Good use of a source. I knew that including mags and parts that Beretta won by cost, but I didn't know that with just the guns, the SIG was cheaper per unit. I wonder why SIGs are generally more expensive then.

While we're on the subject, I was also under the impression that Beretta also decided in favor of having a manufacturing facility in the U.S. whereas SIG did not at the time. This is of course why there are both USA and Italian made Berettas on the market. On the subject of magazines, Beretta was able to cut the overall costs by rejecting the Mec Gars they were going to include, and switching to magazines made by two companies called Check-Mate and Airtronics. Sadly enough, the magazines were finished poorly and included relatively weak springs and as a result made the M9s less than reliable guns. After 2006, Check-Mate changed the finishing from it's initial rough parkerizing to a spray on type finish to reduce friction in the mags, and they may or may not have changed the spring specs. I got one with my 92SB, and comparing the spring tension side by side with a relatively new factory magazine, I could find no strength difference.

The phosphate coated m9 mags were stupid, they coated the inside with phosphate too, good thing they did phase those out.

There's a link to the original GAO report below, if you feel like plowing through a dry government report.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20529

That doesn't seem like a good reason to buy a particular weapon, let alone bring it to the range. I go to ranges to shoot and have fun; I could care less if my gun makes me stand out or not.

Actually, sometimes I think I'm mostly unique because of how "bare bones" my AR is compared to those of everyone else - I shoot a stock DPMS Panther that looks like a military M4, has a vertical grip and no other accessories, and iron sights only. Everyone else has after-market camo pattern furniture, different brands of scopes, and tons of shit they don't need hanging off their RIS forearms. And they don't even shoot that well.

No, not everyone wants the same thing, but wanting difference for its own sake is not a good reason for variety.

There is also nothing "conformist" about preferring a proven weapons system over a hyped-up weapon that is unproven. Unless you think there's something wrong with all the people who would rather own/shoot modernized 1911s than purchase the latest polymer-framed .45 pistol.

What im trying to say is theres a common theme of people who rip on any rifle thats not an ar-15 or ak and say (SCAR, ACR, AR160, XCR, etc.) are answers in search of a problem, not needed cause the ar-15 exists, its the ultimate rifle that nobody should try to compete with, etc. A good, different rifle is cool. And works. Variety is the spice of life. The ar-15 doesnt exactly float my boat, its good, but theres a lot of good rifles out there also. Its also cool having something thats not exactly common, if 4 of your riends pulled out glocks wouldnt having your sig feel cool? I like the features on this rifle and if it is in the 1500 range ive heard and doesnt skyrocket way up like an acr im interested.

Who are those people you speak of? I'd really like to read an article/blog post by someone who "rips" on the SCAR or ACR or any of the new rifles. I haven't seen too many such articles. Whereas I've seen/heard WAY too many people on the 'Net who seem to think that the AR is fatally flawed, that it must be replaced ASAP, and that the newest rifle platform by H&K, FN, or whoever is the solution to the "problem" of the AR.

And the thing is, this has been going on since I was a kid. If someone had told me in 2000 that the AR was still going to be around (and more popular than ever) a decade later, I wouldn't have believed it. It's not so much that people "rip" on the new rifles; it's just that those new rifles never live up to the hype, so people eventually just stop talking about them and accept that the AR is fine, and in many ways superior.

Yes, it is. And one of the cool things about free-market societies like America is that there's such a huge variety of choices. But when one particular product endures and remains popular for over 40 years, outliving all of the other choices that have come and gone during that time, it seems safe to assume that this product is the best choice for most people.

No.

Also, if 4 of my friends pulled out brand-new, $1500 STI match-grade 1911 clones, and I pulled out my 22-year old, $500 SIG, then by your definition, I shouldn't feel so cool.

The Ar-15 hyping is forum stuff on gun forums not professional articles, Its just always something like:

"hey i want a new rifle for carbine courses is the XCR a good choice handled one in the store and liked it."

"get an ar-15 there the best thats why the military uses them"

"yeah why waste money on that when the time proven ar-15 is avalible"


I wouldnt mind having an ar15, just if i spent that much money on a rifle id want something I like a little better. And as stated I have left handed friends who hit the range with me and a true ambi rifle would be nice. Im not ripping on the ar-15, i just dont get why new weapons systems always get beat up on for not being one. The AR-15 is good, its not all superior, its not 10 levels above everything else, and remember, the first gen ar-15s blew hard, the new age weapons are in their first generation. In 40 years the Imagine where a SCAR or ACR will be.

Sounds like good advice to me. Buying a proven product is often preferable to buying a new and unproven product, especially when the new product costs so much more. And firearms, unlike other consumer products, don't become outdated or useless the way that cars and computers do, which is all the better reason to take a proven firearm over an unproven one.

