Argentina to Manufacture and Adopt Beretta ARX 200 Rifles and Px4 Storm Pistols

Argentine Defence Ministry Secretary of Science, Technology, and Production Hector Lostri announced that a domestic firearms’ manufacturing company called Fabricaciones Militares will start licensed manufacturing of Beretta ARX 200 rifles and Px4 Storm pistols. The Argentine company has already signed an agreement with Beretta to produce the mentioned firearms. Right now the company is being certified by Beretta to be able to start the manufacturing. Presumably, the ARX 200 will replace FN FAL battle rifles in Argentine Armed Forces. The Px4 Storm in its turn will probably be the successor of FM-95 pistol, which is the Argentine version of Browning Hi-Power.

Argentina ARX 200 - 1

Beretta ARX200 (all images are from

Argentina adopted FN FAL rifles in 1955. Since then, the FAL remained the standard service rifle of Argentina. Later (in 2013), special forces of Argentina were showing interest to Beretta rifles, but back then it was the ARX-160. However, for the main troops they’ve decided to make the new ARX 200, which is a battle rifle chambered in 7,62x51mm NATO (same caliber as FN FAL). Beretta first introduced the ARX 200 about a year ago in DSEI 2015 in London.

Argentina Px4 Storm

Beretta Px4 Storm pistol

Px4 Storm is a locked breech semi-automatic pistol chambered either in 9x19mm, .40S&W or .45 ACP. Most likely Argentine will manufacture one in 9x19mm, but it is not specified yet. It would be interesting to know why Argentina didn’t license the manufacturing of Beretta’s latest pistol – APX.


IHS Jane’s 360

Hrachya H

Being a lifelong firearms enthusiast, Hrachya always enjoys studying design, technology and history of guns and ammunition. His knowledge of Russian allows him to translate and make Russian/Soviet/Combloc small arms related information available for the English speaking audience.
Should you need to contact him, feel free to shoot him a message at


  • Major Tom

    Well on the one hand, the ARX-160/200 series is better than the L85/86 so maybe Argentina is gearing up for Falklands 2.0?

    At least they aren’t waiting on Venezuelan AK-103’s.

    • belel

      U.K doesn’t want to fight in latin america, even latinos don’t want to fight in latin america. A storm is not going to stop a future spanish armada. That island is a major U.K liability.

    • yodamiles

      No one gonna start a new Falklands war. The new Argentine adminstration is pro-west….even the last one have enough brain not to start a war.

  • john huscio

    Kind of a trend of certain countries adopting or sticking with 7.62×51.

    • UnrepentantLib

      I wonder what their reasoning is. The 7.62×51 being better in the mountains and wide open country like Patagonia?

      • Malthrak

        Probably logistical would be my guess. They likely have gobs of 7.62×51 ammo left, inadequate domestic intermediate caliber production, training programs for 7.62×51 in place, and no big military threats forcing a change.

      • Quest

        If you want something for Range, go with 6.35 to 6.5 (6mm outperforms it but has shorter barrel life).

        7.62×51 is “ok” but if we actually speak about performance its absolutly terrible and unoptimized, (ofcourse because its old). Its form factor is absolut bullshit, its projectile lenght is short so it have low weight for its diameter, increasing weight brings down velocity way to much, while keeping the same velocity with more weight would exeed its energy. 7.62 is just way to thick for infantery smallarms. 6.5 will for the same energy have a long aerodynamic bullet, and is faster (flatter trajectory, faster time of flight, sicnificant moe KE/mm², less wind drift).

        Its a pure logistics thing. Not at all performance.

    • Malthrak

      One will notice these are mostly nations with decades of foreign supplied and domestic 7.62×51 ammo laying around and that aren’t really anticipating engaging in major high intensity combat operations against conventional forces, and that in most cases would be considered 2nd rate military powers. The top dogs that design and make all their own stuff, like the US, UK, Germany, Israel, Russia, China, etc, all continue with intermediate cartridges.

    • Major Tom

      I’d have to wonder if it’s not observations of what’s been happening in the GWOT. They might be thinking “Ya know, those Americans and their short-barreled carbines in 5.56mm are routinely getting outranged and in some cases outgunned by what are basically peasants, not soldiers. Perhaps 5.56mm doesn’t have enough advantages to merit us switching over after all.”

