Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 141
  1. #21
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    More like 25 years ago on the Glock. But the Glock was pretty well field-proven in five or so years, and had been tested (in multiples) by numerous military organization, including the vaunted GSG-9, and was quickly adopted by LE agencies. I remember Miami causing a big stir when it was one of the first big American agencies to chose the Glock.

    Neither the XD nor the Bersa has been adopted on such a scale, and both have been on the market for quite a while. If you include the HS2000 years, the XD now has now been around for nine years, and has nowhere near the depth and breadth of the Glock's track record at that same point in Glock production history. Bersas have been around as long as I can remember, and they too lack a substantial track record as service pistols thus far.
    Last edited by Mike Barham; 03-05-2008 at 10:11 AM. Reason: Once again, I fail the grammar class.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  2. #22
    submoa is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    784
    Some guns define the manufacturer.

    Bersa is known for the Thunder .380.
    Kel-Tec is known for the P-3AT.

    Unfortunately, like an actor who has one long lived wildly successful role, these companies have been stereotyped by their most popular product. They are victims of their own success. When you want a deep cover, small .380 CCW these are the products that make the list. But when you need a more serious service pistol, you look elsewhere.

    Are their products any good in larger calibers? I wouldn't know. I don't know anyone who has one. But if you need a small .380....

  3. #23
    Landor's Avatar
    Landor is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    I have a Bersa 380 CC model. It is as finicky as you can get with ammo. It will only feed Hornaday JHP so far and WWB FMJ. Everything else I tried is jam-o-matic. Now normally I would say it is just the gun but a fried of mine has the Bersa 380 full size and it is just as finicky. I trust it with the right ammo but other then that it is my last Bersa 380. When the Ruger LCP 380 hits the stores I will be all over that.

    Another friend of mine has the Bersa 9MM and that thing shoots great. I would buy one of them in a minute if I wanted one but I have enough 9mm.

  4. #24
    Joeshwa24's Avatar
    Joeshwa24 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    I live in a small town in New Mexico
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    More like 25 years ago on the Glock. But the Glock was pretty well field-proven in five or so years, and had been tested (in multiples) by numerous military organization, including the vaunted GSG-9, and was quickly adopted by LE agencies. I remember Miami causing a big stir when it was one of the first big American agencies to chose the Glock.

    Neither the XD nor the Bersa has been adopted on such a scale, and both have been on the market for quite a while. If you include the HS2000 years, the XD now has now been around for nine years, and has nowhere near the depth and breadth of the Glock's track record at that same point in Glock production history. Bersas have been around as long as I can remember, and they too lack a substantial track record as service pistols thus far.
    I totally understand this point and it is both valid and true. However, In a world of budget cuts and a "If it aint broke" attitude the XD never had a chance. I think that the XD is just as good as a glock, thereís about as much "Proof" out there that XD's are better than glocks as there is "Proof" that they are worse. What I am trying to say is you can no more definitely say that XDís are a lesser pistol than the Glock than you can definitively say that they are a greater pistol than the Glock. The point being that the XD is just as reliable as a glock and beyond that itís personal preference.

  5. #25
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    I don't know how one can definitively say the XD is, overall, as reliable as the Glock in the absence of actual objective evidence that it is.

    I think the XD is a fine pistol, but it doesn't have nearly the track record that the Glock does, and hasn't been put through nearly the multiple wringers the Glock has. The info we have on the XD so far comes mainly from the results of a few tests conducted by amateurs on single specimens of the gun. That's a pretty far cry from the mounds of testing done on Glocks by professional militaries and LE agencies.

    And the Glock has a lower bore axis and a shorter trigger reset.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  6. #26
    niadhf's Avatar
    niadhf is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rural New York
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    And the Glock has a lower bore axis and a shorter trigger reset.
    axis this.
    i'm joking by the way. I think in terms of the "more extensive testing and use by this term in its life vs......" someone had a good point about timing. The Glock came out at a time (25 Years? good time flies) when many agencies, armies etc were re-thinking their armement. That does tend to lend itself to more extensive testing in a short time.

    You know i don't think the Glock is a bad pistol, I just don't like it for me.(yes i have shot them.)
    So to avoid another round of "Glock vs ......" lets just say
    They both (in this case) seem good, to each, his/her own.

