The Original CZ Forum
CZ LONG ARMS => CZ BREN => Topic started by: armoredman on December 01, 2014, 07:20:24 PM
-
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/CZF%20banners/WATCHTHISSPACE_zps823203a0.jpg) (http://s16.photobucket.com/user/armoredman/media/CZF%20banners/WATCHTHISSPACE_zps823203a0.jpg.html)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaL_oKeESUI
-
Wicked video. 8)
-
No wonder my CZ and I get along so well. We were both born in 1936.
Patrick
-
Excellent video, and interesting the OPFOR had a mixture of vz-58s and AKMs...I'd love to get a chance to shoot one of the select fire BREN rifles, but that prospect looks dim at the moment.
-
Looking at the Bren, it's barrel profile looks really thin.
I suspect it'll have the same accuracy issues that the G36 and SCAR-L (light) have experienced when heated up...
For instance (from 2012):
A German newspaper has revealed that a Bundeswehr report has said that once the H&K G36 rifle has heated up, the accuracy is significantly reduced to a point where it is useless beyond 200 meters (218 yards).
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/04/26/hk-g36-useless-at-200m-when-hot/
To this year:
The German Defence Ministry has halted new orders of H&K?s G36 rifle. The Defense Ministry took the action after troops in Afghanistan complained that the H&K built rifles couldn?t hit their targets during prolonged firefights. It?s a serious problem; engagement distances in Afghanistan have tended to be much greater than originally envisioned when the rifle was designed. From the AFP (via ChannelNewsAsia) . . .
German troops in Afghanistan in recent years voiced concerns over the G36 automatic rifle made by Heckler & Koch, saying it became inaccurate when its barrel heated up in prolonged firefights.
The military initially blamed the use of unsuitable munitions, but the government auditing body the Bundesrechnungshof has now ordered a new investigation, reported the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
?It is important to avoid that the defence ministry invests up to 34 million euros ($46 million) in a rifle that may not meet the requirements of the troops,? the court was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
The G36 has been the German Army?s main battle rifle since 1997. H&K designed the gun as a replacement for the aging G3 platform (which used the much heavier 7.62 NATO rounds that were quickly going out of fashion in modern militaries).
Guns are typically sighted in during a slow-firing session, where the barrel remains relatively cool. As the barrel heats up, the uneven expansion of the barrel material causes the gun to shift and the bullet impacts to wander off target. During a prolonged engagement it wouldn?t be surprising for the accuracy of a firearm to diminish considerably, especially with the relatively thin barrel used in the G36.
This isn?t a new complaint; the first reports of the issue started surfacing in April of 2012. The claim was that after a couple hundred rounds the rifle became ineffective at ranges past 200 meters and almost completely useless past 300 meters. At the time H&K blamed the ammunition. The Ministry of Defense seemed content with that answer. However it now looks like yet another branch of the government has gotten wind of the situation and decided to step in.
Germany currently fields around 180,000 G36 rifles, with hundreds of thousands more in the hands of friendly militaries and law enforcement agencies around the world.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/foghorn/troops-complain-hks-g36-cant-hit-broad-side-barn-german-govt-halts-new-orders/
-
G36
(http://www.heckler-koch.com/uploads/tx_z7productshk/G36A11_re.png)
SCAR-L
(http://www.fnherstal.com/uploads/pics/scar_l_std_d_02.jpg)
BREN 805
(http://www.acr.army.cz/assets/technika-a-vyzbroj/zbrane-a-prostredky/01_cz-805-bren-a1_2.jpg)
*And I'm using the flash hider size relative to barrels as my reference point since can't see these side by side w/ exact proportions.
-
Interesting thread: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?238434-Slovak-Army-about-to-switch-from-Sa58-to-CZ-805-BREN
-- A lot pricing info there too if interested in that.
Slovak Army about to switch from Sa58 to CZ-805 BREN - Confirmed by Slovak Chief of Staff during his visit in Czech republic.
Speaking with Czech para last weekend, he was not that enthusiastic about the weapon, mentioning weight, problematic magazines and poor ergonomics.
Reply:
Maybe they are getting CZ-807 BREN, which solves some of these problems, as I read (specifically the mags and ergonomics).
It looks like the CZ-807 Bren supports 5.56 Stanag Mags and 7.62 AK mags, and this is the weapon that CZ submitted into the Indian Army rifle competition.
Some pics of the 807 here:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/03/cz807-upgraded-cz805a2-semi-auto-cz805s1/
And here's about the CZ-Slovakia plant that was part of the requirement for Slovakia to go w/ the Bren: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/06/26/ceska-zbrojovka-open-plant-in-slovakia/
This is interesting:
One of the plant?s main products is to be a semiautomatic 9mm pistol, the CZ 75 P-07 Duty
-
Some good BREN 805 reads:
http://www.cztalk.com/The-new-CZ-805-BREN-Gun.html
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1083
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1470978
http://www.acr.army.cz/technika-a-vyzbroj/zbrane-a-prostredky/utocna-puska-5-56-x-45-mm-cz-805-bren-a1-a2-58578/
(Czech Republic Army info page, google chrome translation below and photo gallery on page.)
Assault rifle 5.56 ? 45 mm CZ 805 BREN A1 / A2
Czech Army introduced in 2011 into the arms of a new basic weapon of the individual. We present detailed technical information.
The gun has two basic versions, namely assault rifle CZ 805 A1 and A2 CZ 805 Carbine. It is a unified modular weapon system for hub dimensions of 5.56 ? 45 mm NATO or 7.62 ? 39 mm vz. 43rd
The change in caliber allows the possibility for such a major exchange or other types of ammunition. Removable magazine well allows the deployment of different types of containers. Tension lever conclusion can be easily moved from right to left arms, which increases comfort terms of use handers.
To manufacture the main parts are used alloy steel and plastic. The end actuates a piston to which pushes gases sucked from the barrel during firing. The amount of gas affects two-stage adjustable regulator. The basic part of the automatic weapon consists of a carrier with a rotary tumbler. Trigger is a separate removable block whose main components are the trigger mechanism with intermittent shift key and four-way shooting mode. The stock is folding forward, turning right while telescopically adjustable.
Contractor is Czech arms factory, as Brod. The contract value is under the purchase contract no. 090100104 overall 1102710857, CZK 68 including VAT. In addition to the 6687 assault rifles and carbines 1250 caliber 5.56 mm includes the delivery of 397 underslung grenade launcher CZ 805 G1, 7937 head-pointers collimator type ZD-Dot, 1386 night vision sights NV-Mag3, 1386 enlargers modules DV-Mag3, 1386 Dual laser pointers / illuminators DBAL-A 1,758,450 rounds M885 / SS109 771 600 rounds illuminating M856, 12,845 rounds FRAG92 and HE-HE-6850 DP 92 to underslung grenade, 68 sets of spare parts 1: 100, 16 sets for ordnance, 43 sets of spare parts and service, training and technical documentation in printed and electronic form.
Assault rifle CZ 805 BREN A1
Assault rifle with completed development of caliber 5.56 ? 45 mm NATO CZ 805 BREN A1 is automatic hand firearm capable of firing doses, fewer doses dvourann?mi a single shots, with an effective range ground and air targets up to 500 m, swiveling, laterally and mechanical height rektifikovateln?mi sights with remote range 100 - 500 m, with an accuracy of firing single shots to 4 MOA (benchmark precision rifles - 1 MOA represents scattering 29 mm at a distance of 100 m).
The gun is capable of firing with training, and special charges reduced with minimal retrofitting weapons. Automatic weapons are based on the collection of dust emissions from the barrel reciprocating mechanism. Breech mechanism is locked when fired. U weapon is secured capture to the rear after fired rounds from the magazine. An assault rifle is equipped 30rann?m box magazines of transparent plastic, with the possibility of continuous control number of cartridges without removing it from the gun. Container design allows the connection using a removable plastic clips.
