This is one handgun that you hear very little about, although Beretta is still making them so somebody’s buying them. Presumably the rotary barrel concept wasn’t a big hit with consumers. Could it be said that the PX4 is a flop, or is that too strong a description?
I never understood why consumers would care what barrel, or any other part in their gun, does or doesn’t as long as gun runs well. I don’t know whether PX4 is a flop, and I think that some of standard factory features are terrible. That said, I do know that Ernest Langdon’s spec’d PX4CC has been my carry gun since I have vetted it. First real carry gun change for me since 2011.
I like my 9mm PX4… had a .45, but was a little too big for the role I wanted to use it for (off duty gun). Got a Glock 30S instead. I keep the 9mm as a nice range gun, and that it also pairs up with my CX4 (I can convert it to take 92 magazines to pair with my Brigadier Inox).
The PX4 is a good gun, but Beretta wasn’t giving it the support it should have from its release. We have a neighboring county that issues the .40 PX4 to their Prosecutor’s Office. A lieutenant that I was good friends with wanted the S/C in .40. It took them at least two years to release that model! Most people don’t wait on guns over a year. Support-wise… you have a gun with removable back straps. Put some money with CT and make LaserGrips for them (S&W is big on stuff like that, as is Ruger). They had a similar stance on the Nano… which is why I have a P938 as a backup gun. The ARX rifle was how many years late? It really gets people annoyed with a company that misses schedules.
Within the past year, Beretta actually has stepped up to the plate with parts. That G conversion for the 92/96 came out quickly, and the Beretta representative on BerettaForum was taking opinions on doing a single sided decocker (last time I saw, he is bringing it to designers to try and get it out). That is a company that I’d want to spend money with.
I’m not selling my PX4, but Beretta isn’t really putting anything else out that interests me. If they keep the customer relationship going that I’ve seen over the past year, I’d consider it. Prior to this change, I actually refused any other Beretta purchases… and I really wanted a smaller .45 PX4 when I had the full size.
Wouldn’t call it a flop, but it isn’t a new 92 or any other workhorse firearm. It is a good design, and will serve most people very well. Very easy to convert from safety to decocker only. Fairly good capacity.
Had one for awhile when they first came out. I didn’t like the de-cocker location, and never really warmed up to the looks of the gun. Also, it felt kinda cheap compared to some other poly guns, even though it was probably pretty well made. Aside from that, it was reliable and accurate. Only non-glock pistol I’ve ever sold.
In the end, I just didn’t shoot it enough to justify keeping it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve become a big fan of the PX4/PX4C over the past couple of months. I admit, I gave it little to no attention when I was first getting my feet wet in my Glock to Beretta transition. Started with the Wilson/Beretta Brig Tac and that morphed into several other 92 variants. I shot my first PX4C in Ernest Langdon’s pistol class last fall. After that I was hooked. I followed the PX4 Compact Carry thread on another forum from the beginning and now own several. Also added a full-size PX4 to the stable. I’ve been extremely impressed with how simple it is to get an excellent trigger pull on the PX4 that rivals the full trigger jobs coming out of Wilson’s shop on the 92 series guns.
The grip texture on the PX4 is extremely slick; I had all of mine textured by a local guy. There isn’t a lot of sight options for them, but Ameriglo now offers a few different options and they are rumored to offer a fiber optic front in the future.
I’m aware of the rotating barrel issues discussed on this forum from nearly 10 years ago, but they seem to have been sorted out. Last year, Mr. Langdon put 52,000 + documented rounds through his PX4 Compact with no major parts failures or replacements. Just a few spring changes. He’s currently putting a full size PX4 through its paces, and is sitting around 10,000 rounds fired through it. 40,000 more to go.
I think they are one of the top DA/SA polymer handguns on the market. Swap in a 12# Wilson hammer spring and you’ll have a 8# DA with 100% reliability. Swap in the Competition Trigger Pack from Beretta and the 12# hammer spring for a trigger that is as good as, if not better, than the Action Tuned Wilson Berettas. They are extremely under-rated handguns. I’ve tried the USP, P2000, P30 (all DA/SA), various Sigs and so far my PX4s have impressed me the most as a DA/SA carry gun. The HKs flat out suck in the trigger department, even with a spring change. I still own 1 P30 and I’m debating sending it off for a full trigger job or just sending it down the road. I don’t think the trigger will ever compare to my worked over Berettas or my PX4s so I’m hesitant. Might just sell it and put the extra cash towards ammo. I’d carry my full size 92s more but I don’t like the extra weight, especially in the summer when I’m carrying in shorts and a t-shirt.
If Beretta’s new APX turns out to be a sales success, I wonder if the PX4 will fall by the wayside or if Beretta will market them both?
Totally different designs. I realize striker is “in” but there’s still a good number of shooters who prefer a TDA to a striker gun. I personally hope they keep the PX4 around.