The XCR also retails for $1500, while a good AR can be had for $800-$900. For someone who's never even owned a rifle before, it's an especially good idea to start with an AR, given its price and its track record.

Which would be well and done, but the biggest reason you seem to have for not liking the AR is the fact that you want to be different. And as I've said already, being different for the sake of being different is not morally superior to choosing something that most people like and enjoy.

What's more ambidextrous than an AR? You aren't talking about converting the rifle to left-handed shooting (switching bolt and ejection port) on the spot, are you?

It's not entirely obvious to me that anyone's "beating up" new weapons systems for not being ARs. It would help if you posted some links to forum posts/blogs/whatever to prove your case (being that this is the Internet and all, the rule "post proof or retract" applies).

Most of the "new generation" rifles (like the G36, SCAR, etc.) use the same gas system and bolt design as the AR-18, which is almost as old as the AR-15. The only big differences are that they're made out of polymer and have accessory rails. These aren't "new age" weapons at all, they're basically just modernized versions of a 40-year old rifle that already failed to eclipse the AR-15 in either the military or civilian markets.

Plus, you seem to forget that most European armies are issuing rifles that are based upon AR-18 technology, yet their SF units tend to prefer AR-15 variants.

I am talking about instantly changing it. Ejection port and all.

Plenty of other rifles have proven themselves

isnt my biggest thing, Reliability, accuracy and features is, just exclusivity is a nice thing, like when people put custom grips on a pistol, personalizing is where it is




I dont want a huge ar vs everything else debate, It just isnt the end all rifle, there are tons of good rifle designs and Im not gonna automatically get something simply because its been around the block the longest, im going to get whatever has a good fit, reliability, accuracy, and features. If somebody likes Ar15s, more power to them, they've just never caught on with me. I kind of like full sized ar-15s, a2 style, but the carbines just never did it for me.

In my experience, even if they didn't make lefty ARs (which they do now), the AR is naturally a very ambidextrous platform as-is.

Define "proven".

AR has all of those.

It's about the closest thing so far.

Not just because it's been around the block the longest; because nothing else has displaced it yet, despite having equal opportunity to do so in a free-market society. Slight difference.

Again, AR has all of those things. They don't seem to have "caught on" with you because you seem too determined to be different (and I know you deny it, but as this point, it seems kinda hard to believe that's not your biggest motive, since you haven't listed a single grievance that sounds credible).

And yes, it is your choice what you want to buy. This is a free-market country, and you have the right to choose something else on the market. But if you really want to spend $1500+ on a new, unproven rifle that may be forgotten 10 years from now, instead of buying an AR-15 for half as much, and all for dubious reasons...then I reserve the right to tell you that you aren't making a wise buying decision.

The AR is accurate, reliable, modular, etc. Its not the only one however. Thats what im getting at, it may be the most popular/most produced but that is partially due to how long theyve been aropund and the aftermarket thats in place already. Plus, a lot of companies make them, there not a one company deal like FN or Bushmaster.

Proven rifles you can pick your criteria, the SCAR for instance has passed a lot of military testing, even if the program was pretty much scrapped the Data is there, the XCR may not be a big law enforcement gun but competitors are using them carbine courses nationwide. (yep, the civilian sector adds legitamcy to a gun it doesnt need to be in military/LE use.)

The AR-15 is a fine rifle but many others can do it, besides if I get the ebretta id order through davidsons (davidsons warranty is great even if beretta's blows) and id buy once for my lifetime, over a lifetime 700 bucks aint all that much, look at when people buy cars, people spend an extra 5 grand for features theyll only have for 5 years.

Right, but the AR-15 wasn't the only thing around in its time. Why did the AR-15 take off in the civilian market, but the AR-18 didn't?

Yep, just as I figured: We aren't talking about the same thing when we mean "proven".

When I say "proven", I don't just mean that the rifle needs to pass military tests. I dunno if you recall (since we've had this debate a bunch of times now), but I've never denied that the SCAR, XCR, ACR, etc. probably jam less and may even be more accurate than AR-15s. I know that they've fared well in tests; that is empirical evidence whose existence I cannot deny. But the question I'm asking, and which the DoD asks, and which you don't seem to ask, is whether those rifles have proven themselves relative to their cost. As I pointed out, those other rifles are all more expensive. So the question, have they proven themselves to be worth purchasing over an AR given their costs? If they don't offer some huge, spectacular advantage, they don't prove their worth.

First of all, I'm of the opinion that buying anything besides a house in monthly payments is for people who want instant gratification and suck at saving money. If you really want this new gun, be patient and save. Plus, in the time it'll take you to save, you might get to read some range reports and read what other people have said. Then you'll know for sure if it's worthwhile.

Second, I find it strange that you're extolling the SCAR and XCR, and yet you seem so set on buying this new rifle by Beretta (a company whose military/LE rifles are some of its least notable products).

