dnewton3

Anyone have experience with the PX4 pistol from Beretta? I would like your impressions of: how it shoots (accuracy, etc) how it handles (ease of use, location of controls and buttons, etc) quality of build (fit, finish, part failures, etc) ease of service (breakdown and cleaning) I'm interested in the 9mm "C" trigger version, but I expect that experiences with the .40 and .45 will be similar other than caliber. Part of the reason I'm interested in this is that I might pair it up with the CX4 Storm carbine rifle. This is a handgun/carbine package they make that uses the same magazines, design features, etc. All info would be appreciated. I'll listen to any comments, but am especially interested in direct use/owership. Even if you've shot your buddie's Storm, that input would be helpful before I spend this kind of cash.

Anyone have experience with the CX4 carbine rifle from Beretta? I would like your impressions of: how it shoots (accuracy, etc) how it handles (ease of use, location of controls and buttons, etc) quality of build (fit, finish, part failures, etc) ease of service (breakdown and cleaning) I'm interested in the 9mm version, but I expect that the .40 and .45 will be similar other than caliber. Part of the reason I'm interested in this is that I might pair it up with the PX4; they have a new compact size (similar to the mid-size Glock 19/23). All info would be appreciated. I'll listen to any comments, but am especially interested in direct use/owership. Even if you've shot your buddie's Storm, that input would be helpful before I spend this kind of cash.

Or, you could just keep them both ...

I have a lightly used Ciener .22lr conversion kit that is made for the Glock 19/23 guns. I bought it new; have two mags and all the case, instructions, etc. The sights are fixed (as they all are) and I painted a nice orange line up the front site for MUCH better visibility. It shoots very straight and does not jam (anymore than .22lr does occasionally anyway). There are no major nicks or other blemishes. You can check the Jonathan Author Ciener website for info. Reasonable offers accepted. Any/all laws apply. Let me know if you're intersted.

Because, there are no "grooves" for the lead to move into, according to Glock. Can it be done? Has it been done? Yes and Yes. But Glock says "no" and I think it's a reaonable restriction. Further, there are enough Cu clad choices out there that running lead isn't necessary.

Yet another update ... I guess you could call this a boring note, because there is nothing out of the ordinary to report. By "ordinary" I mean the following: After more than 10,000 rounds, this firearm has continued to function flawlessly, puts rounds on target with amazing clarity even after hundreds of dirty .22 have been shot through it, and strips/cleans easily. The magazines (factory S&W of which I have three) all cycle with no hint of binding. This gun flat works, and was worth every penny I spent on it. I find myself leaving all the other .22 rifles in the vault when this comes out to play. I haven't shot my Mdl 60 Marlin or 10/22 much at all; it's all about the M&P-15/22! One day in particular, we shot 1100 rounds (two 550 rnd boxes) in just a few hours. We did get a few failures, but those were ammo related and not due to the weapon; typical of bulk factory ammo for .22lr, as everyone knows. Other than that, we ran those two boxes almost non-stop! Three guys (one mag each) shooting and we rotated shooting a mag while the other two loaded as quickly as we could. The barrel got hot, for sure, but the gun just kept running! And, you cannot discount the fun of a "black gun" because this thing mimics an AR 100% in every function. Great training aid for my son to step up to a .223 some day!

Let me know how you like it; I've considered such a trip, but don't have any good first-hand info.

