Arsenal Strike One discontinued?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I don't know if it's actually been discontinued, but at least one location is dumping them off for cheap. At 1100-ish dollars for one that they wanted, it's no surprise they didn't move. Now he said they're being shoveled off the steps for $600. At that price, it might be worth it only to flip it later on. I personally wouldn't want one if they are being discontinued because parts n' service will be hard to find, but it could well become a collector's gun.
 
At Shot Show 2016 Arsenal Firearms announced that they would be partnering with Salient Arms International. The pistol will be manufactured by Salient Arms in the United States as the Stryk-A full size and Stryk-B compact variants
 
No wonder. AFAIK this was supposed to be a "supergun" produced in cooperation between Russia and Italy, with much of the design done by the Italians and much of the marketing / hoopla done by the Russians, mainly a Russian-driven push to (1) replace their obsolete Makarov (which they have been trying to do for the past 30 years with various home-baked designs that didn't quite work out for one reason or another) and (2) create a commercially successful "Glock-killer". (2) never worked out and Russia doesn't have money for (1). The gun may be a great gun - who knows, really, they were hard to come by and don't have an extensive history. There's really nothing special - in my opinion at least - to set it above the venerable, tried and proven G17 or Springfield XD or Beretta PX4 or half a dozen other polymer striker hi capacity 9mm autos on the market. And it's more expensive than most. Even at $600 it's $60 more than G17 and a whopping $170 more expensive than XD. And no Glock or Beretta proven record and customer service to back it up.

I can see people buying them out of curiosity - at this price especially - but I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed being discontinued. Russia has probably lost interest in funding the project, they seem to have no plans anymore to use it as their main military sidearm, and it wasn't exactly a commercial success for the Italians. Perhaps some other manufacturer will buy the design & tooling & sell it at a better price point, who knows ?
 
At Shot Show 2016 Arsenal Firearms announced that they would be partnering with Salient Arms International. The pistol will be manufactured by Salient Arms in the United States as the Stryk-A full size and Stryk-B compact variants

Oh, read this after I posted my reply. Makes more sense, but I surely hope they will price it more realistically. Or market much more aggressively ;)
 
I can see people buying them out of curiosity - at this price especially

Ill admit the price did peek my interest. I previously checked em out when they first started hitting the shelves though the prices were closer to 900 in my neck of the woods. Its interesting inside like a blending of a Beretta and the VP9 with a decent trigger...
Course I dont need another poly gun, esp not one parts/mags may or may not be hard to come by.
 
Yes it is true that the made-in-Italy Arsenal Firearms Strike One pistol is no longer planned to be sold in the U.S. The pistol will be re-branded/re-born as the PMG Stryk-A and Stryk-B pistols. This will be the result of a collaboration between Arsenal Firearms of Italy, Salient Arms International, and Prime Ammunition. They will together form Prime Manufacturing Group, or PMG. This makes sense to manufacture the pistol here in order to bring costs down.

I've had an Arsenal Strike One "Speed" since December and it has been nothing short of fantastic. The "Speed" is the upgraded version of the original Strike One. It sports milled lightening cuts in the slide for further reduced muzzle flip, taller/thinner fiber optic front sight, dovetailed fully adjustable blacked out LPA rear sight (not part of the slide cover plate), and burnt bronze Cerakote finish. It basically does away with everyone's common gripes about the original Strike One.

I also opted for the competition upgrade package which includes a DPM triple spring recoil reducer guide rod and factory trigger job. The trigger job is fantastic with only a 2.5 lb measured pull weight. The break is a smooth "rolling break" similar to a Glock with a 3.5 lb connector. The reset is very short. Audible, tactile, and clicky just like my Glock 19. Again, a lot better than the mushy trigger you hear about on the stock Strike One.

No, the gun does not work miracles. But it does shoot super soft and muzzle flip is minimal. The grip is a lot more slender than say a G17 or G19 so you can really hang onto it a bit easier. The fit/finish and machining definitely speaks quality. The only downside was I paid a pretty penny for it and had to wait about 4 months for it to finish being imported to the U.S. In hindsight it was absolutely worth it for the unicorn that it is.

