Questioning the Nano role/usefulness.

K

kymasabe

New member
My daughter and I each have a Beretta Nano, and they're great guns, have been super reliable, mild recoil, no complaints. However, we've recentlt talked about how Hellcat and P365 offer double the capacity in same size package and we're questioning whether or not Nano carry is a good choice anymore and if we should upgrade to a higher capacity carry gun.

Does/should Nano have a home in American holsters or should Nano owners dump them and move on to same size/higher capacity?
 
I own three Beretta Nano's and one has 14,000 rds through it. Will I move to a newer gun because of a couple of extra rounds. For me, the answer is simple. Not no, but hell no. The gun is a perfect fit for my hand, shoots fantastic, low recoil and built like a frigging tank. I love the feel of the 8 rd magazine. 9 rounds total is more than just fine with me. By the way the APX carry is the newer version of the Nano with just a few different parts, a new Grip (which are interchangeable). And it now has a Slide lock. (After shooting so many rounds through the Nano's I now prefer to not have the lock).
This should be your choice. I would suggest that if you do want to make a change for just a couple of rounds, then take both guns and shoot side by side. I know this is tough to do in these times and expensive. But to get a honest personal choice, this is the best way to do it. I suggest at least 200 rds with 50 rds of Plus P rated defense ammo. Do 50 rds through one gun and then 50 rds through the gun you are thinking about purchasing.
I personally would not make a even trade on any of them, much less spend $6-8 hundred dollars. That will be YOUR choice alone. Like all guns the Nano has it's share of Fan Boys and Critic's as well. It comes down to how much you personally like or dislike it. The grass may not be greener on the other side. Your wallet on the other hand my be a little lighter.
 
Last edited:
How many shots will you get off in a mugging? Would an extra mag be sufficient for the entire battle? What is the pattern of typical bad guys in your neck of the woods? Your choice , it's a crap shoot.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Might be worth getting one to try out....I wouldn’t change my carry until it proved itself in my hands.
 
Nanos, Shield 1.0’s, CM9’s, PF9’s, LC9’s, ect: all still have a place in carry rotations. Do they hold more than a 5 shot snubby? Are they .380acp and above calibers? Are they reliable and accurate? Then theres not a reason to change other than if you’re worried about capacity. Just carry an extra mag.
 
I mean, do you see a future where a single stack 9mm lives on if manufactures can't thin the single stack down substantially from where they are now?

I don't.
 
If single stack pistols can continue to be sold for notably less money, I personally see a future. People will pass up what we might regard as superior products to save money. In fairness this begs the question of what price difference matters to a person. Talking to FFLs and salespeople, price differences that I see as small aren’t to other people.

As for thinness, how thin does a pistol need to be? I think of something like a Glock 43 or a S&W Shield and neither of those strike me as thick to the point of impacting concealment.
 
Last edited:
Single stacks need to get a lot thinner. Why? Because the P365 is as thin as most single stacks. The P365 is as thin as the most famous single stack the Kahr PM9. The P365 is overall smaller than the APX/Nano. It's also lighter. So unless you are price shopping, feature wise the P365 wins.

Those single stacks that are thinner tend to be bigger overall (PF-9/LC9). The LC9 single stack is overall bigger than the P365 except for width.

Smallest single stack being junk (DB9) is the same size as my LCP. Exact same size. But it's junk. If a 9mm could function in an LCP size, sure. Single stacks live on. Otherwise? I don't think so. Single stacks outside of the PM9/PF-9 are really new. They don't have to live on. Since Taurus dumped it's Diamondback partnership with the DB9, I don't think an LCP 9mm is going to happen soon. Even the Remington RM380 which is a copy of the Roughbor R9 is almost the same size as the P365.

So for small current 9mms, the P365 is currently the winner. Happens to also be a double stack. Also happens to 100% functional. That's a problem for single stack guns right now. I don't believe 10 is always better than 6/7...but I don't think it makes since to have 6/7 and be larger. When was the last time you heard someone buy the best since stack (PPS M2)? I haven't in ages. Will people buy an LC9 at $200 bucks (like they were being closed out for last year)? Yes.

But, time to trim the width.

Also, the market for my P365 at a better loss price for me is probably a bigilion times larger than any single stack. That probably will only become more true.
 
Last edited:
One plus to some single stacks like the keltecs and kahrs is weight. The PF9 is 12.6 oz empty at 7+1 rounds. Kahr cm9 is 14 oz empty at 6+1 rounds. People often forget to calculate the weight of ammo. Example: a glock 30 isn’t bad weight wise, but 10+1 round of 45 acp makes it something I dont want to carry all day.
 
I disagree that getting thinner is essential for single stacks. You're diminishing control of the pistol at that point and gaining practically nothing in concealability (at least for a number of designs available now that to me are quite thin). I already said feature wise the other pistols win, but prices are what they are and if there is a cheaper option a number of people will buy it under the assumption that 6 or 7 is enough. You're working under the assumption that a single stack needs to have some additional feature to set itself apart. That feature in what I've described is cost. If you are a shooter that isn't bothered by an additional $50- $100 then of course that doesn't matter to you, but in talking to salespeople that does matter to some people.

