What happened to these poor Beretta's?

Status
Not open for further replies.

eazyrider

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
303
Location
Houston, TX
20170309_120318_zpsrk9kckf6.jpg
 
Best picture I could get. I've seen holster wear before but these look like they were drug behind a truck. There were five of them and they were all about the same.
 
Wow! $400! I think I bought mine new for just shy of $500. That doesn't look like holster wear at all to me. It looks like someone pocket carried without a holster and with a handful of rocks in their pocket.
 
My guess....Holstered with sand. Oil from the gun helped the sand cling to the holster, creating an abrasive effect; just from walking.
 
I can't help but wonder if someone did that on purpose. Marking new guns look worn seems to "in" now, it's possible that the wear is simply someone's stupidity. Look closer and you may find they may not have been shot much at all, obviously we can't tell from the pics.
 
guys, those are some real combat firearms donated by troops stationed on war zone as collector's item? o_O
 
Last edited:
Marking new guns look worn seems to "in" now
Not questioning fashion, but if that really is the case, I can't help wondering why the heck that might be the case. I have a bunch of guns with holster wear, both mine and that of previous owners', and while cosmetics don't affect functionality I would've preferred unworn guns to the tune of $+ three figures each for every used gun I've bought. I can't see any perceived value in wear and tear unless that's something you've accomplished yourself and have memories to back that up. Much like I love my hunting trophies on the wall but wouldn't even think about paying a dollar for someone else's.
 
Not questioning fashion, but if that really is the case, I can't help wondering why the heck that might be the case. I have a bunch of guns with holster wear, both mine and that of previous owners', and while cosmetics don't affect functionality I would've preferred unworn guns to the tune of $+ three figures each for every used gun I've bought. I can't see any perceived value in wear and tear unless that's something you've accomplished yourself and have memories to back that up. Much like I love my hunting trophies on the wall but wouldn't even think about paying a dollar for someone else's

I completely agree, I'm just saying if you google images "battle worn guns" you'll see very few actually worn guns. I don't get it either, but apparently it's very popular. May some jackleg got hold to those Beretta's in the OP trying to make them look cool? Maybe not to, just a theory. They sure are worn, excessively so.
 
That isn't worn. That is damaged! (Cabelas has big cojones for trying to sell them at THAT price!)

I don't think I've seen abused WWII handguns that looked that bad. It looks as though they were used to fix barbed wire fences, etc.
And it was all five of them. Strangest thing I've ever seen. I agree, they are damaged. I just don't understand it. One, I would get but all five?
 
I think I figured it out: they were trying to make them into sub-compact size guns so they ran them through the washer and dryer to get them to shrink a bit!
 
I'm with the sand in the holster theory. I've seen a couple "distressed" guns, and only the first gun has that look.
 
PX4 finish isn't very durable either. Most L.E trades I've seen had a lot of wear.
 
Wow just wow , what was cabellas excuse for the poor shape? Would be good to know what is going on with them ,
 
Must have been "torture tested" by the Military Arms Channel. He likes to intentionally damage guns for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top