For each weapon will be delivered eight cartridges, saving them two is solved in pouches made of impregnated fabric. The fabric meets the protective sleeves, masking and other requirements by ?OS 108,001th Cases trays can be variably connected in one unit, while maintaining the standard fixation cross coupling. The weapon allows it to be fired at all possible combat operations using means of individual protection against weapons of mass destruction established in the Czech Armed Forces, using winter accessories, ballistic protection of the individual tactical and protective glasses, foreign climatic and combat conditions.
The gun is equipped with an interface Picattiny rail according to MIL STD 1913, at the top, bottom and both side surfaces, allowing for variable mounting accessories such as optical and sighting devices (HUD sight collimator type magnifying module, night vision devices), measuring, marking and lighting equipment. Interface Picattiny rail according to MIL STD 1913 and is secured by mounting underslung grenade launcher and its sights. The muzzle is normally adapted to fit the silencer flame handpiece for practice shooting and silencers shot.
The gun allows conducting fire shot from standardized introduced combat vehicles. Ballistic life mainly is guaranteed for at least 20,000 rounds, rifle technical life as a whole at least 20 years. It is reliable, safe in use and handling. Failure weapons are guaranteed to 0.2% excluding defects due ammunition. The gun meets the requirements for reliable operation in harsh conditions (dust, mud, the transition temperature) according to AC 225 / D14, TPVD 637-81.
Use of firearms, it is possible to reliably conduct standardized hub with all types of bullets. Surface protection weapons ensures minimum reflectance of light sources and resistance to abrasion, corrosion, fresh and salt water, moisture, aggressive substances and products produced during the shooting and the use of preservatives approved for use in the Czech Armed Forces. On the arms are no sharp edges and significant protrusions (flat weapon) except Picattiny rail according to MIL STD 1913th
All controls are accessible and have a smooth operation. The weapon using a portion of the lower interface Picattiny rail allows mounting of auxiliary handle, for example, as the control system of modular combat V21 complete without having a negative impact on the possibility of a comfort to be fired. Part of the weapons is a universal three-point belt. His attachment does not affect the operation or firing.
The materials used in optical devices and weapons are non-flammable or have increased flame resistance, are impact resistant and have high resistance to mechanical damage. The heat generated during firing is removed so that did not bother shooters. The disassembly and composition weapons for routine maintenance can be done without any tools. Means for maintenance, removal and simple defect support training are supplied weapons (brass brush, eye swab, cleaning rod rope, oiler, universal key and lance for practice shooting in a textile bag - a bag).
Identification of the weapon is secured serial number on the main parts of the weapon and the brand name on the holster. Packaging weapon is secured with black plastic shipping containers locker containing 5 pieces of weapons with full accessories, collimator, assault with a knife and containers including capsules. Packaging meets the requirements for stacking according to Standard 269 030 (maximum 8 layers), protection of weapons from damage and deterioration. Packaging has secured identification element.
Carabiner CZ 805 BREN A2
Assault rifle abbreviated version of caliber 5.56 ? 45 mm NATO with completed development CZ 805 BREN A2 automatic hand firearm capable of firing doses, fewer doses dvourann?mi a single shots, structurally and functionally identical to the version of the assault rifle in standard length CZ 805 BREN A1, from which it differs shortened barrel and it is unfolding effective range of only 400 m and less weight ensemble weapons.
Czech Army Article: http://www.mise.army.cz/aktualni-mise/afghanistan-wardak/zprav-wardak/omeleta-breny-uz-mnohokrat-vyzkousela-v-boji-73086/
(CZ-UB Translation)
BRENS TRIED ALREADY MANY TIMES IN COMBAT BY ?OMELETTE?
Members of 4th squad of OMLT (OMLT - Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team) which operate in Afghan province of Wardak have behind them seventy combat encounters with insurgents. This OMLT squad conducts on-the-spot training of 3rd kandak (kandak ? battalion) of the Afghan National Army. In all of these engagements the soldiers of OMLT are using a new assault rifles designated the CZ 805 BREN A1.
New assault rifles were received by ?Omeletters? already in the course the preparing phase of this foreign operation. During preparation soldiers get perfectly acquainted with the new weapon, which brought many new features and they also familiarized themselves with operation and maintenance of this new rifle.
The BREN brought about new controls including in particular ambidextrous operation of cocking handle and also fire mode selection, thus making this weapon suitable both for left hand and right hand shooters. Folding and telescoping stock is advantageous especially while in transport. Mounting rails located on the weapon allow soldiers to attach a wide variety of accessories and get ready quickly and easily for conducting specific operations. Accessories include particularly tactical grips, flashlights, laser designator, optical devices and the CZ 805 G1 underslung grenade launcher.
Soldiers serving in the ?Omelette? appreciate as the greatest benefit of this rifle its accuracy, which surprised them already during preparation phase. The weapon?s caliber is the same as used by all NATO forces and there is no problem to replenish supplies especially during deployment of training teams at advanced bases, where OMLT members operate only with Afghan and coalition partners. The advantage of the smaller caliber also brings the benefit of nearly half less weight of the cartridge. So soldiers during combat operations ?can carry? a more of ammunition, or conversely they are ?lighter? while having the same amount of ammunition.
Day and night sighting devices, which form a part of weapon?s outfit brings with them advantages such as better observation potential for all soldiers in the team through day and night and thus also improvement in conducting accurate fire at longer distances. Moreover it is not necessary for each soldier to be equipped with some additional sighting device. This again reduces the weight of the equipment carried by soldiers.
Variability of the BREN rifle outfit together with multiple of accessory rails allows for quick exchange of accessories both in the preparing phase and during actual operation. Most combat operations conducted by soldiers of OMLT along with soldiers of 3rd Kandak and American Forces take place in the transition to daylight or the transition to night. In the course of these operations it is therefore necessary to change weapon?s accessories ?on-the-fly?, and for the BREN rifle this poses no problem.
Seventy combat encounters with insurgents represent two thirds out of the total of all operations performed by OMLT. In all of these encounters soldiers used new weapons and 8000 cartridges spent in the course of operational missions only confirms reliability and satisfaction with the weapon.
The CZ 805 G1 grenade launcher is as well a new entry in the military equipment and, thereby, for the soldiers involved in the foreign missions. The grenade launcher is again standardized for the NATO caliber. The ?underslung?, as is called among soldiers, can be used as a standalone weapon outfitted with sights and stock, or it can be used as in the underslung attachment under the barrel of a rifle. Integration of both weapons is made through accessory rails. Given relatively low weight (1.5 kg) of this grenade launcher the efficiency of the soldier carrying this weapon is not any much reduced. On the contrary, this is a training team having a very small number of soldiers, reinforced by effective means in the fight against insurgents. Also this weapon is marvellous with its high accuracy having no problem to hit a lying car tire at 300 meters (328 yd.) distance.
The grenade launcher discharges individual grenades in single shots, which are loaded from the rear and the weapon is cocked by so called pumping. The possibility of using a broad range of ammunition designed specifically for the grenade launcher allows soldiers to use this weapon not only as an anti-personnel weapon in open terrain, shelters and military hardware, but also for example to illuminate the terrain (even in infrared spectrum), and screening.
In difficult mountainous terrain of Afghanistan the ?underslung? found its place immediately. The insurgents with whom we are fighting use to their hidden movements and combat activities particularly many dried-up river beds called ?wadis? and irrigation channels systems ?karez?. These are just the places that are for this grenade launcher within its easy reach.
?The places used by insurgents for conducting fire, which are not covered by effective fire from assault rifles and other weapons included in the equipment of training teams, are just the right places for the ?underslung?, says the commander of the 5th training team captain Michal V.
?We are totally satisfied with this grenade launcher, this can be also evidenced by four hundred fired grenades of various types. And in particular actual reaction of insurgents, who immediately after first incidence are leaving their positions and retreating,? adds the OMLT commander.
