Hello NES my old friend.

[teaser452]

We did in my day.

I don’t think enlisted marines carry or shoot pistols anymore. I’m not sure when it changed. But I’m told only officers carry them now. Maybe non coms too?

 

[teaser452]

My first pistol was a 92fs. Practice eliminates the DA trigger problem. Still one of my favorite pistols. My wife and 10 year old love shooting it. Very accurate, very forgiving.

I don’t have a 1911. maybe someday.

 

[BUMPA01603]

Hating on Glocks is raciss !

 

[namedpipes]

Muh boy qualified on rifle but I don't think they did handguns. If he did he didn't mention it and it seems he would have. This was a couple winters ago. He's unimpressed by the changes to the physical fitness requirements.

 

[fencer]

Cool, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. The military has to buy thousands if not millions of guns, holsters, magazines, and other logistic supplies when they pick a pistol. One guy in Mass has to pick one gun to carry and has a vast number of guns to chose from. Again, why buy a gun that has a known mechanical feature that requires special training to overcome?

Clearly, the US military agrees with me because they're switching to a SIG. If the Beretta and the 1911 were manifestations of divine providence, .mil wouldn't be replacing them. Know what the P320 doesn't have on it? A DA/SA firing system. Looks like a striker-fired pistol to me. But there's zero reason to even bring .mil into the discussion because the market for concealed carry pistols is not comparable to the military demand for a service weapon -- I just mention it because you decided to wave your service record in my face.

Edit: just for fun, I pulled up the M17's Wiki page and the USMC plans to buy 35k M17s to replace the M9. So please do forward my opinion to the USMC because they agree with me.

No, they don't agree with you.

Technology changes. The 1911 and 92 were examples of the finest available at the time. Back then we also just learned how to use a tool and not be pussies. And I would hardly call learning to shoot a DA/SA pistol special training.

If you were half as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you would know that the .mil does not think the Sig is a BETTER pistol. If it were, the Corps would not be buying thousands of 1911's for SOCOM, and the Seals would not be carrying HK's and 1911's.
The .mil adopted the Sig because it is a better gun for your average pussy and dumbass. The 320 is a better choice for below average shooters, with little experience and very limited training. The guys that actually know what they are doing, given a choice, are NOT going to be carrying the 320 into harms way.
You would also know that the primary reason for changing to the 92 was to use the same ammo as NATO.
I didn't realize that my mentioning the Corps would be perceived as waving my " service record" in your face, but the reason for bringing the .mil into the discussion is that some of those guys may have done more than punch holes in paper and might know what phuck they are talking about. I own a 320. It's a good gun. Really easy to shoot. And it would stay in the safe if I had to grab a gun to stop a threat. If I was teaching young girl to shoot or a noob to shoot, I would grab the 320.

So when the OP asks 92 or 1911, I respond 1911, and this is why... you reply "buy a better gun"... and your opinion that the 320 is better than a RIA 1911 or a 92 for self defense is based on what? Your groups at the range? It's amazing you can hear yourself think over the sound of your own awesomeness.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

No, they don't agree with you.

Technology changes. The 1911 and 92 were examples of the finest available at the time. Back then we also just learned how to use a tool and not be pussies. And I would hardly call learning to shoot a DA/SA pistol special training.

If you were half as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you would know that the .mil does not think the Sig is a BETTER pistol. If it were, the Corps would not be buying thousands of 1911's for SOCOM, and the Seals would not be carrying HK's and 1911's.
The .mil adopted the Sig because it is a better gun for your average pussy and dumbass. The 320 is a better choice for below average shooters, with little experience and very limited training. The guys that actually know what they are doing, given a choice, are NOT going to be carrying the 320 into harms way.
You would also know that the primary reason for changing to the 92 was to use the same ammo as NATO.
I didn't realize that my mentioning the Corps would be perceived as waving my " service record" in your face, but the reason for bringing the .mil into the discussion is that some of those guys may have done more than punch holes in paper and might know what phuck they are talking about. I own a 320. It's a good gun. Really easy to shoot. And it would stay in the safe if I had to grab a gun to stop a threat. If I was teaching young girl to shoot or a noob to shoot, I would grab the 320.

So when the OP asks 92 or 1911, I respond 1911, and this is why... you reply "buy a better gun"... and your opinion that the 320 is better than a RIA 1911 or a 92 for self defense is based on what? Your groups at the range? It's amazing you can hear yourself think over the sound of your own awesomeness.

I never suggested OP buy the 320. Read my first post in this thread. I never said "buy a 320." And its pretty much common knowledge that the 92 wasn't the best tech available in the early 80s - .mil picked the 92 because Beretta could put a factory in the US and it was cheaper than a HK or SIG at the time.

There are objectively better guns on the market in 2019, not 1911, not 1985, even in Massachusetts. Guns that don't require - your words - "$150 for a reliability service." Guns that don't require changing out the springs and extra training to overcome a heavy DA trigger pull. Guns like Glocks, HKs, CZs, other SIGs, etc. Available in Mass.

