Bersa Thunder 380 recoil
- Thread starter trigga
- Start date
- Status
Mycin
Member
I originally bought my Sig P230 for my wife. She hated shooting it due to the snappy recoil and tendency toward slide-bite, and only shot a couple of mags worth before declaring she never wanted to shoot it again. I put a Hogue grip on it and it's been a primary carry piece for me for over two decades. The rubber Hogue grip helps some, but it's still noticeably snappier than my buddy's 9mm P239, though some of that may be due to the heavier weight of the P239.
JoeTester
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 39
My Bersa 380 was snappier than my much smaller Sig P238 originally. But after the upgrade, it's now the reverse - but that alone shows how just much a locked breech action can reduce felt recoil versus blowbac normally (until you start doing crazy mix-n-match mods like I do).
But with that being said, the Bersa is NOW the much softer shooting of the two, but only after upgrading it with the 18lb Walther PP recoil-spring (a 50% stronger recoil spring than it had originally) ... However the Bersa always was, and still is, more accurate than the P238.
So I had a very similar experience with my guns to yours (at least before I upgraded the Bersa's spring).
I am glad that the Bersa's are not prone to slide-bite like the Walther PP , Walther PPK, and the similar Sig P230. Bersa lowered the beaver tail just enough to fix that problem altogether.
Last edited:
JoeTester
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 39
Of course I shoot mouse fart reloads)
ROFL
amd6547
Member
I would support experimenting with a heavier spring, if the OP finds his Bersas recoil objectionable. My own experience is with a Polish P64 in 9mm Makarov…a very PPK-like pistol well known for tough recoil. On the P64 forum, it became popular to replace the recoil spring with an extra power one. So, I gave it a try. The heavier spring made the little P64 much more shootable.
As for my Beretta 84F, I’m not changing a thing, and it ain’t going nowhere. Love that 380.
As for my Beretta 84F, I’m not changing a thing, and it ain’t going nowhere. Love that 380.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
This thread popped back up and made me check The Gun Shop prices for a Bersa Thunder.
Holy cow! I didn't realize they were THAT affordable!
I may have to pick one up! The 15+1 looks tempting...
I need to visit another gun show to handle a couple now.
Holy cow! I didn't realize they were THAT affordable!
I may have to pick one up! The 15+1 looks tempting...
I need to visit another gun show to handle a couple now.
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
The 15+1 is the less common "plus" model. I have no direct experience with it, but the avalanche of good reviews over the years are about the regular single stack models. And I think the 15 round mags are rare.
If I ran across the 15 rd plus model I would buy it, no question. They are rare, unfortunately.
JoeTester
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 39
EDIT: Yeah this reply is incredibly "TLDR", and almost off-topic, but it it addresses that unique blowback gun I mentioned prior - the one that essentially used springs alone, instead of slide-mass, and goes on to discuss why stronger recoil springs extend a gun's life, rather than shorten it.
In response to unclenunzie, I cited the example of the early 20th-century blowback handun that relied solely on spring-strength to operate, so that they didn't require the massive slide of a Hi-Point or the long thick slide on an Astra 9mm... However, I could not recall what model that gun was - UNTIL NOW...
...I was able to find Model of blowback handgun that relies almost ENTIRELY on RECOIL-SPRING strength to control the opening/slide speed.
As stated though, the when when using only spring-strength to control the blowback speed of the slide, you end up with a spring that cannot rack by hand. The solution to this prolem was to add a mechanism that disonnects the recoil spring when you go to manually cycle the firearm.
The handgun that used this unique operating system, a super-strong spring allowing it to use 9mm in blowback, but with a realtively compact, short, and narrow slide (there were other period 9mm blowbacks that obviously did not use this operating system, notably from Astra, but they were and are notorious for having utterly horrible recoil), was this:
As a complete gun-geek for unique "operating systems" and actions, I love to see something outside the norm. That's why early 20th century handguns are so fascinating to me; at that time they had yet to settle settle on one action as we seem to have today. ALMOST EVERY manufacturer was releasing a unique locked-breach action, that locked using in a complete different manner than the now ubiquitous Browning-style tilting-barrel action. I would say 95%, if not more, of modern handguns on the market use that action - with 2nd place being a select few that use the rotating barrel action.
