This reinforces my opinion that a commercialized variant of the ARX200 is a complete nonstarter; never going to happen.

SHOT 2020 was certainly another kickass foreshadowing of things to come in Beretta land.

Anyone know if the Magpul d60 or kci 50rd drum mag fit ?

Magpul D60 is a no-go due to the over insertion stop of the Gen 3 PMAG design. No idea on the KCI 50rd drum mag.

Thanks ...I was hoping to find a drum mag that would fit

Seems grinding off the insertion stop would be an easy solution.

That would certainly do the trick.

Any mag with an insertion stop will not work...the rifle was designed around STANAG dimensions not Magpul PMAG dimensions...lol...

My Gen2 mags work great though.

Yep, they are my preferred mag for the ARX. Only because they have a better fit with less back and fourth play than other mags. Though Lancer AWMs, Okays and Beretta's steel mags all seem to work fine.

I have no doubt that Brownells and D&H mags would work fine too, but I haven't tested those.

Gen 2 Pmags are my choice for just about everything.

I've used PMAG Gen 2's, Lancer L5 AWMs, Beretta steels, and D&H aluminums in mine and it works great with all of them.

Sadly the edges of the magwell are just a couple millimeters or so lower than on an AR-15-based platform, so my Surefire 60s will insert literally like 99.5% of the way but then can't make it the last 0.5%. D'oh.

Yeah it's a bummer about the Surefire 60s, but luckily I never bought into those. I new they weren't compatible from when Tim on Military Arms Channel tried test fitting them in one of his first few videos on the ARX.

Gen 2 mags have no over insertion tabs... ;)

The Bulgarian (ISD Bulgaria Ltd) 35rd mags that were sold a number of years ago won't work either (they will really jam the mag up in the receiver (like Magpul Gen3 mags, only worse).  Ask me how I know...

Forrest

Yeah, it's a shame, I looked while inserting it on the open receiver and it literally is like right there. Just on the cusp of being able to lock in, but then the mag body impacts the magwell. So close yet so far.

Anyone think it might be worthwhile to try to organize a volume prepay fund with a direct dealer to entice Beretta to launch a commercial semiauto 200?

Every time I've tried anything like that the response has been a polite version of "lol."

If you've got someone receptive though, knock yourself out. I know I'd be interested.

Yeah, I get it.  Just thought that maybe it could fly if the numbers were sufficient.  I don't know if they are.

Nope.

They made a STANAG compatible magwell.

They did not make a gun that cloned an AR magwell.

This, along with many other features, hurts their aftermarket compatibility and sales.

I know this has been discussed before and I’ve seen some pictures of an attempt, but how hard would it be to modify a magwell  to accept Magpul magazines and still look good?

It can't really be done...I mean anything can be done...but it is easier to modify the mags and just file off the insertion tabs.

With these being discontiued, just my luck ala MSAR, I was looking for parts availability for the ARX100 and found Brownels has some (few) parts in stock.  I bought 2 firing pins.  I also saw they had lower receivers for $40. Im sure its stripped down, but you could buy one and modify it to fit more mags or mod yours and keep it for resale down the road.

When I received my used, new to me ARX100, I had problems with the pmag Gen2 mag staying in when the bolt closed.  It thought it was the magazine.  Once I installed the Shooting Site trigger and made sure the hammer springs were in correct, everything now works perfectly.  Im excited to take it to the range when the weather warms up.  I took a clear picture of the hammer springs for future reference.  And thank you to Art at Shooting Site for accommodating my request to paint my trigger Red. Its not for everyone, but I really do like it.

I have had one about 2 1/2 years.

I noted the magwell comparability then and did a pretty thorough review.

So, I have had a few days to play with it and hit the range.
I usually put in a bunch of pictures when I review, but right now my iPhone is not putting pictures to my iPad automatically, and I have not adapted to an easy post photobucket fiasco method of posting pictures.

To start, who is this intended for?
There is a market for guns that are innovative and look cool. This will scratch that itch. These, typically, are not serious end users and I tend to marginalize the opinions of such owners.

