ARX 100 vs SCAR

[SkinnyGrey]

Which rifle do you prefer and why, the ARX 100 or the SCAR? I was thinking about getting one of them, however I noticed the ARX is significantly cheaper. Is there any consensus as to which was a better all around rifle?

 

[js8588]

The SCAR is more accurate, arguably more rugged, and has somewhat better logistical support.

Neither have particularly good iron sights. Both don't take certain PMAGS.

In short, get a Tavor.

 

[briansmithwins]

Own a SCAR, have done inter web research on the ARX as my brother in law is looking at them.

I'd argue that the irons on the SCAR are perfectly fine. I've never had any trouble with mine and I can get decent groups with them at 200 yards. I can't talk about the ARX sights because I haven't tried them.

The ARX and SCAR are pretty similar. Both are ambidextrous, have easily removable barrels, reciprocating CH, short stroke gas systems with adverse gas settings, and folding adjustable stocks.

Generally, they are well made modern rifles. My SCAR has always run 100%* and I've always had good results with it. I'd expect nothing less from the ARX.

BSW

*Except for some Winchester HP ammo that wouldn't feed in anything.

 

[barnbwt]

The ARX I checked out was very dissapointing in quality. Everything was stiff, or binding, or rough, or flimsy plastic (not sturdy plastic). Like a low rent G36, but way more interesting. A gun with great potential if Beretta can up the game of their stateside operations (I doubt the Italian select-fire guns are like this). I was a huge supporter of the concept and still am, but it needs some polishing (and a fatter charging handle, for sure)

TCB

 

[Trent]

Neither have particularly good iron sights.

Really?

The SCAR's iron sights are perfectly fine. I've shot (and won) across the course matches with them.

Rapid fire sitting @ 200 yards w/ turner sling and stock irons;







whoops on the last one lol, sent one round low after the reload

 

[SilverCat]

The scar is a wonderful rifle, though some would argue that it's advantages don't make up for it's price tag.
No experience with the ARX other than handling, but it's got pretty bad irons, (not a huge issue) and some people really hate the "ice-pick" CH

I also second the motion for a Tavor!!
Probably the best all round bull pup, with better ethos than an AR IMO.

 

[JustinJ]

Given iron sights today have been relegated to backup i can hardly see how the quality of such should be a significant factor. I've read mixed reviews on the ARX which is disappointing as the the design seems promising. Hopefully it will mature.

Sig's new MCX looks promising although buying an early 556 has left a bad test in my mouth regarding their QC.

 

[USBP379]

A co-worker and I attended a carbine class a little over a year ago in Las Vegas. I took an AR and Bart took his SCAR-16. Bart was using his department's duty ammo, which is Speer 64gr Gold Dot.

Lo and behold, the SCAR would just not run on the Gold Dot ammo. Ball worked fine in the gun but the blunt tip on the Speer stuff continually got hung up and/or pushed the bullet back into the case mouth.

This, for me, was a huge disappointment. A modern service rifle that won't run on modern ammo?

Bart contacted FN and they basically told him too bad. They said they'd only warranty and/or inspect the gun if he can re-create the issue with FN branded M16 mags.

Similar issues have been noted with the SCAR-17's on a few forums but I've never personally seen this.

 

[boricua9mm]

One of them is the result of several years of R&D from elite Military end users, has been subjected to, and passed, a slew of hardcore tests and has gone on to prove its worth on the battlefield.

The other one is made by Beretta.

 

[JustinJ]

One of them is the result of several years of R&D from elite Military end users, has been subjected to, and passed, a slew of hardcore tests and has gone on to prove its worth on the battlefield.

The other one is made by Beretta.

Actually, the ARX has been adopted by the special forces of a number of different countries and the list is growing. It's also seen combat in Afghanistan and i find it pretty unlikely any of the countries which adopted it did so without thoroughly and rigorously testing it. The real question is how far in quality is the version we civilians get is from that delivered to military users.

 

[Schwing]

One of them looks kinda cute, has been around for years and has become pretty popular over the last few years. The other one is made by a company that has been building firearms for centuries...

Honestly, I have no experience with either. I just couldn't pass that one up

 

[dvdcrr]

I dont care if the company has been around for centuries. Its employees may abandon their principles at any time.

 

[boricua9mm]

Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their history lessons regarding Fabrique Nationale.