This is just painful to look at: Beretta APX

[brickboy240]

I know!

Most Berettas designed lately look like they came out of some 1950s space movie! LOL

[RAM Engineer]

I would have lol'ed if it had an front sight machined into the slide.

[WickedWillis]

I am hoping it's a nice handgun. I could give a damn what it looks like as long as it's functional. I'm not trying to sleep with the damn thing.

[thebarracuda]

A tool to disassemble required? Really? Why build this? I love my 92fs as a disclaimer.

[brickboy240]

It is as if Beretta just gave up on auto pistols after the 92F. Everything afterwards looked as if it came out of a science fiction space movie and/or it had spotty QC issues.

Their shotguns are fantastic but after the 92F....their pistols took a strange turn. Almost 30 years after the first successful striker polymer pistols and they FINALLY decide to get in the game? Bout time! LOL

[Beat Trash]

I'm not impressed with how the rear of the magazine base plate is wider than the bottom of the magazine well.

It kind looks like someone took a slide from a S&W Sigma and put it onto the frame of a HK VP9.

[BuzzinSATX]

A tool to disassemble required? Really? Why build this? I love my 92fs as a disclaimer.

I didn't read that very carefully the first time, and I agree, this is very likely a "don't buy" indicator of many folks, myself included.

[jpmuscle]

Function over form all day long

HOWEVER,

It's 20 dam 15... There is nothing wrong with expecting something that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, even in a generic sense IMO.

Functional and ugly is not an either or proposition anymore.

[dwhitehorne]

Those ribs on the slide? I remember when I was a kid we put playing cards in the spokes of our bikes for that motorcycle sound. What's going to happen when one draws from a kydex holster? Buuurrapp...?

I got a good laugh picturing this, thanks.

Who care what a pistol looks like if it works. The slide does strike me as odd though. David

[MountainRaven]

I don't understand the draw of a re-strike "feature".

And I don't doubt that this pistol will come in at a price point competitive with Glock, the M&P, XD, P320, VP9, and PPQ. Where I live, at least, 92s and 96s are only slightly more expensive than VP9s and PPQs and PX4s are roughly on par with Glocks, M&Ps, and XDs. This pistol should be even simpler and less expensive for them to produce than the PX4 and therefore even less expensive to bring to market.

Function over form all day long

HOWEVER,

It's 20 dam 15... There is nothing wrong with expecting something that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, even in a generic sense IMO.

Functional and ugly is not an either or proposition anymore.

It hasn't been since 1851, IMHO. And even before then it wasn't.

Colt M1851, Remington M1858, Colt M1860, Henry M1860, Winchester M1866, M1873, Colt M1873 "Peacemaker", S&W No. 3/M1875 "Schofield", Winchester M1876, M1885, M1886, M1892, M1894, M1895, M1897, Springfield M1903, DWM M1906 "Luger", Colt M1911, Winchester M1912, Enfield P14/M1917, S&W and Colt M1917s, Colt M1918 "BAR", the list goes on. Interwar military Mausers, virtually every military small arm to come out of Switzerland, pre-war Arisakas, even my 1942-production M39 SAKO-rework Mosin-Nagant are both beautiful and functional.

There are very few service-grade firearms that make it in the world long enough to become classics that are not aesthetically pleasing. Even if it's the brute masculinity of a Kalashnikov rather than the delicate lines of an M1911 or Luger.