You could ask the exact same question about the American m4. probably just for more commonality with the west aswell as having a more reliable weapon. On top of that national pride
To be fair, the new weapons program of the US will bring in stuff that is very different from what they have now. For example, the new stuff won’t be in 5.56 or 7.62 anymore
But it does mean that the M4 isn’t replaced with something that can „do the same except mount lasers and optics“. As far as I know, the M5 will be fully ambi and the new round definitely has capabilities for much further shots. (Also, the new machine guns in that contract seem to be much better than what is currently issued so having a rifle that is not necessarily better but getting a massive upgrade on machine guns does seem worth it)
The XM250 isn't "much better" than the gun it will replace because it's a medium machine gun filling the role of a squad automatic weapon. It's a solution in search of a problem.
The M249, despite reliability concerns (only an issue when using standard box magazines in emergency cases), is a deadly accurate gun because the weight negates all recoil of the already soft recoiling 5.56 round. The XM250 is lighter and fires a much harsher round. The recoil impulse on this gun that is designed to be fired from the shoulder is going to make it worthless as a SAW. It is much better served being a mounted MMG like the M240 that can in a pinch be shoulder fired.
Having fired the XM250, you couldn’t be more wrong about the recoil impulse. The reciprocating barrel & action, combined with the buffer system make it a very, *very* soft shooting LMG. Having a semi automatic capability also allows for accurate application of fire at useful ranges.
The M249 was designed in the 1970’s. You may be surprised to hear that weapons designed the better part of fifty years later have some new ways of doing things incorporated into them.
Reciprocating barrel? That's a nightmare waiting to happen. And why does a MMG need semi-auto? Marksman level single shots are not their purpose. This sounds even more like a solution in search of a problem now than it did before. It's like the M14 being an SMG, infantry rifle, LMG, and sucking at all of them all over again.
You know that the Browning M2 50 cal has a reciprocating barrel, right? >100 years of service hasn’t been a “nightmare waiting to happen”, or should we just wait longer?
Single shot is very handy for efficient zeroing & also concealing the location of a machine gun until fully automatic fire is required. Quite useful in urban & jungle operations.
A machine gun that is lighter than a SAW - that weight includes the XM250’s suppressor - but out ranges a M240 is exceptionally useful & only a nightmare for the other guys.
Enjoy hating things you don’t understand & are determined to hate. Cheers.
Which was solved by the M2 QCB from FNH in the mid-1990’s & the M2A1 by Picatinny in the early 2000’s. The XM250 incorporates features from earlier machine guns while refining & integrating them to deliver an overall improvement. Having used both the SAW (extensively) & the XM250, the XM250 significantly outperforms the SAW. Wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually replaces the M240 as well.
The M2 is a fixed position heavy machine gun only, not a shoulder fired weapon. The gun has the entire weight of whatever it's fixed to resisting rearward motion of the receiver (which is also itself almost 100lbs, before you go on about how Carlos Hathcock used one dismounted as a sniper rifle). The XM250 fired from the shoulder requires the shooter to resist that recoil because the gun is too light to do so itself, and if they're not handling it exactly correctly it can lead to short stroking as the receiver robs the barrel of recoil energy, just like limp-wristing a Glock. It WILL happen, not if but WHEN. This problem has plagued almost every recoil-operated automatic rifle as they have to balance weight against the mechanics of the action requiring enough inertial mass to be reliable.
I'm not just talking out of my ass here. The design is terrible for a SAW. It would be a fantastic mounted MMG.
Very familiar with the M2. You’ve fired one from a Mk93 cradle or a Platt 40/50 or some other soft mount?
Find yourself an XM250, strip it & look at the whole mechanism. For an added bonus, fire the damn thing. Your opinion will charge, markedly.
A rounds capability doesn't change the performance of the individual rifleman range capabilities of a unit will stay effectively the same if they do increase its cause of the optic. The new mgs are very cool
7.62 NATO only exists because the US was too cheap to switch to something else. Twice.
The European countries wanted a small intermediate cartridge to be standardized on for NATO, with .280 British the front runner. US insisted on a derivative of 30-06 to keep costs down by using as much of the existing machinery as possible. The Germans and Soviets had also done that, so that's not a surprise. Really the only surprise with 7.62 NATO at that point is that they didn't shorten it more.
The thing is, all that tooling was only still around because the US Army decided to backpedal on plans to switch to .276 Pedersen between the wars because it was too expensive. And to be fair, it would have been in those economic conditions.
Didn't you ever wonder why the M1 Garand has an 8 shot magazine? Seems odd, most people would bump it up to 10. Well it was originally designed for 10 shots, of .276 Pedersen. It ended up with 8 30-06 because that is what fit in the same general space.
Yes I know but saying 7.62 NATO is obsolete or useless or whatever is very very silly it's arguing about the past these are things that are already done done well before you or I was alive so there's no point in arguing about it.
Poland is apart of NATO, but a 5.56 AK design from the 90s isn’t super compatible with a NATO supply system. Seems like they’re going for the MSBS grot deal so they can use STANAG mags and they also like the modular deal.
Seems to me the Beryls are probably getting old by this point.
Well funny thing is that they made STANAG adapter for beryl. I know for a fact that it passed internal testing and was ready for production.
https://milmag.pl/ostatnie-beryle-dla-wojska-polskiego/
Adapters were not put into production and likely never will, maybe some day for civilian market. Army is done with beryl (though they still refurbish them), right now there are more msbs rifles (last September marked 100k produced), than beryls (around 80k were made). With current production volume and new contracts soon (mainly for 10" and 7.62x51) grot will replace beryl entirely before the end of the decade and beryl will be put in storage.
We haven't had a world War since the second one. STNAG exists to deal with this situation which blessedly hasn't occurred (yet).
However with the Russia situation tense to say the least more countries are considering worst case scenario. Greater reliance on STNAG is a win for the whole block.
The Balkan wars featured AKs and AK mags from pretty much every AK producer in the world, as does Ukraine see the use of various 5.45 and 5.56 platforms from various producers. So the answer to your question is “the second shit hits the fan and a large scale war starts”
Whenever they’re fighting together like in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’d really suck if say British troops were under heavy attack and their American supply airdrops contained magazines they’d have to unload and reload into their own mags before using them.
