Gen 3 BRN-180

Rancid Coolaid

Rancid Coolaid

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Aug 10, 2007
    1,741
    898
    Houston, TX.
    #1
    Yes, I did a search, no results. Does anyone have a gen3 yet?
    Compared to gen 2, is it worth the swap? I shoot lefty often so the left side charging handle isn't necessarily a good thing. The sealed upper is, and they are hella maneuverable due to light weight up front and very light weight on the back end. Having run lots of piston guns, I am a BRN180 fan, but not sure about the gen3 just yet.
     
    #2
    And I right when I see this new version has double the amount of holes in the upper receiver for junk to get into the system and also lacks a reciprocating charging handle which could have been used as a forward assist?

    -Stan
     
    #3
    You are correct in most ways. There are now 2 holes, but both are sealed - mostly. My big gripe for the gen 1 and 2 is the gaping hole on the right side at all times (at least for the 300blk version), and that is now addressed - by adding a second point of entry - and mostly sealing both.
    The charging handle change is indeed a not great change, or seems so to me.
    I'm sure I will end up getting one, and will report my findings.

    I am a big fan of the gen2, but would never take one into combat. Then again, unless the world goes to absolute shit, my combat days are done - and this is mostly a conversation about other things I do with rifles now.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: stanley_white
    #4
    Man, the Gen 2 I had was such a piece of shit. Couldn’t get it to run even with multiple new parts sent by PWS (the manuf).

    What really sealed the deal was the microscopic screw holding BOTH the little rubber left buttstock bumpstop AND an interior crucial bolt guide.
    1736921898939.png


    Looks like they did away with that idiotic design and instead used a replaceable long side piece, a bit like the Sig did.
     
    #5
    If you go to ~18:21 in this vid you can see the Gen 3’s new long steel cam pin path/guide vs the shitty gen 2’s “solution.”

    Too bad they didn’t open it up to show you how lame the g2 design really was.

     
    #6
    I've been looking at playing with one of these in 5.56 but I can't find anything regarding accuracy?

    What are all of you getting for accuracy ?
    And if they more or less Blaster uppers how do they work with super cheap ammo like Tulu or wolf ammo?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: bfoosh006
    #7
    I think I read the barrels are faxon, make of that what you will. I have a gen2 in 300blk and accuracy has been on par with other makers, but it isn't a 1k gun nor do I expect it to be. I have a 13.9 headed my way, 556, will do some mid-range testing with it, but the value of that platform to me is the cleaner running of a can on a folder that is backpack-able.
    I'm not sure about this new charging handle, and I say that even as someone that runs lefty often with a rifle. I guess the handle on the right side never bothered me, or if it did, it was so long ago that I don't recall.
     
    #8
    I have a gen 1 that I like to blast around with, That giant cocking handle is kinda funny.

    I would never bring it for work, but it made a great range toy / blaster.
     
    #10
    carbonbased said:
    Man, the Gen 2 I had was such a piece of shit. Couldn’t get it to run even with multiple new parts sent by PWS (the manuf).

    What really sealed the deal was the microscopic screw holding BOTH the little rubber left buttstock bumpstop AND an interior crucial bolt guide.
    View attachment 8592354

    Looks like they did away with that idiotic design and instead used a replaceable long side piece, a bit like the Sig did.
    Click to expand...

    Mine runs awesome. The rubber bumper combo rail retainer is stupid. Someone makes a replacement that isn't rubber and doesn't cause the screw to come loose. Most of the quirks have been addressed by the aftermarket.

    The Gen3 looks lame. They redesigned it until it's no longer interesting. The late Gen 2 receivers have full length steel rails.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: carbonbased
    #11
    Cascade Hemi said:
    Mine runs awesome. The rubber bumper combo rail retainer is stupid. Someone makes a replacement that isn't rubber and doesn't cause the screw to come loose. Most of the quirks have been addressed by the aftermarket.

    The Gen3 looks lame. They redesigned it until it's no longer interesting. The late Gen 2 receivers have full length steel rails.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, if I had had a Gen 2 with the steel rails (that ran well, unlike mine) then I’d have been all over that thing.

    When I could get 5 shots off in a row without problems it seemed pretty accurate and I loved the right-sided charging handle. Also loved that I could use that handle to also push a round into battery…like an AK, I believe.

    I needed to with my POS copy.

    The moral of the story is to buy newish, relatively untested rifles from Brownells, who actually let you return firearms for a store credit if past 30(?) days. I think you get a full refund if you send it back it within the return window.

    I used that credit to buy a PWS from Brownells. Which I also returned because I got unlucky again (maybe? Or is PWS overhyped?).

    As mentioned, PWS made the Gen2 BRN-180. Not sure who makes the Gen3.

    I then bought a new Armalite for a steal at PSA. It’s been running well.
     
    #12
    Cascade Hemi said:
    The rubber bumper combo rail retainer is stupid.
    Click to expand...
    IKR?! I couldn’t screw it in tight or the rubber bumper would split. Thing was held in by simple rubber outward tension. Unbelievable. No steel insert for the screw to bottom out on, no nothing.

