Beretta M9A1

>Beretta M9A1
>Glock 17
>S&W M&P9 M2.0
first gun
any advice?

Attached: s.png (335x294, 72K)

>go to LGS
>fingerfuck all 3
>buy whichever one fits your hand the best

make sure you can fit the business end in your mouth too. you never know.

Buy a rifle

/thread

>M9A1
Classy, accurate, but heaviest and most expensive
>G17
Utilitarian, modular, crap stock sight, really works for some, but hated by others (I personally like Glawks)
>M&P 2.0
Economical, functional, some people swear they’re awesome and better than Glocks in every way.
Make sure you handle all 3

3 most based options for handguns so at least you've done your research. They are all going to be more inherently accurate than 99% of people so that's a moot point. Really you should ask what you want it for. The glock 19 is optimal since it is good for ccw, reliable, compact and still easy to shoot accurately. If you want a manual safety, get the m&p 2.0 in the size you want. If strikers activate your almonds altogether then go with the beretta but the beretta is pretty much only for range and HD use it is way too big and bulky for ccw imo

You should proud you weren't such a retard to consider a 1911 or CZ.

Glock is the better polymer striker gun for carrying if you dont have one already, but the beretta is cooler if you are just going to take it to the range.

M9 Beretta
Small ironsights compared to other pistols, so you can actually aim and hit something smaller than an elephant
very great pistolgrip, great handling

>Beretta M9A1
Get a 92fs for $450 on sale new online, or used for S&W M&P9 M2.0
It's made in America, and that's about all that it has *definitively* going for it. The M&P's do tend to be about as good as Glocks, and sometimes you can get them for a little less money than Glocks, but I think most of their fanbase just want a Glock that was designed and made in 'murrica. The 2.0 has a better grip and trigger pull than the original, but it's still an "about as good" gun. You might experience jams during an initial break-in period, ammo sensitivity or longterm small parts breakage.

You just don't know how to shoot.

What is a striker gun?

I own the m&p and the glock I prefer the m&p ergonomically but like others have recommended go to a gun store and finger them all

Beretta is way better for beginners. Probably the best beginner pistol you can buy. Don't fall for the polymer striker meme.

>the polymer striker meme
What does that mean?

The Beretta is a nice shooter, reliable, but nothing amazing.

Glock 17 is probably the best gun out of the 3 in terms of performance and service-ability but everyone and their mom has one.

M&P is overrated in my opinion, but you won't go wrong with it if you do decide on this route.

Out of the 3 I'd go with the M9 if you want style points or the Glock if you plan to actually use it a lot.

I have an M9 and a S&W Shield, and I've shot the Glock 17. I would go with the M9. DA/SA triggers are very nice if you know how to shoot them (which is not difficult at all), the gun is large and has little felt recoil, it's incredibly easy to disassemble and clean, and it's very ergonomically designed. It's miles better than a Glock for a new shooter because you'll see good groups and feel confident faster because it's just more accurate and easier to shoot. The M&P would be better than the Glock for this, too.

Go hold them like everyone else says, though. Rent them if you can, but at least dry fire them (try both modes for the Beretta) and see how they feel in your hand. My vote definitely goes to the Beretta as long as you have average adult male sized hands and up, though. It really is pretty big.

Get the Glock since you’re a first timer

Sig Sauer P226/P229 if you decide not to settle

striker fired handguns have an internal striker that hits the firing pin and ignites the primer, the only way typically to de-cock the striker is to pull the trigger.
hammer-fired handguns have an external hammer that you can cock and decock, the hammer falls and hits the firing pin, igniting the primer.
A "polymer striker" is referring to a handgun primarily made of plastics and polymers to reduce weight, and use an internal striker as an action. In contrast something like a 1911 is usually full metal and has a hammer instead of a striker, which gives it a different weight and feel when firing.

Attached: 1537053288613.jpg (449x401, 86K)

He doesn't know, he just heard someone else mention it once

No hammer attached to the firing pin. A spring releases and the striker hits the primer.

You aren't getting it. Let me try rephrasing this.

Pictured here are two small handguns designed by John Moses Browning. Both are entirely constructed out of carbon steel, albeit they're in pretty bad cosmetic condition here. One fires by means of a concealed, radial hammer (aka, a normal hammer that flips forward on an axle) and the other fires by means of a concealed, linear hammer (aka, a "striker"). Both of these pistols make use of a fixed barrel design, grip safety and thumb safety, differing primarily in whether the hammer flips forward on an axle or shoots forward in a channel in the slide. I have fired both models and I can tell you that the trigger pull feels pretty similar in both of them, being extremely (dangerously) short with a pretty crisp break on both guns, very 1911-like.

Can you honestly explain to me how it is that one of the guns is in the same category as Glocks, but the other isn't? How is it that just because a gun is configured with a linear hammer, it is a completely different kind of gun than one with a flippy hammer??? I would really like to hear your explanation of why you think that "striker gun" is a valid of category of handguns that has any sort of relevance to anything.

Attached: b88e7676d78dc723175dd301b856f4be.jpg (800x600, 69K)

None of those. OP you can you find a USP compact in 9mm and it will make you sooooooo happy.

digits confirm. you can find them for $500-$600, though most people won't ship because they're assholes. But maybe there's one close to you and you could get it on the low low. What state you in?

m&p has zero muzzle flip, m9 is best of the three and the 17 is a piece of shit. there’s nothing to enjoy about it.

dumb frogposter

bumping for an answer to this

Solid picks, you should rent then choose. IMO you will like the Smith better just from ergos and it's probably the least expensive of your options. Only get the M9A1 if you have the biggest hard on for military guns. Fun to shoot but I hate the slide safety and it's a big, heavy motherfucker. Nightstand gun only.

>m9 is the best of the three

lol have you shot any of them?

Glock is literally the cheapest POS you can get, injection molded, unsupported chamber, expensive for what it is.

>unsupported chamber
It's funny, most of the people who chant this own guns without supported chambers. It's actually incredibly common, because it's not a big deal.

Just ignore the obvious retards. Would you go up to children on a playground having an argument about which is stronger, batman or superman, and yell at them that neither of them are real?

No, but when they walk into my room and start shrieking I'll tell them Santa isn't real