MSBS 5,56 - new Polish assault rifle prototype [Archive]

eques

03-15-2009, 10:57 PM

Recently I've read article about new rifle development project called MSBS (Modułowy System Broni Strzeleckiej- Modular Firearms System) and it seems to be quite interesting as first modern non AK-based assault rifle designed in Poland.

Prototype is gas operated with short-stroke piston and rotating bolt. Weapon uses standard M-16 family magazines. All switches, charging handle, and shell ejector are ambidextrous. There are two variants under development- bullpup and classic layout. Rifle is designed to be used with GPBO-40 grenade launcher, which you can see here (click) (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1918148&postcount=14).

Classic layout variant:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4583/msbs1.jpg
Top: older prototype with M4 buttstock and right-side only shell ejector
Bottom: current version

Total length: 98 cm
Empty weight: 3,7 kg

Bullpup variant:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9724/msbs2i.jpg
Total length: 72 cm
Empty weight: 3,3 kg

Program schedule:
2007-2010- design and test assault rifle prototypes in bullpup and classic layout
2011-2013- build complete system including assault rifle, sniper rifle, grenade launcher and light machine gun
2014-2016- introduce new weapons

I wonder if this project would survive at least to second stage :roll:

I hope it's not a repost, I couldn't found anything about MSBS on MP.net. Sorry for my poor English.

T for Tetrapod

03-16-2009, 01:25 AM

Hum, that thing is fugly

Victory

03-16-2009, 01:26 AM

It's the first I've seen of it.

The rifle looks like a fugly SCAR, to me. Seems a bit bulky.

-Vic

Bro Jangles

03-16-2009, 01:27 AM

it looks like a M4, Sig 556, and that new beretta had an inbred child.

Victory

03-16-2009, 01:32 AM

it looks like a M4, Sig 556, and that new beretta had an inbred child.

Then Magpul snuck up behind the origional prototype, gave suprise buttsechs, and out popped the second prototype with the funky stock.

-Vic p-)

Bro Jangles

03-16-2009, 01:36 AM

Then Magpul snuck up behind the origional prototype, gave suprise buttsechs, and out popped the second prototype with the funky stock.

-Vic p-)
and the bullpup version would make the iranians proud.

miguelencanarias

03-16-2009, 08:19 AM

........................

Dominique

03-16-2009, 08:58 AM

Looks aside, a few quick comments. I don't see a fixed front sight, or back up iron sight. And is it being evaluated for use by any Polish units?

Amethystfretchen

03-16-2009, 08:59 AM

I remember first internet-comments about G36. It was the same blabla as one can read here.

eques

03-16-2009, 09:55 AM

Looks aside, a few quick comments. I don't see a fixed front sight, or back up iron sight. And is it being evaluated for use by any Polish units?
It's still early prototype, iron sights will be added in the future.

And is it being evaluated for use by any Polish units?
No, it's too early for that.

vajt

03-16-2009, 01:24 PM

Are there any initial preferences if they will opt for the bull-pup or standard configuration?

-----JT-----

3rdMillhouse

03-16-2009, 01:38 PM

Looks like SCAR has a retarde brother.

Albatross

03-16-2009, 02:45 PM

looks very, very, very front heavy

pmj

03-16-2009, 03:08 PM

The designers really need to streamline this rifle, smooth out the edges and get rid of that ar-15 style stock. The placement of the charging handle is highly dubious as well - looks like it's going to interfere with accessories. Other than that this one seems to be another amalgamation of current designs - g36, scar, bushmaster acr , you name it.

Having said that one has to respect the Polish for taking that step. Competition is always good.

eques

03-16-2009, 04:44 PM

...get rid of that ar-15 style stock...

I think stock will be changed in the future, this one was used for prototype, because it have been designed previously for Beryl and ready to use. It's the same about M4 stock visible on photo- they just used what they had.

Hippie Homer

03-16-2009, 05:22 PM

I'm not digging all the rails on it.

click

03-16-2009, 06:05 PM

Wow, this thing looks ugly!

Still, I have a feeling that, if they adopt the rifle or a later variant, it will grow on me. That always happens :roll: :)

tony6

03-16-2009, 06:43 PM

Looks like SCAR has a retarde brother.
That was a good one:)

I also consider this thing to be extremely ugly but:
1) in case you didn't notice: these are just first rapid prototyping models made of some kind of thermoplastics. Metal prototypes are to be seen soon.
2) both buttstocks used are standard M4 and Beryl ones - they just mounted what was available at the moment.
3) bull pup variant looks kinky because the idea is to have the same upper receiver in both variants: standard and bull-pup one.

One thing we can say for sure: Polish Army is finally saying 'goodbye' to Mr. Kalashnikov system.
And that's a good news.

click

03-16-2009, 06:48 PM

One thing we can say for sure: Polish Army is finally saying 'goodbye' to Mr. Kalashnikov system.
And that's a good news.

Where will all the Beryls go then?

tony6

03-16-2009, 07:00 PM

Nowhere. The process will take years.
for example we still have lots of 7,62mm kalashnikovs (AKMS) although the wz. 96 Beryl rifle was introduced in mid 90's.
I believe they will be first to replace by the new rifle.

pmj

03-16-2009, 07:06 PM

That was a good one:)

I also consider this thing to be extremely ugly but:
1) in case you didn't notice: these are just first rapid prototyping models made of some kind of thermoplastics. Metal prototypes are to be seen soon.
2) both buttstocks used are standard M4 and Beryl ones - they just mounted what was available at the moment.
3) bull pup variant looks kinky because the idea is to have the same upper receiver in both variants: standard and bull-pup one.

One thing we can say for sure: Polish Army is finally saying 'goodbye' to Mr. Kalashnikov system.
And that's a good news.

so this is more like a "firing test fixture" to make sure the mechanism works?
anyway, like i said, streamline the chassis :D

tony6

03-16-2009, 07:16 PM

I believe it's too early to test the mechanism yet.
More like first iteration of how the 'new SCAR/M16 based rifle' should look like.

And as you can see the iteration did not include the buttstock;)

eques

03-16-2009, 07:43 PM

Are there any initial preferences if they will opt for the bull-pup or standard configuration?

-----JT-----
I haven't notice this question previously. No, now there are no initial preferences, both are planned to undergo trials in army.

Ipkiss

03-17-2009, 04:18 PM

looks very, very, very front heavy

So does your avatar....

Typical position for the fire selector on the bullpup though...

Moving over to 'western' techniques might be part of STANAG, like the m16 magazines.

tony6

03-17-2009, 04:25 PM

They say that the fire selector on the bull pup variant is to be moved somewhere in the thumb area.

BlackFlag

03-18-2009, 02:46 PM

Where will all the Beryls go then?

Hopefully the same place alot of the Tantals did..The Gun Show. :)

REMOV

03-19-2009, 06:25 PM

Prototype is gas operated with short-stroke piston and rotating bolt.There are not prototypes, but mock-ups. The first prototypes - classic and bullpup design - will be ready at the end of the 2009. By the way, current version is bit different that the model shown at the end of the 2008 (i.a. the buttstock was redesigned).

REMOV

03-19-2009, 06:34 PM

Hopefully the same place alot of the Tantals did..The Gun Show.The "American" Tantal has not much in common with the kbk wz. 88, in fact there are Tantal's parts forced to fit in semi automatic, strange receiver with fake selector.

SMGLee

03-19-2009, 06:56 PM

Remov,

any updated info or pictures? if anyone you would be the one to ask.....:)

Irons

03-19-2009, 07:01 PM

Looks like SCAR has a retarde brother.

This almost made me tear up with laughter; thanks. :)

Karaahmetoglu

03-19-2009, 07:11 PM

I might be the only one but I like the way it looks.

pmj

03-22-2009, 11:53 AM

Anynthing on the materials?
Polymer with steel reinforcements ala g36 oder an extruded aluminum upper?
It will be interesting to watch this project advance :)

REMOV

03-23-2009, 08:07 AM

Anynthing on the materials?Aluminium upper receiver, polymer lower.

SilentType

03-28-2009, 10:27 PM

Well here is my question:

In a day and age when military units are trying to streamline their logistics and save on costs of training are the Polish not going with a more modular design like the SCAR or create a rifle system?

Why have only right side ejection? Why not make the rifle as ambi as possible?

REMOV

03-30-2009, 05:43 AM

In a day and age when military units are trying to streamline their logistics and save on costs of training are the Polish not going with a more modular design like the SCAR or create a rifle system?I do not understand your point. The MSBS-5,56 is the modular design and it is the rifle family.
Why have only right side ejection? Why not make the rifle as ambi as possible?The MSBS-5,56 has got two ejection windows on both sides of the receiver and literally every catch, button or lever is located on both sides. What are you talking about!? :cantbeli:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_02.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_02.jpg)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_03.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_03.jpg)

dacanadianbomb

03-30-2009, 06:07 AM

The bullpup version does look a bit strange with no handguard to speak of on it.Are those circa 14" configs?

tony6

12-15-2009, 04:01 PM

They showed first prototypes today.

Article (only in Polish) here:
http://www.rp.pl/artykul/406613_Nowe_superkarabiny_zamiast_kalaszy.html

Of course it's typical BS media story but here's a photo:
http://www.rp.pl/galeria/19417,1,406613.html

I know that this thing is just a first prototype but Jesus - why didn't they put the side P-rails in the axis of the barrel?
Also: couldn't they come up with something more than M-16 buttstock?
These people never learn...

NJB

12-15-2009, 04:32 PM

NJB

12-15-2009, 04:36 PM

Sorry - meant to say can't see the photograph ! can you post

REMOV

12-15-2009, 07:58 PM

Sorry - meant to say can't see the photograph ! can you posthttp://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_K01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K01.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B01.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B02.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B02.jpg)

ktk.ace

12-16-2009, 06:16 AM

i sure hope the furniture is only a coverup for the real deal, cuz it looks like sh*t

NJB

12-16-2009, 06:25 AM

Remov , thanks for posting the Pics.

Whats the development plan going forward ?