There is a market for guys seeking legal versions of issue small arms. This is perfect for that market. I suspect that group is very happy to have this. Not much to criticize if you pick up a semi auto version of a military small arm you have been wanting.

There is a market for Beretta lovers. This is a group that frequently minimizes serious evaluations of their products and is another group I rarely find insightful opinions from.

There is a market for “gun games” guys. This is a pretty robust market. They are high volume shooters that are moderately rough on their weapons. If a platform or accessory offers an advantage, they will find and exploit it. If something has a weakness, they will find it. I have only done about a dozen multigun matches, and five or ten times that in pistol matches over the years. I will not have the round count a serious guy will and find this to be a valued source of information and results. The applause and acclaim for the ARX from this community has been...

Cricket, cricket.

Some of us are just collectors that like guns and like to shoot. This is something different to play with.

Some judge guns by their applicability to combat. I am sure plenty here have done SFARTEC or OTC and are more highly trained than me. They can offer an even more detailed opinion. I do have some background and experience. I spent 24 years of active duty with 4 enlisted and 12 as an officer in SOF units. I have spent nights on the objective and day’s training will offer my semi educated opinion based on the suitability of this model for modern combat.

The gun is light for a piston model and not front heavy. It does have odd vertical measurement proportions.

From front to rear,
It has a standard birdcage with pencil 1-7 chrome lines barrel. Fine. You can find profiles with better dissipation, design with better accuracy, etc. But this will work. It is rapidly changeable. Wow. Not your usual. I had to have the barrel replaced on my M4 twice my last 8 years. I was never looking to do it on an objective or to swap calibers, etc. but I have to take my hat off to this feature.

The handguards are a techopolymer. The gun feels less robust than a SCAR. A platform I chose to not trade out my last unit’s M4s out for. I had better uses for the P11 and I saw plenty of Rangers doing damage to them more often than M4s. If this is less robust than a SCAR, yikes. The Long, naked barrel is odd in a day of modern handguards and shooting techniques. The side rails are removable. But leave mounting bumps. WTF? The bottom rail is mostly for a non standard grenade launcher. You can get a bottom rail which I think is the same as the issue A3 version.

The barrel takedown buttons are reminiscent of Glock. A design of Glock’s that is second only in factory magazine baseplate removal of shit I hate about Glocks.

The ambidextrous bolt catch at the front of the trigger guard is a decent concept. Not where I would place it. And difficult to push up hard enough to always retain the bolt, but easy to release the bolt. Good for modern weapons handling, but only passably and not excellently executed.

The monstrous version protruding below the trigger guard, is part of what I think jacks up full magazine compatibility. Not having full magazine capability on an AR magazine Weapon is a major flaw. Just make the damn magazine well the same as an AR. Gen 3 Pmags, Surefire, some others, will not work.

The ambi mag release works well. The position is ok if not perfect. And it is horizontally long enough. But it is a very short vertically release. Suboptimal ergonomically. Why? On a design with such awkward, excessive vertical proportions, why would you make such a vertically short mag release?

The bolt catch. Left side. Cool. More amenable to modern technique than a charging handle. I would prefer non reciprocating. And you can change it to left handed in no time flat. Innovative! But it is a short, painful, handle that serves only to cheese grater your hand on the oddly very sharp brass deflector protrusion when using it. You can buy an extension. Criticism of the handle is usually met with shouts of Ambidexteous! Fast! Innovative!
Great, I can rapidly change which hand I grate tissue and blood from in stereo.

Wrap you hand around the pistol grip. The A2ish, non changeable pistol grip. I am ready to call the man that designed this a rotten, son of a whore. The ambidextrous safety is.. just.. about.. where it would be on an AR. But enough different that I can’t put it from fire to safe effortlessly like I can on an AR. I have to break my grip. I am ready to tell the guy’s mother to her face she is a straight up dirty whore.

Well, let’s try the trigger. Whoops. Must be on safe. Nope. There it goes. Clean beak. At twice the trigger pull of any other semi auto I own. What the monkey -uck. This is a sin Jesus Christ himself said no damn way am I covering this one. It is like half again the trigger pull of any damn bull pup I have ever tried. Where the hell is the guy responsible for this lower assembly? I am going to make him watch me repeatedly cunt punch his dirty whore of a mother for giving birth to him. Not really. But I want to paint an appropriate picture of my impression so far. PM me if you find it too subtle.

