Glock 19 vs Beretta 92FS

[Oh Shoot]

There are pistols out there that are not drop safe, but the Beretta 92/96 and, I believe, all their modern pistols made after the early 80s are. It's an industry standard, or at least I thought it was.

 

I stand corrected on that point, you are correct. Firing pin block added with the 92 SB, around 1979, which was the model first submitted for military testing in the JSSAP.

 

"Automatic firing pin safety: when the trigger is not pulled completely back, a blocking device secures the firing pin and prevents it from moving forward, even if the weapon should fall from a height and strike the ground muzzle-down".

 

With hammer down and safety engaged, it only keeps the firing pin plunger from engaging. With safety off, just like carrying a Glock, except that first shot will be double action. And I agree no reason to carry it for defense purposes with safety engaged.

 

Mea culpa for the non-drop safe assertion. I only own two of them. :)

 

- OS

Edited July 30, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

Oops, double tap (second one was single action, though). ;)

Edited July 30, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

I remember when the drop safety issue came up in the late '70's. LEO's uncovered the problem in the S&W pistols. I paid attention because I owned one. It may have even originated with S&W, since a lot of 39/59 pistols were issued to law enforcement in the day. I think that was their primary reason for developing the second generation. That was a long time ago. Maybe somebody can fill in some more details.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep the trigger interlock ought to make the 92FS purt drop safe.

 

In the role of bedside/home gun, I leave it in the holster, chambered with safety engaged to make it as close to a brick as possible in the hopefully vanishingly rare chance my vigilance would fail and some idiot might pick up the gun when I'm not looking and "it seems like a good idea at the time" to pull the trigger.

 

If I was to carry the 92, I'd probably carry it with safety engaged, being a belt and suspenders sorta fella. If one doesn't practice then maybe that would be a hazard in an emergency, but I think the odds would be higher of me getting so shook up I'd shoot and miss at point blank range, than the odds of me forgetting to disengage the safety, after shooting the 92 fairly regularly for many years.

 

The stiff first-pull DA trigger is a valid criticism of DA/SA guns, and I always shoot worse with that first DA pull on beretta, CZ, whatever. Though my CZ can also be cocked'n'locked, and my CZ 85 doesn't have a firing pin block and cocked'n'locked would be the safest way to carry it.

 

OTOH the DA pull on a 92 is IMO not any worse than the DA trigger on my revolvers. And I'm lacking in skill so bad that I shoot the revolvers just as bad in DA as the first-pull on the 92. So in that case the 92 would be an advantage over the revolver because only the first shot would be "wild".

 

Maybe the DA isn't so smooth on the typical 92 though. Far as I can recall have only shot three different 92's and they were all fairly smooth (but long and stiff). Well, long ago had a gunsmith do trigger work on the first inox 92 and also the SW 586 revolver. They are real smooth but I can't shoot em worth beans DA.

 

I recall at least one story of a policeman who managed to shoot himself with a 92, holstering his gun. So it is at least possible to do it if the safety-decocker hasn't been engaged. Seems near impossible to shoot oneself holstering if the safety is engaged on a 92 though.

[Stegall Law Firm]

A few years ago I took an intermediate pistol class and a guy was using a 92 variant.  You could tell he didn't have much experience with it.  Kept fumbling the decock and forgetting to return it to safety off.  He was always behind on the drills and starting to slow the rest of the class down.  He left after a couple hours and didn't come back.   I felt kind of bad for him but that was the right thing to do.  Could've been a safety issue.

 

I can carry my M&P compact one day and my 92fs the next.  It's no big deal, got lots of tt with both.

[gjohnsoniv]

Complete agreement, DA/SA pistols such as the 92fs IMHO should never be considered for daily carry...  Again the issues can be overcome with a lot of training, but the fact is very few people are getting that much range time.  A good carry firearm should have the same trigger pull on every shot.

I would disagree if purely just to argue with your blanket statement.

[JayC]

Ok, fair enough, which part of my statement?  That one can train the limitations of a pistol with different pulls between the first and second shot?  Or that pistols that have such a limitation by design aren't suitable as daily carry firearms?

 

I would disagree if purely just to argue with your blanket statement.