 

[cams]

.45 and don't forget a nice hat...

That Bruce Willis movie was badass. Loved it. Only time I’ve seen a guy in a movie with about 100 mags on his kitchen table in a pile and loading them all.

 

[cams]

My personal choice if I had to choose solely between a 1911 and a 92 would easily be the 1911. Carried one daily for years on end and it’s still my favorite. And because .45acp helped win how many wars. It’s a great round.

Qual’d and shot the 92 a bunch of times, mehhh, didn’t feel anything for it, admittedly I’m semi-retarded but I also never liked that the safety had to go up instead of down like a 1911, safety down feels more natural to me as I’m raising the pistol up.

Welcome OP, good luck with the license.

 

[KBCraig]

I'm a 1911 fan and always hated the 92 when we switched over during my active duty time. So, I'm biased.

If you go 1911, I would suggest the Citadel in full size. It's what I carry. It already has extended controls and Novak-cut sights that can be easily upgraded. It has an ambidextrous safety that I am thinking about deleting, since it just gets in the way and is more likely to break. Street price is well under $550.

Citadel M-1911 Government Pistol – Legacy Sports International

 

[fencer]

Exactly, .mil buys guns based on the overall unit cost (including all the extras) and if the gun meets specifications. There's no reason to drag in subjective experiences from the military 30, 40 years ago when discussing a modern day buyer's concealed carry piece. But people chose to do so.

Except that, you know, they actually used guns.
That and the fact that your statement is total bullshit. 108 years ago, they chose the more expensive 1911 because it was much more effective than the gun and ammo it replaced. Maybe you heard the stories? The Philippines? Moro warriors kept coming when shot with 38's? They tested the 1911 on a couple of cows?

Yeah, specs and unit costs. But hey! What does .mil have to do with anything? Why bring it into the discussion? Tell me again about your first round DA "flyers".. Oh the horror! Did the bullet actually get off the paper?
Ever ask yourself why so many guys carry a version of the 1911? Maybe they are all just stupid old military, maybe they are not as enlightened and experienced as you, or maybe it's because they are still unmatched in effectiveness and accuracy.

Look, I think it's neat how you perceive yourself to be the final authority on what guns are better and why, based upon ... whatever, but you seem to really have a hair across your ass about military experience. The thread is about two military sidearms FFS. But you say.. "There's no reason to drag in subjective experiences from the military 30, 40 years ago when discussing a modern day buyer's concealed carry piece. But people chose to do so".... Except that you know, the entire thread is about two military firearms, in common use 30 years ago.

But carry on.. you may continue being the smartest person in the room.

 

[KBCraig]

The Army selecting the M92 over competitors that performed better, which were available at lower cost, pretty much shuts down the "lowest bidder that meets specs" argument.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

I really despise the 92. Like anything, it's all just personal opinion/preference, so that doesn't mean much. I could just never get a comfortable grip on the damn thing, especially for the first DA shot where the trigger felt a mile away.

Between your choices, I would go with the 1911. Just be careful, like modding a cheap car, you don't wanna dump a ton into a cheap 1911 in the pursuit of making it perfect.

Still.....I never thought I'd become the stale "just get a glock" guy but its hard to argue against a G19 as your first gun + CCW + only gun.....it just checks all the boxes (maybe except price here in MA).

 

[SFC13557]

Its all good guys, I appreciate the feedback. Its good thought process.

Fencer - CZ's aren't what I had in mind as I have never held one, but are not outside the realm of possibilities

Check out CZ's if you want a steel/aluminum pistol. CZ75 is an awesome full size pistol, better than the Beretta IMHO. They also make compacts, I love my P-01 Omega.

 

[straightshooterjake]

Like anything, it's all just personal opinion/preference, so that doesn't mean much. I could just never get a comfortable grip on the damn thing, especially for the first DA shot where the trigger felt a mile away.

Two different guys have told me that the Beretta 92 is the most comfortable and ergonomic pistol they ever handled. Both were well over six feet tall, with hands like baseball mitts. One of them even mentioned that he was unsure whether the pistol would work as well for someone with smaller hands, but the fit for him was perfect.

My own experience is similar to @TheGreekFreak above. The grip of a 92 is too big for me. I can shoot it OK single action, but I can barely reach the trigger in double action.

The main point here is that handgun fit is very individual, and you need to try them to know what works.

Another point to consider is that the grip is more configurable on some pistols than others. On a standard model 92, the grip frame is quite large, and there is no way to make it fit smaller hands. More recently, Beretta has made some pistols with a smaller Vertec style grip frame, and then with grip panels over that to make it feel like a 92. This design makes the pistol much more configurable for a range of hand sizes.

I will also mention that the HK VP has the most widely configurable grip that I have handled, and can be configured to give a good fit for a very wide range of hands. But none of this matters if you handle a gun first, and whatever size it is fits you well.