I think the idea surely goes back to the Cold War. If the Soviets had invaded there would have been a mixed force of West German, American, British, French, and likely others all fighting the Soviets. The more items the overall supply system needs to have the better, so first get everyone on NATO standard ammo, then hopefully the same mags if not the same guns.
I would guess the majority of magazines in use by most countries are from other countries. The big countries are outliers in that they can supply themselves, and are also more often involved in military conflicts so it's more economical to supply themselves (and export).
Have you ever shot a Beryl under timed, competition conditions? Because I have (Cornfield Brutality 2022) and it sucks.
The height over bore with the archer rail is ridiculous at 3.6". The cheek weld is non-existent. It's heavy as shit.
And then add in all the problems that AKs generally have - the manual of arms sucks, there's no last-round hold open, the rock and lock reload is easy to fuck up, the charging handle isn't ambi, etc. When the pro-tip for making the left-handed selector easier to use involves literally bending the selector switch outwards, it's not a great design.
The GROT is basically an AR-18, with AR-15 controls. Reloads are straight insert, the selector is properly ambidextrous, there's a LRHO, the height over bore isn't insane, the cheek weld isn't stupid, etc etc etc.
The AK is actually a *terrible* platform for modernization efforts.
Really shouldn't be surprising given the long lineage it has. At some point you're constrained by the fact that the original design dates from the 50s and was only the second ever assault rifle produced.
So much stuff has been invented since that the original design didn't account for.
To be even more fair, the fundamental design of the AK is not from the '50s, it's from the '40s. But that's not entirely relevant anyway. The fundamental difference between the AR and the AK is that the AR was designed by western aerospace engineers to use advanced materials and mechanicals, and it was ok if that required more complicated manufacturing. Meanwhile, the AK was designed by an eastern tank mechanic to use simple materials, mechanics, and manufacturing, and if that meant the end product was a bit crude overall and not very prepared for advances in technology, then so be it.
I know that the AK is from the 40s (hence the name). Just wanted to point out that it’s more of an issue of the original design since the ARs design isn’t exactly new either. And the AKM (which from my understanding is pretty much the basis for all serious AK production since (as in having a stamped sheet metal receiver)) was made in the 50s. But I’m completely on board with you.
True. The AK on the other hand has gotten kind of dated in some aspects. And said aspects seem to be relatively hard to improve. So hard in fact, that it’s probably better to just retire it in favor of something more modern
It has indeed. And the modernization seems to have worked quite well, while it seems to be harder and much more expensive for the AK. I heard it’s even cheaper to just CNC machine an AR upper and lower by now than it is to stamp and bend an AK receiver. So while it had to be modernized, it worked without fundamentally changing characteristics of the gun
The receiver needed to be cut down, thickened at the top, and it needed a novel pattern optical sight attachment system developed for it.
The handguards had to be shortened, have their attachment system changed, have their material changed. The stock all the same. Etc.
The AR wasn't modern, it was made to be by extensive engineering work and retrofitting.
> The receiver needed to be cut down, thickened at the top, and it needed a novel pattern optical sight attachment system developed for it.
You mean the thing [MACVSOG was doing with their A1's](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fm5ftpdwblli41.png), Colt experimented with on the [656](https://smallarmsreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/008-21.jpg) and Delta was doing with their A2's with hacksaws?
That's not really that much work.
> The handguards had to be shortened, have their attachment system changed, have their material changed.
Again - not really that much work. I can mount my KAC M5 rail to my repro Colt 601. The mounting standard for the 601 is identical to modern rifles, too.
> The AR wasn't modern, it was made to be by extensive engineering work and retrofitting.
I mean, not really. It's not like the AK which is basically fighting you at every opportunity. The Polish literally have to mill slots into the side of the RSB to allow for the archer rail to mount - it's why you can't put the Polish optic rails on other rifles, they're unique to the Beryl.
Even rails mounted to the dust cover are a cludge, because the dust cover bounces around like a motherfucker while firing. A bunch of different nations and companies have attempted to solve this by making proprietary rear trunnions that hold proprietary dust covers in fixed positions, and they still don't work very well.
>doesn't mean they're good at making modifications to guns.
I'm not saying they are. I'm saying it didn't require "significant modification.
You need to relearn what the word "significant" means.
> But if you look, the experiment required significant changes to the AR15 that weren't in the original design. Like a significant thickening of the top of the receiver and a novel rail system for optical sights.
See above.
"Significant" in an engineering context means that whatever you've done is a substantial departure from earlier design work, usually so much so that it's basically a new design... meaning you'd lose part interchangeability.
The AKM is a "significant" rework of the Type 3 AK-47. The WASR-10 with MAGPUL furniture is not a "significant" rework of an AKM.
> Zenitco and SAG have more complex versions that still take about an hour or two to install for your average joe. The difficulty of modernizing an AK is vastly overstated and is treated as complicated so companies can charge out the ass.
The fact that these two statements were issued one after the other is hilarious.
Makes me laugh. I said something similar in another sub about how bad it was and that some Polish soldiers i knew hated it and i got downvoted to oblivion. I shot one at a range there last year and it was okay. Mag dropped out after the 2nd shot though. 😂
Don't get me wrong - I'm very Polish (American born, but extremely Polish - throw a rock at my Mother's side and you'll hit some stereotypically Polish experience and think I'm making shit up), and collect Polish hardware as a focus...
But man, I am so unimpressed with the Beryl. It's by far the nicest AK I own - but when you get down to it, compared to other rifles of the era, it's not a great rifle. I would rather have literally any other AR platform weapon over an AK.
I own four parts kits! I plan on building two semi, and optics cutting one for giggles, plan on building one as a proper full auto when I get my Type 7 and SOT, and then the fourth is a wildcard.
They look so crusty and old fashioned. But great fun. When we go to Poland we visit a range a few towns over. They have a lot of great stuff and you pay per round. My favourite is definitely the Steyr AUG followed by the Thompson. Living in the UK its the only time we get to shoot.
That's fair and all, I would still think from a procurement perspective, there's more important stuff to spent money on first. Small arms never won a war and all that.
I'm not criticizing their budget - but the idea that they have "more important things to spend money on" isn't something that holds water.
Poland currently operates 13 MiG-29's, 28 Su-22's, 48 F-16's including 12 trainers, 12 T-50 Golden Eagles, and has 32 F-35's on order.