What changes do you expect to the designs ?

thanks

Zarak

12-16-2009, 06:27 AM

Its a ****ing prototype. Its not meant to be pretty. Jesus people. Go back to the airsoft forum.

ktk.ace

12-16-2009, 10:20 AM

Its a ****ing prototype. Its not meant to be pretty. Jesus people. Go back to the airsoft forum.

stop copying me! rofl

ever seen car test mules? *hint hint*

ktk.ace

12-16-2009, 10:25 AM

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_K01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K01.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B01.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B02.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B02.jpg)

can i ask a simple question remov?

Hows the cheek weld on the bullpup?

Cuz in the normal config , the cheek weld is an easy part swap, but not on most bullpups.

REMOV

12-16-2009, 10:57 AM

Whats the development plan going forward?The research & development programme called MSBS-5,56 (Modulowy System Broni Strzeleckiej kalibru 5,56 mm - Modular Firearms System of 5.56 mm calibre) will be finished in the December 2010. In the meantime the Polish MoD will have to decide which design is better suitable to the Army - classic one or bullpup. Next step for the future manufacturer (Fabryka Broni Lucznik-Radom) is to create the whole assault rifle family based on the standard model - carbine, light automatic/sniper rifle. It will takes, with all factory and military tests, about three years (2011-2013). So, if the MoD will be interested in the new, modular assault rifle family, the new firearm can be introduced to the Polish Army around 2015-2016.
What changes do you expect to the designs?Hmm... it is a difficult question. In my opinion it is too early to discuss this issue. For now only a few preprototypes of the basic assault rifle exists, and now their mechanical features should be carefully examined. The next step is to make some functional and ergonomical changes, but after all internal parts working without any problem. Naturally everything is strongly connected with future MoD decision.

NJB

12-16-2009, 01:12 PM

Remov,

Thank you for the insight.

The Bullpup could be interesting from a design point of view - looks like it could have ambi' ejection ports ? No doubt alot will happen to all aspects of both designs over the next 12 months - please keep us in the loop.

Keep going Poland ! and best of luck

REMOV

12-16-2009, 02:33 PM

The Bullpup could be interesting from a design point of view - looks like it could have ambi' ejection ports?That's right. The user can set the bolt of the assault rifle in two positions to throw the spend cases away on the left or right side of the weapon. The operation is simple, and takes no more than 30 seconds, with the rifle field stripped.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_K02.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K02.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_K03.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K03.jpg)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B03.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B03.jpg)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B04.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B04.jpg)
The length of the standard MSBS-5,56 B01 bullpup design assault rifle compare to the wz. 96 Mini Beryl carbine

NJB

12-16-2009, 04:02 PM

Interesting, I think the classic layout has little to offer over current designs such as FN SCAR , ARX160 & CZ s 805 . The bullpup however has design 'legs' and could lead to some thing good....will be an interesting 12 months following this...

Thanks again Remov.

Atasas

12-16-2009, 04:11 PM

I remember first internet-comments about G36. It was the same blabla as one can read here.
my opinion@
x2!
remember first internet-comments about G36. It was the same blabla as one can read here.
- golden words! G36 had so much of it, but these days it is without doubt in my mind- the very best/universal rifle! Do hope reliability and quality is going to be to match HK and then- vuolia!

Catch22

12-16-2009, 07:07 PM

Hows the cheek weld on the bullpup?

Cuz in the normal config , the cheek weld is an easy part swap, but not on most bullpups.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3567/bp1.jpg

Cheekweld is ok, the reciever rail needs to be higher, and the retarded "add-on rail" is to be get rid of. At the current stage B/P version is much more handy and balanced than the classic with all the sh*t on.

ktk.ace

12-17-2009, 02:49 AM

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3567/bp1.jpg

Cheekweld is ok, the reciever rail needs to be higher, and the retarded "add-on rail" is to be get rid of. At the current stage B/P version is much more handy and balanced than the classic with all the sh*t on.

THANKS!

cuz from the pics, it looks like a P90's angular and not so comfy weld.p-)

ktk.ace

12-17-2009, 02:55 AM

That's right. The user can set the bolt of the assault rifle in two positions to throw the spend cases away on the left or right side of the weapon. The operation is simple, and takes no more than 30 seconds, with the rifle field stripped.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_K02.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K02.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_K03.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K03.jpg)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B03.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B03.jpg)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__MSBS-556_B04.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B04.jpg)
The length of the standard MSBS-5,56 B01 bullpup design assault rifle compare to the wz. 96 Mini Beryl carbine

are those P-mags ? p-)

if so, the polands have good taste.

PS. thats ONE BIG GAS REULATOR KNOB !

REMOV

12-17-2009, 05:42 AM

are those P-mags?G-Mags 30, which are German version of the Magpul's P-Mags 30.

koalorka

12-17-2009, 06:05 PM

So much potential. And... they make another SCAR clone..

It doesn't really offer anything an existing commercially available rifle does, what's the point? Why waste money into research that has already been done by others?

Catch22

12-17-2009, 07:15 PM

Well I didn't know you can turn SCAR into a bullpup...

Karaahmetoglu

12-17-2009, 07:30 PM

I was going to say the Bullpup version is indeed interesting and actually IMO visually pleasing.

koalorka

12-17-2009, 07:53 PM

tony6

12-18-2009, 03:20 AM

Exactly my thoughts. Polish Army and bull-pup? No way. It's just another academic exercise to pull some public money from the bag.

Besides this gas regulator is really HUGE.

REMOV

12-18-2009, 07:04 AM

I don't think anyone is considering the bullpup layout these days, it's a residual concept from the 50s that achieved great popularity in the 70s and is now almost totally abandoned by the major gun designers.I am afraid I cannot agree with your ekhm... "analysis", based on your reflections not on informations from the real world. First, the idea of bullpup rifles comes from 1900s, not 1950s, second the introduction of bullpups to the world armies are 1980s, not 1970s, third the "almost totally abandoned by major gun designers" thing is completly false.

Today top bestseller assault rifle is Israeli Tavor TAR-21 in bullpup design (check the list of recent users), the bullpups are produced by major firearms manufacturers like FN (F2000) or Steyr-Mannlicher (AUG, which is ancestor of all modern modular designs with exchangeable barrels).

The latest reports from Afghanistan shows clearly that the army using the 5,56 mm assault rifles in such mountain/desert enviroment wanted the longest barrel available with the shorter overall length possible (or the different intermediate ammunition, which is rather impossible), the feature that only bullpups can achieve.

Amethystfretchen

12-18-2009, 09:25 AM

... Tavor TAR-21 in bullpup design (check the list of recent users)...

Done. I additionally compared it against the list of recent G36 users.

REMOV

12-18-2009, 12:54 PM

Done. I additionally compared it against the list of recent G36 users.Congratulations, and...?

Amethystfretchen

12-18-2009, 02:55 PM

Can't see proof of your claim about "top bestseller assault rifle".

REMOV

12-18-2009, 05:30 PM

Simple, check how many countries army bought this assault rifles in last 5 years. If you compared it you already know the answer p-)

Indiana Jones

12-18-2009, 05:34 PM

Simple, check how many countries army bought this assault rifles in last 5 years. If you compared it you already know the answer p-)
Remov,
where are the mag release, bolt catch etc. located ? Can't identify them in the pictures. Does the magazine fall free ? Any decision on the optics?
Thanks in advance,
IJ.

SilentType

12-25-2009, 01:35 AM

I love that our Newest members of NATO are now working on new rifle designs. It means more competition and that's awesome, because that pushes design progress.

SilentType

12-25-2009, 01:41 AM

I am afraid I cannot agree with your ekhm... "analysis", based on your reflections not on informations from the real world. First, the idea of bullpup rifles comes from 1900s, not 1950s, second the introduction of bullpups to the world armies are 1980s, not 1970s, third the "almost totally abandoned by major gun designers" thing is completly false.

Today top bestseller assault rifle is Israeli Tavor TAR-21 in bullpup design (check the list of recent users), the bullpups are produced by major firearms manufacturers like FN (F2000) or Steyr-Mannlicher (AUG, which is ancestor of all modern modular designs with exchangeable barrels).

The latest reports from Afghanistan shows clearly that the army using the 5,56 mm assault rifles in such mountain/desert enviroment wanted the longest barrel available with the shorter overall length possible (or the different intermediate ammunition, which is rather impossible), the feature that only bullpups can achieve.

Agree. Bullpup is tailor made for the fight in Afghanistan. You couldn't ask for a better platform really. Easier to carry and move in the rough terrain with a long enough barrel to give you proper velocity for fragmentation with the 5.56x45mm round. The rifles with 14.5" barrels just aren't going to give rounds the right velocity and hence don't provide enough velocity at targets at intermediate distances. Plus, in Afghanistan you can be making shots up and down mountains and across farm fields one minute and be in urban operations the next. Ask the Marines how easy it is to weild a long barreled rifle in tight quarters.

Smaller overall size to the rifles also has a logistical advantage, because that's less space the rifle needs to take up for transport.

Catch22

12-25-2009, 08:30 AM

Remov,
where are the mag release, bolt catch etc. located ? Can't identify them in the pictures. Does the magazine fall free ? Any decision on the optics?
Thanks in advance,
IJ.

Since R. hasn't taken this up - I'll do so.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8191/msbslevers.th.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/i/msbslevers.jpg/)

The current setup will be probably changed due to unfortunate bolt catch release placement.

And for the reference:
http://i334.photobucket.com/albums/m411/Catch__22/th_100_0440.jpg (http://s334.photobucket.com/albums/m411/Catch__22/?action=view&current=100_0440.flv)

3rdMillhouse

12-25-2009, 12:45 PM

tony6

12-26-2009, 05:40 AM

Catch22:
Is this M-16-style buttstock a temporary solution?
Do they plan anything more sophisticated than that?

