This is a discussion on Beretta Nano - redux within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by QKShooter Did you actually watch the video? Probably not. That feature is really intended to be used so that disassembly/ field stripping ...
-It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...
As long as it's significantly more compact than my default carry Glock 27's, I'm very interested.
Not to replace my G27's, but to supplement them. This just might be the closest thing to a single stack Glock in 9mm/.40 we'll ever see (That trigger sure looks familiar).
I am VERY reluctant to give Kahr a second chance after my costly experience with their P380, so I'm relieved to see an alternative on the horizon that just might be reliable from the first round fired. (I'll still shoot it a few hundred rounds to CONFIRM its reliability though)
Most Beretta pistols have a good reputation for reliability, but are too bulky for their caliber IMHO. It looks like this one bucks that trend. I'll probably step down to a 9mm for the extra round though. Besides, the .40 could be quite a lot to hold onto with such a small grip.
Good to see it's "Made in USA" too.
Thanks azchevy for the comparisons.
I was most interested in the Nano vs PF9. As I just purchased a PF9.
I noticed in the comparison, that i left a few things out, such as the light rail on the PF9 and
that the Nano has the Glock style trigger safety.
I too wonder about the trigger pull on the Nano, as the trigger pull on the PF9 is notoriously heavy.
Is the Nano really worth $200, or is it because it is a Beretta?
Time will tell.
Please send me one for $200....right away.
Ed Brown Kobra Carry | HK P7M8, P2000sk, P30s | Sig P238, P239SAS, 1911 C3, P232, P938 | Colt Defender, Mustang Pocketlite, 1911 | Rohrbaugh R9 | Kimber Covert Ultra II | Browning HP, Buckmark 22LR(suppressed| Walter PPK(1966) | Kahr PM9 Black Rose |
Who said that it could cause this particular pistol not to fire?
Where did you get actual evidence of that?
I have a GREAT idea! ~ How about....let's wait until the very first BERETTA NANO does not fire due to it being there...before we jump to any conclusions that are not yet reality based.
Just because a particular FORD vehicle had a "door lock problem" - that could cause the door not to open - does that mean that Chevy should take all of the locks off of their car doors even if their door locks are not mechanically identical or similar to the problematic FORD door locks? Wouldn't that be stupid?
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
OK - Allow me to give you a better and closer example.
Historically (and this is an established fact) many pistols that were "striker fired" were totally unreliable & often incredibly cheap with regard to some even featuring "pot metal" slides and the lowest quality metal castings.
They were considered to be "bottom of the line" & were plagued with various assorted malfunction problems but the vast majority of those malf problems being directly attributed to their spring loaded striker mechanism.
The guns were basically considered to be possibly one level up from being total junk.
Now...travel back with me into time to the first day that the Glock pistol was introduced.
Here we are back in time....& QKShooter sees the GLOCK handgun for the very first time.
CRIPES! When Are They Going To Stop Making Striker Fired Handguns For Self Defense!!!!
They never work right. They are totally unreliable. You can't stake your life on them. They always suffer from light primer strikes! AND...if THAT isn't bad enough...this Glock thing that they are calling a handgun is made from doggone PLASTIC!
Count me out! ~ I'll never buy one!
Striker fired....plastic...Not Even Pot Metal...it can't be anything else BUT garbage.
But, HOW can that be so? The Glock is one of the most reliable functioning handguns that exists today!
Could that be because the GLOCK engineers designed a Striker Firing mechanism actually WORKS when previously the others did not?
I guess they did & I rest my case.
Some of us prefer our defensive guns to be as simple, mechanically, as possible.
Fact is that every part has a certain probability of failure. The more parts there are, the greater the total probability of the entire machine malfunctioning due to the failure of one of its parts.
Adding a part that, in the view of many, is completely unnecessary, increases the probability of failure for no return. This is especially true when the very purpose of the part is to render the machine inoperable - that is, incapable of firing.
Maybe Beretta has engineered this "striker defeat button" such that, if it were to fail, the default would be for the gun to remain capable of firing - that is, it would fire, but you would not be able to "safe" it until the "button" got fixed.
In any case, given the choice between a (smaller) PM9/CM9 with an external slide lock and no "striker defeat button" and a Nano - I'd take the Kahr (which is saying something, coming from me).
It would seem that there is little chance of the "button" getting pressed by accident - but weird things happen some times.
Of course, this is all a nice little academic discussion for me - the Nano is more like a PF9 in size than a PM9, and thus, does not fall into the "pocket pistol" category, as far as I am concerned.
I'm glad Beretta is in the market, but the size is just not quite there.
The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
Looks like the closest thing to a single stack Glock I've seen, and compares favorably to the PPS with regards dimensions and price.
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five RingsYou should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter
Looks like a G26 to me, nothing new here, nothing to see... Nano =s more Beretta JUNK
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This does seem like an interesting little gun. I like most everything about it. Time will tell if it is a good design.