Used Beretta 84F or new Glock 42?

V

Viper99

New member
With a couple of questions in between for the Beretta experts on the forum.

Are all 84/85 models Cheetah's? The one I put on hold today says only 84F on the slide vs a new one that clearly said 84F Cheetah on the slide.

There is also something with the safety that if engaged partially will fire vs new one where even if partially engaged, when you pull the trigger, it will not fire?

Now to the Glock 42. The only thing that bothers me is the capacity vs the size. I have 6+1 on my LCP which is a lot smaller.

And finally, 84F in very good condition, blue, no box, papers and only 1 mag $449 or New G42 $399?

Is there anyone that has experience with both of these.

Regards to all.
 
Viper, if the choice was mine, I would go for the 84 without any hesitation. The Glock 42 is a good gun (I have one), but the 84 is a classic and the price is right. I had an 84FS (foolishly sold) that shot like a .22.

My experience was with the 84FS, so I cannot comment specifically on the questions you have about the 84F, just that they are nice shooting guns and I am jealous of that price.
 
I have both the 42 and the LCP, and I wouldnt call the difference in size " a lot". Its really not all that much.

There is a difference in how they handle and shoot, with the 42 being the winner there.

I got the 42 thinking it would replace my 26's as a "deep cover" type gun. So far, that hasnt been the case. The difference there too, really isnt all that much, and the 26 has more to offer. The 26 actually took the LCP's place there too. After one day in my Smart Carry, the one small portion of my LCP was already rusting. I put the 26 in its place the next day, and havent looked back.
 
I do not own a Glock and I do not own a Beretta Model 84. I do own two Model 85F Cheetahs.

if given the choice, I would add another Cheetah to the stable. The significant difference between the 84 and 85 is the round capacity and larger grip because of the double stack magazine of the Model 84. The Model 85 is a single stack with a capacity of 8 rounds.

I picked-up my latest 85F on Tuesday after winning it at an on-line auction for under three hundred dollars. The price you mentioned is well within reason for the Model 84; although I have a preference for the single stack. Others like the higher capacity. We are all winners with either.

Beretta has announced they will be bringing the Cheetah back to the USA. I have heard the new price will be above seven hundred.

The Cheetah came in several models in the 80's series including those in .32 ACP, .380 and .22. Many consider it one of the sexiest or most handsome pistols ever made. It is also considered to be the Baby Model 92. I love all my Berettas, and I have several others.

I see Cheetahs escalating in price on the used market. I don't know whether this is the case with used Glocks. Buy what you like best.
 
What do you want to do with the gun? I don't see these two as being in direct competition for most people. To me, this is kind of like asking whether you should buy a Beretta 92 or a Kahr CM9 (though not quite, since the Kahr shoots a legitimate SD caliber in a package quite small for that caliber).

The Beretta 84 is a beautiful and very refined, high-quality gun -- the finest .380 platform ever produced, in my opinion -- but it's obviously large and heavy for a .380. Of course it does have double the capacity of the Glock. It's also a straight blowback design, like other larger .380 pistols. The fixed barrel will deliver superior accuracy, but the recoil impulse will actually be considerably sharper (though nothing bad) with the 84 than the G42.

The Glock 42 is a much slimmer, lower-capacity pistol intended to be easily concealable. I'll admit that I think the gun is a rather pointless creation, since it's a .380 pistol taller and longer than a Kahr PM9/CM9 and wider than the Kahr and the Walther PPS but with only the capacity of the LCP and other pocket .380s, but Glock fans seem to love it. About the only need I can see it satisfying is for women who find the recoil of a Walther PPS/S&W Shield/Kahr PM9 objectionable.

That said, if you really want to carry whichever you buy, it will definitely be easier with the slimmer, lighter Glock 42. If you're looking for a range gun, a home defense gun (in .380, for whatever odd reason), or just a gun for the appreciation of craftsmanship, the Beretta would be the clear way to go. I don't see either gun as being very practical, but the Beretta at least shines as a range pistol (shooting pricier .380 ammo) and in the "pride of ownership" department. The Glock doesn't shine in any category, in my opinion (except perhaps as a CCW for recoil-averse women, as mentioned above).
 