The pistol is an absolute tack driver as well with its full length 5 inch barrel. This was my very 1st target/mag with it @12 yds. Still had not fine-tuned the sights yet.
Wf0iqe5.jpg
8neh9lV.jpg
2WDFjza.jpg

Be on the lookout for the new Stryk pistols from PMG as they are supposed to come in at a better price point. Looks like enhanced serrations, more sight choices, and flat triggers are apparent as obvious improvements. I still like the classic lines of my original Strike One and will definitely be hanging onto it for the collector value.
wm_8446142.jpg
 
According to the Yankee Marshall, there hasn't really been any news on the whole Salient Arms adoption thing. Speaking of Salient, I always think of something salty when I hear that name.
 
According to the Yankee Marshall, there hasn't really been any news on the whole Salient Arms adoption thing. Speaking of Salient, I always think of something salty when I hear that name.
Cooldill, I tend to agree with you. It was a bit of a surprise to hear at SHOT this year that they were partnering with Salient. Not out of the ordinary that there hasn't been any news yet, as the release is rumored to be at the end of this year. I have seen several pics/videos on Dimitry Streshinskiy's Instagram page of the new Stryk pistols in testing. Dimitry is one of Arsenal Firearm's co-founders.

I first heard about the Strike One on YouTube in 2012 and I never thought it would actually make it to the U.S. Almost 4 years later and I finally got my hands on one. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the redesigned Stryk pistols in the near future.
 
Based on what Salient charges for their other models $600 sounds like wishful thinking. They charge $2500 for modified Glocks.
 
Based on what Salient charges for their other models $600 sounds like wishful thinking. They charge $2500 for modified Glocks.

Don't be too quick to judge... They also offer truly custom 1911's. :what::barf:
sailentarms_zps8cozf444.gif
 
Ok, it looks like thinking they were FNC or H&K didn't work. Not a bad looking gun. I like the plain thin grip area. I suspect it would fit my hand very well. For love of God I do not understand why some manufacturers keep putting those pathetically stupid back strap swells on bottom of the grip area. Those truly suck unless one is an extraterrestrial with strange palm shape..
 
Man, is it just me or is the machining on the end of that slide awfully rough, tarosean?

thats a custom crown and custom "no drag" cuts. Rough isnt the word I would use...:cuss:
 
The problem with novelty thing like this that if you don't like the gun you will have to practically "give it away" to sell it. I looked at similar gun but in compact form from Slovakia called 'Grand Power' that was offered new at closeout price $459. If I bought that didn't like it and try to trade up it would probably be worth only about $250 ie substantially less than similar Glock.
 
My thing with the Arsenal Strike One, there are a plethora of polymer framed, striker fired pistols out there and they are all pretty much less than $600. Heck, quite a few of them can be had in the $450 price range on sale.
 
This effort was doomed from the start, which is too bad since it looks like a neat pistol.

The mistakes made in producing and marketing this pistol:

1.) Contracting Tanfoglio to do the manufacturing. Sorry but Tanfoglio has no history, to my knowledge, of making duty grade service pistols. They make CZ clones that aren't as good as CZ's for the most part. There were reports of the Strike One pistols having some teething issues with magazines and cycling. These days to get any market share a service type pistol better run like a raped ape out of the box, and Tanfoglio is not known for making pistols that do that.

2.) Releasing a full sized 5" barrel pistol first. Not many agencies, or civilians want a big full size duty pistol. The sweet spot is the Glock 19 sized gun: small enough to work as a concealed carry/plain clothes gun, while still large enough to shoot well and carry a payload of 15 rounds on board. A compact version should have either come first or at the same time.

3.) Idiotic sighting arrangement. Using the back plate on the slide to also serve as the rear sight is just stupid. Unspeakably stupid. Arsenal should have picked a common dovetail size used by another manufacturer and used that. That way an end user could easily put on aftermarket sights to replace the marginal stock sights. Alternatively Arsenal could have stepped up and offered some sighting options right off the bat like night sights etc. Just cutting the slide for a common dovetail size would have been better. Instant existing aftermarket options.