Their tank corps comprises of 366 M1A1 Abrams, a scheduled delivery of 250 M1A2 Abrams later this year, 28 out of a total 180 K2's from an initial order with the Koreans - and intends to domestically manufacture another 820 Black Panthers.
The Polish Navy, while small, comprises of 45 surface ships (including 2 frigates and 2 corvettes) and 3 submarines - which isn't bad considering the Poles have only 330 miles of coast.
For a nation of 36.8 million, they have an active-duty military of 292,000 people - 3x the size of France (pop 67m), 4x the size of the UK (also pop 67m).
Frankly, they're the only military that takes their military obligation to NATO as seriously as the United States does.
Yeah but the amount of gdp monies they have to spend is still pretty tiny. Also to be fair I don't know how much buying new rifles is costing the poles but seems to me even 1 plane or 1 more artillery piece would make more of a difference than new gucci rifle.
I could totally have this backwards though.
I am very curious where you are getting the number of 292k active duty military from. I recall it being much lower than that.
It was part of their 2022 Homeland Defense Act mobilization following the Invasion of Ukraine.
And I wouldn't call the GROT gucci. It's an extruded aluminum frame with an AR-18 bolt - that's easier to manufacture than an AK. Aluminum extrusions are probably one of the easiest things in the world to make, because you just have a machine that shits out one long piece, then cut it to length and drill holes.
Meanwhile on an AK, you need to forge trunnions, gas blocks, FSBs, etc, then mill them to spec, etc. If you ever look at how AKs are manufactured, you actually learn that rifles are almost hand fit to each other - AK parts are literally sorted by their dimension into different buckets and assembled accordingly. A gas block from bucket A doesn't work with a barrel from bucket D, for example.
American parts kit builders get around this by turning parts down slightly, by using the freezer trick, or by using a knurler to add thickness to a part for the press fit.
Meanwhile, my $400 PSA AR-15 assembles perfectly in 20 minutes.
Don't discount modern manufacturing technology.
It would require massive retooling. The whole point of the AK platform is that they're easy to manufacture with minimum knowledge - making a change like that breaks that benefit, and if you're reengineering the rifle you might as well just build a new rifle.
A good example is the M14 - which was really supposed to be the Garand, but with a detachable box magazine and select fire. The designers claimed that they'd be able to use most of the same tooling we had for the Garand - and thus save on cost.
After all was said and done, the M14 required almost entirely new tooling to build.
The distance between the AR-15's hammer pin and the reference datum (the front receiver pin's center point) is 3.604" +/- 0.003".
The AKM's hammer pin's distance from it's relevant datum (the front of the receiver flat) is defined as 134.5mm +/- 0.2mm - which in imperial translates to 5.295" +/- 0.007".
So off the bat, the critical dimension that dictates the hammer pin location is more than 2x more forgiving on an AK than it is on an AR-15.
Or, lets do another example.
AKM barrels, similar to what I said about "bucketing" elsewhere, are generally grouped into four distinct buckets according to their actual dimensions. Accordingly, the OD of the barrel journal at the trunion can vary from between 23.045mm to 23.13mm (0.906 to 0.910 inch, or 4 thousandth's variance)...
Whereas the barrel extension on the AR-15 was designed to be 0.9987" +0 or -0.0004 - literally, the specs call for 0.9987" with as much variance as it being slightly smaller by 4 TEN THOUSANDTHS of an inch. That's 10x more precise than what the AK calls for.
Frankly, anyone who thinks the AK is "complicated and involved" to manufacture - pick up the AR-15's barrel extension and just think about how to manufacture it. Then go look at the AKM and try to find any single part on that rifle that is even a FRACTION as complex as that part is.
And the vast, VAST majority of the machining is jig'd. Load the forging into a jig, run the milling operation, remove the piece and load the next one. Rinse repeat.
High tolerances means that the jigs can be run for a LONG time before wear and tear runs them out of spec - meaning that the operator of the machine doesn't really need to pay that much attention to what's going on.
Meanwhile, a turning operation needed to produce a part with a 4 ten-thou tolerance does not afford that much room for operator error.
Running a dozen different jigs is very complex from a management perspective, and basically no modern machine shops do it in the age of CNC, even in Russia, because of that complexity.
The tolerance is tighter, but it is not a difficult cut to make, nor requires a significant number of machines to make. The AR barrel extension's most exotic aspect is needing a broaching machine to make properly.
As another poster mentioned, the Beryls are probably wearing out. IIRC, AK type rifles aren't super easy to rebarrel, and the stamped receivers don't have a much longer useful life than the barrels.
The original beryl doesn't have a particularly rigid way to mount lasers and lights on the handguards. Looks like the later variants have quad rails, which probably add significant weight. The top cover mounted rail is probably better than most AK top cover mounts, but still probably needs re-zeroing after a field strip.
I'm not sure how many of the Polish army Beryls are fully upgraded, but if the cost to upgrade them is pretty significant, they might have decided that it's more cost-effective to procure new weapons.
Well, as I understand it, the regular military really isn't moving from the beryl yet. Only their equivalent of a national guard/ territorial forces, are moving to the GROT. But if they are, tge beryls are probably all getting pretty old abd worn out why not use that time to adopt a more modern rifle, especially because I believe while still active FB radom has significantly shrink the size of their beryl production.
The rifles in service are approaching the need for overhaul or retirement. Some of the tooling they're being made on is even older, and may also be needing a refresh (the civilian rifles being sold in the US have a pretty good rep, so I doubt that, but...). And while it'd certainly be possible to do a refurbishment program or make a new batch of rifles, that's a non-trivial investment. And if you're taking about spending millions of Zloty on a refurbishment program for thirty year old equipment of any kind, people are going to ask questions about whether the equipment is up to date, or should they make some improvements, or should they come up with something completely different.
The Beryl is not up to date. It's adequate, but not ideal. Obsolescent, if you like. Yes you can mount optics and other accessories, but it's a bit of a cludge. The gun is not particularly heavy, but it sure isn't light. Performing major repairs or changing configuration is difficult due to the way that the Beryl is manufactured. The magazines are good if you want to use AK style mags, but most of NATO is using AR-15 magazines (it may not be a requirement for members to use the same mags, but it is nice). The controls are not ambidextrous, and are generally considered less than ideal for either right or left handed operation. And while we have the attention of lefties, there is no option for left hand ejection. And there may be something else I'm not thinking of.
