Author Topic: Beretta Nano owner review  (Read 3560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

yechave

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Location: Pa
Beretta Nano owner review
« on: December 08, 2011, 10:27:50 AM »
Pasted from you know where. I would not recommend this firearm, period.

Beretta NANO test on ser# 1069:

First, I am a huge fan of Beretta. I have owned at least 7 pistols. 4) 92's, an 84, one .40 cal and a few .22's. I never had any problem. The 92 and 84 I owed for 20 years and they never malfuntioned once. I bought this expecting no less.
 
I had two malfunctions on the Nano in the first fifty rounds using Whinchester white box, 115 FMJ.

The grip sucks. Have no idea why they made it that way. If they cut down on size to save weight, it was a mistake.
 
I had to add about 5/16" total for both sides of the grip to make it comfortable for myself to hold. It comes right off if not wanted. When in my hand, the trigger finger extended, there was just about 1" left of the gun sticking out beyond my hand.
 
PRO: There is plenty of room for the web of your hand for the slide, unlike that of the Glock I owed (don't recall what model it was).
 
The trigger leaves some tender area on the tip of the finger, after 50 rds. I don't feel it should be doing that.
 
I wear trifocals and don't see as good as I used to shooting iron sights.

The grip sucks.
 
Sights are more than adequate. I shoot all ammo from a bench, without a sand bag nor a target on a backer. I shot at the box on the ground.
 
After shooting 42 rounds to get used to it, I then shot a 1" and a 2" group at 12 yds with 4 rds/each. That is all the ammo I wanted to put through this.
 
The slide is very easy to rack.
 
The mags do not fall out of the gun after you push the release.
 
Seems very easy to care for. No fine finish to worry about. I like that.
 
Much less felt recoil than a J-frame .38.
 
My airweight has a larger than factory CT grip of rubber, MUCH better than this to hold and shoot.
 
I tried with and without shooting gloves. I would suggest fingerless gloves. The gloves did not allow me to really feel the trigger and got in the way. I would not really want to shoot without them for practice.
 
I would personally prefer a Beretta 84 style grip and double stack mag.
 
The grip mod I did make made a significant difference in feel.
 
I would rather carry my J-frame with CT laser.
 
I can not give this pistol a postive review.
 
Other reviews are here:
 BerettaCommunity's Channel - YouTube (copy/paste)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLr2L...eature=related
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 03:28:00 PM by yechave »

DangeRuss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • MCRGO
  • Location: Northwest Lower Michigan, Traverse City Area.
Re: Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2011, 10:57:07 AM »
Thanks for the post yechave, I guess I wont be buying this pistol.
 
Russ
"In God we trust All others pay cash"
Member of
NRA
GOA
MCRGO
SAF
Member ACLDN

Coastie

  • Guest
Re: Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2011, 11:58:32 AM »
Good review.  What do you think about our creating a "Firearm Review" section?  Then we could lump all of these into it, for easier locating by members?

anvil6

  • New User
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2011, 03:32:52 PM »
Good review.  What do you think about our creating a "Firearm Review" section?  Then we could lump all of these into it, for easier locating by members?

Great Idea -- might need to break it out by make/model. if it really takes off.

It might be helpful if reviewers included more specific info as to: 1) What type(s) of malfunction(s) they observe (light firing pin strike, failure of slide to go fully into battery, failure to feed (jam), double-feed, failure to extract, failure to eject, stovepipe, etc.).  2) Ammunition fired during review (i.e. Federal Classic Hi-Shok JHP 115 grain 9BP), especially if one malfunctioned and another did not.

bandrich

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Location: S.E. Wisconsin
Re: Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2011, 07:05:41 AM »
I also like my Beretta PX4 and was considering the Nano until now.  Thanks for your comments.   ;D

Coastie

  • Guest
Re: Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2011, 07:31:07 AM »
Good review.  What do you think about our creating a "Firearm Review" section?  Then we could lump all of these into it, for easier locating by members?

Great Idea -- might need to break it out by make/model. if it really takes off.

It might be helpful if reviewers included more specific info as to: 1) What type(s) of malfunction(s) they observe (light firing pin strike, failure of slide to go fully into battery, failure to feed (jam), double-feed, failure to extract, failure to eject, stovepipe, etc.).  2) Ammunition fired during review (i.e. Federal Classic Hi-Shok JHP 115 grain 9BP), especially if one malfunctioned and another did not.

Should we receive a number of reviews of the same firearm, then we can set titles.... until then  ;)  (good idea).

Charles1951

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
  • Location: Central Texas
Re: Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2012, 12:16:00 PM »
I shot my friend's brand new 9MM Nano today. I was impressed with it. On the plus side, in the 100 plus rounds I witnessed or fired myself there were no failures of any kind. He had a hundred rounds Federal Eagle 124 gr FMJ and I added some of my Federal Champion 115 gr FMJ to the mix.

I like that there are no external controls except the trigger which means there is nothing to get snagged during draw from a pocket or anywhere it might be carried. The slide locks back on the last round being fired. After loading a full mag you just "rack" the slide to charge the next round in the chamber. Some guns that have an external slide catch are not designed to allow the catch to be used as a release so the Nano's design is not that bad in my opinion.

I had my PPS out to shoot too and compared the two side by side. The Nano is shorter in length but has a blocky appearance that makes it look wider. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY3gNMVMpHg At about 13 minutes into the YouTube video I added there is a chart that shows the Nano is actually thinner than the PPS. The chart compares all the stats for 4 single stack carry guns.

I liked the Nano but I had to work harder to be accurate than I have to work to be accurate with my Walther PPS. My friend did very well (which is good since it is his gun.) I just had to grip it harder. If it was my gun I would get an extended mag as soon as they are available. I'm sure that would help with accuracy for me at least since with the 6 round mag my pinky finger hung off the bottom. Recoil for the Nano was very manageable and just slightly more than the PPS but much less than a Kel-Tec PF9.

So bottom line for me is that I disagree with Yechave's negative assessment. I would recommend a close look at the Nano when considering a CCW. I think it would compliment a Glock or M&P owners choice for EDC having a similar manual of arms and a thinner profile. I like it better than the M&P Shield and the Ruger LC9 for it's snag-free design and no safety. And a huge plus for me is that it is ambidextrous with the mag release being reversible.
Charles

-Texas CHL-*-USAF retired-*-Oath Keeper-*-American Legion-*-NRA-*-IDPA-

============================================
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

mustang125

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
Beretta Nano owner review
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2012, 01:25:04 PM »
A gun that doesn't fit your hand is just right for another. I don't like the grip of the nano but my wife does. She loves the fact that she can operate the slide with easy. That is why they make a lot of different size guns.