    (and my 1911 has a shorter reset so Nya nya )
    ok i'll head that one off, the ONLY problems i have had with it in 17 years is when I put one of the double springs in backwards. I bought it used and put nothing more into is so its not some x thousands special.

  7. #27
    submoa is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    Bersas haven't been adopted (or, to the best of my knowledge, even tested) by any major military or law enforcement agency. This means that objective, easily accessible test results don't exist. Thus, their short- and long-term reliability and durability are in question.
    Bersa Thunder 9 pistols are standard issue pistols for the Argentinean Federal Police and the Buenos Aires Province Police.

  8. #28
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    Quote Originally Posted by submoa View Post
    Bersa Thunder 9 pistols are standard issue pistols for the Argentinean Federal Police and the Buenos Aires Province Police.
    Now we're getting somewhere! Is there a link to their testing procedures and standards anywhere?

    (I suspect, sadly, that like most Third World countries, these guys just adopted it because it's homegrown.)
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  9. #29
    submoa is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by submoa View Post
    Bersa Thunder 9 pistols are standard issue pistols for the Argentinean Federal Police and the Buenos Aires Province Police.
    Now we're getting somewhere! Is there a link to their testing procedures and standards anywhere?

    (I suspect, sadly, that like most Third World countries, these guys just adopted it because it's homegrown.)
    Any official docs will probably be in Spanish.

    Argentina is not Third World. New Orleans is closer to that standard.

    Have you ever known government procurement not to be influenced by politics?

  10. #30
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    Quote Originally Posted by submoa View Post
    Any official docs will probably be in Spanish.
    I'm from Arizona.

    Argentina is not Third World. New Orleans is closer to that standard.
    I looked up this definition:

    Third World: Phrase used originally to distinguish those countries that were aligned neither with the capitalist West, the First World, nor with the socialist East, the Second World. It remains widely used to describe non-industrialized, ex-colonial, or developing countries despite the collapse of the Second World.

    Cosmopolitan Third World, perhaps, but I think Argentina is still a "developing" country. It's hardly a major world power in any sense (political, industrial, economic, etc.). But I may be ignorant, having never ventured to Argentina.

    Semantics, perhaps, and not having much to do with guns.

    Have you ever known government procurement not to be influenced by politics?
    The JSSAP tests certainly weren't. But it's one thing to put a bunch of guns through the wringer and choose one that passed all the tests because you want to put missiles in the pistol's country of origin. It's another to only test one pistol and adopt it because it's made in your home country.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  11. #31
    submoa is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    The JSSAP tests certainly weren't. But it's one thing to put a bunch of guns through the wringer and choose one that passed all the tests because you want to put missiles in the pistol's country of origin. It's another to only test one pistol and adopt it because it's made in your home country.
    I wouldn't know about the selection process used in Argentina, do you? M9s are made in Maryland.

    AHEM... JSSAP POLITICS FREE? HA HA HA

    In 1981, the US Army was given control of the JSSAP pistol trials. 85 requirements were laid down for the winning XM9 pistol; 72 were mandatory while 13 were desirable. Only four pistols were entered: the Beretta 92SB (an improved 92S-1), the HK P7M13, the S&W 459A, and the SIG-Sauer P226. However, all four failed, and strangely, the Beretta finished dead last, even behind the M1911A1.

    Congress and the GAO were infuriated by the waste of money with no apparent results. Procurement funds for additional .45 ACP ammunition was withheld until the US Army could formulate a test series that a manufacturer could pass. The XM9 trials started again in January 1984. During the mean time, Beretta had improved the 92SB again, calling the resulting pistol the 92SB-F. The competitors included the Colt SSP, the FN Double Action Hi-Power, the HK P7M13, the SIG-Sauer P226, the S&W 459, the Steyr GB, and the Walther P88. In the end, only the P226 and 92SB-F were considered to have passed all of the tests.

    After a series of bids in which SIG-Sauer was the low bidder, Beretta was finally given the contract due to a lower price quoted on its spare parts. Needless to say, SIG-Sauer was extremely annoyed, and there were allegations that Beretta was shown SIG-Sauer's final bid in order to under-cut it. Moreover, the other manufacturers were upset for a variety of reasons. Several had worked up bids before they were told that they were in fact not eligible. Moreover, S&W's pistols had failed due to a mathematical error while converting to English units from Metric in determining firing pin energy.

