TFB’s Weight Omnibus Part 3.1: Stragglers!


The most consistent request I received in the comments of my Weight Omnibus posts (if you didn’t catch them, here are Part I, Part II, and Part III) was to continue to expand the content of this series, both in the guns measured and the analysis of them. Further analysis will have to wait until another day, but earlier this week I received the chance to weigh six more firearms to add to the 58 I weighed for my original three posts. So, here is the TFB Weight Omnibus Part 3.1: Stragglers!



Weight, Rifle: 3.110 kg, 6.858 lb

Weight, Magazine: Same as 64, 0.116 kg, 0.256 lb



60. CZ S805 BREN (Soon-to-be SBR)

Weight, Pistol w/ Adapter: 3.130 kg, 6.902 lb

Weight, Stock: 0.370 kg, 0.816 lb

Weight, Magazine: Same as 64, 0.116 kg, 0.256 lb

0210161750 0210161749b



Weight, Rifle: 2.602 kg, 5.737 lb

Weight, Magazine: 0.110 kg, 0.243 lb

0210161804 0210161803b


62. KEL-TEC PLR-16 (Pistol)

Weight, Pistol: 1.674 kg, 3.691 lb

Weight, Magazine: Same as 64, 0.116 kg, 0.256 lb



63. NORINCO TYPE 81, 5.56mm

Weight, Rifle: 3.402 kg, 7.501 lb

Weight, Magazine: Unknown, no magazines exist



64. SIG MCX, .300 AAC Blackout

Weight, Rifle: 2.970 kg, 6.549 lb

Weight, Rifle w/ Iron Sights: 3.064 kg, 6.756 lb

Weight, Rifle w/o Handguard: 2.776 kg, 6.121 lb

Weight, Magazine: 0.116 kg, 0.256 lb

0210161755a 0210161752a0210161756b 0210161752c


Well, there you have it. Really, one thing this shows is that the SIG MCX is an excellent development of the AR-15, adding no weight at all vs. the Colt 6920, while making several improvements (not the least of which is the facilitation of a folding stock!). The Kel-Tec PLR-16 is impressively light, weighing just a little over half what the S805 Bren pistol weighs without the stock, although the PLR-16 may suffer in other areas. The Norinco Type 81 is a really interesting rifle that is neither fish nor fowl, combining an SKS-style short-stroke piston with an AK-type bolt, and other features. At just over 7.5 lbs, it’s a competitive rifle weight-wise, and really except for a few minor flaws is an underrated rifle.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at


  • Matrix3692

    OK, where did you manage to get that Type 81……

    • From the gun fairy, of course. 🙂

      • DW

        Alex once dropped his VZ58 in a boating accident. A wild gun fairy appeared, and asked him which commie gun he dropped, an AK or a SKS. Alex was honest, but fairy was Chinese. Alex now has a gun without magazines for it.

        • Major Tom

          And that right there is perhaps the most off-color yet hilarious version of Honest Axe I’ve ever seen.

  • Tyler McCommon

    Interesting. I’m still torn between getting an X95 or the MCX and simply turning my current AR15 into long range bench gun.

    • Old Fart

      Why not get the MDR instead? No aftermarket needed whatsoever, weighs less, and is technologically superior in each and every way (better trigger, better controls, better barrel and so forth). Desert Tech is top notch.

      • Not even the Desert Tech promotional lit claims it weighs less than an MCX.

        I also don’t generally recommend buying a new, untested design from a small manufacturer. That is essentially paying money to be a beta tester, with very few exceptions.

        • Old Fart

          I was referring to the X95 (which is a superb gun hands down, but IWI lags behind in many areas). Desert Tech might be a small vendor, yet they are top notch, reputable, have a track record of making sure their stuff works before launching. PWS, Lionheart Industries, LWRC etc are also small[ish], but are very, very high end and have built quite a reputation in a relatively short period. I will gladly give my money to an overall outstanding vendor. Don’t worry, Desert Tech are a class act and they know what they’re doing.
          And hey, you gotta give innovation a chance. Sticking to what has been proven is buying yesterdays’ technology. We need to keep an open mind and welcome new products.I’m all for innovation, if it works it works.

          • Thing is, you don’t know what you don’t know. Desert Tech’s quality is not really in question for me, it’s what limitations their design has that won’t be winnowed out without the kind of extensive testing that they likely can’t afford.

            Lionheart distributes pistols made by Daewoo, the largest Korean firearms manufacturer. They are not a “small shop”, they are a distributor. LWRC and PWS make AR-15s (albeit with different gas systems), one of the best characterized firearms in history.

            If signing up to be a beta tester because you want to “give innovation a chance” appeals to you, then go right ahead. But a lot of people in my experience don’t realize that when they adopt a new design from a small company, that’s essentially what they’re getting into.

          • Old Fart

            Truth be told, IWI might indeed have the upper hand on the testing. I don’t know of any well established agencies using Desert Tech rifles As far as I know, the only military order they ever got was with Georgia (a 3rd rate burglary state in the Caucasus thatnever came out of the Middle Ages). Perhaps you’re right… I gotta give it to you. You definitely give me food for thought.

      • Tyler McCommon

        I’ve thought about it but the biggest thing is the MDR isn’t locally available. So combined with shipping and FFL transfer fees it would be incredibly expensive to top it’s already high price.

        • Old Fart

          It’s only 2K…

          • “I simply won’t buy any rifle that has a CL barrel”

            Then I guess you’re pretty weird. CL barrels are great.

            The MDR is an untested prototype. Saying it’s “hands down” better than a rifle that’s in current regular service with the IDF is more than a little suspect.

