Comparison of Glock 19 and Berretta 9 mm

Discussion in 'Gun Chatter' started by moon1978, Nov 23, 2010.

  1. moon1978

    moon1978 Member

    Could someone compare the Berretta 9 mm used by the US military and the Glock 19? Can a legitimate claim be made as to which is the better pitsol?

    Thank you.
  2. whitehood

    whitehood Well-Known Member

    The pistol used by the US military is designated the M9 and is a variant of the Beretta 92 series of pistols, first introduced in 1975. It is a full sized, high capacity 9mm with a steel slide and alloy frame that fires from a standard single action/double action mode.

    The Glock 19, introduced in 1988, is a smaller more compact version of the Glock 17 itself introduced in 1982. It is also a high capacity 9mm, smaller than the Beretta. It has a steel slide and a polymer frame as well as magazines. It fires in what Glock states is a safe action which is essentially a Double Action Only / DAO mode.

    The Beretta has second strike capability, the Glock does not. The Beretta has a frame mounted safety, the Glock does not have an external safety.

    As pistols they are as different as night and day. The Glock 19 is around 21 ounces and is smaller than the approximately 34 ounce Beretta. IMHO the G19 is a much "faster" weapon, easier to use and easier to carry. The only real advantage the Beretta has it that because of it's longer barrel and sight picture it's a much better pistol to use at distance. For a civilian or LEO, most of the threat will be at 15 feet or less. In addition the frame mounted safety on the Beretta makes it slow and I always used it with safety off.

  3. moon1978

    moon1978 Member

    Thank you for your response, whitehood. It was very helpful.
  4. Doriadiver

    Doriadiver Well-Known Member

    I've owned both, I kept the Beretta. Nothing wrong with the Glock (19) but IMHO that Beretta is a very very sweet gun. Really can't go wrong with either but I prefer the looks, feel and accuracy of the 92FS.
  5. smith6906

    smith6906 Well-Known Member

    well ya got your differences. glock is striker fired. polymer frame, tennifer coated. beretta is steel frame SA?DA and blued or stainless.

    Pros of beretta.

    Very erganomical to fit the hand and compfy


    heavy weight.

    cheap parts.

    wide ejection port, no feed jamming.

    Cons of beretta.

    grips crack.

    Locking blocks tend to fracture after a few hundred rounds.

    Firing pins known to crack.

    Pros of glock.

    Arguably most durable and reliable gun there is vs sig and 1911 variations.

    Tennifer coating resists scratches, rust , corrosion ect.

    extremely accurate

    lightweight and small

    ease of use *due to simplicity

    good sight picture.

    very easy to fully strip

    CONS of glock


    semi-difficult to find parts

    made of plastic

    so its really up to your personal preference. i have owned both beretta's and glocks. i carry a glock 38 every day and love it, however my 92F is still in my glove box ;-)

    test em both out. go with what feels right to you. either way you go, you wont be disappointed.
  6. Doriadiver

    Doriadiver Well-Known Member

    Gotta agree Smithy. I've had both and sold the Glock for just about what I paid. Still have the FS which I love and has never given me a bit of trouble. Can be a little testy on re-assembly after cleaning unlike the G19 which is super simple to clean and re-assemble. The Beretta just felt nicer in my hand though truth be told, if I could pick just one......It would probably be...........hmmmmm, a Sig. Best of both worlds!!!
  7. HadEmAll

    HadEmAll Member

    They are both good and reliable pistols.

    A more accurate comparison would be between the Beretta 92FS or M9, and the Glock 17, as they are more similar in size.

    I've got to say that there is military use of the 92, and civilian use of the 92. The military use heaps much more abuse on the pistol both in the environment it sees, and the level of maintenance, or lack of it, that the pistol is exposed to. There is no military usage of the Glock in the US armed forces.

    Beretta 92 locking blocks crack (if ever) in civilian life after thousands of rounds, not hundreds. I've never broken one on the 4 92's I've owned. 3 full-sized, and 1 compact. The Department of Defense specs for the M9 are 22,000 rounds expected life for the locking block. You are supposed to lubricate the locking block where it is metal to metal, and I suspect this is often not done properly.

    And the firing pins only break if users ignore the Beretta manual and don't use snap caps when dry firing on an extended basis.

    You can break anything if you defy the manufacturer's recommendations. Defying the manufacturer's recommendations is called abuse.

    I doubt many troops who are issued the M9 ever see or read the manufacturer's literature, as most military manuals are the manufacturer's manual rewritten to something like a 7th grade reading level.

    The safety of the Beretta is on the slide, not the frame. If you don't use it as anything but a means to decock the the pistol, and carry it safety off as most people do, there is no difference in the speed at which I can deploy the pistol versus a Glock.

    I like both the Beretta 92FS, and the Glock equally. Viva le difference. Both are better at some things than the other.
  8. HadEmAll

    HadEmAll Member

    Found a "funny" on another forum, and thought I'd post it here to put things into perspective:

    Someone asked about the Beretta 92 locking blocks, and a poster said:

    "Yep, 92 locking blocks break.

    HK firing pins split.

    Sigs rust.

    Glocks explode.

    MIM parts on 1911's are brittle, and will shatter when the shooter needs them to work.

    XD's have terrible finishes.

    Kahr's lock up due to tolerances being too tight.

    Taurus is junk all around.

    CZ 75 slidestops break."

    etc. etc. etc.