Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Semi-Auto Handguns' started by Watkima, Apr 6, 2012.
No place nearby to try them out before buying them. Would appreciate some input.
Apples and oranges. What do you want to do?
they are both good guns if that's what you are into, if it were me I would go for the Beretta, I prefer a hammer and an ambi safety, I like the ability to fire accurately with single action yet have the double action capability if I need it, and the Beretta is accurate. I don't have a 92 I have a 96A1 which is the same thing only a 40 cal. I don't like striker fire pistols, at least not the Glock or XD, I never tried the Ruger or S&W or any other one, but I didn't like the feel of the Glock and I hated the trigger pull on it, also the no safety thing kinda bugs me even though I have revolvers and those don't have a real safety either. If you can't shoot them at least handle them and make sure you like the feel. Some don't like the grip on the 92, say its too big, It feels good to me. If you want it for CCW you may like the glock not having the safety its one less thing to deal with in a bad situation with a lot of pressure
Beretta 92 unless you're trying to save money. I don't know the price point of the glock off hand, but 92s are reliable guns with accuracy second only to a few models. You might want to look into a CZ 75, which is a bit more accurate and a fair bit cheaper. The grips also are a bit more comfortable (not that the Beretta is uncomfortable.)
are CZs actually known to be more accurate? I have not heard this before but I don't spend any time researching CZ. I know they have a little shorter barrel so I would have assumed the opposite.
It's very hard to tell the difference unless you're a serious pro (not me), but I like them as an accuracy weapon better, but 92s are easier to modify, which is why I own a 92fs. If barrel length is the question, they recently released a long slide version.
Ya, in order to say on is more accurate than the other it has to be shot off a rest by an "expert" shooter to try to take shooter error out of the equation, they have to be compared gun to gun not shooter to shooter.
I'm sure you wouldn't have an issue finding range reports for both. But as a whole, I think most people accept the CZ as the more accurate weapon. And cheaper.
I had more money when I bought my 92fs T-T.
Only those two choices? I'd have to go with the G19. The Beretta is bigger than it needs to be while the Glock compact is just about right.
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.
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
I keep coming across cheap alternatives to both, such as Taurus and Norinco. Should those be avoided?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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!