      You have to consider that the world’s arms makers STOPPED making new designs that are basically submachineguns only in rifle caliber. New marks of HK-416/417, AK-12/A-545, QBZ-95-1/QBZ-03, Galil ACE, ARX-160/200, they all have moved away from the uber-short, uber-small weapon with a 200 meter range with the wind at its back that was the trend of the 1990s and early 2000s. Now those weapons boast about how they offer accuracy at 300, 400, 500+ meter ranges at times. It’s as though Timmy Taliban and his century old bolt gun or his dusty, rusty pulled out of an old Soviet bunker PKM outranging GI Joe and his M4 was actually the superior combatant. (If he could only shoot straight, Timmy Taliban would’ve kicked our bums with that kind of doctrinal fighting.)

      • Uniform223

        *rolls eyes*

        Not this again…

        • GD Ajax

          That’s what the reports say. But hey, everybody who moving up to .338 most be some kind of Luddite, right? So the Pentagon itself must be wrong and lying about our soldiers being over matched and out ranged.

          • n0truscotsman

            You guys are incorrectly associating certain acquisitons with your own theories.

            338 effectively bridges the gap between 7.62 NATO and 50 BMG for accurate, long range sniper rifles. A gap that needed filled, and the 338 L is an excellent cartridge in that regard.

          • Major Tom

            The implementation of the DMR to begin with was because of overmatch and outranging. Prior to 2001 the DMR was conceptual at best, an idea for maybe SF. Regular Army/Marines the whole unit had nothing but M16A2s and their 249s/240s/M60s. If you needed precise small arms fire, you sent in a sniper team.

            Then Afghanistan happened and that whole doctrine got kicked to the curb by reality. Before 2001 was out they were digging up old M14s and shipping them out to make up the range gaps being encountered.

          • n0truscotsman

            “Prior to 2001 the DMR was conceptual at best, an idea for maybe SF.”



            It just took the American military a while to catch on in the common infantry role.

            The blame IMO, for not fielding designated marksmen/sharpshooters (UK parlance), was bureaucratic inertia and the same reluctance that was demonstrated against optics, suppressors, and any other new small arms development. But thats a whole other agument for another time.

      • n0truscotsman

        1.) Outgunned is hyperbole. Whatever cannot be reached with M4s gets pummeled with M240s,M320/M203, and designated marksman/sniper rifles. Systems in *combined arms*, not individual weapons.

        its easy for those without experience in a combat arms MOS to misunderstand though.

        2.) Assault rifles have not be ‘stopped’ or were they ever ‘short,
        submachine gun like’ to begin with. You’re conflating specialized SBR/PDW type weapons (HK416D, MK18) as *all* types of HK416s, AKs, Galil, SCAR, etc etc. Who remembers the brochures from the early 2000s? I do. and they had short, medium, and long-type barrels. Failure.

        And the fielding of new 7.62 caliber battle rifles is not some kind of secret trend that implies the inadequacy of 5.56 either.

        Many nations may be reluctant to bin the 7.62 NATO (NATO hasn’t, including us), although they may desire the caliber for combat rifles based on *their* specifications/requirements according to the MTOE/doctrine.

        And the M14/G3/FAL battle rifles are nearing 60 years old now. Time for replacements.

      • CavScout

        Hardly. Even if the M4’s (which the guys will be better served by when they get into the mud huts) are outranged, the M240’s and other support weapons aren’t. And when the fighters in Afghanistan were using heavy weapons, we even had marines bringing M2’s with them on dismounted patrols. No small feat. Either way, at least AK47 rounds drop like rocks at distance.

  • Tyler John Richards

    It might just be me, but that thing is damn ugly haha

    • AC97

      If it works, then who cares what it looks like? I’d still take one, and at least it’s not the Dardick 1500.

      I want them on the civilian market, because as we all know, it’s nice for the SCAR to have competition, because once again, they’re insanely expensive.

      • Tyler John Richards

        Only if it takes SCAR or SR25 based mags, if it take proprietary mags it wont have nearly as much competition as you think.

  • Bob

    The UK MoD is running out of cash and stated that soon enough they’ll run out of fund for missiles. But the Falklands is and will be under the crown for a very long time. The Argies are in worse shape than the UK is.

  • Giolli Joker

    No APX then… uhm…

  • jakes

    Hi, the government probably didn´t try with the APX because the City of Buenos Aires´ police is already using the PX4 with (I presume) good results. Buenos Aires is the largest city in the country, with 3 million people, so it would be logical to standarize armed forced and police units with the same gun. Regards from Argentina.

    • Hrachya H

      Thank you ! That must be the case.

      • If you want my opinion as a gunwriter from Italy, the reason is actually in Beretta’s market politics. If the Beretta APX is one of the final runners left for the XM17 MHS program, then Beretta is highly unlikely to license it out to anyone or even to distribute it massively on civilian and professional markets before the trials are over.

