Has any member had experience with the Beretta 1935 in .32 acp as a shooter/plinker? NOT considering for SD/CCW- just a fun shooter

Not with the 1935, but my experience with the .380 1934 is that it's a lovely little gun. Fun, fun, fun! And prettily enough made that I am proud to own it.



Some reading on the 1935's cousins:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearm...ta-1934-a.html

http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearm...tta-380-a.html

http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearm...-380-auto.html

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I've got a half dozen 1935s, although one of them is minus grips and
apart right now. Here's three of mine, left to right a 1949, a 1944 with
the dull war time finish and a 1951 along with two of the older
1915-1919 concealed hammer models. The 1944 gun has the
4UT in a small circle stamp on the tang that signifies
acceptance by the Nazis. Many of them were captured by the
Allies still new in warehouses before they could be shipped
to the Germans.

Attached Images

003.jpg (123.0 KB, 133 views)

I had a pre-war one of those when I was a kid. Barrel was clean. It threw bullets everywhere except at the target. Got up in college and traded it for a S&W M10 which became my car gun. I really made a great decision when I did that.

__________________
Dr. B

Not a bad little gun, but feels too heavy for a .32 with all the lightweight pieces of comparable size (and bigger caliber) out there. Not "friendly" to handle as the slide would lock back upon the empty magazine, IIRC. Takedown was a snap. I see it more as a badge-of-rank officer's pistol from the 1930s-40s.

On a previous thread on this gun, I believe I referred to it as a old-style "klunk" from 80 years ago. I won't repeat that mistake, as another poster severely took me to task as it was his EDC, and there was nothing better!

A fun gun to shoot and if you have to carry it, it will serve, albeit not comfortably. Functioned well.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Too heavy is a matter of perspective. The recent influx of
10 oz or so .32 and .380 autos has created an image of what
autos chambered for these cartridges are typically like. Or
should be like. Back when guns like the 1935 Beretta, 1903
Colt and the 1922 FN along with numerous others were the
typical pistols in use they weren't considered to be heavy,
heavy as compared to full size guns of that era which were
also of mostly all steel construction. And most were expected
to be carried in flap holsters as many were used by military
officers or police officers. The better designs were to some
extent overbuilt for their caliber. I have read that the
expected service life for the 1934 Beretta was 100 yrs with
proper maintainence. These guns were often carried in a
pocket by civilians, pocket being a side pocket of some sort
of long coat, not a front pocket of cut off jeans. I have
carried one of my Berettas at times and they are fine in a
belt slide holster like the Don Humes, not so good in a jeans
pocket at about 25 oz empty however. The weight and steel
construction are nothing less than great for the person who
likes these guns today however. Buy one a bit beat up with
some corrosion but still basically sound and it will outlast
you. As to the "unfriendly" part mentioned above, restrain
the slide, reach in and depress mag follower, slowly lower
the slide, remove magazine. Easy with a bit of practice.

The .32 was the pistol for the Italian Air Force, and it is a solid and reliable shooter, very simple to strip and clean. A LOT of them came back with GI's returning from the war and many of those were chrome plated for some reason.Mine was, and I have seen several more just like it. They were reliable close range self defender pistols, not for target shooting, and they work better with European brands of ball ammo...hotter load. I believe Numrich still has parts for them.

__________________
Liberals made the USA

The Beretta 1934/35 are sturdy, reliable and time proven pistols. I have NEVER had one jam on me in 7.65 (32acp) or 380.

The two pix on left is a Nazi contract in 380 (9mm Kurtz) Pretty hard to find and will always have an AA or BB suffix on the serial number.

The two pix on the right is a 7.65 made under Nazi occupation in 1944.

Attached Images

	stag grips-beretta AA serial number-Fem holster & mag 037.jpg (151.1 KB, 79 views)
	stag grips-beretta AA serial number-Fem holster & mag 042.jpg (143.7 KB, 65 views)
	1944 Beretta 1935 4 CUT 004.jpg (232.4 KB, 83 views)
	1944 Beretta 1935 4 CUT 014.jpg (206.3 KB, 93 views)

I had a .380 M-34 that I traded in for a new S&W M-36-1 with a three-inch barrel.

The S&W .38 better fit my needs, but I liked the Beretta and would buy another in nice shape.

The hard trigger pull made good shooting difficult, but it'd group Remington 95 grain hardball in a pattern that I could cover with my hand at 25 yards, pretty long range for a .380.

It pointed well and rode flat in my waistband.