The Glock doesn't shine in any category, in my opinion (except perhaps as a CCW for recoil-averse women, as mentioned above).
Click to expand...
The accuracy of the 42 is actually better than most, and it has "real" sights. Mine shoot as well as their larger, 9mm kin, and at the same distances. At 25 yards, you cant tell the difference.
 
I have both the 42 and the LCP, and I wouldnt call the difference in size " a lot". Its really not all that much.
Click to expand...

The size difference is significant. Not everyone wears cargo shorts.

The G42 is taller, longer, and thicker than a Kahr PM9. The LCP easily fits into a blue-jeans pocket. A Kahr PM9 or G42 definitely does not. If the LCP and the Kahr PM9 were more or less the same in size, the LCP wouldn't even exist.
 
The accuracy of the 42 is actually better than most, and it has "real" sights. Mine shoot as well as their larger, 9mm kin, and at the same distances. At 25 yards, you cant tell the difference.
Click to expand...

With a sight radius longer than that of a Kahr PM9, it certainly shouldn't be hard to shoot it accurately.

I'm still not seeing what category it shines in (this implies a comparison with other pistols in a given category). Concealability? Nope. It's a .380 bigger in every dimension than a popular 9mm pistol with the same capacity. Some combination of concealability and capacity? Negative. Same capacity as all of the pocket .380 pistols. As a range or home-defense gun? Definitely not compared to a Beretta 84.
 
The size difference is significant. Not everyone wears cargo shorts.

The G42 is taller, longer, and thicker than a Kahr PM9. The LCP easily fits into a blue-jeans pocket. A Kahr PM9 or G42 definitely does not.
Click to expand...
I dont wear cargo shorts, but both my LCP and 42 will fit in my Carhartt and Dickie pants pockets with no troubles. Im not one to pocket carry, at least not in my pants, but both are doable.

Heres a comparison....

ry%3D480

ry%3D400

ry%3D400


With a sight radius longer than that of a Kahr PM9, it certainly shouldn't be hard to shoot it accurately.
Click to expand...
Oh, they are very easy to shoot accurately with. Much more so than most of the other .380's Ive owned and/or have shot. They are not just bad breath distance shooters.

The other plus to them is, they feel like you have a Glock in your hands and shoot and handle just like their bigger siblings.

This was getting zeroed at 10 yards with the second 42 I picked up. Each of those groups is two to three mags worth, shot offhand.

ry%3D480




I'm still not seeing what category it shines in
Click to expand...
I agree, and I say that for most of the .380's as well. I really dont see the point of them, except maybe for last ditch third line guns. Even then, my .32 Seecamps beat them for that.

I wasnt going to bother with the 42, as I was waiting for the 9mm version. I guess I was bored, and couldnt stand it, so I bought a couple. :) Once I got one, realized that the 9mm version wasnt likely going to happen, since the 42 is really not much smaller than the 26. Its just a tad thinner. That slight bit of thickness, doesnt beat out 9mm and the capability to use the larger models mags. One of my 26's rides in the Smart Carry, instead of the others.
 
The Berettas being blowback design can be a bear to rack the slide. As I got older, less and less did I like the guns. And being blowback they do have a snappy recoil.

I don't have a Glock 42 but I'm a fan of Glocks so I'd lean that way for their ease of shooting, it being locked breech, I believe.

By the way, I'm a Beretta fan, but only the 92fs. But I'm also a fan of the 1911 and in particular the Browning Hi Power. And a whole mess of Smith revolvers and Ruger revolvers too.

I look at the .380 as a close-in, even near contact, round and for the size of the guns, I see nothing wrong with that caliber. I don't know why shooters
start comparing that caliber and its guns to larger ones and talk all the time about how accurate one is over another at various distances at which no one is likely to use them.

The .380 gun is a close-in, repeat close-in, round although like any ".38" it can sometimes get the job done at longer distances.
 
I don't know why shooters
start comparing that caliber and its guns to larger ones and talk all the time about how accurate one is over another at various distances at which no one is likely to use them.