Catch22

12-26-2009, 11:58 AM

It is temporary. The final versions should be quite diffrent in external design and controls placement. The current versions are more like test platforms for the internal mechanics, so hopefully we shouldn't sweat over how they look on the outside. Think ACR and X95 as a reference points for the development versions.

tony6

12-27-2009, 06:15 AM

ACR? Hope you're right.

zapatero

12-27-2009, 06:54 AM

I wonder when we will see this thing operational.

tony6

12-27-2009, 08:07 AM

What's the lower receiver's material?
Looks like a plastic on the photo. Or is it aluminum-based alloy?

Catch22

12-27-2009, 10:55 AM

Plastic....

tony6

12-31-2009, 05:13 AM

Short interview with one of the designers showing first shooting prototypes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7MuoHvQADs&feature=player_embedded

He says they are going to introduce the final version in 2012.

solidarnosc

01-04-2010, 10:58 AM

I love that our Newest members of NATO are now working on new rifle designs. It means more competition and that's awesome, because that pushes design progress.

Seems a waste of money to compete against well established gun companies that offer proven designs. Why does every country feels the need to invent the wheel all over again? I don't say its a bad concept but I doubt it will offer anything the SCAR, HK416, etc doesn't. Except maybe a polish stamp on the weapon.

zapatero

01-04-2010, 01:45 PM

Are there any vids of this thing shooting?

Marmot1

01-31-2010, 02:19 PM

Seems a waste of money to compete against well established gun companies that offer proven designs. Why does every country feels the need to invent the wheel all over again? I don't say its a bad concept but I doubt it will offer anything the SCAR, HK416, etc doesn't. Except maybe a polish stamp on the weapon.

And work for polish arms industry + possibility to export it. It is sometimes cheaper to invent a wheel again than buy a license for it. Especially when you know how it should work and look and what were the dead ends in development.

Ksiunc

02-02-2010, 03:03 AM

solidarnosc

02-02-2010, 11:44 AM

Apart of what Marmot1 has written it's vital to have almost unlimited access to spare parts and modifications which can be produced localy. Being independent of some factory in Belgium or Germany is also very important imho.

The French, British have very litte small arms capacity and know how and they have both the biggest militaries and arms industry in Europa.

Ksiunc

02-03-2010, 02:48 AM

The French, British have very litte small arms capacity and know how and they have both the biggest militaries and arms industry in Europa.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are writing.
They have little small amrs capacity? Does it mean, they can't produce or own a lot of firearms or what? Either way it's plain bs.
They have very little know how? Come on! Do you even know what you have written here?

NJB

02-03-2010, 07:26 AM

The UK & France now have no major small arms industry and therefore cannot at present time design and produce small arms for domestic use or export. Should the British Army or the French Army require a replacement for the current in-service rifles they would have to go to an overseas producer.

Poland on the other hand is developing its industry with this move into the MSBS systems having an eye on future Polish armed forces procurment and export sales. Its a good move for Poland and a great shame that the UK & France cannot do the same.

Keep going Poland ! well done !

Mat_fr

02-03-2010, 07:30 AM

The UK & France now have no major small arms industry and therefore cannot at present time design and produce small arms for domestic use or export. Should the British Army or the French Army require a replacement for the current in-service rifles they would have to go to an overseas producer.

Right.. Nexter (ex-Giat) can't produce small firearms anymore, so the successor of the Famas won't be french.

But i don't see why we should go oversea to find it.. FNH and HK aren't that far p-)

REMOV

02-03-2010, 09:41 AM

Right.. Nexter (ex-Giat) can't produce small firearms anymoreIn my opinion this information is not true.

NJB

02-03-2010, 05:42 PM

In my opinion this information is not true.

Interesting , is Nexter working on a replacement for the Famas ?

Mat_fr

02-04-2010, 07:26 AM

In my opinion this information is not true.

i'm not an expert..
do you have any infos or that's just supposition ?

solidarnosc

02-04-2010, 11:22 AM

In my opinion this information is not true.

Well Nexter had a small arms and munition division. FN Herstal. ;-)

zema_06

02-04-2010, 12:52 PM

Well Nexter had a small arms and munition division. FN Herstal. ;-)

giat sold fn back to the belgians years ago...

REMOV

02-05-2010, 10:00 AM

do you have any infos or that's just supposition ?The Nexter still has got the capabilities to produce the FA MAS assault rifle. So, it can still do it.

zema_06

02-05-2010, 10:54 AM

hasn't the MAS plant been closed in 2000?

samourai

02-05-2010, 01:44 PM

The Nexter still has got the capabilities to produce the FA MAS assault rifle. So, it can still do it.

to produce small arms must be competent people and a willingness to do what is not the case today.
nexter are working for most important military program as Caesar.
french army using foreign ammunition and the barrel of the Famas is italian (beretta)

peter.pl

04-15-2010, 07:03 AM

MSBS-5,56 rifles will have name "RADON". Works for me :)

Marmot1

04-15-2010, 07:13 AM

RADON (MSBS) It almost certain winner for a new rifle for the army, as Iraq and Afghanistan finally opened eyes of brass that you cannot go any further with AK and it's clones. Yet SF still buy foreign weapons (mainly HK) and probably will buy it for next few years as RADON will mature. But for regular grunts RADON will be probably next weapon.

peter.pl

04-15-2010, 07:22 AM

Let me remind you that Radon wich will be in hands of Polish soldiers is not egsisting yet so don't judge how it looks, it's only shooting model wich has not much common with finnal version.

~~~~

04-15-2010, 08:59 AM

MSBS-5,56 rifles will have name "RADON". Works for me :)

where do you have this information from?

lupus

04-15-2010, 04:27 PM

There was a competition for a new name. Finals have been published in 4th ed. of "Strzal" magazine:

http://magnum-x.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:strzalnew&catid=3:categorystrzal&Itemid=14

SilentType

04-18-2010, 02:48 AM

It took FNH about five years to take the SCAR from prototype to production. You don't want to rush these things or you end up with a mess like the Chinese QBZ 97 that the Chinese rushed into production so fast even the lead designer was unhappy with the production rifle.

REMOV

04-21-2010, 01:03 PM

MSBS-5,56 rifles will have name "RADON"I think it is just a proposal from the manufacurer side (the same situation with P99D called by Fabryka Broni unofficialy "Rad"), not an official name of the new assault rifle. We have the same situation with sniper rifle from OBRSM - the factory name was "Alex", but the military designate is "Bor", so... there is A CHANCE that a new weapon IF the MSBS-5,56 WILL be introduced to the Army WOULD got this name, but it is still not sealed yet.

~~~~

04-21-2010, 03:05 PM

why are you so sceptical? IF, WOULD?

REMOV

04-24-2010, 01:22 PM

It comes from experience.

NJB

04-24-2010, 03:26 PM

Nice reply Remov ! Is anyone in Poland working on optic sights for the MSBS ?

Has the design progressed since the photos that came out at the beginning of the year ?

blackened88

04-24-2010, 03:55 PM

Needs some remodeling on the outsides for sure but sounds interesting I'll have to look out for some more info on this

~~~~

04-24-2010, 05:39 PM

yes, the whole thing is now being redesigned.

Tucker217

04-24-2010, 06:30 PM

Its basically a failed attempt at merging a ACR,SCAR and M4.

~~~~

04-25-2010, 03:51 AM

how can you already know it is failed if you did not see the current redesign?

~~~~

04-25-2010, 04:37 AM

double post edit delete

Tucker217

04-25-2010, 08:25 AM

I dont know probably because its polish as they haven't really made any decent guns yet.

REMOV

04-25-2010, 09:01 AM

Is anyone in Poland working on optic sights for the MSBS ?Sure, the PCO S.A. is developing a new reflex sight called CK-5 and CK-6, as well as all addons - magnifiers, night and thermo optoelectronics devices.
Has the design progressed since the photos that came out at the beginning of the year ?A bit. The last stage of the "preprotype" of the MSBS-5,56 programme standard rifle in classic and bullpup design will be shown in December 2010. Maybe there is a chance that the Fabryka Broni, as a part of the Bumar Group holding, will show the rifle during the MSPO expo in Kielce in September 2010.

peter.pl

04-25-2010, 11:33 AM

I dont know probably because its polish as they haven't really made any decent guns yet.
Check what PM were used by terrorists in combat action of SAS in Iran's embassy in London :)

~~~~

04-25-2010, 01:49 PM

I dont know probably because its polish as they haven't really made any decent guns yet.
Good point...

NJB

04-25-2010, 02:33 PM

Remov, thank you for the info - a true Polish design plus Polish Optics developed for the system is very interesting please keep us informed of progress.

REMOV

05-22-2010, 02:17 PM

MSBS-5,56 demonstrators in action

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_04.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K04.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_K05.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556_B05.jpg

flanker7

05-22-2010, 02:21 PM

It looks "boxy" :-)

Is the bullpub version able to be converted to standard and vise versa?

Stormz_STA

05-22-2010, 02:21 PM

Remov, now that you've had the chance to play with those rifles what's your opinion on them? How do they compare to Beryl?

Catch22

05-22-2010, 02:32 PM

It looks "boxy" :-)

Is the bullpub version able to be converted to standard and vise versa?

It is a working demonstrator, not the "final cut" weapon. Remov knows who's behind the scenes - final version of the classic layout will look like some SCAR/ACR crossbreed, while bull-pup will be rather unique in shape (hovever the idea was that it should be as compact as Microtavor/X95 with similiarly placed controls). I guess new models (non-firing) should be ready for MSPO exhibition, early September 2010. And yes you can turn the bullpup into classic and back into bullpup quite easily.

Tucker217

05-22-2010, 04:50 PM

It does look boxy and a mashup of the Scar and Acr, the bullpup looks like a Scar, Acr and L22 mixed.

so it Looks a bit crappy, but how does it perform?

NJB

05-22-2010, 05:14 PM

Good progress I say , a couple of questions come to mind :

1. Do both versions have ambi ejection ports ?

2. On the bullpup the selection level looks like its on the rear of the reciever - will it get moved to a 'better' postion.

