Tedious? Turn a lever 1/4, pull it out and the slide comes off?
And I guess all of your tours in the Mideast qualify you to expound on what is, or is not, a good fighting weapon ?
Aren't you cute.
Since you can't see by looking at the PX4 what design flaws it shares with its predecessors, I'll copy a short description that sums up the same mistakes Beretta has blindly clung to for the past 30 years.
"The Px4 uses the same short-recoil, rotating barrel action as the Beretta 8000 models and uses the same trigger and safety system as the M9/92fs series,"
Gee, same action, safety, and trigger as the previous designs. It's soooo different that it borrows major components from previous guns made by Beretta!!!! So essentially they packaged up the crappy DA/SA trigger and the terrible slide safety and slapped it onto a frame that hopefully feels better in your hand. Totally dissimilar to previous designs.
Right.
Now those of us who actually know how to operate a firearm might see the major disadvantages a slide safety/de-cocker offers when clearing any sort of malfunction or how having a trigger that isn't a consistent pull could complicate matters in training. Both can be gotten around via that much more training (as I once did), OR you can train smart and not hard and just buy a pistol that discards those disadvantages so you don't have to deal with them at all.
It was my 92fs that saved my life 7 years ago, and I haven't forgotten that. I did however grow up enough not to invest my ego into my gun choice and put my Beretta away in favor of designs more suitable to the task. I'd rather spend the extra training time increasing my skills. I still get it out every now and then to play with it/ demo why the major design flaw makes your life harder, but why waste my time with it more than that? And why would anyone in their right mind buy a gun with a slide safety and DA/SA trigger if they only want one gun and could get a gun that makes their life easier?
If you like your PX4 fine, but stop pretending it is somehow streamlined for fighting in comparison to other firearms.
Oh and once again you're simply trying to slime your opposition rather than offer concrete reasons as to why the PX4 is the superior or equal fighting design.
Bravo.
The lower and decocker are practically identical to the 92fs I think. Obviously the rotating barrel is a big difference, but not much else has changed to my knowledge besides the frame and slide shape. That is part of what makes the PX4 a reliable design right out of the gate.
I agree that the PX4 is kinda thick, and the decocker on the frame is not the best design. For CC I'd go with the Shield over the PX4SC (the M&P9C with safety is what I actually use). In the end it matters which gun gives you the most confidence in making the shot. I have big hands, so I require a double stack grip in order to obtain accuracy. I use my PX4 as a nightstand gun, a role I think it is well suited for.
So after going to GM and holding the M&P9C (they didn't have a Shield in at the time) I don't know that I would want anything smaller. The 9c felt really good in my hand. Also, I didn't even hold the PX4 because after seeing it in person I changed my mind and would much rather go with one of the M&P's.
Now my question is go with the Shield or the 9C? I like the price of the shield, but haven't held it, but I like the feel of the 9c.
Decisions, decisions...