    And without that tiny metal rail, the whole gun would go down. Auurrrgh!

    I’m no engineer, but gdamnit, did some bimbo secretary design that part?
     
    #13
    carbonbased said:
    IKR?! I couldn’t screw it in tight or the rubber bumper would split. Thing was held in by simple rubber outward tension. Unbelievable. No steel insert for the screw to bottom out on, no nothing.

    And without that tiny metal rail, the whole gun would go down. Auurrrgh!

    I’m no engineer, but gdamnit, did some bimbo secretary design that part?
    Click to expand...

    Totally. Like I said, there's a aftermarket replacement that doesn't come loose. I've never had any problems with mine, it sucks you did. There's quite a few complaints like yours though, which probably drove the redesign. Mine became a FreeBR factory SBR. It's compact and lightweight.

    store.otdefense.com

    Nylon Bumpers for BRN-180™

    A customer requested a fix for a BRN-180™ issue that he had discovered. The rubber bumper (that the stock folds into) screw can come loose if not loc-tit'ed in place, and if overtightened, the screw can penetrate into the action through the steel bolt guide rail that it screws into, damaging...
    store.otdefense.com store.otdefense.com
     
    • Like
    Reactions: carbonbased
    #14
    Cascade Hemi said:
    Totally. Like I said, there's a aftermarket replacement that doesn't come loose. I've never had any problems with mine, it sucks you did. There's quite a few complaints like yours though, which probably drove the redesign. Mine became a FreeBR factory SBR. It's compact and lightweight.

    store.otdefense.com

    Nylon Bumpers for BRN-180™

    A customer requested a fix for a BRN-180™ issue that he had discovered. The rubber bumper (that the stock folds into) screw can come loose if not loc-tit'ed in place, and if overtightened, the screw can penetrate into the action through the steel bolt guide rail that it screws into, damaging...
    store.otdefense.com store.otdefense.com
    Click to expand...
    Cool. Glad someone thought of a solution.

    The rubber bumper was the last straw for me. I had already replaced half the innards (PWS sent for free) and I just yelled FUCK IT after discovering the itty bitty screw/tiny rail/retarded bumper setup.

    It’s hard to cut one’s losses after spending so much time on something, but I’m glad I did. I just have to believe I got unlucky, overall, with PWS, as they seem to get good reviews in general. 🤷‍♂️
     
    #17
    Rancid Coolaid said:
    I think I read the barrels are faxon, make of that what you will. …
    Click to expand...
    Aannndd I’m out. I got really excited about this Gen, but Faxon is a deal breaker. All three of my barrels from them have had problems, from failure to extract due to a too-tight chamber on a 6.5 CM, to failure to feed because a gas port was way too small and short stroked a 9” 300blk with SUPERS, to one of their pricey “match” 14.5” gunner barrels exhibiting rust on the exterior shortly after purchase.

    Faxon is a bunch of garbage. They have an 0/3 record with me.
     
    #19
    PappyM3 said:
    Aannndd I’m out. I got really excited about this Gen, but Faxon is a deal breaker. All three of my barrels from them have had problems, from failure to extract due to a too-tight chamber on a 6.5 CM, to failure to feed because a gas port was way too small and short stroked a 9” 300blk with SUPERS, to one of their pricey “match” 14.5” gunner barrels exhibiting rust on the exterior shortly after purchase.

    Faxon is a bunch of garbage. They have an 0/3 record with me.
    Click to expand...
    Faxon makes perfectly OK OEM barrels; they make what the buyer specs. A Faxon branded barrel, on the other hand, meets only the specification and QC Faxon sets internally. It could be awesome or it could be a lump of coal. It is no different than ER Shaw, Wilson, GreenMountain, etc.
     
    #20
    Cascade Hemi said:
    Faxon makes perfectly OK OEM barrels; they make what the buyer specs. A Faxon branded barrel, on the other hand, meets only the specification and QC Faxon sets internally. It could be awesome or it could be a lump of coal. It is no different than ER Shaw, Wilson, GreenMountain, etc.
    Click to expand...
    Who does Faxon OEM for? Aside from these BRN-180s.
     
    #21
    Everyone here is missing the point - this is one huge step forward to modernizing the AR. I dont know why 90% of manufacturers are using the same ancient design instead of giving us our birthright of a piston driven driven, side charger, with a quick barrel change capability. The Strike Industries SIAR meets all 3 of these requirements but who knows if they will ever actually release it. So maybe this will pressure them to focus on this instead of coming out with more mildly interesting widgets. So this is what we got for now.

    My biggest concern is having the barrels made by faxon. I hope this is not true because all PWS barrels have a 1 moa guarantee. From the generation 2 brn180 reports I dont hear very many sub moa reports so this is probably true. The barrel is welded in to a trunnion so unfortunately your are stuck with what they give you.

    I also feel for the people lamenting about the loss of nostalgia. They should have renamed this something else since it no longer resembles the AR18 in any way.
     
