PX4 Compact Carry

>>32896663
I want to, but also can't justify sinking HK money into a PX4 when the regular compact and subcompacts can be had for much less. And I'm saying that as some one who loves Beretta and CCs a 92A1 regularly.

>>32896710
I might sell two of my guns just to help fund getting one. A P226 and Shield I don't need.

>front night sight and blacked out rear sight
Why do fudds like this shit? Have they ever tried it out at night?

>>32896816
trade two good guns for a garbage one, good idea

>>32896663

I have the full size

Did they realize no one wants the Pico?

>>32896894
Have you? Lots of people find 3 dots too busy and there's always a lot of focus on the front sight anyway so having a single reference point it fine. Glad to see you think Langdon is a Fudd though

File: 1462510439819.jpg (51KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x640px

>>32900448
>Have you?

Are you trying to imply people should actually try things out instead of complaining about it? This is too much for the average /k/ user.

>>32896663
I dont like em

>>32900631
The hammer in this photo drives me fucking crazy. It's all lopsided.

>>32896663
Looks nice, but...the barrel is too short :^)

>>32896663
>buying shit tear spaghetti pistol

I'm surprised this thread has no hate yet.

>>32896663
Anon, is your barrel in backwards?

>>32901680
Too short for what?

>>32896710
When you look at the price of decent night sights, the G conversion with low profile levers, and a PX4 D spring, the price comes out about even.

I'm not saying that justifies the price, just pointing it out.

>>32896894
Have you ever speed shot? It's the same idea, front sight, front sight, front sight, it works.

>>32896894
In total darkness, or with a weapon mounted light, most sights become black on black.

Go be stupid somewhere else.

>>32901739
>Too short for what?
Interesting me. Plenty of 3.5" or longer pistols out that are fully packable, fuck would I want a chunky three incher for. If they do something like this with the full size PX4 maybe I'll be interested. Like I said, it certainly is nice looking.

>>32901787
>Have you ever speed shot?

I don't think anyone here actually does this let alone knows what a shot timer does

>>32901917
Would be interested in seeing some velocity figures out of this gun.

>>32902010
3.2 inches of barrel.
I'd imagine googling "3 inch barrel 9mm velocity" would yield satisfactory results.

>>32902057
Different guns yield markedly different results.

>>32900448
>Have you?
Yes, that's why I made the comment. Not sure if you're stupid or just ignorant.
>Lots of people find 3 dots too busy and there's always a lot of focus on the front sight anyway so having a single reference point it fine. Glad to see you think Langdon is a Fudd though
Hey that's great, and Imma let you finish and all, but why the fuck are they going to waste their money on tritium then? Just get a fiber optic front sight or a painted front sight.

>>32901830
>In total darkness, or with a weapon mounted light, most sights become black on black.
In total darkness, no, that's not correct. Tritium night sights will be visible in total darkness. Except since your rear sight has no tritium in it, you'll have no idea what you're aiming at, totally negating the need for tritium in the first place.

With a weapon light, sure, but then again, why bother with tritium?

>>32901787
>Have you ever speed shot? It's the same idea, front sight, front sight, front sight, it works.
So what's the role of tritium in this?

>>32902107
>>32902057
>>32901917
You're looking at maybe 20 fps difference between a 3.2" barrel and a 3.5" barrel. 9mm is designed to be effective out of barrels this short. There's no effective difference.

>>32902107
>Different guns yield markedly different results.
yet any variation of a 3" 9mm, still yields shit results.

>>32902285
>9mm is designed to be effective out of barrels this short
9mm was developed as a shortened round to work in something closer to a 4" barrel. further variations went longer, not shorter.

>>32902334
Modern powders and hollow point designs are just as effective out of 3 inch barrels as 4 inch.

>>32901677
Wow, mine has the same problem and I thought it was just a defect, I guess that's just how the gun looks.

>>32902349
>they didn't have fast powders back then
bullshit. turn of the century powders are some of the fastest.

>Modern hollow point designs
are almost all compromises. you can't design a bullet for both a 3" and a 5", that perform exactly the same way

>>32901917
>something like this with the full size Px4
There is. You can buy the G conversion kit on their website that has a low profile decocker (no longer a manual safety) and low profile slide stop/release.

There are also plenty of companies that make night sights for the Px4.

>>32901677
>>32902454
20% optical illusion, 20% it was supposed to be that way, 60% itallian trash

File: 20170206_113729.jpg (250KB, 536x782px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 536x782px

>>32902489
It's 0% percent optical illusion.

>>32902107
No they don't you are a fucking retard. In real life, not Call of Duty, two 4.5" barrels produce the same muzzle velocities as do 3" barrels.