I agree with Wayne. There is a difference between "wanting" and "needing" to clean. I believe the weapon design and function greatly factor into the cleaninng routine. But we cannot discount the propellent residue as well. These three things combine to determine the "want" or "need" of cleaning frequency. Glocks generally seem to function with all kinds of stuff in them (within reason). That is one reason that a little lube goes a long way in a Glock. The less oil, the less contaminants retained. As a Glock armorer, I can tell you I've seen some REALLY dirty weapons come in for a full tear down, and the junk in there can be amazing. I always ask "How did it shoot?" and the resounding answer is "Fine. Why do you ask?" Same goes for the good ol' Rem 870; it is pratically flawless in cycle duty. It's not the fastest or the lightest or the prettiest, but by gosh it functions and cycles with absolute certaintity, and that's why it's my favorite "get off my property" gun. There is no mistaking the slaping sounds of "ker-chink/ker-chunk" when a chambering a round; it is an attention grabber that no one can ignore. That is why I also like the AK-47S and Ruger Mini- rifles. Simple, and reliable. Not the most accurate, but these things can be run with any kind of crud in them, any kind of ammo from any third-world country, and go "bang" when you need them to. Some weapon designs such as the 1911 can be hyper-built into fantastic target tools, but they often loose "battle readiness reliability" in the process. I'm not talking hundreds of shots, but rather thousands of shots. It seems to me that as they become more accurate, they become less tolerant of dirt and grime. Want a reliable 1911? Get a "loose" one that is accurate enough at 25 yards, and can run junk ammo. The most "reliable" 1911 I had was a Chinese Norinco. It would simply fire when my Springfield would cease, and I treated them both mercilously. The reality is that some weapons are not the most accurate, but they are WELL more accurate than I am (and I ain't a bad shot), and they cycle with 100% reliability in the worst conditions you can reasonably expect a firearm to function. Part of this reliability comes from the fact that they can use any ammo, and are able to get rid of the propellent gasses with little retention of the residue, and what residue does stay in the weapon seems to not affect the function of the weapon greatly. So, regardless of whether or not the ammo is "dirty", some weapons just deal with the "dirt" better than others. When it comes to weapon design and function, you have to ask at what level will they be used as a percentage of intent. In other words, will you keep it so clean that it would only see 50% of it's design tolerance for crud? As you approach the design limits of any particular weapon, you start to become more and more exclusive in key design criteria. As you approach 80% or more of design capacity, the accuracy and reliability become mutually exclusive. A Glock and a Kimber can both fire clean ammo for several thousand rounds, but at some point the Kimber will become a questionable entity where the Glock still offers 100% function. The Kimber is much more accurate, but the Glock is much more reliable. If one keeps both weapons clean, the advantage goes to the Kimber. As the conditions deteriorate, the advantage shifts to the Glock. Using "dirty" ammo only exaggerates this condition. Bottom line? A tight, accurate gun can fire clean ammo reliably. But a well designed gun can fire ANY ammo reliably, with enough accuracy to do the task at hand.

There is no substitute for real life experience. Luckily, your friend survived to live another day. Once a year, we have to "qualify" at the SO where I work, to meet State requirements. We shoot holes in paper targets in a very stagnant situation. It satisfies the State protocol, but little else. The other 11 months of the year, we get range time with different scenarios with ZERO advance intel. We're simply told the date and time to show up with our duty weapons (Glk 19 and Ruger mini-14 and Taser). From there on out, we run live-fire scenarios. Might be moving targets, might be taking hostage shots, possibly close-quaters shoots in a simulated house, etc. Each Deputy stands out of range sight until his turn in the zone; we might hear a bit of this and that, but you cannot pre-formulate a plan when you can't tell what's going on. One of the more prominent scenarios we're using more often is school-shooting responses. (Sadly, a reality that's becoming more promiment nationwide). We have an old shool building that is only about 20 years old, that we run all kinds of "no pretext" drills in. But even these pale in comparison to real world gunfights.

Ah - the truth comes out. You have been taunted by the flashy wares of another temptress ... No matter; you'll enjoy either!

I don't know that there is much more I can tell you to convince you. Clearly I've made the case, but on the other hand, I understand that at some point, enough is enough. I, too, have passed on some purchases because I have become saturated on some level. These are, after all, toys (for a lack of a better term) that are "wants" and not "needs".

