New Modular Weapon System for Poland: MSBS-5.56

[Centurion40]

Originally Posted by Golani

I'm sorry- but that's one hell of an ugly rifle.

Also- what's the point of having a bridge, especially one with no iron sights, if it's simply meant to serve as a platform for optics? why no design it flat from scratch?

Your mouth to God's ears....

[Centurion40]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Pop

Bump.

MUCH better!

[Ogukuo72]

Originally Posted by Golani

Interesting.

It looks to me like I'd prefer to just grab the hand guard in a case like this, it doesn't really look like it adds anything.

I wonder if anyone here has any experience with it...?

I handled but never shot with them.

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, because it is - of course - mounted on rail systems around the CAR-15 barrels. With such systems, particularly the early KAC rails, they get hot after awhile. The AFG keeps your hand away from the rails.

Another useful point about the AFG is that the front of the grip stops your supporting hand from wandering forward. No problem with the CAR-15, but I'm sure it'll become an issue with weapons that had muzzles only a couple of inches beyond the rails.

When you grip the AFG, it also naturally pulls the weapon into your firing shoulder. The vertical front grips do the same, but with the AFG, it feels more ergonomical.

No, because some of us who shoots the M16/CAR-15 already have a habit of holding the magwell of the weapons, more or less at an angle, and frankly, the AFG doesn't seem to add any advantages.

[Golani]

Originally Posted by Ogukuo72

Another useful point about the AFG is that the front of the grip stops your supporting hand from wandering forward. No problem with the CAR-15, but I'm sure it'll become an issue with weapons that had muzzles only a couple of inches beyond the rails.

Yeah well, any other grip would do the same...

[johns624]

The tacti-cool crowd loves them. I find them to be too slippery when you apply rearward force to them. Give me a standard handguard.

[Afghanisdan]

If they look like the mock-ups and have good qualities such as light weight, ergonomicly sound and easy to field strip, reliable, accurate, and priced right (about what a good AR-15 does) they could do quite well. The potential is there to sell a lot of platforms in the US, but if it does not have all those qualities it will fall flat.

As far as the fore grip, I have not used it. It seems pretty far forward for my shooting style and I like having a more conventional style vertical foregrip to have a drop down bipod and a convienient location to place light switch pads on. Since I have not used it, I have to withhold judgement on it though.

[Ogukuo72]

Originally Posted by johns624

The tacti-cool crowd loves them. I find them to be too slippery when you apply rearward force to them. Give me a standard handguard.

True. Another vote for the standard handguard here. Sometimes, in spite of what my wife might say, you CAN accessorize too much.

[Golani]

Originally Posted by Ogukuo72

True. Another vote for the standard handguard here. Sometimes, in spite of what my wife might say, you CAN accessorize too much.

I was for the standard until I got my hands on the modular grip (vertical that turns to bipod) it's amazing.

[GMan88]

How does the Beryl compare to the AK-12?

[Ogukuo72]

Originally Posted by Golani

I was for the standard until I got my hands on the modular grip (vertical that turns to bipod) it's amazing.

I like the Grippod myself, but I also recognise that it is not really necessary.

[Sgt.Pop]

Bump,
MSBS firing and some other guns... video:
http://www.tvp.pl/publicystyka/temat...052012/7132949

[llkinak]

The more I look at these new systems coming out the more I ask myself: "Why must we have this?" Often as not I keep coming back to the same answer: "We don't need it." None of these new small arms offer any real advantage over designs which are, in some cases, decades old, not from a mass equipping standpoint at any rate. I suppose some may yield a few refinements, but that's about it, certainly nothing which would ammount to improvements worth scrapping what one already has and going to something else. Look at it this way:

Well made AKs, M16/M4s, Sigs, G36s, etc, etc, etc. What will any of them do that you can't do with any of the others? Not much, not of real value anyway. One might be a little lighter, another a bit more accurate, but nothing earth shattering. I think that arms manufacturers understand very well that armies, generals, procurement types, and individual civilians are prone to want the newest thing just because it's new and sexy. If you build it and tell people they need it they may very well believe you, whether it's true or not. Quite a bit like IT types in, my opinion, as far as sparkly new toys go.

[Sgt.Pop]

Look, I've found some English video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEIDAk2bSR4

[TacCovert4]

Originally Posted by johns624

The tacti-cool crowd loves them. I find them to be too slippery when you apply rearward force to them. Give me a standard handguard.

I agree. When given the option between a grip-pod, an AFG, and a MkI broomhandle....my work rifle carries a broomhandle, aka a basic vertical grip. Nothing fancy, virtually nothing to break, and I don't need a bipod for a battle rifle at police-grade combat ranges. Plus, while the AFG does give me slightly more control in certain specific settings, the broomhandle lets me choose between holding it tight in my shoulder and clearing corners with a measure of control. As light-recoiling as the 5.56 round is, you don't need anything to help you compensate for recoil, and you can control the rifle in 'room clearing range' with it out of your shoulder if necessary (though not prefered, naturally).

As to the weapons the thread is about.....the carbine looks a lot like a new take on the SCAR or other similar platform. I think they'll get good service out of it. The bullpup, well it all depends on if they're taking a very serious route into designing a serious battle rifle, or if they're trying to have a bullpup because some of their richer neighbors do. Bullpups are a more complex system, and more prone to problems resulting from marginal design or testing.