4.) Importing pistols through a relatively small importer with limited resources and support. What happens if you need parts or warranty work? I would hesitate to be a beta tester on their customer service.

5.) Re forming their US sales, and now manufacturing with Salient Arms. Really? Are you guys ,<edit> kidding me? Arsenal decides to make guns in the US (smart move getting away from Tanfoglio), but instead of partnering with a large manufacturer with an engineering staff, and history of making high quality weapons on a large scale, plus servicing them; they pick Salient Arms. Why did they pick Salient? A company that specializes in turning out cosmetic work for exorbitant prices on Glocks and AR15's, with the occasional butchered 1911 here and there.

This is all further proof that aside from Beretta, that Italians do not understand the US firearms market. Nor do the Russians (who don't really understand pistols at all). This is the unfortunate result of some gold chain wearing <edit> with no idea of how to make a product out sourcing their work to others, but selecting them for all the wrong reasons. Which normally would be amusing (like the entire EAA line of firearms), but in this case is infuriating since the Strike One, properly executed, would be a neat pistol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This effort was doomed from the start, which is too bad since it looks like a neat pistol.

The mistakes made in producing and marketing this pistol:

1.) Contracting Tanfoglio to do the manufacturing. Sorry but Tanfoglio has no history, to my knowledge, of making duty grade service pistols. They make CZ clones that aren't as good as CZ's for the most part. There were reports of the Strike One pistols having some teething issues with magazines and cycling. These days to get any market share a service type pistol better run like a raped ape out of the box, and Tanfoglio is not known for making pistols that do that.

2.) Releasing a full sized 5" barrel pistol first. Not many agencies, or civilians want a big full size duty pistol. The sweet spot is the Glock 19 sized gun: small enough to work as a concealed carry/plain clothes gun, while still large enough to shoot well and carry a payload of 15 rounds on board. A compact version should have either come first or at the same time.

3.) Idiotic sighting arrangement. Using the back plate on the slide to also serve as the rear sight is just stupid. Unspeakably stupid. Arsenal should have picked a common dovetail size used by another manufacturer and used that. That way an end user could easily put on aftermarket sights to replace the marginal stock sights. Alternatively Arsenal could have stepped up and offered some sighting options right off the bat like night sights etc. Just cutting the slide for a common dovetail size would have been better. Instant existing aftermarket options.

4.) Importing pistols through a relatively small importer with limited resources and support. What happens if you need parts or warranty work? I would hesitate to be a beta tester on their customer service.

5.) Re forming their US sales, and now manufacturing with Salient Arms. Really? Are you guys <edited> kidding me? Arsenal decides to make guns in the US (smart move getting away from Tanfoglio), but instead of partnering with a large manufacturer with an engineering staff, and history of making high quality weapons on a large scale, plus servicing them; they pick Salient Arms. Why did they pick Salient? A company that specializes in turning out cosmetic work for exorbitant prices on Glocks and AR15's, with the occasional butchered 1911 here and there.

This is all further proof that aside from Beretta, that Italians do not understand the US firearms market. Nor do the Russians (who don't really understand pistols at all). This is the unfortunate result of some gold chain wearing <edited> with no idea of how to make a product out sourcing their work to others, but selecting them for all the wrong reasons. Which normally would be amusing (like the entire EAA line of firearms), but in this case is infuriating since the Strike One, properly executed, would be a neat pistol.
You have some good points, but Tanfoglio IMO make pretty decent pistols for the money. I own a Witnness in 45 and 9mm and like them both.

I definitely agree with a common dovetail for putting on aftermarket sights. They also should have offered a compact(4"), a full size duty(4.5") and had their 5" be a competition type pistol.
 
Tanfoglio doesn't have a consistent history of making bet your life on them duty guns. Sorry, but there it is. Do they make some nice guns that work? Yes, their high end hand fit models do. However they're expensive and more labor intensive.