[gjohnsoniv]

I think that if you train with what you carry there shouldn't be an issue with it.  I certainly would not go out and buy a Glock due to the lack of external safety and the logic that only a gun without an external safety is the only thing to carry.  I will however agree that for concealment purposes that the G19 is the better choice taking into account it is the smaller of the two.

[gjohnsoniv]

I also have an issue with the logic that since you don't have enough time to practice with at gun that does have a safety that somehow you will be just as prepared with one that doesn't even with less practice.  It shouldn't matter what you have in terms of how much you practice.

Edited July 30, 2013 by gjohnsoniv

[Guest Lester Weevils]

There was that lawsuit against Glock some years ago brought by a shop owner who bought a glock, loaded it and put it under his counter. Then when he used it against a robber, having not practiced at all, it malfed on the first limp-wristed shot (which missed) and the robber filled him full of bullet holes...

 

A non-idiot has to practice some even with a glock. :)

[JayC]

Ok, I'll bite...

 

First, can we agree that the vast majority of permit holders go to a target range less than once a year?  Can we also agree that they probably fire less than 100 rounds a year on average while practicing?  That target practice does little to help offset stress and adrenaline in a real self defense shooting?  Can we agree with these three things, when looking at your average HCP permit holder?

 

I contend with that level of training/practice it's nearly impossible to lock in the needed muscle memory to ensure that under stress they would remember to always disable an external safety - or for that matter know how to deal properly with the safety being accidently re-enabled during the course of a self defense shooting.  

 

Also, you have to consider incidents where somebody else may need to operate your firearm in an emergency (a wife or family member for example), who has no training on the weapon in question (but may or may not have training of a different weapons platform)...  While you may have the needed muscle memory to disable the safety, in all likelihood they do not.

 

So, if you take two different average permit holders and place them in a self defense shooting...  one carrying a 92fs and another carrying a Glock 19, all things equal it's more likely that the Glock 19 goes bang.  If in the middle of that shooting a wife has to pickup and use that firearm with no training, it's even more likely to go bang for her.

 

IMHO all things considered, firearms with have external safeties, and firearms that do not have the same trigger pull everytime increase complexity and chances for cousin Murphy to come for a visit at the worse possible time.  For most shooters the goal is to do everything possible to keep cousin Murphy away.

 

So for your average HCP holder, they should pick a simple and reliable firearm to carry day to day, that has no external safeties, and has the same trigger pull every time the trigger is pulled...  There are other firearms that meet those requirements, but of the two choices the OP gave, the Glock 19 is hand downs the winner.

 

While it can be argued that with enough of the right practice and training you can overcome both of these limitations, the fact is the vast majority of permit holders aren't spending enough time at the range and taking active shooter classes to meet even the bare minimum standard to accomplish that task.

 

With all of that said, we're all big boys and girls here and you can buy whatever you want, but I personally think the risk of complications when the firearm is needed the most removes the 92fs and 1911's as a daily carry firearm for average permit holder.   

 

I think that if you train with what you carry there shouldn't be an issue with it.  I certainly would not go out and buy a Glock due to the lack of external safety and the logic that only a gun without an external safety is the only thing to carry.  I will however agree that for concealment purposes that the G19 is the better choice taking into account it is the smaller of the two.

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

You make good points, JayC

 

Dunno how often the typical HCP owner will shoot. You may be correct on the once per year estimate. I haven't a clue.

 

In my behavior I've basically followed your advice, having rarely carried anything except a SW 649 .357 snubbie, a NAA .380 semi-auto, and the current Kahr P9. The NAA was real safe with stiff DA trigger but even with a better trigger doubtful I could have hit the broad side of a barn. The 649 snubbie had a pretty good DA trigger and comfortable grip, and I could almost hit a barn, point blank range, though it kicked like a mule. The P9 has a much better grip than either, conceals as good as the NAA .380 though it is bigger, has a smooth trigger, negligible recoil even with self-defense ammo, and I can generally hit in the black on a man-sized target at 7 yards with it. So it is a great improvement over the other two. In fact, the P9 has less recoil than my glock 17. Dunno why.