I am sure you will now sperg out and tell me how a worn in Douglas 18" produces 150fps more than a brand new Bartlein"

Please kill yourself

But there aren't any used ones yet, of course most of us didn't bother. Not that I really wanted one anyway, theyre still big subcompacts that outweigh my normal compact by 5 oz and they arent even steel framed.

File: BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch - 9mm Luger Results.png (43KB, 680x933px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 680x933px

>>32902655
>No they don't you are a fucking retard. In real life, not Call of Duty, two 4.5" barrels produce the same muzzle velocities as do 3" barrels.

Fairly impressive for any pistol really, but especially one so diminutively sized. Maybe a solid alternative to HK for an ultra-durable DA/SA service pistol?

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?16519-The-PX4-Compact-might-be-my-DA-SA-Glock-19&p=536351&viewfull=1#post536351

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?16519-The-PX4-Compact-might-be-my-DA-SA-Glock-19&p=536533&viewfull=1#post536533

>>32902274
>So what's the role of tritium in this?


uuhhhh, a single front sight tritium post with block out rears is in essence a "cave man eotech", as I said, it's all about tracking the front sight in speed shooting and practical shooting, what dot's (pun intended) are not connecting for you?

>>32904142
This may be semi-related but does that same rule apply for fiber optic sights? should I just get the front sight for my carry gun or should I get the rear as well?

>>32904167
It's personal preference.

My experience with "defensive" style shooting, or speed shooting is that you only have the time and focus for the front sight, having two additional floating only gets in the way - I make mine (front post) as prominent as possible for this reason.

>>32902736
>theyre still big subcompacts that outweigh my normal compact by 5 oz
I'm assuming your compact is striker-fired? Hammer guns are always gonna be a bit bulkier/heavier, even without the rotating barrel system...

>>32902475
>a compromise is a bad thing and means your gun is shit because I hate it and need to justify my opinions

Find a single thing in life that's not a compromise. I'll wait.

>>32904142
So what's the role of the tritium? I don't mean to ask my question twice, but your stupid answer forces me to.

>>32906481

Glows in the dark

>>32906574
Which is useless for aiming since the rear sight doesn't glow in the dark. Your move, fuddly fuddington.

>>32906050
You're correct, but my point is I don't really want to run out and replace that carry pistol with something notably heavier and thicker. Even the RAMI is known for being a heavy sob of a subcompact and it's lighter than this. If I had to have one I'd go with the Compact over the other sizes.

I already have a ppq, should I get this?

>>32906609
If the dot if behind rear sight, you don't see it.

>>32907549
Do you want it?

>>32907549
>I already have a ppq, should I get this?
Considering the two aren't even remotely similar, sure.

>>32907578
I kind of do, but cannot justify it to my built-in jew.

File: Beretta Px4.jpg (2MB, 2072x1420px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2072x1420px

>>32907607
Well it is a great gun. I suggest you go rent one or find a friend who owns one and go shoot it. I bought mine as my first handgun because I liked it more than Glocks and M&Ps.

side note, I don't have that puny mag release on mine anymore.

>>32907607
It'd be a far better carry gun than a PPQ, so there's that. The ROBARized model in the OP is also a nice looking little pistol, whereas the PPQ is tied with Hi-Point and Beretta's unreleased striker pistol as the ugliest fucking handgun in existence.

>>32896663
No. I ordered a Beretta brand leather holster and more mags for my subcompact.

Compact carry is next, but not for a while. It'll go into my winter/fall rotation with a shoulder holster.

>>32896663
Nope. Have a full size PX4, works for me.

File: 1484897633380.jpg (54KB, 750x420px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 750x420px

>>32896663
I just order the regular compact.

I cannot justify an extra $300 for grips, sights, decocker only safety.

>>32901739
>the G conversion with low profile levers, and a PX4 D spring, the price comes out about even.
Only because Berreta charges a fucking criminally high price for their parts that you could get for 60% less out of pretty much any other manufacturer.

>>32897154
>that lawyer text
distasteful.

that thing is stupid expensive, wow.

>>32907556
The fuck? Yes, you absolutely do see all three dots in pitch black dark. That's my point.

>>32908985
Wow, you can get Beretta parts from other manufacturers? Which ones? CZ? Sig? Taurus?

>>32909209
I mean a fucking safety lever doesn't run $75 from other gun makers.

>>32909245
Could you post a link?

>>32909149
For a "special edition" it ain't that bad, look at what stock SIGs and HKs often go for.

File: 1468897046721.gif (2MB, 163x120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 163x120px

>>32896710
>CCs a 92A1

You're a big guy

>>32912632
For you