Hunting Forum

I apologize for the double post. I don't know how it happened.

i own a berretta 9mm,and 40 great guns also own a s@w 40 also a great gun as far as glocks i had one and got rid of it it was very uncomfortable to fire i would recommend setting a price range and shop around at most dealers they will have one of every gun known to man that can be fired before he decides on one to buy

Shot GLOCK model 22 40SW for years without any problems and it is still my CCW of choice. It is one heck of a pistol no matter what.

Having trained with, carried on duty, and shot all three, I can say all three are fine pistols. I suggest your son, he sounds to be a very wise young man, get the pistol that best fits his and his family's hands and meets his needs. You don't mention his level of experience and training with semi-auto handguns, whether he'll be carrying it concealed or not, use it for hunting or not, carrying on the job or not, etc.
If carrying concealed is the primary purpose, then go with the Glock or the Sig. If carrying on duty in uniform, then the Beretta would be fine, too, if the agency or department approves it. If used for hunting, I'd go with the Beretta, as I consider it the more accurate of the three. If he has no experience with semi-autos, but is experienced with revolvers, I'd go with the Glock. If maximum magazine capacity is a factor, again, the Glock wins it. If he has no experience with handguns at all, again go with the Glock, but I'd prefer a revolver just because I love them.
He'll want to get quality 9mm ammo, for defense, hunting, target shooting, etc., and they won't all be the same ammo probably. 9mm does fine for most purposes in defense and hunting small game or varmints, javelina, which are fun to hunt here in AZ with a handgun, and so on, but are a little light for my tastes for deer-sized game.
BTW, if You're Beretta is a .40 it's probably a M96 rather than a 92. Great gun. I, too, prefer the .40 over the 9mm, but that's just personal preference.

GLock 19 is my personal favorite. As mentioned several times already, he should try 'em on for size, so to speak. With the nation's largest state owned shooting range just north of Phoenix, he has planty room to try 'em.
As for killing power, in my profession, I've seen humans just as dead from .22's as they were from .30-06's.

I will never own a Glock! I don't feel like I can trust them without a visible safety. And I would never own a 9mm. Too weak! Sure, they will kill, but so will a .22, statistically the deadliest round. But zero knockdown means that it has no stopping power. .45's are powerful rounds, but virtually zero accuracy at any distance other than point blank. I would like to have a Sig, but I do own a Beretta 96 .40 S&W, as well as a Beretta Px-4 Storm, also in .40 S&W. The 96 is a time-tested design, just like the 1911 frame, and mine shoots flawlessly. It has never jammed, misfired, or tried to chamber 2 rounds at the same time (as I've had happen with cheaper autos). Dependability is crucial in life stakes!

Since this post is almost a year old its probably over and done .How ever I thought I would put it in the words of my son who came home on leave from his first tour in Iraq with the USMC ." Dad can I take your .45 back with me ? We have the M9's(Beretta) but that 9mm doesn't do it as well as the .45's" nuff said by someone who was there and doing it! and came back home after 3 tours of doing it up close and personal .

For OKherp , Don't know where you got the idea that a .45 auto is not accurate ,I believe a few thousand target shooters and more than a few gun makers will beg to differ

The only time the 45 is much better than the 9 is if you are forced to use ball ammo. Statistically ball 45 has about the same effectiveness as the 32 cap with hollow points. 9, especially in the light fast 124 that the army uses is terrible ball ammo. If you must use ball the 147's are better, but for personal defense there's No good reason to use ball ammo as it's less effective and bc of over penetration increases your odds of shooting an innocent.

Don't know what statistics gehee uses but the math is way off , given the same velocity of 850fps the .32acp with a 60gr hornady xtp vs. a 230gr hardball .45 the scale is definately tipped in favor of the .45 plus too many actuall accounts of gunshot studies by the FBI indicate otherwise. the .32 ends up being better than the .25 acp and nothing at all .

There was a story on the back page of one of the firearms magazines a few years ago and it was a Russian officer and a Navy seal having a little impromtu shoot-off. The first set was with .22's and for the second set, with centerfires, the seal pulled out a Sig in .45 cal., the Russian commented on the Berretta 92 being the issue arm for the US forces. When the Navy man replied, "Not for us (maybe not an exact quote)", the Russian looked at him for a moment and said, "Ah, Spetznatz". I may not have the dialog exact, it seems the Russian did not know the Navy man was a seal.

The statistics were based on FBI studies... Ball ammo is terrible... Ball ammo, for every caliber, is better than nothing but inferior to all calibers 380 and higher with hollowpoints

Posted By rburrows6 on 05 Sep 2011 08:53 PM
For OKherp , Don't know where you got the idea that a .45 auto is not accurate ,I believe a few thousand target shooters and more than a few gun makers will beg to differ

I'm not trying to start a debate, but the ballistics are horrible, at least with factory ammunition. Given that most handgun shootouts occur at less than 3 yds, the .45 is fine. But for distance, 25-50 yds, give me almost anything else. It would be hard to get a decent group from a .45 past 7 or 8 yds.

okherb
Your firearms and ballistic knowledge is...well...a bit lacking to say the least.

Posted By okherp on 08 Sep 2011 09:28 AM

Posted By rburrows6 on 05 Sep 2011 08:53 PM
For OKherp , Don't know where you got the idea that a .45 auto is not accurate ,I believe a few thousand target shooters and more than a few gun makers will beg to differ

I'm not trying to start a debate, but the ballistics are horrible, at least with factory ammunition. Given that most handgun shootouts occur at less than 3 yds, the .45 is fine. But for distance, 25-50 yds, give me almost anything else. It would be hard to get a decent group from a .45 past 7 or 8 yds.

I guess it's just luck when I shoot a steel plate, with consistancy, the size of a human torso at 100 Yards then huh?

I'm not trying to start a debate, but the ballistics are horrible, at least with factory ammunition. Given that most handgun shootouts occur at less than 3 yds, the .45 is fine. But for distance, 25-50 yds, give me almost anything else. It would be hard to get a decent group from a .45 past 7 or 8 yds.

I need to talk to my 45's and let them know they are not as accurate as the target says they are.