I will say this, having handled the shot the PX4 pistols I honestly quite liked the feel in hand and found them to shoot very accurately. The only two reasons that I never got into them was lack of aftermarket support and the fact I was invested in Glocks. The second reason was a friend’s father bout one of their 9mm compacts not long after they came out, and this has been years ago, maybe 8 years or so. For the first 400-500 rounds the gun didn’t run well, accuracy was fine, but it couldn’t make it through a mag without a FTF, usually at least three malfs per mag regardless of the ammo we tested and in the hands of 4 or 5 shooters. After about 400 or 500 rounds though the problems went away and it chugged on. That kind of soured my taste for the gun.
I remember there was an issue with the recoil spring on the early 9mm Compacts. Forget if it was a recall or voluntary swap, but do remember people mentioning it on BerettaForum.
Never had reliability issues on either of my PX4s. Mine are/were cera-plated (CCR’s version of NP3… just boron instead of Teflon), but I recommend a decent grease (I use Shooter’s Choice) on the barrel and locking block.
I have a full size PX4 that I love. 0 issues ever and the thing just shoots great. But, it’s a very ugly gun which I think has hindered sales since the jump. Add in the mag fiasco in the beginning and it never took off.
What was wrong with the springs? Like I said, after 400 or so rounds the gun ran fine, it was just something that soured me on that model. Never had an issue with a 92 though. So…
It was too strong of a spring, which caused issues with low to mid power level loads. Beretta had a program in place to swap them, but due to the amount of time that passed, they closed it off. The page still says if you are having issues, contact Beretta CS. I’m sure they would still fix the problem if someone has an unshot early pistol.
http://www.berettasupport.com/applications/php_storm/index.htm
Argentina just adopted (and is manufacturing) the PX4 for it’s military. Which probably isn’t saying much, but at least it breathes a bit more life into the design:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/argentina-is-about-to-get-a-ton-of-new-firearms-3a7d560bdcb0
I took a look at the PX4 about a year or two ago.
Bought one of each size and did a review.
I think the Beretta Forum hates me because I was a 92 fan for a long time,
But give critical unbiased reviews of Beretta products.
Review below.
The PX4, a polymer framed, hammer fired gun. how did Beretta get there?
Bear with some service pistol history form the mid 80s until now.
Many do not appreciate the 92/M9 series.
When the Army adopted it,
It was not the gun operators were using.
It was in wimpy 9mm.
It was not the new gun operators went to.
If you were in the Rangers or Special Forces using a beat to hell old 1911 with crappy even more beat magazines, the only thing you missed was the 45 ACP.
You now had twice the capacity in a pistol that was accurate and reliable with lots of new great magazines.
The gun was not perfect. The size was not for everyone.
Front sight options were what came on the pistol. Locking blocks in unserviced guns would fail.
Checkmate mags made to requested Army standards had issues in some conditions.
Concealed carry options were a compact that was not very compact and the Centurion, which was even less compact.
A Mag compatible subcompact finally came out, the 9000s. Which was not all that mag compatible, not as reliable as the 92,
Had a horrible trigger and some deteriorating grip material issues.
They also had Stupid snap opening grips instead of fixed base plates or mag extensions,
And a whole different manual of arms and controls from the 92.
And Beretta was surprised it was not popular.
The Cougar came in three sizes, one Compact and one Sub Compact, and shared the same manual of arms of the 92/M9! And it used the same magazines! Oh wait, the magazine bodies are the same, but have a different release hole location and they are not compatible.
Early laser and light options did exist for the 92/M9. However, a failed version was long overdue.
Instead of just making a railed version for more options, Beretta made
A neat looking 90-two with some non compatible updates, slick grips held on by an edge of plastic, and a gay rail cover,
Even the name, 90-Two was a failure and it Surprised beretta by not being popular.
To go over the Cougar again, it was
A more compact option than the 92.
the cougar, Came out Using non 92 compatible magazines.
In a full sized version, a little seen compact version with some slide changes that messed up holster compatibility, and a mini version you could not get a grip on.
It had stupid grip panels that went below the mag well.
In my hands, it
Was reliable and had an interesting recoil reducing function.
But that that messed up suppressor hosting for these guns.
It did have shared 92 manual of arms,
But
Again surprised beretta by not being popular.
I think you are catching on to the pattern here.
So, here we go,
At a time you think they would have introduced a polymer striker fired pistol, or,
A polymer frame for 92 uppers, or,
A more compact 92 series…
Fresh After a failed polymer frame pistol with snap open base plates,
Fresh after A failed 92 non magazine compatible rotating barrel pistol,
Fresh after A slick grip 92 update,
They combined:
polymer frame
non 92 mag compatibility
Rotating barrel
snap open base plates
And slick grips into one pistol,
The PX4.
