Glock's are like a block of wood, along with xd's, and strikerfire guns in general...give me a hammer every time.....
I find the Berettas handle better, feel more comfortable in my hand and go BANG every time as some say about the Glocks.
I would take a Glock over Beretta any day, everyday. Berettas may feel better, but I have absolutely no luck with them whatsoever. Everyone I have ever tried to shoot has given me some sort of problem. Not only that but with the safeties, hammers, and whatnot that just means there are more parts to have to replace if something malfunctions. After all guns are just machines.
For what it is worth. The PX4 is the ugliest gun I have ever laid my eyes apon.
I have a Glock 19. As much as I agree with the Ops statements about ugliness and not being terribly comfortable to shoot -- the fact is I've yet to find another pistol that feels any better or that I can shoot as accurately (and that includes FS92s and PX Storms). Maybe it's because I've just gotten used to the Glock.
It's all based on personal preference...
Anyone who has nothing but troubles with Beretta's, well, clean them.............
the one positive thing about a glock....it is so ugly, when you run out of ammo......hold it up like the head of medusa, and the bad guy will turn to stone.....other than that....it takes 1st place in being the ugliest firearm on the planet...
I ran Glocks for a long time. They have some strong points, but after owning 5 of them over the years I've come to realize there are better guns. Sure Glocks don't rust, and are mostly reliable, but to me the triggers aren't very good, don't like the plastic guns anymore except for something I don't mind beating up, and honestly every 40s&w Glock I've fired is just not very accurate for me. The 9mm and 45 are accurate, and the 40s&w is accurate enough, but not as much as the 9mm and 45 Glocks for some reason. My buddies and I have both noticed this. I had even at one point wondered about the inherent accuracy of the 40s&w because my experience with the caliber was mostly isolated to Glocks.
Once I shot my 96a1 I realized the 40s&w is an extremely accurate round, and the 96a1 has become my main stay. Don't get me wrong the 40s&w Glocks are accurate, they just aren't on par with the 96a1 by any means. The Beretta 92/96 are just better weapons to me the trigger is much smoother (I run the D spring), gun is balanced better, has a natural point of aim, handles recoil extremely well, extremely reliable. Never an issue from a 92/96, and can't say that for a few Glocks I've had. Plus they are just really nice looking guns, and I like the all metal weapon better which has a much more quality feel.
Edit: Though I would also add that there a few benefits to the walther locking barrel design vs the Browning tilt design. The walther design adds to accuracy since the barrel doesn't move. Direct feeding of rounds from the magazine during cycling in theory is less prone to malfunctions. Open slide design makes it very easy to clear stoppages, and the tolerances are simply tighter on the Beretta.
I think it's no secret that I am a Glock fan. There really are only a few guns that I denounce, but any quality gun is good in my book. I don't like the Beretta Storm pistols simply b/c I just think they are ugly, and they don't fit my hand well, but if I'm being completely objective and honest, the Beretta 92 is one of the finest pistols ever produced.
I know denner and I went round and round on this topic earlier on, but upon his plea, along with a few others, I took a closer, more objective look at it. I've always loved the look and feel of the 92. My only gripe has been consistenly the slide mounted safety. It's not that I object to a safety being mounted on the slide, but more to reach on some models, and unfortunately, for me the reach on the 92 is difficult to manipulate smoothly. I like the frame mounted safety on the look-a-like Taurus model much better. BUT!
All things considered, I would have no problems at all with carrying a 92. It's really a beautiful pistol to look at, and it really feels good in my hand. It's extremely accurate and very reliable, and it is hard to beat for a duty weapon. It's a little harder for a EDC only b/c the size, but I've carried it and other pistols the same size with no problems to really speak of.
I prefer the Glock (or striker fire pistol) for a few reasons for EDC. It's light, has a slimmer profile than most DA/SA pistols, and it just works. Granted, for the last month or so I've carried the HK VP9, which is a full-size duty pistol, but it's really not that much larger than the Glock 19. It's essentially the same size as the Glock 17, but the thing I like most about the striker fire platform is the constant trigger pull. I also prefer no external safeties, but a lot of DA/SA pistols have no ES, so that really isn't an issue for me. At the end of the day, I'll pick a Glock for EDC, but I wouldn't turn the 92 down. It really is a rather sexy gun, isn't it.
I find that holds true for everyone. People tend to pick the weapon they are most comfortable and familiar with, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. denner posted a video recently with a Marine and his Beretta M9, and what he was able to do with that gun was nothing short of amazing. It was very impressive and enjoyable to watch.
I have numerous Beretta's and only one Glock. It's a model 21C. I like it cause it's a big gun and it fills my big hands.
I don't feel the need to buy another Glock, so I think I'm good.