AR Sponsor
Thoughts on the BRN-4, Brownells 416D clone? (Page 2 of 2)
Member
Joined:
Oct 2024
Posts:
198
EE: 100% (9)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Evil_Ed: I was legit surprised at how well the BRN4 handled having a can on; I've seen way too many HK 416 vids where shooting with a can and the brass is coming out at 1:00. I guess Brownells and/or their barrel vendor tightened the gas port up enough so it's not horrifically over gassed? People should remember that the "ejection chart" only applies to milspec DI guns. The HK416 uses different spec'd parts designed for longevity that result in different secondary performance indications. The example given above isn't due necessarily to "over gassing", but rather to the fact that the twisted multi-wire ejector(imagine a mini geissele super 42 braided wire spring) spring that HK uses is actually a fair amount less stiff than a USGI ejector spring and thusly causes a different ejection pattern. The real indicator on HKs is bolt speed. An HK can have the same bolt speed as a DI AR, yet have brass throw that, if interpreted by DI metrics, would appear as if the gun were over gassed because it's getting the expended casing out of the ejection port a little slower than a milspec DI gun due to a slightly weaker ejection spring. Ejection pattern depends on bolt speed minus ejector spring strength. I.E. how far will the BCG move rearward before the ejector finally pushes the spent casing out of the ejection port. A stiff ejector spring will do so quicker, allowing the casing to impact the brass defelctor at an angle that throws the brass in a different direction (more towards the rear) than a weaker ejection spring that throws the casing later in the rearward cycle that causes the casing to impact the rear of the ejection port opeing itself rather than the brass deflector, which results in a more forward throw. I have worked on hundreds of 416's that have had all of the anodizing worn off on the rear of the ejection port, with virtually no wear to the brass deflector because they were run hard with legacy AAC cans(very bad gas retention in the system) that just kept chugging along for tens and tens of thousands of rounds. These guns showed a terribly strong forward throw of the spent casings according to the brass throw chart, but they never failed the operators. Of course the benefit is that you will never need to change an HK ejector spring for the entire life of the gun, even if you burn out barrels past 60k round count. Downside is that it appears overgassed, which doesn't "feel" right with people raised on DI systems. Conversely, Geissele has been known to sell guns for govt. use with 11.5 barrels that are overgassed for reliability, that have even stronger than milspec ejector springs to make the brass throw seem correct according to the chart, but they actually have faster bolt speeds. I have worked on literally thousands of G rifles for the govt. and have witnessed this first hand. This quite violent cycle also lead to a G rifle breaking one of their super-dee-duper extractors in under 10k rounds during testing. Meaning they have significantly more stress on the components due to the gassing. But, on a good note, the G barrels out performed almost all the other platforms being tested(including noveske and DD) except HK, so they have that going for them. Second best still wins contracts when other factors are involved(politics, not price point). |
| So, I picked up one of the original OSS K cans the other day and was debating on trying to run it on my 10.4 inch BRN- upper. Has anyone on here that has the BRN-4, or H&K MR 556, run a flow thru can on their upper? If so, did you have any issues with reliability, malfunctions, and so on? |
|
Originally Posted By jmh556: So, I picked up one of the original OSS K cans the other day and was debating on trying to run it on my 10.4 inch BRN- upper. Has anyone on here that has the BRN-4, or H&K MR 556, run a flow thru can on their upper? If so, did you have any issues with reliability, malfunctions, and so on? Flow cans shouldn’t affect gassing enough to need any changes from when unsuppressed. Only exception might be the Sig cans, IIRC those were fairly gassy for flow designs. BRN4 is gassed pretty conservatively compared to the HK’s, which are overgassed and oversprung with heavy tungsten powder buffers. Standard carbine spring and H1 or H2 buffer should be just fine. As per the FRT thread, there’s an exception for those, which require the gun to be overgassed to work with that trigger design. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: Flow cans shouldn’t affect gassing enough to need any changes from when unsuppressed. Only exception might be the Sig cans, IIRC those were fairly gassy for flow designs. BRN4 is gassed pretty conservatively compared to the HK’s, which are overgassed and oversprung with heavy tungsten powder buffers. Standard carbine spring and H1 or H2 buffer should be just fine. As per the FRT thread, there’s an exception for those, which require the gun to be overgassed to work with that trigger design. Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. I think I'll install a Hux muzzle device and give it a go with the OSS can. |