    After a series of GAO and Congressional investigations, another series of tests similar to the XM9 trials were ordered for 1987. However, these started off with controversy as well. The US Army fought to keep the 92F (now the M9) from being retested since it had passed the XM9 trials. SIG-Sauer insisted that the P226 didn't need to retested either since it had passed XM9 as well. On the other hand, S&W noted that the Beretta M9s were no longer being built to the standards of the XM9 trials, having received relaxation of several requirements including accuracy.

    Around the same time, reports of M9 slide separations were becoming rampant in both the US Navy and Army. The Navy SEALs were arguably abusing their pistols by firing over-pressure ammunition in suppressed examples, while the Army's separations were blamed on the use of recycled slides from a French contract which contained tellurium. Events were becoming so bad that a Safety-of-Use message recommended that slides be replaced after 3000 rounds had been fired; however, this recommendation was lowered to 1,000 rounds after a M9 suffered a slide separation with less than 3,000 rounds fired.

    Beretta took a two-pronged response. First, they sued the Department of the Navy because the SEAL Teams had leaked info of the slide separations to Ruger. Second, they designed a hammer pin with an over-sized head to fit into a groove machined in the slide. Thus, if the slide separated, it would not strike the user in the face. Commercially, these pistols are known as the 92FS

    The XM10 tests were finally rescheduled for 1988 after being canceled the year before for lack of participation. Beretta refused to submit samples, so the US Army used off-the-shelf M9s. Beretta protested this, but since they had already refused samples, this protest was rejected. SIG-Sauer also refused to submit samples, standing on principle that they had passed XM9 the first time. S&W submitted their 459 again, and Ruger submitted their new P85.

    Again, there were allegations of impropriety. The Army refused to relax their requirement for a chrome-lined bore, even if the barrel was made from stainless steel. Moreover, the S&W failed tests that they had passed in XM9. They were the only pistols to pass the XM9 accuracy requirements, yet they failed the XM10. The S&W also failed the corrosion tests in spite of the fact that the affected parts which failed XM10 were made from stainless steel, while the same parts in the successful XM9 samples were made from carbon steel. Ruger wasn't provided any reasons as to why their samples failed.


    PS.

    "Third World" is 20th Century obsolete, based on ideology that doesn't even exist. Under a more applicable economic definition... GDP of Argentina outpaces New Orleans.

  12. #32
    akr
    akr is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew_Rami_P View Post
    I think alot of the people who purchase Bersa firearms tend to be new to guns and are attracted to the low price, Many people who are new to guns don't understand how to break them in, clean, and maintain them properly all of which will lead to reliability issues. My wife has a .380cc and she loves it. We would definitly buy Bersa again.
    I think you nailed it right on the head.

  13. #33
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    I have no idea how the Argentinians selected the pistol. That's why I asked you for a link.

    I agree that the JSSAP tests were affected by politics, hence my comment on the missiles. Not only that, the Air Force seemed to have an institutional bias toward the Beretta. But at least the tests were stringent and the Beretta passed them all. It's a good pistol, and it works reliably over here for us. I honestly don't think the domestic pistols tested were as good, though I grant that the SIG P226 is also an excellent pistol.

    Slide separations with the Beretta weren't "rampant," to the best of my knowledge. Do you have a hard number on how many actually happened? I am only aware of about a dozen. Which sucks if you're the guy it happens to, but a dozen out of hundreds of thousands isn't what I'd call "rampant." That's just hyperbole.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  14. #34
    submoa is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    I have no idea how the Argentinians selected the pistol. That's why I asked you for a link.
    I have no idea about Argentine procurement process, just the issue of the pistol to their LE. Therefore I question your assertion that they, "only test one pistol and adopt it because it's made in your home country".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    I agree that the JSSAP tests were affected by politics, hence my comment on the missiles. Not only that, the Air Force seemed to have an institutional bias toward the Beretta. But at least the tests were stringent and the Beretta passed them all. It's a good pistol, and it works reliably over here for us. I honestly don't think the domestic pistols tested were as good, though I grant that the SIG P226 is also an excellent pistol.
    The version you use is the equivalent of the 92FS. Slide failures occurred on the 92F. Continued use of M9 nomenclature masks this change.

