I carried one to work everyday. Hardly “mediocre.” Shitty magazines, improperly cleaned (because I didn’t have an assigned weapon, so who knows who cleaned it last), etc, and I only ever had one failure to fire at the range. I know Glocks are all the rage, but I trusted the Beretta with my life, and still would.
In a vacuum, sure, they can be fine and reliable pistols. In the market today, with countless options of vastly better guns at lower price points from almost every major manufacturer? They’re the epitome of mediocre.
There's a reason why Glocks are on nearly every police force. They have a better reliability rate than Berettas. They are lighter than Beretta's. They have more aftermarket options than Berettas. And they cost less than Berettas.
It's also nice to have the option of using 15, 17, or 33 round mags in the Glock 19 and PCC.
So I should go out and buy a weapon that I’m completely unfamiliar with, and then need to take time to familiarize myself with it, rather than a weapon I can take down and put back together in my sleep? Keep in mind, I’m talking about buying my FIRST gun. Seems to make more sense to buy something I already know.
Beretta also has different magazine size options.
Kind of an odd perspective. Do you still drive the same car you drove when you were 16, because you’re already familiar with it? Or did you upgrade at some point?
Men that enjoy clearing malfunctions on $1000 pistols?
Are you referring to the 1911 jamming issue?
Stay away from this. It's a post-2007 Remington (made after Freedom Group bought them)._0.jpg)
When I entered the military, I owned a Suburu that I sold when I went overseas. When I came back from overseas? Bought a new version of the same make and model. Why? Reliability, ease of use, familiarity, trust. I didn’t blow my wad on a fancy unfamiliar car, simply because it was popular.