And again Beretta seemed surprised at its lack of popularity.
I put my money where my mouth is.
I have bought NIB 9mm versions of the full, compact, and sub compact versions.
The PX4 combines a polymer frame with a hammer fired DA/SA upper.
You basically have three options with pistols.
A super light SA trigger you have to active a safety before using.
A varying striker type trigger,
Or a DA fist pull for SA light follow up pulls.
Each have their pros and cons.
The subcompact is a PX4 in looks only.
It uses a tilt non PX4 style, non rotating barrel design.
It is not the same operating system oa the Compact and Full Sized.
Length, height, width are subcompact ish, but it has a huge overall volume.
It is very chunky to carry.
Beretta states it is smooth, specially designed this way for snag free CC draws.
It is slick.
I may not want my CC guns as grippy as a game gun,
But I have put over 1000 rounds through this gun in dry and rainy conditions. I thin it is too slick.
Beretta states the innovative snap base plate conceals better but opens on the draw for a better grip.
I know of no serious shooter that wants moving parts shifting on their gun’s front grip on the draw.
This is innovation we did not need.
Function has been 100% reliable with the SC using the flat based mags, snapping finger curve mags, and also using fullsized mags with sleeves.
I did not see sleeves to use the Compact mags with the Subcompact.
Grouping is acceptable.
At ten yards it was 4 inches low and two inches left.
This is the worst POI/POA discrepancy of any NIB pistol I have taken to the range.
My opinion of a subcompact carry pistol is that the average size hand on the intrinsic grip, or with baseplates like a Glock 26, you can get a full grip and it is double stack.
Thinner and shorter single stack pistols, non full grip pistols with your pinky or pinky and middle finger curling under the grip, I consider a “sub sub compact” or a “pocket pistol.” The Beretta 9000S has a better length grip. The Cougar L has a better length grip. (With regards to fitting the hand)
The controls are less ergonomic than a 92/M9.
Anyways, I cannot say bad things about function and reliability, but I would not recommend this as a sub compact concealed carry pistol.
The size and volume of space it occupies is just odd and chunky.
The full sized PX4is a joy to shoot.
Recoil is like a pellet gun.
But if you advertise a slick, snag free sub compact for concealed carry,
why does the full sized service pistol still feel like a wet bar of soap? These guns, like the 90-Two, just have a very slick feel and lack of texture compared to other guns in these classes.
It is interesting. It works.
Over a thousand rounds of full reliability using various ammo. I found it Accurate on par with a 92 and
On target out of the box. It points fine.
Again, the controls look cooler than on the 92, but are less ergonomic to manipulate.
If your desire is a polymer framed, DA/SA full sized service pistol go for it.
It is an awesome compromise between a striker fired polymer gun and an all metal DA/SA gun. But it is just that, a compromise.
I would rather grab my Glock 17 or 92. There are things I like about each of those better.
There is not enough I like about the PX4 to choose it over either.
Now we move on the the compact.
It is a great sized gun except for the same huge amount of volume it occupies.
The dust cover / rail and tall slide just occupy a lot of space. It points better than a G19 and has less perceivedrecoil.
but is not as overal sleek as a Glock 19, a cougar L, or a 92c. (at least the old non railed version of the 92C)
And they introduce it with an ambi slide lock lever that makes it the widest of the PX4s.
Again, over one thousand reliable rounds fully reliable out of the box.
I, and many people I know,
Enjoy a fully integrated line of magazine compatible pistols ranging from suppressor height night sight/ threaded barrels, macx length slide/barrel game guns, to service pistol, to compact, and to subcompact. And ready for slide mounted optics models are gaining in popularity.
Most major manufacturers do this. You can do it with an XDM, Glock, M&P, CZ, etc. Even old lines, like the Third Gen Smith and Wesson 5906, had a longer version and a compact version available.
Beretta has not done it in the 92.
And you cannot do it in the PX4. The rotating barrel presents issues with the suppressor host, and only allows down to Compact size before they change the operating system for the Sub Compact model.
And they repeat, like they have on their other pistol lines, a firing pin block that raises above the slide where some people would like to mount a RDS.
You can get around this with certain mounts. I have done so on a 92. But it is a design feature that needs to go away.
Triggers were mediocre for a DA/SA gun.
They improved with use.
Like a socialist doubling down on failed policies,
Beretta seems bent on repeating historical failures and doubling down on pushing this line of pistols.
Crappy triggers on the 9000, CX4, and ARX. They need to come out with a trigger that wows the market on a gun.
Little market interest in non 92 mag compatible guns, so they bring out more.
Little market interest in rotating barrels,so they bring out another.
We have seen Success in other companies updating and expanding their flagship lines, like CZ with Compacts, the RAMI, polymer framed versions, etc., so Beretta does not do it.
These are interesting, reliable guns.
Even so many years after introduction, there are
Limited factory and after market options.
