SA Pistols you have been the most disappointed with

[ramairthree]

I did a recent post about nice surprises in guns you tried.

Now I am doing the opposite.

I have a level of comfort and like for the Beretta 92 series.

But when it comes to CC even the compact is fairly big.
There is no Sub Compact option.

The cougar L and mini Cougar are great sized. But not 92 magazine compatible and have this weird magwell/grip base not at all suitable for serious use and mag changes. Maybe that is fine for a CC SC. But the Mag non compatibility ruins it for me.

The 92 Compact grip cannot get any shorter. It used the same hammer strut and set up as the full sized/centurion frame. And the huge trigger guard eats a lot of potential grip.
But why they never made a shorter slide/barrel for the compact frame I cannot figure out.

Anyways,
I ended up with a pair of Beretta 9000s. One 40, one 9mm.
They are 92/96 magazine compatible, about Glock 26 sized, but wider.

i found a LNIB 40, and a used 9mm.

They are similar in size to a mini cougar. Cougars are full sized, a mid sized L, and a mini cougar. Like a Glock 26 without an extended base, the mini cougar I can't get my pinky on. The 9000 has enough grip that I can grip it.




I have ever been more disappointed with a handgun than the Beretta 9000 series.

I have several issues with it:
ONE:
It is supposed to be 92 mag compatible,
But 92/96 mags run about 0.810" and 9000 mags run about 0.860 wide.
It is enough that these mags will not fit into the magwell of a 92/96 series gun.
I suspect this is why 92/96 mags, with or without a spacer do not run reliably in a 9000.

The 9000's I have don't run as reliably as a 92/96 or a Cougar with their regular mags.
But in a dozen tries each I cannot get one full sized 92 or 96 mag to run through them without a malfunction. And these mags run fine in every other non-9000 gun I put them in.
If a key feature of your product is 92 series magazine compatibility, why do you make it take a wider mag to start with, and have it not function with the compatible mags?

I have taken the mag release out of a Taurus 92, dremeled it to fit Beretta magazine notches, and it has run 100%. Think about that.

TWO:
The trigger is atrocious. And I don't think I can relay how bad it is in words alone. I have shot stock spring 92s for decades. I have tried horrible guns like the sigma. And I have never used a worse trigger. Ever. The DA has an unbelievable, extra long, mushy pull with a high break weight. The break weight of SA is not bad, but still a horrible, long feel of mush to get to it. More on this when I go over manual of arms.

THREE:
The controls are difficult to manipulate. And I have spent a fair amount of time putting extra work on them to break in. When you are hammer down on safe you cannot reliably put the gun on fire with your thumb. When you are cocked and locked you cannot reliably put the gun on fire with your thumb. When you load the gun, the slide is so small height wise it is hard to grab and rack. Then you can almost never decock with your thum and have to use your other hand.

FOUR:
The whole manual of arms with this gun. It is different than the 92 or Cougar series. Why? Especially when it is supposed to be 92 mag compatible would it have a different manual of arms than the 92. So it can have cocked and locked carry capability as a claim to fame? Most CC people choosing a subcompact cocked and locked carry gun are not looking for a plastic gun. People that choose cocked and locked typically choose a metal gun with the same manual of arms and design as a larger version. Such as a 1911. They are choosing it for the fantastic trigger and smooth functioning frame mounted safety.

FIVE:
Quality. This gun does not have it. Grip material the cracks and crumbles off. Unreliable function. Models that made it to market that go off when decocked.

As a another example of quality and market understanding, beretta made a polymer holster for this. It is a giant pancake holster. Something nobody choosing to carry a pistol of this size would want. And my example is too soft and not durable enough. It is cracking in places. I have super cheap Glock holsters and mag pouches that are 25 years old without these issues.

Why not just make a little polymer frame that took actual 92 magazines, not have the extra size, height and complexity of the frame mounted safety, and fit 92 series slides. And make a short 92 slide/barrel for it? This gun is wider than a 92. How on earth is that an acceptable design for a new sub compact?

1911s, CZs, etc. have been made with polymer frames.

Anyways,
For a couple of decades you can buy a full, compact, and subcompact sized Glock with mag compatibility and same manual of arms.
You can now add XL, comp, etc sizes to that.

Yet for the 92 series,
The is full sized, 99% full sized centurion, and compact. Which drops the same whopping half inch off the upper length as the centurion.

Anyways,
The 9000 is the worst most abject abortion I have laid hands on.

[samuse]

Maybe that's why they're such obscure guns.

I've never gotten along with a Glock 26. Just too chunky. Something that thick needs some length for me to carry comfirtably. I don't even like Glock 19s.

[Firefly]

M&P.

I never bought one but had to carry one

On paper it looked great but I just hated it. Some people just love them but, I don't see it.

[Doc Safari]

1. Star Firestar 9mm

Wouldn't feed anything but ball ammo, and hollowpoints with a short OAL would jam it so badly the magazine had to be pried out to clear it.

2. Seecamp .25

Okay, I know .25 sucks, but at the time the .32 had a waiting list of more than a year. This gun was a bitch to field strip. I broke the extractor trying to put it back together. My gunsmith replaced the extractor, reassembled it, and told me "I wouldn't take it apart anymore if I were you."

3. Bersa .380

Okay, I thought it might be a "decent" pistol. Firing loosened things up too much and interfered with field stripping. No more South American crap after that (I was already onto Taurus being junk).

