New From Beretta: APX Striker-Fired Modular Pistol – Is This The Army’s New Sidearm?

1569526_-_main

“‘Beretta unveiled its first striker-fired pistol at the IDEX 2015 show in Abu Dhabi, saying it incorporates the latest developments in tactical handguns and will have an ‘aggressive price vs performance ratio’. The APX is currently in the pre-series testing phase and the company aims to complete full qualification early in the second quarter of 2015.” So reports janes.com from the Middle East. At first blush, the new wundergun sounds like Beretta’s answer to the SIG P320 . . .

“The design is modular with all of the components used in the different calibre weapons identical apart from the barrel, slide and magazine well. The APX is built around a serialised stainless steel chassis that hosts all the mechanical components.”

With the M9A3 in then out then in then…well, could this be the Army’s new pistol?

[h/t Richard A.]

comments

  1. avatar Adam says:

    Those slide serrations do look appealing to me. I would prefer a slightly concave front trigger guard though. The grooved finger rest looks pointless and should be a concave as well.

    It looks like they have both grips and back straps planned. Id like to see it pulled apart to know whats going on there.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      It’s one of those love-it-or-hate-it designs. I think I might love it.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        I agree on the love it or hate it aspect.
        Not feeling much love for it here, cause I think I’m only seeing Berettas take on the Glock.
        The stuff the Army usually says it wants ( metal frame with manual safety in .45acp) isn’t there either.

        It looks new but doesn’t sound very revolutionary at first read.

    2. avatar Ditters says:

      So…you like slide serrations do ya? Well…we’ll give you slide serrations!!!

    3. avatar Dan says:

      Hello Beretta VP9!

  2. avatar ST says:

    I’ll ruffle some feathers saying this,but like most truths its hard to swallow.

    Hammer fired pistols are obsolete, as far as non-enthusaist use is concerned. I say that as a guy with a Beretta 92 on his hip as I type this.

    Striker fired guns are easier to shoot, less intensive to train compared to safety equipped SA and DA type guns, and cost less to service in terms of time and money. For the user interested only in a functional defensive device-read Law Enforcement, average non-enthusiast private citizen, and militaries- striker fired is the future, and hammer fired is ancient history.

    1. avatar Rob Aught says:

      Just like no one uses revolvers anymore. Right? Right?

      1. avatar Phydeaux says:

        Except enthusiasts, you’re right!

      2. avatar Jeremy B. says:

        Handgun sales, in my experience are about 10-1 in favor of semi autos. At least half of revolver sales are hunting and cowboy, not CCW.

        Hammer fired guns probably make up 25% of semi auto sales or less.

        Just my experience, havnt seen the total numbers.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      A hammer-fired 4006 Smith TSW .40 sits in my holster. It’s my current duty gun. I’d be happier with a Sig P226 TacOps 9mm with a 20-round mag. While Glocks, M&Ps, and XDs are nice, particularly for carry, metal frames and hammers will still be in holsters for a long time to come.

      1. avatar Caligula says:

        Do you CCW your P226 in the summer with shorts and a T-shirt or golf polo?

        1. avatar mike reed says:

          In my man purse…

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      It’s a phase. This is cyclic, like so many other things.

      Striker-fired pistols are popular right now because they’re cheap to make, and everyone is looking at Gaston Glock in his 80’s, enjoying some prime young companionship and thinking “Hey, if we made striker-fired pistols, I might be able to get me a woman who is 50 years my junior!”

      Oh, and boatloads of cash from gun buyers who are too ignorant of manufacturing technology to know just how fat the margins are on stamped steel and cheez-whiz. One day, someone will start cranking out a striker-fired pistol that has a MSRP in the $350 range, and it will work and work well, and all the other Glock wanna-be’s will have a problem maintaining their margins.

      At that point, gun makers will suddenly re-discover hammer-fired pistols and they’ll find some feature about hammer-fired pistols (eg, the better trigger pull) that they’ll market through the gun rag writers, and the market will shift.

      1. avatar Sean N says:

        Striker fired poly in the 350 range that works?
        Seems that lately, everybody is praising Canik55’s TP9SA for being exactly that.

        The Beretta thing..It looks like they took the ergo cues from S&W, the trigger from Glock, the slide from Ruger, and the modular chassis from SIG. If they offer it in 45, they’ll have a winner.