3. Whats the optic sight fitted to the bullpup in Remov's pics

Any comment Remov ?

thanks

~~~~

05-22-2010, 05:20 PM

don't bother to wank yourself to the current design.
the final version will be far different from what can be seen on those photos.

Sousuke

05-22-2010, 05:25 PM

Nice photos Remov :)

Thanks ^^

tony6

05-22-2010, 05:33 PM

It looks "boxy" as the upper receiver is being machined from one block of material.
If it was machined casting (like in M16/M4 family for example) it would look a bit more civilised.

REMOV

05-22-2010, 06:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkOP6nGdQxQ

The preprototype of the MSBS-5,56 bullpup design standard assault rifle in action

REMOV

05-22-2010, 06:31 PM

Good progress I say , a couple of questions come to mind :
1. Do both versions have ambi ejection ports ?Yes.
2. On the bullpup the selection level looks like its on the rear of the reciever - will it get moved to a 'better' postion.Sure. Now the preprototypes (demonstrators) are just testbed for the action of the rifles, the target weapon will be far different than those two rough models. And it looks, well... very advanced in the first sketches.
3. Whats the optic sight fitted to the bullpup in Remov's pics There were commercial sights, not Polish one. Just for test purposes, like Magpul magazines.

NJB

05-23-2010, 02:39 PM

Remov,

Thanks , hopefully we will see these designs at MSPO in September or maybe before. If Radom pull off a credible bullpup featuring ambi ejection options , barrel length and ergonomic controls this could do well .

REMOV

08-09-2010, 08:24 AM

New 2nd generations mock-ups of the MSBS-5,56 classic/bullpup design small arms system, based on common upper receiver. Quick barrel change option.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556-II_01.jpg

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556-II_05.jpg
MSBS-5,56 bullpup design assault rifle with 406-mm barrel. A - two-position gas regulator (normal/silencer), B - cocking handle (ambidextrous, non-reciprocating), C - magazine release button (ambidextrous), D - three position fire selector (ambidextrous), E - barrel locking screw (turnbuckle), F - additional magazine release button (left side), F - bolt catch release latch

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556-II_04.jpg
MSBS-5,56 classic design carbine with 255-mm barrel.

Bro Jangles

08-09-2010, 08:30 AM

that looks sharp. like that bullpup look.

in before "ACR Rip off"!

NJB

08-09-2010, 12:55 PM

Remov , thank you for posting - excelent - the Bullpup version is looking very promising - what will the barrel length options be ?

YevgenyP

08-09-2010, 12:56 PM

looks good

REMOV

08-09-2010, 04:03 PM

the Bullpup version is looking very promising - what will the barrel length options be ?Both bullpup and classic standard assault rifle barrel length will be 406 mm (16 in.), the carbine version will be about 256 mm (10 in.), maybe a bit longer. The precision rifle and machine rifle version barrel length is unknown yet, but I think the longest will be 508 mm (20 in.).

~~~~

08-09-2010, 09:31 PM

1234567890

tony6

08-10-2010, 02:12 AM

Bro Jangles

08-10-2010, 02:20 AM

the angle of the pistol grip on the bullpup looks a bit iffy, but with out holding it im only guessing.

Arnie100

08-10-2010, 02:25 AM

I actually like that 2nd gen bullpup! That looks promising!

Arnie100

08-10-2010, 02:29 AM

I dont know probably because its polish as they haven't really made any decent guns yet.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg61-e.htm

~~~~

08-10-2010, 03:38 AM

~~~~:
As for the ergonomy - looks suprisingly good (although definitely based on ACR, which is actually a good thing).
I'm curious about manufacturing technology. I quess the body (upper & lower receiver) will be alluminium alloy.
The question is: will it be a casting or a hog out?

AFAIK the upper receiver will be made from grinded aluminium. just like the new monocoque macbook pro series ;-)

the angle of the pistol grip on the bullpup looks a bit iffy, but with out holding it im only guessing.
it's more or less the same angle that is featured in the X-95 Micro Tavor.
take note it has been changed when compared to the "adult" TAR-21
and the MSBS bull-pup is very compact also...

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9011/ii0806040x91.jpg (http://img256.imageshack.us/i/ii0806040x91.jpg/)
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8669/ii0806040x92.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/i/ii0806040x92.jpg/)
(both pictures by Remov)

Lasse

08-10-2010, 03:58 AM

Are Magpul\Bushmaster\Remington going to sue Poland?

REMOV

08-10-2010, 04:51 AM

Are Magpul\Bushmaster\Remington going to sue Poland?But why? There are only some internal similiarities (but all of the monolithic receiver assault rifles are similiar), the whole concept of common upper receiver assault rifle system or the internals are completly different. By the way, the Polish design is protected as the design patent.

Catch22

08-10-2010, 07:38 AM

Are Magpul\Bushmaster\Remington going to sue Poland?

Sure, especially over common bullpup/classic receiver p-)

SCAR, ACR and X95 were inspirations but there was much attention put to the actual patented features of each design, so while in general outlook they look similiar in fact they differ enough.

tony6

08-12-2010, 01:58 AM

AFAIK the upper receiver will be made from grinded aluminium. just like the new monocoque macbook pro series ;-)
That's not what I was asking for. You're talking about surface finishing.
The question was about manufacturing technology: whether it's going to be a cast part (like M4/M16 lower receiver for example) or a hog out (machined from one block of material).
The hog out is not very efficient method (a lot of chip produced=a lot of material waste) and - since the material here is alluminium alloy - very expensive. The castings are good for series production.

~~~~

08-12-2010, 07:46 AM

That's not what I was asking for. You're talking about surface finishing...
check your PM

REMOV

08-12-2010, 08:07 AM

The hog out is not very efficient method (a lot of chip produced=a lot of material waste) and - since the material here is alluminium alloy - very expensive.I think you've should wake up in the 21st Century in the CNC era or at least read something about the manufacturing of new assault rifles ;)

NJB

08-12-2010, 08:47 AM

couple of questions :

how's development of bespoke sights for the weapon going ?

Is a bespoke magizine in development for MSBS ?

Couple of points - with the bullpup - the position of the charging handle is not the best - the 1st model had it in a forward postion on the front upper reciever - this is a better location compared to the rear of the upper reciever.

Barrel length - on the bullpup keep it long - increased muzzel velocity & range.

Forward rail / hand grip - oh dear ...this just follows the trand of 'all rail' at the front - this needs to have a standard hand gaurd combined to rails to give both vertical grip and classic hold options.

All other features are looking good !

REMOV

08-12-2010, 10:35 AM

how's development of bespoke sights for the weapon going ?Are you asking about the back up iron sights or optoelectronic devices (red dot, thermal)?
Is a bespoke magizine in development for MSBS ?Not yet, but the final magazine will be 30 rounds polymer one, made in Poland.
Couple of points - with the bullpup - the position of the charging handle is not the best - the 1st model had it in a forward postion on the front upper reciever - this is a better location compared to the rear of the upper reciever.I am not fully agree with you. The front position is not the better one, but in fact the cocking handle in my opinion should be move a little to the front. It can be done using additional parts, but it will complicate a bit the construction and add some weight.
Barrel length - on the bullpup keep it long - increased muzzel velocity & range.For now the standard barrel length is 406 mm.
Forward rail / hand grip - oh dear ...this just follows the trand of 'all rail' at the front - this needs to have a standard hand gaurd combined to rails to give both vertical grip and classic hold options.Hmm... AFAIK the standard hand grip will be not vertical one ;)

Catch22

08-12-2010, 11:42 AM

couple of questions :

how's development of bespoke sights for the weapon going ?

It will depend on the ability of the local industry to procure them - the basic set includes foldable back-ups irons, small collimating sight, maginfier, NVG-interface, IR laser pointer and combat light.

Is a bespoke magizine in development for MSBS ?

As Remov said - for a moment Magpul PMags and Emags are used at this stage, the plan is FB Radom will be able to produce a polymer magazine of their own.

Couple of points - with the bullpup - the position of the charging handle is not the best - the 1st model had it in a forward postion on the front upper reciever - this is a better location compared to the rear of the upper reciever.

The front placed cocking handle was worse than you'd think - it slowed down the operation, and was virtually unreachable for short-handed persons. The current location is optimal - just wait for some IA drills demo for MSBS and you'll see.

Barrel length - on the bullpup keep it long - increased muzzel velocity & range.

During the discussion we came to the conclusion in bullpup setting we'd rather have as compact 556 package as possible, the current MSBS is not full 20mm longer than FN P90 so that's an achievement. Longer barrel is not the priority - it's and option.

Forward rail / hand grip - oh dear ...this just follows the trand of 'all rail' at the front - this needs to have a standard hand gaurd combined to rails to give both vertical grip and classic hold options.

To each its own. We dont need a "clean" foregrip nor vertical by now - AFG was tested and found supreme with both layouts

3rdMillhouse

08-12-2010, 02:58 PM

That's the coolest looking bullpup I've ever seen. Is it DI or piston operated?

As Remov said - for a moment Magpul PMags and Emags are used at this stage, the plan is FB Radom will be able to produce a polymer magazine of their own.

Compatible with USGI standards I assume?

NJB

08-12-2010, 03:15 PM

remov , catch22 thank you ,

Its getting interesting...I'm of the opion a 'clean' non vertical hand grip should be standard on the bullpup with option for a vertical grip - I guess this is what you are saying Remov.

Looking forward to seeing a new working model - any idea when one will be produced ?

~~~~

08-12-2010, 05:13 PM

process engineers from the future manufacturer (FB Radom) are now examining the design in order to check the production profitability of the new proposal.
we already know some parts will have to be redesigned due to technological limitations.

SCAR, ACR and X95 were inspirations but there was much attention put to the actual patented features of each design, so while in general outlook they look similiar in fact they differ enough.

that's exactly the point when it comes to possible similarities ;-)

wholagun

08-12-2010, 05:13 PM

133289
http://altair.com.pl/files/news/2010/08/i-i10-08-038msbs5.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556-II_01.jpg

123456

Catch22

08-12-2010, 05:13 PM

Shooting demonstrators of the 2nd gen should be ready in 2012 I guess.

The system is short stroke piston.

Like I said - no use for clean grip - there are two grips that were considered as on this stage as accessories - vertical TangoDown Battle Gip and innovative Magpul AFG that are considered the best option for now.