-
A good documentary on the BREN -- in Czech presumably, but a lot of good visuals nonetheless:
http://youtu.be/g45ymu6Zs_8
From here: http://www.armadninoviny.cz/dokument-ceska-utocna-puska-cz-805-bren.html
(Google chrome translation)
We are pleased to now introduce our own mini documentary on Czech assault rifle CZ 805 BREN. The material we collected throughout the holidays when we visited Zbrojovka Czech, Slovak exhibition IDEB and exercises Czech Army. We are especially pleased that we were allowed to shoot in the Czech Zbrojovka factory, where we were shown the production and assembly of the weapon itself. We thank the management Zbrojovky Czech and Czech Army for their help during the shooting of the material.
Recall that in early 2010 CZ 805 BREN won a competition for a new assault rifle for the Czech Army. The contract covered the supply of nearly 8,000 assault rifles CZ 805, but also podv?sn?ch 40 mm grenade launchers and associated optics.
Among other things, also ordered the army later 600 assault rifles CZ Scorpion EVO 3 for the Castle Guard and the 5500 pistol CZ 75 PHANTOM .
This year, the Ministry of Defence opted to buy another 10,000 assault rifles CZ 805 BREN, 7000 CZ 75 PHANTOM 500 submachine guns and CZ Scorpion EVO 3. Deliveries will start in 2014 and end of the contract is scheduled for 2020. This will complete overkill ACR no new personal weapons individuals.
Among other things, the Army recently announced its intention to buy 200 rifles for precision shooting in caliber 7.62 mm. This weapon should be among the exposed units replace the age-old "sniper" SVD Dragunov.
-
A great Q&A by the same folks that did the documentary videos w/ the Czech Army on the design/ergonomic/outfitting problems w/ the 805 Bren: http://www.armadninoviny.cz/otazky-a-odpovedi-k-pusce-cz-805-bren.html
(Google chrome translated version pasted below)
The Czech army has "for some time" uses a new assault rifle CZ 805 BREN. And as for new weapons is even "Bren" enjoy an critics soldiers and professionals. We have tried to gather the most important criticisms and at the same time we asked for a statement Press Service of the ACR, which can be found in the following interview.
AN: When shooting ranges rod conclusion. This can be prevented by simple structural intervention. Why did not address this deficiency during field tests?
TO: We assume that the user has in mind the tension, ie. control lever. Existing solutions when the lever is rigidly connected to the bolt carrier, is functionally reliable. In case nedov?en? carriers, whether any of the reasons (high pollution, lower dust content or other dysfunction of ammunition ...) can easily remove the defect on the stop lever. For autonomous cocking lever (independent of the movement the bolt carrier) must be solved possibility prodding bolt carrier into the front position (a large number of parts, possibly susceptibility to dust, sand, ...), another mechanism .
AN: Why is there no u CZ 805 button for discharging conclusion? For discharges by the end of rod is time consuming, physically demanding, and this involves the other hand.
TO: Existing solutions when using the actuating lever which is rigidly connected to the bolt carrier, is sufficient. Draining the end, it is necessary only when using the "autonomous" control lever.
AN: Why can not stretch the gun in a locked state?
TO: This is a higher element of safety in the shotgun. On the other hand, there are weapons that can not be ensured unless extended.
AN: What is the reason there is a possibility of a double shot? For the needs of a professional army seems to be unnecessary. This solution is unique in the world.
TO: Opinions on "dvour?nu" is twofold. There are proponents and opponents of this function. At the time of development was a requirement for a majority of users. If a shooter does not function may not use the trigger mechanism. In case of further perimeter planting, CQB and in combination with compensator stroke this function is effective. It also ensures that the soldier fired in a stress situation (without much effect more shots, or even the entire stack - Experience US Army from Vietnam).
AN: Lever Shift key fire is so bulky that it interferes with the index finger (except for the "safe") laid lengthwise over the trigger. Why also did not address this issue at the Army tests?
TO: It is a universal solution right handed - left-handed. Availability is solved by two interchangeable sizes ridges which are part of the weapon. The shape and size were within field tests evaluated and discussed. Shortening the Shift key lever operated some users problems with accessibility. The manufacturer prepared the modified embodiment, which is solved by a set of short and long levers Shift key with a modified shape (angle). The final version is currently being tested in a user test.
AN: fuse tray can not control the hand that holds the pistol grip. Why not use proven solutions of Arms AR-15 or SCAR? Both weapons can fuse control finger hand holding the gun. Why did not address this issue during the trial?
TO: Within the field tests was also discussed variant called. rocker emptying the tanks to the manufacturer standard for PDW Scorpion EO3A1. In terms of control of the magazine catch was used proven solution Sa vz. 58. The manufacturer also has an option interchangeable shafts MC (magazine comaptible) with such a solution in two-sided design.
AN: Why are plastic trays (5.56 x 45 mm) for CZ 805 more than the original ones for the greater charge 7.62 x 39 mm? While they are "transparent", but due to the very large storage pit is nothing in it to see after 17 rounds fired.
TO: from users when creating transparent containers emphasis on mechanical resistance and reliability even at the cost of larger dimensions. Tanks are the technological equivalent of tanks for gun G-36th Compared to standard aluminum, sheet metal or plastic bins of a resistance higher, both separately and in arms.
The primary function of a transparent container NOT control the number of rounds in the gun, but it is an overview of the state of ammunition in the unit immediately after contact with the enemy, then to the redistribution of ammunition between members and doz?soben? units. Tanks with a mechanical counter on the edge of bottom or back of the stack are susceptible to dirt and reduce resistance tray.
AN: magazine well is not compatible with STANAG trays, and therefore it is not possible to use the CZ 805 tanks of the Allied armies. Why did you not purchase established, smaller, lighter, cheaper and compatible standard trays STANAG?
TO: magazine well was constructed on the basis of tested containers CZUB. Another part is indicated in the response. 7. weight variation based on the greater resistance of the tray. View interviewer parties prices can not be assessed. For the needs of the ACR tanks are procured for the price at the time and place of the usual and do not exceed the price of this caliber cartridges.
AN: It is true that they are not called. Picatinny rails (mounting rails) certified?
TO: The weapons are Weaver rails according to MIL STD 1913. This fact was verified in the control trials and is currently being validated within the manufacturing representatives of Government Quality Assurance.
AN: Why release BREN A2 bought bayonets, when it do not fit?
TO: The request of the sponsor (tender) was to give each user a knife attack. The knives are supplied offensive guard and removable replaceable blade slot. User replacing these components can be modified knife to a gun attack on a standard personal attack knife.
AN: Why buying unproven products Meopta when there are market-proven products? Sight Meopta is about one third larger and heavier than for example a similar sight Aimpoint company. In exactly the same function but sight Meopta works up to 100 times less time than Aimpoint sights.
TO: Accessories has been sourced in the tender, where the minimum required parameters (weight, operational deployment - stamina, rectification, and thermal shock resistance and a number of other parameters). The condition was passing the inspection and field tests. Products Meopta set parameters and tests met. The selection criteria were in compliance with the basic parameters as well as the price and weight of the weapon system.
AN: Why is not supplied to the gun and flashlight?
TO: The flashlight was not part of the selection process for flat complement weapons. For the intended function of the acquisition and the introduction considered depending on funding.
AN: Because of the long joint is in the fully retracted shoulder restraint butt is still too long. When folding stock is not firmly fixed and is still moving.
TO: The length of the shoulder stock was adjusted according to the requirements of users in field tests. Also selected fixation folded shoulder support troop trials was found to be sufficient and suitable for the purpose. Fixation of stock in the folded position is guaranteed by the rigidity of the shoulder joint. This position is primarily used to transport weapons.
AN: Finally, please ask a general question: "Are there any plans to upgrade or design changes introduced rifles CZ 805 BREN A1 / A2?"