In disgust I move on to the upper.
The plastic BUIS feel flimsy. They attach in an odd manner. They literally semi obscure their own aperture. The height seems not quite standard. The rail has the pin modification to address the original rail wobble. Then drops precipitously to a stock way lower than it should be. And the stock is curiously short. A guy way shorter than average height in body armor would find it too short. Fully extending it is fine for me, but I am not even 6 feet tall. Who the hell much over that will find it suitable? In fairness the folding mechanism is robust, and it remains fireable folded. If you can find an army of achondroplasic dwarfs and bigger chins than Bruce Campbell, the stock will do length and cheek weld.

It has multiple sling attachments. State of the art in 1960 sling attachments.
The sling it comes with is not as nice as a Vickers or VTAC, but not as cheap as most freebies. It is a sliding two point adjustable. A pleasant surprise. The case is very nice. Surisingly. But slightly small if you account for optics and accessories, and one mag pouch. Because so many of us roll with one magazine. It comes with a metal mag that seems decent.

This is a gun that came out with I believe a retail for $1600. With promises of short barrels, 7.62x39 barrels, 300 whisper barrels, etc. it has long been available for about $1200. Under 900 at at least one place. I just paid 800 plus tax. I need new sights. A lower rail. A charging handle extension. Optics. Someone to make a stock or riser I can use with the optics. A new trigger. A bag it will fit in after that. And, as much as I appreciate the guy who made the right style of sling, a more robust version. This is not turning out to be a bargain.

I hit the range in eagerness to find its redeeming qualities. I use several brands of ammo. All function fine. Some TULA has FT fire. From primers dented but not fired. The ARX and my SIG556 are my only rifles that seem to do this with TULA. All my ARs set it off. My 1980 era SP1 with Chinese knock off carry handle Colt style scope, my 1994 Bushmaster CAR with 5 1/2 inch flash hider, my Romeo equipped SIG556 SBR, and two Aimpoint and one Eotech equipped ARs all turn in better groups. And it was a lot colder today than the day I zeroed my Eotech.

I am using a Burris AR 5x scope on the ARX. It has the FF3 on top. Sort of the poor man’s version of the ACOG Jpoint combo from ten or 15 years ago. That set up has always been taller than optimal. But on the low stocked ARX you can’t use a cheekweld for the FF.

The ARX is averaging 3/4 to 1.5 MOA less accurate than compared to combining the averages of the other guns. It succeeds in being more accurate than what I recorded for an AK 5.56 pistol with AR magwell last year. These other guns are not varmit or DMRs. They are typical ARs with stock triggers. Is it the trigger? The awkwardness of the cheekweld? Some intrinsic loss of potential accuracy from the removable barrel design? Either way, it slips out of acceptable combat accuracy for a service rifle.

Getting away from accuracy testing, doing some combat shooting, it balances well, has very conducive recoil characteristics, and handles well. It is not as akward as it looks from a pure balance, handling issue. But cheekweld wise, you would need some flush mounted sights and optic or a higher stock. I mean like some sort of pistol sights adapted to a rail with a flush mounted optic. And it was designed well into the era of optics.
Ergonomics are clumsy from the handle, safety, and mag release in comparison to an AR. If you are going up against and opponent in a gun game with an AR, he has the advantage. More importantly, compared to an AR, in real life you are giving up on advantages against a savage that wants to kill you.

Overall,
This is an also ran.

Despite shouts of Beretta!, Design!, innovative!, Cool!, And ambidextrous!-

It will end up in firesale prices with little, expensive factory support and options and a few, expensive aftermarket options.

Like the SIG556, Para TTR (which at least had real AR ergonomics), etc. it is best left in the hands of Beretta fans (which I am), military issue collectors (which I am), guys that like playing with toys at the range ( which I am), and avoided by serious gun gamers (i’m Just a dilettante) and serious combat shooters (which I am but a has been retired semi pro).

There are better choices.

