Why doesn't anyone like the .40's or Beretta's??

H

HighGround

Inactive
What's so bad about the .40S&W? It's just as powerful and holds more rounds than a .45 and is more powerful and holds the same # of rds as a 9mm. I'd rather have 10 rds of .40 than 10 rds of 9mm or 7 of .45 specially if my life depended on it. Another thing, why does everyone dog the Beretta's? They are excellent full-sized pistols. They fit good in my hands especially with the hogue overmolded rubber grips. Plus, the blued versions have a chrome-lined barrel. That's a major plus for long term barrel life. Accuracy isn't really that important when comparing a Cz's 2" groups at 25yds and a Beretta's 3½"-4" groups at the same distance. You'd still hit a man-sized target in the vitals when aiming at the center of mass. So I say again, what's wrong with the .40's and why doesn't anyone like the Beretta's?

"BOMB SQUAD: If you see me running you'd better catch up!"
"I got the HighGround, if you run you'll only die tired!"
"An armed man is a citizen in his own country, an unarmed man is but a subject to his country." -Authors unknown.
 
The main complaint I hear on the Beretta's is that they are too large for most people's hands. Personally I don't see what they are talking about, the feel of the grip was one of the main reasons I bought one, it felt great. But then again I also have a pair of gloves sized "Giant" that feel pretty good to me as well<GRIN>. The feel of a gun is a most personal thing, there are a lot of people who swear by Glock's but when I Salesman handed me one it got handed right back, I don't thnik I have ever felt a more uncomfortable grip in my life. My Ruger P89 had a good feel when I bought it, then I added a pair of Hogue grips and it is pure heaven now.

Terry
 
i don't necessarily agree completely with your view on the .40 but i do like the round. i have some handguns in .40 and like them. however i prefer 9mm since i feel it's basically just as powerful as the .40 (not much difference IMHO) and it has less recoil for faster follow up shots.

i have 2 berettas a 92FS and a 92G Elite. i love them both. my 92FS has over 3500 rounds thru it without a single jam or malfunction and they are both very accurate. i have smallish hands and they still fit in my hands very comfortably.
 
I prefer the 40 to a 9mm myself, and as far as Berattas go I'll never dog them, although the Seals did have slide problems shooting too hot of rounds for what the gun was designed for. But with all that said I'll never own a 92 or 96 for the simple reason that they don't fit my hand well.
 
Me personally, I do not like the "snappy" recoil of the .40 auto. As for the Beretta lineup. The grip is not for me. I shoot my Ruger P94 better than the Beretta I owned , the one my brother owned and the one I carried as an Air Force SP. That is just me personally. I never would sway someone from the Berettas or the .40 auto.
 
Berrettas are great pistols but they are a bit chunky for concealed carry. (Not my first condideration however). Because if it's a good pistol I'll find a way to carry it.

Yes, the .40 has got all the power one wants, it just doesn't have the accuracy in most pistols with most loads. That's why my carry gun is a SIG in .357 SIG. All the power of a .40 (maybe a bit more) and match grade accuracy. Yes it's true that most pistols are accurate enough for most engagements but I never want to be the guy that gets caught in that 1% situation where my pistol's accuracy was the damning factor that forced me to mumble the words "if only...!!!" I do not want to come home one night in the future to find my child or wife being held closely as a hostage by a perp. With my SIG in .357 SIG I can make precision shots with confidence. Again...not a situation I ever want to find myself in. But I'll be darned if it's a .40 that would be challenged to get under 3" at 25m.

A bit paranoid...maybe...but none of us who carry are ever too comfortable being unarmed.

SS
 
I think the Berretta is a fine pistol. A guy in the next stall at the range let me fire his 92FS, as I let him fire my CZ 75. We both were impressed. He liked the small size and grip of the CZ and I enjoyed the controlability of the Berretta. The Berretta easily met my standards for off-hand accuracy at 25-30 ft.

As for the .40 S&W, it is not my favorite round for fun shooting or defense. However, if you like it and can shoot it well, then its ballistics are truly impressive. I am of the opinion, as are a number of other people who've posted here, that the .40 S&W is not for me. Rather than having my ability to handle recoil or my experience level described to me by those who like this round, I'll just leave it at that.

JJCII
 
I have choices (every day).
I -think- the 9x19 is effective, and I -think- the 45ACP is effective. I -think- the 40 S&W is effective, too, but I also -think- that it gives me nothing better than the two I mentioned earlier.

If I want capacity I carry a 9mm, and if I'm thinking "big holes" I carry my 1911.

Beretta makes good guns that don't feel right in MY hands.
 
I wouldn't trade my Beretta Cougar 8040 for anything...well...very few things.
 
I got rid of my .40 sig because i just couldnt get used to that snappy recoil. Im 6ft 3in 225lbs with big hands and no matter how hard i tried i had a hard time getting follow up shots where i wanted them. I think 9mm or 45 is a better choice.

As for the beretta. I love it myself. Not the greatest carry gun for civilians, but beautiful,accurate,reliable and for LEO's its a great choice. I havent seen many people here dogging the beretta except for the few who have a friends brothers sisters mother-in-laws husbands cousins dads friends babys momma at work who had her uncles frame crack on them. or had a slide hit them in the face. I would buy a beretta with great confidence, and trust my life with it.



