Glock 17 or Beretta 92fs

[coyotebait]

Hello all,

I am buying my first handgun and I am trying to decide which one I should buy first, the glock 17 or the beretta 92fs. I am definitely going 9mm and I will end up buying both. Can anyone help me figure out which should be first? I know the differences between the guns mostly.... I would just like to know some of your personal opinions on which I should go with.

Thanks

There O.P., I fixed that for ya.

[shooterdude]

For a FIRST handgun, get the Glock.

1) Glocks are SIMPLE to use. No thumb safety, decocker, or DA/SA trigger to learn. Simplicity of use is important for new handgun shooters.

2) Berettas are NOT SIMPLE to use. Safety, decocker, can chamber a round with the safety on and will automatically decock, DA/SA, etc. Of course anyone can become familiar with the Beretta, but the Glock is so much simpler to use, which means far fewer opportunities for a new shooter to make a mistake.

3) Glocks are perfection.

Simple guns for simple people! On the other hand I graduated from high school so I can handle a complicated gun like a Beretta. ;-)

[rg_1111@yahoo.com]

I owned a Beretta Centurion for years and loved it. Then I shot a Glock 21 and been a Glock fan from now on.

[Bill Steele]

Very different guns

I own a number of 9mm handguns. I own a Beretta 92FS and like it a lot (shot it yesterday).

I don't own a Glock as they have never appealed to me visually and the grip angle doesn't feel as good to me as many other options (having said that, I always shoot them well).

As a first handgun, if the Glock feels good in your hand and you can get past the butt ugly looks, then I would recommend the Glock.

It is a simpler gun on many levels, perfect for a newcomer.

[ianS]

Simple guns for simple people! On the other hand I graduated from high school so I can handle a complicated gun like a Beretta. ;-)

Another way to look at it is they're needlessly complicated and redundant. A manual safety and a decocker? The gun doesn't trust you. It doesn't seem to trust itself.

I like the Beretta 92FS actually but that is one "feature" I never liked. They should have made all of them like the 92G Elite I used to have (decocker only like SIG Sauers) IMO.

And complicated is okay at the range and interesting I guess. But not necessarily under stress in real life when there's usually other things going on. K.I.S.S. = Glock. For any weapon its a good thing actually. But if you rely on a Beretta 92FS manipulating that DA/SA transition well, flipping up the safety (if it applies) and remembering to decock should be second nature. You shouldn't have to think about doing them.

[Josh3239]

I feel the same as this man. I learned to shoot handguns on a Glock, my first handgun was a Glock, Glocks are very well made handguns and they are very simple to shoot. However, after I bought my 92FS, it took some getting used to but I enjoy shooting it more and find I am a better shot with it. The 92FS also doesn't require pulling the trigger for takedown, which IMO is always better. Besides, it is fun to have the same handgun that the US military adopted as their primary sidearm.

Beretta. No questions asked. I struggled with that decision a few years ago and made the mistake of getting the GLOCK. I liked it but no where near as much as I like the 92/M9 series.

[glock22fs]

Glock. only one trigger pull to learn and manipulations are much easier

[MoBait]

The GLOCK 17 is a basic required handgun for every gun owner. It runs 100%.

Several options are available to pimp it out. Including a 33 round mag, 17 round mag, trigger kits, various site options, barrels, etc.

It's one gun you will never sell.

Later, get a Beretta if you feel like it. I own both, but my Bug Out Zombie Gun between the two is the Glock.

My 1992 black GLOCK 17 (bought new) and my new Glock 17 in Olive Drab.

(you will soon find out that one GLOCK is never enough)

To the OP, before you pimp out the gun with standard capacity mags or glock 18 mags you might want to be aware of the laws in CA. Not saying you shouldn't have these but just be aware of the laws. It would be nice to have standard caps when zombies are attacking you.

Between the 92FS and a Glock, I would get a Glock because of the rail. Between an M9A1 and a Glock, I would get the M9A1 because of the rail.

