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

[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

[k9870]

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

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.

[Yournamehere]

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?

[Spades of Columbia]

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.