        1. avatar Joelt1 says:

          It currently only comes in 9mm, .40, and 9x21mm cartridges. Since we all know this is Beretta’s last-ditch MHS offer, it’s curious that they aren’t making an initial offering of it in a .45ACP. Kinda makes me wonder if they know something the rest of us don’t. Maybe the military isn’t considering the .45?

        2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          The US DOD will never go back to the .45 ACP again for a widely deployed pistol. We have to maintain compatibility with the 9×19 cartridge for political reasons as much as anything else.

      2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Sure, it’s a phase. Like the self-contained ammunition cartridge is a phase, and we’ll all be buying muzzle loaders next year.

        Sometime things are cyclic. Sometimes technology advances and renders older designs obsolete. Polymer framed, striker fired pistols are more of the latter and not much of the former. The market will shift back to steel framed, hammer fired pistols as quickly as the automobile market shifts back to steel car bodies, carburetors and magneto ignitions.

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          You’re obviously missing the influence of LEO buying patterns on the pistol market.

          The Glock became popular when police departments started shifting over. The police departments shifted from revolvers to the Glock as a result (in large part) due to Glock’s marketing, which had little to do with the quality of the product. Lots of schmoozing, plying buyers for LEO’s with liquor and women was involved.

          At some point in the future, there will be some screw-up on the part of some major cop department that will lead them to look at something else. I can predict this with high confidence because police departments are government agencies, after all, and competence isn’t their strongest or leading attribute.

          The most probable path I see to something different becoming popular goes about like this: Cop seriously wounds himself or his partner with a striker/no-safety pistol. Sues because it doesn’t have a safety or a hammer to indicate cocked condition. Suit is successful. Another lawsuit follows. And another. Departments start reconsidering the striker/no-safety paradigm… and something different follows.

          You think I jest? Why do you think magazine disconnects are in so many semi-autos? Because just this sort of design-by-lawsuit happened in the 90’s. That’s why S&W semi-autos of that era had magazine disconnects; S&W was selling predominately to LEO’s, and that was a requirement. Hammers serve a useful feature in the hands of a cop – a big, visible indicator that the gun isn’t fully ready to fire. There’s hammers on revolvers, hammers on DA/SA semi-autos. It’s a common feature that fits with the mentality of LEO’s about guns.

          Steel framed? Probably not. Polymer is here to stay in the mass-produced pistol. It’s far too effective at increasing margins to disappear.

        2. avatar mike reed says:

          I LOVE my sig 226 tac ops! shot everything else. Paid 40% more for my sig. It’s worth it. That short reset trigger is awesome!

        3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          “Polymer is here to stay in the mass-produced pistol. It’s far too effective at increasing margins to disappear.”

          At least until the petroleum gets hard to come by, which might be sooner than most want to admit.

      3. avatar Achmed says:

        Great perspective. I like Glocks and shoot them all the time. I actually shot my Beretta 92 over the weekend for the first time in like three years and remembered all the things I liked about it.

      4. avatar GuyFromV says:

        I have a S&W SD9VE that fits this bill.

    4. avatar Яoscoe says:

      So are hammer fired weapons becoming backward and out of vogue. I think not.

      Call me a traditionalist or stubborn, but I trained on the .357mag. and carried them for years, eventually moving to hammer fired autos. From my experience I much prefer the certainty and safety of seeing and engaging the hammer at my discretion when using any sidearm.

      I own and shoot the XD .45 and FN Five-seven so am familiar with the type, but still prefer a hammer driven firing pin and always will.

      1. avatar BillC says:

        Hey, Stubborn, your FN FiveseveN is hammer fired.

    5. avatar Sean N says:

      I’m guessing you don’t hunt or speed shoot. Or pay attention to silly things like sales… Sure, Poly-Striker guns are popular, that’s why they keep making more of them. But the 1911, CZ, SIG… not really going anywhere or losing out to striker guns. Some folks are striker folks, others are hammer folks.. most.. are both.

    6. avatar AllAmerican says:

      I think you’re just choosing the wrong word. Obsolete that’s a pretty heavy statement. I would never say Obsolete. As far as military/LE is concerned will hammer fired take a back seat? Sure will. But as far as still being a effective against comparable handguns in self defense, combat, or hunting, hammer guns are still competitive and will remain so for some time. There’s still a place for revolvers, bolt actions, and pump actions even in modern combat situations.