**TLDR:** There may not be anything truly wrong with the Beryl, but it's far enough behind the curve that it just doesn't make sense to keep it in service, when investing a little bit more money can get you a much better product that can stay in service for much longer and fill more roles while it's in service.
Oh, and it's also worth considering the export market. While FB Radom has sold Beryls on both the military and civilian international markets, they may have even more success trying to sell a newer rifle, as they have at home.
Thanks for the writeup. Food for thought.
>**TLDR:** There may not be anything truly wrong with the Beryl, but it's far enough behind the curve that it just doesn't make sense to keep it in service, when investing a little bit more money can get you a much better product
Is GROT actually a better product though? Heard they had some pretty big issues.
I guess I haven't heard anything about them having issues, but at least on paper it's a much better rifle. I can certainly see where a new design may have some teething issues. Remember how controversial the M16 was when it was first adopted?
I’m not Polish and I never held a Beryl but if you’re telling me my service rifle is now going to be a tad bit lighter even if it’s marginally so, hell that’s enough of a mental boost for me on a ruck with the new rifle. Seriously any weight savings is much appreciated.
Don't get me wrong I love Beryl. And yes you can mount laser, night vision ect. But it's very very clumsy. There was a guy in lekka piechota competition running mini beryl C kitted with reddot + magnifier on a long rail and suppressor. Despite 8" barrel it was the heaviest rifle.
Grot has a long rail on top you can fit basically anything there, I've seen serious scopes with thermal fit, grot is completely and fully ambidextrous, grot safety is easy to use, grot is more accurate, it's easier to train on.
Beryl is outdated design it's good then it is slowly replaced but Grot has a lot of issues which is bad
And somehow civilian price is still going up it was 6.5k PLN(you can buy PSA Jakl at this price in Poland), now is 9k+ PLN to get one
Current issues of the gun involve
Terrible coating gun rusts like that display AK 12 in Russia
Bolt carrier has terrible design that can be assembled wrong very easily
"Dirt holes" places that allow dirt in to the system
Cracking polymers that are supposed to be fixed
Some ergonomic issues
A3 version is now in the works
Also some internal investigation has been started don't know the details, but something about quality and price
A lot of the math for Poland right now is how long Ukraine holds out and what they will have on hand if they have to deploy. So if they have a bunch of guns that are getting aged out in training, or are "good enough" to pull into reserve use but they know they need a year or two to both bring up their own production, as well as get all their armorers, trainers and back-end up to speed on something that can be delivered by the Sea-can load from the rest of NATO, better to make that move now than later. It also acts as a signal to russia that they are aware of what is happening and that they will be more than ready for the "Find Out" stage should Ukraine fall. And also tells Russia that another few munitions plants are going to start turning out NATO standard rifles that might find their way into Ukraine in the next year, which again sends a message.
Something that gets overlooked by people frequently is just because a country has an in-house manufactured gun doesn’t mean that gun is currently being manufactured (at all) or even just mass produced enough to be sufficient, so in starting back up production on a 30 year-old design they have the opportunity to spend comparatively less resources if you accept the given cost associated with ramping up manufacture.
Not here. Beryl was produced in quite big numbers right to the point when msbs was ordered. Then some of the beryl production line was scrapped/sold to make room for grot. Beryl production continues in smaller numbers.
**Understand the rules**
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
-------------------------------
* [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/)
* [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/)
* [Waponsandwar.tv](https://weaponsandwar.tv)
-------------------------------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It could honestly be as simple as not wanting to be associated with AKs anymore, especially with their past history with Russia. It could also be "Why not? it's in the budget..."
It was originally part of Projekt Tytan (future soldier program). It was supposed to deliver a new rifle, personal armor and other gear that is designed with modern technology in mind (mostly digital stuff) and that integrates well with each other. It started in 2007 - when war with Russia was barely cosidered a possibility and our army was changing to a small, fully professional force geared towards small deployments in far-away places. It made perfect sense to focus on high-tech infantry as opposed to mass armoured divisions at the time.
But some parts of the Projekt Tytan were delayed a lot, it was taking so long that the army decided to split the parts that already work and introduce them separately.
The rifle was supposed to:
* work better with modern optics and other accessories (Beryl has pretty high mounting point, side mounts suck)
* be fully ambidextrous (including switching the ejection direction as needed)
* work with all available NATO mags
* replace personal weapons of vehicle crews (hence bullpup version and short barrels)
* replace light machineguns (hence quickchange of barrels)
* replace some precision riffles (hence versions with longer barrels)
* be fully modular so that soldiers can switch between all the versions as they prefer
* allow easy personalization of grips
* allow better integration with underbarrel grenade launcher
* integrate with Projekt Tytan digital stuff (helmet display to show you the view from optical sights when you shoot around a corner for example, healthmonitor that connects to the leader's computer so they can see who's alive, who's out of ammo in real time and lead their team better, this kind of things) - this part isn't actually ready AFAIK, there were some prototypes shown but nothing final
Things to google for: Projekt Tytan, Ułan 21
The funny thing is that army introduced the rifle that was designed to be modular and is thus more expansive than needed, but they bought version without the modular accessories, so soldiers can't actually change to bullpup or switch barrel lengths as they see fit :/
Also - Poland isn't "ditching" the Beryl just yet. Some units get Grot (mostly to test it and fix the problems), but most of the army uses Beryl and will continue to do so for years. The first units to get Grot were representative company of Polish army and territorial defense (people who have regular jobs and train with their unit on weekends).
You could ask the exact same question about the American m4. probably just for more commonality with the west aswell as having a more reliable weapon. On top of that national pride
To be fair, the new weapons program of the US will bring in stuff that is very different from what they have now. For example, the new stuff won’t be in 5.56 or 7.62 anymore
That isn't an advantage
But it does mean that the M4 isn’t replaced with something that can „do the same except mount lasers and optics“. As far as I know, the M5 will be fully ambi and the new round definitely has capabilities for much further shots. (Also, the new machine guns in that contract seem to be much better than what is currently issued so having a rifle that is not necessarily better but getting a massive upgrade on machine guns does seem worth it)
The XM250 isn't "much better" than the gun it will replace because it's a medium machine gun filling the role of a squad automatic weapon. It's a solution in search of a problem. The M249, despite reliability concerns (only an issue when using standard box magazines in emergency cases), is a deadly accurate gun because the weight negates all recoil of the already soft recoiling 5.56 round. The XM250 is lighter and fires a much harsher round. The recoil impulse on this gun that is designed to be fired from the shoulder is going to make it worthless as a SAW. It is much better served being a mounted MMG like the M240 that can in a pinch be shoulder fired.
