shtf 9mm 92a1 vs g17

Main concerns are which is more common for scavging mags and parts

I am not a expert on the 92 but a glock has 37 parts

Glock fans are going to say get a Glock.

Beretta fans are going to say buy a Beretta.

Truth is, if you are scavenging parts and mags, you did not plan or prep well.


I am not a Glock fan.... however, based on my gunshow experiences,
Glock parts are more available.

.... wonder if that means they break more?


j/k

I am not a Glock or Beretta fan. Talk with anyone that has to maintain the Baretta on a regular basis. They are prone to shearing the firing pin and its a bitch to replace. Out of the two, get the Glock.

I use to be a "glock hater" of sorts due primarily to poor ergonomics (grip frame). However, Gen 3 mid-size pistols (i.e. G19/23) and certainly Gen 4 pistol have vastly improved ergonomics now. Even though I love 1911s, I have to say that my new Gen 4 G17 is the easiest shooting 9mm that I've ever handled.

Glock. Easy to shoot clean never jams.

G17. My now closed indoor firing had a G17 that fired 500,000 rds without a mishap, and very little maintaince. Whereas Bereetaa 92F would break locking blocks..

Glock 17 gen 3's. You should already have spare parts, mags, etc. Waiting until the SHTF will be too late.

I like them both, but if I had to choose it would be the Glock. Simplistic, reliable, accurate and low maintenance. Here is a thread that'll get you some opinions

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/124934_If_you_could_only_own_ONE_9mm_handgun__what_would_it_be_.html

i like my g17. it's sorta like my AK..it'll eat all the shitty ammo i feed it and keep going.

I would say their are more Glocks out there than Berettas unless you live around a military installation. As mentioned, scrounging for parts is piss poor planning. Both pistols are combat proven and you'll get different opinions from different camps. I don't dislike the Beretta (I've been carrying one daily for the past 6 months here in A'Stan), but I really hate the safety. I don't care for frame mounted safeties as it's a training issue with me and I'll often engage the safety when releasing the slide with the palm-over technique. Of the two, I would go for the Glock based on simplicity but truthly, they both have plenty of aftermarket parts, cheap magazines and good track records.

ROCK6

I've had them both... I'd honestly recommend a .40 cal Glock with a 9mm conversion barrel. Therefore, you can shoot either round in a SHTF scenario. Plus, 30+ round Glock mags are easily found! Just my .02

Whichever one you shoot best with should be your choice, because you won't be shooting a pistol enough to wear it out. I own four Glocks but shoot much better with a an M9 /92.

I'm a 1911 guy, resisted Glocks for a long, long time. But I bought a 17 a few years ago to see what all the fuss was about. I've used and abused it, fired roughly 10000 rounds through it without a single part failure. I should replace the barrel and get some of its accuracy back, but it is far and away the most reliable firearm I own. The nice thing is, they're inexpensive enough, its not out of the question to just pick up a few more and use one for parts if you ever need it. The Korean mags work well and can be had for a song.

Based solely on your criteria (deranged though it may be) I'd say Glock. .mil uses Berretta, but EVERYbody uses Glock.

If you follow jimmythompson's excellent suggestion and get a G22 with conversion barrel (and possibly extractor) you've more than doubled your ability to scrounge v just the G17, and certainly over the Berretta.

+1 for Glock. So far no one has come up with a good argument for the M9 . In the civilian word Glock stuff is everywhere. M9 stuff not so much.

just wondering where or how you will doing this "scavging" for parts and mags?

Just throwing my .02 cents out here. But, as far as accesibility to parts go.. I think a lot of that will depend on where you are in the country. I know a lot, if not all, of the LEO's in our area carry Glocks, but I know a lot of areas where they carry Berretas. For me, I would go Glock. You may go Beretta... I think it just depends what the standard is for your area.

Both are good. I prefer Glocks but there isn't anything wrong with the Beretta if you prefer them.

and they probably won't.

I have 2 Berettas.
A 92 and a 96, both are Brigadier models (heavier slide)
I like them, never had any problems with either of them and I shoot them all the time.
I put crimsom trace laser grips on both.

I have a friend that bought a Glock.
I shot it, no complaints.
He decided to sell it, and continue collecting 1911's
I was not impressed enough to buy it.

Glock people are a lot like Dillon people,
if you say you don't prefer Glocks to any other pistol, they take it as a personal attack.

Have both.

Glock.