Never jammed. More durable than the Walther PP and Sauer 38H that were primary competitors then. J.B. Wood wrote an article on the smaller autos and preferred the Beretta, partially for its ruggedness. He later wrote complete books on Beretta.

moosedog when I saw your post I realized that I had made a mistake
in my post above and changed it. My war finish gun is dated 1944 not
1941. My gun has the 4UT stamp on the tang that signifies acceptance
for shipping to the Nazis and it looks like your gun does also. The 4UT
stamped 1944s show up often on GB and usually hyped as rare but
aren't rare. I have read that the Allies captured large numbers of them
in warehouses before they could be shipped to the Germans and they
were very popular with the American troops and many made it to the
US. Most of the guns and pics that I have seen with the 4UT
stamp have been the ones with the rough finish. Nickel
plating of WW2 trophys was very popular back then and I have seen some of the rough finish guns that had been
plated right over the finish without being polished. Your
1934 is rare if it has been verified as used by the Nazis. They are very
uncommon. The 1934s and 35s aren't as highly regarded as some other
classic .32s and .380s in the US but in my opinion they are the best
of the bunch.

I had a couple of .32s, including the Beretta 1935 and 1922 Browning....and got rid of them all. Nice guns. Well made. But for me nasty little shooters, awful recoil, lots of flip, hard to control, and just not my personal cup of tea. The only one I kept was a Walther PP copy by FEG. I had the trigger done and it's a pleasure to shoot and the bullets go right where they're supposed to out to 10 or so yards. It isn't designed for anything further than that I reckon. I wouldn't carry one as I prefer more ooph and rotate between a Shield, S&W 908 and S&W m60. Your mileage may vary.

So THAT'S the reason for the pristine condition of the 1944 Beretta 1935 that I had! Appreciate the history lesson. It's not a bad gun, it's just not a modern one. An officer's badge-of-office as I said above. Best wishes and good shooting!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

P.S. Almost missed your earlier post (past my bedtime) which was even better! Gotta disagree a little: in a .32, too heavy is too heavy. Never weighed my 1935; had to be 25 or so ozs. For that approximate weight, I'll take my 2 M&P 340s with 110gr .357 ammo for EDC. The 1935 is a VERY cool gun, though: it got several appreciative looks and questions at the range from other shooters.

Yeah they do weigh about 25 ozs empty, gives them that solid feel
of quality. No the're not modern but neither is the new edition of the
Colt 1903 or the old 1911 Government model which is grossly
overweight for it's paltry magazine capacity but it keeps chugging on.
I wouldn't say the 1934 and 35 are the ideal carry gun but either would
save your hide at self defense distance if needed. J.B. Wood is a real
Beretta fan and is especially fond of the 1934. I remember one of his
comments on the 1934, "you could design something different but
never anything better." I do think that many of the 1944 war finish
.32s came to the US in new condition and mine was unfired after all
those years when I bought it a few years ago on an auction site. I
have another one of the 1944s just like the one above that came to
me as a box of parts without grips. There is a bit of rust on all the
components and they are soaking in oil in a little plastic tub right
now but I will get everything cleaned up and back together before
long. I'm not sure I want to pay the going price for original grips
and screws so I may try to make some, don't know yet.

Erich-

You're pretty ammo knowledgeable, and you know that above all else, placement counts. What do you feed your .380?

If you have a .32, same question.

I think that JHP may not be the right route to travel with these anemic guns, where a hardball bullet may achieve vital penetration.

I concur - I go ball in anything less than a 9x19/.38 Spl . . . tho I've also started thinking hard on that ARX stuff in the .380. I've only got a second before I have to leave to catch a ride, but I've had .380 JHP cases in which there were failures to stop with properly placed shots.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Yep ball only in 32,380 and 22 for defence. Penatration is queen and accuracy is king. Many died at the end of these ball shooters for over a century.

Texas Star...There are a lot of online tests showing that for .32 ACP, ball is the best choice for carry ammo...it will penetrate reliably for about 14". FWIW, European made .32 ammo is far hotter than anything made in the US. If you can get it, S&B police loaded .32 ACP is at times available from online sellers...IMO, the best there is.

__________________
Liberals made the USA

Many years ago, I exchanged letters with gun writer Geoffrey Boothroyd in the UK. As many here know, he was a friend of James Bond author Ian Fleming and was the basis for the Maj. Boothroyd character in, Dr. No, although the actor in the film looked nothing like him.

We discussed why Fleming didn't choose Bond's PPK in .380 rather than 7.65mm. Boothroyd said that the smaller caliber gun held an additional shot, and that he doubted that there was much difference in stopping power.

I think he was probably right.

BTW, we both favored the S&W M-60 snub .38 for Bond, after that stainless gun appeared. But Fleming had died the prior year, so nothing came of that. Before the M-60 was offered, I favored a blued M-36 with three-inch bbl., and Boothroyd liked the Centennial.

The German's used the 7.65 over the 380 in both world wars. It put a wounded horse down better on head shots. John Browning died with his favorite pistol in his pocket a 1910 Browning in 7.65.