        • Aaron Hsu

          That would be more believable if they were holding out on the ARX-200 for the same reason. But the ARX-200 is basically a brand spanking new release from Beretta, and the APX was marketed to European customers before the XM17 MHS program received its final submissions. Beretta has in the past seemed willing (from this side of the pond) to license out designs more readily than some of the other big manufacturers. I also believe that the APX has been seen in Argentina already in consumer hands, so it’s not obvious to me that market politics is the real reason. Given the preference for 7.62 NATO, it seems that Argentina might be one of those places that hasn’t hopped onto the striker-fired craze either.

          • You are thinking too linearly. In my ten years career, I have learned that the executives of big gun manufacturers on THIS side often do not think rationally. Also remember that as willing as Beretta-USA seemed in the past to license out designs, all Beretta design rights are controlled from here in Italy, and that’s why that licensing never happened unless the Company was forced to allow that licensing by contract, e.g. when they licensed the manufacture of the M92FS around (which is something they now see as an error not to be repeated again).

            As for the APX in Argentina in consumer hands, it’s a small test lot and nothing more. I don’t consider that consumer/commercial availability. When they will start pushing it like they do with the Px4, we will start talking about “commercial availability”.

  • westford86

    I’m quite glad I’m not in their army. Good luck with that insufferable POS rifle.

    • Vitor Roma

      Why a POS? The ARX is known to be very reliable, the main issue being the super heavy trigger.

      • Emfourty Gasmask

        He’s probably stuck in the past with most other, “M14 is master race” types.

        • westford86

          You actually couldn’t be more wrong. After briefly suffering through ownership of a ARX100, I have zero faith in the 200. While I have no love for the M14, I’d take that any day over a Beretta product.

      • Uniform223

        The only real complaint I have is the “charging handle”. I don’t have the biggest hands but that “charging handle” is just gawd awful tiny. Thefirearmblog did a review of the ARX and complained about the “charging handle”, though my experience isn’t that bad; I completely see where they are coming from. It’s like they put so much time and effort to make it ambidextrous than when they got to the charging handle they simply got lazy.

    • GD Ajax

      Shooters these days are spoiled with their light firearms.

  • gunsandrockets

    16 inch barrel yet 10 pounds empty? Yikes!

    • joe tusgadaro

      Get stronger 😉

      • AC97

        That’s also the solution for the G3 being hard to run.


        The C308 didn’t feel that heavy to me actually, and it felt comfortable to me, though I’d go for the PTR 91 GI R (railed) over that.

        • Dracon1201

          It’s the reason for everything

          (Take it from a guy who lifts and trains: It’s still heavy, you can just carry it longer)

    • Major Tom

      Hit the gym. You people are spoiled brats when it comes to weapon weight anymore. We had to win both World Wars with weapons that were often 10+ lbs in weight.

      A couple of lbs in weapon weight is not the end of the world. Just ditch some of that other useless gear and accessories you saddle up with and make up the difference.

      • Uniform223

        Hmmm… ditch useless gear…

        Hmmm. Don’t want to ditch my body armor or kpot. Don’t want to ditch my camel back. Don’t want to ditch my individual first aid kit. The 2 or 3 extra magazine stays with me. My multi-tool is pretty much goes where I go.

        Essentially operational necessity dictates what I being with me. The only thing I ever ditched was the Kevlar groin pad. If something catastrophic happened down there I would rather died. Least in my experience.

      • CommonSense23

        Weapons that weighed more but carrying far less weight in combat.

        • Major Tom

          My point about unnecessary extra gear is thus proven.

          • tts

            Nope. He just pointed out they carried far less into combat then than now. That doesn’t mean its useless or unnecessary.

            You’d have to show things like armor don’t offer enough benefit to make carrying them worthwhile. Good luck with that.

          • mig1nc

            Things like advanced armor and first aid makes the American soldier more survivable than ever before.

            Night vision goggles and IR lasers allow us to “own the night” as they say.

            All these things are NOT unnecessary if you want to be successful and dominate on the 21st century battlefield.

      • gunsandrockets

        So you missed my entire point? The problem isn’t how heavy it is, the problem is how inefficient it is.

      • int19h

        It’s not a problem of “too heavy to carry”. If you have the physical capacity to care more, you should. But you can carry an extra two pounds of rifle, or you can carry an extra two pounds of ammunition.

        Now, what was the standard ammo loadout for a grunt lugging around that 10lbs Garand in WW2?

    • Quest

      Propably a thin barrel, thats what they usually do. And 16″ will propably leave unburned powder for 7.62×51… so its just inefficient and loud.

