Wow, I really like something beretta made....

[k9870]

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?

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

which is all the better reason to take a proven firearm over an unproven one.

Plenty of other rifles have proven themselves

but the biggest reason you seem to have for not liking the AR is the fact that you want to be different.

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

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

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.

Originally Posted by k9870

Plenty of other rifles have proven themselves

Define "proven".

Originally Posted by k9870

isnt my biggest thing, Reliability, accuracy and features is,

AR has all of those.

Originally Posted by k9870

It just isnt the end all rifle,

It's about the closest thing so far.

Originally Posted by k9870

and Im not gonna automatically get something simply because its been around the block the longest,

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.

Originally Posted by k9870

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.

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.

[k9870]

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

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.

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?

Originally Posted by k9870

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by k9870

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.

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).

[k9870]

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

Price per unit and such is not really a actor to me, im not arming the military im buying myself a rifle

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.

Originally Posted by k9870

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

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.

[Yournamehere]

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