Meh. I finally bought a Glock, but I still carry my old Daewoo. Guess I'm not a "Glock person". Still, given the parameters of the question... Glock parts are easier to come by, the pistols themselves are lighter and hold more ammo per each.

Truthfully, I'm not entirely sure why the military still uses the M9. But I guess that's a discussion for a different thread.

Glocks for me... I have a pair of G17s, a G19, and a G26. The nice thing is that these frames share a ton of parts so add a spare parts kit and I can keep any of these running if the unlikely event that a part of any of these fail. Now, if I run out of my spare parts, the Glock 26 can donate parts to keep the G17s or 19 running or vice versa in many ways! Add to this that the mags work down such that the G19 can use G17 or G19 mags and the G26 can use G17, G19, or G26 mags and the versitility is just huge!

Besides that, the Glock armors manual is easy to follow and I can stock and replace any part of a glock easily without any special tools. Simply stated, I don't know of another system that is this easy to keep running and then they very seldom have issues such that this is even ever needed.

I have lots of other choices but when SHTF I will have Glocks on me!

Had both.. Sold Beretta.. Thing felt like a brick in my hand. It's giant for what it is.

I'll stick with my 3rd gen G17 and G19.. Also on the lookout for a G21 too.

Glock - far and away for the following reasons...

1. You should have mags and spares parts stored up before anything happens. Hoping to find what you need after the fact is a bad plan. A complete spare firearm (or 2) is better. Remember 3 is 2, 2 is 1 and 1 is none. Glock, Glock mags and Glock parts are easier to find and cheaper to buy and stock up on.

2. If you gun does break, the Glock is much easier to work on. It does not require any special tool or for parts to be "fitted". No reason you couldn't complete detail strip and reassemble your Glock sitting under a tree in the woods with nothing more then 1 pin punch

3. Very rarely does a Glock mag go bad, at least to the point of preventing reliable function, not true with the 92

4. Assuming you ignored #1 and do find yourself in a position of needing parts post SHTF, Glocks and their associated parts are much more common and easy to fine then 92's. At least around here anyway. Most of the Cops in your AO probably carry G22's and 90% of the parts in a G22 will work in your G17.

You could say I'm recommending the Glock because that's what I have but in truth, one of the biggest reasons I have Glocks is because IMO they are the closest thing we have to the perfect SHTF sidearm.

I'm not a fan of either, but i'd say go with the Glock. If only for the fact that a Beretta has harder to manipulate controls. Especially for those of us with short thumb lengths.

The more I think about it, I say go with the Beretta....

Just cause everyone is expecting you to go with the Glock.

Go with the Glock and a bunch of spare parts, even though you are not likely to use very many.

Just a point. The .40 S&W caliber Beretta (96) can be converted to 9mm with a standard Beretta factory barrel. And you can shoot 9mm using .40 magazines. HOWEVER, the 96 is not up to the beating of firing large amounts of .40.

I just installed a 9mm 92 barrel in my son's 96 and we test fired 200 rounds of 9mm using the .40 magazines without a hiccup. That's all I did. No other modificatioons.

.40 S&W Glocks require a 9mm conversion barrel (Lone Wolf, EFK, etc.) with a larger OD to fit in the Glock slide (you can't slap a G19 OEM barrel in a G23).

My G23/19 (G23 converted to 9mm) has been shot for years with a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel and G19 magazines. I didn't do anything the extractor or ejector.

I also have a .40 S&W SIG P229 with a Bar-Sto 9mm conversion barrel. SIGs also need conversion barrels because of the diameter of the barrel opening in the slide (in other words you can't use a factory 9mm barrel). It runs with 9mm in the .40 magazines. No other changes.

Lots of BS on the interweb about having to use entire slide groups, etc. to convert .40 S&W Beretta 90-series; Glocks or SIGs to 9mm. Not saying SOME pistols haven't needed ejectors or extractors swapped out, but first you try it and then see if yours does.

I've owned both Glocks (9mm, 40SW, 45GAP, 45Acp, 10mm) and Berettas (various 92's). I don't own a Beretta now, but still have Glock 9mm's. I've used them in classes, carried them daily for YEARS and have never had a single problem of any kind in spite of not maintaining them properly.

Glocks are a lot like AK's....

