Beretta ARX-100
- Thread starter barnbwt
- Start date
- Status
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
I've read the specs. It does look fat ,but it's not particularly heavy (6.8lbs unloaded is the listed weight). That actually comes in below the FN SCAR (7.3lbs for the standard version with a barrel the same length as the ARX -- the shorty is 6.7), and the Bushmaster ACR (7.9lbs for the lightest version). Unfortunately, the days of feather light (5-6lb) rifles and carbines like the old pencil-barrel ARs and AR-180s are gone. Once you start sticking all these rails on these guns, the weight goes up, and the gun gets to looking fat. It goes up even more when you start hanging optics and other accessories on those rails.
The advantage over the M4 AR is much easier caliber changes, if you decide you want that sort of thing, and it has a piston, if you decide you'd prefer that. The other advantage that's being touted is that Beretta says they designed it with deserts in mind, and apart from a little oil where the bolt and bolt carrier meet, which is steel rubbing on steel, supposedly it needs no lubricant at all. That's pretty much a non-issue for the vast majority of civilian shooters, but it actually is a very desirable feature for a military weapon that might be deployed to desert environments like the one's we've been in lately, where dust gets into everything, and mixes with oil to create a grinding paste.
Last edited:
Certaindeaf
member
That there is a whole lot a funky town. I've never handled one of those carbines and really see no need to.
sansone
Member
I REALLY like it, a lot.. pricey but that's not the question here
@TCB
No, I am not. It looks almost exactly like the gun in Starship Troopers. Just a little shorter. An M4 looks nothing like the guns used in Starship Troopers other than being black.
Have you seen the movie Starship Troopers? I don't think my comment warranted any rolling eyes or snardy comment. It wasn't meant to snooty.
No, I am not. It looks almost exactly like the gun in Starship Troopers. Just a little shorter. An M4 looks nothing like the guns used in Starship Troopers other than being black.
Have you seen the movie Starship Troopers? I don't think my comment warranted any rolling eyes or snardy comment. It wasn't meant to snooty.
Ed Ames
Member
The problem with these billboard style rifles with a lot of surface area on the sides is that they usually have lame paint jobs. Single colors, flat earth tones, lame. If they offered this with a nice color job it would be 10x as attractive.
E.g. this is a traditional Italian tea pot...
Imagine how awesome that Italian rifle would look if it had a similar paint job! Or nekid people. Or even a last supper scene since this is Italy we're talking about. That would make this rifle rock.
Until then...meh.
E.g. this is a traditional Italian tea pot...
Imagine how awesome that Italian rifle would look if it had a similar paint job! Or nekid people. Or even a last supper scene since this is Italy we're talking about. That would make this rifle rock.
Until then...meh.
grilledcheese
Member
I'm with Ed---let's paint those suckers up pretty!
Jeffrey
Jeffrey
SabbathWolf
member
lol...
I already did bring facts.
Something does not automatically suck just because the US doesn't use it.
Something does not automatically suck because it's made in Italy.
Something does not automatically suck just because it's new.
Certaindeaf
member
But my fingers aren't dead and cold yet! lolz
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And had an important role in Somalia during our "Blackhawk Down" incident. (Though not the one you'd hoped they'd have had.)
There are definitely some odd ergonomics to that rifle, or there appear to be. I'll reserve judgment until (or unless) I ever get to fire one, but I see a few red flags.
Last edited:
Sam Cade
Member
Mr. Farknocker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 120
Was just about to say the same thing. The Tavor appears to be more in the line of a step forward in technology and position. While I love the look of the Beretta, it looks just like a re-skinned AR-15 or ACR. For $2K, I'll pass.
meanmrmustard
Member
Subjective, all of them. You do know Benelli shotguns are fielded by the US, right?lol...
I already did bring facts.
Something does not automatically suck just because the US doesn't use it.
Something does not automatically suck because it's made in Italy.
Something does not automatically suck just because it's new.
Until I see reviews, field testing, hell I'd like to see it torture tested, I'm not buying it.
I'm sure Italy tests their stuff, but I trust our testing just a lil more.
So, until then...it sucks. Prove me wrong, Italy or Mexicali-whatever, and I may consider it. But not for $2000.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
You trust our testing a little more? You realize our testing gave us the M60 right? Hardly the finest of GMPGs. Our testing also gave us the M14 which, while a very good weapon, was not the best choice either, and moreover, the tests were rigged (according the army I.G.). Other US military tests (admittedly not of weapons, but still, U.S. military tests) gave us that godawful abortion that is the army's Universal Camouflage Pattern -- which is inexplicable, because the UCP pattern tested significantly worse than almost all the other patterns.
Point is, the U.S. military's stamp of approval is not the end all and be all of excellence. Politics seems to pick the winner as often as performance does.
And as others have said, the Italian army has been using the rifle -- in combat zones no less -- for several years now. Just what would you be putting the rifle through that it would be less likely to survive than that?
OP
OP
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
But just check out the lack of recoil on those things!