TO: The half of May 2013 are scheduled associated control and troop tests for UP CZ 805 BREN the magazine well MC (magazine compatible) and some variant accessories.
-
CADs of various new furniture and accessories for the BREN -- see links for photos:
http://www.armadninoviny.cz/modifikace-cz-805-bren-podle-armadnich-novin.html
Already for some time in the Army of the Czech Republic introduced an assault rifle CZ 805 BREN produced by the Czech Zbrojovky. Unfortunately, the soldiers received no explicitly welcome. On Internet forums appear particularly critical opinions to the barrel, cartridges or optics. Army newspapers have therefore decided to create their own modifications to the assault rifle CZ 805 BREN, using components from leading manufacturers. To this end, we have joined with Mr. Radek Bartoni?ka, an expert in 3D graphics, which realized our vision and ideas into these images.
And round 2 with reader feedback:
http://www.armadninoviny.cz/modifikace-cz-805-bren-podle-armadnich-novin-1.html
Article where we graphically edited Uhersk? rifle CZ 805 BREN, had a huge response among readers. Today free will build another link and show not only modified rifle CZ 805 BREN, but also modified submachine gun CZ Scorpion EVO 3 and gun mini. Czech Army soldiers, we have to warn you, "read the article at your own risk!". It may happen that you are frustrated by how beautiful and tuned weapon you could get - with a bit of backlash.
-
Problems w/ the Bren
Quick summary as I read it:
1. Non-adjustable stock length
2. Doesn't use Stanag Mags
3. Mags fall out/come loose when shooting
4. Mags don't fit their web gear and aren't compatible with off the shelf options -- mags actually larger than VZ58 mags
5. Slings don't stretch/have a bungee component (I think, not sure on this one)
6. Supplied optics fail after not a lot of shots
7. The gun jams
Other notes (? mark indicates not certain):
-Lack of detailed operating/disassembly/maintenance instructions?
-Problems chambering rounds -- chews up brass and bullet when feeding and sometimes jams
-Bayonet doesn't fit
-Now way to hold the weapon when stock folded and shoot accurately?
-Large mags, not stanag mags, why the size difference when 5.56 cartridges smaller (all again); -- my addition: mags are also reportedly heavier (at least empty) than VZ58 mags
-Polymer in weapon causes it to move/flex substantially when firing making irons sights almost unuseable (or possibly in relation to the charging handle in eyesight causing distraction/flinching?)
-Sharp edges on weapon (presumably rails) tears gloves and fingers if not gloves...
-Bipod is either unnecessary or unuseable -- something about monopoding on magazine being better?
-Iron shavings fly from the weapon during shooting causing shooters to always wear googles/be concerned about their eyes (presumably something with the internal rail/bolt/etc interfaces)?
-Difficulty with making the weapon safe -- something about either no clearing or not always igniting rounds, not sure which?
-Primarily an issue of extraction/stuck cases in chamber with brass being torn by extractor, possibly something else about recoil?
Google translate of gunexpert.cz:
http://www.gunexpert.cz/news/ohrozuje-nespolehliva-cz-805-zivoty-nasich-vojaku/
Threatens unreliable CZ 805 lives of our soldiers?
05/01/2012 19:31
http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/266331-cesti-vojaci-bojuji-i-se-svou-vyzbroji-jejich-nove-pusky-bren-selhavaji.html
Multiplying complaints about the unreliability of the CZ 805 is probably a really saying about this article. Judging unilaterally is very unprofessional, so I will try to summarize what I know about the issue. The above article can unload yourself how you want 805ka certainly is not yet free from all childhood diseases, but if it was really wreck in Afghanistan would never let her. That weapon in harsh combat conditions sek?e becomes equally Glock, M4, or 805ce Sa vz 58. It is true, however, that failed to pades?tosmi?ka, it really must be ... luckily I have the opportunity to occasionally talk to the boys who were with 805kou serving in Afghanistan and am I supposed first-hand information. The facts are this:
1. A lot of problems can the army itself, since nenaspecifikovala exactly what he needs. This applies, although butt-folding, but this can be expendable. Soldiers need an adjustable length. And this is not to Bren.
Second Incompatible tray with NATO z?sobnn?ky to M4. The big problem. However, if you have information - again-army nenaspecifikovala. Zbrojovka it supposedly can do.
3. Tray fall during the shooting of the shaft. Apparently this is happening. I do not know, I've never seen. I've been testing for durability tests in Brod, I vybouchal few trays, nothing like that happened to me. But if it's really true - I can only pray behind boys. And I suggest you do too.
4. Hopper do not fit into any of the vest or sea squirts. They are simply larger than Sa 58. This is actually quite a problem I think. Rather it but see it as salts for one of the suppliers of equipment.
Fifth bearing belts weapons prevent stretching. Hm, it would probably be quite bothered me.
6th optics due to poor solutions leverage mount assembly after n?kalika dozens of shots from the gun falls. I've heard from several people about something to it.
7th I heard something about sticking ...
Because our site reads a lot of kids serving in Afghanistan, we give here a space for discussion, info first hand is closer to me than any censored advertising drivel.
Let me cite a few contributions of users from one discussion, what drove to the article army.cz. They are the soldiers who serve with the qv?ry ... Sadly reading
72. mp member P??slavice:
, "That is nice to supplement operating instructions, though I've never met anyone jaho same with us, even though these weapons have"
"We are of the gun to shoot first time in about 14 days before the first firing, thus completely new weapons without interference soldiers, ammunition Czech SB, problems of feeding into the chamber, when the ejection charge that did not go into the chamber bruises on one side of the cartridge, so hard bad service, our similarly-pr?zkum?ci have those weapons for about 2 months and doted cool and suddenly these shootings same problems as Plum bring the weapons biting even when shooting a training ammunition when the shooter had a gun propped tank on the ground. ... .. we only use what we got and I am glad that I have this thing out in afgo?i because she did not believe it, at least not yet ... "
43. The members of the VMP Chrudim:
"While we are so amazingly tech weapons, so at someone show me how to put the rifle bayonet ... ... or how it is when folded butt decently fire when there is no place to put the hand"
"Why is the super modern weapons so big stack when it is smaller caliber than the SA58? Why it is not on the M4 magazine well? Where container was smaller ??? why is it so hard? Why is everything relaxes while shooting a soldier It has all the time to check and fear that made him drop the mechanical sights ?? why I have all the time torn gloves on sharp edges? do not go round? Why when I try to handset submachine gun with bipod and I stack up in arms is the bipod totally unnecessary? why of the flying iron shavings and soldiers have to worry about your eyes? "
"N?koalika after shots blanks, I reached the conclusion I carried weapons security, I peered down the barrel and stayed there a charge, I did so three times a bouncer caught a second time to the charge, which was inserted in the barrel ... so where's the problem?"
"After less than a hundred blows from CZ805Bren I enable mechanical sights to which I had nessahal, where is the problem?"
"I am not an expert, just a normal user ... ... standard size of the charge is the maximum weight may vary missiles or dust composition. But it does not affect those defects which are Bren. It may tear or rip the cartridge bottom, but the new charge forced the conclusion to vyst?elen?ho in the chamber is not a defect ammo! A plastics do not fall off of the stock due to ammunition. Like stiff conclusion is not the fault of ammunition. "
V?ce zde: http://www.gunexpert.cz/news/ohrozuje-nespolehliva-cz-805-zivoty-nasich-vojaku/
-
It looks like the chambering/extraction is the primary issue experienced in Afghanistan however:
http://zpravy.e15.cz/domaci/udalosti/nove-utocne-pusky-bren-ceske-armady-selhavaji-767197
(google translate translation):
The new assault rifle Bren Czech Army fail
New Bren assault rifles used by Czech soldiers in Afghanistan fail. Faults already reportedly showed 48 out of a total of 530 weapons. The causes of failure are looking directly at foreign military experts. If it does not reveal, will be labeled with rifles CZ 805 sent to check into Czech. She said that Czech Television (CT).
