Benelli MR1 Carbine (Civilian Beretta Rx4 Storm)
Benelli, not wanting to miss out, has entered the lucrative black rifle market with Benelli MR1 Carbine, a 5.56mm gas piston operated rifle.
Benelli MR1 Carbine
The MR1 Carbine is the civilian version of the Beretta Rx4 Storm (which never took off). Benelli, a subsidiary of Beretta, designed the ARGO gas system used by the MR1/Rx4 and manufactured both the MR1 and the Rx4 Storm.
Beretta RX4 Storm with accessories. The collapsible stock is not available currently on the RX4.
What differentiates the MR1 from other 5.56mm rifles is the gas system it uses. Originally the Auto-Regulating Gas System (ARGO) was designed for the Benelli M4 Super 90, better known by its US Military designation, the M1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun. Benelli then adapted the system for their ARGO line of hunting rifles (branded the R1 in the United States). In 2005 the Beretta Rx4 Storm, a tactical version of the ARGO rifle, was introduced and marketed to law enforcement. As far as I know the Rx4 has never been available in a select fire variant but they decided to market it to civilians as the Benelli MR1.
Benelli M4 Super 90 / M1014
Benelli ARGO EL
The ARGO gas system has an interesting short stroke piston design. Gas is trapped very close to the chamber. The high pressure gas ensures reliable cycling regardless of ammunition. This means that it can cycle any shotgun shells, regardless of the load. For a rifle it means the barrel can be very short and a suppressor could be fitted without any cycling issues. This gun is just asking to be converted into a Short Barreled Rifle!
The gas is then fed into an expansion chamber. The pressure in the chamber drives the piston assembly, which has dual rods. The high pressure is regulated by a release value. These diagrams should illustrate how the system works.
The receiver is made of aluminum, it is fully compatible with AR-15 magazines (including the 100 round drums) and, like all Benelli shotguns and rifles, the main spring is placed inside the butt stock - meaning a folding stock is not an option, although hopefully an M1014 folding stock will be made available.
MR1 Specifications:
Caliber: 5.56mm NATO / .223 Rem. Barrel: 16". Hard chrome lined. 1:9 twist. Rear Sights: Military-style Aperture Weight: 7.9 lbs.
The MSRP is $1299. I think they have priced it right. Although not cheap, and they can do better than the one five round magazine they ship with it, I doubt they could sell it much cheaper.
MR1 with 5 round magazine.
I have been anxiously awaiting this day. I love the way this carbine looks and feels. Haven’t had any range time with one, but I’m sure looking forward to it.
I adore my Benelli shotguns and I want one of these too. ASAP.
Hmmm. I wonder how long it will take them to come out in other calibers (.308, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendal, etc)??
I like the pistol grip stock version, and the conventionally stocked version. The collapsible stock version is quite simply hideous. At least it’s an original design, but I am so OVER the 5.56. I wish somebody would invent a new caliber already.
I’m not going to buy one, but I’d pick one of these before one of those stupid piston driven ARs that everyone keeps producing.
Well, looky there… a California legal configuration… I’m sure that didn’t happen by accident. Hope it ambidextrous.
“but I am so OVER the 5.56. I wish somebody would invent a new caliber already.”
Sarcasm?
I wonder, does it take M16 mags?
Stephen, yep. STANAG magazines are M16 magazines.
Maybe this is just me, but I don’t care for designs that look like something Frankenstein would make. I like designs that look purpose-built, not designs that first went one way and then were retrofitted to do something else.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, Steve! I really think we should all join hands, take a deep breath, and adopt a 6mm cartridge as the new universal standard because it’d be bigger than a .224″, faster than a 6.8, and have better BCs than any practical length 6.5. Yes, the 6.5 and the 6.8 are more powerful, but if I wanted power, I wouldn’t be looking at a 5.56 platform.
Can’t we all just get a long gun… caliber?
It probably be sub 1k once the rifle reach retail. However even with that price point I doubt it will see decent sells.
What the deal with the slope down stock?
Matt, fair enough. I don’t want to get off topic but I get your point, although the trend is towards heavier bullets for use in shorter rifles. 6mm is a fine caliber, I know ’cause I shoot .243.
Getting back on topic, strangely enough the R1 / ARGO is not available in .243 or 6.5 Swede, or anything under .270. With the MR1/R1/ARGO/m4 being available in .223,.300 Win. Mag. and 12 gauge, there is probably very few cartridge the design couldn’t be adapted to take.
I must say, I like the idea of an action that is built to be semi-automatic. Most, if not all semi-auto black rifles are military actions designed for full auto fire. This action was never intended to have a rock-n-roll switch and so they have been able to do things like have the gas trap right in front of the chamber, something that would probably melt if it was fired constantly in full auto.
it does look different. At first i was in the man that looks crap and then the more i looked the more it grew on me.
“At least it’s an original design, but I am so OVER the 5.56.”
The 5.56×45mm seems like it’s akin to democracy, a horrible solution to the problem yet better than anything else put forth. There are more powerful military cartridges out there like the 7.62×51mm, but they are much heavier and have much greater recoil.
