Sig P290 RS vs Beretta Nano for AIWB.

This is a discussion on Sig P290 RS vs Beretta Nano for AIWB. within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have pretty much narrowed it down between these two for appendix carry. As far as dimensions go they are basically the same size with ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Sig P290 RS vs Beretta Nano for AIWB.

  1. #1
    Member Array Foo909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    432

    Sig P290 RS vs Beretta Nano for AIWB.

    I have pretty much narrowed it down between these two for appendix carry. As far as dimensions go they are basically the same size with the beretta being a tad larger although a couple ounces lighter. Not enough to make a difference either way.

    The P290 has night sights which is a big plus but it does seem to cost a tiny bit more so that could be offset.

    I guess it all comes down to trigger. Does anyone have experience with both and particularly the P290 updated RS version which changed the trigger bar and a few other things.

    Not really interested in Kahrs, Keltecs, or larger 9mm's such as the shield or pps.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Deerhunter28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Lake Tillery NC
    Posts
    60

    Sig P290 RS vs Beretta Nano for AIWB.

    I'm interested in this also?


    PSE EVO 60 Lbs.
    Blacked out

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,848
    Yes. It is sixes. Each has their points. I like the P290rs better, a friend the opposite. I really can't tell the difference in the triggers.

    I think it will come down to YOUR personal preference on this, one just isn't stunningly better than the other.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  5. #4
    Member Array Foo909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    432
    Sigh.

    It's like I love the fact that the beretta has no slide catch lever to keep it very thin, but heck the Sig has a slide catch lever and hey that's a nice feature to have lol.

    I'm just going to handle both of them in the flesh and see what allows more fingers on the grip. I am leaning towards the sig because well, it looks pretty quality and smoothed over.

    I suppose I'll have a very tough time finding a dealer around here that has both in stock.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,848
    The difference in width due to the slide catch is almost impossible to notice, especially since you will be carrying it in a holster. I use a Remora at 5 in both casual jeans and a suit. Stays put. I just ordered a SHTF holster and a Mini-tuck to try also for a tuckable summer carry.

    I have close to a thousand rounds through mine and other than two light strikes with PPU ammo in the beginning no problems. The Nano my buddy uses does NOT like 115 grain and he is relegated to shooting 124 or heavier.

    I have shot both at a range before buying.....again, I liked the P290 more, my buddy the Nano. Don't let the "hard to disassemble and clean" bs bother you on the P290. It isn't hard at all...there is a video on it.

    By the by: My partner uses a P290, but he didn't try a Nano, he just bought the P290 on my recommendation.

    Sorry I can't help you more.

    Again, it will be personal preference.
    Last edited by Chorizo; February 7th, 2013 at 12:40 AM. Reason: I had two, not one
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  7. #6
    Member Array Glockwatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    93
    My advice is to hold off a while as both these models have had teething problems, but they do have potential.

    Among others, I have recently auditioned the SIG P290 and Beretta Nano since retiring as a Fed. Both were returned to the manufacturer twice, yet still had issues remaining so I divested myself of them. I still depend on the .40 Glock 23/27 and .38 S&W 640/649 I used on duty.

    The SIG was packaged with an undependable, awkward laser and an equally awkward plastic paddle holster that was useless for concealed carry. Two magazines were packaged with the pistol, including an extended one which also extended the grip profile of the pistol, making that magazine awkward to carry as a spare. The original (non-restrike) trigger frequently failed to reset. Magazines would frequently unseat under recoil, especially the extended one. I have been shooting numerous semiautomatic pistols since the late 1960’s including WWII military 1911A1’s and never had this occur. On the positive side, the standard tritium night sights were excellent.

    The first trip back to SIGARMS upgraded the trigger to a dependable restrike-capable mechanism and modified the magazine release to a lower profile, which brought my P290 up to P290RS configuration (the earliest P290’s cannot be so modified), Nonetheless, the magazines continued to disengage under recoil. This happened with all three of my standard magazines and, most frequently, with the extended one. Another trip to SIGARMS failed to correct this, so I divested myself of it but would recommend the P290 (without the cheapo laser and holster) once I’m assured this magazine release issue is finally resolved.