* Were novel when they came out
* Are crude and simple
* Are basically indestructible and require very little maintenance
* Have few parts
* Have crappy ergonomics
* Work every time

Normally I won't admit this, but I worked for a short time in the warranty department at Glock in Smyrna. I will say that I have seen any and all manners of abuse and neglect. Pistols showed up as if they had never been cleaned since they came from the factory and they all shot. I'd be hard pressed to point to a single part in the pistols that failed more consistently than any other. The plain and simple truth is that the pistol just works. Period.

Now, up to and until armageddon, I will say that GLOCK has a fantastic warranty. Lifetime warranty, transferrable, and covers magazines as well. So, while you are getting your handgun all broken in, if you happen to break something, send it back and get it repaired. Same goes with magazines, if you have one that's starting to get a weak spring, or is older and non fully metal lined, send it back.

I will say, however, that the plastic factory sights SUCK. When one was sent in to get new night sights put on it, to remove the front sight we'd place the slide on the side of our work bench and slap it, causing the front sight to pop off with little effort. So, if there is one thing to change, opt for aftermarket sights, or go for the metal factory sights (<$20). And for contengency planning, most parts are interchangable between handguns. With a .40, to change to a 9mm, you'd need a new extractor, ejector, and barrel if memory serves.

My vote is Glock 17, only because I've seen the abuse they can take and still keep on ticking. And, there is a good deal you can do with a G17 in a contingency scenario that I am not sure you can do with a Beretta.

Really?

















Glock, OF COURSE.




HTR.

This

Beretta is quite accurate but the safety being backwards (any safety at all) is one thing that gets to me. Could easily be overcome with training but I'd feel much more comfortable with a block, specifically a 19, not so much a 17.

Also, If you're scavenging for mags or parts, you're doing it wrong

Unless your attached or have access to a mil unit, I vote for Glock. No question.

Scavenging spare parts after an event? I'd focus my efforts on procuring spares for my rifles NOW instead of pondering which pistol's parts will be more easily found, b/c honestly, I don't think either will be easy to come by should SHTF. Besides, pistols are useful for fighting your way to your long gun or when said rifle has run dry. The latter should need maintenance far sooner than the former. YMMV.

I honestly can't think of reason to go with the Beretta. It would work, I guess, but the Glock would be lighter, and probably more reliable. In a SHTF scenario, spare parts/magazines for either would probably be scarce to non-existent. But, there are more spare Glock parts floating around, I would imagine.

Meh, I like my Beretta92. I'll keep it.

+1 I'm not a Glock guy either, but of the two I'd buy the Glock.




Can you imagine Megan Fox trying to manipulate the safety on an M9?

Glock, hands down. There simply isn't anything else that compares when it comes to reliability. I tried for years to resist Glocks. I was hardcore 1911, with the Hi Power and Beretta being the only 9mms I would even consider owning. Glocks sucked! Or at least that is what I told myself so that I could justify my prejudice against them. Then I somehow acquired a Gen3 19 in a trade. I had no plans to keep it, but thought I'd at least shoot it before I swapped it off for something "better". I ended up putting over 500 rounds through it the first time at the range. I used all of my "crap" ammo along with some of the performance ammo that gave me occassional feeding problems with my Hi Power and Beretta. It ate everything without a hitch. That got my attention! I kept trying to find a reason to get rid of it, but couldn't. In fact, I found myself carrying it more and more often, until one day I realized it had become my primary carry gun. Damn it! That gun now has at least 10K rounds through it, and beyond a little barrel wear, it is showing no sign of slowing down. I have several more 19s now, and not a problem with any of them. I've had 17s and 21s too, and zero problems with any of them, but the 19 just suits my purposes better. I guess what I'm saying is, Glock is the only weapon I own based entirely on its performance, with no emotional predisposition to justify my owning it. I became a Glock fan in SPITE of my predisposition AGAINST them! The 1911s, the Hi Powers, the Beretta...all guns that I had emotional attraction to for one reason or another....all gone. The group standard is the Glock 19 as our primary sidearm. It's like the Checkers Marathon (taxi cab car) of guns. It does what it is supposed to do day in and day out, without style, without panache, without sex-appeal, but with total and unrelenting reliability. If the SHTF, which would you prefer, the cool tool that will PROBABLY work, or the ugly duckling that ABSOLUTELY WILL work? Like Dumb and Dumber...one in a million means "so you're saying there's a chance....". Get the Glock.

get a Sig 226 or an XD both are better then glocks or the berretta but og the two you listed i would go with the glock

xd=glockcopy. Buy the original.