| It would be nice if Brownell's offered their 13.7 barrel in the chrome lined heavy profile. I think that would be a perfect candidate to cut down to a 12.5 barrel. I have their nitride taper profile 14.5 upper and that thing is surprisingly accurate. My 10.4 has the heavy chrome lined barrel and shoots pretty good as well, just a little chunky for such a short gun. |
|
Originally Posted By jmh556: It would be nice if Brownell's offered their 13.7 barrel in the chrome lined heavy profile. I think that would be a perfect candidate to cut down to a 12.5 barrel. I have their nitride taper profile 14.5 upper and that thing is surprisingly accurate. My 10.4 has the heavy chrome lined barrel and shoots pretty good as well, just a little chunky for such a short gun. Surprisingly, the 16” midweight upper with 9” quad rail feels a bit lighter in the hand than a 14.5” G super duty. I was a little surprised by that. I’m still a little torn between a 10.4” with a Cat WB or a 13.7” with a turbo K, 9” quad on the 10.4 and 11” on the 13.7 works out to identical weights between the two. Eotech on the shorty and a razor on the longer one tips the scales a bit more. Still waiting on an Iris-4 to get a light and LAM at a really nice cost/weight ratio. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: Surprisingly, the 16” midweight upper with 9” quad rail feels a bit lighter in the hand than a 14.5” G super duty. I was a little surprised by that. I’m still a little torn between a 10.4” with a Cat WB or a 13.7” with a turbo K, 9” quad on the 10.4 and 11” on the 13.7 works out to identical weights between the two. Eotech on the shorty and a razor on the longer one tips the scales a bit more. Still waiting on an Iris-4 to get a light and LAM at a really nice cost/weight ratio. I'm thinking the 13.7 with the 11 inch quad rail would be a good setup, or chop that barrel down to 12.5 with the quad rail. |
|
I’m aware that everyone loves the new 1.93” hotness in LPVO mounts, but am I the only one annoyed by the taller receiver on the 416? 1.54” standard cantilever mounts are all just on the cusp of being too tall, and options for 1.3” to 1.4” mounts are pretty fucking slim. And the only one I could find in stock that doesn’t have a 20 MOA cant is the $300 G national match low mount. Little annoying having to drop extra $ and go through the annoyance of leveling the damn thing when one of the reasons I got the EBR-7F Razor is because it comes in a decent mount. |
I bought a set of Troy shorter AR sights, as they're designed for the taller deck height of the 416 and clones, giving the same height over bore of a standard set of AR sights with it - and then mounted an EOTech...which is tall enough so the sights won't co-witness through it at all  If the EOTech battery dies, I need to rip off the optic to use the irons. I've actually got a set of fixed HK 416 sights on my BRN180 upper as that also has a similar taller deck height...works great, with a low mounted Sig MSR (maybe lower 1/4-1/3rd). I'm half-tempted to move the EOTech to something else, or see if there's a lower optic mount that'll fit the thing and bring it lower...but the height also makes it nicer for NOD use |
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he pulled the pin on another grenade...
|
Originally Posted By Evil_Ed: I bought a set of Troy shorter AR sights, as they're designed for the taller deck height of the 416 and clones, giving the same height over bore of a standard set of AR sights with it - and then mounted an EOTech...which is tall enough so the sights won't co-witness through it at all If the EOTech battery dies, I need to rip off the optic to use the irons. I've actually got a set of fixed HK 416 sights on my BRN180 upper as that also has a similar taller deck height...works great, with a low mounted Sig MSR (maybe lower 1/4-1/3rd). I'm half-tempted to move the EOTech to something else, or see if there's a lower optic mount that'll fit the thing and bring it lower...but the height also makes it nicer for NOD use Shorty’s got an XPS and steel mbus. It works well enough, it’s a comfortable height for shooting on my feet. It’s just a smidge taller than the lower 1/3 height I prefer, which actually is around the 1.54” that most lpvo mounts are. Think the 416 upper is around 7/32” or 0.23” taller than standard, so an XPS on the 416 brings it up to roughly the same height as the EXPS, give or take 0.02” Issue I found is that once you’ve got an eyebox to deal with, repeatable presentation matters more, and I usually come up with the reticle in the lower half on the eotech. Hopefully the 1.35” G mount will end up right in the sweet spot for me. I still don’t see how folks use 1.93” and 2.26” lpvos in prone, my neck hurts just thinking about it. Only thing I’m not looking forward to is figuring out how the LAM fits with it. Might end up slapping that bastard on the side rail and dealing with the offset, putting one in front of an LPVO sucks. |
