User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 11:12:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AEROMechanic]
 The NEW CZ Bren 3 is Finally Here! New Bren Goodness!  THE NEW CZ BREN 3 Tougher than ever! So fellas, ready to trade in those now abandoned CZ Bren 2s?? CZ is quickly becoming SIG 
|
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 11:16:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Actually, I watched the videos earlier today and the 3 seems to be a well needed update and improvement over the 2. There were some serious issues with the 2 that hopefully the 3 can mitigate and improve upon.
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 7:09:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Super detailed thread on Bren 3. Uses 32CrMoV12-10 barrel steel, which I believe is the same 'super steel' used in the HK416. Hopefully this is used in a future US version...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 7:54:21 AM EDT
[#3]
I'm certainly not dumping my Bren 2s but a Bren 3 in 300 Blackout would be a nice addition. A factory FDE version would be the cat's pajamas too.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 10:52:47 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: Super detailed thread on Bren 3. Uses 32CrMoV12-10 barrel steel, which I believe is the same 'super steel' used in the HK416. Hopefully this is used in a future US version...
That would be awesome! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 11:27:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Advance]
[#5]
Did you see it shoot 300 BLK through a 5.56 barrel with no resulting squib?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 6:17:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eurotrash]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Did you see it shoot 300 BLK through a 5.56 barrel with no resulting squib? Wasn’t that the Bren 2 in James Reeve’s video? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 8:23:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#7]
Scrol to 00:50 sec mark for design details:
THE NEW CZ BREN 3 Tougher than ever! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Did you see it shoot 300 BLK through a 5.56 barrel with no resulting squib? No. What are smoking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:40:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: No. What are smoking? TFB posted a video where James was at CZ and they torture tested a 5.56 Bren 2 that was going to be disposed of, including firing a 300BLK round down the barrel and the gun actually fired the 300BLK round with no ill effects. The video is in the CZ Bren 2 thread on the latest page, I think. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 10:07:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zeebz: TFB posted a video where James was at CZ and they torture tested a 5.56 Bren 2 that was going to be disposed of, including firing a 300BLK round down the barrel and the gun actually fired the 300BLK round with no ill effects. The video is in the CZ Bren 2 thread on the latest page, I think. How is swapping in a 300 BO barrel & then firing it a big deal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 10:18:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: How is swapping in a 300 BO barrel & then firing it a big deal? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: Originally Posted By Zeebz: TFB posted a video where James was at CZ and they torture tested a 5.56 Bren 2 that was going to be disposed of, including firing a 300BLK round down the barrel and the gun actually fired the 300BLK round with no ill effects. The video is in the CZ Bren 2 thread on the latest page, I think. How is swapping in a 300 BO barrel & then firing it a big deal? The big deal is they evidently didn't swap barrels beforehand. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 10:46:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: How is swapping in a 300 BO barrel & then firing it a big deal? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: Originally Posted By Zeebz: TFB posted a video where James was at CZ and they torture tested a 5.56 Bren 2 that was going to be disposed of, including firing a 300BLK round down the barrel and the gun actually fired the 300BLK round with no ill effects. The video is in the CZ Bren 2 thread on the latest page, I think. How is swapping in a 300 BO barrel & then firing it a big deal? No. They shot a supersonic 300 blackout round through a 556 chambered Bren 2. The bullet cleared the bore, didn’t break anything with over pressure and fired 556 ammo afterwards with no problem. It’s not guaranteed to do that all the time but was a cool demonstration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 12:19:56 AM EDT
[#12]
I just GOT my BREN 2, ain't getting rid of it any time soon.