Sig 226= 40% heavier, more complex, high bore/grip, high spare mag cost, etc. I love SIG but sold my 226 with .357 SIG and .40 S&W barrels. Hell you can pretty much buy two Glocks for the price of one SIG.

SIG makes a great pistol. I've owned a bunch but keep coming back to the drastic plastic to keep and carry. I too was one of those that tried not to like them for years. Used a S&W Model 13, 19, 36 and Centennial, a 1911 or 4, SIG 226, SIG 239, Kimber Pro Carry and a few others. Carried both a G19 and G17 for many years and carry a G26 now. Incidentally there were a bunch of test subjects between the Glock 19 and 26. I still plan to add a couple more G19's to the armory for just in case.

Mag interchangeability is a huge plus. I can jam ANY 9mm Glock mag in my 26 and it will run like a house on fire. I keep a box full of loaded 26, 19 and 17 mags in the trunk of my car. Grab any two or three and go to town.

Glock makes the 1 pistol I'd want to bet my life on after armageddon or any other shtf situation where cleaning, maintenance, spare parts, quality ammo, spare mags etc. would be problematic. You'll have a lot more to worry about if life ever gets ugly.

The Glock has exactly 2 points that might give it the raise over a Sig. Weight and another one. Can't think of what that other one might be at the moment. Oh, yeah, the mag holds three more rounds.

I picked up my PTI G22 for just about $70 less than I paid for my PTI P226, both in .40. Glock mags are a little cheaper so long as I don't run into anybody who gives me grief for carrying Glock mags stamped "for police use only." Otherwise, while Sig mags run a little more than Glock ones, it isn't a huge difference until you get up into fifty or sixty mag territory.

In the end, I chose the G22 over the Sig for my future carry because I didn't like the hammer drop safety on the 226. The Sig still feels better in my hand and points more naturally. The weight difference isn't enough to bother me for EDC, and I'm not planning any cross country treks any time soon.

Essentially, to me, the Glock is like a disposable lighter. Easy to use, handy to have, but if I lose it, I'll get another one just like it. Completely without personality, but it does function for what it was designed to do.

The M9, on the other hand, is ALL personality. Friggin' movie star gun that's heavier than it needs to be for caliber and round count, combined with ergonomics that only Eric Hamhandsen could really love. YMMV, of course.

When talking mag capacity of Glocks don't forget about the 33 Glock mags out there. Some guys like these for 3 gun type shoots and if I am in a shoot out hammering away with my Glock 17 or 19 then I think 33 round factory mags are the way to go. Are there Sig mags that hold 33 rounds? how about 17 rounds? I didn't carry a Glock because I love Glock I carried one because it does the job better for me than any other gun I tried.

While I did mention the higher mag capacity, I didn't really consider the 33 rounders. From a SF standpoint, those things just never really did register with me. Those are more for protracted gunfights, which–– in the general SF ruleset–– are to be religiously avoided. Also they're heavy as shit.

when you do not have the money for a Sig, buy a Glock parts are easy to come by

That's a good point, SHTF or not.

The Glock armorer's manual is floating around the net. Find it and see for yourself.

Compatibility with other Glock models is nice too.

But, if it doesn't fit your hand, or you can't shoot it well, get something else. Beretta 92, S&W M&P, Sig P226 are good places to look.

I'm running into this right now. Just doesn't feel right. Seems, though, that there are those enterprising sorts who're experimenting with changing the grip shape somewhat. Sanding off the groove ridges and whatnot. Looking into it.

I'm a Beretta 92FS fan. But honestly use whatever you like, both are good weapons. I can't stand Glock's grip and mushy trigger. My Beretta just feels right in my hand and the action is smooth as silk and it's a beautiful weapon

I have had 3 Berettas for 20 years and 3 Glocks since 2005. With the berettas cleaned and lubed and not buying cheap mags they always work for me, until the locking blocks break. For SHTF less cleaning, less parts, easier to fix, I would take a Glock.

I had a 92FS inox and it was a beautiful pistol. I however, couldn't shoot it very well and I sold it to a coast guard member. I would pick the G17 gen 4 of the two you are considering. The gen 4 with the small grip insert makes trigger distance better for me and I am considering one or perhaps a G19. I wouldn't worry to much about replacement parts though. Maybe purchase a couple of springs and call it good.

I just rebuilt my SIG P226. They are hideously complex (not as bad as the Berreta's slide mounted safety, but not by much).

Glocks are simple.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.