|
So, the G mount I ordered came in. The “30mm high power short mount,” 1.3” height, 0 MOA cant. It’s a perfect fit for those that like ~1.5” LPVO mounts on standard receivers. Found out that Arasaka’s quick leveling kit does not work with this mount due to lack of clearance. Hurray, I always enjoy leveling scopes… Think I’ll hold onto the Vortex mount and throw it on the EE after the contract overruns dry up, cloners will be all over those things once they can’t be found anymore. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: So, the G mount I ordered came in. The “30mm high power short mount,” 1.3” height, 0 MOA cant. It’s a perfect fit for those that like ~1.5” LPVO mounts on standard receivers. Found out that Arasaka’s quick leveling kit does not work with this mount due to lack of clearance. Hurray, I always enjoy leveling scopes… Think I’ll hold onto the Vortex mount and throw it on the EE after the contract overruns dry up, cloners will be all over those things once they can’t be found anymore. Have you looked at the Nightforce mounts? Check out the link below to find your optimal height. They don't list any prices, just have to find a dealer that has them such as Expert Voice, Euro Optic, etc... I currently run a Steiner P4Xi in a Midwest Industries 1.5 mount on my 14.5 BRN-4 and it's fairly comfortable to shoot while prone, but I will be searching for one of the dealers that sells the Nightforce mounts and try to score the 1.375 height mount. https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescope-accessories/mounts/x-treme-duty-ultralite-unimount-titanium-alloy |
|
Originally Posted By jmh556: Have you looked at the Nightforce mounts? Check out the link below to find your optimal height. They don't list any prices, just have to find a dealer that has them such as Expert Voice, Euro Optic, etc... I currently run a Steiner P4Xi in a Midwest Industries 1.5 mount on my 14.5 BRN-4 and it's fairly comfortable to shoot while prone, but I will be searching for one of the dealers that sells the Nightforce mounts and try to score the 1.375 height mount. https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescope-accessories/mounts/x-treme-duty-ultralite-unimount-titanium-alloy Originally Posted By jmh556: Originally Posted By rb889: So, the G mount I ordered came in. The “30mm high power short mount,” 1.3” height, 0 MOA cant. It’s a perfect fit for those that like ~1.5” LPVO mounts on standard receivers. Found out that Arasaka’s quick leveling kit does not work with this mount due to lack of clearance. Hurray, I always enjoy leveling scopes… Think I’ll hold onto the Vortex mount and throw it on the EE after the contract overruns dry up, cloners will be all over those things once they can’t be found anymore. Have you looked at the Nightforce mounts? Check out the link below to find your optimal height. They don't list any prices, just have to find a dealer that has them such as Expert Voice, Euro Optic, etc... I currently run a Steiner P4Xi in a Midwest Industries 1.5 mount on my 14.5 BRN-4 and it's fairly comfortable to shoot while prone, but I will be searching for one of the dealers that sells the Nightforce mounts and try to score the 1.375 height mount. https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescope-accessories/mounts/x-treme-duty-ultralite-unimount-titanium-alloy That unimount is unobtainium with 0 MOA cant. No one carries it, I checked like 14 different online stores looking for it. Everyone has the 20 MOA cant version, which sucks on an LPVO on 1X. Might could try calling to order directly from NF, but their online store only has the company store bullshit, T shirts and coffee cups. I was a little irritated by this. The Geissele is basically a better version of what Vortex shipped with the scope, I have no complaints about it, aside from having to level it the old fashioned way. Well, that, and it’s $300. The Vortex contract mount kinda sucks, the 1/2” nuts for the clamps have to be fully loosened with a wrench to take the damn thing off your rail. PRI also makes a low mount, though it doesn’t have the same reviews and track record as the Geissele. Also not sure if they have a recoil lug or not, and I don’t think the unimounts do, either. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: That unimount is unobtainium with 0 MOA cant. No one carries it, I checked like 14 different online stores looking for it. Everyone has the 20 MOA cant version, which sucks on an LPVO on 1X. Might could try calling to order directly from NF, but their online store only has the company store bullshit, T shirts and coffee cups. I was a little irritated by this. The Geissele is basically a better version of what Vortex shipped with the scope, I have no complaints about it, aside from having to level it the old fashioned way. Well, that, and it’s $300. The Vortex contract mount kinda sucks, the 1/2” nuts for the clamps have to be fully loosened with a wrench to take the damn thing off your rail. PRI also makes a low mount, though it doesn’t have the same reviews and track record as the Geissele. Also not sure if they have a recoil lug or not, and I don’t think the unimounts do, either. That sucks that only 20 MOA version for the NF Unimount is available. I have a 0 MOA 1.50 Unimount for my NX8 and it does not have a recoil lug. I have several Geissle mounts for my other LPVOs and I have to say that they are quality mounts. |
