"This is THE Most Underrated Pistol in 2023" ( The PX4)

[TicTacticalTimmy]

Something like a change to a modular chassis, or converting the current full size to use the compact's locking block/carrier but with a lengthened compact barrel and slide (thus making a "Centurion" PX4 a no-brainer) might do it, but who knows? I figured a "92X-esque" maturing of the platform would suffice, but maybe stronger medicine is needed.

That would be pretty great if done right. I would love the ability to put a full size slide on a compact frame. The SC has always seemed pointless to me but if I could put the compact slide on that short grip it would find a place.

Not sure of the engineering challenges to do this, but with a chassis they could have a super thin grip frame that takes 92 mags, and a thicker frame for those that want to run .40 or .45 with px4 mags, or who just want more grip surface for performance. With how the trigger group is already encapsulated and lifts out of the frame on the PX4, it seems to me turning that into a chassis wouldnt take a ton of R&D, but then I'm no engineer.

A chassis also solves the grip slickness complaints, as I dont need to start sweating at the thought of taking a soldering iron to my grip if I can replace it for $50 .

[TheNewbie]

Would it really make sense to make an improved version take 92 mags? Unless it could some how accept both, it seems most PX4 users would prefer to be able to have one set of mags. No judgment about the idea from me, it's a serious question.


Yes, originally it would have been nice to make it accept 92 mags.

[Evil_Ed]

The whole point of the PX4 was it was designed from the ground up to accommodate 40S&W, during the ban, and as an LE round...hence why it's thicker than a 92 in a lot of areas and why the mags are wider. Making it take 92 mags would be a bit of a step backwards, though now that 40 is essentially dead, maybe not entirely the worst idea...

[JTQ]

Would it really make sense to make an improved version take 92 mags?

Making it take 92 mags would be a bit of a step backwards,...

I would not see the PX4 using 92 mags as a good move. I am aware there is a legion of pistol shooters who cannot understand why the PX4 never used 92 mags, but they are different guns and it seems logical they would use different mags.

Folks don't seem to squawk quite so loudly that the SIG P320 doesn't use P226 mags, or that the HK P30 doesn't use USP mags, or the S&W M&P doesn't use 659 or SIGMA mags, or the Ruger, whatever, doesn't use their predecessor mags, or whatever FN is calling their current gun FNP/FNS/FNX/etc., doesn't use P35 mags.

Time marches on, the 92 mags are from the 1970's. The PX4 has a more modern, probably better, mag. Don't change it.

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

I would not see the PX4 using 92 mags as a good move. I am aware there is a legion of pistol shooters who cannot understand why the PX4 never used 92 mags, but they are different guns and it seems logical they would use different mags....

Time marches on, the 92 mags are from the 1970's. The PX4 has a more modern, probably better, mag. Don't change it.

You point out some excellent logic!

The PX4 Storm mags are different in the same way that the springs of the PX4 are different than the model 92. The springs are shorter, tighter and better engineered. This is why the PX4 Storm magazines are able to hold more rounds and push those rounds up stronger.

While some might want the convenience of "one mag fits all", PX4 Storm magazines are superior.

[Hot Sauce]

We keep talking about all the stuff we’d want changed, but LTT had to basically bring this thing back from a memory hole (for which I am grateful). Beretta is completely aloof.

Even then, the base model LTT changes are almost exclusively in the form of parts Beretta already have on hand and would have made standard if Beretta had actually been interested in pushing hard with the PX4 in the American private handgun. And it still
comes slick as bar of soap from the factory.

All that awesome engineering gets squandered with their go to market strategy (whatever the fuck that is).

[medmo]

I could see an argument for a full size PX4 with a 4.5" or 5" barrel, though.

In 10mm.

Fully LTT-ized including RDO solution.

That’d be the shit.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

You point out some excellent logic!

The PX4 Storm mags are different in the same way that the springs of the PX4 are different than the model 92. The springs are shorter, tighter and better engineered. This is why the PX4 Storm magazines are able to hold more rounds and push those rounds up stronger.

While some might want the convenience of "one mag fits all", PX4 Storm magazines are superior.

Can you explain that to me? The full size PX4 mag holds 17, while the full size 92 holds 18.

My reasoning wasn't so much about one mag being better than the other. Its that the px4 mags are unecessarily wide for a 9mm, and mean the grip of the gun has to be wider.

IME the wide grip of the px4 significantly impacts its comfort and concealability, to the point a full size 92 is about equally comfortable and concealable for me. I do not own the compact.

I feel you could make a plastic grip around a 92 magazine with similar grip width to a G48. That would interest a lot of folk as there is no TDA gun on the market that slim. Particularly if it were a chassis system wherein you could easily swap in a thicker grip for better performance.

[JTQ]

I feel you could make a plastic grip around a 92 magazine with similar grip width to a G48. That would interest a lot of folk as there is no TDA gun on the market that slim. Particularly if it were a chassis system wherein you could easily swap in a thicker grip for better performance.

Isn't the PX4 slide already thicker than the grip?

I understand the trigger reach issues for those with smaller hands (you can see my personal numbers in RJ's hand size threads), but the slide, with the rotating barrel is going to be the limiting factor for thickness, and the grip doesn't seem to be that big of a concealment issue, for me at least, as far as thickness goes.

[Guerrero]

Can you explain that to me? The full size PX4 mag holds 17, while the full size 92 holds 18.

My reasoning wasn't so much about one mag being better than the other. Its that the px4 mags are unecessarily wide for a 9mm, and mean the grip of the gun has to be wider.

IME the wide grip of the px4 significantly impacts its comfort and concealability, to the point a full size 92 is about equally comfortable and concealable for me. I do not own the compact.

I feel you could make a plastic grip around a 92 magazine with similar grip width to a G48. That would interest a lot of folk as there is no TDA gun on the market that slim. Particularly if it were a chassis system wherein you could easily swap in a thicker grip for better performance.

"Unnecessarily" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.

As far as why the PX4 is the way it is...



(for, like, the third time in this thread)