Beretta ARX-100

[barnbwt]

So, it sounds like we'll finally be getting a semi-auto version of the ARX-160 at some point. Anyone excited, hesitant, dismissive, or otherwise?

It seems like a pretty slick package, the ambidextrous stuff especially seems innovative, or at least well done. A real step forward for Beretta, who, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't introduced a new service-rifle-equivalent to the market in a while (I suppose you could count the Benelli MR1, I have no idea if that ever saw trials, let alone service, though). The price is high, but folks shell out more for 30 year old bullpups and the SCAR, so perhaps 1950$ isn't completely ridiculous. The profile is fatter than an AR, but looks an awful lot like a G36 to me, and many folks think those are cool .

The only opinions I've read so far are simultaneously "come on Beretta, come out with something "revolutionary" already," and "why isn't it compatible with all my AR-stuff?" . Does the rifle seem intriguing, or off-putting for some reason?

TCB

 

[allaroundhunter]

It, in my opinion, just looks ugly. I don't see it staying around long at all, as I think if anyone wants to spend close to $2,000 they will either get a semi custom AR or a SCAR.

 

[TrickyDick]

I read the article in G&A about it. I like the features included, but $1950 is a bit steep for something of that nature. hopefully at some point the price will come down and hover around $1000-1200, but i won't hold my breath.

 

[SabbathWolf]

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder.
I want one.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Looks like an ACR/SCAR knock off.

With a $2000 suggested price tag, I'll not be the guinea pig.

 

[TurtlePhish]

It's a bit... chubby.

I'll reserve real judgment for after I know more about actual function.

Let's see if it can hold its ground against the SCAR, Tavor, AUG, and other expensive non-AR semis.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I'm hoping the CZ Bren 805 eventually comes out in a semi version

 

[nwilliams]

I'm not excited about the price. If it were in the $1,200-$1,500 range I would be more interested.

If I'm gonna shell out close to $2,000 on something new it will be the Tavor.

 

[GCMkc]

I think the price is fair. You cannot get a push button barrel swap piston driven gun for less than $2,000. I'm really digging the ambi features mainly the charging handle and ejector. The quality from Beretta is top notch. The ARX100 has more features than an ACR and will be cheaper. I am definitely interested in buying one.

Looks like they will be available in the next couple of months.

 

[Fishbed77]

If I ever drop that kind of scratch on a 5.56mm semi-auto, it's going to be a SCAR or Tavor.

 

[RX-178]

Remember back when it was taken for granted that guns would go for LESS than the MSRP?

It's sad how long ago that feels.

 

[wally]

I'd jump on one for about $2000, at $1500 I'd place an order now! Like the fact they didn't get creative with magazines and use standard AR mags.

Unlike the SCAR .308 which had to make a new, near unobtainable, expensive, proprietary magazine
Its why I've not bought one -- the price plus half a dozen spare mags is just too much.


I'd be in on the Tavor at about $2K too!

 

[allaroundhunter]

The Tavor is about $2,000

 

[Gtscotty]

I really dig it, supposedly the ARX 100 is a pretty faithful civilian adaptation of the ARX 160 currently issued to Italian troops. Its kind of difficult for me to justify a $2k 5.56 carbine to myself, when I already have three AR's that usually get beat out by .22 lr's and pistols for range time.... perhaps I'm not a member of the target market though.

If I was going to drop that kind of cash on a non AR tactical rifle, I do think the ARX 100 would be pretty near the top of my list. When compared to the ACR, SCAR, Tavor and AUG, i'd bet only the Tavor and the AUG have more actual fielding history and units issued. If they ever get down to the ~$1500 range, I'll probably bite. Until then, its hard to justify that kind scratch for such a rifle when S&W is selling the purportedly excellent M&P10's for just over $1200. Ymmv.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I really dig it, supposedly the ARX 100 is a pretty faithful civilian adaptation of the ARX 160 currently issued to Italian troops.

Meh.

When Italy has reported several years of extensive testing and field use, I'll bat an eye.

With the coin it commands, its an eyesore.