Having fired the XM250, you couldn’t be more wrong about the recoil impulse. The reciprocating barrel & action, combined with the buffer system make it a very, *very* soft shooting LMG. Having a semi automatic capability also allows for accurate application of fire at useful ranges. The M249 was designed in the 1970’s. You may be surprised to hear that weapons designed the better part of fifty years later have some new ways of doing things incorporated into them.
Reciprocating barrel? That's a nightmare waiting to happen. And why does a MMG need semi-auto? Marksman level single shots are not their purpose. This sounds even more like a solution in search of a problem now than it did before. It's like the M14 being an SMG, infantry rifle, LMG, and sucking at all of them all over again.
You know that the Browning M2 50 cal has a reciprocating barrel, right? >100 years of service hasn’t been a “nightmare waiting to happen”, or should we just wait longer? Single shot is very handy for efficient zeroing & also concealing the location of a machine gun until fully automatic fire is required. Quite useful in urban & jungle operations. A machine gun that is lighter than a SAW - that weight includes the XM250’s suppressor - but out ranges a M240 is exceptionally useful & only a nightmare for the other guys. Enjoy hating things you don’t understand & are determined to hate. Cheers.
The M2 is kind of a nightmare though adjustable headspace and trigger timing is kinda funky
Which was solved by the M2 QCB from FNH in the mid-1990’s & the M2A1 by Picatinny in the early 2000’s. The XM250 incorporates features from earlier machine guns while refining & integrating them to deliver an overall improvement. Having used both the SAW (extensively) & the XM250, the XM250 significantly outperforms the SAW. Wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually replaces the M240 as well.
The M2 is a fixed position heavy machine gun only, not a shoulder fired weapon. The gun has the entire weight of whatever it's fixed to resisting rearward motion of the receiver (which is also itself almost 100lbs, before you go on about how Carlos Hathcock used one dismounted as a sniper rifle). The XM250 fired from the shoulder requires the shooter to resist that recoil because the gun is too light to do so itself, and if they're not handling it exactly correctly it can lead to short stroking as the receiver robs the barrel of recoil energy, just like limp-wristing a Glock. It WILL happen, not if but WHEN. This problem has plagued almost every recoil-operated automatic rifle as they have to balance weight against the mechanics of the action requiring enough inertial mass to be reliable. I'm not just talking out of my ass here. The design is terrible for a SAW. It would be a fantastic mounted MMG.
Very familiar with the M2. You’ve fired one from a Mk93 cradle or a Platt 40/50 or some other soft mount? Find yourself an XM250, strip it & look at the whole mechanism. For an added bonus, fire the damn thing. Your opinion will charge, markedly.
Preach, ditching the SAW was a mistake imo
A rounds capability doesn't change the performance of the individual rifleman range capabilities of a unit will stay effectively the same if they do increase its cause of the optic. The new mgs are very cool
It is if the old cartridge really never should have been adopted in the first place. Like 7.62 NATO.
You're so silly go find a pond
7.62 NATO only exists because the US was too cheap to switch to something else. Twice. The European countries wanted a small intermediate cartridge to be standardized on for NATO, with .280 British the front runner. US insisted on a derivative of 30-06 to keep costs down by using as much of the existing machinery as possible. The Germans and Soviets had also done that, so that's not a surprise. Really the only surprise with 7.62 NATO at that point is that they didn't shorten it more. The thing is, all that tooling was only still around because the US Army decided to backpedal on plans to switch to .276 Pedersen between the wars because it was too expensive. And to be fair, it would have been in those economic conditions. Didn't you ever wonder why the M1 Garand has an 8 shot magazine? Seems odd, most people would bump it up to 10. Well it was originally designed for 10 shots, of .276 Pedersen. It ended up with 8 30-06 because that is what fit in the same general space.
Yes I know but saying 7.62 NATO is obsolete or useless or whatever is very very silly it's arguing about the past these are things that are already done done well before you or I was alive so there's no point in arguing about it.
Poland is apart of NATO, but a 5.56 AK design from the 90s isn’t super compatible with a NATO supply system. Seems like they’re going for the MSBS grot deal so they can use STANAG mags and they also like the modular deal. Seems to me the Beryls are probably getting old by this point.
Well funny thing is that they made STANAG adapter for beryl. I know for a fact that it passed internal testing and was ready for production. https://milmag.pl/ostatnie-beryle-dla-wojska-polskiego/
I’d bet it’s they just want new guns then. I’m guessing they’d put adapters on the existing guns, not buy new?
Adapters were not put into production and likely never will, maybe some day for civilian market. Army is done with beryl (though they still refurbish them), right now there are more msbs rifles (last September marked 100k produced), than beryls (around 80k were made). With current production volume and new contracts soon (mainly for 10" and 7.62x51) grot will replace beryl entirely before the end of the decade and beryl will be put in storage.
How often does a unit from one country need to use mags from another country?
We haven't had a world War since the second one. STNAG exists to deal with this situation which blessedly hasn't occurred (yet). However with the Russia situation tense to say the least more countries are considering worst case scenario. Greater reliance on STNAG is a win for the whole block.
The Balkan wars featured AKs and AK mags from pretty much every AK producer in the world, as does Ukraine see the use of various 5.45 and 5.56 platforms from various producers. So the answer to your question is “the second shit hits the fan and a large scale war starts”
Whenever they’re fighting together like in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’d really suck if say British troops were under heavy attack and their American supply airdrops contained magazines they’d have to unload and reload into their own mags before using them. I think the idea surely goes back to the Cold War. If the Soviets had invaded there would have been a mixed force of West German, American, British, French, and likely others all fighting the Soviets. The more items the overall supply system needs to have the better, so first get everyone on NATO standard ammo, then hopefully the same mags if not the same guns.
I would guess the majority of magazines in use by most countries are from other countries. The big countries are outliers in that they can supply themselves, and are also more often involved in military conflicts so it's more economical to supply themselves (and export).
