[SHOT 2016 Range Day] Fabryka Broni MSBS 556K

DSC03282

Though I didn’t get to shoot the fabled bullpup version of the FB MSBS 556, I did get to shoot the FB MSBS 556K at SHOT 2016 Range Day. Drawing largely from the Magpul Masada, the version of the FB MSBS 556 that I got to shoot was the conventional model, or K model. With an EoTech red dot, I was able to hit steel targets out to 200 yards with ease. My reloads were slightly faster then with a standard Ar-15, however, if I was using a Magpul B.A.D lever equipped Ar-15, my reloads would be identical in speed.

DSC03286

The MSBS 556 K features a folding, adjustable stock. Note the handguard.

Key Observations about the FB MSBS 556 K

  • Takes STANAG magazines.
  • Ambidextrous control.
  • Can be configured for left or right ejection.
  • The model I shot had a 16″ barrel.
  • The FB MSBS has a folding stock, with an adjustable comb and length of pull.
  • The handguard appears to accept a pseudo M-LOK rail.
  • The bolt close/bolt open feature is near the trigger guard and very accessible.
  • Adjustable gas system
  • Ambidextrous charging handles
  • Polymer lower receiver. Aluminum upper receiver
DSC03287

MSBS 556 K Handguard.

DSC03285

MSBS 556 K. Note the ambi controls. The ejection port can be switched to the left or right side depending on if the shooter is left or right handed.

Talking to the company representative, I inquired about the availability for the United States market. The representative told me that “they were still about a year out”. Farbryka Broni will be at booth 1907. I always liked the idea of the Magpul Masada. It is neat to see the design still in development and use. I look forward to the day when these are available in the United States.

DSC03288

Fabryka Broni had their Mod. 96 Mini-Beryl Automatic Carbine available. Fun gun to shoot. Very accurate.



Thomas Gomez

Thomas Gomez currently resides in the mountains of central New Mexico. He has an M.B.A, an Ar-15/M16/M4 armorer certification from Specialized Armament Warehouse as well as a Glock armorer certification. Aside from writing for The Firearm Blog he works as a Clinical Analyst for a large Hospital. He spends his free time farming, ranching, hiking, fly-fishing and hunting in the beautiful forests and prairies of New Mexico. He can be reached at LOADTHATBIPOD@gmail.com


Advertisement

  • Vhyrus

    Damn, a year? Didn’t they say they were a year out LAST year?

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Yes. Handled it last year at SHOT.

      This is a will be a case of miswanting for most people. I walked away thinking “well, I can cross that off the list!”

    • That’s the gun industry for you.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        Well… 3/4 of the industry. When Ruger, CZ, Glock, Colt, and a couple others release something, it’s coming in a month or two.

        Others like Keltec, B&T, Radom apparently, LWRC, FN, yea, basically most others, you’d be a fool to wait on them.

        • FightFireJay

          I wouldn’t put Glock in that category. At least not after the delay on several of their newest pistols.

          Ruger, on the other hand, deserves an industry award!

          • Madcap_Magician

            S&W deserves some credit for the Shield release. Now that was well done.

          • disqus_f62emCdwDh

            Gad, I don’t know about Ruger always being that way. Do you remember the “XGI,” the 7.62 caliber scaled up Mini-14?
            How about their double shotgun? Neither ever saw the light of day or dealer shelves, but both were announced with fanfare in their consumer catalogs.
            Generally though, you are right. Much faster development times than when Mr. Ruger still ran the company.

          • Kivaari

            Ruger and others are known for slow deliveries of new products. Sometimes when they finally show up, the customer is not happy.
            I find Ruger making more crudely made guns than ever before. I was looking at some of the plastic stocked rifles, like the M77/357 only to actually get one in hand after 1.5 years wait, only to see it was so crude, I would buy one. Waiting a year for a Wiley Clapp GP100, was a huge mistake. Ruger makes rugged guns, that share poor quality finishing and horrible trigger pulls.

          • disqus_f62emCdwDh

            While our little discussion is off topic for this thread, you are correct. Ruger can be commended on the one hand for having popularized the over-built investment cast construction, but they took finishing shortcuts all over their revolvers. Creepy and heavy triggers as you mentioned, but also razor sharp chamber mouths in their cylinders, rough brushed finishes on stainless models, sharp edges on hammer checkering, and so forth. They are durable, but bulky because of thick cross-sections of material, perhaps because of the amorphous grain structure of the steel instead of the directional grain of a forging.