    7. avatar JoshuaS says:

      Not sure if you are really that dumb or just good at trolling. And what does having a safety have to do, per se, with being hammer or striker? Nothing prevents there being a hammer fired gun, with DA or a pre-set DA action not having a safety and being just as “safe” as a Glock. Of course a brain dead porpoise can learn to use a safety, and maybe only a brain dead porpoise would need “intensive training” to learn to use a safety. Either I am a savant, or most people are not too brain dead stupid to learn something so simple. But I digress

      Striker fired pistols are OLD technology. The very first automatic handgun was striker fired.

      Like most things, hammer versus striker are, in and of themselves, better in different ways. Historically hammer fired is more reliable. With the advent of non-corrosive ammo the danger with striker fire here has been lessened (since you don’t need to wash the gun down with water to dissolve salts, and hence keeping a striker channel clean and free of grease is much easier now). But still, hammer fire does have more reliable primer ignition, even granted that striker fireds can be designed now that also are reliable. Hammer fire as a design is easier to get to work in that regard.

      Striker fire makes designing a low bore axis easier. But that doesn’t mean all striker fires have a low bore axis or that no hammer fired do.

      Hammer fire is far easier to design with a safe SA trigger. Most striker fire guns, certainly after Glock, are either DA (Springfield XD) or pre-set DA (Glocks), which necessarily requires a longer and heavier trigger pull. Further, hammer fired designs generally allow multiple attempts on the same round and, while there have been some striker fired designed that also work this way, (notable a pre-set DA/DA trigger from Taurus), they have issues that have prevented it being very common.

      Striker fired, in and of itself, requires slightly fewer parts, but it also has smaller nooks and crannies.

      The short answer, is that both have existed side by side and both will continue to exist, and that hammer fired will go back up in popularity at some point is likely, just as there is a resurgence of revolvers

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        A couple of other advantages of the hammer:

        1. You can carry in hammer-down/safe mode and cock to a firing position quickly enough, for those who want an even safer carry (ie, Cooper’s “Condition 2” carry). Modern hammer-fired pistols have decockers to accomplish this, and DA cocking to allow firing from hammer-down conditions.

        2. The hammer can be designed to catch discharges due to a dropped gun, which are added safety features on top of a firing pin block.

        The thing about striker fired pistols that is attractive just now is, as you mentioned, the lower parts count. Also, there’s no sear/hammer engagement surface that needs to be precision ground/polished for the best possible trigger feel. Cheap, cheap, cheap – that’s the striker pistol motto.

        Striker pistols just have mediocre triggers, always have, always will. There’s no way to make them as good as a hammer/sear trigger pull. When people pick up my S&W Model 41, they marvel “why can’t my Glock/etc have a trigger like this?”

        Well, you have to get rid of the striker design to get a really “match” grade pistol trigger. Ain’t much way around it.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          DG, I often enjoy your posts but your opinions always make me think “Dinosaurs hate meteors”. 🙂

    8. avatar tdiinva says:

      The striker fired pistol has been around for 100+ years. There is nothing revolutionary about it today. So, please explain to me why a striker fired pistol is better than a hammer fired one. There is no striker fired pustol that is easier to shoot or more accurate than a 1911 or a Hi Power. The problem with a DA/SA is not the hammer but the lond, heavy trigger ppull.l on the first shot.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “The problem with a DA/SA is not the hammer but the lond, heavy trigger ppull.l on the first shot.”

        Only true of some DA/SA’s. Some CZ’s and clones gave/give the user to choice to carry true Condition 1 (SA with safety on) or to drop the hammer (albeit manually, no hammer drop safety) for first shot DA.

        Could be an argument for “semantics” if the action allows you to carry DA but you don’t carry that way calling it DA, but technically I’m speaking of the action itself, not the way the user is using it.

        So, a DA/SA pistol does not necessary have to be used with that long first pull.

        Having said that…and though I carry SA Condition 1, when I DO shoot DA for the first shot, I don’t mind it so much. Maybe that comes from a lot of background shooting revolvers? I don’t know. I just know I personally don’t find it to be the issue everyone makes it out to be.