Very few now use a blowback, or a delayed blowback action. 9mm parabellum, and higher, simply are too powerful to have blow-back action without a hulking massive slide (see a high-point for example). I don't of any hand-guns today that use a delayed-blowback, but that system is a viable alternative to a locked-breech system (however they are numerous rifles, sub-guns, carbines, etc that use a delayed blow back action of some kind. HK and CMMG use roller-delayed in many of their pistol-calliber firearms - they also use roller-locked in their rifle-caliber firearms).
This get us back to the Dreyse 1910. To avoid a massive slide and/or excessive recoil, Dreyse went with recoil-spring strength.
This gun clearly shows, the spring can be the primary mechanism of a blowback firearm. Though it was just an example I have to show that the mass is not the primary factor (necessarily) in the opening-speed of the action.
Note on the respondent's concern about the spring increasing damage: The concern unclenunzie had was that the stronger recoil-spring would be harder on the gun when it cycles the slide/boltface forward when its chambering a round. Undeniably it will use more force to do that...
But before I cover that concern, its worth pointing out that a slide traveling forward faster tends to reduce hang-ups. As one can see when you cycle a firearm slowly by hand, you often end up more likely with some part of the round catching somewhere inside the firearm. As most have observed, if you "sling shot" the slide, you are much more likely to end up with a gun that feeds correctly when cycling by hand. When the firearm is actually being shot, this is also the case (usually - there are rare exceptions to this). One of the primary reasons people buy a stronger recoil spring is to fix failures to feed. Increasing the pushing force of the boltface, makes it more likely to overcome snag and friction points in the firearm, specifically on the feed ramp and chamber. Now one thing a recoil-spring that is too strong can do, is cause failures to EJECT. If you are getting failures to eject, one of the easiest fixes is often a weaker recoil spring. This is why I tested the 15, 16, 17 and 18 lb springs in the Bersa 380. I was worried I would end up with failures to ejects from the spring being to strong - fortunately I did not up with ANY FTE.
And simply put regarding the damage from the forward travel impact, the spring simply can't move the slide fast enough to cause any significant damage in the part of the cycle; at least not unless the gun has a material/design flaw where the slide moving and impacting at a relative snails pace to it reward travel velocity & impact, that any failures on the gun that will happen due to its reward velocity long before any damage is incurred from its forward travel and impact. The impact in the rear of the frame is of exponentially greater force on the frame and slude than the relatively negligible force it stopping (decelerating) when traveling forward, even if the spring move its forward at a slightly greater speed.
Unless the gun in incredibly under-engineered for the force of the spring closing the action should never be enough force to damage the firearm.
There are cases of design flaws in the past where damage hgas occurred in the part of the cycle, but again that is from design flaws. And if were present on the Bersa 380 we would have seen it by now, simply from excessive use of the guns for decades - even with an anemic spring; if there was a way for it to break from that, it would have occurred by now.
In response to unclenunzie, I cited the example of the early 20th-century blowback handun that relied solely on spring-strength to operate, so that they didn't require the massive slide of a Hi-Point or the long thick slide on an Astra 9mm... However, I could not recall what model that gun was - UNTIL NOW...
...I was able to find Model of blowback handgun that relies almost ENTIRELY on RECOIL-SPRING strength to control the opening/slide speed.
As stated though, the when when using only spring-strength to control the blowback speed of the slide, you end up with a spring that cannot rack by hand. The solution to this prolem was to add a mechanism that disonnects the recoil spring when you go to manually cycle the firearm.
The handgun that used this unique operating system, a super-strong spring allowing it to use 9mm in blowback, but with a realtively compact, short, and narrow slide (there were other period 9mm blowbacks that obviously did not use this operating system, notably from Astra, but they were and are notorious for having utterly horrible recoil), was this:
The Dreyse Model of 1910
To me this is one of the most interesting designs of blowback handguns chambered for a "military cartridge" (9mm NATO - aka 9mm Parabellum), one of the calibers not often seen in blowback handguns.
As a complete gun-geek for unique "operating systems" and actions, I love to see something outside the norm. That's why early 20th century handguns are so fascinating to me; at that time they had yet to settle settle on one action as we seem to have today. ALMOST EVERY manufacturer was releasing a unique locked-breach action, that locked using in a complete different manner than the now ubiquitous Browning-style tilting-barrel action. I would say 95%, if not more, of modern handguns on the market use that action - with 2nd place being a select few that use the rotating barrel action.