The 92FS also doesn't require pulling the trigger for takedown, which IMO is always better.

Josh, do you care to explain why it is always better?

[DT556]

Browning HP. Best 9mm pistol.

[BamBam-31]

Both good guns with good track records. Biggest differences are in ergonomics and controls. Beretta 92fs has a wide grip and a more conventional grip angle, Glock 17 has a slimmer grip and a more Luger-shaped grip angle. Beretta has the slide mounted external safety (to which some people will say "external safety?" or "slide mounted?" or both), Glock has none. Beretta has the DA/SA pull to learn, Glocks have the same trigger pull from shot #1 thru #10. Glock also is king in the aftermarket department, whereas Berettas sometimes have fixed sights that cannot be changed at all. I would think a slight edge in accuracy goes to the Beretta, but both will be more accurate than 90% of their owners.

IOW, personal preference.

[InGrAM]

Get a Taurus pt92 it has a frame mounted safety/decocker.

The beretta and the glock are just about as different as they come in pistols.
Glock: striker fired, polymer frame, NO external thumb safety. DAO trigger
Beretta: hammer fired, metal frame, decocker. DA/SA trigger

The glock is probably more reliable BUT when are you really going to drag your glock behind your truck for a mile? or submerge it in mud? or freeze it in ice?

Both guns will do just fire for what you need them for. I would get a glock or a taurus pt92.

[UserM4]

If you're like a lot of us and have trained with an AR15, you will be proficient in engaging and disengaging the safety. Same goes for the Beretta. If you can't flip the safety off under stress, it's not a gun issue, it's a training issue.

I own a G17. When carried in a proper holster, I never worry about a negligent or accidental discharge. It's when I'm handling the gun that I worry about an incident. The problem with people are that we're not perfect. If you were to drop something like a can of soda, your instinct is to reach out and try to catch it. But even tho we know better than to grab a falling gun, we do. It's subconscious and instinctual. That kinda stuff can get you killed. And it happens.

You know that we're trained to keep our fingers off the trigger but during a heated argument or an animated story telling, you pull the trigger. This happens.

There's been a lot of incidents with Glocks throughout the years. People are fallible.

I trust my life on Glocks. They're reliable and dependable. Just be safe

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[J.D.Allen]

If you don't woant to work with long DA pull of the first shot, than a Glock it is.

Or you can get a Taurus PT92. Same damn gun as the Beretta, and with manual safety for cocked and locked.

Also under 500 bones.

And I don't like the idea of a Glock for a new shooter...safety concerns

[shooterdude]

Another way to look at it is they're needlessly complicated and redundant. A manual safety and a decocker? The gun doesn't trust you. It doesn't seem to trust itself.

I like the Beretta 92FS actually but that is one "feature" I never liked. They should have made all of them like the 92G Elite I used to have (decocker only like SIG Sauers) IMO.

And complicated is okay at the range and interesting I guess. But not necessarily under stress in real life when there's usually other things going on. K.I.S.S. = Glock. For any weapon its a good thing actually. But if you rely on a Beretta 92FS manipulating that DA/SA transition well, flipping up the safety (if it applies) and remembering to decock should be second nature. You shouldn't have to think about doing them.

This is a debate much deeper than G17 vs 92FS, it is really about what safety features make sense and for whom. For how many decades were the 1911's carried into combat cocked and locked so that manipulating the safety became part of the process of drawing it from the holster to make it ready to fire? It was merely part of the training in using the weapon. That is the real topic to be debated;training, not one model vs the other.

The real problem with the Glock is that it relies on the safety device between the ears of the shooter...this device is often inadequate in many.

[nimbus]

Rent them both at the range like others have said. Only one way to figure out which of those two you'll end up liking. They are both excellent platforms, but very different in form and feel.

I was in your position a week ago and bought a new G17. I still have my eyes set on a 92, but I decided to go Glock first. I'll probably end up with both down the line!