# Help!!



## tang (Aug 25, 2011)

I'm getting ready to sell my rifle and I'm using the money to get another gun, but I don't know what to get. My 2 interests is the Glock 17L or 34, and a beretta inox. I have owned 5 Glocks in the past and just recently sold my last one from a friend who agreed to pay what I paid for. Owning that many Glocks, I basically have good experience with them. Then again, I heard the 92fs Inox are pretty good itself, and would like to experience how good it is. Would like to know your opinion and what you would get. Thanks.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Matter of preference. The 92 is a DA/SA, the Glock is a striker fired pistol as you're probably aware. Sounds like your much more familair with Glocks, but, both are excellent pistols and basically come down to which feels and shoots better to you. I do have personal experience with a Beretta 92G which I've owned since 1995 and it absolutely has been the most reliable and durable pistol I've ever owned and it still looks and shoots as if I bought it yesterday. I'd give the Beretta Inox a try, but it's a different animal as far as the action is concerned. If you do get one and if it feels good to you and you shoot it well, I bet you won't be selling it anytime soon.


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

Glock 34

Bc of this movie
Man on Fire - Kidnapping Shootout HD - YouTube

Man on Fire - imfdb :. guns in movies :. movie guns :. the internet movie firearms database

He doesn't reload one time in that whole scene, large clip size lol


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

I can't, and won't, say anything bad about Beretta 92 handguns; before I "converted" to all Glocks for centerfire autoloaders, I had two Beretta 92 variations, and they did everything I asked of them. They are prettier than a Glock, too, and you can change the grips to fancy wood ones to make them look even nicer.

But if your purpose for getting a handgun is to shoot it rather than look at it (and ultimately, to shoot it well), then I think you'd be better off with a Glock. Glocks are at least as reliable as the Berettas, maybe more so in gun-to-gun match-ups. They have a single trigger pull to master, and that pull is the same for every shot from the first shot through the last shot. A person just doesn't realize how much effort is required to shoot a DA/SA auto really well, until they convert to a SA-only or a Safe Action or something similar, and suddenly, everything is easier! Your speed goes up and your groups get smaller and you have brain cells left over to use on strategic/tactical challenges and the sun is shining and.... well, you get the idea. 

There is a reason that Glocks rule the IDPA and similar competition/self-defense markets, and it ain't because of advertising or cost advantages. It's because they function reliably, bounce around less during recoil, and are easy to shoot well with a minimum of instruction. The fact that they are also simple to maintain, hardly ever break, and are darn near rustproof is icing on the cake. No one will mistake them for a fancy/shiny custom pistol, but there is a beauty in function and practical accuracy that is hard to ignore, once you become aware of it.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

not a fan of either one, but if i had to choose my vote would be the glock.

You seem to have found a reason to sell all of your glocks so maybe you should try something new.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

I do agree with DJ as to the simplicity, reliability, and ruggedness of a Glock pistol and being much preferred for IDPA competition. However, don't be fooled into thinking the Beretta 92 pistol is a delicate, somewhat less reliable pistol that only has astetic value, "made to be looked at and not shot." If that were true, I don't believe it would have replaced the venerable 1911 since 1987 and is still in service to date in the U.S. Armed Forces. I would think millions of soldiers have qualified with it and the 92/M9 has seen service throughout the world for the last 25 years in all sorts of different hands. All in All it's probably been the most tested pistol on earth at least in the military realm. I've heard stories from both sides whereas the 92 has failed and Glock has failed. The DA/SA on the 92 can be mastered and I have confidence that I can get my 92 up and running with accuracy in a self defense situation, in which I have. As far as rust, if you do choose the Inox there should be no problem.


----------



## recoilguy (Apr 30, 2009)

Both are good guns get both of them.