4. Glock 42

My girlfriend got one of the early ones with issues. The gun literally stovepiped on every round regardless of ammo type. We sent it in to Glock and they repaired it for free. We haven't had time yet to try it out again, but my enthusiasm toward this variant is already toast.

5. Any 1911

Okay, I admit I've never spent more than a thousand bucks on one, but I can't fathom how this pistol has been the sine qua non of handguns for over 100 years when I can't get one that shoots anything but hardball reliably.

6. Walther PPK/S

Jam-o-matic. James Bond would not have survived all those novels and movies if he really had to rely on this piece of shit.

7. Colt Mustang

See 1911 above for reference.

8. Browning Hi Power

In all fairness, I have only ever shot one example, but my dad's Hi Power was such a jam-o-matic that I probably will never own one.

9. Ruger P-89

This gun was so clunky and top heavy that I kept imagining it was a brick launcher. Add to that the fact that you have to reach down into it to move the ejector out of the way to field strip it and the suck just amplifies.

10. Specifically: Kimber 1911

When Kimber was all the rage in the 1911 world I got one that had such a rough feed ramp I literally thought monkeys could have machined it better. Soured me on Kimber before it was cool to be soured on Kimber.

[sevenhelmet]

Kind of oddball, but mine is the Ruger Mk-III. I've been shooting with two friends who each had one, and both times the pistol jammed so badly that it couldn't be made to function again without tools. Bad luck, maybe, but it soured the model for me. Coupled with the extended neck-beard hoarding of .22, I pretty much gave up on the idea of a .22 pistol.

[ShipWreck]

I remember when the 9000 came out. I picked one up several times - trying to make myself like it, since I am such a Beretta 92 nut. But, I always hated the 9000.

[DirectTo]

I'll second the 1911 reference. I've owned and shot everything from RIA to Colt and haven't found one I'd trust my life to. It really seemed the cheaper they got, the more reliable they got to boot.

Old Romanian TT-33: Fun to shoot, loud and a great fireball, but it hammer bit worse than any gun I've ever shot and had that goofy almost vertical eastern bloc grip angle.

Colt...1906? I can't remember the model number at the moment. Little pocket pistol that shot 25 ACP. Wouldn't get through a single round without some sort of malfunction. New springs, tracked down an ejector, etc. Still completely unreliable.

Not a really bad experience but different - a Walther PK380 an ex girlfriend of mine had. Great shooting little gun, then about 300 rounds into its life it emptied a mag with a single pull of the trigger. Walther customer service was fantastic and turned it around in less than a week.

[ramairthree]

Maybe that's why they're such obscure guns.

I've never gotten along with a Glock 26. Just too chunky. Something that thick needs some length for me to carry comfirtably. I don't even like Glock 19s.

I hated my 26 for almost a decade.
I bought it when they first came out.
100% reliable with the factory 10 round mags.
But I hated my pinky coming off the grip.

I bought the AWB era plus zero mag bases.
Grip problem solved.
But it went to like 98% reliable.

I bought the G19 mag adapter.
Those early versions had a lot of play and I hated it although it ran 100%.

With the sunset of the AWB I got factory plus 2 mags.
Ran 100%, better grip,
Bit still meh about it.
The Pearce plus 3s, which only add two for me run 100% and I like the grip.

I genuinely like the gun now.
The new SS 9mm is not enough of a drop in size for me to go to one,
I would rather have the mag compatibility.

For better or for worse,
My two favorite hand guns are Glock 19s and beretta 92s.

I prefer the gen two in the 19,
I wish they made the gen 2 grip with a rail because I would like an option to put a light on a Glock with that grip.

I prefer the older all metal 92gs with night sights.
You can retire them for night sights or take the tube out and out in an FO rod for a game gun.

I would love a 92 with the compact grip and a a 3.5 ish barrel upper.
I would love even more if they could put that 3.5ish upper on a new subcompact 92 frame that was 9000 ish sized.

If the cougar or PX4 series had been 92 mag compatible they might have gotten some love for me. And it would have forced them to make not such a retarded grip base on the cougar.

Do any other models have sharp grips protruding below the grip with a weird shelf /step on the back like that?

[Firefly]

I must chime in on the PPK. I have an older one and it depends on what you feed it. Stick with ball ammo with a bit of powder to it and it should work well.

I have used jhp in mine with no trouble but I only use Prvi Partisan or Geco. The ammo I avoid is Remington UMC.

Also some of the S & W ones were not so hot.

Geco markets their 380 sometimes as 9mm browning harcourt.

Mine is blue and hasn't jammed in the 8 years I've had it. I shot it a bit when I first got it. My only grouse is the super heavy DA. But I just thumb cock it.

To be fair, I never CCWed it. It was more just to have

[Benito]

I had a IWI Jericho 941 ("Baby Eagle") in .40 S&W, polished nickel or Chrome or something or other finish. The trigger was pretty good, it was accurate and fed reliably, but the slide mounted safety/decocker say right next to the shallow and slippery smooth serrations. To add to that, the slide was very short vertically, which meant short serrations. That made racking the slide impossible unless your hands were completely dry. The gun was heavy as a brick, although this helped take the snappy nature of the cartridge.
All in all, not a terrible gun, but certainly not worth the price of admission.

I agree with what others said about the 1911. I appreciate the history, importance, aesthetics, ergonomics, accuracy, feel, etc. but feeding a variety of non-ball ammo is not its strength.