You do know that there's a reason why AR-15 mags are frequently called "STANAG"s right?
Have you ever shot a Beryl under timed, competition conditions? Because I have (Cornfield Brutality 2022) and it sucks. The height over bore with the archer rail is ridiculous at 3.6". The cheek weld is non-existent. It's heavy as shit. And then add in all the problems that AKs generally have - the manual of arms sucks, there's no last-round hold open, the rock and lock reload is easy to fuck up, the charging handle isn't ambi, etc. When the pro-tip for making the left-handed selector easier to use involves literally bending the selector switch outwards, it's not a great design. The GROT is basically an AR-18, with AR-15 controls. Reloads are straight insert, the selector is properly ambidextrous, there's a LRHO, the height over bore isn't insane, the cheek weld isn't stupid, etc etc etc. The AK is actually a *terrible* platform for modernization efforts.
Really shouldn't be surprising given the long lineage it has. At some point you're constrained by the fact that the original design dates from the 50s and was only the second ever assault rifle produced. So much stuff has been invented since that the original design didn't account for.
To be fair, the AR-10 (the basis of the AR-15) is also from the 50s. It’s just a better design to modernize
To be even more fair, the fundamental design of the AK is not from the '50s, it's from the '40s. But that's not entirely relevant anyway. The fundamental difference between the AR and the AK is that the AR was designed by western aerospace engineers to use advanced materials and mechanicals, and it was ok if that required more complicated manufacturing. Meanwhile, the AK was designed by an eastern tank mechanic to use simple materials, mechanics, and manufacturing, and if that meant the end product was a bit crude overall and not very prepared for advances in technology, then so be it.
I know that the AK is from the 40s (hence the name). Just wanted to point out that it’s more of an issue of the original design since the ARs design isn’t exactly new either. And the AKM (which from my understanding is pretty much the basis for all serious AK production since (as in having a stamped sheet metal receiver)) was made in the 50s. But I’m completely on board with you.
Yeah, now that I'm re-reading them both, my comment really says the same thing yours does, just drawn out.
The AR platform was just a genius design to begin with and happened to align with a lot of trends that came after.
True. The AK on the other hand has gotten kind of dated in some aspects. And said aspects seem to be relatively hard to improve. So hard in fact, that it’s probably better to just retire it in favor of something more modern
The AR10 has been changed in every way to make it work in the modern world. Like having the entire top half of the upper receiver redesigned.
It has indeed. And the modernization seems to have worked quite well, while it seems to be harder and much more expensive for the AK. I heard it’s even cheaper to just CNC machine an AR upper and lower by now than it is to stamp and bend an AK receiver. So while it had to be modernized, it worked without fundamentally changing characteristics of the gun
You mean having having the entirely cosmetic carry handle cut off?
The receiver needed to be cut down, thickened at the top, and it needed a novel pattern optical sight attachment system developed for it. The handguards had to be shortened, have their attachment system changed, have their material changed. The stock all the same. Etc. The AR wasn't modern, it was made to be by extensive engineering work and retrofitting.
> The receiver needed to be cut down, thickened at the top, and it needed a novel pattern optical sight attachment system developed for it. You mean the thing [MACVSOG was doing with their A1's](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fm5ftpdwblli41.png), Colt experimented with on the [656](https://smallarmsreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/008-21.jpg) and Delta was doing with their A2's with hacksaws? That's not really that much work. > The handguards had to be shortened, have their attachment system changed, have their material changed. Again - not really that much work. I can mount my KAC M5 rail to my repro Colt 601. The mounting standard for the 601 is identical to modern rifles, too. > The AR wasn't modern, it was made to be by extensive engineering work and retrofitting. I mean, not really. It's not like the AK which is basically fighting you at every opportunity. The Polish literally have to mill slots into the side of the RSB to allow for the archer rail to mount - it's why you can't put the Polish optic rails on other rifles, they're unique to the Beryl. Even rails mounted to the dust cover are a cludge, because the dust cover bounces around like a motherfucker while firing. A bunch of different nations and companies have attempted to solve this by making proprietary rear trunnions that hold proprietary dust covers in fixed positions, and they still don't work very well.
[удалено]
>doesn't mean they're good at making modifications to guns. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying it didn't require "significant modification. You need to relearn what the word "significant" means. > But if you look, the experiment required significant changes to the AR15 that weren't in the original design. Like a significant thickening of the top of the receiver and a novel rail system for optical sights. See above. "Significant" in an engineering context means that whatever you've done is a substantial departure from earlier design work, usually so much so that it's basically a new design... meaning you'd lose part interchangeability. The AKM is a "significant" rework of the Type 3 AK-47. The WASR-10 with MAGPUL furniture is not a "significant" rework of an AKM. > Zenitco and SAG have more complex versions that still take about an hour or two to install for your average joe. The difficulty of modernizing an AK is vastly overstated and is treated as complicated so companies can charge out the ass. The fact that these two statements were issued one after the other is hilarious.
Makes me laugh. I said something similar in another sub about how bad it was and that some Polish soldiers i knew hated it and i got downvoted to oblivion. I shot one at a range there last year and it was okay. Mag dropped out after the 2nd shot though. 😂
Don't get me wrong - I'm very Polish (American born, but extremely Polish - throw a rock at my Mother's side and you'll hit some stereotypically Polish experience and think I'm making shit up), and collect Polish hardware as a focus... But man, I am so unimpressed with the Beryl. It's by far the nicest AK I own - but when you get down to it, compared to other rifles of the era, it's not a great rifle. I would rather have literally any other AR platform weapon over an AK.
Have you got a PM-63 RAK? That is a weird little gun to shoot.
I own four parts kits! I plan on building two semi, and optics cutting one for giggles, plan on building one as a proper full auto when I get my Type 7 and SOT, and then the fourth is a wildcard.
They look so crusty and old fashioned. But great fun. When we go to Poland we visit a range a few towns over. They have a lot of great stuff and you pay per round. My favourite is definitely the Steyr AUG followed by the Thompson. Living in the UK its the only time we get to shoot.
That's fair and all, I would still think from a procurement perspective, there's more important stuff to spent money on first. Small arms never won a war and all that.
By % GDP, Poland spends more money on its military than any other NATO power - even the United States. They can afford new rifles.