Karaahmetoglu

08-12-2010, 05:20 PM

The bullpup looks like something out of halo.

click

08-12-2010, 05:23 PM

I like 'em both. They look very sharp!

tony6

08-13-2010, 04:41 PM

~~~~:
I made a mistake. The lower receiver of M16 family is a machined 7075 Aluminum forging, not casting. My mistake.

I think you've should wake up in the 21st Century in the CNC era or at least read something about the manufacturing of new assault rifles ;)
And what CNC has to do here? I was talking about plastic working prior to machining. If you want to machine a shape like e.g. upper receiver from one block of material you still have to chip a lot of stock: part like that is mostly a U-shaped “box” which covers the whole breech mechanism, so it’s empty inside. It doesn’t matter how you want to remove the material. The CNC machines only decrease the number of operation needed to process the whole thing. 5-axis machine will do it in one set up. But the amount of removed stock is the same wheteher you go with CNC or classic old-fashioned machining.
If you meant the machining operation cost then sure, modern machining centre will do the job of couple of workers but the purchase and therefore amortisation cost of machine like that is very, very high. And still the material (Aluminium) is what drives a major costs here.

Now if you go with cast/forged part it’s a different story. You prepare a casting/forging
(in this example: forging) in general shape of the item (e.g. lower receiver) and then in next operation machine only interface surfaces/features. This way is much cheaper than a simple hog out from typical block of material. Not to mention that it’s much more civilised from engineer’s point of view. Mr. Stoner knew it already in the late 50’s but he had an aviation engineering background so he just utilized his lessons learned from experience gained in this business.

So if the FB Radom team wants to go with a simple hog out I believe it’s them you should tell to wake up in XXI century.;-)

Mikhael

08-14-2010, 04:07 AM

Its basically a failed attempt at merging a ACR,SCAR and M4.

I dont know probably because its polish as they haven't really made any decent guns yet.

How old are you twelve ? :roll:

Good point...

Well not really. Learn maybe minimum knowledge before posting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_pistol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM-63_RAK

Ksiunc

08-16-2010, 09:54 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM-63_RAK

Well I don't know if posting PM-63 as a example is the best idea.
PM-84 or PM-98 is far more better.
And as for polish decent firearms I've heard that Bor (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn97-e.htm) is quite good.

KoTeMoRe

08-16-2010, 10:19 AM

Tantal's are no crap either. Off course it isn't a "Polish" Gun but the overall fit & finish is surprisingly good.

REMOV

08-16-2010, 11:41 AM

And what CNC has to do here?This is the way to make receiver.
If you want to machine a shape like e.g. upper receiver from one block of material you still have to chip a lot of stock: part like that is mostly a U-shaped “box” which covers the whole breech mechanism, so it’s empty inside.So what? The cost is nearly the same. The reason the manufacturing proces in old days was described as expensive was a cost and time of human operations of the machinery, with CNC, and relatively small productions batch (armies nowadays wants ten hundreds not thousands or milions of firearms) the machining is cheaper. As I wrote before, you've should get a knowledge about the modern world not repeat some old "truths".
Now if you go with cast/forged part it’s a different story. You prepare a casting/forging (in this example: forging) in general shape of the item (e.g. lower receiver) and then in next operation machine only interface surfaces/features.Have you ever seen the castings of firearms receiver? ;)
Not to mention that it’s much more civilised from engineer’s point of view.Explain us, another of your platitude, this time "more civilized"? ;)
Mr. Stoner knew it already in the late 50’s but he had an aviation engineering background so he just utilized his lessons learned from experience gained in this business.As I wrote above, try to find a way to the 21st Century, and do not repeat over and over again the same platitudes. The CNC is not only used in creating the receivers, as well as other parts of the weapon. Thats why every rail system is machined not forged. If you've a hundreds of thousands of firearms to make, as in 1950s, the technique is good, but today, much cheaper and cost effective is machining. Try to resign with it, and abandon the theories completly ripped away from real world ;)

ancientgrump

08-16-2010, 06:26 PM

Have you ever seen the castings of firearms receiver? I was under the impression that the AUG and P90 both have a cast receiver, but the latest trend seems to be extrusion.

tony6

08-17-2010, 02:23 AM

This is the way to make receiver. So what? The cost is nearly the same. The reason the manufacturing proces in old days was described as expensive was a cost and time of human operations of the machinery, with CNC, and relatively small productions batch (armies nowadays wants ten hundreds not thousands or milions of firearms) the machining is cheaper.
No it's not. The key word here s material cost (Alluminium).

The CNC is not only used in creating the receivers, as well as other parts of the weapon.
I never said it was used to macine only the recievers.

Thats why every rail system is machined not forged.
Nope. The reason is that you cannot maintain too tight toleranceson a casting. On a interface surfaces (and rails are interfaces) you need tighter tolerances.

If you've a hundreds of thousands of firearms to make, as in 1950s, the technique is good, but today, much cheaper and cost effective is machining.
Again: nope. Every modern weapon's made of alluminium alloys use forging prior to machining.
That's cheaper cause you get much less chip this way. And alluminium is very expensive. You still didn't get it.

Try to resign with it, and abandon the theories completly ripped away from real world ;)
Comment typical for you. But I guess I live in a "fairy tell" world of engineering while you - as a journalist - live in a "real" world. OK. Whatever.

Jippo

08-17-2010, 05:31 AM

Again: nope. Every modern weapon's made of alluminium alloys use forging prior to machining.
That's cheaper cause you get much less chip this way. And alluminium is very expensive. You still didn't get it.

I work with a small project with mates and IIRC 30x80 solid aluminium bar was only few euros per meter. According to that the aluminium usage of such a rifle can amount to few dozen euros / rifle. I wouldn't think that is very expensive as the end product out from factory will be several hundred euros in value.

tony6

08-17-2010, 06:52 PM

That depends on what aluminium alloy we're talking about here. There are many types of aluminium alloys. The 7075 alloy (widely used in aviation) is pretty expensive. That's one thing. The other is what kind of stock material do you need. A bar like that (used for small projects like you said) can be fairly cheap. But can you machine a shape like upper receiver (with integrated p-rails on both sides) from a bar 30mm wide? I don't think so. So it has to be something wider than a standard bar. And that's makes it more expensive. More likely the manufacturer would have to order the material in standard plates and pre-cut it (divide) before final machining.
I remember quite similar situation from my own experience. That was my first job, just after graduation. In order to machine a main column of a landing gear for a twin engine aeroplane we had to order a material: alloy similar to 7075. There was no material available at that time on the market ASAP because Airbus was ramping up it's production in Europe and we had to order the material in USA. Anyway the size of the part forced our company to order standard stock sized plates of the material, which as far as I remember, were pretty huge. And god damn expensive. The plates had to be waterjet cut (divied) into small pieces before final CNC machining of the part. That made the whole operation even more expensive.

Besides Remov makes one typical mistake: he believes (if I got him correctly) that plastic forming (casting/forging) prior to machining makes sense only in "thousands or milions" of parts produced. Well, that's not true. The plastic forming prior to machining is widely used in aviation as a key cost reduction factor. It's the most common way of manufacturing aluminium based items. And nowadays in aviation the scale is couple of hundreds items, couple of thousands top. If the production reaches couple of thousands items (e.g. aircraft engines), that's a huge commercial success. And yet, it's much more efficient (=cheaper) to go with castings/forgings rather than a simple hog-outs.

~~~~

08-17-2010, 07:33 PM

can't wait to see Remov's answer on your post, Tony6 ;-)

ko5ma

08-18-2010, 01:31 PM

Ksiunc

08-18-2010, 02:05 PM

Apart of what ko5ma said. Casting is still less accurate than machining. Even if you do some castings you still need to get rid of some excessive material, bore small holes etc. So why not get a metal bar close to desired dimensions of reciever and minize material loss. I'm not aware of materials prices, but when precision is required, CNC machining is a winner.
And as far as I know production wastes like aluminium chips are reselled to foundry, so money loss is not so huge.

Jippo

08-18-2010, 07:28 PM

Aren't the receivers of ACR, SCAR and this one machined extrusions (with steel inserts) anyway? If so, there is actuall very small amount of materiel loss in the process.

vajt

08-18-2010, 09:17 PM

I guess a good thing about this process is that we get to see, at least from the Polish perspective, which design is better, a bull-pup rifle or a standard design rifle.

-----JT-----

tony6

08-20-2010, 01:59 AM

tony6

08-20-2010, 02:07 AM

Casting is still less accurate than machining.
Sure thing, but in serial production is cheaper. But like you said it's less accurate and therefore you have to calculate all the casting/machining stack-ups properly. And that can be a pain in the ass sometimes. Maybe not in firearms business because the geometry is very simple here but e.g. in aviation business it can be pretty hard.

So why not get a metal bar close to desired dimensions of reciever and minize material loss.
That's exactly what I'm talking about! I think you (and others) didn't get it. By forging a shape close to it's desired dimensions prior to machining you minimize the material loss! How can you "get the metal bar close to desired dimensions" in other way? By another machining prior to final machining?;-)

OK people, I'm off for a vacation. Will be more than happy to continue this conversation when I'm back.

tony6

08-20-2010, 02:13 AM

can't wait to see Remov's answer on your post, Tony6 ;-)
Why is that? You consider him a kind of expert in designing and producing aluminium-based parts?
I could ask him how many cast/forged parts that went into serial production did he design (or co-design, as it's always a team work) but what for? You know the answer. Being a journalist and posting gun photos on Wikipedia doesn't make him an expert. You should know that.

Allright, I got a train to catch.