    9. avatar LC says:

      For military and police circles? absolutely.

      You didn’t ruffle my feathers. You dropped a “fact bomb” and some people are obviously not going to like their ears ringing. Especially the 1911, revolver, and CZ guys.

    10. avatar TravisP says:

      I disagree, stiker is cool and all and maybe be the darling right now, but my p07 is no less high tech than a Glock or Smith, but at least I get double strike capability, and hammer fired DA/SA weapons are traditionally easier to rack for people with less hand strength if they lower the hammer first

  3. avatar Rob Aught says:

    Beretta has always had a special design aesthetic that kept their firearms beautiful but functional.

    This looks like Beretta looked at a S&W M&P and said “Yes, let’s just do that.”

    I know the military contract is a big deal for them so I can understand making what appears to be almost a direct clone of their competitors, but it’s still a little disappointing. Understandable from a business perspective only, but they are a company looking to make money.

    It looks like an M&P and a Glock had a baby and the description does sound like a direct shot at the SIG P320.

  4. avatar 2AMexican says:

    That looks like a tricked out S&W SD9VE

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Yes, it does, with just a touch of Walther.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        But they forgot to add the GRIP ZONE!!!!!!!

  5. avatar James69 says:

    Just another tupperware gun. Nothing new. Just dumbing down the weapon to match the users.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      There’s nothing wrong with “soldier-proofing” something.

      1. avatar Carson says:

        Especially a last ditch firearm that almost none of us will ever use (save MPs) even to shoot at the range. Most people who shoot the M9 hate the safety passionately, which is very understandable when you’re forced to use a safety on a DA/SA. modern striker pistols are more streamlined to use, which is important for a military that is not focused on shooting pistols. If the Army does decide to replace the current, functional, though seldom used, sidearm with a marginally more mission capable one, then they would be foolish to not pick a cheaper, striker fired one. Besides, units that are in deep enough s#!t to need to switch to their sidearm regularly generally carry their own pistol that suits their preferences.

        1. avatar Caligula says:

          The M9 and PX4 Storm can be converted easily to a decocker version similar to how most Sigs operate.

        2. avatar Bryan says:

          Or, you could, and this is pretty radical,…..just not use the safety….

          People make such a huge deal out of a non issue.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        There’s also nothing wrong with NOT accepting a low standard in both training and proficiency. Elevate your soldiers to the level they need to be; don’t make excuses for them.

        Or…if we don’t want to speak in terms of “soldiers,” how about cops? They are FAR more likely to need/use their sidearm. Striker fired pistols don’t seem to have made the public (or the cops themselves) any safer due to the ‘dumbing down’ of the operation of said pistol.

        I’m not saying they have made things “worse,” either, because I don’t have the data either way. However, I will say that it my observation that nothing good ever comes from the lowering of standards for the purpose of lowering standards, and cops/soldiers were capable of learning proper and safe use of firearms before the striker fire craze took over.

  6. avatar anonymous says:

    Am I the only one who thinks that pistol is just straight ugly? It looks like they did things just to do them with the design… “Yeah, Jim…. I like the trigger, but is there any way you could integrate zig-zags into the design?” “And Bob, how about you put retarded looking columns as the serrations…. and put them down the whole side of the pistol.”

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      No, you’re not the only one.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      No, you’re not the only one.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      I was just thinking that it looks better than the Glocks I own.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        Blasphemy! It looks like it may be easier to manipulate the gun with gloves on, but that doesn’t mean it looks good. As much as I can appreciate the functionality, it’s still ugly.

    4. avatar Aerindel says:

      No, no your not. It makes glocks look good.

    5. avatar Joelt1 says:

      Indeed. The serrations are the worst. I thought Beretta like to make flashy modern designs. What happened here? I wonder if they just rushed the design out the door, I thought I read somewhere that’s its still just a prototype they are showing, and they plan to have a finished version when they show it to the military.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        You nailed it. I was pondering “what makes that gun ugly?” for the last few hours. I’m not an artist, and I don’t do these sorts of “this is why this is ugly” evaluations easily or quickly.

        In the end, I agree with you. All the choppy lines at right angles to the long axis all over the gun (the wanter rail, the slide grips, the trigger notches) all make it look like this gun was machined… and then given to a pack of rabid beavers for finishing. And to find out that it is a Beretta… that makes my brain twist into a pretzel.

