It's interesting that several have commented that the Bersas are large for .380s. I think they are typical for .380s, and lighter than many. Of course, they are large compared to the ultra-small Kel-Tec, or the slightly larger NAA .380s, but these new guns are extremely small for their caliber. If we compare the Bersas with more typical or "classic" .380s, I think they are about the same. For example, the Walther PP, PPK, PPK/s, the Sig 232, the Beretta and Browning .380s, the Mauser HSc, etc. I can't think of any .380 that existed 5 years ago that is significantly smaller and ligher than these Bersas (maybe the small Colt?). Some of the double-stack and all steel guns are significantly larger and heavier.
Also, I don't think there are many 9mm pistols that are really as small as a Bersa .380. The Kahrs are probably the closest, and the Kel-Tec 9mm is lighter, but I think even these are thicker and just feel a bit "blocky" compared to the streamlined Bersa. The Rohrbaugh would be a significant exception - but they are very hard to find and cost...what...$900?
And all these other pistols (the ultra compact .380s that are smaller, and the 9mms that are close to the same size) are double-action-only. They don't offer the single action capability of the Bersa.
Maybe we do need to adjust our thinking regarding what is a "normal" size for a caliber, but these criticizms of the Bersa apply equally to about 95% of .380 pistols produced in the last 70 years. Kind of like saying the Honda Civic is oversized because Mini Coopers are smaller.
As you can probably guess, I own and like my nickel Bersa .380. I have a lot of other guns - most more expensive and more powerful, but I do like the look, feel, reliability, and value of the Bersa.
Doug