The one thing that I think the 5.56×45mm has going for it is efficiency; it seems like it can get a meaningful weight projectile close to 3000 fps with less powder behind it compared to other cartridges. It seems like when you start moving up in bullet weight beyond around 75 grains while trying maintain a velocity close to 3000 fps, efficiency starts going down.
I’ll pass…
Whatever:
Are you sure you mean the 5.56×45mm? That’s the round that’s used in the Russian AK74 (update of the venerable AK47).
Or do you mean the 5.56×54mm? The M16/AR15 round.
Matt Groom:
“The collapsible stock version is quite simply hideous.”
As far as that goes, I try to look beyond the ugly factor & ask, does it work? And how well?
There was an expression originated by the Bauhaus movement of pre-Nazi Germany, “Form follows function.” Basically, whatever the thing being designed is supposed to do, that’s what it will look like. No more, no less.
So the collapsible stock may look ugly (for now), but it’s doing what it’s supposed to do. And it looks it. Someone else later on may design a more “elegant” stock. Maybe you?
B Woodman,
I’m sorry to inform you that you are incorrect as to the terminology of the 5.56 NATO, which is indeed 5.56×45mm and not 5.56×54mm as you suggest. The Soviet equivalent fielded with the AK-74 is the 5.45×39.5mm, which is in my opinion a superior cartridge design except in the area of bullet caliber selection, which is .2205 and not .224. They are quite similar in concept and terminology, and it is an easy mistake to make.
The collapsible stock on the MR-1 Carbine is, I assume, of the same type as it is on the Benelli M1014, which means it only has two positions, open and closed. The collapsible stock designed for the AR-15 series of rifles is based on a style that emerged in the late 1960’s which had 4 positions of adjustment, and is more aesthetically pleasing to boot.
That style has been considered obsolete since the 1980’s and has long since been replaced with the now common 6-position M4-type stock, which itself is being rendered obsolete by newer aftermarket designs which offer infinitely more adjustability, not just in length, but in cheek height, storage compartments, and so forth.
This means that the Italian design is done not because of the technical difficulty of creating a stock which has more than two positions, but because of the desire to create a certain aesthetic model, which to my eyes is quite ugly, as well as lacking in essential function that a collapsible stock must possess, adaptability. The entire rifle seems designed with a certain style and flare in mind, and perhaps the desire to maintain that unique flavor has created certain components which are unnecessarily awkward and lack essential function. That being said, it still seems like a good design overall.
The famous German firm of H&K offered nothing but two position stocks for years and said “If you don’t like it, buy something else!” and when many people did, they quietly changed their tune. It would be a shame to see Beretta make the same mistake.
This new Benelli MR1 has Italian design written all over it. Almost to the point of overkill. Sorry fella’s but it’s just too streamlined and outright sexy for this ugly old man. But it is about the mechanics and not not aesthetics.Time will tell if it’s reliable. Think I’ll stick to my old school AR’s, thank you.
I’m aslo wondering why Benelli didn’t chamber the MR1 in 5.45X39? I whole heartedly believe that the 5.45X39 is far superior cartridge design to it’s western counterpart the 5.56 NATO. Wait a second, that’s impossible! There is no superior or “magical” properties involved within any particular cartridge design of the same caliber. I forgot, all .22 caliber centerfire rifle cartridges are created, or can be willfully manipulated, to shoot exactly the same. Shame on me.
I never implied that it shoots better, I merely said it was a better cartridge design. The 5.56 was designed to launch a 55grain, lead cored projectile through a Steel helmet at 500 yards, which is a rediculous test, but the 7.62 NATO could do it, so the Army insisted the 5.56 do it too.
All experience hath shown that the 5.45×39 shoots far WORSE than the 5.56. I just like that it’s designed for longer bullets which could have a higher BC (If they were a standard caliber) and potentially better fragmentation capability at lower velocities because of their length. That would all be dependent on better bullet designs, which at this point do not exist for the 5.45×39.
Just try to find a boxer primed brass case in that caliber.
I don’t think that having the gas port and mechanism drilled close to the firing chamber would present a thermal challenge. If nothing else, you could make the gas system out of the same stuff as the barrel, which does not seem to erode unduly under full auto fire.
I do think that the 5.45 compares nicely to the 5.56, if one compares the original loadings for each. M193 ball isn’t an especially awe-inspiring load, especially at range, and the 5.45 did have a somewhat better BC. M855 seems to trounce the old “poison bullet” 5.45 loads, but then there isn’t much published information on later 5.45 service loads, so perhaps they even the gap.
Now, 6mm SAW, which looked for all the world like a scaled up 5.45mm; that was the stuff of dreams.
Oh, and speaking of 5.45mm weapons, here’s a diagram of a Nikonov:
http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001527/1527726.jpg
Matt Groom,
My apologies, my error. I should have had a reference in front of me when I wrote that last missive on the 5.56 vs 5.45.
As to the stock, now I understand what you’re talking about. I thought it was only on the aesthetics.
I’m interested in one that is chambered in 7.62×39 and uses AK mags.
I BOUGHT AND SHOT MY MR1 YESTERDAY, FORTUNATELY I LIVE IN A AREA WHERE I CAN SHOOT FREELY! THIS CARBINE SHOTS AND HANDLES VERY WELL.
THANK YOU