  7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Wonder what ” will have an “aggressive price vs performance ratio’” means… Sounds like marketing hype without a definition. Probably going to be expensive, regardless.

    I’m perfectly happy with the Springfield XD 9mm. Works as expected, every time, eats anything. What more is necessary?

    While I do understand the desire some have for ever new guns, a few billion more stolen tax dollars to give the military a different toy just doesn’t do much for me.

    1. avatar MeRp says:

      Aggressively raise price and lower performance, to get as high a ratio as possible. At least that is what it sounds like….

    2. avatar Charles5 says:

      Haha. You think the government uses tax dollars to buy this kind of stuff?

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Well, or pretend “borrowed” money, but that will all have to be paid by taxes eventually, unless they simply default. In any case, it’s stolen money or stolen goods… governments don’t produce anything but destruction, so stolen goods is all they have… ever.

  8. avatar Ahil925 says:

    So where is the picture of the new beretta?

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Meh … another striker fired pistol with a polymer frame.

    1. I know. Right?
      What’s wrong with the M&P?

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    When are manufacturers going to standardize magazines? I don’t really care which one, just pick one and be done with it.

    Wouldn’t it be fantastic if every modern pistol of the same caliber and size category used the same (or at least interchangeable) magazines? Smith and Wesson M&P, Glock, Springfield XD/M, CZ, Beretta, Sig, Kahr, etc.

    Not only would that be incredibly convenient, it could actually be a significant tactical advantage in a combat situation since you could use anyone’s magazine if you ran out of ammunition … assuming you have the same caliber and size category of course.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Never going to happen.

      The margin on magazines is ferociously high. Think about it: With a whole gun, the maker has to pay 10% (on handguns, it’s 11% on long guns) excise tax, then there’s a bunch of margin that has to be left in the price for the first-tier distributor, then the retailer.

      With a magazine, there’s no serial number, no ATF control, no excise tax, no need to give up margin to first/second level distributors & retailers… it’s pure profit.

      There will be absolutely no effort expended by a major handgun maker to using someone else’s magazine.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Which is a bummer because it removes incentive for folks like me to diversify. I’ve got multiple copies of certain guns simply due to magazine compatibility. Thankfully ARs (mostly) use the same mags. I’ve got dozens of double stack Glock, Smith, and AR double stack mags. With barrel and spring mods it is easier for me to switch calibers than brands.

        1. avatar dracon1201 says:

          Nah, it’s good to keep them different. It allows manufacturers to differentiate the length and width of the grip size. That, and unless you are designing around my 19rd CZ mag, I’m not taking a polymer 17rd mag.

      2. avatar Achmed says:

        Wisdom, if you look at the actual margins they are usually in the accessories and all the other “stuff”.

      3. avatar 2AMexican says:

        Maybe not on purpose. For you Taurus PT111 G2 owners, Mecgar SIg P226 mags works just fine in the G2. I had no problems during my trip to the range.

  11. avatar William says:

    “Beretta unveiled its first striker-fired pistol”

    When I read this I had to go to my gun safe to make sure my NANO was not something I had dreamed.

    1. avatar Aerindel says:

      Maybe a bad dream. I think everyone, especially beretta, wants to forget about the NoNo

      1. avatar William says:

        Like hell! They have sold a ton for them and it’s still selling great. I love mine.

        1. avatar Alex says:

          Totally agree. The Nano is a great pistol, as well as being striker fired. It’s the Glock single stack 9/40 that Glock fans want, but for now they only get the .380. People who don’t care for the Nano likely couldn’t shoot them very well, either that or they’ve never shot one and just enjoy being negative or contrary.

  12. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Another answer to a problem that doesn’t exist. Sigs chassis modular & Sigmas look. If you are not willing to train with a carry weapon you should not be carrying. My wife, son and I make time every week for range
    time & laser dry fire.

  13. avatar dracon1201 says:

    This might be a good change over the low capacity of the 320. At least if there is a .45.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      Huh?

      1. avatar Aerindel says:

        I agree, WTF is he trying to say?

    2. avatar younggun21 says:

      Have I been taking crazy pills, last time i checked the 320 had carry models accepting 15 round magazines and full-size with standard 17 rounders. Pretty standard in polymer striker fired market as far as I’m aware.