RCG


----------



## puntmefar (Nov 8, 2011)

I would go the your favroite gun store and check them both out compair and handle them,then choose the one thats most fitting to what I want at the time. Sorry buddy thats the best awnser I can give you. What I might get may be compleatly wrong for you. Personally I have S&W,Ruger, and Glock in my small collection but I find myself carrying my Glock more than any thing but at the range I find my Ruger's sights in my feild of vision more than my glock. The S&W is just to expensive to shoot often at $50 a box


----------



## rgrundy (Jul 16, 2011)

I'd stay with Glock. They will outlast the Beretta, the barrel is about 3/8 " lower in the frame which makes it much more controllable and there is no safety/decocker to accidently flip on during a fight which disables your pistol. Heres: some info from beretta's website. You can shoot your Glock much longer with no repairs except spring changes. 

• The average durability of Beretta M9 slides is over 35,000 rounds, the point at which U.S. Army testing ceases. 
• The average durability of M9 frames is over 30,000 rounds. The average durability of M9 locking blocks is 22,000 rounds.


----------



## Gunners_Mate (Feb 17, 2010)

jakeleinen1 said:


> Glock 34
> 
> Bc of this movie
> Man on Fire - Kidnapping Shootout HD - YouTube
> ...


mmm I counted eleven shots fired from the glock.... out of a 17 round mag... nothing amazing there..

the glock is ugly, and the m9 is reliable, but fairly heavy with no real benefit because of it. lower magazine, reportedly not as reliable as the glock, fixed sites, I'd probably go with the glock on this one. but you already have several. so whats this debate about? going with what you want or going with what you already have... hmmmm tumbleweed


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

rgrundy said:


> I'd stay with Glock. They will outlast the Beretta, the barrel is about 3/8 " lower in the frame which makes it much more controllable and there is no safety/decocker to accidently flip on during a fight which disables your pistol. Heres: some info from beretta's website. You can shoot your Glock much longer with no repairs except spring changes.
> 
> • The average durability of Beretta M9 slides is over 35,000 rounds, the point at which U.S. Army testing ceases.
> • The average durability of M9 frames is over 30,000 rounds. The average durability of M9 locking blocks is 22,000 rounds.


Glock vs Beretta, my take on it - YouTube

I've never personally seen a worn out Beretta, but here's some other info from the site• The average reliability of all M9 pistols tested at Beretta U.S.A. is 17,500 rounds without a stoppage. • During one test of twelve pistols fired at Beretta U.S.A. before Army supervision, Beretta-made M9 pistols shot 168,000 rounds without a single malfunction. Glock needs to go head to head through the U.S. army trials before i'd claim they are more durable or reliable. I personally think Glock would fail, or at least come in second as did Sig or fall behind as did a list of others. Any weapon can breakdown and likewise there are exceptions, such as M'9s going 168,000 rounds w/o a single malfunction, considerably higher than their average durability claims. Think about it? 168,000 rounds w/o a single malfunction? Seems unbelievable to me and if any Glock can do that or better I salute you.:smt1099


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

denner said:


> Glock vs Beretta, my take on it - YouTube
> 
> I've never personally seen a worn out Beretta, but here's some other info from the site• The average reliability of all M9 pistols tested at Beretta U.S.A. is 17,500 rounds without a stoppage. • During one test of twelve pistols fired at Beretta U.S.A. before Army supervision, Beretta-made M9 pistols shot 168,000 rounds without a single malfunction. Glock needs to go head to head through the U.S. army trials before i'd claim they are more durable or reliable. I personally think Glock would fail, or at least come in second as did Sig or fall behind as did a list of others. Any weapon can breakdown and likewise there are exceptions, such as M'9s going 168,000 rounds w/o a single malfunction, considerably higher than their average durability claims. Think about it? 168,000 rounds w/o a single malfunction? Seems unbelievable to me and if any Glock can do that or better I salute you.:smt1099


Aw, come on now, you left out a few items. Here is a link to the page where that info is posted, the items you left off, and some commentary from me (under each item).