          • Kivaari

            You have it. A lighter weight forged S&W is far superior to Ruger DA revolvers.

          • disqus_f62emCdwDh

            To a point, Kivaari. Modern S&W’s since the early 2000s have increasingly used MIM parts within – hands, bolts, extractor stars, hammer block, thumb latch, and so on. They have had “crush fit” barrels ever since the external cross-pin was eliminated in the early 1980s. Very poor sprayed-on finishes on the aluminum snub J-Frame revolvers that are quite fragile and not durable. Let us not forget those dumb key locks embedded into the left side of the frame near that thumb latch, that sometimes lock the action without the owner using the key.
            Sure, they are more uniform, require less hand-work selectively fitting minor parts in the mechanism, but they have also been cheapened.

          • Kivaari

            I only own old “pinned and recessed” S&Ws. Well, not all since I carry a M642. I am not disturbed by the finish wearing on the J-frame aluminum revolvers. Before now, the airweights, all showed wear marks faster than others. In the early part of my career I carried blued .357s. Then as S&W brought out stainless revolvers I went to a M67, then a M66 as soon as available. Memory tells me I paid $123.44 delivered. Blued guns looked like hell in one years as I worked in a ocean beach resort city. You couldn’t escape the sand. Roll you window down and your lap is filled with and. Getting the stainless guns, which were NOT better, they simply didn’t show the wear as much as blued guns. I think they actually wore out faster due to the soft stainless. I’ve packed a M642 for several decades. Are the Centennials durable? Maybe not. I hardly shoot it, since it is a pocket gun, and was my backup to a Glock 17 or 34.
            Today it is a backup to a Glock 19.
            The internals are not as good as they were, and they are horrible to reassemble, without having jigs and fixtures to hold pieces in place.
            I don’t like the key safety, but I just ignore them. The old model K-frame guns are much easier to work on. There are little short cuts you will find inside them as well. Take the side plate off and it has the nice shiny bar looking at you, flip it over, and you find S%W didn’t polish the back side. Remove it and polish it and the trigger pull improves. Gun makers seem to thin if it is out of sight it doesn’t matter. It does.
            An issue with the pinned barrel models is the bore is often pushed inward from the pin. You can look down the bore with back lighting from the window, and see the “reverse dimple”. That could effect accuracy.
            I wouldn’t buy a modern Colt. I have had enough Rugers to tell me no more of them.

          • disqus_f62emCdwDh

            I don’t recall the J-frame being much different than a K except for smaller pieces. As long as you have the Brownell’s rebound slide tool, you are golden. Without it, you’d curse a blue streak.
            I have accidentally removed the sprayed on finish on an aluminum “stainless” J-frame using a “Wipe Away” citrus based lead removal cloth! One cannot clean these revolvers of powder and lead residue without running into this. That was appalling.
            I agree, polishing the backside of the rebound slide, chamfering the corners off it, and polishing the spring tunnel are all part of improving an S&W. Agree, there is no Colt save the 1911 worth buying anymore. Their revolvers were even more finicky and lacked durability in double-action firing than a Smith or Ruger.
            The only thing is that the Rugers have the fundamental strength and only need the detail work done. When a decent smith puts in a trigger pull, polishes everything, it will be a faithful companion to your grandchildren if the Second Amendment lasts that long.
            Since evidently you are an LEO, be safe out there, God bless.

          • Kivaari

            A retired LEO. Old guy. I worked around guns from high school to today. The Centennial is a bear to put back together. I gave one to my daughter. When her husband got back from Iraq, he decided to clean it, like he did with his M249. Oops. Without the tools, it takes at least 3 hands, maybe 4 to get those little parts back in place.
            A K-frame is a dream to work on. My mistake is I gave her my old variation and bought a new one with that damn key safety. Even though S&W offered a version without the key, I couldn’t find one for sale. 10 years later, it still works. I don’t mind the wear, as it gives them character. Use ’em don’t abuse ’em.