    My experience with the Beretta Nano was marred with extraction issues. Two trips back to Beretta failed to solve this. This malfunction is especially difficult to quickly address due to the Nano’s lack of an external slide lock release and the awkward and flimsy magazine flooplate design. This interferes with easy magazine removal, and unnecessarily makes spare magazines a bit more difficult to carry concealed. I won't be reconsidering the Nano unless these issues are addressed.

    As an aside, my worst experience, by far, was with the similar Kahr pistol (and its factory-provided replacement) but that’s beyond the scope of this thread .

    All three pistols were auditioned with over 1000 rounds of quality ammunition each, so break-in was not an issue.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array mwhartman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South FL
    Posts
    805
    My youngest son has a 290 with laser. Very nice weapon.

    Yesterday, I stopped at a shop to get some ammo (500 rounds of WWB 45 230 FMJ). The shop had a 290. I drooled and handed it back (promised the wife I would not purchase another firearm).

    The shop did have a large container of Colt AR mags so I purchased several

    If I were to hit the lottery tonight, I'd purchase that 290.
    Praise the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle --- Psalm 144

    Ruger owners check our sister forum http://rugerpistolforums.com a great site to share and learn about your Ruger pistols.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockwatcher View Post
    My advice is to hold off a while as both these models have had teething problems, but they do have potential.

    Among others, I have recently auditioned the SIG P290 and Beretta Nano since retiring as a Fed. Both were returned to the manufacturer twice, yet still had issues remaining so I divested myself of them. I still depend on the .40 Glock 23/27 and .38 S&W 640/649 I used on duty.

    The SIG was packaged with an undependable, awkward laser and an equally awkward plastic paddle holster that was useless for concealed carry. Two magazines were packaged with the pistol, including an extended one which also extended the grip profile of the pistol, making that magazine awkward to carry as a spare. The original (non-restrike) trigger frequently failed to reset. Magazines would frequently unseat under recoil, especially the extended one. I have been shooting numerous semiautomatic pistols since the late 1960’s including WWII military 1911A1’s and never had this occur. On the positive side, the standard tritium night sights were excellent.

    The first trip back to SIGARMS upgraded the trigger to a dependable restrike-capable mechanism and modified the magazine release to a lower profile, which brought my P290 up to P290RS configuration (the earliest P290’s cannot be so modified), Nonetheless, the magazines continued to disengage under recoil. This happened with all three of my standard magazines and, most frequently, with the extended one. Another trip to SIGARMS failed to correct this, so I divested myself of it but would recommend the P290 (without the cheapo laser and holster) once I’m assured this magazine release issue is finally resolved.

    My experience with the Beretta Nano was marred with extraction issues. Two trips back to Beretta failed to solve this. This malfunction is especially difficult to quickly address due to the Nano’s lack of an external slide lock release and the awkward and flimsy magazine flooplate design. This interferes with easy magazine removal, and unnecessarily makes spare magazines a bit more difficult to carry concealed. I won't be reconsidering the Nano unless these issues are addressed.

    As an aside, my worst experience, by far, was with the similar Kahr pistol (and its factory-provided replacement) but that’s beyond the scope of this thread .

    All three pistols were auditioned with over 1000 rounds of quality ammunition each, so break-in was not an issue.

    I have had none of the problems stated above, but then again I did get a completely new RS version only recently made. The teething problems stated above on the early P290 (not the RS version) were serious problems discovered on the first run and only slightly addressed in the last run of the old model. The new model RS seems to have dealt with all of those problems and I have found mine to be of sufficient reliability with 940 rounds (750 rounds of FMJ 115 and 125 and the balance carry ammo less 20 rounds of 115 +p+ of 124 Buffalo Bore ammo which it does NOT like) that is is now carried routinely, especially when I am in a suit as it is light and does not print as it is so slim. I concur about the holster...just looking at it I dumped that immediately.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  10. #9
    Member Array Foo909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    432
    As it seems all I can find with the P290 is that people had problems with either the non RS first release or the non RS release that was "updated" to supposedly RS specifications. I haven't found any stories of people having problems with the version that is for sale now.