          • Old Fart

            There is nothing inherently wrong with chrome lining. But a CL barrel will neither be as accurate nor as durable as a nitride/cqc/nicorr etc treated barrel. These processes are all superior to chrome lining, don’t change it’s dynamics and have better longevity. Heat treatment of some sort is today’s standard. Chrome lining is really yesterday’s.

          • I hear a lot of people say that about barrels, and then I see militaries worldwide continuing to use double chromed barrels like there’s no tomorrow.

            I am not a materials scientist or a barrel specialist, so I will withold judgment, but at the same time reserve skepticism as well.

          • Old Fart

            That’s because militaries are utterly conservative. Chrome lining changes the barrel dynamics significantly and actually decreases accuracy. What you’re doing when chrome lining is making grooves into a perfectly good barrel and adding another material that creates bumps in the barrel. Whereas surface conversion treatments in the form of special heating processes do not degrade accuracy and actually increase durability. A cl barrel will never be as good a performer as a nitride/fenacite/monolite/nicorr barrel. Chrome lining is an obsolete process. Yes it works fine, but it is a thing of the past. There is better barrel technology nowadays.

          • Chrome Lining decreases accuracy, sure, but not to a degree that it matters at all on a tactical carbine.

            “I will never buy a chrome-lined barrel again” is what you said. Yeah? Well, you know what’s even worse than chrome-lining? A bare steel barrel. Never gonna buy one of those again, either?

            That would be silly. Chrome-lined barrels are great, they work well and last a long time. They may not be THE BEST, but they’re certainly good enough.

          • Old Fart

            Of course they’re good enough, I never disputed that. All I said as explained in my previous post is that there are better -more accurate, longer lasting and therefore superior- options in the form of advanced atmospheric/gas carburizing processes out there, and industry -including IWI- needs to take it to the next level. Chrome-lining is okay, but it is yesterday’s technology.

          • The accuracy gain is something that is literally imperceptible for a carbine.

            Dismissing something because it’s “yesterday’s technology” is just silly.

          • FWIW: FN uses chrome-lined barrels on some of its precision rifles. One thing about old tech is that the processes can evolve and improve. Alas, first impressions are hard to kill in the firearms field.

            Another thing, processes advertised as being new tech are often not that new. Cadillac Gage was nitriding Stoner 63 barrels back in the 1960s. The 1968 report “Materials for Small-Arms Gun Barrels” weighed in on the military value of various barrel alloys, liners, platings, and surface treatments.


          • Tyler McCommon

            $2150 for 5.56, $2450 for .308. Now factor in the fact it has no sights, shipping costs and FFL transfer fees.

            And honestly I’m right handed so ambi isn’t the greatest concern.

          • Old Fart


  • Dave

    “neither fish nor fowl.”

    • Well, it’s not “foul”, either, hahah. Thanks for the typo correction!

      • ostiariusalpha

        Aw, I thought you were being punny. *disillusioned*

  • A Fascist Corgi

    “Really, one thing this shows is that the SIG MCX is an excellent development of the AR-15, adding no weight at all vs. the Colt 6920, while making several improvements (not the least of which is the facilitation of a folding stock!).”

    Uh, the receiver is made out of 6061 aluminum, and yet the rifle still costs over $1,500. How is that an “excellent development”?

    • If you have a requirement for replaceable wear surfaces, like the IRG solicitation, then it’s a very good thing. That is how SIG was able to get away with using a 6061 receiver in the first place, all the wear items are steel.

      From a consumer standpoint, yeah, buy a 6920 and never look back, but it’s extremely infrequent that anyone is able to design actual improvements into the AR-15 platform without causing a major weight spiral that I think it deserves praise when someone does accomplish that.

      • Twilight sparkle

        It would be cool to see a new lightened after market rail system for the MPX though. That seems up the allie of Midwest industries.

  • Major Tom

    Still forgot the Mosin-Nagant. Oh well I have one shall I weigh it for you? Unloaded, loaded, with and without bayonet/sling/both, etc.

    The only question is, can I find a mass scale like that at Hobby Lobby or some other shop?

    • Twilight sparkle

      I don’t remember seeing a lee-Enfield or any other bolt gun on here to compare it to? Maybe I missed one of them?

      • There were some bolt guns, but I didn’t prioritize them.

        I have made this an ongoing project, so if there is a weapon someone wishes was in here, don’t worry.

  • HKGuns

    The excel file in part 1, at least, contains a weaponized trojan, please take it down. Anyone who has downloaded and executed it is likely compromised.

  • Twilight sparkle

    I don’t think I would have included the butt stock in the 805 pics if there isn’t a tax stamp yet.

    • Um, why exactly? It is perfectly legal.

      • Twilight sparkle

        The ATF seems to have too much of an unknown grey area with “constructive intent”

        • Please, having a stock and a pistol in the same room is a problem now? Then I guess I’d better sit here and wait for my call from the ATF…

          • Twilight sparkle

            Well I can’t give you legal advice, I’ve just been advised by a stamp collecting friend to not have parts ready to sbr until I get a tax stamp. I doubt it would really be an issue, but I like to err on the side of caution. Of course the thing I was curious about was a short ps90 barrel so maybe this is different, idk.

          • “Constructive intent” doesn’t really cover owning a stock and a pistol, it’s more about stuff like auto sears and jigs for pin holes.

          • Actually, it required the US Supreme Court to prevent the BATF from applying constructive intent to pistol barrels and stocks. Check out United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992).

          • Twilight sparkle

            That’s actually very interesting, I didn’t know about that case.

          • Yes, which means it’s fine.

          • Twilight sparkle

            That would make sense, but how often is the ATF known for doing things that make sense?

  • Whitetail

    Maybe I missed it, but no Uzi? I know you own one from the articles I’ve seen.