Ksiunc

08-20-2010, 12:58 PM

Ok. So I get the whole concept. Higly accurate casting by extrusion and then CNC machining to add some details.
It makes sense. I just don't know if Bumar has the technology. Is it possible that chosen technique couldn't be applied due to unavaliable (or not fully developed?) metal processsing technology?
Just wondering.

~~~~

08-20-2010, 02:50 PM

Why is that? You consider him a kind of expert in designing and producing aluminium-based parts?
I could ask him how many cast/forged parts that went into serial production did he design (or co-design, as it's always a team work) but what for? You know the answer. Being a journalist and posting gun photos on Wikipedia doesn't make him an expert. You should know that.

Allright, I got a train to catch.

hey, no offence intended.
just wanted to know what will be Remov's answer after you gave that many arguments.

REMOV

08-21-2010, 12:32 PM

No it's not. The key word here s material cost (Alluminium).tony6, you knowledge about the firearms is very limited. There are some weapons - in Poland or abroad - that have got a parts from titanium for example, because the key is not always the material cost. The key is to the meet the requirements.
I never said it was used to macine only the recievers.Yes, you did. If you have some problems with your memory, that I quote your own words:
It looks "boxy" as the upper receiver is being machined from one block of material. If it was machined casting (like in M16/M4 family for example) it would look a bit more civilised. tony6, you are a well known liar and , but this is the Internet, everything you wrote is there, so... ;)
Again: nope. Every modern weapon's made of alluminium alloys use forging prior to machining.O'rly? "Every modern"? Because the devil is in details please give us all the examples of modern firearms - assault or battle rifles - with aluminium receivers forged not machined. By the way - the SCAR or ACR is not - by your definition - the modern firearm? ;)
That's cheaper cause you get much less chip this way. And alluminium is very expensive. You still didn't get it.tony6, that is a typical mistake you've made. You get to the only one thought and you are unable to think outside your box. And you started to be very, very angry, if someone tells you that you are wrong. This is your typical behaviour ;)

So once again - tell us what modern assault rifles (because we talked about them not any firearms) have got an forged receivers. Show us your expertize ;) If you will copy and paste the manufacturers of AR-15 clones (regardless of caliber) I find rather funny.

Why is that? You consider him a kind of expert in designing and producing aluminium-based parts?Oh, tony6, so you're now a self-proclamed expert on firearms construction, because you have rathers some limited knowledge about techniques of creating some aluminium parts? It is very interesting, but I am afraid - as many of your visions - has nothing in common with the real world ;) Naurally, you can convince yourself, but not exactly the people around you.
I could ask him how many cast/forged parts that went into serial production did he design (or co-design, as it's always a team work) but what for?So, boys, the designing of aluminium parts suddenly changes tony6 in real specialist on firearms construction. So, there is a steel or plastic part worker around who wants to tell us his visions? By the way there are also a rubber part of the buttstock, so the guy who creates the many rubber parts will also be your fellow pro in firearms design, tony6? ;)
Being a journalist and posting gun photos on Wikipedia doesn't make him an expert.This is typical lie you always told, because we all know that you are not man of honour, but rather man of bull****. You're always been. But have a chance - find a single picture of me at the wikipedia with gun or without it, you can recognize me. Only one. One, tony6. I dare you. Oh, there is none? A hint - there is a Lantan assault rifle in someones hand.

I am waiting for answers for my question. And the next step will be, that you tell us how you convince the firearms manufacturers from the world that your imaginary technique in the modern world is "more civilized". You missed some datas, that's why your opinions are far from the firearms world ;)

~~~~ - you cannot ask tony6 yourself about details? You cannot ask him about the "modern firearms" with forged receivers? You know, when we go from the tony6's theoretical visions to the real world the answer who is right and who's not will be quite easy to tell ;)

ko5ma

08-21-2010, 02:24 PM

Ko5ma:
That's what I'm talking about: look at the picture you posted.
If you want to machine a shape like upper receiver out of this round bar, the 90% of the material would be a waste.
Now you can think that's not worth playing but it does make a difference when you produce couple of thousand pieces.

For others:
Sure, you can go with the attitude "Wow! We got CNC machine! We're in XXI century now!" but it doesn't mean you're actually there. In fact, you're still very far from it since western firearms manufacturers use forged aluminuium since 60's. Now why do they do it? Do you think you know better how to make money on firearms manufacturing than they? Believe me, they know how to count their profits. That's why ALL weapons based on Aluminium upper/lower receiver concept use forging prior to machining.
If you beleive that hog-outs are more efficient and cheaper: go to Colt or HK and try to explain your concept to them;-)
Again, you make it seem as if the material loss was an actual major increase in price - we're not talking about platinum here. Even at 20€/kg the difference in price is not that great - 10% is 10%, regardless of how many units you build - and in this particular case cost is (or should be) a concern secondary to performance. It's not like you're paying extra for a product with exactly same qualities... The link i've posted was a random price sample, you can get aluminum bars in any shape and size you wish. As for extrusion and other methods of forging - sure, it is a way of limiting waste, if they are so inclined, but it still requires machining afterwards, thus adding an extra step in the process - not necessarily cheaper or more efficient.

Re Colt and HK - ok, and how about AR15 manufacturers that machine receivers from billet aluminum rather than through casting or forging, such as LaRue, Vltor or JP? I admit to having only second-hand knowledge on these, but from what i've read they seem to be widely acclaimed as being top quality.

In any case, i'm pretty sure they have given much thought to the choice of manufacturing process, and selected a method that will allow to get the best product at a reasonable cost. I don't think that you, me, or most other people on this forum have access to project-specific data that would make us qualified to question this choice.

Have a nice holiday.

REMOV

08-21-2010, 03:07 PM

Re Colt and HKAre you 100% sure, that HK416/417 receivers are forged?

ko5ma

08-21-2010, 04:16 PM

No, i'm not - it was a quote from Tony. I have just checked though, and according to some old marketing pamphlet it's also machined solid billet - yet another example then.

Little J

08-21-2010, 04:50 PM

Prototypes are looking good, Remov will you be posting anymore videos (with newer versions) soon?

~~~~

08-21-2010, 06:42 PM

~~~~ - you cannot ask tony6 yourself about details? You cannot ask him about the "modern firearms" with forged receivers? You know, when we go from the tony6's theoretical visions to the real world the answer who is right and who's not will be quite easy to tell ;)

as far as I was told, the upper receiver will be grinded from an aluminium alloy and then processed with anodic oxidation. both lower receivers and the buttstock will be made of polymer on a moulding machine. the form/matrix for the moulding machine will also be machined. yet I don't know what exact alloy nor what kind of polymer will be used. I believe those are some basic informations, quite obvious for anyone with process engineering background.
as I'm not an expert on CNC processing nor have a significant knowledge concerning guns, I read your (both of you) comments with interest. but truly, I have no clue which one of you is more accurate. that's all.

anyway the issue is quite interesting.

m4ge

08-22-2010, 05:19 PM

I know that it is little bit off topic but what you mean about new czech cz805?

tony6

09-04-2010, 05:25 AM

Ok. So I get the whole concept. Higly accurate casting by extrusion and then CNC machining to add some details.
It makes sense. I just don't know if Bumar has the technology.
No, they don't have it yet. Besides it's not only a question of technology but mostly engineering know-how, modern quality systems, proper management and corporate culture. It's all about maximizing profits and here they have a lot to do. And the technologial gap between Western world and companies from our part of Europe is wider than you think. I started to realize that after few years of working for Anglosaxon companies. The knowledge you earn in the Polish universites is very out-of-date. You get pretty decent general engineering background but when you start working in Western comapnies you have to catch up with your knowledge.
Now as for FB Radom: I give them 10-15 years to catch up with Western technologies & know-how. Maybe faster if they finally enter US market and learn something there. But they WILL switch to forged aluminium eventually, remember my words. That's the only way to go in XXI century. They should start with decent quality system (e.g. Six Sigma) and implementing western corporate culture in their post-communist era company. And that can be the most diffucult task: changing people's mentality.

REMOV:
I don't know how it is on your home planet (Krypton) but here on Earth the job in technical/technological sector is done by engineers, not journalists. That's what we do for living and that's what we're getting paid for. And believe me or not - we know better how to do our job that jurnalists. That's all from me as your person is concerned. I'm sorry but you're not a partner for a discussion for me. Your technical background is very, very limited and you have no practical experoience at all.
Besides you're starting your typical offensive BS coctail of emotions and insults. I don't feel like taking part in one of your famous pissing contests. Regards.

tony6

09-04-2010, 05:34 AM

Are you 100% sure, that HK416/417 receivers are forged?
The guy still cannot believe it:-) Well, as he himself said: he should wake up in XXI century and read something about modern firearms technology;-)

tony6

09-04-2010, 05:54 AM

Again, you make it seem as if the material loss was an actual major increase in price - we're not talking about platinum here. Even at 20€/kg the difference in price is not that great - 10% is 10%, regardless of how many units you build - and in this particular case cost is (or should be) a concern secondary to performance. It's not like you're paying extra for a product with exactly same qualities... The link i've posted was a random price sample, you can get aluminum bars in any shape and size you wish. As for extrusion and other methods of forging - sure, it is a way of limiting waste, if they are so inclined, but it still requires machining afterwards, thus adding an extra step in the process - not necessarily cheaper or more efficient.
See the top Western companies use modern quality systems (Six Sigma is a good example) to maximize their profits. Using your example: even if it's only 10% it means that your final product will be 10% more expensive than your competition. And that price can be a major factor.

And you're right: the plastic forming prior to machining requires additional step in the process. That also makes the whole thing much more complicated: you have a different datum systems on forging and machining + your forging envelope has to have a proper geometry (cast/mach stack-ups!) for machining. But in a final cost estimation it's cheaper than simple hog-out. That's what top quality systems are for: to optimize the process.

BTW: when you go with forging you have another advantage: if you have a couple of very similar product lines you can machine them from one common forging. For example: the engine mounts (Yoke, front engine mounts) are being done this way. That's example from aviation, but the idea is the same. If your company produces couple of similar engine types you can dicrease the cost of manufacuring Yokes by using the same common forging. So if your products are firearms you can also work on common receiver forging definition for couple of rifles types. That saves money.

Re Colt and HK - ok, and how about AR15 manufacturers that machine receivers from billet aluminum rather than through casting or forging, such as LaRue, Vltor or JP? I admit to having only second-hand knowledge on these, but from what i've read they seem to be widely acclaimed as being top quality.
Don't know that kind of knowledge but as for AR15: there are dozens of manufactures. Some may do it in a diffrent way.