Tim : )
 
I don't particularly care for the .40. Simply because I never saw a real reason for the cartridge. The original 10mm was to give magnum performance in a high cap semi-auto. The .40 was simply a down loaded 10mm (for those who didn't like the recoil and muzzle blast of the 10). But then the makers proceeded to chamber the .40 in smaller guns, with the result that the recoil was almost as stiff as the 10mm. Add to that the fact that most of us can't get those high cap mags and it doesn't seem to serve much purpose. As for the Beretta's, they don't fit my hand comfortably. The only real complaint I've ever seen or heard (first hand - no my sister's uncle's brother stuff) was one that was dropped in deep sand (Indiana Dunes). The open top slide let enough grit in that it became a real struggle to get the slide open so that it could be disassembled and cleaned. (Luckily there wasn't a round chambered so we didn't have to worry about that) Not a normal occurance but makes me wonder how it passed the Army tests just a bit.
 
I personaly feel the 40 is a good caliber. But, I admit its strong points (for me) are in full-size guns. IMO, the Beretta 96 Brigadier is one of the more better platforms for the 40 caliber. The heavy Brigadier slide, long bbl/sight radius, and full-size grip really make for a soft-shooting and accurate 40. After owning/owned HKs, SIGs, & Glocks, the Beretta makes the most of the 40. I own guns in almost all calibers, but in 40 I only settled with the Beretta 96G Brigadier Elite II & SigPro 2340. Again, I don't care for this caliber in small guns (Kahr, G27, SIG 239, etc). But for a full-size duty type gun it shines. The caliber works.

Quote from Nov 2000 issue of Guns & Weapons for LE:

The INS has 19,000 firearm carrying agents making it the largest armed federal service & the 3rd biggest law enforcement agency in the country. They feed their Beretta 96 40S&W pistols Federal & Remington 155gr ammo. From a Ranson rest they have obtain one-inch groups & "are averaging 1.1 inches for 5-shots groups @ 25yrds". Beretta is definitely doing it right.

Easy to see why the Border Patrol chose the Beretta, Bob. :D
 
As for the .40, I have nothing against it but I have not had any desire to get one either. I more interested in the 357 SIG and that will probably be my next purchase.

I have 2 Beretta's in 9MM (92FS)and .45 (8045 Cougar) and do not feel undergunned with either. I find them both to be of excellent quality and they have been trouble free. The grips on the 92FS are large and some have trouble - I find them comfortable. However, it is a large pistol for a 9MM and it does not conceal well. Usually I carry the Cougar but if I want something lighter/smaller and in 9MM - then I go to the P9.
 
The 40S&W is an excellent caliber and is used by the US Boarder Patrol.

I wouldn't buy a Beretta only because it doesn't fit my hand.

Shok
 
Why dislike .40/Beretta

I like accuracy. After reliability, accuracy is the next thing I look at when buying a gun. From the .40's I benchrest tested, they are just not accurate when compared to .45 or 9mm. On top of that, the .40 has a sharp snap to its recoil that the larger .45 lacks. I honestly don't need a .40.....my .45's can do nearly the same damage with LESS recoil and GREATER accuracy. I even trust my 9mms...they are plenty accurate and their "power" is under estimated IMO.

Berettas....same story applies as to the top. I just can't shoot Berettas with any accuracy. If it ain't accurate in my hands, I don't want it. I think the grip ergonomics just don't fit my hand. I acknowledge that Berettas are great guns, but they just don't work for me.....
 
I have small hands, thus, I'm another vote for the fact that the beretta is a good gun, but by far too large for my hands.
 
Not talking about small frame .40's here like the sigs or glocks. In large frame autos like the Beretta 96, 96 Brigadier etc., the .40 rocks. In the small frames it's a bit much for comfort, but in large frame autos it's one heck of a choice for mag capacity combined with stopping power. For concealed carry, sure, go with the 9's or .45's (less recoil), but for a full-sized large-framed service pistol like the Beretta 96 series, the ''snap'' just really isn't that bad.
 
I've shot a Border Marshal model a lot. (Fancy 96 with the heavy Brigadeer slide) I do not find the recoil to be that bad at all. In fact it recoils less than my P91 in the same caliber, and just a little bit more than my steel framed 1911 in .45. So if snappy recoil is a problem I would suggest taking a look at the Brigadeer models.

Other than that accuracy has been fine, and reliability has been excellent. We've never dropped it in sand, but I'll see if I can't talk my buddy who owns it into doing a little testing with his favorite handgun. ;)
 
I think that the .40 (like any other caliber) performs differently in different guns. The larger guns are generally more accurate and have less recoil...this is good for the .40. That's why I love my .40 Sig P226. No worries about lack of power and I still get 10 rounds (the max here in Kalifornia)
 
I concur with Quantum Singularity - I can't shoot a Beretta 92 Series with any accuracy. I assume this would also hold true for the 96 Series(40 caliber). I feel that if there weren't something to this, Jarvis and probably some others wouldn't be making a barrel bushing for these guns.

As far as the 40 goes, the recoil is objectionable and hampers follow up shots, especially in a small gun(Glock 27). This particular gun tends to walk in my large hands when doing rapid strings with full power 155 grain loads, although in a slow fire regimen, it is plenty accurate and completely reliable. All in all, I feel the 45 is more accurate and has a more controlable recoil(especially in the Glock 30). The 9 MM of course has less recoil, and is the easiest to shoot accurately in rapid fire(except for the Beretta 92 of course). Besides, if your going to shoot in self defense, you're probably going to pull the trigger a number of times. I know that I would, and under these circumstances i think the 9 MM will do just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top