There is No pricing advantage on the few options available.
Beretta is not Kel Tec,
But they seem to have the same look cool/ innovative for the sake of it issues and vibe going on in my opinion,
Vs pure function with it being ok to look sexy.
Recently bought a px4 compact carry. Added a 12# wilson hammer spring. It is a bad ass gun. My favorite polymer to date da/sa or striker. Ill take this over any of the striker guns I have owned or tda. They shoot really flat and are very accurate. G19 sized hammer gun. Perfect.
There are plenty of people on BerettaForum that are critical of Beretta, and still like some or all of their designs. There are a small number of fanboys, but on the whole, I consider that forum one of the most unbiased forums out there… at least regarding the core members. When I have something unique that I post on any other forum (a FBI 15 round 10mm S&W magazine or a Oswald replica Carcano), I still post there because it is very good place with a lot of variety of shooters (and some I consider friends). I still ask generic firearms questions over there, due to the broad expanse of opinions I get from the members (especially non-Beretta related stuff).
Trust me, I like the Berettas I own… but I’ve got into arguments (usually started because I have a difference of opinion on their “super rifle”) because some people want to say how the ARX is the best thing since sliced bread. You can tell when someone is getting their panties in a twist when you respectfully disagree and give another viewpoint, yet the response automatically comes to you being a “hater.”
In regards to your observation of Beretta… spot on. They really had some stupid commercial design choices made from the adoption of the M9 up through recently. The magazine thing, especially having three different full size magazines, is obnoxious. They have 17 round 92 magazines that are designed differently than the original 15 rounders… a PX4, Cougar, and 92 taking the same magazines would have been A LOT more commercially successful than different ones. And they screwed themselves again… as the APX uses its own magazine. They did a nice job with the CX4, but come on… you have two .45 pistol magazines, but you standardize on the Cougar, and never offer a setup for your currently produced magazines (PX4), which have an extra 1 or 2 rounds.
But there is one aspect of your post that needs to be pointed out… BerettaUSA didn’t call these shots; Beretta Italy did. All choices they made were with worldwide markets in mind, not just the US. While it looks stupid to us talking about it here, there isn’t as many civilian markets out there that Italy sees as a primary concern. For them, competition shotguns are their bread and butter. If you ever get a Beretta catalog, you do see a few defensive pistol products… holsters, magazines, and the alike. But like 80% of their book is clothes, clay sport accessories, and none of which are that affordable. Goes back to the mindset that Italy put on Beretta. Now that the M9 contract is winding down (and they didn’t win anything major with the government), and Beretta has that new plant in Tennessee, you may see a change in their market approach. You may see BerettaUSA making more decisions for the US market over Italy. I’ve had experience with BerettaUSA going back to my first Beretta; a 92 Brigadier Inox, I bought at the tail end of the AWB. If you asked me in the 2008 time period if I thought Beretta was going to figure out a G conversion for 92 slides… it wouldn’t have been a “no,” but a “HELL NO!” There was no care from most employees about civilian consumers (I dealt with people one day that acted like they were pulling strings to help get me parts that I was paying for, then when I don’t see them in two weeks and call… the same person tells me they haven’t taken a phone order in over a month).
Just wanted to add that to your post, being I feel it adds a much needed perspective to it. The PX4 is a viable pistol, even though it isn’t a Beretta 92, SIG P226, or a Glock 17.
I have owned Glock and Sig. I am carrying this little fella over them any day. From the factory with ameriglo sights, g conversion, stealth levers, cerakoted slide, 3 mags, comp. trigger group, 3 different mag release buttons, and talon grips. All I did was throw in a 5$ hammer spring. Trigger is smooth and light. I never gave them a chance, and that was a mistake. I happen to prefer tda guns. So far this is my favorite carry gun. I actually got a 92a1 in and waiting on some wilson parts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Waiting on a holster for the full-size/XC1 combo. Set a personal best running the FAST drill yesterday with the PX4 CC. Ran a 4.70 clean. I’m really digging this little gun. Shoots flatter than my G19. Mine is the Robar Mod 4 (full trigger job by Ernest Langdon & NP3 coating on internals), it also has the LTT bobbed hammer (NP3 coated), .290 rear sight (.305 stock), and a full stipple job.
The platform has languished for over a decade.
If it was going to make its mark by any advantages it would have.
One prominent shooter generating a little interest with a new variant by exploiting its size advantage in a new, small division of IDPA is getting it a little attention, nothing more.
Enough that they sold the hell out of them. I am happy I finally bought one and mad I did not earlier. I do not care about idpa I bought mine because I had cerain requirements for a carry gun. And it met everyone. Who cares if it is not in the cool kids club. If you want a tda carry gun that will run like a fullsize people should try it. It will obviously not be hurting any striker fired gun sales or hk koolaid club. But for what it is, it just works.