What Arsenal needs is a partner with experienced design and production engineers. They need this to refine the product, develop new variants, and streamline production along with dial in quality control. That production partner also needs to have large market presence and a good support network.

I'd love to see a US manufacturer pick this up, but not sure who would do it.

Colt badly needs a modern service pistol, but their financial position is precarious. Plus their management consists of morons. On the other hand their handguns in current production are as good as they've ever been. There is the ability at Colt, but probably no will.

Too bad, I'd pay for one of these made from a forged slide, forged barrel, forged locking block, and forged frame insert (because that is how Colt does things); with no MIM small parts. Put a good trigger in it, and make sure it can utilize good sights, and small red dots. Then stamp a rampant horse on the slide. Oh yeah and offer a 4" barrel along with the 5" gun. If that demanded a price premium over other polymer guns, but it was demonstrably better then so be it. A $1K polymer pistol that is extremely shootable out of the box and needs no other work could still sell well. If it could be had for $700, I think it could do very well.
 
This effort was doomed from the start, which is too bad since it looks like a neat pistol.

The mistakes made in producing and marketing this pistol:

1.) Contracting Tanfoglio to do the manufacturing. Sorry but Tanfoglio has no history, to my knowledge, of making duty grade service pistols. They make CZ clones that aren't as good as CZ's for the most part. There were reports of the Strike One pistols having some teething issues with magazines and cycling. These days to get any market share a service type pistol better run like a raped ape out of the box, and Tanfoglio is not known for making pistols that do that.

2.) Releasing a full sized 5" barrel pistol first. Not many agencies, or civilians want a big full size duty pistol. The sweet spot is the Glock 19 sized gun: small enough to work as a concealed carry/plain clothes gun, while still large enough to shoot well and carry a payload of 15 rounds on board. A compact version should have either come first or at the same time.

From what I read, this was supposed to be the new sidearm of the Russian Army (never happened). The civilian market would not be as lucrative as a large military contract, and the military probably wanted a full size gun after carrying a .380 compact on steroids for 60 years.

3.) Idiotic sighting arrangement. Using the back plate on the slide to also serve as the rear sight is just stupid. Unspeakably stupid. Arsenal should have picked a common dovetail size used by another manufacturer and used that. That way an end user could easily put on aftermarket sights to replace the marginal stock sights. Alternatively Arsenal could have stepped up and offered some sighting options right off the bat like night sights etc. Just cutting the slide for a common dovetail size would have been better. Instant existing aftermarket options.

Just my speculation, but they were probably trying to be unique / stand out from a large crowd of polymer 9mm striker pistols.

4.) Importing pistols through a relatively small importer with limited resources and support. What happens if you need parts or warranty work? I would hesitate to be a beta tester on their customer service.

5.) Re forming their US sales, and now manufacturing with Salient Arms. Really? Are you guys <edit> kidding me? Arsenal decides to make guns in the US (smart move getting away from Tanfoglio), but instead of partnering with a large manufacturer with an engineering staff, and history of making high quality weapons on a large scale, plus servicing them; they pick Salient Arms. Why did they pick Salient? A company that specializes in turning out cosmetic work for exorbitant prices on Glocks and AR15's, with the occasional butchered 1911 here and there.

This is all further proof that aside from Beretta, that Italians do not understand the US firearms market. Nor do the Russians (who don't really understand pistols at all). This is the unfortunate result of some gold chain wearing <edit> with no idea of how to make a product out sourcing their work to others, but selecting them for all the wrong reasons. Which normally would be amusing (like the entire EAA line of firearms), but in this case is infuriating since the Strike One, properly executed, would be a neat pistol.

#4 and #5 seem to indicate that either the Italians or the Russians weren't willing to get in cahoots with a large manufacturer or distributor in the US - either because of $$$, commitment required, or something else.

And any properly executed 9mm poly frame pistol would be a neat one...
 
Well if they're not willing to partner with a major manufacturer, and they don't have the capital to do it themselves I guess they're going to be **** out of luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top