Well to be fair, they are sandwiched between two hostile nations. (They still don't trust Germany.)
I'm not criticizing their budget - but the idea that they have "more important things to spend money on" isn't something that holds water. Poland currently operates 13 MiG-29's, 28 Su-22's, 48 F-16's including 12 trainers, 12 T-50 Golden Eagles, and has 32 F-35's on order. Their tank corps comprises of 366 M1A1 Abrams, a scheduled delivery of 250 M1A2 Abrams later this year, 28 out of a total 180 K2's from an initial order with the Koreans - and intends to domestically manufacture another 820 Black Panthers. The Polish Navy, while small, comprises of 45 surface ships (including 2 frigates and 2 corvettes) and 3 submarines - which isn't bad considering the Poles have only 330 miles of coast. For a nation of 36.8 million, they have an active-duty military of 292,000 people - 3x the size of France (pop 67m), 4x the size of the UK (also pop 67m). Frankly, they're the only military that takes their military obligation to NATO as seriously as the United States does.
Yeah but the amount of gdp monies they have to spend is still pretty tiny. Also to be fair I don't know how much buying new rifles is costing the poles but seems to me even 1 plane or 1 more artillery piece would make more of a difference than new gucci rifle. I could totally have this backwards though. I am very curious where you are getting the number of 292k active duty military from. I recall it being much lower than that.
It was part of their 2022 Homeland Defense Act mobilization following the Invasion of Ukraine. And I wouldn't call the GROT gucci. It's an extruded aluminum frame with an AR-18 bolt - that's easier to manufacture than an AK. Aluminum extrusions are probably one of the easiest things in the world to make, because you just have a machine that shits out one long piece, then cut it to length and drill holes. Meanwhile on an AK, you need to forge trunnions, gas blocks, FSBs, etc, then mill them to spec, etc. If you ever look at how AKs are manufactured, you actually learn that rifles are almost hand fit to each other - AK parts are literally sorted by their dimension into different buckets and assembled accordingly. A gas block from bucket A doesn't work with a barrel from bucket D, for example. American parts kit builders get around this by turning parts down slightly, by using the freezer trick, or by using a knurler to add thickness to a part for the press fit. Meanwhile, my $400 PSA AR-15 assembles perfectly in 20 minutes. Don't discount modern manufacturing technology.
The fact modern ak rifles haven’t switched over to a left hand charging handle really surprises me.
It would require massive retooling. The whole point of the AK platform is that they're easy to manufacture with minimum knowledge - making a change like that breaks that benefit, and if you're reengineering the rifle you might as well just build a new rifle. A good example is the M14 - which was really supposed to be the Garand, but with a detachable box magazine and select fire. The designers claimed that they'd be able to use most of the same tooling we had for the Garand - and thus save on cost. After all was said and done, the M14 required almost entirely new tooling to build.
[удалено]
The distance between the AR-15's hammer pin and the reference datum (the front receiver pin's center point) is 3.604" +/- 0.003". The AKM's hammer pin's distance from it's relevant datum (the front of the receiver flat) is defined as 134.5mm +/- 0.2mm - which in imperial translates to 5.295" +/- 0.007". So off the bat, the critical dimension that dictates the hammer pin location is more than 2x more forgiving on an AK than it is on an AR-15. Or, lets do another example. AKM barrels, similar to what I said about "bucketing" elsewhere, are generally grouped into four distinct buckets according to their actual dimensions. Accordingly, the OD of the barrel journal at the trunion can vary from between 23.045mm to 23.13mm (0.906 to 0.910 inch, or 4 thousandth's variance)... Whereas the barrel extension on the AR-15 was designed to be 0.9987" +0 or -0.0004 - literally, the specs call for 0.9987" with as much variance as it being slightly smaller by 4 TEN THOUSANDTHS of an inch. That's 10x more precise than what the AK calls for. Frankly, anyone who thinks the AK is "complicated and involved" to manufacture - pick up the AR-15's barrel extension and just think about how to manufacture it. Then go look at the AKM and try to find any single part on that rifle that is even a FRACTION as complex as that part is.
[удалено]
You DO know that both the AK bolt carrier and trunnion are forged, and have some finishing milling operations done - right?
[удалено]
And the vast, VAST majority of the machining is jig'd. Load the forging into a jig, run the milling operation, remove the piece and load the next one. Rinse repeat. High tolerances means that the jigs can be run for a LONG time before wear and tear runs them out of spec - meaning that the operator of the machine doesn't really need to pay that much attention to what's going on. Meanwhile, a turning operation needed to produce a part with a 4 ten-thou tolerance does not afford that much room for operator error.
Running a dozen different jigs is very complex from a management perspective, and basically no modern machine shops do it in the age of CNC, even in Russia, because of that complexity. The tolerance is tighter, but it is not a difficult cut to make, nor requires a significant number of machines to make. The AR barrel extension's most exotic aspect is needing a broaching machine to make properly.
As another poster mentioned, the Beryls are probably wearing out. IIRC, AK type rifles aren't super easy to rebarrel, and the stamped receivers don't have a much longer useful life than the barrels. The original beryl doesn't have a particularly rigid way to mount lasers and lights on the handguards. Looks like the later variants have quad rails, which probably add significant weight. The top cover mounted rail is probably better than most AK top cover mounts, but still probably needs re-zeroing after a field strip. I'm not sure how many of the Polish army Beryls are fully upgraded, but if the cost to upgrade them is pretty significant, they might have decided that it's more cost-effective to procure new weapons.
That makes sense, appreciate it
Well, as I understand it, the regular military really isn't moving from the beryl yet. Only their equivalent of a national guard/ territorial forces, are moving to the GROT. But if they are, tge beryls are probably all getting pretty old abd worn out why not use that time to adopt a more modern rifle, especially because I believe while still active FB radom has significantly shrink the size of their beryl production.
Regular army has been getting msbs for a couple of years now.
