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

Goes back to 1985 when the army made the blunder and adopted the M9. Then the floodgates opened and almost everyone wanted one. I wouldnt have had objections if they went with the Sig P-226. But if I recall, one of the standards was that it accommodated smaller hands. The double stacker mag+grips made it fatter than the 1911!
For me, Beretta 92s sights are too small, grips too wide, slide release short and small,and the trigger could be better.
I agree with Snub that 40 S&W was the answer to a problem that never existed...well, maybe a financial problem :)
 
My, my, how opinions do vary. Just thought I would add my observations from my recent purchase of a Beretta 96FS in .40 S&W. I can't testify about the accuracy of this round since I am far from being qualified to do so. I will comment on the size of the grips. I am 5'6" with average size hands and find no problem with the grip not feeling comfortable. I must admit that I did initially have a problem with trigger finger placement but that was solved with changing my grip a wee bit with an immediate accuracy improvement. As to the sharp recoil issue, I don't find it particularly sharp or uncomfortable. All it does it create a momentary bounce and then the pistol seems to settle right back to where it was before the last shot. The muzzle blast is also a lot less than that of a .357 magnum and probably on a par with a .45 ACP. Not loud enough in my opinion to cause a "flinching" problem while firing. My feelings are that most people flinch from the noise rather than the recoil.

So far, about 400 rounds through the 96FS and nary a mechanical problem. I'm getting better but still need to burn a few more pounds of powder before I could call myself competent with it.
 
Have a Brigadeer 96 Elite {not II} and am quite fond of it. It is a Duty size pistol and can see why people with "normal" size hands would shy away from it. Actually like the SA/DA trigger and am primarily a Sig fan in DA/SA. FWIW, The weight, balance, bbl. length & grip ergonomics really seem to be able to handle the high pressure misgivings of the .40 {@ least for me?}. Have a full size H&K USP40 that can't {again me?}. On the other hand a Sig P229 in .40 in my big paw with monkey fingers is just as tractable. If it were still the "Good OLd Days" of just the 9 & the.45 ACP would be more than happy with the .45 but think the .40 does have its place.
 
I like the .40S&W. I have a H&K USP Compact that I enjoy. What about the .357 sig. I have a Sig 239 and a 229 that both are more accurate than the H&K. What do you think?
 
I don't care for the 40S&W for a few reasons. First if you want velocity the nine is much faster than the 40S&W. It carries more ammo, you have greater control and less recoil. If you want bigger bullets nothing beats the 45 auto for size, has less recoil is heavier and works with much lower pressure. The 40 spikes pressures very fast and the recoil "I preceive" is much higher then both the above calibers,so where do you gain. One millimeter is nothing compaired with the nine with the 45 being much bigger than both rounds. All the above calibers work about the same with good ammunition, so what's the gain?
If you take the bullet heads of a 9mm a 40 and 45 then place the forty face down and put the 9mm face up ontop of the 40 round your going to look at this and say where the big gain it is so small. Then do the same for the 45 and the 40. The 45 is much bigger than both rounds. I think it took off because it's new and people like new idea's and toys, but when it's all tolled out I think you will see many people return to the old 9mm and 45 rounds. Just my thoughts.
 
I don't think that it is as cut and dry as people don't like. Even though it is often stated that way. I know from personal experience that the way the Beretta felt in my hand, I didn't like it. As far as the gun goes, it was reliable. Would I feel comfortable with the gun, no. As far as the .40 goes, I can hold 17 in my 9mm Hi Power and I can get 10(if I wanted it) in my 1911. The 9mm works for me, the 1911 really works for me.

If TSHTF, I can reload my 1911 like no other, I practice it all the time. I don't really care if my 1911 magazines bust on the concrete because if it came to a scenerio where I would have to reload, either I'll be dead, in which case I don't care about the magazine. Or we have a situation where I'm alive, the magazine is busted and I spend $5 - $20 on a new magazine.

That's my opinion FWIW
 
I think much of the "recoil" issue of the .40 can be addressed with the right gun. My first .40 was an early Ruger P94. With the Ruger, I felt that the recoil was a bit more than just "snappy". I found myself flinching as I pulled the trigger. I came across a deal on a Remington M1917 and I sold the Ruger without second thoughts.

A couple of weeks ago I picked up another .40: this time a CZ 75 B. Using the same ammunition, both factory and reloads, this gun is much easier to control. True, I still don't recover as fast as I do with the 9mm CZ 75 B, but I think it will be just a matter of time, read that practice, until I'm able to.

--
Mike

[Edited by mbott on 04-23-2001 at 12:14 PM]
 
The recoil is snappy in the .40, but nothing ridiculous even in my Kahr K40. But it does require a firm grip.

I see the biggest advantage over the 9mm in the bullet weights available. Ever see a 180 gr 9mm??

I shoot 155 grainers usually myself. Nice balance of speed and weight.
 
1. I don't care for any DA/SA, be it Beretta, SIG, whatever. I recently looked over a USP, and I could live with it, cocked & locked.

2. Hand size. I'd rather have a .45, but all .45s are just too big. That rules out the 1911 and .45 USP. Too bad. :(

The only remaining choice is a non-.45 Glock or perhaps the USP.

BTW, if I've overlooked any other alternatives, please let me know.
 
I own a .40S&W Beretta 96 Brigadier Border Marshal. Large, heavy, chunky, as some have stated, but at 6'3" 235 this is not a factor for me. My Brigadier has the larger slides, and seems smooth a glass compared to the other four .40 S&W's owned my members of my shooting group. The polymer handled G22, G23, G35, and S&W Sigma VE have, IMHO, considerable more recoil than my Beretta. The concensus within my shooting group is that the Beretta is the HEAVIEST, but also the smoothest and most accurate of the five. The G35 is 2nd. I have large hands, as do two others in my group. The three of us rate the Beretta, with a Hogue wrap around grip, the most comfortable handgun we have ever held. Again, this is for the large handed members. One in our group has a difficult time with the 96.
This thread give me a chance to comment on two things I love. The .40 S&W in my Beretta 96 Brig Border Marshal
 
I've probably owned more pistols in .40 cal than I have in any other chambering (4 G23's alone). Currently, my bedside/purse gun is a Beretta Border Marshal. My roomie has a 96 inox. Maybe this .40/Beretta phobia is less widespread than you thought? ;)
 
My bedside gun is a 96FS, but unlike Tamara I don't carry a purse. Mine has had thousands of rounds through it without a single malfunction. It fits my hand like a glove. The only pistols I've seen kb! have been .45 acp; so maybe .40 S&W is OK with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top