If you could not bring a gun to market or fielding a decade ago that did not offer ergonomic, accessory, or function to a platform that went to war in the 1960s, and is in fact inferior,
Take a hard look at your company.

Quite the write up.  For me it was an innovative design that was easy to break down and service/clean, reliable (by all reports) and yes the possibility of changing calibers.  But honestly, after pricing out the upgrade, I would simply opt to buy a new gun in that other caliber.  $600 for a barrel is just stupid and commonplace for all gun companies to charge way more than its worth, so I dont blame Beretta.  2-4 MOA is acceptable, I wasnt looking for a tack-driver.  My eyes are getting older.  My sight of choice is an older Mepro M21 for closer targets but also good out to 200yds.

I bought one of the first round of MSAR STG556.  NO REGRETS.  I created the Neu-trigger and the trigger is more than acceptable now.  Its my favorite gun hands down.  Thank you Ratworx for making better parts.

In regards to the AR15, been there, done that.  The recoil was unacceptable for a .22 cal rifle.  To me it reminded me of my .243 kick-wise.  Then after a day at the range, it was a long and laborious clean up because some idiot designed the burnt powder from every round to sully the chamber.  Thank you Stoner.

So we can find fault in every gun.  We are so lucky to live somewhere we can choose from so many options.

I love the statement above about the fire-sale.  Sign me up.  I am now looking a new SBR version.  At sub $900 how can you pass it up.

Did Beretta discontinue these rifles altogether or just the commercial variant?

I've not heard that Beretta has issued a statement that they are discontinued.  My last two purchased from Bud's have a manufacture date of 2019.  Was that a last batch of them?  No one knows and Beretta isn't saying, at least not that I've heard.

Thanks for the comments and write-up...

Pretty well sums up my thoughts too...

Forrest

I thought there was a reply discussed pages back in this thread indicating production would be episodic.

It's unfortunate that it isn't getting big enough market response, as I think that is effecting any chances for a commercial ARX-200 (which has design elements that address some of the criticisms of the 100).  Personally, I'm a fan, & would like to add big bro to the stable.

When was the last time Beretta had any significant market response in the USA?

It’s been over 30 years since the 92 was adopted  by the military, scooped up by LE departments, and was the darling of Hollywood and TV.

They ignored their flagship and never quite hit the right response for gun games letting CZ step in and steal that niche.

The Cougar was a failure, the 9000S a failure, PX series a failure, and now APX.

Two semi auto shotguns fell by the wayside and the 1301 just sort of sits there as a maybe I’ll try this, or just get an M2.

One AR mag rifle never made it to market under the AR name,  The ARX has just fallen by the wayside,

The CX4 was just not quite right and a dozen or more PCC have buried it since.

The most interest generated I can recall in recent times is when Wilson and Langdon gave the flagship 92 a little love and attention.

It's interesting how things shake out with support or no support...

I consider the Beretta 8000F Cougar to be one of the finest handguns ever made (made in Italy, of course).  It had the misfortune to be released just before the AWB of 1994-2004, which killed 'HiCap'  9x19mmP sales (especially since there was no reservoir of existing 15rd mags (unlike the Beretta 92 and the Glock guns).  The gun was dropped before it could be salvaged (well, maybe not before it could be salvaged, but it was certainly dropped before things got better).  The PX4 re-invigoration is also a decent gun...

I also consider the Beretta APX (Italian made) to be an excellent gun.

But Beretta's support for their products here has been weak (OK, so that might be understating it a bit), and their US production (of the 92 in Accokeek and more recent production in Gallatin) has left something to be desired.  For example, the first ARX100 that I received NIB from a distributor had to be returned for replacement because of shitty manufacturing quality (flaws on the exterior surface of the barrel just short of the muzzle device).

For what little it's worth...

Forrest

Edited to make clear what AWB I was referring to...

The APX is an outstanding pistol and frankly the PX4 is one of the slickest shooting DA/SA guns out there.  But over the last two decades their shotguns have been the moneymaker here in the US.

With that said, they did sell every M9A3 they made for quite some time.

The P sized Cougar is a fantastic carry gun.