The .380 gun is a close-in, repeat close-in, round although like any ".38" it can sometimes get the job done at longer distances.
Click to expand...
If its all you choose to carry, as many seem to do these days, then it does become an issue. Not everything is "point blank".

I can make head shots at 25 yards pretty easily with my 42 and P230. My LCP, Seecamps, and a few others of that type, not so much. Not that Im really going to bother with one of them, as I said earlier, they are third line, and Im in big trouble if Im fishing one of them out. Some of the slightly larger guns with better sights, allow you a lot more leeway.
 
Viper99 said:
Are all 84/85 models Cheetah's? The one I put on hold today says only 84F on the slide vs a new one that clearly said 84F Cheetah on the slide.
Click to expand...
Beretta has reportedly used the term Cheetah since the mid 1990's, but the usage has been inconsistent; some pistols have been marked Cheetah but NOT the box they came in, some are the reverse, and others lack Cheetah markings in both places.

However, many Beretta fans use the term "Cheetah" to refer generically to any Series 81 pistol going back to their introduction in the mid 1970's, even though the name was never used until considerably later. It's comparable to the use of the term "Series 70" to refer generically to any 1911-type pistol with the older trigger and firing pin design; the term technically refers to a specific model range that came out decades after the design was introduced, and some purists get really annoyed about its misuse as a generic description, but this use has become so widespread that the shooting community is probably stuck with the term regardless of what the purists think. :rolleyes:
Viper99 said:
There is also something with the safety that if engaged partially will fire vs new one where even if partially engaged, when you pull the trigger, it will not fire?
Click to expand...
The decocker/safety on the F versions has a false detent in an intermediate position between SAFE and FIRE. The detent is stronger on some pistols that others. The pistol is NOT on-safe in this position; it is NOT intended as a "cocked-and-locked" option, contrary to some misinformation online and from the guys at the gun store counter. :rolleyes: The problem is that many of the pistols will act like they're on-safe with the lever set there, until the pistol is jostled "just so" while the trigger is pressed, and BANG! :eek: The lever should always be pushed through to the SAFE or decock position.

On the FS version, Beretta redesigned several parts to eliminate the false detent.

BB and earlier iterations used a non-decocking "cocked-and-locked" safety, and also had a half-cock notch on the hammer. I suspect that some of the confusion regarding the F's safety has to do with the change in the pistol's manual of arms.

Just FYI, all Series 81 pistols from the B versions onward incorporate a positive trigger-actuated firing pin block for safer DA/off-safe carry. Only the original no-suffix pistols lack this feature; they rely solely on an inertial firing pin.

Regarding the use of the 84 as a carry gun, asides from what's already been mentioned, another potential drawback vs. the G42 for carry is that the Series 81 design has quite a few sharp edges and protrusions. If you examine 84's that have been carried for very long, you'll generally see lots of dents and dings on the rear sight, the beavertail, and the shooter's strong-side safety lever; these parts tend to take a beating and grab clothing. Another drawback is that Series 81 pistols typically require hefty slide operation force, particularly if the hammer is not cocked first, and this situation is exacerbated by the limited grasping surface.

However, if you have strong hands, and concealment isn't too critical (you OC or your attire will hide the pistol), I prefer the 84 for the added capacity and the (IMHO) superior trigger and accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Carchrisguy,
you seem to be the perfect person to ask because you know the S&W very well and the gunt hat I might sell to pay for the 84F is a CS9. Would you?
Regards
 
Last edited:
AustinTX,
The Glock 42 I would probably carry at certain time stead of the LCP.
The 84F would be a range toy.
 
The 84 cheetah has been on my wish list for a long time (stainless which this one is not) but I can live with it.

The CS9 I don't shoot it well at all.

By the way, no one has answered if the 84F is a Cheetah.
 
AK103K,
I have the Glock 27 with Longwolf 9mm conversion barrel so the 84F won't be for carry but more of a range toy that I might carry some times in the winter. My normal carry is the LCP or Walther PPS 9mm.

Home defense is a Springfield XDm 9mm with 19+1 since I am in CT, is about the only use that makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top