And yeah, I've never noticed there are no sights of any sort (carry handle?) on those honkin' things--they must have a cloned Josh Randall training troops in point-shooting in the future.Yeah, the Beretta looks nothing like those guns, except it's black and angular (like every other modern semi-auto service rifle and derivative--that was my point). It was not too long ago when anyone with an AR of any sort was considered a Mall Ninja (or whatever the term was before Gordon Gecko45 came along
) so that's why I think it's a bit unfair to impugn a rifle solely for its looks without first describing its functionality.
Connect that dingy top-rail to the sides with some plastic supports, and you have a profile that matches the Beretta
And it does appear to come (at least the 160) in some sort of tan camo for the non-Tutonic look
Looks are only important (I think) if they affect comfort (something we can't know until we hold one) or if the looks themselves are what set the rifle apart from equivalent items (i.e. H&K UMP vs USC, or FNH FNAR vs Browning BAR)
Informative pic of the rifle's breakdown. I'm guessing the lower is still the "firearm"
What do you like most about the Tavor vs the Beretta (or others)? Is the bullpup configuration the big draw, or other factors, too?
Unrelated lamentatious rant:
Not to mention the (now) beloved M1 Garand over the (possibly, but we'll never know, now) superior Johnson rifle or (even more unknown, but frontrunner) Pedersen Rifle. Not to mention the brilliant politically influenced testing which cost history the DWM Luger in 45ACP :banghead:
TCB
AXR
Saw the short barrel 160 at shot afew years ago. I've been able to own quite a few diff. para military rifles over the years. I can remember when AUGs set on the shelf and no one wanted them. People still bad mouth M1 Carbines after three US involved wars. Just got a Tavor a couple weeks ago. Like it a lot, like my SCARs a lot, like my ARs a lot as well as the FALs. All are diff. but serve me well. I will have a AXR 100. It isn't the prettiest rifle but it handled very well. Good stuff isn't cheap, guns today are still a better value that many 20 years ago!
Saw the short barrel 160 at shot afew years ago. I've been able to own quite a few diff. para military rifles over the years. I can remember when AUGs set on the shelf and no one wanted them. People still bad mouth M1 Carbines after three US involved wars. Just got a Tavor a couple weeks ago. Like it a lot, like my SCARs a lot, like my ARs a lot as well as the FALs. All are diff. but serve me well. I will have a AXR 100. It isn't the prettiest rifle but it handled very well. Good stuff isn't cheap, guns today are still a better value that many 20 years ago!
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Don't be obtuse. I'm not saying the testing our military has done over the years has been uniformly bad. It hasn't, of course; it's resulted in the adoption of some world-beating designs. But it's also rejected some designs that were better than what got accepted (e.g. the AR10 rejected in favor of the M14). And other weapons, like the FN FAL (which also got rejected in favor of the M14), were also outstanding designs, despite not being accepted for U.S. service.
The point is that coming through U.S. military testing is not an automatic stamp of greatness, nor is not being adopted by the U.S. military an automatic sign of inferiority. To base one's decision to buy or not to buy a commercial variant of a military weapon on that criteria is arbitrary and capricious rather than logical.
justice06rr
Member
For that price range, I'd go with a Scar or Tavor as others mentioned.
Or even a high-end AR15 like a LMT or Noveske.
Or even a high-end AR15 like a LMT or Noveske.
OP
OP
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Exactly; you win some, you lose some, and the military brass making the reqs isn't infallible. They have been instrumental in convincing companies to take chances on new designs like those I mentioned. My point is that some bone-headed choices have definitely been made by the process, so its seal of approval/disapproval isn't, in and of itself, as reliable an indicator of "best-ness" as many would like to think. It merely means the brass thought the platform the best idea at the time.
Honestly, our military has adopted the M4 so recently, that 2$ laser guns with unlimited "ammo" probably couldn't convince them to switch over just yet
. If the info is available, small, elite, highly-decorated tactical units that frequently switch out gear and tactics are probably the best place to look for early-adopter experiences with emerging platforms--which is why I find the successful use of the ARX by the (apparently) highly-respected special forces there informative, rather than meaningless.TCB
SabbathWolf
member
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Too much childishness in this thread to continue.
Don't know what it is about one Italian rifle that would make folks forget how to express clear, adult, reasoned opinions, and reply with respectful, considerate, equally reasonable counter-points, but obviously Beretta has hit upon that mystery factor to an amazing degree.
To think that they'd produce a rifle with such je ne sais quoi as to be able to make perfectly polite, quality folks squabble and snipe like poorly supervised children who didn't know enough about the subject they were debating to bring anything to the argument but insult and arrogance.
Hat's off Beretta!
Don't know what it is about one Italian rifle that would make folks forget how to express clear, adult, reasoned opinions, and reply with respectful, considerate, equally reasonable counter-points, but obviously Beretta has hit upon that mystery factor to an amazing degree.
To think that they'd produce a rifle with such je ne sais quoi as to be able to make perfectly polite, quality folks squabble and snipe like poorly supervised children who didn't know enough about the subject they were debating to bring anything to the argument but insult and arrogance.
Hat's off Beretta!
- Status
