Author Topic: .308 Bren 2?  (Read 3740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AW99

  • Guest
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2018, 08:46:33 PM »
Links works again as of 8:44 PM.

Anyone got an educated guess on the price range? $2k - $2.5k ish?  More?

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18014
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2018, 12:04:20 AM »
At this point it would be pure speculation, but wild guess, since the 805 walked in at just under $2K originally, I could see the BREN 2 308 being north of there by a few figures, possible $2500. It would reduce its chance to knock SCAR out of the ballpark but still excellent.

Offline romukom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2018, 12:02:28 AM »
OK I guess it's official. The Bren 2  in 7.62 (. 308) is officially called Bren 2 BR as in "battle rifle"
Here is their official video


Offline MeatAxe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2018, 01:34:17 AM »
OK I guess it's official. The Bren 2  in 7.62 (. 308) is officially called Bren 2 BR as in "battle rifle"
Here is their official video



Are those Magpul magazines (I hope)?

Offline 2wheelwander

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2018, 09:15:59 AM »
What are kidneys bringing nowadays? O0

Offline No. 6

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2018, 10:26:02 PM »
What are kidneys bringing nowadays? O0

Not quite enough....

Offline CZBren805

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2018, 07:06:01 PM »
In the fictional story Les Miserables, the sympathetic character Fantine sold her hair and front teeth to the wig and dentures industry to get money.  Perhaps a kidney + plasma + hair + teeth might get you over the line.

Don't worry, they are not required for good marksmanship and everybody is going to be looking at the Bren 2 anyway.  ;) 

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18014
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2018, 03:53:23 AM »
I just found the plasma center in my town, too. :)

Offline Erikw5490

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2018, 01:59:09 PM »
Well worth it IMO.

Online bull

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2018, 09:43:41 PM »
I just bought an 805 FDE....i also want the 806 carbine..and oh hell i want an m4 benelli as well.....i need counseling i am sure

Id really lust after a x39 carbine....308 i have no intetest...my a3 hk91 i shot thru a mag and put back in the box...been there since 1985ish

She arrived...dam that 805 is obe helluva sexy beast...FDE was right chouce as well
« Last Edit: October 26, 2018, 06:02:36 PM by bull »

Online RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2018, 04:48:54 PM »
I just saw this in a thread about the Bren 2 at the AK Files forum and it seems to be a .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO version of the Bren 2.  Note, it's much modified from the 5.56mm/7.62x39mm versions, almost to the point of being a new rifle even if the basic concept is the same.  It also has the alternative (possibly cheek rest adjustable) version of the Bren 2's stock.

Only photo that I've found so far:



So does anyone know if this is real, or am I dreaming?

Update:  It looks like I'm not dreaming:

https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/99cbah/cz_bren_2_in_308/

.308 Bren 2 above, 807 in 5.56 below:



That's clearly a different upper receiver...  I'd like to seem them offer in 6.5 Creedmoor.  Zero reason for .308 battle rifles in the modern era IMHO -- especially since they will only be used when terrain results in engagement across extended distances and/or for DMR type rigs...  .308/7.62N energy/performance advantage only significant w/in 400 meters vs 6.5 Creedmoor, and even then that energy advantage is excess for typical tasks at hand IMO.  Also, smaller diameter of 6.5 Creedmoor should result in increase penetration vs .308 -- see MAC's penetration tests for 5.56 and 5.45 vs .308 and 7.62x39 for examples.

Importantly, 6.5 Creedmoor having 40% less recoil than .308 should also result in more effective deployment of a rifle in CQB than .308.  Just as a rifle to rifle, not accounting for small/intermediate caliber carbine.  Yes, technically, 6.5 creedmoor is an intermediate caliber, but considering ~94% the case capacity and ~82% the bullet weight (vs ~50% case capacity and ~42% bullet weight of 5.56) it's much closer in performance to a full caliber battle rifle than what we typically think of as intermediate calibers.

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18014
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2018, 06:48:38 AM »
For those of us who aren't operators, and cannot be mistaken for one even in a fog at 200 yards, I like it. I doubt I will need it for CQB or any other type of combat except vs paper targets and ringing steel. 308 is a decent hunting round as well, and the BREN 2 BR might make a good do-all hunting rig down here where we do have some long shots, depending on what accuracy it gives with what projectiles/loads. I do like the idea of hunting with a detachable magazine rifle, especially one that is semi auto, and we eliminated magazine limits some time ago as some hunting areas are also along human and drug smuggling routes. Keep a couple of spare mags with SD ammo, and the loaded mag with the hunting ammo. Of course, the good hunter will come back with the hunting magazine still pretty full. ;)
It checks off all the boxes for me.

Online RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2018, 06:30:25 PM »
Yes, I'd expect them to offer commercially in .308, but the future is in 6.5 creedmoor.