  • TJbrena

    I thought the Latin American countries were going to keep adopting ACEs. I guess that was just the ones who already used Galils.

  • Vhyrus

    That px4 in the pic is missing the hammer and safety is it not?

    • That’s a D model which is DAO (no safety) and flush hammer. They are probably adopting the FS or G model which is usually the standard.

    • Kivaari

      They also have a “Type C” for “constant action”. It makes it more Glock-like, but they are hard to find. I have a “Type F” which is a conventional DA/SA. It’s an OK gun, but it will never be a Glock.

  • ProLiberty82

    That thing looks pregnant.

    • Joe

      I was thinking the same thing. Style is usually a big consideration for Italians, but this looks unfortunate.

      • Renato H M de Oliveira

        Extra area around the barrel to allow for better air circulation. This beast will take up quite a few mags before overheating.

        • jcitizen

          Is this one of those models that has a replaceable barrel, like an LMG? That would solve that problem. I carried a spare barrel with me in the field all the time – I was used to it.

          • Aaron Hsu

            It has a barrel that can be rapidly changed, but it requires a tool to unlock two bolts.The 5.56mm NATO version, the ARX-160 that is in more widespread use, features a quick change barrel system that lets you change the barrel without tools in about 10 seconds or less. One of the BDT configurations of that rifle is a 150 round drum magazine with barrel and bipod for the IAR role. I don’t know if Beretta has a heavier barrel contour for use in extended full-auto rolls, so neither is really a replacement for the M240 or any other belt-fed gun.

          • jcitizen

            I see! Thank your for that – between the models, they do look a lot similar to me.

          • Aaron Hsu

            I believe their intentionally share the same design language, and they are based on similar technology. It’s easy to mistake the two of them since they share so much in design. I would be happy to pick up an ARX-200 as soon as I can buy one here in the states. 🙂

          • jcitizen

            As Renato mentioned, the ARX-200 will probably be a lot more accurate with a more permanent mounted barrel anyway. There are AR-15 variants that claim to have fairly easy to remove barrels that still hold MOA accuracy – but until I see a test proving it, I’ll bide my time.

            I had a high magazine capacity 22 rifle that I used on pasture vermin that kept its accuracy between barrel swaps – it had originally been designed as a military weapon believe it or not. The Austrians got away with it, by using very precise machining – but I realize I can’t really compare a .22 rim fire to a high powered 7.62 or 5.56mm rifle.

          • Renato H M de Oliveira

            AFAIK, it was designed to allow a high practical ROF without the need of spare barrels.
            Spare barrels are usual for MGs, but not assault rifles. Not to mention that speed of change and accuracy requirements are somewhat conflicting, and rifle barrels usually take quite a bit longer than MG ones, and the resulting loss of accuracy is more problematic.

          • jcitizen

            Yes that has been the usual problem with any of those designs I investigated. The removable barrel would have been nice, but not when it turns your groups into a cone of fire. Oh well – can’t have the best of both worlds yet.

          • Renato H M de Oliveira

            Oh well – can’t have the best of both worlds yet

            Everything in life is compromise, no? 🙂

          • jcitizen

            Yes! Very much so – for the intelligent human anyway – thanks Renato.

          • Aaron Hsu

            I guess it depends on how accurate your requirements are. It’s nice to have an MOA gun, but I think most people think they want an MOA gun just for the fun of it. In reality, for nearly any standard real life application and the majority of fun plinking activities, a 2 – 4 MOA gun is more than adequate. Not that MOA isn’t nice, but I think it’s become a bit of a “marketing” ploy. Modern QD guns have become much better in the repeatability and accuracy departments. The ARX holds zero across changes of the same barrel (I haven’t seen it tested across multiple barrels). The Ruger Takedown appears to be accurate, but it’s not really in the same QD class as the ARX, honestly. Probably more on a continuum. The faster your QD gets, the more you pay in accuracy (to a point), with the ARX-160 on one side (2 – 4 MOA), and your tuned, bedded, bolt-guns on the other side, and the ARX-200 (1.5 MOA) being a really good compromise between maintainability (armorer level simplicity) and accuracy for a “working rifle.” Assuming they can deliver 1.5 MOA, I’d say that it’s exceptionally competitive in the DMR space as far as how fast you can change the barrel.

          • jcitizen

            I love varmint hunting, and I prefer military designs because of not only accuracy but the ability to withstand the heat and or high round count. We may typically kill over 1000 prairie dogs a day out here. If I didn’t do it that way, I’d have to do it like my hunting chums, who buy 3 rifles of the same caliber or general use, and swap the whole rifle out during some of the hot action we get. They regularly get burn injuries or damage to property in the vehicle during hunts like that!