30 April 2012 20:53
Army bought from Czech Zbrojovka eight thousand rifles for Bren 1.5 billion, has so far delivered 3671 pieces. Rifles were given priority combat units.
According to TV problems lie mostly in jams charges. Some soldiers apparently experienced problems with the new guns in action. "One drive them to fight six failed. Thus, six people had to go to a backup weapon, "the statement quoted CT one of the soldiers on facebook. According to information from CT is a problem with the ejection of empty cartridges. Indeed, when nevylet?, another bullet stuck in the barrel.
Some sources from the army previously pointed out that the new rifles can be a problem. CZ 805 rifle because they felt the tender yet registered as a practical prototype neozkou?en? with unfinished development, which logically carries risks.
Czech arsenal But no errors aware, told television commercial director Ladislav Brita??k. "It will be important to get those weapons to us, able to look at them and say, what is actually happening," he said.
"I have no information that would result from failure assault rifles endangering the lives of soldiers. In any case, every soldier has short arms, which can be used, "said spokesman television Army General Staff Jana sprouts.
Author of the article: red
-
And then there's this:
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pusky-bren-budou-v-poradku-d0e-/zpr_nato.aspx?c=A120703_141219_zpr_nato_inc
(google translate translation):
Assault rifles are fine, assured command of troops
July 4, 2012 7:18
Army finished testing new assault rifles, CZ-805 BREN, whose functionality complained soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. Weapons will be okay and replace defective components manufacturer, reads the verdict.
The Ministry of Defence month, a very unusual way tested two dozen new assault rifles, in which during use in Afghanistan should appear assorted glitches.
Czech soldiers in a mission this spring complained that the weapons charge, for example, jamming, breaking the clips and parts cleaning. Command commissioned rifles converted back into Czech and weapons experts underwent harsh tests that no structural defects but not revealed.
"The end result rifles monthly testing is concluded that the vast majority of defects will be eliminated by adding user manuals and repeated training of armourers and weapons operators. These measures will be focused on the use of weapons in extreme conditions," said natoaktual.cz Defense Ministry spokesman Jan Pej?ek.
The manufacturer, therefore Czech arms factory, in addition sends to Afghanistan for a month or two of its specialists to spot all assault rifles at soldiers prefer to check. "Partial faulty components as broken buckles and parts cleaning contractor rifles at their own expense and exchange also initiate preventive controls all weapons, " he added Pej?ek.
Water, sand and mud
Soldiers and representatives arms companies selected weapons test really extraordinary way. Of the sixteen assault rifles, which are in Afghanistan, problems occur during the testing fired 7000 rounds.
In addition, the soldiers deliberately not clean nor nemazali and burrowing into the sand or shed water . Probably the most demanding test was when sprinkled weapons and sold out to them was muddy crust. Despite all this new rifle fired without major problems.
Tests should help reveal whether for failure can design defects, ammunition, or even poor maintenance of weapons. During the tests, soldiers used two types of ammunition - domestic manufacturers and Lithuania by the Ministry of Defence conveniently procured through NATO agency NAMSA.
According to an earlier statement Defence Minister Alexandr Vondra one unit deployed to Afghanistan sent back home about two dozen weapons. "For the second unit commander gave the order to cleanse soldiers weapons, and did not give back any. I did not see it so tragically, the introduction of new weaponry always experience similar problems, "said Vondra.
The Army ordered from the manufacturer almost eight thousand assault rifles at 1.1 billion. Deliveries are divided into three years. Meanwhile arsenal supplied over 3600 pieces. First, the new rifles rearming combat units.
Author: inc natoaktual.cz
-
Bren disassembled -- a lot of good pics here: http://www.czub.cz/en/news/written-about-us/756-the-cz-805-bren-in-the-hungarian-kaliber-magazine.aspx
-
BREN officially released today, just under $2K MSRP.
-
Just saw this today:
http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-atf-issues-new-opinion-letter-stating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/
BREAKING: ATF Issues New Opinion Letter Stating That Shouldering Sig Brace Could Be Illegal
DECEMBER 26 2014
[...]
However, several recent letters, including the one that just emerged in the last 24 hours, tends to show that the ATF is changing their tune on shouldering arm braces.
Here is the letter in question which was posted AR15.com earlier today (however the letter seems to be from November). Note paragraph 5 of the 2nd page:
[...]
The Sig Sauer SB-15 pistol stabilizing brace is designed so that a shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip -- then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. As designed, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand Consequently, a Sig SB-15 shoting brace is not designed or intended for firing a weapon from the shoulder.
Consequently, the attachment of the SB-15 to an AR-type pistol alone; would not change the classification of the pistol to an SBR. However, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon design to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute the making of a "rifle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7).
[...]
Further, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, in the designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder, which incorporates a barrel length of less than 16 inches; this assemble would constitute the making of a "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length"; an NFA firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C., Section 5845(a)(3).
[...]
It would seem that all recent letters to the ATF are getting a similar response in regards to braces ? the ATF isn?t cool with it.
[...]
Once again, these are just opinion letters. The real test would come in a criminal court if someone was caught shouldering an AR pistol and arrested.
Click through for more: http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-atf-issues-new-opinion-letter-stating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/
-
BREN officially released today, just under $2K MSRP.
DOA when I can have a Tavor for $400 less
-
Serious problem if the SiG Brace is now illegal to shoulder. If so, it will be NFA toy only for those who can afford to SBR the gun. I'd still love to do that...but highly unlikely, as the extra $200 plsu who knows what the original stock would cost as an extra.
-
Yep, and to have any stock or shoulder any "pistol" would also appear to make it a rifle under the latest letters as well -- which as you pointed out would require 922r, since SBRing any weapon, be it pistol or rifle, is for all intents "manufacturing" a new weapon -- and 922r is required at the manufacture phase of the process...
-
Oddly enough, another website is stating that the ATFE refusal letter was for ONE pistol, because the individual was stupid enough to brag to ATFE that he was bending the rules to "make" and SBR and there wasn't anything they could do about it...so ATFE declared THAT pistol to be an NFA SBr...it sounds like something ATFE would do, with their non-existent rule book.
No, don't have to fool around 922(r), as an NFA firearm is exempt from 922(r). A GCA non NFA imported rifle has to qualify under 922(r), but not a pistol, so once you've gotten your completed Form 1 and paid for tax stamp delivered, it's no longer under the purview of 922(r).
-
That's not accurate. My understanding is that the NFA exemption only applies to full auto weapons, not semi-auto SBRs... B/c they are either military/le/ffl or pre-ban for both full auto and non-sporting restrictions... Here's the exact code being referenced, 922r and the sporting test:
Finally, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(r), specifically states the following:
It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under the?[GCA]?Section 925(d)(3).as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes ?.
Also, 27 C.F.R. ? 478.39 states:
(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes ?.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of [?478.151(formerly 178.151)]; or (3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.
As a result of a 1989 study by the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the importability of certain firearms, an import ban was placed on military-style firearms. This ban included not only military-type firearms, but also extended to firearms with certain features that were considered to be ?nonsporting.?
Among such nonsporting features were the ability to accept a detachable magazine; folding/telescoping stocks; separate pistol grips; and the ability to accept a bayonet, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights.
Please note that the foreign parts kits that are sold through commercial means are usually cut up machineguns, such as Russian AK-47 types, British Sten types, etc. Generally, an acceptable semiautomatic copy of a machinegun is one that has been significantly redesigned. The receiver must be incapable of accepting the original fire-control components that are designed to permit full automatic fire. The method of operation should employ a closed-bolt firing design that incorporates an inertia-type firing pin within the bolt assembly.
Further, an acceptably redesigned semiautomatic copy of nonsporting firearm must be limited to using less than 10 of the imported parts listed in 27 CFR ? 478.39(c). Otherwise, it is considered to be assembled into a nonsporting configuration per the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) and is thus a violation of ? 922(r).
Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html
Basically, 922r was designed to make "non-importable," "illegal" firearms "legal" by having the sum of parts at a sufficient quantity so that the ATF determined them to be of "domestic manufacture" which means these foreign-built guns no longer have to pass the "sporting" test and accordingly allows them to largely exist in their original dress/specs...
922r doesn't apply for pistols but does apply to shotguns and rifles -- yes, semi-auto, but full auto aren't importable by but a few specially licensed/permitted civilians regardless...
From the horse's mouth:
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/922r_NFA_July_2009.jpg)
-
G36
(http://www.heckler-koch.com/uploads/tx_z7productshk/G36A11_re.png)
SCAR-L
(http://www.fnherstal.com/uploads/pics/scar_l_std_d_02.jpg)
BREN 805
(http://www.acr.army.cz/assets/technika-a-vyzbroj/zbrane-a-prostredky/01_cz-805-bren-a1_2.jpg)
*And I'm using the flash hider size relative to barrels as my reference point since can't see these side by side w/ exact proportions.
It would be nice to see a good comparison between the bren805 and the msbs
(http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/imageslibrary/GetImage/33638)
-
Can't say I'm a fan of the MSBS -- way too much polymer, especially in the other than black versions where its harder to see what's what:
(http://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/polish-msbs-radon.jpg)
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/msbs_556_03-tfb.jpg)
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/msbs_556_04-tfb.jpg)
And bear in mind the reason for polymer is that it's cheap and light -- and much easier to produce than aluminum or other similar alloy that requires skill and materials wear out machining, opening up tolerances if not carefully controlled...
Good list of next gen assault rifles -- some wrong info, but fairly complete list nonetheless:
http://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/2014/03/01/the-assault-rifles-of-the-near-future-2-updated/
-
Never heard of the MBS, news to me. Odd looking firearm... :o The only bullpup that appeale to me, modern version, is the Tavor. Old style would be the old Bushmaster M-17S...always liked that thing, no idea why.
Now we have to wait with eager anticipation for the BREN 805 authorized RIFLE...c'mon, Santa! 8) ;D
-
Bullpups I feel are only necessary if you have a specific type of ammo you have to use, like 5.56... If they had the option of 300BLK for a service rifle (ballistically similar to 7.62x39), that cartridge burns all powder w/in 9inches of barrel vs 5.56 that requires 20" of barrel to burn all the powder... So a 9" AR would be ~27.3" stock collapsed and 30" stock extended.
The Tavor w/ 15" barrel runs 25.2", w/ 13" barrel runs 23.2" (why bother with a bullpup w/ that barrel length as you lose ergos and lose velocity/ballistics as well as get all the blast/flash that's mitigated w/ a longer barrel weapon?).
The Tavor w/ 18" barrel runs 28.3", 20" barrel (not sure if offered) would run 30.3", so there aren't substantial size gains if you can customize the your weapon/cartridge to your needs..
The main advantage of the tavor over similar bullpups is the super sabra trigger...
And the operating system of the Tavor reminds me of the AR18, ACR, etc. In this family, the 2nd Gen Masterpiece Arms 5.56 really strikes my interest. Probably something about it being all metal ...
What is more, its manufacture process was much cheaper than AR-15, due to the mass use of deformed and spot welded sheets, without complicated procedures like pressure casting and milling. Despite all these advantages, it has never replaced AR-15 in the US armed forces. One of the reasons was that its full auto mode was somewhat unreliable and required further refinement. This didn?t stop constructors to experiment and use this system in many newer rifles like Steyr AUG, SA-80, SAR-80/RS-88, Howa Type-89, Bushmaster M17, G36 and almost all western rifles of today.
On trials for Australian Army?s new assault rifle, which would replace the obsolete L1A1, the main competitors were Austrian AUG and Australian-made AR-18, designated T2 and produced by Leader Dynamics. The winner was AUG, which was then produced in Australia under the name of F88. T2 Mk5 was produced as a semi-auto rifle for the civilian market until 1996. The American company ?Masterpiece Arms?, which became famous for its M10 and M11 machine pistols, based its MPAR-556 rifle on the Australian model T4.
http://stateofguns.com/mpar-556-homecoming-ar-18-1983/
On Gen2: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/12/second-generation-mpar-556-rifle/
-
Can't say I'm a fan of the MSBS -- way too much polymer, especially in the other than black versions where its harder to see what's what:
I'm pretty sure the amount of polymer is about the same as on 805 that being the lower only, well and the stock...
The short stroke upper is all aluminum and steel
As for the 300 blk , that round makes sense only in subsonic variety with heavy bullets and suppressed
Otherwise it's got nothing on 7.62x39
You can load x39 with same fast powder
-
G36 = a failure in real world service
SCAR = who uses that?
BREN = almost zero real world operational record
TAVOR = battle proven by arguably the most successful and combat-experienced army of modern times
A bullpup has the dominating advantage of not needing to be SBR'd to make it compact, concealable, and maneuverable indoors.
-
I agree, but the BREN is getting battle experience right now in the sand boxes. It is going through it's teething times.
Tavor is really nifty, and I'd love to try one, but the price tag there is prohibitive.
I still wanna try the BREN 805 S1 rifle, if they can get it US civilian legal.
-
Tavor is really nifty, and I'd love to try one, but the price tag there is prohibitive.
Gunbroker is full of Tavors selling in the $1400 - $1600 range. I seriously doubt that a US legal BREN rifle will be significantly less than that.
In fact, I think the only way CZ will get around the imported rifle sporting purposes BS is to make them here; which is what IWI did. Just because of that I seriously doubt we will see them any time soon.
-
I think it depends on which part of the rifle is "the receiver" since that and the barrel are about the only parts that you have to make here... The rest, excluding 922r parts, can ultimately be imported...
If "the receiver" is just that polymer lower, then it should be relative easy to manufacture domestically and import the uppers and and other specially manufactured parts...
I'm pretty sure that's what IMI is doing with the Tavor actually... Could be mistaken though.
-
The Tavor is a nice tight package , but essentially it's a plastic shell with an alloy internal receiver block with and a steel bolt and barrel assembly. They hit the market at $2500 originally and have been dropping in price ever since. as someone who has coated a number of these I have had them completely torn down to the last piece. I would not spend the money on a Tavor until the price hit $700 cause that's about what I think it's really worth. I'd buy the new Bren 805 or the new polish rifle before spending $1400 to $1600 on Tavor not a whole lot of metal in that one.
-
Unfortunately the Tavor is the same, if not better, construction than all the most recent generation of battle rifles. Governments want cheap and modular, which defaults to plastics... And the modularity usually results in at least some reliability issues... From what I understand, why the Bren remains in 5.56 only for the Czech Army...
Personally, I rank Tavors and SCARs together and everything else below them...
The Bren is the same/similar type of action as these. A derivative of the AR18...
Personally, I like the steel in firearms (I also like driving older cars, and the experience with 20 year old plastics there makes me very hesitant with plastics in critical locations...), so the only AR18 variant that I'm seriously interested in is the 2nd Gen MPAR 18. But for the price, I'm not sure that it's worth it when you look at piston ARs that have quite similar presumed reliability like the Adams Arms rifles...
That's why I stick with upgrading the previous generation all steel rifles as best meets my needs... Galils and VZ58s for the win!
(Essentially, the argument here is the same as the precision/long range rifle folks have on the budget vs mid-range vs high end rifles and variances with prices... Most military rifles these days are somewhere between budget and mid-range for manufacturing practices. Only once we get to sniper/DMR packages does rifle manufacture exceed mid-range on the consumer market (military optics are almost entirely high end, but not the rifles for whatever reason...).
-
Although some plastics, such as AUG magazines (now what, about 30 years old?)>, Steyr AUG bullpup body, nylon sling, trigger pack housing, Sig 550 mags, seem to be INDESTRUCTIBLE, without any metal reinforcement.
