New Beretta 80X Cheetah

[Joe in PNG]

You absolutely have my attention!
- “G” variant.
- .32 ACP version even better.

Anything else?

.22lr version

[GyroF-16]

Okay, picked one up today for my wife to shoot.
Ordered ammo from SGAmmo and reloading dies and projectiles from Midway.

Any recommendations on best SD ammo for it? I’m going to start with Federal 99 gr HST.

[Dorsai]

I trust someone will correct me if I state something in error. Most .380 pistols are blowback only because they can be sprung heavily enough and don't need a locking mechanism, which reduces complexity and cost. The recoil and hammer/mainspring have to be strong enough to retard the slide blowback, both for recoil and peening of the frame. But that means they generally have heavy DA trigger pulls and require a lot of effort to retract the slide and chamber a round, especially if the hammer is down to start with. That makes it a problem when selecting a .380 for someone with a smaller hand, lesser hand strength and less recoil than a 9mm.

I realize that making the Cheetah with a locking system like the 92 would be more expensive, but it could have a lighter recoil spring and the mainspring could be tuned for a lighter trigger pull while maintaining reliable ignition. Just trying to think in-out-in-out of the box. A snake's circuit of the box so to speak.

[GyroF-16]

I trust someone will correct me if I state something in error. Most .380 pistols are blowback only because they can be sprung heavily enough and don't need a locking mechanism, which reduces complexity and cost. The recoil and hammer/mainspring have to be strong enough to retard the slide blowback, both for recoil and peening of the frame. But that means they generally have heavy DA trigger pulls and require a lot of effort to retract the slide and chamber a round, especially if the hammer is down to start with. That makes it a problem when selecting a .380 for someone with a smaller hand, lesser hand strength and less recoil than a 9mm.

I realize that making the Cheetah with a locking system like the 92 would be more expensive, but it could have a lighter recoil spring and the mainspring could be tuned for a lighter trigger pull while maintaining reliable ignition. Just trying to think in-out-in-out of the box. A snake's circuit of the box so to speak.

The above is GENERALLY correct, but the 80X design seems to have worked around these typical drawbacks. We have a Beretta 81BB in .32 ACP that I’ve done a little tuning on to reduce the DA pull. In side-by-side comparison with the 80X, the 80X has a LIGHTER DA pull, and the slide is somewhat easier to rack. It seems Beretta has managed to work some magic with this product.

[FrankB]

Okay, picked one up today for my wife to shoot.
Ordered ammo from SGAmmo and reloading dies and projectiles from Midway.

Any recommendations on best SD ammo for it? I’m going to start with Federal 99 gr HST.

Lucky Gunner shows Hornady Critical Defense to be the only round with penetration and expansion.

[GyroF-16]

Lucky Gunner shows Hornady Critical Defense to be the only round with penetration and expansion.

Funny, I found that last night, too.
The test wasn’t actually calibrated ballistic gel, so not strictly an indication of passing FBI protocol.
Nevertheless, a good data point. When in doubt, I’d rather have adequate penetration. I actually ordered some Hornady XTP projectiles (vs the FTX used in Critical Defense) to load some of my own… I’ve seen some test results showing good expansion with those. I’d be interested to see actual FBI protocol testing on the “big name” .380 loads. As far as I know, only Federal Hydra-Shok Deep made the cut, but only the load that chronos a little above 1,000 fps - and the only stuff currently available is just over 900.

In the meantime I’ll make some light loads for my wife to practice with, and continue to look for data.

Thanks for the info, though. It was definitely interesting to compare the different results in that test.

[No.6]

Funny, I found that last night, too.
The test wasn’t actually calibrated ballistic gel, so not strictly an indication of passing FBI protocol.
Nevertheless, a good data point. When in doubt, I’d rather have adequate penetration. I actually ordered some Hornady XTP projectiles (vs the FTX used in Critical Defense) to load some of my own… I’ve seen some test results showing good expansion with those. I’d be interested to see actual FBI protocol testing on the “big name” .380 loads. As far as I know, only Federal Hydra-Shok Deep made the cut, but only the load that chronos a little above 1,000 fps - and the only stuff currently available is just over 900.