          • disqus_f62emCdwDh

            There you go.
            Never had a Centennial apart, maybe getting that truncated hammer into place is the biggest problem. I’ve worked on J’s, K’s, and N’s and had an I-frame .32, N-frame Triple Lock, N-frame Registered Model .357, among others. Favorite J was the 649 Bodyguard that a late LASD friend of mine recommended. Great little .38.

        • Kivaari

          It is much harder for the European companies to get their guns in to the market. They can’t import any critical parts, so they must build a factory or contract out all the serious gun making. I no longer look to Colt for anything other than AR15-type rifles.

  • Jake

    Every time you call the MSBS a Masada based design, you make a fool out of yourself.

    • Could you thoroughly explain why you feel it’s not a derivative of the Masada? Especially when the FB Radom guys themselves say it is.

      • Jake

        Do your own homework before you post. It should be job requirement for someone like you.
        Simply looking at the fact, that the design process started in the same year, for both platforms, should settle that bs.

        • Jake

          A big old firearm company founded in 1922, copied the design of a garage based accessory company, founded in 1999…..

          yeah, it sounds legit.

          • FightFireJay

            So you have zero facts to present, in any direction?

            How about a company founded in 1852 copying the design of a company founded in 1963?

            S&W copied the Glock for their Sigma firearms. Even the barrels were swappable… and they lost in court when sued by Glock.

            Please show us your “homework” before posting. Or do you plan on supporting your stance with ad hominem attacks alone?

          • nadnerbus

            That’s not an argument, or evidence. That is a poor rationalization. I don’t know the history of the rifle, but just a quick Google image search shows me that even the internals like bolt, carrier, and recoil spring are strikingly similar, if not quite identical.

            You should probably actually back up your claim, because right now you look like you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • zjake

            It was explained above. You missed such a significant difference, like the common receiver between carbine and bullpup.
            There’s no other platform on the planet with that ability, let alone ACR.

          • nadnerbus

            Well, no one is arguing that they haven’t taken the Masada idea and innovated on it, just that it started with the Masada. A generic blocky shell for the action in the prototype doesn’t necessarily change that. It’s the action, layout, and features that count, all of which are more or less the same between rifles.

            The bullpup conversion is unique to them, I’ll give that.

          • Jake

            The bolt is very similar with the AR-18 bolt as well. That’s where all of them got the inspiration.
            The design started in about the same time for both rifles, that’s why it’s not that easy, for a foreign company, to get their hands on some US prototype and copy it.
            I was following the design of this rifle for a long time and it was very obvious how the design evolved and where it comes from. It’s only later, when the external look was finalized, that everyone, not familiar with the design, started screaming ACR ripoff.
            I would expect someone getting paid to inform others about firearms to know that by now, instead of repeating the same BS.

          • BrandonAKsALot

            Just like the SCAR and G36. Every design in history was inspired by other ideas and designs. No harm in that and no need to reinvent the wheel.

            The MSBS obviously took inspiration in some of its design from the Masada/ACR. FB has traditionally done this and it’s sensible and logical. Why start from nothing when there’s a basic working idea? They generally produce designs that are leaps and bounds better than their counter parts anyway. Being similar=/=copying.

          • Kivaari

            Especially if the parties involved have a contract regarding the use of design features.

          • I said it was a derivative, not a copy.

          • BrandonAKsALot

            That part was actually directed toward the dude getting very upset over all this.

          • Laionidas

            Might I jump in here and perhaps provide some outsider’s insights, as someone with comparatively limited knowledge of rifle internals? I think Jake is being overly agressive in both his style of reply and denial of Masada origins of the MSBS. However he might have point. The external design is probably 95% Masada, but it is simply illogical for a platform for which the design of the internals started that far back to have copied its internal workings from the Masada as well. When that Krzysztof stated that the MSBS is similar to the Masada, he might have been referring to the external design and/or the internal workings. That still does not mean they actually (partially) copied the internals of the Masada. The key is, I think, in the original inspiration taken from the AR-18: this could simply be a case of convergent evolution.

          • Laionidas

            Actually, it should probably be classified as parallel rather than convergent evolution. The core principle is the same in either case.

          • Why is it impossible for the internals to be derived from the Masada? I have never seen the insides of the developmental models, so I don’t know what mechanisms they used, but the current design is clearly a Masada derivative, and Fabryka Broni says so.