  14. avatar Ray says:

    Looks like a homerun to me. My biggest beef with the gen 4 Glock is the slipperiness of the slide.

    1. avatar j says:

      Looks like a swing and a miss to me…..Sig has a probably insurmountable lead in the MHS trial…..

  15. avatar Swarf says:

    Looks a lot like my Ruger SR9.

    Except no dog dick on top.

  16. avatar DickDanger says:

    I already have a ruger SR9. Why would I want another one? And what happened to the polymer full size Remington was going to offer?

  17. avatar scott thompson says:

    the deep slide serations seem the most unique feature.

  18. avatar scott thompson says:

    as far as price, i have a 253 dollar taurus pt111 and as of 500 plus rounds its accurate and not a single problem.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Interesting 2 people mention the 111g2. I’vehad4Taurus’ that ran perfectly. With the steep decline of Brazilian currency I can pick up a 111g2 for $200/2 mags right now on the internet. Check out auction arms or gunbroker. It’s what DyGunsmith said about markup(if you think that’s bad look at jewelry markup). Or why is a Croatian gun worth so much from Springfield(but they make good guns). I’m not a cop,not competing and don’t care what anyone thinks of the gun I carry.

      1. avatar Retired LEO says:

        Since I depend on my sidearm to protect my life as well as others even retired still work a few shifts a month. I worry more about the thing working everytime I need it to. I also look at it like the R51 fiasco, until it’d been out a few years and no major problems keep it. I have one of the first 500 Sig 250’s to come out I can squeeze the magwell it’s that thin. My don says it feels like a toy, Ruger SR series feel the least toy like to him. He shoots a 92 & 96 in stock service looked at the pic first words it needs a mini reflex sight, why a flat front trigger guard and the cocking gulleys look dangerous on a service/duty weapon.

    2. avatar j says:

      Your gamble seems to be paying off for now…..can’t say the same for a lot of Taurus owners……..

  19. avatar scott thompson says:

    i applaud the aggressive price to performance movement

  20. avatar fishydude says:

    I won’t buy anything for myself that has a “reversible mag release.” I’m lefty. Wife is righty. 3 of the 4 pistols we own are fully ambidextrous. The only righty pistol is my wife’s CCP.
    So this won’t be on my list. Not anything from Sig.
    Maybe more company beside H&K and FNH make ambidextrous pistols. But so far these are the two I like.

    1. avatar Retired LEO says:

      Try a Walther P99 or S&W 99 the paddle mag release is great once you get used to it. Only striker fired I have left that aren’t carried for classes or evals. The SW99 can even be found in .45acp. Have a p99 in .40 just traded for a SW99 in 9mm & have had a .45 for years.

    2. avatar Bryan says:

      I agree, give the Walther p99 or the PPQ M1 a look. It is a highly ambidextrous design and I have come to really prefer the European ambidextrous paddle style magazine release. The PPQ also has one of the best triggers available in a striker fired pistol design.

  21. avatar johnny says:

    Late to the game like always. Ugly gun. Like Colt they’re been trying to not spend money on R&D and just rehashing old designs, but at least they’re changing. Who knows what’s colts doing.

    They should bring back their rotating barrel and combine it with the striker mech. AND USE OLD MAGS!.

  22. avatar Brian says:

    So they made a Glock.
    Well, you know what they say about imitation….

    1. avatar LC says:

      Thats what I said. And they’re a bit late to the game. Whatever I guess.

  23. avatar Michael says:

    I like the look of this pistol, The serrations may work better than conventional rear serrations, will have to try it. The flat trigger guard may allow mounting attachments, wonder what Berretta working on.
    The finger groove rest may allow for a good positioning of the trigger finger, especially with gloves.
    A good effort, incorporating some interesting features that Berretta think they Army may want, I am sure they have not decided on features yet.
    Does anyone know how many rounds of 9mm the magazine holds? I cannot see offering less than the 17 of the Glock 17.
    I think the only alternative to the 9mm is the .40S&W, but with the FBI going to the 9mm I think this is unlikely. I am happy with a 9mm on my hip.

  24. avatar Rick says:

    It needs to have a spot in front of the rear sight to mount a mini-red dot sight that can co-witness with the rear sight or to be quickly detached and the rear sight used in case the red dot is damage. It would then be perfect.