          • Aaron Hsu

            Yeah, I doubt many companies are targeting the High ROF varmint hunter when they design QD rifles. That would be a tough design for relatively little gain in almost all other arenas. I guess if you’re not in a real hurry with your barrel changes the ARX-200 wouldn’t be terrible, or if 2 MOA is acceptable to you would could cherry pick an ARX-100 that did what you wanted and then just carry a bunch of barrels. Seems like having a good CHF barreled Sako or something equivalent would be the easier and more convenient route to go, though. .308 seems a little much for varminting, and not very flat shooting for the task, either.

          • jcitizen

            I’m also a weapon’s design hobbyist, so I don’t mind combining interests – and if that means shooting varmints with a .308 or even an SKS, then that is where I might go. I’ve managed to collect up a large amount of cheap surplus ammo, so it behooves me to select military rifles as well, for that reason. We also have a wild dog and coyote problem here, so anything in 7.62mm is certainly welcome.

            I was once hunting prairie dogs with a foreign student, and he had his SKS with ball ammo, and the bullets just went right through the animal causing them to itch the entry wound as if it were a bug bite, before escaping underground. I told him he needed hollow points for that – we found that it did indeed work when using Wolf brand hollow points for his SKS – these are some of the things I run into, pursuing my interests. I mostly have high magazine capacity arms, because it precludes reloading so much. You don’t get much done with bolt action here; too many targets, so little time.

  • Seth Hill

    I am willing to adopt all of those FALs and FM-95s that are being replaced.

    • Dougscamo

      Good idea….call it a “FALa Rescue” and the libs will probably give you money for it….considering that was the name of the dog of the pres they worship….

  • John

    Well done Beretta. They finally found someone who wants their rifle.

    I assume the Argentinians will take whatever’s wrong with it and fix the problem.

  • Friend of Tibet

    So ugly, here’s my litle photoshop job to make it sexy again……

    • Dracon1201


    • Uniform223

      Replace that stock with the ACR stock and you got yourself a beauty queen.

    • maodeedee

      Two-tone, Yuck, I’m sick of it

  • Ark

    Fish gun!

  • MPWS

    That thing was designed by Austrian designer, same guy who designed Steyr ACR.

  • n0truscotsman

    Well see.

    Anybody that has seen the Argentine military situation recently is not holding their breath.

    Their forces are literally gutted and stripped to the bone. The state of their air force is really quite abysmal.

  • lkasjdfl

    This was Berettas first polymer rifle no? Seems they aren’t as skilled with polymer as with metal just yet.

  • Quest

    What a bs*** Rifle…

  • Quest

    Btw its absolutly terrible in mud with its big double ejection port and charging handle gap…

  • Uniform223

    I don’t intend to get the ARX but that’s good to hear

  • durabo

    Argentina has always had excellent gun manufacturers. I currently own an Argie 1911 made for their Air Force, and it hasn’t failed a single time, although it rattles like a Model T Ford.
    (Te felicito, che, por un buen informe.)

  • The reason why FM is not licensing the APX is probably the same why the APX is not being widely distributed yet: if the APX is one of the running finalists for the XM17 MHS program (and I think it is), then Beretta will not license it nor even mass-distribute it before the trials are over. That’s their market politics, pure and simple.

  • Renato H M de Oliveira

    Very interesting remarks, thanks for those.In short, I can have a Swiss knife in the form of the ARX-160, and a relatively accurate and long range DMR in the form of the ARX-200?And both will have a better practical ROF than most if not all other rifles?Me like it.

    • Aaron Hsu

      It’s really hard to say about the practical ROF relative to your standard military issue rifles, but that’s the general idea, yes. Assuming that you’re going to carry an extra barrel with you, then yes, the practical ROF of the ARX-160 will exceed most any other standard assault rifle, simply by virtue of being able to replace the entire gas system and the barrel in one swoop. Both guns are piston-driven, which helps to isolate heat from dissipating to other areas of the rifle, so that’s also in their favor. The gas system on the ARX-200 is free floating, it looks like, and the gas system on the ARX-160 is attached to the quick change barrel that is shielded from the polymer by a steel and aluminum shroud and trunion which serves to dissipate heat and protect the polymer from excessive heat. The polymer hand guard surrounding the barrel is also exceptionally spacious, which puts the barrel further away from the polymer for most of the length of the gun compared to other designs.

  • Charles Valenzuela

    “It would be interesting to know why Argentina didn’t license the manufacturing of Beretta’s latest pistol – APX.”? Really? That would be because striker-fired pistols are crap. They are especially crap for military service.