What people really wanted though was an actual compact Beretta 92.

It’s my understanding that for some reason Beretta could not get 100% reliability on the 92 Series below a 4.5 inch ish upper.  Which gave us the 92 centurion/ compact upper.
They also had the full sized hammer shut, etc. without needing modification to function in their 92 compact.  Which left us with the 92C frame.

Unlike some other legacy platforms, the huge trigger guard and much lower than average mag release button left them unable to make the grip/frame any shorter and still have enough real estate to hold the gun.  If they had gone to a smaller trigger guard and offset mag release they could have made a true 92 compact or subcompact frame.  But then they would have to reconfigure the hammer strut set up.  And  still be left with issues trying to get a true shorter compact or subcompact upper.

Adopting a rotating barrel they kind of went with a one size fits all 3.6 inch for the Cougar.  Then a full sized, compact, and subcompact grip size.

A rotating barrel was kind of neutral..  No big desire/market cry for it, but no hate either.
Keeping the 92 manual of arms was good.
A one size upper was good financially but probably lost some interest and sales.
Using 92 magazine bodies was brilliant.  Except they lost compatibility by moving the magazine catch slot.

A huge factor, especially with AWB.  And with different baseplates, a weird grip design going below the frame, etc.

If they had offset the mag release, and kept the bottom of the frame/grips consistent with the 92, and had true 92 mag compatibility,
At least the compact model may have been a winner.

But, would it really have been less R and D and costs to come up with compact and subcompact 92 uppers and frames?

Six years later they realized the importance of mag compatibility,  and built the 9000s.  Which was not actually the same size mag well.  And put a lot of style over function and ergonomics into it.  And it was horrible.

So, in another four years they combined the rotating barrel of a failed product line, design over function of another failed line, and non full magazine compatibility of both failed lines, and came out with the PX4.  With slippery grips not easily addressed.  A line that remains on life support out of stubbornness.  With another design not ammenable to subcompact function and the PX4 SC just sort of looks like a PX series and has a totally different operation system.

So, just two years later they revamp their flagship with two important things.  A replaceable front sight and a rail.  A new recoil system nobody was after.  Then threw slippery grips not easy to address and a helping of their style/looks concept into it.  And a confusing name.  With having already developed Vertec and SD and Brigadier slides and frames that addressed the sight and rail issues.

Then like two mare years go by and they are laying the 96/92A1 on us.

They couldn't keep the M9a3 in stock from launch in 2015 clear up through about 2018 when they finally started catching up with demand after bringing additional capacity online in Gardone. Been a while since any gun maker has had a product launch that was that successful, much less in post-Obama slump days.

Exactly.  A release focused on their flagship product incorporating  existing updates bundled together that had been available for years.

Requiring no R and D, no new product, and no retooling.

Simply by producing something the market was interested in and had been asking for instead of spending a fortune on stylistic designs, new platforms, etc.
That had been put together in an effort not to lose a military contract which had the good fortune to have market interest.

Without the luck of the military attempt they probably have brought the PXFour-Two to market.

They repeatedly New Coke and Zune themselves with products, with the M9A3 seeming more luck than intended success.

While your point is well-taken, you've got to give some credit where it's due too and I think you're being overly pessimistic and critical. It is worth noting some of the lessons and engineering experiments on the various failed or lukewarm products of the past 20 years crept back into the 92 and resulted in improvements to products we now have that have much higher popularity. The loss of the MHS contract and yet runaway success of the M9a3 has gotten them to start giving some much-needed attention to the pent up demand for variations on the 92. Hell, they even yielded to the 1911 competition shooters and moved the safety on the 92X Performance (which is low production, granted, but similarly they can't keep it in stock).

The Px4 was not a smashing success but neither was it anything remotely resembling a failure and I don't know why there's this false idea floating around on AR15.com that it was a commercial failure. You're probably right that it would've done a lot better if they'd retained magazine compatibility with 92 mags. I actually quite liked the Px4 Subcompact for being basically bombproof and having exceptional accuracy for a subcompact. There's been a resurgence of late in interest in the platform too, so there's that.