 

[Gtscotty]

I don't know what you're Meh-ing about Mustard, I simply stated that the ARX 100 is supposed to be a faithful translation of the ARX 160, which has been fielded as Italy's main assault rifle. I'm sure Italy conducted extensive testing prior to it's wholesale adoption of the rifle, does that bat your eye?

If not, also consider that the ARX 160 made it to phase II down-select of the Army's recently canned Individual Carbine competition. Additionally, Wikipedia says that the Albanian special forces and the Mexican Federales have adopted the ARX 160. All I'm saying is that it's not like Beretta cobbled together a few MR1 pieces and nailed them to a PX4 grip to make the ARX 160, it is a viable and well tested rifle.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I don't know what you're Meh-ing about Mustard, I simply stated that the ARX 100 is supposed to be a faithful translation of the ARX 160, which has been fielded as Italy's main assault rifle. I'm sure Italy conducted extensive testing prior to it's wholesale adoption of the rifle, does that bat your eye?

If not, also consider that the ARX 160 made it to phase II down-select of the Army's recently canned Individual Carbine competition. Additionally, Wikipedia says that the Albanian special forces and the Mexican Federales have adopted the ARX 160. All I'm saying is that it's not like Beretta cobbled together a few MR1 pieces and nailed them to a PX4 grip to make the ARX 160, it is a viable and well tested rifle.

Does it bat my eye? In a word, no.

Italy of today, luckily, is not the Axis member of the first half of last century. I don't think many will argue that they're not anything of a real force to be respected, militarily speaking.

While I don't discredit their move to arm themselves with what they feel best, they don't have the track record of military engagement in the last 100 years as, say, we do. We aren't using it, its not proven, so who cares.

Albania? Mexico? Some of those Wikipedia articles are written by your neighbors kid.

 

[Gtscotty]

I'm not getting into a waving contest but...

They may not be an Axis power anymore (who said they are?) but Italy did have combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The folks I've talked to who were deployed with Italians in country respected them... militarily speaking.

I'm sorry, but I know way to much about military acquisition (being in that business) to settle for the "we aren't using it, so who cares" line suggesting that if the US military doesn't use something, it's not worth having.... pure hogwash.

Lastly, if little Jimmy next door cites his sources, who cares what he writes on Wikipedia?

Edited to clarify tense.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I'm not getting into a waving contest but...

They may not be an Axis power anymore (who said they were?) but Italy did have combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The folks I've talked to who were deployed with Italians in country respected them... militarily speaking.

I'm sorry, but I know way to much about military acquisition (being in that business) to settle for the "we aren't using it, so who cares" line suggesting that if the US military doesn't use something, it's not worth having.... pure hogwash.

Lastly, if little Jimmy next door cites his sources, who cares what he writes on Wikipedia?

History says they were.

Canada has/had troops in both theaters, what's your point? You can't even replace the damned grip.

I also use what Russia USED to field. Once again, buying what's proven. Having and employing are severely different. You'd know that being in military acquisition. I've no qualms with polymer lowers, but the whole package is entirely too plastic for me.

Do you check every source after using Wikipedia in a discussion? Do you cite Jimmy?

Once again, until it drops several hundred or better in price and I've seen reliability reports...I'll pass.

 

[barnbwt]

Perhaps the question should have been "is anyone *who isn't already physically, mentally, and spiritually fulfilled by their current 223 rifle* interested in what the Beretta has to offer? Any particular features you like the most?"

Saw a lot of that on ArfCom; "Come back when I like it better than my AR. Then I'll be interested" --Oh, come one, how the heck is Beretta supposed to do that when you won't even look at it? I know we're defensive of our go-to gun choices, but really?*

Is there a particular reason everyone seems to stack the rifle against the Tavor? I've noticed that here, and on several other boards, too . They don't seem to be direct competitors, one being a bullpup and a much older design, the other the newest kid on the block with all the cool features. Is it just because they've been introduced stateside at the same time (and at a similar price point)?

I also see it compared with the SCAR; again, because of particular features or functions, or merely because the price is similar? I understand "having 2000$ to blow on a cool rifle" I just want to know if that is the reason they are compared thusly.