In the meantime I’ll make some light loads for my wife to practice with, and continue to look for data.

Thanks for the info, though. It was definitely interesting to compare the different results in that test.

A couple years ago I got on a tear about data, for whatever reason chose .380 ACP as the target dataset, and collected every data point I could find from Lucky Gunner, STB410, and everyone else who published any result of any 380 round from any firearm. Unfortunately most of it is clear gel testing but based on the correct feedback I got here and elsewhere about it, I've added a column to call out clear (c) or organic (o) where known. The blogging I did was OK I guess but someone asked for the data and why not, so it's here on the cloud:

Ammo Tests Aggregate Excel

(Just to reiterate, I did none of these tests, just scraped up the info from other people's page or video. Source links are in the data. Some may be deadlinks; e.g. 5Pins took his whole site down).

[GyroF-16]

A couple years ago I got on a tear about data, for whatever reason chose .380 ACP as the target dataset, and collected every data point I could find from Lucky Gunner, STB410, and everyone else who published any result of any 380 round from any firearm. Unfortunately most of it is clear gel testing but based on the correct feedback I got here and elsewhere about it, I've added a column to call out clear (c) or organic (o) where known. The blogging I did was OK I guess but someone asked for the data and why not, so it's here on the cloud:

Ammo Tests Aggregate Excel

(Just to reiterate, I did none of these tests, just scraped up the info from other people's page or video. Source links are in the data. Some may be deadlinks; e.g. 5Pins took his whole site down).

Thank you!

One question- you mentioned distinguishing between clear (c) and organic (o) gel. All the results I see in your table are “o”.
Is that correct, or am I looking at the wrong column?

[LHS]

Couple things of note:

1. Those Lucky Gunner tests were done with a Glock 42, with a barrel almost an inch shorter than the 80X's. I'm not sure if the longer barrel on the Cheetah will translate into enough extra velocity to make expanding loads open up more and thus penetrate less, but it's something I'm curious to see some testing on. In the meantime, I'll likely carry ball in mine to ensure sufficient penetration.

2. I picked up my two Cheetahs from my FFL on Saturday, and took one out to the range for a little informal plinking on Sunday after I'd finished working on some shotgun stuff. I was able to ring a 1/4-scale steel silhouette at 30 yards pretty much on demand, DA or SA. The sights are still a skosh short for my taste (albeit better than the legacy Cheetahs), but I'm really looking forward to the optics plates coming available so I can mount a dot on one of these.

3. My FFL was fingerbanging the guns at the shop and broke out a trigger pull gauge. One measured 7lbs even for the DA, the other 6lbs 10oz. They definitely got the triggers done well on these guns.

4. Per updated information coming out of Beretta, you definitely do not want to carry these cocked-and-locked. I know the guns I shot back in January and February were capable, but apparently tolerance stacking means that not ALL of them are safe to do that with, and it was apparently not a design intent, so stick to what the manual says about it. So, mea culpa.

[Ben_G]

As a TDA shooter and a Beretta employee talking about an Italian product (aka the European team wrote the manual with their legal counsel, and they are very safety-minded), I must insist on the decocked position for carry.

That said, technically speaking, the safety has been redesigned from the old gun, and that middle position is an intentional step with an active trigger disconnect, and this gun does have a firing pin block... Do with that information what you will...

Now, I'd really truly strongly recommend each shooter evaluate the safety detent strength and holster coverage before making any CCW decisions, and note our DA pull on that gun is easily in the 5.5# range. That extra length/trigger feedback in the first pull as a 'are you sure you want to put a hole in this?' is a major benefit of the TDA systems for bump in the night, while the modern lightweight pull isn't hurting your accuracy or slowing you down if you're positive that trigger needs to get pulled.

Personally, when I get mine, I'll be carrying mine in the same condition as I carry my PX4 Compact Carry.

I need to update this: the part about the middle position being an intentional step is incorrect, and was a miscommunication among the US team. Beretta recommends this pistol be carried only in the decocked position.

@mods , is it possible to edit that original post with a notice or a strikethrough?