Beretta 1301 Tactical

[TCinVA]

I still don't understand why the a300 UP can have a forend grip with integral m-lok slots molded in, but the 1301 doesn't have that option.

The A300 and the 1301 look very similar, but they have very different dimensions and fitting issues underneath the forend.

The A300UP was designed with input from the Haughts who campaigned for MLOK slots and a more aggressive texture to give folks a forend that could mount a light and a sling out of the box. That required CAD work, prototyping, and most expensively creating the injection molds for the parts. On a per piece basis, injection molded plastic is dirt cheap. But creating the molds that create those cheap pieces most definitely is not. That is the most expensive aspect of doing any polymer gizmo used in firearms.

And I'm betting that the polymer used is done with embedded glass fiber for toughness as well as significant heat-handling capacity, neither of which are cheap and both of which will wear molds much faster than milder plastics. So to get a production run requires creation of multiple molds for multiple machines, and multiple molds per machine because there's only so many parts that a particular mold can make before it is worn to the point that the parts no longer meet spec. With multiple key dimensions that have to be right (like multiple MLOK slots) that means a mold has lots of key areas where wear can junk the mold.

The 300UP was intended to be rolled out with that improvement from the jump. New product, new budget lines, new parts.

The 1301 wasn't rolled out with those improvements...which came from feedback from folks very familiar with the 1301...and because it's different and would require the entire R&D process to create at least an adapter that would allow fitting the UP's forend on it and potentially creating an entirely new set of molds for an entirely new yet similar part in the hopes that people would buy enough to make the venture profitable. That's a big risk.

The short answer is $$$,$$$.

[TCinVA]

The bolt carrier makes no contact with the original Aridus.

Exactly.

[Centerfire]

The A300 and the 1301 look very similar, but they have very different dimensions and fitting issues underneath the forend.

The A300UP was designed with input from the Haughts who campaigned for MLOK slots and a more aggressive texture to give folks a forend that could mount a light and a sling out of the box. That required CAD work, prototyping, and most expensively creating the injection molds for the parts. On a per piece basis, injection molded plastic is dirt cheap. But creating the molds that create those cheap pieces most definitely is not. That is the most expensive aspect of doing any polymer gizmo used in firearms.

And I'm betting that the polymer used is done with embedded glass fiber for toughness as well as significant heat-handling capacity, neither of which are cheap and both of which will wear molds much faster than milder plastics. So to get a production run requires creation of multiple molds for multiple machines, and multiple molds per machine because there's only so many parts that a particular mold can make before it is worn to the point that the parts no longer meet spec. With multiple key dimensions that have to be right (like multiple MLOK slots) that means a mold has lots of key areas where wear can junk the mold.

The 300UP was intended to be rolled out with that improvement from the jump. New product, new budget lines, new parts.

The 1301 wasn't rolled out with those improvements...which came from feedback from folks very familiar with the 1301...and because it's different and would require the entire R&D process to create at least an adapter that would allow fitting the UP's forend on it and potentially creating an entirely new set of molds for an entirely new yet similar part in the hopes that people would buy enough to make the venture profitable. That's a big risk.

The short answer is $$$,$$$.

It looks like the UP forend can be modified to fit 1301T.

[TCinVA]

It looks like the UP forend can be modified to fit 1301T.

Probably.

I don't know of anyone who has done it yet, but I'd imagine somebody will sooner or later.

[Centerfire]

Probably.

I don't know of anyone who has done it yet, but I'd imagine somebody will sooner or later.

There's a video on YT showing the difference between the UP and the 1301T. The person compared the forends in it. Eventually when the forends are available it'll probably be a viable mod instead of the Zhukov. I was initially interested but I don't see a point since I already own the Zhukov. If someone has a stock 1301T it would be worth trying out.

It would be nice to see an updated 1301T with the clearanced loading port and mlok forend.

[TCinVA]

There's a video on YT showing the difference between the UP and the 1301T. The person compared the forends in it. Eventually when the forends are available it'll probably be a viable mod instead of the Zhukov. I was initially interested but I don't see a point since I already own the Zhukov. If someone has a stock 1301T it would be worth trying out.

It would be nice to see an updated 1301T with the clearanced loading port and mlok forend.

From your lips to the Pope's ears!

I'd just about guarantee we will eventually see a version of the 1301 that has at least the updated forend.

[gato naranja]

The A300 and the 1301 look very similar, but they have very different dimensions and fitting issues underneath the forend.

The A300UP was designed with input from the Haughts who campaigned for MLOK slots and a more aggressive texture to give folks a forend that could mount a light and a sling out of the box. That required CAD work, prototyping, and most expensively creating the injection molds for the parts. On a per piece basis, injection molded plastic is dirt cheap. But creating the molds that create those cheap pieces most definitely is not. That is the most expensive aspect of doing any polymer gizmo used in firearms.

When my former employer was having dies made for hot metal (zinc/aluminum die castings) some years ago, the make-or-break projection number at that time was usually an initial 10,000 piece run. If the sales/marketing people couldn't guarantee that target would be hit within a specified timeframe, the project would die or go dormant. This was for items that - compared to a firearm - had a lower MSRP but higher profit margin. The initial cost for equivalent injection molds for polymer was slightly lower due to the metals and the heat treatments involved, but were still pretty stiff pricewise... you could, however, squeeze a LOT more poly parts out before the molds failed due to wear/fatigue. Adding glass or new-fangled (at the time) carbon reinforcing fibres to the polymer, however, reduced the life span of the injection molds, as you pointed out.

So it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when someone at Beretta moots a new forend for a firearm that was introduced less than a decade earlier. Amortization is a cruel mistress.

[Ben_G]

It's interesting watching this seeing the folks who had a product development background chime in.

I'll note that there's an additional wiggle that generally, any firearms components developed in the US need to be tooled here (and ANYTHING with MLOK is subject to ITAR), so you roll in US made tooling pricing rather than far east tool shops. Lots of normal product molded in the US will still have foreign machined tools; not so much with ITAR. That'll add 50%-100% in CAPEX.

[dontshakepandas]

From your lips to the Pope's ears!

I'd just about guarantee we will eventually see a version of the 1301 that has at least the updated forend.

I'll buy one the minute it is available. I want the MLOK slots, but don't like how cheap the Zhukov feels (especially when it isn't cheap to get it on the 1301) and don't want to pay the cost and weight penalty of the Briley.

[gato naranja]

I'll note that there's an additional wiggle that generally, any firearms components developed in the US need to be tooled here (and ANYTHING with MLOK is subject to ITAR), so you roll in US made tooling pricing rather than far east tool shops. Lots of normal product molded in the US will still have foreign machined tools; not so much with ITAR. That'll add 50%-100% in CAPEX.

One small sliver of silver lining with any US-produced tooling that you pay dearly for is that if there is a disagreement or parting of the ways with any out-of-house domestic vendor doing the actual production, you can retrieve the dies/molds and take them elsewhere. If they get bucky with you, you simply show up with a good team of suitcase-carrying sharks and you will usually get your tooling.

With certain overseas vendors doing the tooling and/or production, you may very well have paid for that tooling, but every now and then getting actual physical possession of it can cause a company to "live in interesting times." One product I recall fondly required multiple dies that were "grudgingly" (a polite euphemism) shipped elsewhere within one particular nation, but one or two key dies and associated slides, etc somehow got lost. In the end, it wasn't worth the suggested extra squeeze to encourage a "search."