          • Laionidas

            Because it just doesn’t make much sense timeline wise. For the MSBS internals to be ‘Masada derived’, the MSBS designers would either have had to throw their original ideas out of the window entirely at some point, or been picking their noses untill that date. Can the internals show some Masada inspired features, just like the externals? Yes, of course, but the core design probably predates Masada influence. Then there’s also the point of the MSBS intended to have a bullpup variant from the onset.

          • Kivaari

            Looks damn close to me.

          • Kivaari

            International patents and copyrights usually remain in use, unless the Chinese decide to screw over the patent holder.

          • Kivaari

            Roughly 30 years ago there was a Brit gun designer that made a bullpup that look like an AR18, juggled around. Including the little dog-leg bolt handle. Ian Hogg said it had nothing to do with the AR18, even though nearly every part bore a striking resemblance. It was his friends new design. It is hard to convince others when the visuals scream another story. Gun designers seem to copy someone else’s work, and say they arrived at the same place by shear accident.
            There have not been many seriously new designs, just materials and manufacturing technologies.

        • iksnilol

          Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

          • Jake

            here it is.
            You can see it’s origins.

          • Kivaari

            Let me get this straight. The maker’s representative affirms it is using the engineering it shares with the other rifle and the parts are similar. Somehow, the representative for the builder not only claims they share the design, but to the naked eye of the author, that comparison should be ignored and considered a lie.

        • ostiariusalpha

          The MSBS went through a pretty radical change between 2009 & 2010, when the design became very Masada-like. The resemblance only became stronger as more design iterations were developed.

          • Jake

            Apples and oranges. Those three pictures actually show the evolution of the design, and prove it has nothing to do with ACR.
            What you have in the first image are the engineering prototypes. The second image are the external and ergonomics prototype and the last one is the two merged together in the full rifle.
            The team working on the engineering prototypes, were only looking at function, reliability and didn’t work on external looks. They couldn’t care less that their rifle looked likea brick. They were not interested in how it looks. There was a completely different team working on the externals.

            Got that? Two teams, two very different looks. That until they got everything working how they wanted and then merged the two in the finished platform.

          • Jake

            The guys working on the brick looking prototype set the fundamental properties of the design.
            It’s funy you don’t consider that early prototype a “masada based” design, when in fact that ugly prototype is the actual working platform, packaged in the external cool shell.

          • Jake

            This image was posted by Remov on military photos forum back in 2011, before the platform was merged into the final shape.
            It should explain everything.

          • ostiariusalpha

            So, basically your point seems to be that they made the MSBS resemble the Masada on the inside before deciding to just go ahead and make the outside look like the Masada also. Got it.

          • So, when I ask Krzysztof whether the rifle is related to the Masada, and he says “yes”, and when I look inside the gun, and it looks exactly like a Masada with some welcome detail improvements, is all that also a part of the conspiracy to defame Greater Poland?

          • Wosiu

            What Krzysztof? Give me the name, and I will know what to do with such a idiot.

            No, you simply lie or dont understand. MSBS dont looks internaly like a Masada.

          • Wosiu

            Krzysztof Koziel…

            This guy English is minimal, he even cant properly pronounce word “bull-pup”, so, if you ask him if MSBS is based on Klingon blaster, his probably answer will be: “yes, of course”.

        • Going to SHOT Show, asking the reps from the company, and getting an answer in the affirmative isn’t doing my homework!?

          • Wosiu

            No. Because FB Radom is only manufacturer, MSBS was developed by WAT. And reps of FB Radom are known for their poor English.

    • Thomas Gomez

      Hello Jake.

      I spoke to the engineer here at SHOT. He said it was very similar to the Masada. The Polish special forces briefly used the Remington version of the Masada. Can YOU tell me what is different between the MSBS and the Masada? I have spent a lot of time with the Bushmaster ACR and this look near identical.

  • Jambo

    I will wait. Barrel looks a bit thin, but I’m sure there will be other options available.

  • kregano

    A shame the bullpup wasn’t there.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    reloads with BAD lever

    lol. We found the one guy who still uses that. Take that garbage off 🙂

    • Twilight sparkle

      I’ve had bad levers cause two completely different malfunctions multiple times in two separate guns. I stopped using them after that.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        Exactly. You and everyone else that had an ND, or a malfunction, or just ultimately saw how it was really only a range-useful device.