    SIG Sauer is a Swiss/German company. SIG P226 also passed all tests but was passed over due to spares pricing. A cloud of corruption stains Beretta's quote as there are claims that SIGs pricing was leaked to them prior to their submission. Your comments about Air Force bias and missile deployment lends credibility to claims of undo political influence in the procurement process. Given the history, I prefer the M11 to the M9 in the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    Slide separations with the Beretta weren't "rampant," to the best of my knowledge. Do you have a hard number on how many actually happened? I am only aware of about a dozen. Which sucks if you're the guy it happens to, but a dozen out of hundreds of thousands isn't what I'd call "rampant." That's just hyperbole.
    Beretta M9 slide separation is well documented in the January 1989 GAO report http://archive.gao.gov/d15t6/137930.pdf. At that time the M9 was not fully deployed from the initial contract.

    An overview of the M9 slide failure issue and its handling is available http://www.thegunzone.com/m9-a.html. Slide failures were associated with Tellurium (Te), an additive used to control shape, but reduced fracture toughness. Te slides were not used in original XM9 trials but introduced in production. To minimize injury, Beretta increased the size of the hammer pivot (92F to 92FS). Later, Te was quietly removed from Beretta slide metallurgy.

    Total count of Navy SEAL slide failures in the field is classified.

    In the end, it appears that Beretta provided 'ringers' for the XM9 (JASSP) evaluations, cost cut in production, got caught, and now produce the reliable, but different, gun you are using today.

  15. #35
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    I wasn't "asserting" that's what the Argentinians did, merely speculating that it would be a lousy way to choose a pistol compared to a more extensive testing regimen. Since neither of us know about the procurement process, though, my guess is as good as yours about how they selected it.

    So then you don't have an actual number on the slide failures, but state that they were "rampant?"

    I realize a lot of people are biased against the Beretta. It's not my favorite pistol either, but I have seen many in service and have observed them to be utterly reliable and long-lived pistols, even under poor conditions.
    Last edited by Mike Barham; 03-07-2008 at 08:11 AM.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  16. #36
    submoa is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    So then you don't have an actual number on the slide failures, but state that they were "rampant?"
    Per my previous post, the January 1989 GAO report on slide failures (http://archive.gao.gov/d15t6/137930.pdf) shows rampant slide failure was a fact for the 92SBF (92F) chosen to be M9. Since you didn't seem to like it, I'll quote from an earlier September 1988 GAO report (http://archive.gao.gov/d16t6/136824.pdf) that you might like better, Quality and Safety Problems with the Beretta M9 Handgun.


    The first laboratory slide failure, which occurred on February 8, 1988, involved an Army M9 firing NAKI standard U.S.-produced M882 ammunition. This weapon was one of three M9 handguns being tested for problems related to the barrel. As part of the test, all three weapons had been inspected after 6,000 rounds using a scanning election microscope (SEM) or magnetic particle inspection (MPI) process, and there were no indications of slide cracks. When the M9 slide failure occurred at 6,007 rounds, the broken slide and the slides on the other two test weapons were removed for metallurgical evaluation. The evaluation showed that one of the other slides also had fatigue cracks. This evaluation marked the beginning of an Army slide failure test program to determine why the failures had occurred.

    The Army replaced the slides on the three weapons and continued to fire the M9s, using NATO standard ammunition, until each broke. One slide failed at 4,908 rounds, another failed at 21,942 rounds, and the third failed at 21.486 rounds.

    The next grouping test results for four other weapons: one M9 and three Army-owned commercial (92SBF) handguns. The slide on the M9 failed after 7,806 rounds, and the slides on the three 92SBFs failed at 17,408, 21,264, and 24,656 rounds.

    In 1985, the Army acquired three commercial 92SBFs for testing to determine which part would fail first. The first part to fail was a barrel. After the barrel failed, the Army suspended testing and inspected the weapons using an WI process. The inspection showed slide cracks on all three weapons. Because slides are considered spare parts and there had not been any slide failures at that point in time, the cracked slides did not raise any specific concerns.