I don't think that you, me, or most other people on this forum have access to project-specific data that would make us qualified to question this choice.
Agreed on that. I'm just saying that the most advanced (in terms of top quality systems) way to do it is to go with palstic forging prior to machining. That's all.

tony6

09-04-2010, 06:05 AM

One more thing: I just looked at FN's SCAR rifle photos. They simplified upper receiver (the lower one is polymer) to be a mostly U-shaped profile. Judging from the photos I would say they use extruded blank prior to machining. It's little less "stocky" than the AR-15 family upper receivers.
Anyway: I'm 100% sure they use plastic forming prior to machining. And FN is defeinitely one of the top manufacturers in the world and they surely know how to design and produce firearms.

tony6

09-04-2010, 06:11 AM

I read your (both of you) comments with interest. but truly, I have no clue which one of you is more accurate. that's all.
That's what surprises me all the time in our country. When you suffer from a tooth ache - you go to a dentist. When you need a law advise - you go to a lawyer. But when the technical/technological issues are concerned - you believe.... a journalist. That's very common in Polish media, especially in TV. There are many technical attendant "experts" who know shyte about the issue but yet they (for some abstract reason) claim to be a top experts. And -what is even more strange - people really believe in their BS.

tony6

09-04-2010, 09:04 AM

...and in this particular case cost is (or should be) a concern secondary to performance. It's not like you're paying extra for a product with exactly same qualities.
I forgot about one important thing. You're right here: the cost reduction is not the only one factor. Forging strenghtens the material so you get another advantage on material properties.

REMOV

09-05-2010, 08:09 AM

I don't know how it is on your home planet (Krypton) but here on Earth the job in technical/technological sector is done by engineers, not journalists. That's what we do for living and that's what we're getting paid for. And believe me or not - we know better how to do our job that jurnalists.ROTFL! Tony6 I haven't read such stupid and childish answer for a long time! One of the escape way when you have no arguments at all is to refer to some authority. But, tony6 no problem, I can play this way.

So, in my planet Earth there are thousands of engineers - some of them are smart and cultured and some not. In my world we paid smart engineers to fight stupid engineers ideas. That's why I - as the engineer - who by the way has some knowledge about the firearms, without any efford can find and show the weakness of your logic, the lack of any knowledge about the topic you've self-proclamed an expert. And that's why you have not any arguments. And thats why you cannot answer my question at all. And yes, this is the thing the engineers do with impostors like you ;)

So, once again - what modern assault rifles (because we talked about them not any firearms) have got an forged receivers? Show us your expertize!

You try to avoid this simple question in many way, try to be rude, try to find the most funny way to convince the world that you the real McCoy engineer, but you cannot answer it. And yes, this very funny to see how you are humiliating yourself in front of the whole world, and you cannot see it ;)

REMOV

09-05-2010, 08:19 AM

The guy still cannot believe itBecause it is not true. But, as an engineers I give you a second chance - try to find argument (not your assuptions which - as we all know - are based on nothing) that the German made it otherway. Clock is ticking ;)
Well, as he himself said: he should wake up in XXI century and read something about modern firearms technologyThank you tony6 for your care, but I forgot more about it than you learn in your life. That's why I have arguments and you not. But, you have a chance, try to convince us, good luck! ;)

highdiver_2000

09-05-2010, 11:55 AM

133289

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556-II_01.jpg

123456
The bullpup looks like a Tavor, from pistol grip to butt.

lightfire

09-05-2010, 12:48 PM

"looks like" comments are always so much useful..

SilentType

09-06-2010, 08:49 PM

What I like a GREAT deal about the MSBS 5.56 is that the bullpup version is an excellent Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) that would be the "bees knees" for support and it appears to have a great number of parts in common with the full sized rifle. Of course both use the same ammunition and magazines as well, which eliminates logistic issues to a great degree. The weakness of the HK MP7 and the FNH P90 have been 1) the ammunition they use has been questioned for lethality and 2) they both add another round and different parts to a logistical supply requirement.

With Poland's entry into NATO their requirement for "peace keeping" and various expeditionary missions has increased greatly. They need a light logistical footprint to maintain their flexibility and control costs. As Afghanistan winds down I believe we'll see many NATO nations like Poland having to further tighten their military budgets especially due to the world economic slump.

As long as the MSBS 5.56 bullpup can push the 5.56x45mm round at high enough velocity for PDW range engagement I think it's a real winner. Of course, they'll need a serious break on the end to reduce muzzle flash.

SilentType

09-06-2010, 08:52 PM

The only issue I can see is that the MSBS full sized rifle's charging handle is too high up and too close to the top optic rail. That's going to make it a pain to use when you've got optics mounted above it. This is an issue with a lot of new rifles.

Boina verde

09-25-2010, 11:47 AM

~~~~

09-26-2010, 06:01 AM

some new imagess released by Altair:

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7155/bia0401.jpg (http://img830.imageshack.us/i/bia0401.jpg/)

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4302/bia0402.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/i/bia0402.jpg/)

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5273/bia0403.jpg (http://img836.imageshack.us/i/bia0403.jpg/)

source:
http://www.altair.com.pl/cz-art-3084

tony6

09-29-2010, 12:32 AM

Just 5 cents to our discussion about M16/M4/HK416 upper/lower receiver forgings.
That's how these things look like before machining process.

Lower receiver forging:
http://www.lesbaer.com/images/upper-forge.jpg

and another photo with mag well opening already broached in:
http://www.lesbaer.com/images/BROACHEDLOW.jpg

Upper forging:
http://www.lesbaer.com/images/lower-forge.jpg

and both after machining & anodizing:
http://www.lesbaer.com/images/MatchedSetpc.jpg

REMOV

09-29-2010, 09:37 AM

Just 5 cents to our discussion about M16/M4/HK416 upper/lower receiver forgings.We will still waiting for any proof, that HK416 recivers are forged. Apart of your strong faith, naturally ;)

Plus the question you cannot answer for a few weeks, once again - what modern assault rifles (because we talked about them not any firearms) have got an forged receivers? Show us your expertize! ;)

pmj

09-29-2010, 12:16 PM

Compared to the first pictures the weapons system is progressing quite well (at least to my eyes). The abilty to use it both as a bullpup and traditional configuration is intriguing. However I would be more interested in the internals. Is it a long or short stroke piston system? AK or Stoner type bolt? Extra steel guide rails in the reciever or "just" aluminum? :)

REMOV

09-30-2010, 06:07 PM

Is it a long or short stroke piston system?Short stroke.
AK or Stoner type bolt?The Johnson's type ;)

tony6

10-01-2010, 10:35 AM

"The Gun God":
On previous page you called me a liar and man of bull**** and now you want to discuss with me..? Grow up, man. Start to act like an adult person and then maybe people will treat you seriously.

As for the HK416 forgings:
if someone else than our beloved Star-of-Journalism wants to know why I believe that both HK416 receivers are forged I'll be happy to explain it.

REMOV

10-01-2010, 11:33 AM

Once again, should I repeat my questions? Do you understand them or not? Maybe I should use plain English?

(1) What modern assault rifles have got an forged receivers?
(2) Do you have any proofs that the HK416 receiver is forged not machined?

You know, usually if the person asked about something wrotes a lot of rubbish plus some childish insults it means he knows nothing about the issue. So, do you have any proofs that the HK416 receiver is forged? I am not interesting in what are your beliefs but hard facts. Not your imagination but reality. Any proof? Any at all? If not, get lost and do not waste our time.

ctomd

10-04-2010, 12:13 PM

Honestly, as a American, who is assumed to be part polish, this thread interests me, especially the constant re-mentioning of the m4/m16 system which to my knowledge the U.S has been trying replace for the better part of forever. All that matters is that the soldiers like it right? That said the polish going away from the AK, look and feel is a strange idea to me. I don't know how the Polish (Regular Soldiers) will feel about the weapon it might be alien to them. Any insight into this idea?

flanker7

10-04-2010, 12:16 PM

Of course if that was the only argument we would have still fought with stones and sticks :-)

tony6

10-06-2010, 01:39 AM

ctomd:
This process is called "progress";-)

Karaahmetoglu

10-06-2010, 01:41 AM

What I do not understand is why the Bullpup and traditional versions?

peter.pl

10-06-2010, 02:27 AM

They made no decision wich version (or both) will be in use.

ctomd

10-07-2010, 11:27 AM

I think aesthetics, Is largely ignored in the gun-making community no-one want's to admit it but it's there. There is just something special about using a weapon that is definitively yours, Wether its shortening the barrel, or making a weapon purple. Like how the vikings used to name their swords. It's like it customizing a weapon makes it magic. I think this rifle will change more in the future. I hope it does at least. What do you think about this? I would like to hear opinions.

SilentType

10-08-2010, 12:14 AM

SilentType

10-08-2010, 12:16 AM

ctomd

10-08-2010, 09:18 AM

Good point.

gafkiwi

10-08-2010, 02:23 PM

I really like how the charging handle angles down like that as it should make it easier to use even when you have various optic mounts. It's the little things like that, which really add up to a good rifle.

Yeah, saves the knuckles. Our New steyrs have the same sort of thing, The cocking handle can fold down to the 7/8 oclock position for actioning the rifle

SilentType

10-10-2010, 01:21 AM

I know the MSBS is still in development and top priority will be military sales, but please, PLEASE bring this rifle to the U.S. Civilian Market.

