Gratuitous Gun Pic: Beretta Mod 74/101 (.22 LR)

Seen at Steve Barnett’s:

No, that’s not an accidental double-post;  the first is a Model 74 (retail:  $850), while the second is a Model 101 ($1,250 because, I suspect, of its scarcity).  I suspect that the only real difference is mechanical, because other than a different stock design, I can see no apparent difference between the two.

Here’s the thing:  according to what I can see, the Models 71 through 75 are essentially the same pistol, differing only in barrel length (2″ or 6″), and all seem to have been confusing named and sold under the name “Jaguar”, regardless of model.  The Model 101?  Who knows.

At least all take the same hard-to find-and-therefore-expensive magazine — and those prices are for aftermarket mags;  original Beretta mags for these guns are made of ultra-unobtanium, and if you can find one, will typically run to three figures.

Ask me how I know this.

You see, I’ve owned not one but two of these beautiful pistols (both with the 6″ barrel):  one back in Seffrica which I inherited from my mother and had to leave behind when I emigrated, and the second here in Murka when I found one at a gun show and paid way too much for it.  Because did I already mention that it’s beautiful?

And here’s the other problem:  my mom’s gun was a peach.  I could drop bullets in the same hole all day (and I often did), and the action felt like ball-bearings on silk.  The Murkin one was awful:  it rattled around when firing, the mag was also loose, and I couldn’t hit a paint can at 10 yards with it.  Also, when I found an aftermarket mag, it was worse than the “original” mag.

So in the end, I sold it or traded it, I forget which, because I was totally disenchanted with the gun’s performance, especially when compared to my first one’s.

But I have to say that if I had the $$$, I’d buy one of the above in a heartbeat, not because of its quality — who knows, maybe my Murkin gun was just an anomaly — but because, as I may have said before, the 71/72/73/74/75/101 is achingly, breathtakingly beautiful.  Those flowing lines, that perfect rake on the grip… oh stop me while I can still speak.

And yes, that swooping Art Deco trigger-guard is hopelessly unfashionable nowadays.  People need and want a squared-off monstrosity like this:

…so that they can find adequate purchase for a two-handed grip.

I prefer to think that the Jaguar is not a two-handed pistol — I mean, it’s a .22, FFS — and when I see it, I think more of the shooter assuming a classical duelist’s pose with it:

And yes, it’s a romantic, out-of-date attitude.

Guilty as charged.

6 comments

  1. The upper receiver is very much like my 92F, which fits my hand like a glove, and shoots like a dream.

    I’ve owned it for more than 20 years and have put over 10k rds through it and never even a single misfire of any kind.

    One of the top 5 best purchases I have ever made.

  2. I once owned a Beretta Model 70S in .380 Auto that, with the exception of barrel length, looked very similar, right down to the finger-rest extension on the magazine.

    It was a great little single-action pistol, and despite being a .380 was very accurate. With early generation SilverTips in it I had no worries about lack of power, but it only came with one (1) magazine. I found an OEM mag for it exactly once, and paid a stupidly high price for it. I tried an aftermarket one, but the weld on the bottom of the mag broke the first time I used it and puked the rest of the rounds out onto the range floor…embarrassing, to say the least.

    This was long before my old state went to “shall issue” and so it never got carried. Back then .380 ammo was expensive, and I was a poverty-stricken college student, so it didn’t get shot much. But I remember it fondly, for some reason, maybe just because like your .22 it just looked pretty.

  3. Life is too short to shoot an ugly gun. Those Berettas are certainly not ugly.

    As you have said, a 22lr rifle and handgun really should be seen as required ownership for each home.

    Years ago I stocked up on 22lr ammunition because it can be used in a handgun or a rifle and is rather cheap. I figured in hard times I could still enjoy time at the range with firearms in this caliber. Even in times of relative prosperity a 22lr handgun is rarely out of my range bag.

    JQ

    1. Actually, I’ve never said that .22 ownership should be required, because I don’t believe that much should be required at all, and especially not guns.

      What I HAVE said is that .22 rifles and handguns should be regarded as household appliances (like a toaster or frying pan) and .22 ammo as a commodity (like salt, flour or sugar). Ammo for sale in Aisle 12 at Kroger or Walmart, in other words, and the guns sold at the Customer Service Desk with only an 18+ age restriction.

      I’m only joking a little about that.

      1. Thank you for the refresher on what you said. I’m sorry that my memory failed.

        I agree, maybe required goes a little too far because there are some imbeciles who should be barred from owning a slingshot like addicts, criminals, antifa, and other meatheads

        JQ

  4. Couldn’t agree more with you about the ugly, modern squared off trigger guards with that ugly, “double” trigger inside. None of my guns have thoses and never will.

Comments are closed.