Far better than plastics used on many US made mags. Maybe pMags are now better, but the point is that these European mags have been around for decades!
-
I handled the BEEN 805 today, both LR versions...me likee. Felt very good, no problem with controls. Can't wait for the civilian legal rifle!
-
I certainly understand the appeal of plastic weapons from both cost, weight and care perspectives... But eventually plastics will fail... All materials degrade. Plastics and plastic polymers just do so in a way that's often not visible until it fails -- and they're constantly being degraded by stuff like ozone that there's no way to protect them against. With metals, I feel like you can 1) see the corrosion and 2) do a lot more in preventative maintenance to protect your gun... Stuff like the beaver barf -- IMO a big part of its durability is due to the wood chips, today there's fiber glass impregnated that does similar. So I certainly get it...
With a gun the HK91, it'd be well served with a polymer outer receiver to protect the easily dented operating channel... Take a look at the AR18 upper receiver steel vs many of these new polymer guns. The amount of metal inside the polymer guns along the operating channel is definitely less thick than the AR18... Point being, stamped receiver guns do stand to benefit from polymer outers -- allowing them to be built to tighter tolerances b/c a small dent won't put them out of commission since a small dent is now much less likely to occur than w/ just bare metal...
But then even more extreme you have guns like the G36 that have a polymer encased trunnion, which has led to German soldiers saying its lack of accuracy when hot makes the gun combat ineffective...
So my polymer hesitations are very much related to how used. But in most cases, I see very little drawback from adding steel reinforcement at critical stress points... Especially when recognizing that when very hot or very cold, polymer becomes more soft or brittle than metal at the same temps... So it's less durable from that perspective as well. And for whatever reason polymers seem to be less able to take certain forms of stress too -- when made for strength they're more brittle and prone to brakes, like shearing mag lugs on polymer mags. Adding steel there adds little weight and a lot of added durability, wear resistance and peace of mind...
Bottom line, for me, I buy weapons for life and don't carry them for a living so the slight added weight and slight added costs are negligible for me. Especially for rifles. Handguns, especially CC, I'm less concerned about polymer. In part, I know its due to lower costs of polymer handguns and less stress the cartridges/recoil put on the weapon, but, if honest, I do think there's some innate bias I have against polymer rifles too (I'm working through this though process through the Galil vs Galil ACE too). I guess it is what it is, but I am leery of polymer battle/modern sporting rifles for my needs. But the same doesn't apply to pistol carbines either. I don't know, but your mileage likely will vary...
-
Oddly enough, for all the talk of low weght and flimsiness, that one thing that struck me about the BREN and the EVO was how SOLID they felt. More solid than any AR-15 I've ever handled, and this one,
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/CZ%20SHOT%202015/BREN%20805%20LE%20only_zpsfeexbo3k.jpg) (http://s16.photobucket.com/user/armoredman/media/CZ%20SHOT%202015/BREN%20805%20LE%20only_zpsfeexbo3k.jpg.html)
Just felt right. Of course, LEO only select fire version, not available for peons. The pistol version was very front heavy, of course,
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/CZ%20SHOT%202015/BREN%20805%20pistol_zpscrt2pdki.jpg) (http://s16.photobucket.com/user/armoredman/media/CZ%20SHOT%202015/BREN%20805%20pistol_zpscrt2pdki.jpg.html)
But seen here with the cheek rest, it felt a lot better. I missed media day at the range, so i didn't get to fire it.
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/CZ%20SHOT%202015/A%20pair%20to%20draw%20to%202_zpsby2echju.jpg) (http://s16.photobucket.com/user/armoredman/media/CZ%20SHOT%202015/A%20pair%20to%20draw%20to%202_zpsby2echju.jpg.html)
-
RSR,
Can you elaborate on the accuracy issues for the SCAR-L when the barrels are heated? I have heard that for the G36 but didn't run across this for the SCAR-L. I own both SCARs and I don't shoot it enough to to know if that is true or not. Just curious where you heard this from.
Thanks!
Looking at the Bren, it's barrel profile looks really thin.
I suspect it'll have the same accuracy issues that the G36 and SCAR-L (light) have experienced when heated up...
For instance (from 2012):
A German newspaper has revealed that a Bundeswehr report has said that once the H&K G36 rifle has heated up, the accuracy is significantly reduced to a point where it is useless beyond 200 meters (218 yards).
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/04/26/hk-g36-useless-at-200m-when-hot/
To this year:
The German Defence Ministry has halted new orders of H&K?s G36 rifle. The Defense Ministry took the action after troops in Afghanistan complained that the H&K built rifles couldn?t hit their targets during prolonged firefights. It?s a serious problem; engagement distances in Afghanistan have tended to be much greater than originally envisioned when the rifle was designed. From the AFP (via ChannelNewsAsia) . . .
German troops in Afghanistan in recent years voiced concerns over the G36 automatic rifle made by Heckler & Koch, saying it became inaccurate when its barrel heated up in prolonged firefights.
The military initially blamed the use of unsuitable munitions, but the government auditing body the Bundesrechnungshof has now ordered a new investigation, reported the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
?It is important to avoid that the defence ministry invests up to 34 million euros ($46 million) in a rifle that may not meet the requirements of the troops,? the court was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
The G36 has been the German Army?s main battle rifle since 1997. H&K designed the gun as a replacement for the aging G3 platform (which used the much heavier 7.62 NATO rounds that were quickly going out of fashion in modern militaries).
Guns are typically sighted in during a slow-firing session, where the barrel remains relatively cool. As the barrel heats up, the uneven expansion of the barrel material causes the gun to shift and the bullet impacts to wander off target. During a prolonged engagement it wouldn?t be surprising for the accuracy of a firearm to diminish considerably, especially with the relatively thin barrel used in the G36.
This isn?t a new complaint; the first reports of the issue started surfacing in April of 2012. The claim was that after a couple hundred rounds the rifle became ineffective at ranges past 200 meters and almost completely useless past 300 meters. At the time H&K blamed the ammunition. The Ministry of Defense seemed content with that answer. However it now looks like yet another branch of the government has gotten wind of the situation and decided to step in.
Germany currently fields around 180,000 G36 rifles, with hundreds of thousands more in the hands of friendly militaries and law enforcement agencies around the world.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/foghorn/troops-complain-hks-g36-cant-hit-broad-side-barn-german-govt-halts-new-orders/
-
Here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/chris-dumm/fn-scar-accuracy-results/
Summed up here in comments: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ask-foghorn-maintaining-accuracy-when-the-barrel-heats-up/#comment-128943
Chris Dumm says:
December 2, 2011 at 12:45
Nick has it exactly right: thin barrels heat more quickly and warp more noticeably than thick barrels. My testing and experience shows that an HK-93 or SCAR-L will open up its group size quickly under sustained firing, but a Colt HBAR or an ArmaLite with a full-profile barrel will largely shrug off the effects of a hot barrel.
When the pencil-thin SCAR barrel got hot, it gave groups that were between 1/2 inch and 1.0 inches larger than its cold-barrel groups. The ArmaLite M-15, with a 16-inch bull barrel, only opened up its groups by 0.2 inches when it got hot. And it got hot much more slowly than the SCAR.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/chris-dumm/gun-review-armalite-m-15/
Thin steel barrels with carbon-fiber sleeves are an excellent combination of light weight and thermal stability, but they can be prohibitively expensive and they only work best with blowback and recoil-operated guns. Gas-operated guns need not apply.
My understanding is also that, despite the lesser weight of the M4 system, one of the big reasons the M4 was used in place of the MK16 SCAR-L is due to the M4 being more accurate even w/ the gov't profile barrel...
Another thing that I really liked about the SCAR heavies were the fact that they were extremely accurate!
[...]