 

Because of my doofusness, a glock 26 doesn't allow enough fingers on the grip, and both 26 and 19 are too fat for pocket carry (IMO). Ain't sayin they are bad guns, far from it. The trigger ain't bad on my gen 3 glock 17.

 

Something exactly the same size and shape of a P9 with a trigger as good as my glock 17, I'd really like that.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[gjohnsoniv]

I think that if you own and carry a gun that you should, even if you cannot make it to the range, at least practice your draw and reloads.

At the same time I see comparing the 92 to the G19 like comparing apples to oranges. One is what I would call full frame and the other is more compact.

[JayC]

There are a lot of good guns out there...  I personally carry a Keltec 380 as a BUG everyday...  and a Glock 19 as a primary...  but the reason they make so many guns is because everybody is different ;)  What is good for me, isn't going to be good for everybody else.

 

I'm just explaining my logic behind why the Glock 19 is the better choice than a 92fs for an everyday carry gun.

 

You make good points, JayC

 

Dunno how often the typical HCP owner will shoot. You may be correct on the once per year estimate. I haven't a clue.

 

In my behavior I've basically followed your advice, having rarely carried anything except a SW 649 .357 snubbie, a NAA .380 semi-auto, and the current Kahr P9. The NAA was real safe with stiff DA trigger but even with a better trigger doubtful I could have hit the broad side of a barn. The 649 snubbie had a pretty good DA trigger and comfortable grip, and I could almost hit a barn, point blank range, though it kicked like a mule. The P9 has a much better grip than either, conceals as good as the NAA .380 though it is bigger, has a smooth trigger, negligible recoil even with self-defense ammo, and I can generally hit in the black on a man-sized target at 7 yards with it. So it is a great improvement over the other two. In fact, the P9 has less recoil than my glock 17. Dunno why.

 

Because of my doofusness, a glock 26 doesn't allow enough fingers on the grip, and both 26 and 19 are too fat for pocket carry (IMO). Ain't sayin they are bad guns, far from it. The trigger ain't bad on my gen 3 glock 17.

 

Something exactly the same size and shape of a P9 with a trigger as good as my glock 17, I'd really like that.

[battleop]

"If in the middle of that shooting a wife has to pickup and use that firearm with no training, it's even more likely to go bang for her."

Unfortunately this also true when a child finds a glock in a careless adults night stand .


Don't take this as an anti-glock post as I own a quite a few.

[Patton]

I have probably fired 20k rounds through Beretta 92's without a single malfunction I could blame on the gun. Truthfully even the magazine and ammo failures they only add up to 50 or so failures. Berettas are what the are, 50 year old technology that wasn even high tec at that time. There are a few weak spots in the Beretta design, barrel locking blocks failing and barrels rusting to name a few. They are still fairly uncommon. Magazines and holsters are fairly common on the used market for Berettas but so are they for Glocks.

[graycrait]

Having owned multiple copies of both the 92 and G19 and depending on how big you are I would go with the 19.  Nothing wrong with a 92 except for a 5'10" 190lb guy like me it is just too big too carry.  G19 is as big a carry gun as I would even try to carry and used to quite a bit.  Now I just carry a Keltec P32 90% of the time.  If I am traveling or going somewhere I don't know I carry Glock 9mm, during a routine day though I feel comfortable with the 6.7oz Keltec. 

[tnhawk]

I like my M9 but wouldn't be my choice for concealed carry due to it's size and weight.

[JohnC]

I've got a Beretta and love it in every way. I'm very accurate with it as well. It functions well and is smooth as butter. Love the safety, double action, etc.

But I wouldn't want to carry it because it just feels too big, bulky and heavy.

The Glock would carry a little better.

But if I'm going to carry something in that size, I'd rather carry my FN Five-seveN because with 20rds in the mag, it still feels lighter and smaller than both of those.

[Will Carry]

I carry the Glock 19. I know a lot of people say "the Glock grip doesn't fit my special hands" and "The Glock trigger is too sloppy for my finely tuned fingers" and I understand what they are saying. I don't carry the Glock 19 to comfort my hands. I carry it to help me get out of danger. I do like the Beretta. It's a fine weapon. But this danged Barvarian Brick has proven itself time after time.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Will Carry