Thinking about a SCAR? Beretta ARX160

[Russ D]

I try and tolerate him because it is informative and you get a good look at the items he reviews.
He is a goof though.

He is probably a good guy does some very informative vids. However I cannot stand to listen to him talk or deal with his self inflated ego. Some people just do not have the charisma to pull it off. I probably don't either.

 

[zoostation]

I don't really have a dog in this fight since I don't own either the ACR or a SCAR, but I did have to post this vid that someone put together just for fun.

 

[QuebecoisWolf]

Looking at this rifle, I have to be brutally honest: I don't get it.

Here we are, commenting about how ACRs are selling for "only" $2000 and this newfangled Beretta is going to be a bargain at $1600-1800. I remember when I bought my Rock River and couldn't believe that I paid $1000 for a rifle. But hey, it's a tried and true, accurate, highly customizable platform. If nothing else, it's served Uncle Sam in four major wars and is a major benchmark in firearms history. Besides, I've got to keep up with the Jonses, right?

Both the SCAR and the ACR have had some teething troubles and I doubt that this Beretta will be any different. Yeah, they're more ergonomic and better designed and much cooler looking, but at the end of the day, you're just shooting 5.56 out of a 16-20 inch barrel. They're about as accurate as an AR and, though easier to clean, there already exist 5.56mm AR alternatives that either cost less or about the same as an AR. And why do these new rifles make a big song and dance about using USGI AR mags? The STANAG 30-rounder is a flimsy, poorly designed magazine that just loves to bind up. Can someone explain to me why the feed lips are razor-thin sheet metal? Why can't these new rifles use some kind of fancy new design in addition to using USGI mags? Oh wait, Magpul and C-Products already did that and they work just fine with your AR-15.

Gun nuts like having shiny new toys. That's the only reason why ACRs and SCARs have sold at all. But what gun nuts absolutely love are shiny new toys at a fair price. Look at Glock and Magpul. Great, revolutionary new products at very reasonable prices. Glock also offers a $200 discount to Military and LE customers and most retailers offer volume discounts for P-Mags. We're willing to pay a little extra for something shiny and new, but why does the price have to double? Does it really cost that much more to build an ACR or SCAR or ARX160? I doubt it. I think that we're paying for the massive marketing costs of these guns. That's right: we're paying them to convince us that a small evolutionary step is some kind of revolution in arms.

If you've got the money and you like the platforms, I'd say go buy these fancy new rifles. Nothing wrong with buying guns if you can afford it. As far as 5.56 rifles go, until either prices become competitive or there's a big technical leap forward, I'll stand by the AR.

 

[Ender]

One of the main reasons I didn't go with an AR was because I was kind of tired of them. At one point or another I've been issued and carried an M16A2, M16A4, or M4 in Iraq/Afghanistan. Before my ACR I have never owned an assault rifle, at first I looked at ARs but they just didn't do it for me anymore. The ergonomics and little things(folding stock, bolt release, piston) about the newer generation of assault rifles appealed to me. I waited for a few months and now you can get basic models on gunbroker for $1650 buy it now. Yes you can get all that stuff on an AR with bandaids, but I would rather have a rifle designed that way. Thats just where I'm coming from when I made my decision.

 

[RobMoore]

This beretta has more features than I need, but it would be very tempting at 1.5k

It would have to get in line for a couple years while all the "gotta have it" buyers work the kinks out.

 

[JOBU]

Nice, but for the price/performance/reliability, I'll stick with my buddy courtesy of Mr. Mikhail Kalashnikov.