Conclusion
The FN SCAR The US Special Operations Command has currently cancelled their purchase of the Mk 16 SCAR-L and are planning to remove the rifle from their inventory by 2013. However, they plan to purchase 5.56 mm conversion kits for the Mk 17, supplanting the loss of the Mk 16. The SCAR is now one of the competing weapons in the Individual Carbine competition which aims to find a replacement for the M4 Carbine.
http://loadoutroom.com/5347/the-fn-scar/
There might be more here too: http://www.defensereview.com/socom-cancels-fn-mk-16-scar-l-scar-light-riflecarbinesbr-program-will-the-fn-mk-17-scar-h-scar-heavy-survive/
http://www.defensereview.com/will-the-fn-mk17-scar-h-scar-heavy-common-receiver-and-mk16-scar-l-scar-light-conversion-kit-save-the-scar-program/
Sorry, don't have a good summation link... But point is at longer ranges when hot, in environs like Afghanistan, thin barrels can be a detriment...
But military acquisition requirements force weight reductions as a premium need... So it's sort of a catch 22 for newly developed weapons... Especially with a caliber like 5.56 where longer barrels are required to achieve maximum capability from what you're sending downrange.
-
Good review, emphasis mine: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_12/256500__ARCHIVED_THREAD____JANES_Report__SCAR_Supersedes_the_M4A1_Carbine.html&page=20#i2824027
I have personally tested the SCAR-L ,H, and EGLM.
The weapon is a step forward, but then again so are all of the piston driven ARs.
One large concern is the small ejection port and open slots through the receiver. There is no ejection port cover to protect the operating system from debris. These two flaws serve to make the weapon prone to stoppages that are very difficult to reduce. The small ejection port cover makes it impossible to inset a gloved finger into the chamber area to clear the offending rounds, you pretty much have to go in through the mag well. Add on the EGLM and it is really hard to get a finger up through the mag well since the EGLM add another 1.5 or so inches to the mag well depth.
Trigger reset is really slow and long, extending the split time of hammers well beyond that of the M16 series. Short stroking the trigger was pretty common.
The reduced cyclic rate seems to help poor shooters in Auto, but once the shooter learns how to control auto bursts with a proper stance it becomes irrelevant.
The top rail is way higher than that of an M16 type. It has to be to fit the huge bolt. The slow cyclic rate in conjunction with the short stroke piston and high bolt serve to give a very odd recoil impulse. The recoil is noticeably vertical and snappy. It doesn't really push the shooter off target if in a good stance, but it is not nearly as flat as an M16 series rifle or carbine. Most short stroke piston driven ARs feel similar, but once again, not nearly as noticeable.
The sights are odd. The rear sight is just a small peep on a flip-up stick. One thing that I demand in a BUIS is that it is physically present. I highly doubt that the stick could take a serious blow and retain zero, or even remain on the weapon. The LOS over bore is around 3.5 inches! That means that at 15 yards or less, the shooter has to place the tip of the front sight on the threat's hairline to drop shots into the T-Box. It's a pretty disconcerting sight picture. All optics will require lower (thus non-cowitnessing) optic mounts to alleviate this oddity.
The SCAR has gone through several EUAs, with several changes requested in each EUA. Skill level of the participants in each EUA seems to fluctuate, so it's hard for the engineers to pin down exactly what to do with the design. For example, the selector lever is a nightmare. It is a long reach for the thumb to sweep the lever off safe, and really easy to pass the semi position and roll right into auto. It was actually requested to be that way from one EUA, then the next one trashed the design.
Marketing has touted the SCAR as being "Chosen by the warriors." The biggest reason it won the testing was that one requirement was that the weapon be submerged in water, then removed and fired, without draining, in 3 seconds. It was the only tested weapon that passed. Further, the greatest threat to the FN design was not even tested! The HK416 was not involved at all. Litigation with Colt prevented the weapon's inclusion in testing. The XM8 also could not contend since at the time the XM8 was an Army project.
The SCAR is a system based on the lowest common denominator. The basis of the weapon is to basically allow a shooter to be negligent in cleaning or maintaining the weapon. It does not matter how a manufacturer decides to operate a weapon system, a dirty chamber is a dirty chamber, a non-lubed weapon will not run for long, and obstructing brass must be diagnosed and removed by the shooter. No matter how great a design is, a regimen of training and maintenance is essential. Even the venerable AK series can and do experience stoppages. The SCAR not a new spiffy design, it is essentially a reworked FNC painted brown.
With all the dilemma over ammunition (there is a lot more complaint about M855 than about the M4 or M16), I would rather see someone do something with ammo first, then figure out what to launch it from second. The 6.8/6.5 concepts seem to be going in the right direction, but ammo construction is still an issue. I know, barrel change/caliber swap is easy with the SCAR, well it's not that hard with the M16 series either. Since every barrel requires rezeroing anyway (it's not like the shooter is going to pop the barrel off his 18 incher to drop in a 10 inch barrel on the way into the stack) the quick change barrel is virtually irrelevant.
Accuracy? Good, but no better than a service grade M16A4 or M4A1. The weapon keeps being quoted as a "1 MOA gun", but that's 1 MOA over ammo, not combined.
One more thing, the bolt handle reciprocates, just like an AK. Seen many a thumb interface in a negative manner, usually resulting an a failure to feed along with some interesting swearing.
This is not to say that if we implement the SCAR into service we will all be wiped out, just that it is just another weapon. Nothing great. Evolution, not revolution. Until we develop something makedly better, we should just stick to what works, and frankly, the AR platform works. All the ergonomic "improvements" on the SCAR are the same ones you can do to any AR. Keep them lubed and they work.
If the decision is made to switch calibers, the AR may be at a disadvantage. In that even, a whole new test would be in order to ensure that lessons learned by the SCAR selection is not lost. Many manufacturers learned a lot from the tests on exactly what the shortfalls of their weapons were, and I would hope that they figured out what to do to fix them.
The Masada? I remember thinking to myself as I handled it, "This is what the SCAR should be."
Different thread, same poster:
Failure2Stop [Member]
5/11/2007 11:45:27 AM EST
I was involved in an EUA for the SCAR. I have put tens of thousands of rounds through the SCAR-L (not limited to the EUA solely) and hundreds through the SCAR-H (EUA only). I have also used the 416.
There are flaws in both systems.
I wrote this a while ago.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=256500&page=20 (toward the bottom 1/3, continues for a while)
I would prefer the 416, if I had to choose one or the other.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=220569
In reply to the first thread, next page someone wrote (which I think is spot on) -- small element is navy seals who most pushed to keep the scar-l in the special operations arsenal... Barrel comment is what I was sharing though:
We all know who required the SCAR to pass the water in bore test. A very small element.
And wait till this same element starts blowing the pencil profile SCAR barrels. FN would be required to beef up the barrel and then the SCAR is a 9 pound chunk.
HK416s all have heavy barrels fwiw. And my opinion is that a civilian, the need for accuracy/to be a rifleman surpasses most infantry use where less precise area fire is an acceptable compromise for having a lighter weapon to carry on patrols...
-
Thanks RSR. Good to know. I appreciate you taking the time to reference the links. I disagree with some things but I don't want to derail the thread. In any case, I can't wait to see the 805 in person. It seems like a good mix between the Scar and ACR. In functionality and such.
-
To what degree it matters is really a question of ranges at which you'll be shooting and how accurate you need your weapon system to be, as well as rate of fire in regards to heat.
Military w/ full auto and/or combat situations barrels heat up quickly with a lot of rounds down range in a very short time, and usually stay hot until a threat has been eliminated, so drawbacks of an inaccurate barrel are worse here...
I'm relatively ignorant about the latest generation of rifles. I've handled a neighbor's SCAR-L but never shot it. Like anything, you're ultimately talking about compromises and/or finding a weapon whose compromises fit your needs... But for my needs lightweight/slim/thin profile barrels are a hard pill to swallow.