Premature. Not useful.
Not to be mean, but is there an actual point to this? It’s not a machine gun, so why would we harp on replicating accuracy from a QD barrel?
$1950 MSRP is not an arguing point - they sell for as low as $1200.
Premature. Not useful.
The biggest problem that I see with your analysis is the use of the R1 to conduct your accuracy test. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the R1 is a 4 MOA optic - about 4" at 100 yards. That introduces a significant degree of variance in addition to the ammo which is 2-3 MOA.
Repeat this with a quality 10X optic and match grade 75 grain ammo so that the glass and load do not become a limiting factors.
Also, stop saying “proved.”
I have nothing else to add. Thank you my brother.
Yeah, your original post does a horrible job of explaining this.
I’m going to go with Beretta actually being right on this one. Show us some pictures when you get your hands on an appropriate optic.
Premature. Not useful.
Premature. Not useful.
My apologies.
I pride myself in my ability to read, even when people use big words. He’s not being obtuse, it was a painful read… structure and content. Just sayin’.
I’m afraid that’s my best. I appreciate your honest assessment- I’ll take it to heart.
The word I believe you are looking for is skeptic. We are skeptical about your results, not cynical. No one is believing you because you have proved nothing, have showed nothing, and you don’t wish to admit that there could be flaws in your testing instead resorting to insulting others. You have a sample one by the way, which is hardly going to prove that the platform is flawed since it is possible that you have a lemon, every company has had guns that slip through the QC, hell WC had a gun recently posted here with a bad crown. Also, you have shown no pictures and in truth little to no actual data other than some anecdotal claims that you had X results, are a capable shooter and have managed 2MOA groups with an AR which is an entirely different platform. I would also call into question the validity of the groups fired with the R1 mounted to the barrel since I don’t know how you had it mounted, and as with most rifles, anything interfering with the barrel is likely to cause some sort of issues in regards to precision. I would also like to know exactly why the red dot is the only way to test the precision here as well. I would also like to know of this purpose made target you have. On top of all that, you yourself even state to the effect that the test was not scientific.
So what is the point of this thread? If you can not or will not post meaningful data or details then just please have it closed since it is adding nothing to the base of knowledge here.
I myself have shoot some ridiculous groups with a red dot optic but I would never use those groups to make any conclusion about the accuracy of the gun since there is too much human error involved.
I never intended to bash the rifle’s design, I’m not sure where you got that idea. I think it’s a good design that deserves higher QC standards for the barrels. I’m satisfied that the QD barrel setup, at least on my example, has little impact on accuracy.
If your intention is not to bash the rifle then your original post was off base since your claims to have proved that the system, or barrel, is flawed came across as little more than an attempt to throw the platform under the bus, more so when you are showing no proof of the groups and little information about what time you have with the platform. If you have only played with the rifle for a short time perhaps spending more time behind it to familiarize yourself with the trigger and feel is in order. I shoot competition and even very good shooters can show a good deal drop off when changing guns and the ARX is a good deal different from a regular AR. Then go back, and as has already asked, retest it with a magnified optic and actual match ammo to remove variables and take pictures of the results. Hell, even retesting with the same ammo would offer some data points to go off of. If the platform continues to shoot 4MOA or better with you and other’s behind the platform, then perhaps the barrel does have issues. If that is the case contact Beretta CS and speak with them about the issue since the rifle’s barrel may not then be in spec. If the barrel is out of spec then get it replaced. Now if the replacement shoots like shit and that precision can be quantified, well then we have a trend that would be of interest. But with what you posted the data is worthless, there is no proof other than your word, and anecdotal claims are not something that many here trust.
I never bashed the rifle as a system. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion as I never stated anything to that effect.
75gr PPU is match ammo. Molon has reviewed it in detail. It is a known quantity.
Beretta’s spec is 4 MOA from a machine rest with Fiochi ball. Beretta has stated in writing: “you should expect to attain at least a 4” shot group at 100 yards using 64 grain Speer Gold Dot GDSP or comparable ammunition."
I believe my ARX100 is at the low end of the accuracy spec, not out of spec.
You have fixated on the accuracy report. The main thing I have attempted to contribute is that the quick detach barrel system has little negative effect on accuracy. Each ammo type showed very nearly the same group sizes with an optic mounted to the receiver rail as they did with an optic mounted directly to the barrel using an Ultimak mount. If something were wrong with my barrel mounting setup, group sizes with the mount in each position would not have been nearly identical.