    I haven't dug too much in depth with the nano other than they had extraction/ejection issues early on with sub 124gr ammunition.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array CLASS3NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bob from Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,519
    The P290 is heavier than the Nano. I've seen a LOT of my customers do the very same thing you're attmpting (making the chioce between the Sig and the Beretta)
    I've always told them "get the one that fits your hand best, and work around the rest of the gun's features"
    If weight is a factor, you're going with the Nano. I would feel, holster, play with both, but I think you're gonna go with the Nano. Good luck with your choice, and let us know what you ended up with.
    Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll

  12. #11
    Member Array Tarowah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    51
    I suggest a Nano, I picked one up a couple of weeks ago and it seems like Beretta gotten the problems with the early guns worked out.

    I have fired the Sig and I thought it was a nice gun and it did shoot well, but in my hands the Nano just fits and handles better for me, being a Glock guy the trigger on the Nano didnt take much time to get used too and I have about 200 rounds through my gun with no isses.

    If you shop around you can find a Nano with one 6 rd and one 8 round mag as I did with mine, I couldnt be happier with my new gun, with that said I would really try to shoot them both or at least get them in your hand before to buy either.
    Gen 3 G19 ~ Gen 3 G19 OD ~ Gen 3 G34 ~ PT 738 ~ M&P 9mm ~ Ruger 22/45 4" bull barrel ~ Marlin 60~ PSA M4 Carbine ~

  13. #12
    Member Array mobenzowner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    27
    I have the newer p290rs and it is one of my favorite guns. I have not had it long and have only ran a couple different ammo's through it to date, but I have had zero hiccups thus far. Even though this is a small gun it is easy to shoot and is very accurate. The trigger pull is very long but also very smooth. Very easy to conceal and carry. I think they have corrected the teething pains from the earlier p290. I hope all the issues with the original p290 dont shy people away from the updated version as I think many would be very fond of this version. In my opinion its a sleeper and at a nice price point.

  14. #13
    Member Array HadEmAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    54
    I have them both, and carry them both about equal amounts. I've settled on Winchester Ranger 115 grain +P+ JHPs for both right now, due to an ample supply, and both have been 100% with it.

    I assume everbody has heard about the Nano's FTE reputation with some 115 grain range loads.
    After each of my two (Nano and P290RS) were proven flawless with 115, 124, and 127 +P and +P+
    JHPs, and 124 grain FMJ, I did put 50 round of Federal Champion 115 grain FMJ through each. The P290RS was 100% with them, the Nano had one failure to extract on round 11 of the 50. This is the only failure I've had with the Nano. I just avoid that in the Nano now.

    The Nano's trigger is very Glocklike, while the P290RS's is pure double-action. Different, but in 7 yard shootouts, I've grouped virtually the same.

    Same capacity for each, both with each's flush and extended magazines.

    Quirks of each.....

    The Nano must be slingshotted to load the first round of a new mag. No big deal for me.

    The P290RS's extended mags must be pushed into the pistol by pushing on the metal baseplate itself, not the plastic adapter, or you might not get a good latch.

    Both a little too large for pocket carry for me, but it can be done in a pinch. I carry mine in a small Tommy's gunpack under an untucked shirt, and it carries, and presents like a dream.

    The night sights on the P290RS are a plus.

    Of the Nano, the Kahr PM/CM9, and the P290RS, the P290RS is the shortest from the top of the rear sight to the base of the magazine, making it come out of the pocket the quickest for me on the rare occasion I choose to do that. Offsetting that is the fact it's also the heaviest of the three by a considerable margin, about three ounces over the Nano.

    I really like them both, and won't be getting rid of either any time soon.

  15. #14
    Member Array Decoy562's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    58
    I can't speak about the Sig except for my wife's P938, but I like my Nano. Can pocket carry in cargo shorts or disappears IWB.

  16. #15
    Member Array ExGM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    North Carolina (The Eagle is from Alaska)
    Posts
    88
    Since this thread from early last year has been resurrected, I'll take the opportunity to update all of you who certainly have been breathlessly anticipating my pontifications on this subject (as my former personality "Glockwatcher").

    Quote Originally Posted by Glockwatcher View Post
    My advice is to hold off a while as both these models have had teething problems, but they do have potential.

    Among others, I have recently auditioned the SIG P290 and Beretta Nano since retiring as a Fed. Both were returned to the manufacturer twice, yet still had issues remaining so I divested myself of them. I still depend on the .40 Glock 23/27 and .38 S&W 640/649 I used on duty.