  25. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    It looks “unoriginal”…and what’s with the gigantic slide thingies?

  26. avatar Gatha58 says:

    I think this design is butt ugly compared to Beretta’s hammer fired semis. Looks like a clone of several other striker fired pistols. Hope they don’t stop making the hammer fired design with a safety. Love my PX4. Looks good fires great and I like the idea of the safety. And it looks like a Beretta, not some cheap clone to compete with Glocks. But then, I am not a fan of striker fired pistols. Though I do own a SCCY for a second handgun. Got to say it even looks better than this one.

    1. avatar Newshawk says:

      Actually, the SCCY CPX1 & CPX2 are double action hammer fired pistols with an internal hammer, just like the SIG P250. http://www.sccy.com/products/cpx-1-cb-9mm

  27. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    With the M9A3 in then out then in then…well, could this be the Army’s new pistol? Probably not with the current budget problems the government is encountering.

  28. avatar LC says:

    “At first blush, the new wundergun sounds like Beretta’s answer to the SIG P320”

    Can people stop saying this?
    The same thing was said about the FNS9 and the HK VP9. “just another version of the SIG P320”

    Actually, no its not. The POS P320 is irrelevant when it comes to the striker fire legacy compared to glock.

    Its their “johnny come lately” version to rush in on the striker fire market that Glock has held for going on 20 plus years now.

    But SIG P320 it is not. The P320 will be long and forgotten into irrelevancy.

    1. avatar Newshawk says:

      Considering that the FNS-9 was introduced in 2011, I think it would be more correct to say that the P320 is SIG’s answer to the FNS-9… unless you meant to say “FNS-9C,” and I’d still disagree with you.

    2. avatar j says:

      Thanks for bringing the comedy……yea, the p320 is such a “dud” that its being adopted by close to 100 LE agencies already and its been on the market for barely a year…..

  29. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    About damn time. Would you look at those slide serrations! Geeze!

    1. avatar Ditters says:

      I like the serrations, especially that there are wide gaps between them so your fingers could fit into the grooves. They seem very practical. I bet the serrations are a military design request to make the slide easier to manipulate for weaklings, women, in wet conditions, or to do one hand racking on a surface.

      Also, notice that the rear sight has a ledge for slide manipulation. Good work, I say. Although I wonder if the serrations will create issues with holstering or snags.

  30. avatar David says:

    After giving the US military the garbage M-9, Beretta should be banned from even competing for the new pistol contract.

  31. avatar Brian says:

    if the government won’t let you modify a contract, it’s because they want something or someone different.
    We do gov contracts all the time, if they want your product, they write the contract around your product.
    Beretta knows this, everyone does, they just don’t want the gravy train to stop.

    Generals know what’s out there and they write the contracts to favor what they want.
    Firearms history will show that just because the military adopts it, that doesn’t mean it beat the competition.

  32. avatar Ditters says:

    I think this pistol looks promising. It all depends on how it shoots and what the trigger is like, but it appears to incorporate many of the features that I like about many other pistols but aren’t available in any single one: minimal controls, no safety, good ergonomics (at least in appearance), aggressive serrations on both the back and front of the slide, modularity with a stainless chassis. It seems like the love child of a Glock, Walther, and P320. You don’t have to be original–just be good.

    I don’t think it looks ugly either–not that it matters coming from a Glock owner. If its reliable and has a nice trigger, its going to be at the top of my list. I am looking forward to it.

  33. avatar Sledgecrowbar says:

    ‘Beretta unveiled its first Glock&P pistol at the IDEX 2015 show in Abu Dhabi, saying it incorporates the latest developments in tactical handguns and will have an ‘aggressive price vs performance ratio’.

    Anyone else read that?

  34. avatar Andy says:

    This looks a lot like my Smith & Wesson model SD9VE , except for grip angle , and the Glock looking trigger on the APX , I think it might be a close copy of the M&P , I wish the. Military would go with the M&P , to me it is a fine weapons system , more ergonomic than the Glock and a better trigger pull than the Glock , this Beretta has not even been in large scale field tests yet , I wonder if they will get a pass even if it doesn’t cut it , I like Beretta’s too but I don’t trust a new firearm , for the military , that hasn’t been tested for a couple of years at least , I hope that S&W gets the bid lower than anyone else in the running . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  35. avatar Grindstone says:

    Reminds me a bit of the VP9.

