[EnforceTac 2023] NEW Beretta ARX 200 .308 DMR with ~1 MOA Accuracy!

@TheGreatDeception The ARX 160 has caliber conversion kits for 7.62x39mm. https://www.berettadefense....
The reason Beretta's rifles do not fare well on the US market is because their rifles are built with the military market in mind. They're not made for civilians, so the design philosophy differs. The ARX 160 fares pretty well on the market it was designed for : 11 countries use it, 3 of them for their main army. THe CZ Bren 2 was adopted by the same amount of countries and I wouldn't call it unsuccessful. And just because you like the rifles the manufacturers you quoted offer more than the ARX 200 doesn't mean they are superior. The HK 417, for example, isn't more accurate, it's attachments mounting system isn't more robust, it's reliability is probably similar, and it weighs about the same.

@IOJ Wow, we've got some real winners here:

Your link goes to the Beretta Defense international website which is int'l military and has nothing to do with the USA . In the USA, still no .300 or 7.62x39 conversion kits to speak of and the gun was developed 15 years ago.

Any HK product will be more durable and robust than any Beretta product, and if you want to talk about militaries lookup how many use the HK416/417 and compare that to the ARX100/200. Look at the rifles that our SOCOM is using for starters, then look at Big Army, no Berettas to speak of post-M9. Look at the countries using the ARX, most are third-world slums (except Italy) and former ComBloc countries, of course they are going with the lowest bidder, try finding large H&K orders from Egypt, ALbania, Turkmentistan, Romania, etc.

you default that I like the manufacturers FN, Sig, HK, LWRC etc. Whether I like them or not, I think sales can decide, I invite you to find any significant market that is commercially picking up Beretta rifles over an FN, Sig, LWRC, HK, etc. rifle. Now it makes sense why the ARX100 was selling for exactly half it's MSRP, when something doesn't move, mark down the s*** out of it. Still boggled the mind on how Beretta still hasn't figured out how to make their ARX100 take Gen3 PMAGs

@TheGreatDeception So you're pissed off that Beretta only offers the conversion kits they developed for the military market and not for the civilian one ? They discontinued the ARX 100 in 2019 after unsatisfying sales. Why would they sell a kit for a rifle which : 1) isn't produced anymore ; 2) was sold in very low numbers, which means a niche market. And by the way, the MR556 has a nitrided barrel while the ARX 100 has a chrome-lined one. Here's you Beretta product more durable and robust than a similar HK product. And what decides sales, when all products have similar capabilities, is how much you offer your product for and how good of a salesman you are. The success of the manufacturers you quoted speaks up more for their salespeople than for the actual quality of their products. And there's a market picking up Beretta over anything else, the italian one. Which is the market the ARX 200 was developed for. And as for why the ARX 160 doesn't accept PMAGs, it is easily explained by the fact that PMAGs aren't a standard, STANAG is. And STANAG called for a metal slick side magazine. And outside of the US, PMAGs aren't much used ; if they were a requirement, Beretta would have modified the ARX 160 to accept them.

@IOJ The original Swiss SIG 550 also has a nitrided barrel, but I don't think many people would call it "less durable and robust" than either ARX or 416.

@int19h Yes, but chrome lining is always better than nitriding if you are looking for durability (at the expense of mechanical precision). Provided HK and Beretta use the same steel and manufacturing techniques as SIG, the barrel will last a little longer if chrome-lined instead of nitrided. But it will produce slightly larger groupings.

@IOJ Chrome is more durable wrt barrel wear from shooting, true. But nitriding is advantageous in that it applies to the outside, as well, and the overall result is just as good as chrome at corrosion resistance, but with much better surface coverage. So I don't think it's an obvious trade-off either way (at least for assault rifles; MGs are a different matter), and in practice, we've seen militaries adopt either one without issues.

In any case, my point is that nitriding by itself is not a mark of a shoddily designed or manufactured weapon. You have to look at other things.