Edit: One possibility I could see happening is manufacturers choosing to end product lines that were single stack as they add these newer pistols to their catalog. For instance, the original Shield now seems redundant to me with the Shield Plus being on the market. If the sales of the base Shield dropped low enough I think it is possible S&W would discontinue that product to streamline production. If we get back to a point where the base Shield is say $250 online then I think the single stack Shield would continue to sell simply because it's a proven design from a reputable manufacturer at a very manageable price. I'm admittedly not sure what that price difference would have to be for people to keep buying the single stack pistols. I agree that even if 6/7 rounds is typically enough, most people would likely prefer the idea of 10. That's an easy selling point for a salesperson if the customer has the money.
 
Last edited:
I believe the grip on the shield plus is 1.20 inches wide while the upper frame and slide are 1.10 inches, like the 2.0 single stack. Working with my hands all day among engineers and assemblers, keeping things to tight tolerances( like 1/1000), I can feel the difference in thickness between the two, even at 1/10 on an inch more. The single stack feels just a bit better in my hand personally.
 
Thanks for the dimensions. The pictures were deceptive. Even the single stack felt thicker than other single stacks I tried. Not sure if 1.20 would be to my liking even with the extra rounds.
Hmm, I just miked my 2nd gen glock 19 and it reads 1.16"!
So the shield plus is thicker than a glock 19?
 
I’m getting some conflicting numbers from online reports. The other numbers I’ve seen is 0.95 for the 2.0, 1.10 for the plus. I’ve handled both and will stick with what I said about noticing the slight difference.
 
More rounds means more weight too. Put 7 rounds of 9mm in a baggie and then put 12 rounds in and feel the difference. I like the idea of a true single stack that holds 7 rounds or so and is as slim as possible.
 
wild cat mccane said:
Single stacks need to get a lot thinner. Why? Because the P365 is as thin as most single stacks. The P365 is as thin as the most famous single stack the Kahr PM9. The P365 is overall smaller than the APX/Nano. It's also lighter. So unless you are price shopping, feature wise the P365 wins.

Those single stacks that are thinner tend to be bigger overall (PF-9/LC9). The LC9 single stack is overall bigger than the P365 except for width.

Smallest single stack being junk (DB9) is the same size as my LCP. Exact same size. But it's junk. If a 9mm could function in an LCP size, sure. Single stacks live on. Otherwise? I don't think so. Single stacks outside of the PM9/PF-9 are really new. They don't have to live on. Since Taurus dumped it's Diamondback partnership with the DB9, I don't think an LCP 9mm is going to happen soon. Even the Remington RM380 which is a copy of the Roughbor R9 is almost the same size as the P365.

So for small current 9mms, the P365 is currently the winner. Happens to also be a double stack. Also happens to 100% functional. That's a problem for single stack guns right now. I don't believe 10 is always better than 6/7...but I don't think it makes since to have 6/7 and be larger. When was the last time you heard someone buy the best since stack (PPS M2)? I haven't in ages. Will people buy an LC9 at $200 bucks (like they were being closed out for last year)? Yes.

But, time to trim the width.

Also, the market for my P365 at a better loss price for me is probably a bigilion times larger than any single stack. That probably will only become more true.
Click to expand...

First of all, Single stacks are not going anywhere.The 365 may have been a winner for yourself, not for all others. Certainly not for myself. (But I respect your personal choice and the 365 is a very nice gun) There is more to a EDC gun than just a few more rounds. Control, handling, etc. I can shoot the Nano much better than a 365, much less recoil and it is SMALL. Yes a few ounces heavier but it is almost over built. A very solid firearm that will outlive me for sure.
No the Sig 365 is NOT smaller than the Nano. And the gun is thin. Actually the Nano is thinner than the 365, shorter length. Yes it weight 2 ozs more but the is much easier to control and none of the snappy shooting.
https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/beretta-nano-vs-sig-sauer-p365
qVq7wxG.jpg

tQhZZyy.jpg



jyuLrfR.jpg


The gun behind the LCP is a Beretta Nano

mHX8gaE.jpg


Modular design is so easy to work on. All stainless steel.

I also love the amount of real-estate on the Nano vs the 365 for the Offhand grip. And I like the sleeker design.
iBs9Onl.jpg

<a href="https://imgur.com/iBs9Onl"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/iBs9Onl.jpg?2" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
MvAoNRI.jpg



ZLdECHO.jpg


Also you can see the beefed up design of the Nano
Nf5qMd4.jpg

3opqKjW.jpg


The Nano also comes with some of the nice Stainless Steel mags I have seen. Much like custom 1911's. Metal follower.
P4kberA.jpg



Getting back to the OP. do not forget that You will also be giving up the great DAO trigger (striker fired DAO). Much like the Kahr which many love. If you like the other Triggers that is fine.

PS I am no way disparaging the 365, hellcat etc. Great guns, All pistols have their pros and cons. I prefer the single stacks for various reasons, If some one else prefers a Double stack that is Fine with me.
 
Last edited:
wild cat mccane said:
Single stacks need to get a lot thinner. Why? Because the P365 is as thin as most single stacks. The P365 is as thin as the most famous single stack the Kahr PM9. The P365 is overall smaller than the APX/Nano. It's also lighter. So unless you are price shopping, feature wise the P365 wins.
Click to expand...

Everyone does not use the same standards to judge pistols.
 
The P365 is as thin as the most famous single stack the Kahr PM9.
Click to expand...
Needs to read, ALMOST as thin.
Kahr on the left, Sig on the right. There is .10" difference
It's the same width as the Shield single stack, not the Kahr.

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 6.46.16 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 6.46.16 AM.png
    162.8 KB · Views: 199
  • Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 6.46.50 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 6.46.50 AM.png
    34 KB · Views: 194
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top