Glock vs Baretta 9mm pistol

[SURB]

Well i was thinking of buying a 9mm pistol.I am a newbie in this field.
My option is to chose between Baretta and the Glock pistols.And i never used any of them in my life before. I thought why not get some expert opinion from fellow members (who have already used it) about which one should i go for. Kindly post the pros and cons of both.

Personally my choice is baretta 92FS 9mm ,but that's just for it's shape.


[ame]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/InFALaBill/Beretta_92FS_01_Small.jpg[/ame]

 

[riksavage]

Well i was thinking of buying a 9mm pistol.I am a newbie in this field.
My option is to chose between Baretta and the Glock pistols.And i never used any of them in my life before. I thought why not get some expert opinion from fellow members (who have already used it) about which one should i go for. Kindly post the pros and cons of both.

Personally my choice is baretta 92FS 9mm ,but that's just for it's shape.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/InFALaBill/Beretta_92FS_01_Small.jpg

Personally I'd broaden my options and decide whether I want a single or double action weapon, then go from there testing different handguns on the market. However as you are in Islamabad you may be restricted as to what's available. A 92F is a double action weapon meaning the first trigger pull is pretty long assuming you have engaged the drop safety, the second (assuming you have fired a round) is short like the box standard single action weapon such as a Browning HP or Colt .45. The Glock's trigger pull is fairly consistent though. Also do you intend carrying the weapon concealed or are you simply a recreational sports shooter? The Glock is popular as a concealed weapon (PSD teams) because of the built in safety features and lack of overt hammer, which can snag on clothing if you are forced to complete a rapid draw.

I would personally opt for a CZ, it comes in both double and single action, meaning you can cock and lock engaging the safety (single action mode), or use the drop-safety allowing you to carry it as a double action weapon over extended periods with the hammer down, thus reducing the likelihood of an ND.

 

[SURB]

Yeah there are restrictions here and i can just buy a pistol if required.
Plus you are absolutely right about the concealing part ,Baretta looks larger to conceal effectively.What about the tolerance(on the target) compared to the Glock? And the recoil?
Is there any way to effectively conceal baretta because i am strongly against the freely showing of weapons.My purpose is just self defence.And also getting expert in it's usage when required.

 

[Jess Godie]

Taurus Judge

I would recommend you to consider the Taurus Judge. It is very practical and in fact I would recommend the Army to consider this weapon into its inventory. The Taurus Judge is a five shot revolver, chambered for the .410 bore shot shells and the .45 Colt cartridges. This weapon shoots different kinds of rounds which I feel makes this weapon very practical. This weapon offers a lot of versatility and is idea for urban defense loaded with shotshells or .45 Colt hollowpoints or a combination of both.







Major Jesse Godoy
Student, CGSC

Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

 

[GD Sinclair]

Big enough for a bear?

Wow, never heard of the Taurus Judge. I currently have the same Baretta 9mm that the army uses. I am moving to Alaska and heard that the 9 mm is not powerful enough for protection in case I come across a bear while hiking. Any thoughts on a good hand gun that will take down a bear but still be convenient enough to carry?

MAJ GD Sinclair
CGCS Student

Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

 

[Bonza]

Wow, never heard of the Taurus Judge. I currently have the same Baretta 9mm that the army uses. I am moving to Alaska and heard that the 9 mm is not powerful enough for protection in case I come across a bear while hiking. Any thoughts on a good hand gun that will take down a bear but still be convenient enough to carry?

MAJ GD Sinclair
CGCS Student

Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

There are revolvers made for that purpose. Some of them chambered for monsters like .500 magnum - so I imagine firing them is only slightly less painful than a bear attack.

If you check out Smith & Wesson's website they have quite a few flavours of big-bore revolver, which is I believe the sort of weapon you'd be looking at unless you wanted a longarm.