But, as I can't see the video from here, exactly what improvements do you guys see over the 2? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 2:14:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By G3k: No. They shot a supersonic 300 blackout round through a 556 chambered Bren 2. The bullet cleared the bore, didn’t break anything with over pressure and fired 556 ammo afterwards with no problem. It’s not guaranteed to do that all the time but was a cool demonstration. Not possible unless the bore was massively eroded. In fact, 300 BLK shouldn't be able to chamber in a 556 breech. That round had to have somehow been stripped down to pass through the barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 2:49:41 AM EDT
[#14]
What does this do that a good ar15 doesn't do?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 6:01:18 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: What does this do that a good ar15 doesn't do? Side folding stock. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 7:28:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: What does this do that a good ar15 doesn't do? Side charges. *Possibly runs to a higher round count without cleaning / lubrication. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 7:36:56 AM EDT
[#17]
I wish they’d ditch that grid pattern they are using and all those various nooks and crannies all over the place. I bet that thing is packed with mud and dirt in short order. The folding stock change is interesting, they went from a fully sealed set up to a folding stock system that somewhat exposes the internals of the rifle. It looks like they tried to seal it up with the recoil buffer but it is still open enough that dirt and debris can get in there and down into the trigger group. I’m not sure why they felt being able to remove the lower like that was important. There are some interesting design changes with this one and very little cross over compatibility with the Bren 2. I’m sure these will sell but if someone has a Bren 2 I don’t really see any reason to change up.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 7:47:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Citizen904: Side charges. *Possibly runs to a higher round count without cleaning / lubrication. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Citizen904: Originally Posted By Kingdead: What does this do that a good ar15 doesn't do? Side charges. *Possibly runs to a higher round count without cleaning / lubrication. Side charging is a manual of arms thing that doesn’t really have any added benefit. It is purely user preference. There are side charging AR uppers and even side charging adapters for the AR if you really want a side charging. https://devildogconcepts.com/side-charging-handle-system/ The higher round count without cleaning lubrication is speculative and 20+ years of combat use with the M4 and suppressed M4s in various configurations have proven the whole argument of DI vs piston, moot. The only advantage is less gas in the shooters face but with current flow through suppressor designs that argument is becoming moot as well. So far all of these guns are various reskinned versions of the AR180 with some minor improvements here and there. There is nothing wrong with that though. |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 9:45:02 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: The higher round count without cleaning lubrication is speculative and 20+ years of combat use with the M4 and suppressed M4s in various configurations have proven the whole argument of DI vs piston, moot. The only advantage is less gas in the shooters face but with current flow through suppressor designs that argument is becoming moot as well. So far all of these guns are various reskinned versions of the AR180 with some minor improvements here and there. There is nothing wrong with that though. Agreed. This looks like a great rifle. It will make a nice addition to a collection, but in practice it won’t do anything better than a good AR. I see this carbine as a great option for foreign mil and LE wanting to replace an aging fleet of other long guns. It’s a direct competitor to the mcx. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 9:46:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: Not possible unless the bore was massively eroded. In fact, 300 BLK shouldn't be able to chamber in a 556 breech. That round had to have somehow been stripped down to pass through the barrel. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: Originally Posted By G3k: No. They shot a supersonic 300 blackout round through a 556 chambered Bren 2. The bullet cleared the bore, didn’t break anything with over pressure and fired 556 ammo afterwards with no problem. It’s not guaranteed to do that all the time but was a cool demonstration. Not possible unless the bore was massively eroded. In fact, 300 BLK shouldn't be able to chamber in a 556 breech. That round had to have somehow been stripped down to pass through the barrel. .300 Blackout regularly is chambered in 5.56 ARs and promptly blows them up. If the bullet makes it out of the barrel, it's a very fast long swaged down danger noodle. |
|
|
|
AS, USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 10:38:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Release date?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:15:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: Not possible unless the bore was massively eroded. In fact, 300 BLK shouldn't be able to chamber in a 556 breech. That round had to have somehow been stripped down to pass through the barrel. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster: Originally Posted By G3k: No. They shot a supersonic 300 blackout round through a 556 chambered Bren 2. The bullet cleared the bore, didn’t break anything with over pressure and fired 556 ammo afterwards with no problem. It’s not guaranteed to do that all the time but was a cool demonstration. Not possible unless the bore was massively eroded. In fact, 300 BLK shouldn't be able to chamber in a 556 breech. That round had to have somehow been stripped down to pass through the barrel. I mean, they did it on video. It happened, so it is very much possible, just not expected. I’d wonder if the scar-esqe action keeps the bolt locked for just longer enough for the pressure to expel the slug vs an ar that unlocks and breaks almost instantly and vents the gasses vs propelling the projectile with that extra bit of energy. You could just watch the video if you don’t believe it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 12:45:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zeebz]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By G3k: I mean, they did it on video. It happened, so it is very much possible, just not expected. I’d wonder if the scar-esqe action keeps the bolt locked for just longer enough for the pressure to expel the slug vs an ar that unlocks and breaks almost instantly and vents the gasses vs propelling the projectile with that extra bit of energy. You could just watch the video if you don’t believe it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By G3k: I mean, they did it on video. It happened, so it is very much possible, just not expected. I’d wonder if the scar-esqe action keeps the bolt locked for just longer enough for the pressure to expel the slug vs an ar that unlocks and breaks almost instantly and vents the gasses vs propelling the projectile with that extra bit of energy. You could just watch the video if you don’t believe it. Yep. Can't say it's not possible when they actually showed it happen and nothing happened to the gun. Maybe the rifling was severely worn or something, but they still did it. Originally Posted By amendment: Release date? Nothing announced yet. The Bren 805 got released in 2009, and I think the North American market got the civilian version in late 2014. The Bren 2 got released in late 2015, and the civilian versions started popping up in 2019. So it's been 4-5 years since release of the military variants and the civilian versions. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 1:21:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zeebz: So it's been 4-5 years since release of the military variants and the civilian versions. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 1:31:45 PM EDT
[#25]
They hadn’t ever fixed the 7.62x39 issues as far as I’m aware?