I have a Glock 21 and like it very much. It is a handful size-wise, so if you have small hands, it's not for you, and the 21SF would be a better choice. Yes, it has a polygonal barrel; no lead should be used. You can get aftermarket barrels, as stated, to shoot lead. (polygonal simply meaning mutiple interior angles)

Well, we need to keep an eye on the upcoming decision from the SC regarding our 2nd Ammendment right. Should that come out favorably, that might resovle some of your state issues.

UPDATE: These passed (cojoined from three into two in conference committee) and were signed into law by Gov. Daniels, and will be effective 7-1-2010! The "new" portions of the law are in bold, as defined by the Indiana Code. http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/HB/HB1065.1.html http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/HB/HB1068.2.html Indiana may not be the center for world entertainment but, by gosh, we take our liberty seriously here!

That's what I like about you Wayne; always thinking of others! :-)

Oh, heck, thanks a lot Wayne. I had no idea that existed. You really know how to get to a man, don't you! I guess I could save a wee bit of money since the mag's look like they interchange with my rifle! Now I'll have to work some more overtime. Daddy needs a new toy ...

Don't think, man. Do! Hesitation is the errant child of mediocrity! Just kidding. :-) You'll really be impressed, should you choose to purchase.

I, too, use WD 40 or similar product for storage; corrosion prevention is my primary concern. I have a dehumidifier in my basement, where my storage is, but I can never be too careful. Then, when the weapons come out to play, they gets a quick shot of actual gun oil for the sake of lubricity. I've had good success with this over the years.

There are several brands out there. Most of them are similar to an AR-15. Only the S&W M&P-15 .22 is EXACTLY the same as the traditional AR platform. That's the reason I like the S&W; all controls and functions are placed and operate exactly as any .223 AR weapon. Some of the other brands either don't have the safety operate the same, or don't have the bolt release the same, or some other contradiction. Not that these issues make them bad; far from it. Even the Colt brand (imported as I recall) is not a "true" AR style in function. Many of the other quality names cycle well and are made well. I just wanted my to be an exact functional duplicate of an AR for the training consistency; that is where the M&P from S&W excels above the others. I have a friend that shoots one of the new Kel Tec SU-22's; it's a very nice weapon; I've shot it several times and I'm impressed. Yet even he agrees though he should have spent the extra money and got the M&P. Since your daughter shoots, you might consider getting the new M&P; she likely will absolutely love it. Both my son and daughter really enjoy it.

I agree; never sell a weapon unless you're starving, or trade for a "better" one! I kept my mdl 60 and 10/22, but I just don't shoot them much now. That M&P-15.22 is stupid crazy fun, acurate, and ultra simple to break down for cleaning. That is part of the reason I like it; the ease of take down. No tools! The ONLY thing I would have done over would be to get the non-threaded barrel; could have saved the money. I got the threaded one to install my suppressor on, but the action simply won't cycle with such weak ammo (sub-sonic). But that is also true of the 10/22; I had that barrel threaded and it won't cycle reliably with sub-sonic either. SteveS - if you want to blame me for your purchase, go right ahead; I can take it! And you'll be thanking me afterwards!

Welcome back home safe, Wayne!

Barrel threading came out superb! Tornado-Technologies in OR. Highly recommend.

I have one of each, and wouldn't really be able to pick a preference of one over the other. I like them both. The mdl 60 seems a bit more accurate out of the box; the 10/22 perhaps just a bit less finicky over ammo. Take your pick. Unfortunately, they are both eclipsed now by M&P 15-22; that thing is addictive like crack. I can't put it down!

Update: barrel has returned. Outstanding quality workmanship. Threads very nice and bluing decent. Customer service was excellent. They returned emails withing a day or two, although calling them directly, I never got to speak with anyone. When they got to the office, the did call me and catch me at my desk. Very friendly and polite. Total time was less than a month (not sure of the exact days) but well worth what I paid. BTW, threaded barrel + suppressor + sub-sonic ammo + bolt action = FUN! No sound at all until the "whump" of the bullet striking the target.

Had sent the barrel out for threading and it's due back first part of next week. Will give a full report then.