 

[TheAbbott]

In my humble opinion

Wow, never heard of the Taurus Judge. I currently have the same Baretta 9mm that the army uses. I am moving to Alaska and heard that the 9 mm is not powerful enough for protection in case I come across a bear while hiking. Any thoughts on a good hand gun that will take down a bear but still be convenient enough to carry?

MAJ GD Sinclair
CGCS Student

Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

I am a huge fan of the Springfield Armoury's XD .40 tactical. Five inch barrel long enough to give you decent range & small enough to be tucked away. Plenty of punch. It will not stop a griz, but I bet he will be thinking real hard about continuing his chosen course of action. I also have a S&W .41 mag mnt gun. That will stop a very large bear. Its a great gun but, bastard to get ammo for. Shoulder strap for hiking or on the hip. Good luck.

 

[Todjaeger]

The selection of a handgun for private ownership is a rather personal choice. Since the original poster did indicate that they are a "newbie" in such an endeavour, I have a few questions, as the answers can help both the original poster and others clarify their potential choices.

To the original poster: You have already indicated that this weapon selection would be for personal defence and that you prefer "concealed carry" I take it such a weapon would not be for strictly a home defence weapon, but one which is also for personal defence when out in public areas, correct?

Relating to this, what sort of build do you have? Are you short or tall? Stocky, fat or slender? Do you normally wear tight clothing or loose or baggy clothing? Depending on the answers, different weapons might, or might not be possible for you to carry concealed.

In the initial post, it was indicated that you were looking for a 9mm gun, with a choice of either the Glock or Beretta. Given where you live, are there certain types/makes of weapons which are not available? How about ammunition? Once again, the answers can help make the difference in recommendations.

Incidentally, while I do not know how easy it might be for you to order them, it might be worthwhile to check out two books by Massad Ayoob, the Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry and the Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, 6th ed. Those books cover a number of different possible handgun selections, and of equal importance, the proper load selections as well. While all the information will not be relevant, as portions of it cover issues specific to certain state laws within the US, recommendations on what and how to carry should still prove useful.

Something which bears some consideration. If the choices remain restricted to guns of either Glock or Beretta manufacture, and just chambered in 9 x 19 mm, there are still four different offers from Glock and five from Beretta alone. Never mind factoring in any other manufacturers or calibres.

Just a few additional thoughts. I would recommend avoiding most, if not all of the larger, "hunting calibre" hangun loading, as well as those model guns able to be chambered in them. For example, while a Ruger Super Redhawk revolver chambered in .454 Casull is an awesome defence weapon vs. bears, being able to shatter a shoulderblade. That degree of power from a bullet is not usually needed when defending oneself from other people.
Again, not knowing the situation where you live, but I would recommend using one of these calibres.

9 x 19 mm (Parabellum/Luger)
.380 Auto*
.40 S&W
.45 ACP
.357 Magnum
.38 Special *

Newer, HP +P loadings only

-Cheers

 

[SURB]

The selection of a handgun for private ownership is a rather personal choice. Since the original poster did indicate that they are a "newbie" in such an endeavour, I have a few questions, as the answers can help both the original poster and others clarify their potential choices.

To the original poster: You have already indicated that this weapon selection would be for personal defence and that you prefer "concealed carry" I take it such a weapon would not be for strictly a home defence weapon, but one which is also for personal defence when out in public areas, correct?

Relating to this, what sort of build do you have? Are you short or tall? Stocky, fat or slender? Do you normally wear tight clothing or loose or baggy clothing?

Correct sir, just for concealed carry out in public places for personal defence. (if required)

Well baretta96 ,.40 cal is not available for me.I have checked recently.Glock looks odd in my hands.Baretta fits in very well.Just like a glove.

 

[Todjaeger]

The 'look' of a firearm in ones hand(s) is IMO significantly over-rated. How the same firearm feels in ones hand is most definately not.

New production Glocks (at least those available within the US) have finger groves on the grip. This one done to make it easier upon Glock to continue exporting the handguns to the US market, since the grooves are considered a safety feature to increase weapon retention. There is however a significant downside, in that due to the size and spacing of the grooves, a Glock often does not fit comfortably in a shooter's hands, which is very important.