I just like the features, weight, and think it looks kind of cool personally. Price per unit and such is not really a actor to me, im not arming the military im buying myself a rifle, the point of this thread is:

1. I generally dont like beretta products (none of them have ever appealed to me.)
2. Suddenly beretta made something i think is interesting.

Right, a rifle that's probably going to cost twice what an AR costs, but offers no significant improvements over an AR. If you want to spend your money on it, fine, but I personally wouldn't.

Beretta makes some of the best sporting shotguns and LE/mil pistols in the world. They've never been terribly competitive in the assault rifle market.

So my response to the point of this thread is that you have really lopsided tastes. Of course, I personally don't claim that I "like" anything I haven't shot yet, and I'm not sure you should be doing the same.

I agree with Matt 120 percent. You and your decision making, k9870, have been pointed out, proven poor in quality and stomped into the ground.

The only way you can justify liking the ARX160 is by waiting a few years and hearing what has become of it since, and if they completely botch the price point like with the ACR. Liking it now as a product is asinine as it surely is not "proven" in any sense of the word, nor do you know how much it costs. I haven't formed any serious opinion about the ACR or SCAR until recently, after they have come out of the woodwork and demonstrated themselves somewhat, and the general consensus is that yes, they are cool and more reliable on paper, but that's not worth their cost to me. IF the ARX160 can prove itself in some way with regard to reliability AND have around a 1500 dollar price point (about the price of a good piston AR), then and only then should it be liked and respected, and if it does that, I'll be right there with you liking and respecting, I'm just reserving my judgment, like Matt, because of completely justifiable skepticism.

The point that he and I are trying to make in this thread is:
1. You are really excited about the Beretta ARX160 and would like to buy one.
2. ...on a poor decision making basis, which doesn't factor in both the cost of the weapon and opportunity cost, as in what else you can buy for a comparable or lesser price. Don't be a victim and promoter of hype.

Oh yeah, and those who hate the Beretta 92FS and the slide mounted safety forget where they come from. : P

Uh, youd have to know to forget, explain?

Also, I wouldn't buy the first on the market, Id wait for reviews, but it is something I like the look of that shows promise.

What "promise" does it show? You can't know that until you've shot it, or someone besides Beretta's PR people have.

Fair enough at the last bit, and what I mean by the first part is from more of a historical respect than that of a tacticool one, but I will speak to (again) why the slide mounted decocker is not to be HATED outright.

It's obvious that you are one of many who have hopped on the SIG decocker bandwagon and buckled in, and that is fine. It is conveniently placed for MOST people (I can't reach it every time without rotating my hand somewhat) and it's retardedly simple to do, push down, click, decocked, reholster, but there are a few main things people do NOT think about when they think of decockers.

1. It's one control on a gun that does not NEED to be insanely fast and convenient. In a gunfight, the last thing you are worrying about is making your pistol "safer", because you are shooting it, and the double action pull is not as convenient, especially under stress, and when it requires the pressing of a button to achieve. It's why we laugh when we see a hammer down in the middle of a long firing sequence in a movie, because it's needless and almost never going to happen. Generally, the only time a firearm needs to be safed or decocked is while moving (though this is not completely necessary, just keep your finger away from the trigger) or, more likely, after the gunfight is over and the gun needs to be reholstered, in which case you don't need that extra one eighth of a second like when you are shooting at a threat; you have all the time in the world to safe your gun at that point, so reaching forward and making it go "click" or reaching up and making it go "click", or "click-click" if you want your slide mounted type off safe if it has that function.

2. Practice counts for a lot. Set aside the argument that the SIG is placed better, because that is very subjective. I'm one of the few that think that the SIG type and the slide mounted type are about on par in placement, having smaller hands. However, whatever one prefers is inconsequential because you can get fast at about anything with enough practice. Perhaps I am not as good with SIGs because I don't own one and have never had exposure to their battery of arms beyond my handling of them in gun shops, but I have put well over a thousand rounds through several different Berettas, and well over a couple more thousand through my 5906, and the decocker NEVER bothered me, nor was I particularly "slow" with it. BUT, perhaps you have had an unequal experience with the two different types, or even none at all, in which case your hatred is in theory and based on nothing, but this leads me to the last point.

3. HATING something that may or may not be slightly mechanically inferior is ridiculous. Let's say the SIG system is undoubtedly better. It won in some sort of Coke V. Pepsi contest and it's officially the superior system in the eyes of every man, woman, child and operator across the globe. Does that mean the slide mounted system is completely defunct and should never even have an eye batted to it? No. Does that mean you should never own a gun with that type of decocker or only buy SIGs? No. You may prefer to, but there are a lot more guns with the older system because it is older and more common, and still proven on some plane. I'm not saying you can't have a preference or even disapprove of something (Berettas are relatively heavy and chunky, that's pretty much a fact), but don't HATE the slide mounted decocker system because it is, in YOUR eyes, not everyone's, worse, SLIGHTLY worse even. Just because one thing is "good" does not make alternatives "bad", it just means the one you don't approve of is "good" and the one you do approve of "better". The "good" and "bad" mentality is nonobjective fanboy talk and people who think like that, I feel, look at it the wrong way.