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 1:36:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: What does this do that a good ar15 doesn't do? gets accuracy that's only about half as good as a comparable AR |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 3:47:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OHBuckeyes: They hadn’t ever fixed the 7.62x39 issues as far as I’m aware? They did end up fixing it. The x39 variants starting reappearing late last year and from everything I've read are in great working order now. I think CZ was just very mum on what they fixed. |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 6:42:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By G3k: I mean, they did it on video. It happened, so it is very much possible, just not expected. I’d wonder if the scar-esqe action keeps the bolt locked for just longer enough for the pressure to expel the slug vs an ar that unlocks and breaks almost instantly and vents the gasses vs propelling the projectile with that extra bit of energy. You could just watch the video if you don’t believe it. Larger form factor of the bolt with larger body, larger lugs than an AR15. And CHF CL barrel, likely with a tapered bore. Those things add strength and likely are the reason the barrel and bolt did not catastrophically fail from shooting supersonic 300bo through a 5.56 rifle. I was at a night shoot when someone took an AR with 11.5” 5.56 upper, chambered, and fired a 300bo sub, which squibbed the projo. The barrel and bolt did not fail, but that’s pretty common with a sub. A super would have kaboomed it. |
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 7:00:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#29]
The Bren 3 looks to be very cool. I think people are mistakenly thinking of this as a replacement for the AR15, asking “what’s this do better than [insert others’ favorite AR or other rifle]”.
CZ owns Colt. They already make ARs in Hartford and Canadia. They own the AR15 market. The Bren3 is likely a largely international market rifle, meant to be submitted to nations other than the US whose mil and police agencies are looking to replace an aging rifle and/or SMG fleet. Internationally it will compete with the IWI Carmel, IWI arex, IWI Galil ace, HK 416, HK 433, and Steyr’s new design. In the US it’s a very cool rifle for those who want a reference collection of different military rifles. I put it in the camp of my Swiss SIGs, AUGs, FNC, Galil ACEs, SCAR, HK roller delays, etc. Not that it couldn’t be a great rifle for a do-all setup, just that it would be kind of silly in the face of the contemporary AR15, which has proven itself reliable, accurate, etc, etc in austere, harsh conditions of the GWOT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 7:44:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshNC: The Bren 3 looks to be very cool. I think people are mistakenly thinking of this as a replacement for the AR15, asking “what’s this do better than [insert others’ favorite AR or other rifle]”. CZ owns Colt. They already make ARs in Hartford and Canadia. They own the AR15 market. The Bren3 is likely a largely international market rifle, meant to be submitted to nations other than the US whose mil and police agencies are looking to replace an aging rifle and/or SMG fleet. Internationally it will compete with the IWI Carmel, IWI arex, IWI Galil ace, HK 416, HK 433, and Steyr’s new design. In the US it’s a very cool rifle for those who want a reference collection of different military rifles. I put it in the camp of my Swiss SIGs, AUGs, FNC, Galil ACEs, SCAR, HK roller delays, etc. Not that it couldn’t be a great rifle for a do-all setup, just that it would be kind of silly in the face of the contemporary AR15, which has proven itself reliable, accurate, etc, etc in austere, harsh conditions of the GWOT. People are comparing it to the AR because the AR is a solid benchmark for everything a combat rifle needs to be including cost. A lot of NATO countries might issue their own nationally built rifle but if you look at their snake eaters, a lot of those same countries issue a version of the M4 to those guys. That said to me that deep down, when you strip away national pride, those various rifles you named are subpar. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 8:34:19 PM EDT
[#31]
I want one
My heart says I can My wallet says shut up and buy poverty pony |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 9:14:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: People are comparing it to the AR because the AR is a solid benchmark for everything a combat rifle needs to be including cost. A lot of NATO countries might issue their own nationally built rifle but if you look at their snake eaters, a lot of those same countries issue a version of the M4 to those guys. That said to me that deep down, when you strip away national pride, those various rifles you named are subpar. I 100% agree. I love all those rifles as cool collectibles that I shoot. They are all absolutely inferior to a quality contemporary AR. That foreign SOF almost universally issue an AR15 variant is proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 9:16:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: People are comparing it to the AR because the AR is a solid benchmark for everything a combat rifle needs to be including cost. A lot of NATO countries might issue their own nationally built rifle but if you look at their snake eaters, a lot of those same countries issue a version of the M4 to those guys. That said to me that deep down, when you strip away national pride, those various rifles you named are subpar. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By JoshNC: The Bren 3 looks to be very cool. I think people are mistakenly thinking of this as a replacement for the AR15, asking “what’s this do better than [insert others’ favorite AR or other rifle]”. CZ owns Colt. They already make ARs in Hartford and Canadia. They own the AR15 market. The Bren3 is likely a largely international market rifle, meant to be submitted to nations other than the US whose mil and police agencies are looking to replace an aging rifle and/or SMG fleet. Internationally it will compete with the IWI Carmel, IWI arex, IWI Galil ace, HK 416, HK 433, and Steyr’s new design. In the US it’s a very cool rifle for those who want a reference collection of different military rifles. I put it in the camp of my Swiss SIGs, AUGs, FNC, Galil ACEs, SCAR, HK roller delays, etc. Not that it couldn’t be a great rifle for a do-all setup, just that it would be kind of silly in the face of the contemporary AR15, which has proven itself reliable, accurate, etc, etc in austere, harsh conditions of the GWOT. People are comparing it to the AR because the AR is a solid benchmark for everything a combat rifle needs to be including cost. A lot of NATO countries might issue their own nationally built rifle but if you look at their snake eaters, a lot of those same countries issue a version of the M4 to those guys. That said to me that deep down, when you strip away national pride, those various rifles you named are subpar. I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 10:10:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By G3k: I mean, they did it on video. It happened, so it is very much possible, just not expected. I’d wonder if the scar-esqe action keeps the bolt locked for just longer enough for the pressure to expel the slug vs an ar that unlocks and breaks almost instantly and vents the gasses vs propelling the projectile with that extra bit of energy. You could just watch the video if you don’t believe it. I saw it. Just thinking online how it could've happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 10:33:01 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:22:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. This is the dumbest straw man attempt I’ve seen in a while. Rifles still very much matter. Ask the dudes clearing trenches, bunkers and built up fighting positions in Ukraine where drones and arty can’t get to how important rifles are to them? You can’t just drop arty or fly explosive laden drones around populated areas. You’re going to eventually have to dismount and clear those areas. The Afghanistan comment was pretty dumb and really displayed your total lack of understanding what was going on there. The M4 didn’t have anything to do with winning or losing anything in Iraq or Afghanistan or anything else for that matter, policy did. The “National founding myth” comment is just strange. I think your Lego mask slipped a bit there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:27:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By armoredman: What do you mean, "national founding myth"? Kinda curious about that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By armoredman: Originally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. What do you mean, "national founding myth"? Kinda curious about that. One of our national founding myths is we sniped the British Army with rifles from behind stone fences. The American Army was as conventional as we could manage at the time, w/ all the French muskets they would send us, but we certainly had rifle skirmishers, particularly among the irregulars. But, while we likely have more shotguns per capita of any country in the world, we also have more rifles than any other country in the world. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:30:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: This is the dumbest straw man attempt I’ve seen in a while. Rifles still very much matter. Ask the dudes clearing trenches, bunkers and built up fighting positions in Ukraine where drones and arty can’t get to how important rifles are to them? You can’t just drop arty or fly explosive laden drones around populated areas. You’re going to eventually have to dismount and clear those areas. The Afghanistan comment was pretty dumb and really displayed your total lack of understanding what was going on there. The M4 didn’t have anything to do with winning or losing anything in Iraq or Afghanistan or anything else for that matter, policy did. The “National founding myth” comment is just strange. I think your Lego mask slipped a bit there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. This is the dumbest straw man attempt I’ve seen in a while. Rifles still very much matter. Ask the dudes clearing trenches, bunkers and built up fighting positions in Ukraine where drones and arty can’t get to how important rifles are to them? You can’t just drop arty or fly explosive laden drones around populated areas. You’re going to eventually have to dismount and clear those areas. The Afghanistan comment was pretty dumb and really displayed your total lack of understanding what was going on there. The M4 didn’t have anything to do with winning or losing anything in Iraq or Afghanistan or anything else for that matter, policy did. The “National founding myth” comment is just strange. I think your Lego mask slipped a bit there. The infantry certainly needs rifles. But they really need machineguns, thermal optics, drones, & radios. Would we have done any better or any worse in Iraq or Afghanistan with AK-47s instead of M4s? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:30:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: One of our national founding myths is we sniped the British Army with rifles from behind stone fences. The American Army was as conventional as we could manage at the time, w/ all the French muskets they would send us, but we certainly had rifle skirmishers, particularly among the irregulars. But, while we likely have more shotguns per capita of any country in the world, we also have more rifles than any other country in the world. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By armoredman: Originally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. What do you mean, "national founding myth"? Kinda curious about that. One of our national founding myths is we sniped the British Army with rifles from behind stone fences. The American Army was as conventional as we could manage at the time, w/ all the French muskets they would send us, but we certainly had rifle skirmishers, particularly among the irregulars. But, while we likely have more shotguns per capita of any country in the world, we also have more rifles than any other country in the world. Rogers' Rangers would like a word. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:35:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Rogers' Rangers would like a word. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By armoredman: Originally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. What do you mean, "national founding myth"? Kinda curious about that. One of our national founding myths is we sniped the British Army with rifles from behind stone fences. The American Army was as conventional as we could manage at the time, w/ all the French muskets they would send us, but we certainly had rifle skirmishers, particularly among the irregulars. But, while we likely have more shotguns per capita of any country in the world, we also have more rifles than any other country in the world. Rogers' Rangers would like a word. Given he served the British in our War of Independence... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:37:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: The infantry certainly needs rifles. But they really need machineguns, thermal optics, drones, & radios. Would we have done any better or any worse in Iraq or Afghanistan with AK-47s instead of M4s? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. This is the dumbest straw man attempt I’ve seen in a while. Rifles still very much matter. Ask the dudes clearing trenches, bunkers and built up fighting positions in Ukraine where drones and arty can’t get to how important rifles are to them? You can’t just drop arty or fly explosive laden drones around populated areas. You’re going to eventually have to dismount and clear those areas. The Afghanistan comment was pretty dumb and really displayed your total lack of understanding what was going on there. The M4 didn’t have anything to do with winning or losing anything in Iraq or Afghanistan or anything else for that matter, policy did. The “National founding myth” comment is just strange. I think your Lego mask slipped a bit there. The infantry certainly needs rifles. But they really need machineguns, thermal optics, drones, & radios. Would we have done any better or any worse in Iraq or Afghanistan with AK-47s instead of M4s? Wars are multiple battles that still take place so yeah we would have done worse. You’re dragging policy failure out and trying to lay it on a rifle in a weak attempt to argue that rifles are all the same and insignificant now days. Fighting still takes place solider to solider, that aspect of warfare hasn’t changed and the guy with the better rifle has a much better chance at surviving those individual battles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:39:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Given he served the British in our War of Independence... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By armoredman: Originally Posted By backbencher: I think we're in the era that the infantry rifle doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is ADA, artillery, drones, & planning. We obsess about the infantry rifle b/c we're Americans whose national founding myth is based on the rifle. Our superior M4 didn't win us Afghanistan. What do you mean, "national founding myth"? Kinda curious about that. One of our national founding myths is we sniped the British Army with rifles from behind stone fences. The American Army was as conventional as we could manage at the time, w/ all the French muskets they would send us, but we certainly had rifle skirmishers, particularly among the irregulars. But, while we likely have more shotguns per capita of any country in the world, we also have more rifles than any other country in the world. Rogers' Rangers would like a word. Given he served the British in our War of Independence...  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 11:44:50 PM EDT
[#43]