Now, if a Glock does not fit comfortably in ones hand, then assuming no other major brands readily available then a Beretta would seem to be the viable choice. The questions which spring to mind here are which Berettas are available, and what load/loadings are available?

For carry purposes, then the Px4 Storm Compact or Sub-compact (in 9 mm) sound like good options, but again it depends on whether or not those can be held comfortably. Otherwise one would be restricted to just full-sized models, which are around ~20 cm in length, and ~13 cm in height. Such dimensions can make concealment awkward. Possible, but there might well need to be a change in wardrobe and/or clothing habits.

-Cheers

 

[SURB]

The 'look' of a firearm in ones hand(s) is IMO significantly over-rated. How the same firearm feels in ones hand is most definately not.

New production Glocks (at least those available within the US) have finger groves on the grip. This one done to make it easier upon Glock to continue exporting the handguns to the US market, since the grooves are considered a safety feature to increase weapon retention. There is however a significant downside, in that due to the size and spacing of the grooves, a Glock often does not fit comfortably in a shooter's hands, which is very important.

Now, if a Glock does not fit comfortably in ones hand, then assuming no other major brands readily available then a Beretta would seem to be the viable choice. The questions which spring to mind here are which Berettas are available, and what load/loadings are available?

For carry purposes, then the Px4 Storm Compact or Sub-compact (in 9 mm) sound like good options, but again it depends on whether or not those can be held comfortably. Otherwise one would be restricted to just full-sized models, which are around ~20 cm in length, and ~13 cm in height. Such dimensions can make concealment awkward. Possible, but there might well need to be a change in wardrobe and/or clothing habits.

-Cheers

In baretta there are not much choices here.

Just the Baretta 92 FS with 9mm is ammo.And another question that comes to mind is that can i convert it to .40cal.

Plus will the size of 92FS suite me for concealed carry?

.45ACP and .380 rounds are also available ,but for personal defense i think the 9mm round would be better.

 

[Todjaeger]

Honestly, most full-sized pistols are somewhat difficult for concealment purposes. Hence the prior questions with regards to clothing and build.

Given the overall length of 8.5"/~22 cm, and a height 5.4"/~14 cm, it can make concealment problematic. To illustrate the problem, take framing or carpenters square of the appropriate dimensions, and hold it flush against yourself and see what portions, if any end up jutting past your frame.

Unfortunately with a weapon of that size, there are likely to be at least a few. This is in large measure the reason why the compact and sub-compact class of pistols came into existence. Most people just are not large enough for them to hide such a large weapon on their person. At least, not in an easy or useful fashion.

-Cheers

 

[the road runner]

In baretta there are not much choices here.

Just the Baretta 92 FS with 9mm is ammo.And another question that comes to mind is that can i convert it to .40cal.

Plus will the size of 92FS suite me for concealed carry?

.45ACP and .380 rounds are also available ,but for personal defense i think the 9mm round would be better.

Gday SURB

Look at the NEW Beretta 90 TWO Series in Type E/Type F or Type G for an alternative to the 92 series Beretta......

The Baretta 90 TWO Firearm comes in 9mm x19..and 9mm x 21..and .40 S & W.

Beretta 90two

I like the .40 S & W

Regards

 

[Todjaeger]

Gday SURB

Look at the NEW Beretta 90 TWO Series in Type E/Type F or Type G for an alternative to the 92 series Beretta......

The Baretta 90 TWO Firearm comes in 9mm x19..and 9mm x 21..and .40 S & W.

Beretta 90two

I like the .40 S & W

Regards

It could very well be an issue of what is "locally" available. I expect if I was located in Hobart or Shrewsbury, I would be rather hard-pressed to get a Springfield XD, at least through "normal" channels.