Beretta link

• The average reliability of all M9 pistols tested at Beretta U.S.A. is 17,500 rounds without a stoppage.
(Well, that's considerably less than 168,00 rounds; why would they say that? And what's with that "average" word?)
• During one test of twelve pistols fired at Beretta U.S.A. before Army supervision, Beretta-made M9 pistols shot 168,000 rounds without a single malfunction.
(Oh, now I understand; pistol(s), plural. That was the total for all 12 pistols, which means they each shot about 14,000 rounds. That's even less than the first claim, above; not nearly as impressive, after all. And they were weirdly specific in saying that it was before the Army was supervising the testing; how interesting. I guess that means they haven't been able to do it again WHILE UNDER Army supervision -- what does THAT imply?)
• The Beretta 9mm pistol was the most reliable of all pistols tested in the 1984 competition which resulted in the award of the M9 contract to Beretta.
(Please note: the military competition used FMJ ball military ammo. I would HOPE that most decent guns could go quite a while shooting high-quality ball ammo. What do YOU folks shoot for defense, ball or JHPs?)
• Two-thirds of all M9 pistols endurance tested at Beretta U.S.A. fired 5,000 rounds without a single malfunction or, at most, with only one malfunction.
(Lowering expectations again? Please note that "malfunction", as used in military language, is referring to a malfunction of the weapon, or one of its parts. And what about the other third of the guns? Seriously, that's the best you can do, Beretta? Most of our guns work most of the time? Better hope you get one of the good ones.)
• The average durability of Beretta M9 slides is over 35,000 rounds, the point at which U.S. Army testing ceases.
(Why are they talking about slide durability, and why was the Army testing it at all? Oh yeah, they're probably referring to that little problem with a few early-issue military M9s breaking their slides, and sending the rear portion backward at high velocity into the shooter's face. The fixed that, though; not the "breaking" part (never did say definitively what the problem was), but they did figure out a way to keep the broken rear portion on the frame, and not in the shooters face. Way to go!)
• The average durability of M9 frames is over 30,000 rounds. The average durability of M9 locking blocks is 22,000 rounds. 
(Why are they talking about locking block durability? Oh yeah, that little problem they had with locking blocks breaking prematurely on some guns.)

And finally, let's talk about "average" durability, and "average" reliability. That would mean for every slide or locking block that went 25%-50% OVER the durability figure quoted, an equal number might have gone 25%-50% UNDER that average round-count before it broke. Same thing for reliability - If the average is x, some went higher, and some went lower before they jammed or broke; maybe MUCH higher and lower.

Despite my comments above, I still think the Beretta 92 series is a decent weapon. Not only did I own two of them for many years, I supervised the conversion to the M9 pistol at two different military bases. I've shot a LOT of M9s, folks. But honestly, the basic design is rather dated, and there is really no reason for a civilian shooter to put up with learning to manage two very different trigger pull movements/weights -- a long-heavy/short-light(er) DA/SA trigger action -- in this day and age (that last part is opinion, but I'm not the only one who shares it).


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

DJ points well taken, me personally I prefer a DA/SA action as opposed to a striker fired action. I do believe likewise Beretta's use of "before" is a preposition meaning "in front of" as opposed to being used as a noun which denotes before in time. To say the design is rather dated i presume that if the pistol is not made of polymer, is not striker fired, is a DA/SA, then it must be outdated? However, the same claim can be made of the 1911's design which is a much older design if your observation is held as true. All in All, 17,500, 14,500, without a single malfunction on average is indeed impressive from a so called outdated pistol. The Austrian Army which adopted Glock as their service weapon demanded a pistol that would: Have no more than 20 malfunctions permitted during the first 10,000 rounds fired, not even minor jams that can be cleared without the use of any tools. So I guess we will all have to be the judge in determining their reliability on average. But reliability on average I firmly believe the M9 would beat the Glock design in spades.


----------