  36. avatar R says:

    Are gun manufacturers just out of touch with their customers, or is this the kind of crap people REALLY want? Yet *ANOTHER* Glock imitation that undoubtedly does nothing better – and somehow manages to be even uglier – than its forerunner.

    1. avatar Ditters says:

      They are in touch with me. I don’t think its ugly, but don’t care about looks anyways. Its a tool, not a sculpture. The serrations seem practical. It looks ergonomic–more so than my Glock. Has a modular serialized steel chassis so that the plastic frame is a non-FFL part and is replaceable.

      I don’t get all of the negativity. What do people expect? A lazer gun? Or should they continue making the style of pistols that are falling out of favor with LE and Military?

      1. avatar Bryan says:

        Thank you….someone else gets it. All the block fan boys are in a tizzy….But glock was the 1st! It does things just fine for me! Who gives a shit? Imagine if that attitude kept new guns from being made because the 1911 fan boys had THEIR way.

        I for one think it looks nice, though, I tend to be open minded and like industrial designs as much as ones with smooth sensuous lines. It comes down to performance in the end. It would however, never replace my 92/96 series Brigadiers. Always such under appreciated guns, much maligned but the ignorant, the inexperienced, and those who had the misfortune of using military examples that were run hard and put away wet, with lowest bidder mags in tow…..

  37. avatar strongarm says:

    Beretta resisted to survive “The Open Top Slide” image even at the “Locked Breech Wondernines Age” using a slghtly different Walther P38 Hinged Block Lock which was hard to make and expensive as compared popular Browning Tilted Barrel Type and need a support to continue that fight. Support came with the Government Purchase of Model 92. But, Glock started the plastic frame concept with striker firing which was a big money saver for well controlled huge machine planted big manufacturers and Beretta again resisted slaving of Browning
    Tilted Barrel Lock as using slightly more expensive Rotating Barrel Lock on their plastic receivered types even if giving up the Open Top Image. However, manufacturing costs rised up and most probably by force of Beretta USA, Italian Headquarter accepted bondage of popular Browning Tilted Barrel Lock with small but different Model Nano. In fact, this was the end of Beretta Legend and begining the age of different and attractive outside appearances delivered to the hands of well known designers.

    Seemingly, APX is a continuation of proven Nano construction with some service pistol additions like both side slide releases, cocking indicator and a dismount lever with outside wing. It has same steel subframe with serial number window at left of plastic frame and same decocker bolt at right in front of frame retainer pin. Pistol resembles nearly to every striker firing plastic frame handguns from Glock to HK and mostly, to CZ100.

    Striker firers are preferred for their easier protection against to ouside dirts with lesser openings at outer space as compared to hammer guns and containing fewer parts granting easier maintenance and sturdier construction and if parts location made wisely, lower barrel axis for controlling the gun at follow up shots. They also have another advantage of minimizing the battery off firing with forwardly cocking strikers, if compressed against to the recoil spring, by fact that, the closer of the breechbolt to the barrel, the more chance getting compression to detonate the primer.

    Disarming the impact element for take down is a side effect for striker firers by the fact of the sear being on the path out of striker way out hrough the frame rails and APX appearently uses the same sidewardly sliding bolt for this purpose which needing a separate hard tipped apparatus like, at least, a ball point pen. This means the sear may leave its connection with striker underlug by an outsire punch coming from left side. Though that solely ends the cocked situation by fact of striker block stopping the forward run of striker preventing an accidental discharge, it also causes the user as disarmed with a chamber loaded but uncocked handgun.

    1. avatar Caligula says:

      If the rotating bolt is more expensive to produce, then why have PX-4 Storm models been priced the same or less than many of their striker-fired, Browning style competitors such as Glock?

  38. avatar Caligula says:

    Beretta is late to the striker fired military & police side arm offering, but so was Sig Sauer and HK. So what? Honda was late to the mini van market but now arguably makes the best mini van. Better late than never. I’m not going to pass any final judgements until the product is released and I get an opportunity to try it out. If Beretta gives it an aggressive price point below HK VP9 and in line or slightly lower than the Glock Gen 4, it could be a very attractive package.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email