This isn't GD. I'm not a mod, but let's keep the thread on the topic of the Bren 3 rather than getting it locked. Yeah the AR is a great rifle, but the Ukrainians are kicking Russian ass with the Bren 2, and soon hopefully will be doing it with the Bren 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2024 1:49:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zeebz: This isn't GD. I'm not a mod, but let's keep the thread on the topic of the Bren 3 rather than getting it locked. Yeah the AR is a great rifle, but the Ukrainians are kicking Russian ass with the Bren 2, and soon hopefully will be doing it with the Bren 3. While things got slightly off the path, we are talking about the Bren 3 and the strange design choices CZ has made and if they are justified and if it is even worth the upgrade from the Bren 2 and what is the point of developing such a rifle or rifles in general since some people seem to think rifles don’t actually make a difference. I personally think CZ is spread a little thin between all their companies and products so QC is starting to slip on some of their various products. With such a massive design shift from the Bren 2 to the Bren 3 with very little parts compatibility between the two rifles I don’t think it was wise. One of the reasons the AR is brought up because it is a benchmark rifle and CZ was well on their way to meeting that benchmark with the Bren 2 design but rather than refine what they had and let it mature it seems like they made so many changes it as if they are starting for scratch. So a lot of that T&E done in Ukraine is wasted since they are going to have to field the new rifle, establish a new parts logistic chain and then track back and fix all the little issues that are going to come up during its use in a combat environment. One of the reasons for the ARs success is because it is a design that has had time to mature and get refined. There are a lot of similarities between the early development of the M16 series which was developed during the Vietnam war and the Bren 2 and Bren 3 which have been developed during the war in Ukraine. That is a very different development environment than say the AUG or L85 which were developed mostly during peace time. I don’t have anything against the Bren 3 except now it’s not proven. The Bren 2 is an excellent rifle and at this point is proven. I can see changes like the ones to the gas system settings. The rails and barrel being good changes but being able to remove the lower without removing the stock? Was that something that was really needed? That design change impacted so many other parts of the rifle to the point the two rifles are not compatible and you can’t upgrade a Bren 2 to a Bren 3. That just seems like going backwards. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2024 9:34:16 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: While things got slightly off the path, we are talking about the Bren 3 and the strange design choices CZ has made and if they are justified and if it is even worth the upgrade from the Bren 2 and what is the point of developing such a rifle or rifles in general since some people seem to think rifles don’t actually make a difference. I personally think CZ is spread a little thin between all their companies and products so QC is starting to slip on some of their various products. With such a massive design shift from the Bren 2 to the Bren 3 with very little parts compatibility between the two rifles I don’t think it was wise. One of the reasons the AR is brought up because it is a benchmark rifle and CZ was well on their way to meeting that benchmark with the Bren 2 design but rather than refine what they had and let it mature it seems like they made so many changes it as if they are starting for scratch. So a lot of that T&E done in Ukraine is wasted since they are going to have to field the new rifle, establish a new parts logistic chain and then track back and fix all the little issues that are going to come up during its use in a combat environment. One of the reasons for the ARs success is because it is a design that has had time to mature and get refined. There are a lot of similarities between the early development of the M16 series which was developed during the Vietnam war and the Bren 2 and Bren 3 which have been developed during the war in Ukraine. That is a very different development environment than say the AUG or L85 which were developed mostly during peace time. I don’t have anything against the Bren 3 except now it’s not proven. The Bren 2 is an excellent rifle and at this point is proven. I can see changes like the ones to the gas system settings. The rails and barrel being good changes but being able to remove the lower without removing the stock? Was that something that was really needed? That design change impacted so many other parts of the rifle to the point the two rifles are not compatible and you can’t upgrade a Bren 2 to a Bren 3. That just seems like going backwards. No disagreement from me on the changes. With the Bren 2 being such a widely accepted platform, and now in service with certain militaries like Hungary, Czech Republic, and Ukraine who said they're officially adopting it - it seems weird to make the gen 3 and have such little backwards compatibility. I give Sig a lot of shit for the MCX platform, but between the Virtus and Spear-Lt most of the system is interchangeable. It's cool CZ went even more modular with the Bren 3, but they needed more parts compatibility especially with all the militaries already adopting or using the Bren 2 in some capacity. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 6/20/2024 6:19:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Evintos]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: One of our national founding myths is we sniped the British Army with rifles from behind stone fences. The American Army was as conventional as we could manage at the time, w/ all the French muskets they would send us, but we certainly had rifle skirmishers, particularly among the irregulars. But, while we likely have more shotguns per capita of any country in the world, we also have more rifles than any other country in the world. Not trying to go super off topic here, but line infantry warfare was a thing back then, so rifles did play a major role in the founding of our nation. Hell, line warfare was still used in the Civil War. Edit - I do agree with you that the importance of the infantry rifle in a modern day battlefield is exaggerated. Edit 2 - What deficiencies/shortcomings is the Bren 3 supposed to address? Seems kinda like Bren 1 and Bren 2 were a flop. I saw the vid and there were a few changes to have better longevity (in terms of being able to replace wear parts), but was the wear issue really a thing? Aluminum hinge is a good upgrade though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2024 6:21:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zeebz: No disagreement from me on the changes. With the Bren 2 being such a widely accepted platform, and now in service with certain militaries like Hungary, Czech Republic, and Ukraine who said they're officially adopting it - it seems weird to make the gen 3 and have such little backwards compatibility. I give Sig a lot of shit for the MCX platform, but between the Virtus and Spear-Lt most of the system is interchangeable. It's cool CZ went even more modular with the Bren 3, but they needed more parts compatibility especially with all the militaries already adopting or using the Bren 2 in some capacity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zeebz: Originally Posted By MK318: While things got slightly off the path, we are talking about the Bren 3 and the strange design choices CZ has made and if they are justified and if it is even worth the upgrade from the Bren 2 and what is the point of developing such a rifle or rifles in general since some people seem to think rifles don’t actually make a difference. I personally think CZ is spread a little thin between all their companies and products so QC is starting to slip on some of their various products. With such a massive design shift from the Bren 2 to the Bren 3 with very little parts compatibility between the two rifles I don’t think it was wise. One of the reasons the AR is brought up because it is a benchmark rifle and CZ was well on their way to meeting that benchmark with the Bren 2 design but rather than refine what they had and let it mature it seems like they made so many changes it as if they are starting for scratch. So a lot of that T&E done in Ukraine is wasted since they are going to have to field the new rifle, establish a new parts logistic chain and then track back and fix all the little issues that are going to come up during its use in a combat environment. One of the reasons for the ARs success is because it is a design that has had time to mature and get refined. There are a lot of similarities between the early development of the M16 series which was developed during the Vietnam war and the Bren 2 and Bren 3 which have been developed during the war in Ukraine. That is a very different development environment than say the AUG or L85 which were developed mostly during peace time. I don’t have anything against the Bren 3 except now it’s not proven. The Bren 2 is an excellent rifle and at this point is proven. I can see changes like the ones to the gas system settings. The rails and barrel being good changes but being able to remove the lower without removing the stock? Was that something that was really needed? That design change impacted so many other parts of the rifle to the point the two rifles are not compatible and you can’t upgrade a Bren 2 to a Bren 3. That just seems like going backwards. No disagreement from me on the changes. With the Bren 2 being such a widely accepted platform, and now in service with certain militaries like Hungary, Czech Republic, and Ukraine who said they're officially adopting it - it seems weird to make the gen 3 and have such little backwards compatibility. I give Sig a lot of shit for the MCX platform, but between the Virtus and Spear-Lt most of the system is interchangeable. It's cool CZ went even more modular with the Bren 3, but they needed more parts compatibility especially with all the militaries already adopting or using the Bren 2 in some capacity. It wouldn’t surprise me if CZ rolled back some of the changes in a later version of the 3 to give it more parts compatibility with the 2 or better yet they offer something like the Bren 2+ which adopts some of the upgrades of the Bren 3 like the gas settings and hand guard options. They likely won’t get countries who adopted the Bren 2 to invest in the Bren 3 but they might have a good chance to get those countries to upgrade their Bren 2s. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 6/22/2024 10:18:46 AM EDT
[#48]
LOL
They got it right the first time. 805 FTW... |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 6/22/2024 10:19:23 AM EDT
[#49]
LOL
They got it right the first time. 805 FTW... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2024 10:29:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Findsman]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By barbcue: LOL They got it right the first time. 805 FTW... So right it had to be said twice. Aside from being heavy, it seems like the Bren 805 just was a smoother design. The Czech SCAR-16 was more appealing to me than the Czech ACR.Hopefully we get Bren 3 carbines someday. I skipped the 2 but could be interested in a product-improved variant. Supposedly the ATF is crapping all over rifle-caliber pistol imports right now so those as pistols may be unlikely for a while. 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