    The SIG was packaged with an undependable, awkward laser and an equally awkward plastic paddle holster that was useless for concealed carry. Two magazines were packaged with the pistol, including an extended one which also extended the grip profile of the pistol, making that magazine awkward to carry as a spare. The original (non-restrike) trigger frequently failed to reset. Magazines would frequently unseat under recoil, especially the extended one. I have been shooting numerous semiautomatic pistols since the late 1960’s including WWII military 1911A1’s and never had this occur. On the positive side, the standard tritium night sights were excellent.

    The first trip back to SIGARMS upgraded the trigger to a dependable restrike-capable mechanism and modified the magazine release to a lower profile, which brought my P290 up to P290RS configuration (the earliest P290’s cannot be so modified), Nonetheless, the magazines continued to disengage under recoil. This happened with all three of my standard magazines and, most frequently, with the extended one. Another trip to SIGARMS failed to correct this, so I divested myself of it but would recommend the P290 (without the cheapo laser and holster) once I’m assured this magazine release issue is finally resolved.

    My experience with the Beretta Nano was marred with extraction issues. Two trips back to Beretta failed to solve this. This malfunction is especially difficult to quickly address due to the Nano’s lack of an external slide lock release and the awkward and flimsy magazine flooplate design. This interferes with easy magazine removal, and unnecessarily makes spare magazines a bit more difficult to carry concealed. I won't be reconsidering the Nano unless these issues are addressed.

    As an aside, my worst experience, by far, was with the similar Kahr pistol (and its factory-provided replacement) but that’s beyond the scope of this thread .

    All three pistols were auditioned with over 1000 rounds of quality ammunition each, so break-in was not an issue.

    ...and, posted later on another thread...

    I finally got around to putting my P290RS and its six magazines through a 300 round test using Winchester Ranger 147-grain bonded hollow points with zero malfunctions.

    I know!, I know!-- I was seriously flirting with a "fool me twice -- shame on me" situation!

    I only wish my (former) P290 (not "RS") had performed nearly as well, especially after two trips back to SIG/Sauer in NH, nearly a thousand rounds fired, and a trigger "upgraded" to restrike capability (at my expense). I cannot fathom a corporate strategy that dumped these lemons on the market (with a $140 "fix" ready to go). This is not the SIGARMS I knew and trusted enough in the 1990's to choose their products when working as a Fed. But good reports from others on this thread, and trusted former colleagues encouraged me to try again.

    Even worse performers were two Kahr P380's (one a factory replacement), and a PM9, all of which were adept at frequently demonstrating all possible malfunctions short of catastrophic failure, but I can at least say Kahr seemed earnest in trying to address these issues at their expense, albeit unsuccessfully (and yes, I know all about Kahr's required break-in).

    Until this latest P290, the best performer had been a Beretta Nano, but two return trips to its birthplace failed to address extraction failures, which were just frequent enough (and difficult enough to clear) to make me glad I chose (as 10thmtn recommends) to keep my S&W J-frames!
    It appears to me SIGARMS made some "SIG-nificant" alterations to the P290. where Beretta made only a minor extractor modification on the NANO. Beretta chooses to blame continuing malfunctions on ammunition while persisting with design defects (i.e. no external slide release, and an awkward, flimsy magazine floorplate) which impede quickly correcting these continuing extraction failures, even when they actually ARE caused by defective ammunition. It's interesting that these design deficiencies were NOT carried over to the (as-yet unseen) Beretta PICO. The NANO, however, is more commonly available than the P290RS around here.

    After all the fuss seeking something more compact than my trusted Glock 27's, I never found the need to downsize from ten .40's to seven 9mm's, even during this past southern summer. I'll just keep the P290 for my travels to and through New York, as the current U. S. Attorney General seems disinterested in challenging that state's intended violations of LEOSA (HR 218).
    Last edited by ExGM; January 3rd, 2014 at 03:36 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

beretta nano vs sig p290

,

beretta nano vs sig p290rs

,
nano vs p290
,
p290 vs nano
,
sig p290 for sale
,
sig p290 rs
,

sig p290 vs beretta nano

,

sig p290 vs nano

,
sig p290rs
,

sig p290rs for sale

,

sig p290rs vs beretta nano

,
sig sauer p290 vs beretta nano
Click on a term to search for related topics.