Vs .308, 1/3rd less recoil (roughly equivalent to .243 win, so less likely to cause flinch and faster followup shots, including less aggressive brakes/comps [if used] for reduced dust signatures), 1/3 to 1/2 weight per round savings depending on bullet weights considered (more rounds can be carried for same weight), and ballistics (excluding energy) that match the .300 win mag, and more energy than .308 in less than 200 yards in match loadings...

The only interest I have in .308 rifles is due to it being a common cartridge (including cheap surplus and steel ammo for training), and for legacy battle rifles chambered in the round -- which was an US military-demanded boondoggle from the start.  Regardless, this sums up pretty good: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/06/jeremy-s/6-5-creedmoor-vs-308-winchester/
Quote


Because USSOCOM (U.S. Special Operations Command) found that, as compared to flat-footed .308 (specifically M118LR, the military’s best long-range .308 load), 6.5 Creedmoor doubles snipers’ hit probability at 1,000 meters, increases effective range by at least a third, increases energy on target by 50%, reduces the effect of wind by 40%, and has at least 30% less recoil, they will begin converting their .308 Win MK110A1 and Mk20 rifles to 6.5 CM in 2019 (see here and here). A process that requires nothing more than a new barrel, by the way.

Offline CZBren805

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2018, 12:53:33 AM »
I'm your huckleberry.  I will take the 6.5 Creedmoor over the .308 and jump on the bandwagon.  However, I wonder if we are suffering from a case of Afghanistanitis and we just want to fight the last war again.  I predict the next conflict will return to typical engagements under 300M and we will be clamoring for lower weight and higher volume of fire.

Online RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: .308 Bren 2?
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2018, 05:02:47 PM »
I'm your huckleberry.  I will take the 6.5 Creedmoor over the .308 and jump on the bandwagon.  However, I wonder if we are suffering from a case of Afghanistanitis and we just want to fight the last war again.  I predict the next conflict will return to typical engagements under 300M and we will be clamoring for lower weight and higher volume of fire.

I don't think carbines go away by any stretch.  I also don't think that .308 goes away either since it will load more reliably in semi-autos than 6.5 C, which is a concern for MGs and if using as a battle rifle rather than a DMR role...  The greater weight, etc, isn't an issue for MGs that are typically either vehicle mounted or stationary defensive. 

For longer range use, I like 6.5 Creedmoor and .300 win mag, each serving different roles.   Their ballistic similarity is great for interchangeability too for precision/marksmen to be able to select a weapon for the mission and have to do less cross training to effectively deploy each. 

But when you consider the weight, ballistic advantage, higher sectional density of 6.5 C vs .308 (meaning greater penetration), etc, it's pretty difficult to say that it's not the way to go.  The same "it's great b/c it's a flat shooter" for 5.56 N vs 6.5 C applies here, but with much less loss of efficacy at longer ranges due to 6.5 C's high ballistic coefficient resulting in greater energy than .308 at range... 

I just don't see many instances where you wouldn't want to at least have a few marksmen/precision folks in every platoon, if not one per squad.  You could also certainly also equip each with a breaching shotgun too with some additional ammo for indoor room clearing -- indoors is about the only environment where they'd be at a significant disadvantage vs the M4, but even then for urban combat, you would likely have your precision/marksmen equipped w/ an 16-20" SPR/DMR rig in 5.56 rather than a longer range weapon in 6.5 C...  And in urban combat, you'd leave the precision shooting to proper sniper teams in overwatch positions and keep the DMs w/ their unit. 

Now the SPR was originally 16" as designed, but became a comprise weapon design at 18" due to Navy Special Warfare wanting 16" and Big Green wanting 20" barrels.  All things considered w/ 6.5 C in the mix, I'd return the SPR to the original 16" configuration (especially w/ suppressors now being more broadly issued), and issue the 6.5 C in 18-22" configuration when longer range is needed... 

Insofar as future wars -- we're either looking at warfare in major urban centers like what Israel sees--and they went to bullpup 5.56s for that use -- or longer range extended engagements with near-peers where mobility and lack of troop concentrations are critical to survival (like was the plan for direct combat w/ Soviets during Cold War where tactical nukes, etc, were a concern -- however now, it's technology like mini-drones, other eyes in sky, flir/heat imaging, precision strikes, etc, that become the concern).  Yes, Afghanistan is unique terrain; however, its extremely varied environments with engagements at unknown ranges, etc, would most likely be the case in combat against most irregular forces -- and in that case, the 6.5 C would again be of benefit, as w/o more capable longer range weapons, the lack of that capability would be exploited by the enemy.

The thing I come back to w/ 6.5 C is that it's a little more rifle than .243 winchester insofar as bullet and recoil, but has capabilities that exceed the .308, and even .270 win at range.  The fact that there's so little compromise is what makes it something!

 

anything