Many do not appreciate the 92/M9 series.
When the Army adopted it,
It was not the gun operators were using.
It was in wimpy 9mm.
It was not the new gun operators went to.
If you were in the Rangers or Special Forces using beat to hell old 1911s with crappy even more beat magazines, the only thing you missed was the 45 ACP.
You now had twice the capacity in a pistol that was accurate and reliable with lots of new great magazines.
The gun was not perfect.
The size was not for everyone.
Front sight options were what you got.
Locking blocks in unserviced guns would fail.
Checkmate mags made to requested Army standards had issues in some conditions.
Concealed carry options were a compact that was not very compact and the centurion, even less compact.
Mag compatible subcompact became the 9000 with was not all that mag compatible, not as reliable as the 92,
With a horrible trigger,
And some guns with grip material issues,
Stupid snap opening grips instead of fixed base plates or mag extensions,
And a whole different manual of arms and controls.
And beretta was surprised it was not popular.
Early laser and light options did exist for the 92.
Instead of just making a railed version for more options,
A neat looking 90-two with some non compatible updates, slick grips held on by an edge of plastic, and a gay rail cover,
Surprised beretta by not being popular.
A more compact option than the 92, the cougar,
Came out. Using non 92 compatible magazines.
In a full sized version, a little seen compact version with some slide changes that messed up holster compatibility, a mini version you could not get a grip on, and stupid grip panels that went below the magwell,
Was reliable and had an interesting recoil reducing function, that messed up suppressor hosting,
But shared 92 manual of arms,
Again surprised beretta by not being popular.
At a time you think they would have introduced a polymer striker fired pistol,
A polymer frame for 92 uppers,
A more compact 92 series,
After a failed polymer frame pistol with snap open base plates,
A failed 92 non magazine compatible rotating barrel pistol,
A slick grip 92 update,
They combined polymer frame, non 92 mag compatibility,
Rotating barrel, and snap open base plates into one pistol,
The PX4.
And again seem surprised at its lack of popularity.
I put my money where my mouth is.
I have bought NIB 9mm versions of the full, compact, and sub compact versions.
The PX4 combines a polymer frame with a hammer fired DA/SA upper.
You basically have three options with SA pistols.
A super light SA trigger you active a safety for.
A varying striker type trigger,
Or a DA fist pull for SA light follow up pulls.
Each have their pros and cons.
The subcompact is a PX4 in looks only.
It uses a tilt non PX4 non rotating barrel design.
Length, height, width are subcompact ish but it has a huge overall volume. It is very chunky to carry.
Beretta states it is smooth for CC draw.
It is slick.
I may not want my CC guns as grippy as a game gun,
But I have put over 1000 rounds through this gun in dry and rainy conditions.
Beretta stats the innovative snap base plate conceals better but opens on the draw for a better grip.
I know of no serious shooter that wants moving parts shifting on their guns front grip on the draw.
Function has been 100% reliable with SC and fills sized mags with sleeves.
Grouping is acceptable.
At ten yards it was 4 ins he's low and two left.
The worst POI/POA of any NIB pistol I have taken to the range.
My opinion of a subcompact is the average size hand on the intrinsic grip or with baseplates like a Glock 26 you can get a full grip and it is double stack.
Thinner and shorter single stack non full grip I consider a sub sub compact or pocket pistol. The 9000 has a better length grip. The cougar L has a better length grip.
The controls are less ergonomic than a 92.
Anyways, I cannot say bad things about function and reliability, but I would not recommend this as a sub compact concealed carry.
The full sized is a joy to shoot.
Recoil is like a pellet gun.
But if you advertise a slick non catching sub compact for concealed carry, why does the full sized service pistol still feel like a wet bar of soap?
It is interesting.
Over a thousand rounds of full reliability. Accurate.
On target out of the box.
If your desire is a polymer framed, DA/SA full sized service pistol go for it.
It is an awesome compromise between a striker fired polymer gun and an all metal DA/SA gun. But it is just that, a compromise.
I would rather grab my Flock 17 or 92. There are things I like about each of those better.
There is not enough I like about the PX4 to choose it over either.
Now we move on the the compact.
It is a great sized gun except for the same huge amount of volume it occupies.
The dust cover / rail and tall slide just occupy a lot of space. It points better than a G19 and less recoil, but is not as overal sleek as it, a cougar L or 92c, at least the old non railed version.
And they introduce an ambi slide lock lever that makes it the widest of the PX4s.
Again, over one thousand reliable rounds fully reliable out of the box.
I, and many people I know,
Enjoy a fully integrated line of magazine compatible pistols in suppressor height night sight thread, to game guns, to service pistol, to compact, and to subcompact.
Most major manufacturers do this.
Beretta has not done it in the 92,
And cannot do it in the PX4.
Triggers were mediocre for a DA/SA gun.
Like a socialist doubling down on failed policies,
Beretta seems bent on repeating historical failures and doubling down on pushing this line of pistols.
Crappy trigger on the 9000, CX4, and ARX.
Little interest in 92 non mag compatible guns, being out more.
Little interest in rotating barrels, bring out another.
Success in other companies updating and expand their flagship like CZ, RAMI, polymer framed versions, etc. don't do it.
These are interesting, reliable guns.
Limited factory and after market options.
No pricing advantage.
Beretta is not Kel Tec,
But they have the same look cool/ innovative for the sake of it vibe going to me,
Vs pure function with it being ok to look sexy.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by CCK
Bookmarks