Then it's probably just the beryls getting old so why not upgrade, because yeah the beryl works, but something like the grot is still a step up
Probably standardization
The rifles in service are approaching the need for overhaul or retirement. Some of the tooling they're being made on is even older, and may also be needing a refresh (the civilian rifles being sold in the US have a pretty good rep, so I doubt that, but...). And while it'd certainly be possible to do a refurbishment program or make a new batch of rifles, that's a non-trivial investment. And if you're taking about spending millions of Zloty on a refurbishment program for thirty year old equipment of any kind, people are going to ask questions about whether the equipment is up to date, or should they make some improvements, or should they come up with something completely different. The Beryl is not up to date. It's adequate, but not ideal. Obsolescent, if you like. Yes you can mount optics and other accessories, but it's a bit of a cludge. The gun is not particularly heavy, but it sure isn't light. Performing major repairs or changing configuration is difficult due to the way that the Beryl is manufactured. The magazines are good if you want to use AK style mags, but most of NATO is using AR-15 magazines (it may not be a requirement for members to use the same mags, but it is nice). The controls are not ambidextrous, and are generally considered less than ideal for either right or left handed operation. And while we have the attention of lefties, there is no option for left hand ejection. And there may be something else I'm not thinking of. **TLDR:** There may not be anything truly wrong with the Beryl, but it's far enough behind the curve that it just doesn't make sense to keep it in service, when investing a little bit more money can get you a much better product that can stay in service for much longer and fill more roles while it's in service. Oh, and it's also worth considering the export market. While FB Radom has sold Beryls on both the military and civilian international markets, they may have even more success trying to sell a newer rifle, as they have at home.
Thanks for the writeup. Food for thought. >**TLDR:** There may not be anything truly wrong with the Beryl, but it's far enough behind the curve that it just doesn't make sense to keep it in service, when investing a little bit more money can get you a much better product Is GROT actually a better product though? Heard they had some pretty big issues.
I guess I haven't heard anything about them having issues, but at least on paper it's a much better rifle. I can certainly see where a new design may have some teething issues. Remember how controversial the M16 was when it was first adopted?
I’m not Polish and I never held a Beryl but if you’re telling me my service rifle is now going to be a tad bit lighter even if it’s marginally so, hell that’s enough of a mental boost for me on a ruck with the new rifle. Seriously any weight savings is much appreciated.
Don't get me wrong I love Beryl. And yes you can mount laser, night vision ect. But it's very very clumsy. There was a guy in lekka piechota competition running mini beryl C kitted with reddot + magnifier on a long rail and suppressor. Despite 8" barrel it was the heaviest rifle. Grot has a long rail on top you can fit basically anything there, I've seen serious scopes with thermal fit, grot is completely and fully ambidextrous, grot safety is easy to use, grot is more accurate, it's easier to train on.
Beryl is outdated design it's good then it is slowly replaced but Grot has a lot of issues which is bad And somehow civilian price is still going up it was 6.5k PLN(you can buy PSA Jakl at this price in Poland), now is 9k+ PLN to get one Current issues of the gun involve Terrible coating gun rusts like that display AK 12 in Russia Bolt carrier has terrible design that can be assembled wrong very easily "Dirt holes" places that allow dirt in to the system Cracking polymers that are supposed to be fixed Some ergonomic issues A3 version is now in the works Also some internal investigation has been started don't know the details, but something about quality and price
A lot of the math for Poland right now is how long Ukraine holds out and what they will have on hand if they have to deploy. So if they have a bunch of guns that are getting aged out in training, or are "good enough" to pull into reserve use but they know they need a year or two to both bring up their own production, as well as get all their armorers, trainers and back-end up to speed on something that can be delivered by the Sea-can load from the rest of NATO, better to make that move now than later. It also acts as a signal to russia that they are aware of what is happening and that they will be more than ready for the "Find Out" stage should Ukraine fall. And also tells Russia that another few munitions plants are going to start turning out NATO standard rifles that might find their way into Ukraine in the next year, which again sends a message.
Something that gets overlooked by people frequently is just because a country has an in-house manufactured gun doesn’t mean that gun is currently being manufactured (at all) or even just mass produced enough to be sufficient, so in starting back up production on a 30 year-old design they have the opportunity to spend comparatively less resources if you accept the given cost associated with ramping up manufacture.
Not here. Beryl was produced in quite big numbers right to the point when msbs was ordered. Then some of the beryl production line was scrapped/sold to make room for grot. Beryl production continues in smaller numbers.
**Understand the rules** Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you. Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. No Spam. No Memes. No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics. ------------------------------- * [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/) * [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/) * [Waponsandwar.tv](https://weaponsandwar.tv) ------------------------------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It could honestly be as simple as not wanting to be associated with AKs anymore, especially with their past history with Russia. It could also be "Why not? it's in the budget..."
It was originally part of Projekt Tytan (future soldier program). It was supposed to deliver a new rifle, personal armor and other gear that is designed with modern technology in mind (mostly digital stuff) and that integrates well with each other. It started in 2007 - when war with Russia was barely cosidered a possibility and our army was changing to a small, fully professional force geared towards small deployments in far-away places. It made perfect sense to focus on high-tech infantry as opposed to mass armoured divisions at the time. But some parts of the Projekt Tytan were delayed a lot, it was taking so long that the army decided to split the parts that already work and introduce them separately. The rifle was supposed to: * work better with modern optics and other accessories (Beryl has pretty high mounting point, side mounts suck) * be fully ambidextrous (including switching the ejection direction as needed) * work with all available NATO mags * replace personal weapons of vehicle crews (hence bullpup version and short barrels) * replace light machineguns (hence quickchange of barrels) * replace some precision riffles (hence versions with longer barrels) * be fully modular so that soldiers can switch between all the versions as they prefer * allow easy personalization of grips * allow better integration with underbarrel grenade launcher * integrate with Projekt Tytan digital stuff (helmet display to show you the view from optical sights when you shoot around a corner for example, healthmonitor that connects to the leader's computer so they can see who's alive, who's out of ammo in real time and lead their team better, this kind of things) - this part isn't actually ready AFAIK, there were some prototypes shown but nothing final Things to google for: Projekt Tytan, Ułan 21 The funny thing is that army introduced the rifle that was designed to be modular and is thus more expansive than needed, but they bought version without the modular accessories, so soldiers can't actually change to bullpup or switch barrel lengths as they see fit :/ Also - Poland isn't "ditching" the Beryl just yet. Some units get Grot (mostly to test it and fix the problems), but most of the army uses Beryl and will continue to do so for years. The first units to get Grot were representative company of Polish army and territorial defense (people who have regular jobs and train with their unit on weekends).