If I were a terrible shot or poorly acclimated to the rifle, consistent group sizes for each ammo type would not happen, instead group Extreme Spread would be erratic across multiple groups using the same ammunition. The ES of groups sizes, shooting 10 shot groups, has been consistent within .5 MOA for each group. I therefore estimate my margin of error must be less than .5 MOA. This means that any negative affect on accuracy that the detachable barrel system has must be equal to or less than that, since it is not detectable. Obtaining the exact difference via testing would require running the same test again, but with a machine rest to remove human error from the equation. Can you explain to me why this logic is flawed?
A higher magnification is not needed just because my abilities and truthfulness are doubted, nor because that’s the way others have done it. Consistency is such that there is no cause for me to believe that human error is a significant factor in the test, which is all the addition of a magnified optic could possibly address. In addition, why on earth would claiming to have used a 10x optic make any difference? There is absolutely no way I could prove I had done so, since I lack a video camera and the apparent level of distrust I’ve been shown here is beyond the use of photographic evidence- ‘I might have faked it!’ With the level of distrust I’ve been shown here, there is nothing short of an invitation to witness a test, using a machine rest, in person, that could possibly satisfy the collective skepticism here- all because I rendered my results in text format instead of including pictures and video.
anecdotal claims are not something that many here trust
Thus the comment about, and accusation of, cynicism. I don’t like those kinds of people. I’m glad they’ll get nothing from this. Move on and let others more experienced and less skeptical decide for themselves if what I’ve provided feels accurate and truthful. Skepticism is no virtue.
I don’t understand the logic of this? Why would the group sizes change based on the placement of the optic?
Because the barrel shifts in the receiver. The ARX100 barrel can be shifted using hand pressure when it is locked in place. The optic is mounted to the receiver. If the barrel rotates in the x or y as the rifle is shot, dispersion will be increased. The beretta rep insinuated as much when I spoke to him about my concerns about 4-7 MOA performance. He stated: ‘you realize the ARX100 is a combat rifle with a detachable barrel?’ This insinuates that I shouldn’t expect much better accuracy because the ARX100 is a ‘combat rifle’ with a detachable barrel.
I shot groups with an optic mounted to the normal rail atop the receiver and then again with the same optic attached to an Ultimak mount, mounted directly to the barrel. Obviously, mounting the optic directly to the barrel would immediately show an improvement in accuracy if the poor accuracy I’d noted earlier was due to the barrel shifting in its mount. There was no measurable change in accuracy no matter whether the optic was mounted to the barrel or the receiver, so that leaves the quality of the barrel as the culprit.
Does that make sense?
If Beretta is testing the rifles from a machine rest using high quality ammunition and passing barrels with performance as poor as 4 MOA, that means the end users of those edge-of-spec rifles are not going to see accuracy much better than 4 MOA with any ammunition. It looks like I got one of those rifles.
Make sense?
That I couldn’t measure even a .5 MOA difference in accuracy with an optic mounted to the barrel vs to the receiver is impressive, considering how the barrel can rotate and shift front-to-back in the receiver using hand pressure.
Beretta’s reps attempting to explain away accuracy concerns as being related to the detachable barrel setup is really a disservice to the rifle. The ones that shoot poorly likely do so because of low quality standards for the barrels.
Not really. In order to determine the effects of the barrel being loosely secured to the receiver, one would have to compare the group size with the same barrel fixed tight, without movement, in the same receiver. Beretta acknowledge that a barrel attached with a push button spring tensioned locking mechanism is responsible for its 4 MOA accuracy standard, which makes sense to me. I do not own an ARX, but maybe your locking system is out of spec, since you can shift the barrel by hand in the receiver. I’d send it to Beretta for examination if I were you.
That’s not entirely correct. You’re right about the barrel needing to be fixed, but wrong in what it needs to be fixed in relation to. All that matters is that the optic is in alignment with the barrel. The barrel wobbling won’t have a great effect on accuracy by itself, it’s only a significant factor if it’s wobbling out of alignment with the optic from shot to shot. If the optic is mounted to the barrel, the two can’t be misaligned.
The design uses the “heat shield” as a return-to-center spring for the front of the barrel. The gas block has a ring around it that fits inside the heat shield when the barrel is in the rifle. The heat shield’s inner diameter is .002" smaller than the ring around the gas block.
It’s a safe guess that all examples of the design are going to have the barrel movement I’ve described. I don’t see how the design could prevent movement in those non critical dimensions. The movement simply isn’t in any dimension that causes significant misalignment with an optic mounted to the receiver. Front to back and twisting movements of the barrel don’t matter much to the projectile.
So if you had a custom match grade barrel made for the ARX, it could produce sub moa groups with it’s QD barrel lockup?