In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
How Do I Disassemble a Beretta 418?
steeltoe1978
Member Posts: 3,248
I just got back from the local gunshop with a Beretta 418 .25 cal.
I'd like to take it apart and give it a good cleaning. The problem
that I don't know how to disassemble it [V]. The guys at the gun shop didn't know how either [:D], so I don't feel so bad. Can someone please help me with this? Thanks! - Toe
I'd like to take it apart and give it a good cleaning. The problem
that I don't know how to disassemble it [V]. The guys at the gun shop didn't know how either [:D], so I don't feel so bad. Can someone please help me with this? Thanks! - Toe
Comments
I believe? that the barrel on the 418 is removed in the same way, as on the 1934.
Carefully lock back the slide, and try to free the barrel, with the clip REMOVED by GENTLY tapping on the muzzle with a piece of wood or some other soft object.
http://www.marstar.ca/AssemblyBerettaPP.htm
http://www.berettaweb.com/sezionati/sez 418.htm
THANKS! IT WORKED!
Once, we opened my 418 to such an extent that we tapped out each and every rivet and took out EVERYTHING. A pity, I did not take photos!
We did that to reduce the pressure it required to trigger off.
We intend to it once again and this time we shall make a video of the process as well!
Cheers!
Ra.
quote:Originally posted by steeltoe1978
THANKS! IT WORKED!
Once, we opened my 418 to such an extent that we tapped out each and every rivet and took out EVERYTHING. A pity, I did not take photos!
We did that to reduce the pressure it required to trigger off.
We intend to it once again and this time we shall make a video of the process as well!
Cheers!
Ra.
James Bond never didd that, or had to. You would be best off if that 25 didn't fore, as Co. Jeff Cooper suggested. Lest, you really piss somebody off. In order to disable your asailant with it you would have to literally shoot him in the temple...in our country, that would not be considered self defense.
Best
James Bond never didd that, or had to. You would be best off if that 25 didn't fore [sic. ..FIRE], as Co. Jeff Cooper suggested. Lest, you really piss somebody off. In order to disable your asailant with it you would have to literally shoot him in the temple...in our country, that would not be considered self defense.
Best
Today is revival of the Beretta 418 threads. . .
Beretta 418.
With respect to the above, Roger Fleming created a highly memorable character, but he didn't know jack squat about guns.
If there were such a thing as a "licensed to kill double-O" spy (there isn't and never has been) his concealed carry piece would probably have been a snubnose revolver, which was standard carry for detectives and plain-clothes police officers in the early 1960s, even in Europe. Nobody who had an actual military background (as the character James Bond supposedly did; he was supposed to be a British naval officer), would think that a .25 was a good weapon to take to a fight.
Note that in the novel, Bond's Beretta .25 jammed in a fight, causing him to suffer severe wounds (and ostensibly requiring him to switch to the "powerful" .380 Walther).
As to Jeff Cooper, I largely agree with his comments about a .25 auto being an anemic weapon at best, but in a pinch I'd still rather have one than nothing. I think Cooper probably would have agreed with that, if he were alive.
The .25 is about as weak as you get in a handgun, but plenty of people have been killed or seriously wounded by them. Without going into details, there are multiple anatomic places other than the temple where a wound from a .25 could be fatal. (Whether or not you can hit them consistently with a .25 is a whole different story).
More to the point, a wound doesn't necessarily HAVE to be fatal to be effective in self-defense. Sometimes an attacker will stop just because they SEE a gun, or hear a gunshot, even if they aren't hit. THEY don't know that a .25 wound isn't likely to be fatal, and even if they did, they may not want to take the chance. Of course, actually getting shot (even with a .25) has a certain persuasive power of its own.
As to the legitimacy of self-defense, what matters is the circumstances surrounding the shooting, not where the bullet strikes.
Shooting someone point-blank in the head absolutely might be legally justfiable self defense, if they posed a serious imminent threat to your safety (eg if they were pointing a knife at you). I don't see how that would be any different than shooting them in the chest, leg, etc. Either you are legally permitted to use deadly force or you aren't. If you are, it doesn't really matter where you apply it.