I don't own a 223, but if (yeah right --when) I buy one, I'd like something well-made, out of the ordinary, but still very effective. That's always been the ethos behind my gun purchases, and it's served me well . I had been pining for a version of the CZ805 since it seems to be totally awesome, but the odds of ever getting a non-nuetarded version here in the States are nil (I will get one of those sweet bayonets, though ). The Beretta seems like a similarly modern and well-made rifle, so I'm curious how it fits in with the competition (feature set competitors as well as price-point competitors).

I'm glad that it looks like folks have at least heard of the Beretta, unlike the Tristar 12 pump I asked about last week

You can't even replace the damned grip.

That seems to be deal breaker for many; that and an apparent incompatibility with certain plastic magazines (IIRC, Magpul version 3?). I suppose it is possible that some users may like the stock grip, so who knows? But yeah, that is kind of a weird decision they made. Supposedly the "bulk" of the plastic you see merely to obtain a higher cross-section so the strength/rigidity is higher than if it were a more svelt plastic tube. It wasn't until a year or so ago that I even heard an AR referred to as "pretty" or "ugly" --they were all ugly...and proud of it!

TCB

*Cognitive Dissonance: Free Choice Paradigm
Fun and enlightening reading

 

[SabbathWolf]

Does it bat my eye? In a word, no.

Italy of today, luckily, is not the Axis member of the first half of last century. I don't think many will argue that they're not anything of a real force to be respected, militarily speaking.

While I don't discredit their move to arm themselves with what they feel best, they don't have the track record of military engagement in the last 100 years as, say, we do. We aren't using it, its not proven, so who cares.

Albania? Mexico? Some of those Wikipedia articles are written by your neighbors kid.

So because Italy is not a main military power right now, then Benelli shotguns must suck too huh?
lol....
Suuuuuure....

 

[allaroundhunter]

So because Italy is not a main military power right now, then Benelli shotguns must suck too huh?
lol....
Suuuuuure....

Benelli shotguns are in use with the US military, your point is invalid.

I agree that I do not hold the Italian military's choice of weapon to be a huge positive vote to the weapon's usefulness and greatness. As has already been said, their military has not quite been in combat proving their weapons in the same manner that ours and others have. And Albania?.... Don't get me started. I have yet to see a military that puts it's weapons through the tests that the American military does. I'm not saying that it is required to determine what a good weapon is, I'm just saying that it does give me a good vote of confidence if a weapon does well, even before it goes into combat.

Recently Beretta has not impressed me with their pistols or rifles. This ARX-100 is a step in the right direction, but it will take some proving before I would even consider one... Especially at that price point.

Now Beretta shotguns on the other hand....

 

[SabbathWolf]

Benelli shotguns are in use with the US military, your point is invalid.

I agree that I do not hold the Italian military's choice of weapon to be a huge positive vote to the weapon's usefulness and greatness. As has already been said, their military has not quite been in combat proving their weapons in the same manner that ours and others have. And Albania?.... Don't get me started. I have yet to see a military that puts it's weapons through the tests that the American military does. I'm not saying that it is required to determine what a good weapon is, I'm just saying that it does give me a good vote of confidence if a weapon does well, even before it goes into combat.

Recently Beretta has not impressed me with their pistols or rifles. This ARX-100 is a step in the right direction, but it will take some proving before I would even consider one... Especially at that price point.

Now Beretta shotguns on the other hand....

lol....


My point is not invalid.
Just because the US doesn't use something, doesn't make it invalid.
Quite frankly I whole-heartedly HATE the M4 for example.

 

[meanmrmustard]

So because Italy is not a main military power right now, then Benelli shotguns must suck too huh?
lol....
Suuuuuure....

Bring facts to the table, then we can talk.

 

[Pilot]

Beretta is the oldest arms maker in the world. They make quality stuff that is used by many countries, including the M9 that the U.S. military has used since 1985.

Do I think this rifle is better than an M4? Dunno, haven't shot one yet, but I do like some of the features like quick barrel change to different calibers. I would suspect once the newness wares off, the price will come down to be competitive with higher end AR-15's.

While not a bullpup fan, I do like the new Tavor, and would consider getting one of the price became a little better which I suspect it will also.