Additionally, while a 90-Two might present additional choices in terms of ammunition calibre, it still is a full-sized service pistol which presents problems for concealment. Having given it some though, the only way which comes to mind as being possibly concealable is to use a shoulder rig, with the actual holster portion of the rig positioned in such a way so that the muzzle is pointed straight down. Such an arrangement might position the barrel and grip sufficiently close to and in-line with the body to provide concealability, provided the appropriate clothing is worn. I strongly suspect that both drawing and holstering the weapon would be a somewhat slow and awkward process.

-Cheers

 

[the road runner]

It could very well be an issue of what is "locally" available. I expect if I was located in Hobart or Shrewsbury, I would be rather hard-pressed to get a Springfield XD, at least through "normal" channels.

True...you take what you can get,especially in Oz...

Additionally, while a 90-Two might present additional choices in terms of ammunition calibre, it still is a full-sized service pistol which presents problems for concealment. Having given it some though, the only way which comes to mind as being possibly concealable is to use a shoulder rig, with the actual holster portion of the rig positioned in such a way so that the muzzle is pointed straight down. Such an arrangement might position the barrel and grip sufficiently close to and in-line with the body to provide concealability, provided the appropriate clothing is worn. I strongly suspect that both drawing and holstering the weapon would be a somewhat slow and awkward process.

I would think if you wanted a concealed,easy access hand gun you would have to look at a purse /pocket hand gun.

Chuck Hawks explains his preference for concealed firearms.

Concealed Carry Pistols

 

[GD Sinclair]

9mm vs .45 caliber

There appears to be some consensus in respect to the military switching from the 9mm back to the .45 caliber. I was reading a other blogs about this topic. Apparently the military converted from the .45 to the 9mm in order to conform with NATO (who uses a 9mm). However, research as well as anecdotal data reports that the 9mm lacks the "stopping power" that is required when using a hand gun for its primary purpose, close combat. One argument in support of the smaller 9mm caliber weapon is the larger magazine capacity. However, the response to this argument is that if two shots are required to stop an approaching adversary using a 9mm and only one shot is required when using a larger handgun, such as a .45 caliber, then the difference in magazine rounds is nullified.

The suggested Taurus 4510 is an interesting suggestion as it provides versatility; firing both a .45 caliber as well as a 410 shell.



Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."[/QUOTE]

 

[Bonza]

Do you think this disparity in stopping power could be addressed through the use of new ammunition types, particularly in light of the recent developments in 5.56mm ammunition types?

The 9mm vs .45 debate has been around for a long time and I while I have shooting experience, in no way has my life ever depended on it so I hesitate to comment in too much depth as to the pros and cons of each calibre. I do wonder though with the new longarm ammunition types gaining prominence and acceptance whether a new 9mm round could address some people's concerns about the calibre's combat performance.

I don't see sidearm replacement as a likely avenue for military budgets that are increasingly strained to do more with less, as it's my observation that sidearms aren't perceived as "game changers". I can certainly see why people whose lives might depend on it would want the best piece of equipment they could get - but are concerns like this diminished in a large scale procurement point of view? Is there merit to this view or is sidearm choice a more important issue than I realise?

 

[Todjaeger]

Do you think this disparity in stopping power could be addressed through the use of new ammunition types, particularly in light of the recent developments in 5.56mm ammunition types?

The 9mm vs .45 debate has been around for a long time and I while I have shooting experience, in no way has my life ever depended on it so I hesitate to comment in too much depth as to the pros and cons of each calibre. I do wonder though with the new longarm ammunition types gaining prominence and acceptance whether a new 9mm round could address some people's concerns about the calibre's combat performance.

I don't see sidearm replacement as a likely avenue for military budgets that are increasingly strained to do more with less, as it's my observation that sidearms aren't perceived as "game changers". I can certainly see why people whose lives might depend on it would want the best piece of equipment they could get - but are concerns like this diminished in a large scale procurement point of view? Is there merit to this view or is sidearm choice a more important issue than I realise?