The semi ARX-100 may have stumbled in the US market but they've done pretty well with FMS on the ARX-160 and have picked up a lot more traction than the AR70 ever saw just in the short time it's been available. I believe the response in the US is more a function of Beretta's total failure at gaining mindshare than any dislike for the platform. Everyone I've let play with it and given a demo to when I take it to the range goes away liking it quite a bit and is duly impressed with how versatile it is; but at the same time, to start off practically no one knows WTF I'm shooting except occasional younger guys who know it because apparently it was one of the best rifles in one of the Call of Duty games at some point. I blame Beretta for that; if you're going to go to the effort to move production stateside then FFS go to the effort to make people other than Beretta fans and the odd videogamer aware it even exists. It was also not helped that they followed in the footsteps of SIG's perpetually bullshitting their customers with vaporware and then failing to deliver by promising easily multicaliber capability with toolless swaps, and then did fuckall to make that happen. The ARX is probably the easiest platform I have ever touched to swap calibers on, and yet you can't because there are no barrels.

APX, the cost was already sunk trying for the MHS contract so it made sense to bring it to market even if all it does is recoup some costs. I think it's actually pretty decent for a striker-fired pistol, I'd rather use one than a Glock, but that's a low bar to clear and it's certainly no VP9.

Stuff like the 9000S and 90-Two though, I'm with you, but that was when management was in their silly "let Italian fashion designers come up with gun designs instead of engineers" phase. Although in the cases of both of those at least some of the good work engineers did under the surface found its way into the 92 and Px4 later.

Cx4... they really should have done what they did with Ernest Langdon on the 92 and done an overhaul of the Cx4 with input from the Sierra Papa guys. I don't own one, but I always thought it was an interesting take on the PCC if unremarkable. A friend has one with several of the Sierra Papa mods and holy hell, that is actually a really nice PCC to shoot. They should raise the price like $300 and do a Cx4 SP release. I wouldn't buy a regular Cx4 but I would likely buy that. Again, though, failure to realize potential of their product and exploit it.

The inherent "accracy" loss is contributed, in my honest opinion, to the QD system...while it is locked in...it isn't barrel nut tight. I've actually "bedded" my barrel extension area for a very solid lock up and it shots as accurate as my ARs do with M855 and that is all I care to do.

While many gripe about the BUIS...they are exactly that...BACK UP...the world of using irons as primary setups are gone...as strange as it sounds...I've tried different BUIS setups on the ARX but I just go back to OEM.

I HIGHLY recommend @LOS cheek risers for the ARX...they are a must for ANY ARX100 owners.

What I absolutely love about this gun is that...its fully ambi...its runs like a scolded dog and it gives me combat accuracy out of combat loads...seriously...it has yet to fail on me.

Beretta screwed up in 1) delaying the initial shipments...they announced it at Shot but didnt deliver for another 2-3 years 2) they never ever invested in delivery promises of conversion barrels...except 10" 5.56...

So, did you epoxy bed the barrel breech block?  What was your method?  How will the coating hold up to heat?

Yeah I used a JB PlasticBonder which works on bonding literally everything with a high 3700+ PSI tensile strength.

Yes, I bond-bedded the breach block and paid close attention to the barrel feed ramp...the feed ramp extension area is where the left and right movement in the barrel is that people hate.

If you do this little adventure...make sure you coat your barrel in a release agent...in my case I just used Slip2000 EWG...

I've had this done for 2 years now...no issues...the barrel still comes in out and without trouble using the QD feature...although with a "fitted" fit feel...no issues as far as function goes.

Remember its pretty much point of no return once you do this so make sure you pay attention and have no distractions. In my experience you have about 2-3 minutes to wipe away excess bonder once you reinstall the barrel...I pushed/packed such material against the barrel feed ramp area...let the barrel sit in the "mold" for an extra 2 minutes and removed the barrel afterwards to let the "bedding" air dry for a couple of hours.

Honestly it only needs several thousands of an inch to fill the "tolerances" that cause barrel movement...so you aren't using a ton of bonding agent here...just enough.

