Bersa Users?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have UC 45 witch I use as a CC on a daily basis,
When i first got it I had problems with the ejector, causing jamming. After close inspection I found that the ejector had a flat surface that would slam into the base of the case and would not slide over the lip, it also put a large dent in the case.
I then ordered a new ejector thinking I got a bad one, no it was built exactly as the old one. So working carefully. I reshaped the extractor so that it was smooth and tapered. being careful not remove to much material. The gun now operates with both SD loads and mild cast bullets that I use for practice
 
Have a 380 duo with the 9 round mag. It's been a fantastic gun for the price and totally reliable. Have a firestorm 22 on order I like it so much.

bersa3809.jpg


Letter grade A- the mags cost to much. Haven't popped any vermin at reasonable range just yet.
 
Shot one the other day. Very accurate little piece. They have a rep for good reliability.

Down side: It says Bersa on the slide instead of Walther. Shoots a .380ACP.
 
My limited and new experience with my Firestorm .22LR makes me grade it a B+.

Mine is a duotone with the black frame and nickle slide. If Bersa would have left the sights black instead of making coating them with nickle, I'd give my pistol a solid A.
 
"If Bersa would have left the sights black instead of making coating them with nickle, I'd give my pistol a solid A".

What's wrong with the nickle sights?
 
What's wrong with the nickle sights?

I think they look great, and the dayglo dots painted in them look nice too. However, my eyes work best with black sights with or without white dots painted on them. It gives me a sharper edge on the sights visually. The nickle picks up highlights from any lighting, whether outdoor or indoor. The highlighting affects how the sights are seen, and can alter the perceived shape of the sight causing a change in aiming due to change in sight picture.

This isn't a dig against Bersa at all. In fact, I guess it could be considered a compliment. My .22LR Firestorm is surprisingly accurate and could actually be more accurate for me if the sights were black.

For the .380 models meant for self defense, the nickle sights would be just fine. :)
 
I've owned a Thunder 9 and a few of the .380 models over the years
and they have all been flawless and very inexpensive...
 
I have a Bersa Thunder 380 that I really like. I use it now for HD. I will carry it some when I get my CW permit. CG
 
I own 2 Bersas, a .380 and a 9 uc pro. I always recommend both guns to anyone. In my opinion the only reason they aren't as expensive as other guns is because of their finish. I don't care about that. All I care about is the fact that they are reliable and great guns. And when I say they are great guns, I don't mean for their price. I would gladly pay more for them.
 
I love my duotone BT380. I'd like to get another one in all black. Picked it up at gun show a few years ago during the .380 drought.

Showed it to my LGS when I got it, I sort of expected him to tow his product line and not really say anything positive about it, but he managed to do both. These were his exact words:

"Put some rounds through that and break it in, and you got yourself a fine pistol... you could have spent the extra money you need for ammo and just got a Sig232 that don't need a break in."

Either way, he's somewhat of an old-timer and really critical of some of the modern stuff so when he praised a brand he didn't carry at the time in his own store, I knew that I stumbled onto something better than I thought:

A darn fine .380 for $280 + tax.
 
Is anyone gonna rip the "cheap" gun? It seems like everyone agrees that this is allot of pistol for the money!

I have a Thunder 380 CC and it is a great gun. I carry it when my Glock is just too much. The trigger is actually really good! It feels like a more expensive gun in my hands. I like how they were able to keep the sights super low and snag proof, but still very functional with the orange dots.

I give mine a B+ for concealed carry.

I think the chambered round indicator is silly, and I am not a fan of the safety. Other than that, I like.
 
Last edited:
I would grade it A+. I've a Bersa Thunder 22 for 2 months. It is a great gun for the money. Eat cheap bulk Wally world pack any time of the day with out a hick up. Functioning well with Remington 550 bulk box and CCI brand. Easy to clean as well.
 
Had mine for over 4 years. Perfect size and weight for the .380. Soft shooter and I am very accurate with it. Eats everything I have presented to it.
Too heavy for pocket carry IMO. Mine travels with me extensively in the car and truck.
 
I picked up one recently. Put 100 rounds through it. Wonderful for an iwb carry when I'm not wearing a jacket(my other carry is a Beretta M9). Some rag on them because of the name Bersa, most of those people also seem to tend to believe that anything that is not a Colt, S&W, or Glock is not a "real" gun and is trash.
 
i was shying away from buying a bersa due to their rather cheap price tag/questionable reviews. but this whole thread reads like an add for them, so i might take another look and pick one up.
 
"There are far better quality guns out there in Mil Surplus from the former Commie Block countries for under the price of a Bersa such as Makarov, Polish P64, P63 CZ 82 and they shoot a more potent round."

All of those you listed are considerably heavier guns made for military use.
How exactly are they higher quality? I've seen Makarovs and CZ's with some
pretty rough workmanship. They will last longer than a Bersa because they are made for military use and the frames are manufactured from steel compared to
aluminum for the Bersa. The little Bersa .380 are great little carry guns. Way
better than a Makarov or a CZ82 which are bigger and heavier than many of
the new compact nines. What the point in these anymore? And the 9mm Makarov is slightly more powerful than the .380. Why not just go for the 9mm?
 
"There are far better quality guns out there in Mil Surplus from the former Commie Block countries for under the price of a Bersa such as Makarov, Polish P64, P63 CZ 82 and they shoot a more potent round."

All of those you listed are considerably heavier guns made for military use.
How exactly are they higher quality? I've seen Makarovs and CZ's with some
pretty rough workmanship. They will last longer than a Bersa because they are made for military use and the frames are manufactured from steel compared to
aluminum for the Bersa. The little Bersa .380 are great little carry guns. Way
better than a Makarov or a CZ82 which are bigger and heavier than many of
the new compact nines. What the point in these anymore? And the 9mm Makarov is slightly more powerful than the .380. Why not just go for the 9mm?
Well, there are those who swear by their "Mak's" - anyone fortunate enought to own one of East German manufacture has a wonderful, inexpensive, under-appreciated pistol. If it's a 1960's version - all that steel has been "tuned" to be an incredibly smooth and accurate firing blowback pistol...

If you get either a Bulgarian Makarov, or one of the Polish knock-offs (I think it's called a P-63 model), you could still have an aluminum alloy pistol that's probably even more accurate, more powerful, and a much LESS expensive CC option than the Bersa...

Many Makarovnics say the surplus ammunition is very good, and non-corrosive (not sure the military surplus CZ's share that distinction)...

So, when you walk into a gunshop and the owner has a used Makarov "discounted" to sell...and you can walk out of the shop with the Makarov, two magazines, a holster, and 5 boxes of ammo - all for LESS than $270.00 - you should do what I did, and BUY IT!!

Because if you don't, somebody (like me :D) WILL - and they'll get an incredible deal!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top