    The final grouping of weapons involved three M9s that were being tested as part of an annual comparison test. After the weapons were fired 10,000 rounds, the slides were inspected using the MPI process and one slide was cracked. The Army decided to fire all three weapons until the slides failed. Slide failure occurred at the 23,310 round mark on one weapon, 30,083 on another weapon, and 30,545 on the third weapon.


    When every production M9 (92SBF/92F) randomly selected for testing actually fails due to slide failure, and at a low round count, yes I'd say the problem was rampant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    I realize a lot of people are biased against the Beretta.
    Don't be so defensive. I was responding to your statement, "The JSSAP tests certainly weren't," (influenced by politics). Sarcasm is hard to hear on an internet forum. I stated that JSSAP result was a gun with rampant slide failures and backed up my statement with facts. If I do have a bias, its against political interference in military procurement. Approve testing criteria, set a budget, then stay the hell away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Barham View Post
    have observed them to be utterly reliable and long-lived pistols, even under poor conditions.
    As I stated before, the gun currently in use as the M9 is the Beretta 92FS. The 92FS is a reliable and durable gun. The 92FS only exists because of the slide failure controversy with the 92SBF/92Fpistol selected by JSSAP to be the M9. You can thank the rampant slide failures of the 92SBF/92F for the 92SF that you use today.

  17. #37
    akr
    akr is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    79
    I love my 96FS.

  18. #38
    DevilsJohnson is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,373
    Getting back to the Bersa thing. i bought one a while back thinking it might make a good backup type thing and it wasn't much money so I wouldn't cry too much if it wasn't all that good. I can say it's a pretty good pistol. It does what I would expect of anything in the caliber I was using (380)

    __________________________________________________ _____________

    As to this huge thing about those Barettas..people are going to like what they like. Though to compare a 92 Beretta to a 226 Sig for me would be a no brainer. I all about the 226 in that race. I've owned both and I kept the Sig. Why? Because it was more accurate, more reliable, and feels better in my hand.

    I don't much care what tests say especially in the government is involved. I had run my own tests. Thousands of rounds at 25-50 yards(Figuring if I can group in under 3" there I'm good at the 21 feet most all states CCW qualifies). I really like how the Sig breaks down over the Beretta too. The Sig was/is hands down the better of the two there. In fact. The Sig P226 is probably the most accurate Military type pistol I have shot period, though I will admit that the 226 I have shoots a little better than others I have got to hold and send lead down range. After shooting several of both I still have my opinion.

    __________________________________________________ _____________

    Now..Back o the Bersa. anyone getting one I would strongly advise getting to know it really well. Make sure to use only ammo that feeds easy for a couple hundred rounds and it will turn out to be a pretty good little pistol. The 380 is a little tough to take down at first but like most things..Everything is a pain in the rear untill you're used to it I've not owned th 9mm but have shot a couple..Not too bad

  19. #39
    akr
    akr is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    79
    The Sig 226 costs a lot more, and it should have the edge.

  20. #40
    Mike Barham's Avatar
    Mike Barham is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arizona, baby!
    Posts
    5,081
    submoa, I concede your point on the 92F. I was unable to download the PDF file (bandwidth here sucks), so I appreciate you quoting the second for me. I do not know how many 92F failures occurred in the field/range, but I accept the laboratory evidence.

    I think you misunderstood my comment on the JSSAP tests, or I wrote poorly. I was trying to reply to your statement about "test not being influenced by politics" by agreeing that the JSSAP tests were politically influenced by our desire to put missiles in Italy. I think there was also some personal bias toward the Beretta with the Air Force testing personnel.

    Quite honestly, I think the SIG P226 is a better pistol than the M9, and would rather they'd selected it. But I do think the (current) M9 is a fine service sidearm, regardless of how it was finally achieved. It's certainly been tested a lot.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - www.galcogunleather.com / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: http://www.nierecovery.com/.

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

berretta px4 sub compact vs bersa uc 9mm
,
bersa 226 review
,
bersa 380 torture test
,
bersa 9mm thunder pro ca legal?
,
bersa 9mm vs hi point 9mm
,

bersa thunder 380 review 2013

,

bersa thunder 40 ultra compact pro review

,

bersa thunder 9 review

,

bersa thunder torture test

,
bersa thunder ultra compact 40 review
,
ruger 68-19188
,
size comparison between bersa thunder 9 uc and thunder 9hc
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Springfield Armory

» HGF Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1