        • Twilight sparkle

          I never had any negligent discharge issues, I think the lever was far enough forward to avoid that with most triggers. What happen to me was my 6920 wouldn’t lock open on the last round which really defeated the purpose of the lever, and I had a gun which appeared to be short stroking but there wasn’t a gas issue, the lever just held the release open enough to cause friction on the carrier that kept it from cycling. I did have two guns that worked fine with it but I didn’t want to risk any more issues.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            I watched two people release their slide with the lever, trigger went into trigger guard, and hit their stupid light “competiton” triggers. Lots of things wrong there, but finger starting off inside the trigger guard to release the bolt is just a bad idea.

          • Twilight sparkle

            That just sounds like an excuse to me. The lever isn’t that close to the trigger and you don’t really need to stick your finger in the guard if memory serves me correctly.

    • nadnerbus

      My room mate has one on his rifle and loves it, even though it was causing the bolt to fail to lock open on the last round when he was first getting used to it. I guess it can be trained around, but it seems like a really likely point for failure, just chilling inside the trigger guard. I personally can’t stand it.

    • iksnilol

      I never understood what it does 😛

      • nadnerbus

        It’s just an arm attached to the bolt release on the left side of the receiver that extends down into the trigger guard, so that the bolt can be dropped with the firing hand instead of the support hand. If it sounds like a kludge, that’s because it pretty much is.

        • JumpIf NotZero

          It’s helpful for locking the bolt to the rear with your firing hand never leaving the controls. But that really only applies to on the range, and for people that don’t know how to clear malfunctions.

    • Thomas Gomez

      I use my BAD lever for clearing malfunctions and administrative tasks. It is still faster to reload by using the bolt release. I have never had a problem with a BAD lever. If your rifle is not machined correctly you WILL have problems.

  • Maxpwr

    I like reading about all the foreign made firearms, but unless they set up a US manufacturing plant we are never going to see them in the US.

    • Jake

      and that is not their fault, but your NRA. NRA endorsed the import bans, to protect the big donations from the local manufacturers.

      • Maxpwr

        That was 45+ years ago in a different era with different people. Not the NRA since 1977 when the revolt happened against the appeasers. The intent in 1968 was not to ban any commercially manufactured firearm from import, but military surplus the manufacturers had a tough time competing against. I think it was bad, too, but protectionism is a feeling which ran deep back then. Blame Congress and politicians like G H.W. Bush and Clinton who twisted the law after it was passed. The SIG-AMT and Beretta BM59 were specifically approved for import just after the 1968 law was passed so the intent was never to ban semi-auto imports like our politicians have done.

      • nadnerbus

        Maxpwr owns the NRA? Hey Max, can you hook up Nathaniel with a tour of the NRA museum collection that is in storage?

      • Kivaari

        That import ban even covered WW1 – 2 era bolt action rifles. The NRA has screwed up over the years, but they are fighting back. The NRA paid a price when they did not stand up solidly protecting the gun rights of we the people.
        It would be hard to say they continue to seek import bans in another Chamberlin Appeasement move. They learned that appeasement is just a delaying tactic. That camel is in the tent and is crapping on the carpet now.
        We need a new cleaning crew elected in November.

    • BrandonAKsALot

      Supposed to be happening. I’m really hoping it actually does, but it was supposed to be running by this point. At least we’re getting Polish chf barrels in now for our AKs.

  • Dracon1201

    The bullpup is the only version that interests me. I’ll wait for the review.

  • Vitor Roma

    The gun seems to be really well thought. Since it is easy to change ejection side, if they manage a decent trigger on the bullpup, it will be a hit.

  • FightFireJay

    “The handguard appears to accept a pseudo M-LOK rail”

    Would that be a Magpul MOE attachment, since it’s based on a rifle that used that?

  • BattleshipGrey

    I hope within that year they look at introducing the bullpup version too. Since they’re interested in Magpul’s firearms designs, they should look at producing the PDR as well.

    • hikerguy

      They are working on a PDW version for tankers, truck drivers, etc. It will be a shorter version of the MSBS bullpup. While looking sort of like the PDR, it does not have the mid-eject the PDR has.

  • Kivaari

    Those are fine looking rifles. I hope they work well and can grab enough market share to keep them around.

  • LOL–whatever—