|
Originally Posted By ricks2456: The adjustable gas block on the Caracal is what makes it stand out compared to the BRN-4. For less money, the Caracal offers a similar platform that performs even better when running a suppressor. I’m not going to knock the 816 since it has the direct lineage from the 416 -> 516 -> 816 and I think it’s a solid design with the AGB. However, it does have a goofy barrel profile (just as bad as the original ACR’s M4 barrel) and there’s zero aftermarket for it. I can think of at least five vendors I can have 416/clone parts ship from tomorrow. I’m not even sure who sells the 816 rifle/upper aside from Caracal direct. Price seems about even with the BRN-4 that way as well. A total deal compared to the MR556 though. It seems like a decent design and I’d probably prefer it to the 516, Caracal just doesn’t seem like they care about the US market at all and that’s a shame. |
Support the Firearms Policy Coalition and help save the Second Amendment: https://www.firearmspolicy.org
|
Originally Posted By ricks2456: The adjustable gas block on the Caracal is what makes it stand out compared to the BRN-4. For less money, the Caracal offers a similar platform that performs even better when running a suppressor. Difference is mainly in the handguard design, and modularity. Not a fan of how the 816 mounts up, though I do wish we could get the QD Haenel/B&T 416 clone handguards, those were pretty nice. Compared to the 416 and brn4, the caracal has zero aftermarket support, you’re stuck with whatever comes on the rifle, and spare parts are nigh-impossible to get. If you want an AGB, you can get one for the 416 and brn4, they’re a few hundred bucks more than the gas blocks that brownells offers. Only issue is that they aren’t always in stock. I’m a big fan of simple, auto-regulating gas blocks, there’s nothing to go wrong, and fewer small parts. The Brn is a bit undergassed for this design, but that’s mainly due to Faxon/Brownells expecting people to suppress these, in that case, they’re gassed quite nicely, no adjustment needed. And of course, the gas port can be drilled out if desired. |
| 9 hole review just released part one of a 4 part series they are shooting the HK with the can you’re talking about. I’ve had the legacy McX and the Virtus and I would take the BRN-4 over that any day. Regular guy training has 21k round review on his that’s worth watching. I have the complete HK MR556 A4 16.5” and a BRN-4 11” upper. I have a 13.7” BRN-4 barrel cut to 11 by D Wilson. |
|
Saw those, the 21k review from RGT is impressive, especially with the gun surviving a “kaboom” event. They just use a 9310 bolt, I thought the chrome bolts were S7. Anyway. Say what you will, but Brownells makes some of the best piston uppers on the market. H&K has got to be frothing at the mouth over the lost sales, lol. Also interesting, Chris dropped an RB trigger in his rifle without any issues. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: Saw those, the 21k review from RGT is impressive, especially with the gun surviving a “kaboom” event. They just use a 9310 bolt, I thought the chrome bolts were S7. Anyway. Say what you will, but Brownells makes some of the best piston uppers on the market. H&K has got to be frothing at the mouth over the lost sales, lol. Also interesting, Chris dropped an RB trigger in his rifle without any issues. Brownells hasn’t made, much less sold, enough for HK to take notice, esp since Brownells hasn’t had them in stock for a while to sell in the first place. |
Your painted rifle is ugly, but I’m uglier, so send it to me and I’ll make it look good!
If it weren’t for double standards, we’d have no standards at all.
If it weren’t for double standards, we’d have no standards at all.
|
Originally Posted By cryo_tech: I am doing a Poor-16. Which is kind of actually what the 416 was supposed to be. 416D lower, a BRN4 and a Sig 516 upper. They’re fun. I’ve been setting up a 10” upper to fit what BrassFacts referred to as the “field rifle,” concept, a lightweight, stripped down rifle meant to be carried far more than it gets used, with an emphasis on reliability and durability rather than capability. Would like to try a G36K for this. Playing around with a TA31 again for this setup, little less aggravating than I recall, but still irritating having to change my length of pull to fit the scope. I’ll probably end up with a 3x24 ACOG, fixes the LOP issue, and lets me slap it in a lower ADM mount to make the top dot a little less floaty. |
Thoughts on the BRN-4, Brownells 416D clone? (Page 2 of 2)
AR Sponsor