Actually there has been some chatter that I have heard where some deployed units had problems with 9mm performance, particularly in the Ghan. Now, if regular units were allowed to deploy with some of the newer 9 mm home defense rounds available within the US, then the performance of the M9 (and also some of the issued weapons like the MP-5) would be less of a concern. However, due to various treaties restricting or banning the (regular) use of expanding bullets, the regular units are "stuck" with standard 9 mm ball/FMJ rounds.

While the 9 x 19 mm round created by Georg Luger in 1902 is in widespread use, it does face some performance issues when compared to other rounds like the .45 ACP which is of similar age. This is due largely to two reasons. The first being that the smaller 9 x 19 mm bullets are frequently significantly lighter than the .45 ACP bullets, with a common load of 147 grains/~9.5 grams vs. 230 grain/~14.9 grams, while both rounds often have similar muzzle velocities of ~950 fps (feet per second) / ~290 m per sec. The works out with the .45 ACP bullet typically having a significantly greater kinetic energy when hitting a target. The second item, relating to the first is that a .45 ACP bullet is significantly larger in overall volume than that of a 9 mm, this then typically causes a .45 ACP bullet to have a larger wound channel than something like a 9 mm and with the extra kinetic energy, a .45 ACP can cause just that much more tissue disruption than a 9 mm could ordinarily accomplish.

It must be noted that either round is quite sufficient to kill someone, even a .22 LR bullet can do so. However, depending on circumstances such an effect might not be accomplished immediately, and in occasions where handguns are in use by military units (or police/law enforcement for that matter) then the situation is such where an effect is desired immediately, not in the few seconds or more that smaller rounds can potentially take.

As for the viability of something like the Taurus Judge/Model 4510 for military or personal defence/carry use, IMO the weapon is inappropriate for such circumstances and that others are readily available which would be more suitable. For starters, the weapon itself is a Taurus, which means there are potential Q/C issues which means that any weapon orders/outputs would need to be tested prior to them being available for deployment/operational use. To highlight part of the possible Q/C issue, when the "Judge" was initially launched, Taurus stepped up production to satisfy demand. Unfortunately, insufficient measures were taken to ensure that parts were produced to the required specifications. Compounding (and dramatically illustrating) the problem, was that some examples of the firearm were released from the factory and exported without ever having been test-fired. If that process had occurred, then the deficiencies in production and/or assembly would have been immediately revealed. The other, significant problem which would exist regardless of which company manufactured the "Judge" is that the firearm itself is fairly large as far as handguns go, with a barrel & chamber length totaling ~4.5"/11.4 cm, and an unloaded weight of 26 oz/.73 kg for the "Public Defender" version of the "Judge", which is the smallest version currently available. What that gets one is 5 shots of .45 Colt and/or .410 shotshells, or some combination thereof. That does not compare too well against other potential handgun candidates like the Springfield Armory XDM 45, which is actually 1"/2.5 cm shorter in length, has a similar empty weight of 31 oz/.88 kg, yet can carry 13+1 rounds of .45 ACP ammunition and can be reloaded significantly faster than a revolver can, even with a speedloader.

-Cheers

 

[A.Mookerjee]

Well i was thinking of buying a 9mm pistol.I am a newbie in this field.
My option is to chose between Baretta and the Glock pistols.And i never used any of them in my life before. I thought why not get some expert opinion from fellow members (who have already used it) about which one should i go for. Kindly post the pros and cons of both.

Personally my choice is baretta 92FS 9mm ,but that's just for it's shape.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/InFALaBill/Beretta_92FS_01_Small.jpg

You are lucky, that you can buy the Baretta in Pakistan. I would only buy the Baretta. There was a tragedy in India, concerning the Baretta, recently. The Naval Officer, in command of the Southern Naval Command, injured himself fatally, when he was examining a Baretta. It must have been a 9 mm automatic. The Baretta, is a legend, when one remembers the names of firearms.

 

[SURB]

What's the story of 10mm,well i have read it has got greater recoil as compared to .45ACP .Was this the main reason for FBI inspectors rejecting it?