~~~~

10-10-2010, 12:10 PM

sooner or later you'll have the possibility to buy it on the civilian market in the US.
it's part of the producer's buisness plan

SilentType

10-10-2010, 08:08 PM

Are there any future conventions or shows where the MSBS will be displayed?

~~~~

10-10-2010, 08:43 PM

probably here (I guess):

www.natoexhibition.org

it is to take place this week

Catch22

10-10-2010, 10:41 PM

UGL model for MSBS should have its premiere there.

Doomsayer

10-11-2010, 04:40 PM

About the discussion CNC vs forging. You are both right. Because CNC machines are much more common these days with knowledge 'widely' available. This makes it more and more attractive to manufacture with CNC machines. But when the number of weapons ordered rises above a certain level it may become more attractive to use forgings (material costs vs machine/labourcosts). With a forging you have less materialcosts and you also can have shorter productiontimes.

Forging machines are especially made for a single product and CNC machines are universal. Thus you have a higher cost of the machine but you may have lower productiontimes with a forging machine. With CNC machines you have a lower cost of the machine (it can be utilized for a wide variety of products) but longer productiontimes.

But, with CNC technology becoming much more advanced these days with better tools and faster machines it becomes more attractive to use CNC machines. Also CNC machines use less energy to manufacture products, because with a forging you have to use a lot of heat, this consumes lots of energy. With rising energy prices these days this also becomes a more critical factor.

The technical difference between the two is that a forging has a somewhat better materialstructure. The same as with bolts, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads of the same material. So when you utilize purely CNC machined components you may sometimes have to choose a stronger material.

Conclusion:
We cannot say from behind our desks what the manufacturing process will be for the weapon. We will have to know a lot more about the company to determine the 'best' process. Maybe REMOV has inside knowledge from within the company which make him state that the weapon will be CNC machined.
So the company choose to have the rifle CNC machined but the arguments for a forging still stand, it still depends on a lot of factors. We do not know all these factors so we cannot compare every riflecompanies choices for the productionprocess to the other.

tony6

10-12-2010, 01:50 AM

Maybe REMOV has inside knowledge from within the company which make him state that the weapon will be CNC machined.
The MSBS upper reciver WILL be CNC machined. That was said at the beginning and I never had a doubt on it. All I'm saying is that parts made out of forging require a little more sophisticated technology and little more engineering knowledge.

So the company choose to have the rifle CNC machined but the arguments for a forging still stand, it still depends on a lot of factors. We do not know all these factors so we cannot compare every riflecompanies choices for the productionprocess to the other.
The arguments here are obvious: the manufacturer (FB Radom) has no experience with forgings of whatsoever. Also (so far) they have no technology to do that therefore their receivers will be machined.

SilentType

10-14-2010, 12:36 AM

Can we get billet receivers from 7075 Aluminum? Just kidding. I know that's not practical at this point for mass produced mil rifles.

What about barrels? 4150? Cold hammer forged? Button Rifled? Chrome lined or are they going to try something new like a nitride coating? 1:7 twist?

This rifle gets me ******ly aroused. Is that weird?

wholagun

10-14-2010, 03:34 AM

Ksiunc

10-14-2010, 05:49 PM

[/B]

you've come to the right place

Yup. The home of all gunphiliacs.

wholagun

10-15-2010, 03:08 AM

Yup. The home of all gunphiliacs.

around here our kind is welcome with open arms.

REMOV

10-19-2010, 06:35 AM

UGL model for MSBS should have its premiere there.I am afraid, we will wait for the new Polish modular grenade launcher (SBAO-40 second generation) a few weeks.

kraftwerk

10-21-2010, 06:30 PM

I travelled to MSPO in Kielce especially to see MSBS, because I am a big fan of this design since Remov signalled it.
New shape is great, but I think old cocking handle design was better than new one. At least more reliable for sure. In new position handle must be non-moving during shooting, and you need to design mechanism for this. You need also bolt-assist mechanism for enforcing of bolt locking (f.ex. when in dirty conditions or you want to do this quietly) like in M16, M4 or AUG.
All above means more parts, less reliability, more cleaning and overall weight saving by making bolt carrier smaller will be problematic.
Thanks Remov for this thread - it pushed me from being only observer and "consumer" of feasts you and SMGLee provide to all of us.

REMOV

11-23-2010, 11:41 AM

New Polish 40 mm (40 mm x 46SR) grenade launcher designed for MSBS-5,56

http://www.abload.de/img/_polish_gl_02dga4.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/_polish_gl_01jive.jpg

~~~~

11-23-2010, 11:53 AM

I guess you have the permission to post it, do you? :-)

cahiri0

11-23-2010, 12:15 PM

Images were posted at altair.com.pl earlier today, so it was matter of time when they will be paste here. I was even thinking about posting theme, but decided to wait for Remov to post his photos :)

vajt

11-23-2010, 10:00 PM

Definitely looking nice. The bull-pup is looking like a cross between the Tavor back and Styer AUG A3 front. I'm waiting to see which version they end up picking, standard or bull-pup. Would be nice if they just go with the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round...first NATO country to standardize with the new caliber. :)

-----JT-----

Bro Jangles

11-23-2010, 10:02 PM

I like the AFG for the UGL, looks like a good way to make both systems effective at relatively the same time.

akd

11-24-2010, 02:07 PM

Would be nice if they just go with the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round...first NATO country to standardize with the new caliber. :)

-----JT-----

The whole "NATO country" bit complicates that somewhat. ;)

pretorian669

11-25-2010, 12:40 AM

New Polish 40 mm (40 mm x 46SR) grenade launcher designed for MSBS-5,56

Hi Remov. What's the barrel lenght on that UBGL?

REMOV

11-25-2010, 08:20 AM

It is still under consideration, but roughly between 210-250 mm.

SURVICE

11-25-2010, 09:07 AM

http://www.altair.com.pl/start-5408

Here you can check new granade launcher dedicate for MSBS 5,56

p.s.sorry only Polish:-(

REMOV

11-25-2010, 09:19 AM

I think you are a bit late, pal ;)

Kondor220V

11-25-2010, 09:29 AM

Why is the trigger so far to the front? They could move it back and remove that angled grip to be more low profile IMO.

Lasse

11-25-2010, 09:46 AM

BULLPUP GL!!!1!

Looks like there are quite a few Magpul fanboys in Poland ;)

SURVICE

11-25-2010, 09:50 AM

Lepiej późno niż wcale;)

Better late than never;)

REMOV

11-25-2010, 09:53 AM

Would be nice if they just go with the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round.No chance at all, those cartridges are dead end, the NATO do not introduced them (I spoken about the issue with the NATO Group representatives), last but not least their characteristics are not better than new 5,56 mm round M855A1. But there are some information from the designers that will be introduced semi-automatic, sniper model of the MSBS-5,56 in the 7,62 mm x 51 calibre.

REMOV

11-25-2010, 09:55 AM

Why is the trigger so far to the front?Do you have any experience with triangle-shaped front grip?
They could move it back and remove that angled grip to be more low profile IMO.The designers idea was from very beginning just quite opposite to your opinion. And the grenade launcher has in fact very low profile ;)

Catch22

11-25-2010, 11:45 AM

Why is the trigger so far to the front? They could move it back and remove that angled grip to be more low profile IMO.

Once you try it, you'll understand. Using Magpul's AFG might give you idea though. Its much more natural and comfortable than both M203 and AG36/M320 layouts.

And Lasse - honestly we're not "fanboys" of anything, AFG was very interesting proposition with some ergonomics theory behind it, after having tested it - it suddenly appeared to my colleague as a possible solution for the UBGL that would match MSBS platform well enough in classic and b-p versions.

gafkiwi

11-25-2010, 01:29 PM

Yeah, I think its a good step forward, what with the current trend of underslung grenade launchers getting larger, its good to see a "Low profile" launcher introduced.

Lasse

11-25-2010, 03:41 PM

And Lasse - honestly we're not "fanboys" of anything, AFG was very interesting proposition with some ergonomics theory behind it, after having tested it - it suddenly appeared to my colleague as a possible solution for the UBGL that would match MSBS platform well enough in classic and b-p versions.I use and love the AFG myself ;)

tony6

11-26-2010, 02:03 AM

At least it doesn't look so god damn edgy and stocky like GBPO-40 (or whatever they call this thing).

kraftwerk

12-01-2010, 12:51 AM

I like this GLA ergonomy.
It looks like it's attached to receiver not using receiver's Picatinny rails. It means, that standard version of the rifle will have side and bottom rails removable in some way. That could cause some logistic issues (you can not just snap GLA on your rifle in the field - you have to remove some elements first and stow it somewhere too...).
GLA's receiver looks on this picture as pretty tricky extrusion...

Majster

12-01-2010, 06:30 AM

~~~~

12-01-2010, 11:34 AM

it doesnt use the bottom rail, because there is no bottom rail in the hand guard that goes with the UGL.
the idea was to have the UGL mounted as close to the barrel as possible.

Majster

12-01-2010, 02:51 PM

Ok ok... maybe I fail to understand something. But as I see it:

144533

(marked with red)

Lasse

12-01-2010, 03:23 PM

You can probably remove the bottom rail...

Majster

12-01-2010, 05:38 PM

To me it looks like whole handguard with bottom and side rails is a 1 piece that can be taken off, and replaced with anything that fits the socket.

Bro Jangles

12-01-2010, 07:26 PM

isnt that pic a Prototype mock up and not close to a production gun? i bet they make the lower rail removable.

~~~~

12-01-2010, 07:34 PM

To me it looks like whole handguard with bottom and side rails is a 1 piece that can be taken off, and replaced with anything that fits the socket.

exactly
the UGL is not mounted to any rail system but to the same pin that keeps toghether the barrel and the upper receiver and on the opposite side another pin at the very begining of the upper receiver. and there's another sort of hanguard dedicated to work with the launcher with no bottom rail between both. the purpose is to have the UGL mounted as close as possible to the barrel.

kraftwerk

12-01-2010, 10:25 PM

exactly
the UGL is not mounted to any rail system but to the same pin that keeps toghether the barrel and the upper receiver and on the opposite side another pin at the very begining of the upper receiver. and there's another sort of hanguard dedicated to work with the launcher with no bottom rail between both. the purpose is to have the UGL mounted as close as possible to the barrel.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. What it means is, that to attach GLA you have first to remove "handguard" with rails. Like in F2000 (only?).
All depends on customer requirement. If it's specified that "GLA must fit every standard issue rifle, be attachable in the field without use of special tools, in less than n seconds", then there could be a problem...

Last but not least - GLA is MSBS rifle specific. To sell it worldwide, you will still need Picatinny version. This looks like cool GLA - it could sell. :)