Very few now use a blowback, or a delayed blowback action. 9mm parabellum, and higher, simply are too powerful to have blow-back action without a hulking massive slide (see a high-point for example). I don't of any hand-guns today that use a delayed-blowback, but that system is a viable alternative to a locked-breech system (however they are numerous rifles, sub-guns, carbines, etc that use a delayed blow back action of some kind. HK and CMMG use roller-delayed in many of their pistol-calliber firearms - they also use roller-locked in their rifle-caliber firearms).
This get us back to the Dreyse 1910. To avoid a massive slide and/or excessive recoil, Dreyse went with recoil-spring strength.
This gun clearly shows, the spring can be the primary mechanism of a blowback firearm. Though it was just an example I have to show that the mass is not the primary factor (necessarily) in the opening-speed of the action.
Note on the respondent's concern about the spring increasing damage: The concern unclenunzie had was that the stronger recoil-spring would be harder on the gun when it cycles the slide/boltface forward when its chambering a round. Undeniably it will use more force to do that...
But before I cover that concern, its worth pointing out that a slide traveling forward faster tends to reduce hang-ups. As one can see when you cycle a firearm slowly by hand, you often end up more likely with some part of the round catching somewhere inside the firearm. As most have observed, if you "sling shot" the slide, you are much more likely to end up with a gun that feeds correctly when cycling by hand. When the firearm is actually being shot, this is also the case (usually - there are rare exceptions to this). One of the primary reasons people buy a stronger recoil spring is to fix failures to feed. Increasing the pushing force of the boltface, makes it more likely to overcome snag and friction points in the firearm, specifically on the feed ramp and chamber. Now one thing a recoil-spring that is too strong can do, is cause failures to EJECT. If you are getting failures to eject, one of the easiest fixes is often a weaker recoil spring. This is why I tested the 15, 16, 17 and 18 lb springs in the Bersa 380. I was worried I would end up with failures to ejects from the spring being to strong - fortunately I did not up with ANY FTE.
And simply put regarding the damage from the forward travel impact, the spring simply can't move the slide fast enough to cause any significant damage in the part of the cycle; at least not unless the gun has a material/design flaw where the slide moving and impacting at a relative snails pace to it reward travel velocity & impact, that any failures on the gun that will happen due to its reward velocity long before any damage is incurred from its forward travel and impact. The impact in the rear of the frame is of exponentially greater force on the frame and slude than the relatively negligible force it stopping (decelerating) when traveling forward, even if the spring move its forward at a slightly greater speed.
Unless the gun in incredibly under-engineered for the force of the spring closing the action should never be enough force to damage the firearm.
There are cases of design flaws in the past where damage hgas occurred in the part of the cycle, but again that is from design flaws. And if were present on the Bersa 380 we would have seen it by now, simply from excessive use of the guns for decades - even with an anemic spring; if there was a way for it to break from that, it would have occurred by now.
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
It's listed on the website of the local gun shop. That's how I found it. About $50 more than the standard Bersa Thunder at around $325.
If I could handle one to see how it feels first, I might order one.
I have two Bersa Thunders.
One in .380acp and the other in .32acp.
They both feel like soft shooters to me.
American_Fusilier
Member
I had a thunder 380, but sold it because it hurt my hand to shoot...
CajunBass
Member
About the same at my LGS. I was looking for a PPK/S a few days ago, and handled a couple of the Bersa's, including one of the 15 round ones. It reminded me of a Browning BDA I used to have and foolishly sold. Not as pretty of course, but felt very much the same. Trigger wasn't bad at all. The rubber grips were nice. About $50 more than the standard Thunder. The only "down side" I saw was it's very size. There are a lot of 9mm guns that fit into that size catagory. Of course if you just want a 380, you want a 380, and there is nothing wrong with that. I was tempted, but decided I wanted a Walther, and even if I got a Bersa, I'd still want a Walther, so I passed.
My wife used to have a Bersa Firestorm 22 many years ago. That was a shooting little gun. As long as you fed it CCI min-mags, it didn't malfunction at all. With Federal bulk pack, or other "target" ammo, it would jam from time to time, but not enough to worry about at the range.
- Status