Do you catch my drift now?

But on Sig it is a true decocker and you can still fire your pistol with the double action. Unlike, the beretta that locks the entire gun down. If a person pointed a Beretta at me and had the decocker down I could disassemble their gun with one hand before they could turn the saftey off and pull the trigger. It is flawed in that way.

No, you could not. I would shoot you first. Anyone worth their salt carries the particular slide mounted system chambered double action, safety off. The disassembly thing is really, really overplayed, and if you really dislike having a safety (which is VERY easy to take off with even one hand, on Beretta's especially), buy a 92G.

Why would they have the safety on? When Jet Li did it all quick like, the latch was already turned down. http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:LWmexstandoff.jpg
Also just about any semi-auto pistol can be made useless. Just press the gun out of battery. But I wouldn't want to try it.

I slingshot my slides and would hate to turn a safety on doing this.

I have never done this, and have never heard of anyone doing this, and you don't have to grab around the decocker anyway, or in other words, it can VERY EASILY be overcome by practice, reason number 2. Also the Beretta's decocker in particular has some spring pressure keeping it up, so even if you do happen to grab around there, it's not going to just get stuck in safe.

And again, if a safety REALLY bothers you, there is the 92G.

Or other brands that fit in my hand better, like cz, sig, 1911s.

That's fine, just don't HATE the Beretta or it's battery of arms. I like my Hi-Power over just about anything, but I don't HATE what else is out there.

Can we still intensely dislike one or two of their firearms? Or is that no longer allowed?

I dont necessarily hate beretta, they are reliable and accuarte, just none of their product line appeals to me. Id take one over a glcok though:p

I would love a custom BHP someday (better sights, bigger safety, mag disconnect removed.)

You have specifically used the term "hate" when describing the slide mounted safety decocker, though, and that's an ignorant thing to say. That's what I'm pointing out.

I hate the feature, doesnt matter what gun its on. Doesn'tkill the whole desighn though. The berettas killer for me is feel, just doesn't feel good in hand.

You still shouldn't HATE the feature, because it isn't that much worse than what you subjectively perceive as better. You can respect and like something more than a counterpart, but don't disrespect and hate said counterpart. How many times do I have to say this...

Exactly 9,876 times

I love the FNP USG safety/decocker, it will decock gun, it can be tuned off hammer down, or be carried condition 1, all with same control.

I don't get why he's not allowed to hate somethin, so what? I hate bananas, I hate the smell, I hate the texture, I can't be in the same room as somebody eating a banana. It's my personal opinion, and there's no other way to describe it. Am I a bad person for hating bananas instead of just disliking them?

You did ask me a goddamn thing. It would have been impolite to not answer

It's a matter of etiquette really. Everyone has their preference, yes, but at the same time, everyone has their preference. It's one thing to say you hate something and another to say you don't like it because you like something better, and when it comes to something like firearms, where fanboyism, misinformation, disinformation and poorly generated opinions run rampant, you should have respect for other people's opinions if they are well founded enough. Hatred and total barring of something shows a lack of etiquette, a lack of respect, and most of all, ignorance, and it makes one seem uneducated and biased, sometimes wrongfully so.

I don't have a problem with somebody disliking something if that's how they genuinely feel. But one of the unspoken rule of social etiquette is that people who dedicate so much time and energy to hating something (ANYTHING) are regarded as unpleasant. Most normal, happy, sane people simply ignore things that they don't like, but which don't directly affect them. Does anyone, for instance, miss that dude Sillybunz who got banned a few weeks ago? All he ever did was complain about how much he hated stuff.

One of my personal pet peeves is slow drivers in the left lane, and I admit that when I encounter them, I curse them and find myself wishing my car had retractable GPMGs so that I could light 'em the fuck up. But once I'm not being slowed down by them anymore, I forget about them and don't dwell on it all day. Nor do I feel a need to get on Internet message boards and bitch constantly about how much I hate slow drivers in the left lane.

Well this sort of thing is really "the internet". You have a medium that allows you to speak your mind and rant on and on about said topic until people do get fed up from reading you're mini essay. I think we should try to be short and to the point but that is the ideal of internet conversations. A lot of us are just too used to speaking our minds to the point of not caring what the reactions are or responding poorly to people's reactions that we become pissed and need to explain everything all over again or do personal attacks for no reason.

That's about the smartest thing I have heard today