After that I tried to pick off the plastic bond to test its bonding capability and couldnt pick it up so it was a good strong bond...solved my annoyance with a "moving" barrel while improving accuracy where it is a consistent under 3 MOA performer with M855...just like my ARs.

#CoronaVirus Milan

Attached File

I don't think his rifle is on "safe" ...

A couple of comments...

It's interesting that you tout the PX4 Compact.  I have a full size 9x19mmP PX4 that I think is a pretty good gun.  It fits my hand well (I have big hands) and shoots extremely well.  Yes, it is wide, but I don't try to carry it in an ankle holster (just a joke).  Personally, I think that the PX4 Compact is awful.  It looks ugly (yes, I know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and getting rid of the PX4 barrel system just makes it another stubby (but clunky) gun, whether it works well or not.

Everyone talks about the cartridge swap advantage of the ARX100, but bemoan the lack of different barrels.  I like the barrel system only because it makes the barrel extremely easy to clean.  Of course, you have to deal with the group shift on the target (while relatively small, still significant to my way of thinking) when you pull the barrel and replace it after cleaning.  And that's on top of relatively poor accuracy (again, to my way of thinking since it's obvious that some people are not bothered with the larger groups they get with the ARX100 compared to even dirt-cheap ARs).  But I also think that the quick change barrel feature is nonsensical to begin with when talking swapping cartridges.  The sights are on the receiver.  Swapping barrels will mean that you have to resight for the new barrel (different cartridge or not).  What's the point?  Just buy a new gun for the other cartridge(s) and have it sighted in when you need it.  I should also probably mention that I called Beretta when I received the ARX100 with the flawed barrel mentioned above.  My thought was perhaps shortening the flawed barrel and SBRing it and just buying a new standard barrel.  They were happy to sell me a new standard barrel for about $800.  Of course, I can put two ARs together for that, both of which will outshout the ARX100).  I jumped right on that deal, of course - NOT).  

Again, I don't regret buying the ARX100 because it's an interesting design (I'm also interested in military designs and generally a fan of Beretta guns), but it's not what I'd pick for serious work.

And, one further comment.  I'm not a big fan of the AR A2 muzzle device.  While I think that it's actually quite good as a flash suppressor (although not quite as good as the A1), I like exit gas symmetry at the muzzle.  And, since, at my age, I have few plans on laying in the mud or dirt and shooting prone, I'm not worried about any dust signature (Of course, might that come back to bite me at some time in the unsettled future?  Maybe, but I'll just have to live (or not) with that).  So I replaced the A2 on the ARX100 with one of the older Carlson Strike open-ended 6-prong flash suppressors, which works very well indeed.  I mention this here only because the original A2 was clearly put on by an 800lb gorilla at Beretta's production facility.

Again, for what little it's worth...

Forrest

I'm not sure how the ARX160 varies from the US ARX100 in this...

Forrest

Well that gun is an earlier variant of the 160 but the selector switch is the same....except auto goes further back...but clearly...its on fire, single shot.

Probably just using the trigger pull as the safety.

Probably works too...

Forrest

He's correct.  It's an A1 variant, set on semi mode.

Puzzling how so many cases suddenly popped up in Italy.  Hypothetically, a combination of normal tourist traffic & focused screening/detection protocol.

Saw one in the local Academy for $799 today. There hasn't been one in this Academy for 6 months, I've checked and asked several times a month. I don't know if it was recently received or "found' in the back. The person in the gun section had no idea how to check when the gun came in, they were just watching over the department and not a regular gun counter employee. Would be nice if a few more were trickling out.

I really don't need another but I'm tempted to go pick it up for my daughter.

$799 is hard to pass up, and I own 2 already.

I may be driving the 20 miles to an Academy Store tomorrow.

I can't believe anyone passes on these when they see them for $799.00. If I had an Academy near me I would probably have 5 of these things.

Well I couldn't take it and went back. The rifle is an old display that they had taken down to display other rifles and it was buried behind other stock and no one realized they still had one.
The manager was there and was excited I wanted to buy it so he gave me 10% off for the scuffs from the locking rack.So for $719 and the fact I had a $100 gift card left from Christmas I couldn't pass it up. I love these rifles.

Attached File

Attached File