Beretta 1934, 1951 and 84

To me the 1934 is more historically significant and more pleasant to shoot than either a Makarov or the '51 with its narrow grip frame.
I traded into a 1934 a few years back - maybe 2015/16, don't recall which - and back the I dropped about the equivalent of $350 in "stuff" for it. I figure I'm into it for that amount (in 2015 dollars) and mine's only in "fair" condition, not "great." I'm a handloader and don't shoot the same recipe in it that I put together for my wife's Walther PK380. It will probably be fine but I don't like to take chances with really old guns. I would suggest avoiding "self-defense" velocity ammo if you get one.

The 1951 is cool from the point of view that it's basically a Walther P38 with a full-length barrel shroud.
The 84 is a cool little gun that points and shoots nice but it's got all the personality of a Xerox machine.

I have a 1935 and an 81 which are the same guns as the 35 and 84 except in .32. The 1934 is not particularly fun to shoot as it's a little snappy. I would imagine a '35 would be even more snappy. I also have very large hands and the finger rest on the '34 is a bad fit for me making it not much fun as a range gun. The 81 is a joy to shoot. While no longer $199 the surplus 81's can still be found for a lot less cash than the 84.

rs525 said:

Also how do the sights on the 1951 compare to a Walther P-38? About the same or worse?

Click to expand...

I'd say about the same. Just basic military sights. Not much to say about them, least not on the Beretta M1951.
I prefer the sights on my Star Super compared to the Beretta. White dots come through easily.

I keep a couple late model alloy 1951 Beretta's around the home and vehicle. They are underrated.
Shot one today and it does exactly what its supposed to do. Its less picky about my cast bullets then a STI and SIG I own,
Being able to work the action and reload then inside a vehicle or home with the safety engaged is a nice feature.

I carried a steel-framed '51 for a while. Incredibly slim, so easy to conceal despite the weight. Fit my hand like a glove, low recoil.... highly recommend.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

To me the 1934 is more historically significant and more pleasant to shoot than either a Makarov or the '51 with its narrow grip frame.

Click to expand...

I concur. Even with the hard trigger that can be pretty gritty. I inherited a post-war specimen that was just beautiful. It's just a neat little gun -- and no, it's not great fun to shoot, but I like the .380 ACP more than the 9mm Makarov, for sure, feels better in the hand, more ergonomic and more cool factor.

I have had a couple of 34 clones. They were okay. Nothing special, just SA 380acp "belt pistols" with old-time military grade sights and triggers.

Never fired a 1951. Kind of a precursor to a 92?

I like my 84. It's a nice DA/SA medium-sized 380acp, double-stack with an aluminum frame.

If buying for range use only I would skip the 1935 model. While its use in WWII makes it interesting as a collector it wouldn't be the best choice for a shooter. Original magazines will be a lot harder to find and expensive. I bought one of the 81s in 32 acp when the Italian police sold them off a few years ago for low prices. Its a fun shooter. Almost no recoil but still feels like you're shooting a real gun. The 84 would be good if you might also use it for concealed carry. Beretta factory magazines are easy to buy for both at reasonable prices.

34 is more snappy than the 35. And it's a pretty snappy package either way. An 81 or 82 in 32 is sweeter shooting in 32 acp. The 84 is a classic but not worth $900....there are some imported used 84's for closer to $350 out there.

So, what's the 4 other ones your interested in?

I have the Beretta 32acp grouping, 1935 Puma, model 70 New Puma (early cross bolt safety), 81 and Tomcat. Of the group my model 70 gets to go WalkAbout far more often than any of the others.

rs525 said:

I also don't know if I should get a real WW2 1911 because people think WW2 firearms are too valuable to shoot now.

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't mind it being in 9mm, there is the Star pistols to consider.

the M81 is a sweet shooter, I prefer it to the .380 version.

Kinda wish I'd jumped on one of the .32s when they were cheap and abundant.
Surprised to see some saying the 34 (in .32) is rappier than the 35 (in the .380).
Our late range officer loved the 34 version.
Moon

rs525 said:

I also don't know if I should get a real WW2 1911 because people think WW2 firearms are too valuable to shoot now.

Click to expand...

I shoot mine. It's not like spare parts for WWII 1911s are hard to find.