Beretta joins the striker fired family.

Shep546 said:
personally if I was ever allowed to CCW I would have a pistol that if I had to draw on somebody they wouldn't think it was a cap gun.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

If you're drawing your CCW pistol, its because you're about to squeeze rounds into a threat, not persuade someone to leave you alone.

Starscream said:
Honestly range time will give a decent idea how well the gun itself will perform. Brand name means nothing; I've seen sigs, HKs, and glocks fail (not necessarily the gun's fault). Enough that I'm suspicious of any gun until I put several hundred rounds through it to get a clear idea how it'll perform.

Murphy's law applies all man made devices. Especially guns.
Click to expand...

Range time may prove these pistols reliable, however, they offer nothing a dozen other sub compacts haven't already been doing for years.

TDC
 
TDC said:
...Range time may prove these pistols reliable, however, they offer nothing a dozen other sub compacts haven't already been doing for years.TDC
Click to expand...


Same can be said of 99% of all firearms despite the advertising claims. So does this mean that we should not buy or show interest in a new model???? How freakin' dull is that.

Regards,
 
newshot said:
I was watching that video and my 1911 started laughing, I think she knows she is safe from replacement!
Click to expand...

The Nano was meant more as a backup for your 1911 or when your pockets just aren't big enough to fit that big lump of iron.

With that being said, I'd prefer the big lump of iron, but I'd probably go with an 85 Combat, a 226 or an EZ9. Still, there is a place in my collection reserved for a 1911 after I'm one with my higher priority purchases.
 
Boomer686 said:
Same can be said of 99% of all firearms despite the advertising claims. So does this mean that we should not buy or show interest in a new model???? How freakin' dull is that.

Regards,
Click to expand...

I would say you're pretty well correct. Unless a new model offers some advantage over the current offerings, it isn't really new now is it? I'm not interested in new looks, I'm interested in gear that works so I can spend my time working on my skills.

TDC
 
The interesting thing is that the firearm receiver isn't externally visible. Just a piece of sheet metal inside.
So you can buy a spare frame and customise it. A full-size grip and an extension mag, for example. Or a shoulder stock version with a Canadian barrel :) .
 
no external slide lock??? hows stupid is that... what if you are actually carrying and have a double feed... gonna b tougher to clear that stoppage without first locking back the slide... dumb
 
TDC said:
If you're drawing your CCW pistol, its because you're about to squeeze rounds into a threat, not persuade someone to leave you alone.

Range time may prove these pistols reliable, however, they offer nothing a dozen other sub compacts haven't already been doing for years.TDC
Click to expand...

Though part of the reason to draw a weapon against a person is how humans say 'do not touch' to each other. This, I suspect, is why armoured car robberies are so rare in Canada, compared to Britain--do you think would-be robbers want to find out how well the guards' guns shoot? Most rational people--and even a few tweakers--wouldn't want to hazard being shot with even a mouse gun. Of course, protection against animals is another story entirely, since critters don't care what a gun is.

Still, if general concealed carry was legal in Canada, and the short-barrel prohibition repealed, I'd rather carry a .38 snub, as Murphy's Law always intrudes.
 
Agent666 said:
Though part of the reason to draw a weapon against a person is how humans say 'do not touch' to each other. This, I suspect, is why armoured car robberies are so rare in Canada, compared to Britain--do you think would-be robbers want to find out how well the guards' guns shoot? Most rational people--and even a few tweakers--wouldn't want to hazard being shot with even a mouse gun. Of course, protection against animals is another story entirely, since critters don't care what a gun is.

Still, if general concealed carry was legal in Canada, and the short-barrel prohibition repealed, I'd rather carry a .38 snub, as Murphy's Law always intrudes.
Click to expand...

I agree, MOST people of semi sound mind would not wish to get shot. However, it is the few that don't know or care about the armed individual that are the concern. If the majority were the problem, we would already be carrying guns. That being said, if as you say CCW were an option in Canada, why carry a mouse gun when you could carry a fullsize/compact/subcompact chambered in a decent cartridge? A snub nose wheel gun is great for concealment, but not the uber reliable system its often promoted as. Regardless, if you carry you should be intimately familiar with your gear and have the skills to run it. Anyone that familiar with their gear and the responsibility of CCW is well aware that a revolver of any sort is far from being an ideal carry piece.

TDC
 
"It would be a foolish child who believes someone can't defend himself with a revolver- even today" --- Clint Smith, American Handgunner Dec 2011.
:)
 
bollox said:
"It would be a foolish child who believes someone can't defend himself with a revolver- even today" --- Clint Smith, American Handgunner Dec 2011.
Click to expand...

Clint Smith, when he writes for American Handgunner, is not thinking about the laws of Canada. One of the primary (perceived) advantages of the revolver is it's ability to be kept loaded indefinitely without any concern. This is not true in Canada; in Canada, the law states that a restricted firearm cannot be loaded until such time as it may be legally discharged. And everybody - even Jerry Miculek - knows that an autopistol is easier to load (or reload) under stress than is a revolver.

If you were to ask Mr. Smith his opinion, having prefaced your question with a summary of Canada's Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations, there is no doubt in my mind that his subsequent firearm recommendation would not be a revolver.
 
Wendell said:
Clint Smith, when he writes for American Handgunner, is not thinking about the laws of Canada. One of the primary (perceived) advantages of the revolver is it's ability to be kept loaded indefinitely without any concern. This is not true in Canada; in Canada, the law states that a restricted firearm cannot be loaded until such time as it may be legally discharged. And everybody - even Jerry Miculek - knows that an autopistol is easier to load (or reload) under stress than is a revolver.

If you were to ask Mr. Smith his opinion, having prefaced your question with a summary of Canada's Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations, there is no doubt in my mind that his subsequent firearm recommendation would not be a revolver.
Click to expand...

The storage laws play zero role in determining which system is better suited for defensive use.

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom