Gray Peterson
Member
My partner and I went to the local gun store, and we were scoping out several handguns. At least we settled on a Kel-Tec P11, but as we felt it we felt the design was a little iffy for the cost.
This being said, this firearm is for concealed carry.
As a result, my partner got interested in the following guns:
The Bersa .380ACP Thunder. It cost $199
The Ruger P95. Black was $309, the Two-Tone was $350
The Kel-Tec P11 (The original gun, was $229)
The Taurus Millennium Pro 9MM
My personal preferences were for the Taurus and the Ruger. He didn't like the P11 either. However, he seems to like the Bersa a lot, though personally myself, between the Bersa and the Taurus, I prefer the Taurus.
The reason why he believes the Bersa is better is due to a comment one of the gun store employees made about the Taurus Millennium's being crappy firearms that broke during firing.
Now most of us know that gun store employees tend to have opinions that are not exactly representatives of the facts.
Now doing more research I determined that the first generation Taurus Millenniums were crappy, but the Pro generation fixed those problems.
Yet Bersa keeps sticking in his mind due to "reliability issues".
The Ruger is less weight than the P94 that he formerly had. Definitely better for concealed carry in terms of weight, but not size.
Does Bersa have any show stopper defects or issues that can be documented?
Is there any issues with the Taurus Millennium Pros that should be made aware of?
Thanks.
This being said, this firearm is for concealed carry.
As a result, my partner got interested in the following guns:
The Bersa .380ACP Thunder. It cost $199
The Ruger P95. Black was $309, the Two-Tone was $350
The Kel-Tec P11 (The original gun, was $229)
The Taurus Millennium Pro 9MM
My personal preferences were for the Taurus and the Ruger. He didn't like the P11 either. However, he seems to like the Bersa a lot, though personally myself, between the Bersa and the Taurus, I prefer the Taurus.
The reason why he believes the Bersa is better is due to a comment one of the gun store employees made about the Taurus Millennium's being crappy firearms that broke during firing.
Now most of us know that gun store employees tend to have opinions that are not exactly representatives of the facts.
Now doing more research I determined that the first generation Taurus Millenniums were crappy, but the Pro generation fixed those problems.
Yet Bersa keeps sticking in his mind due to "reliability issues".
The Ruger is less weight than the P94 that he formerly had. Definitely better for concealed carry in terms of weight, but not size.
Does Bersa have any show stopper defects or issues that can be documented?
Is there any issues with the Taurus Millennium Pros that should be made aware of?
Thanks.