put the blame on the person handling the revolver vs. the revolver being at fault of accidently shooting the person who was handling it.

so what has changed? so a revolver with no safety features, vs. a Glock with it's simple trigger safety blade, how does one define one being safer, or more dangerous than the other? IMO, there is no difference. it still comes down to proper training in the safe handling of the pistol regardless of what safety features the pistol may, or may not have.

in simple terms it's about learning how to safely handle firearms and nothing more. if you assume every firearm is loaded, keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire it, keep the muzzle pointed in safe direction or what you plan on shooting at, i think negligent discharges would be unlikely to happen, and it's would be impossible to shoot yourself or another person on accident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kbd512
#91 · (Edited)
So, anybody think a Beretta 92 would have done what that glock did,
in Manta's video? That's post#76 about 1 minute into the video.

We share a wide difference of opinion as to what is safe, and what isn't.
Comparing a glock and a pistol with safety redundancy is like comparing
a waxed razor blade, to a screwdriver, and trying to say you could hurt
yourself just as easily with the screwdriver, because it is also a tool.

I guess maybe you guys are totally ignoring that these new glock buyers
are inexperienced
people, who don't have the trigger discipline, experience, and knowledge
you guys have. They have little knowledge, or training, and even though
they should get the training they need, empiric evidence indicates most of them,
95.8%, to be approximately precise, won't even pony up the dough it takes to
join the NRA. They don't have the experience of a Chief of Police, surely.
Do you guys really want to see these new guys walking around with loaded
glocks?

I'll ask it again, anybody think a Beretta 92 would have done what that
glock did, in Manta's video?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top