    #22
    FutonOperator said:
    Everyone here is missing the point - this is one huge step forward to modernizing the AR. I dont know why 90% of manufacturers are using the same ancient design instead of giving us our birthright of a piston driven driven, side charger, with a quick barrel change capability. The Strike Industries SIAR meets all 3 of these requirements but who knows if they will ever actually release it. So maybe this will pressure them to focus on this instead of coming out with more mildly interesting widgets. So this is what we got for now.

    My biggest concern is having the barrels made by faxon. I hope this is not true because all PWS barrels have a 1 moa guarantee. From the generation 2 brn180 reports I dont hear very many sub moa reports so this is probably true. The barrel is welded in to a trunnion so unfortunately your are stuck with what they give you.

    I also feel for the people lamenting about the loss of nostalgia. They should have renamed this something else since it no longer resembles the AR18 in any way.
    Click to expand...
    Well, counter to your idealic piston driven utopia, not only is the BRN-180 not quick-change for barrels, but the barrels aren’t even customer replaceable. So you’re stuck with that Faxon barrel. But you seem to know that, so I’m not sure how you think it’s a huge step forward.

    It’s just one of a handful of piston upper options, seems neat, but nothing advanced.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Charmingmander and stanley_white
    #23
    FutonOperator said:
    Everyone here is missing the point - this is one huge step forward to modernizing the AR. I dont know why 90% of manufacturers are using the same ancient design instead of giving us our birthright of a piston driven driven, side charger, with a quick barrel change capability. The Strike Industries SIAR meets all 3 of these requirements but who knows if they will ever actually release it. So maybe this will pressure them to focus on this instead of coming out with more mildly interesting widgets. So this is what we got for now.

    My biggest concern is having the barrels made by faxon. I hope this is not true because all PWS barrels have a 1 moa guarantee. From the generation 2 brn180 reports I dont hear very many sub moa reports so this is probably true. The barrel is welded in to a trunnion so unfortunately your are stuck with what they give you.

    I also feel for the people lamenting about the loss of nostalgia. They should have renamed this something else since it no longer resembles the AR18 in any way.
    Click to expand...
    Nobody has introduced a more advanced action type since 1955, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The only exception I can think of was LSAT, and those are hard to clear malfunctions from.

    Anything with an external piston is going backwards in time to about the 1920s in terms of operating system design. The AR-18 was meant for poor countries still using sheet metal stampings, who didn’t have the industrial capacity to machine AR-15 receivers and BCGs correctly to specific tolerances.

    Too many kids have been copying each other’s tests from public school, getting more and more retarded. This is why we’re seeing regressive firearms designs with bolt guns and lever actions, all of which are getting AR-15 treatment with furniture, optics-mounting, and accessories.

    I was just talking about this with some older gunsmiths at the range on Saturday, and they’re predicting a tactical muzzle loader next.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: stanley_white, Bigjake83, PappyM3 and 1 other person
    #24
    LRRPF52 said:
    Nobody has introduced a more advanced action type since 1955, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The only exception I can think of was LSAT, and those are hard to clear malfunctions from.

    Anything with an external piston is going backwards in time to about the 1920s in terms of operating system design. The AR-18 was meant for poor countries still using sheet metal stampings, who didn’t have the industrial capacity to machine AR-15 receivers and BCGs correctly to specific tolerances.

    Too many kids have been copying each other’s tests from public school, getting more and more retarded. This is why we’re seeing regressive firearms designs with bolt guns and lever actions, all of which are getting AR-15 treatment with furniture, optics-mounting, and accessories.

    I was just talking about this with some older gunsmiths at the range on Saturday, and they’re predicting a tactical muzzle loader next.
    Click to expand...

    But it's his Birthright🤣
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: Charmingmander and TonyTheTiger
    #25
    Personally I don't even understand why piston is making a huge comeback recently. Just buy a proper decent BCG, have a spare bolt or two, a cam pin or two and a firing pin or two.

    If you're shooting suppressed, tune the rifle for a little less gas or get one of the new BCG designs that redirects gas away from the rear of the receiver or downward toward the magazine (doesn't dirty up mags enough to make a difference).

    The piston rifles are not more reliable. We debunked this shit like 10 years ago. All it does is add more parts, more failure points, more weight and more proprietary shit you don't need.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: LRRPF52, TonyTheTiger and PappyM3
    #26
    Charmingmander said:
    Personally I don't even understand why piston is making a huge comeback recently. Just buy a proper decent BCG, have a spare bolt or two, a cam pin or two and a firing pin or two.

    If you're shooting suppressed, tune the rifle for a little less gas or get one of the new BCG designs that redirects gas away from the rear of the receiver or downward toward the magazine (doesn't dirty up mags enough to make a difference).

    The piston rifles are not more reliable. We debunked this shit like 10 years ago. All it does is add more parts, more failure points, more weight and more proprietary shit you don't need.
    Click to expand...
    Thank you.

    I will say I do like the option of a fully telescoping or folding stock. For a military carbine, it doesn’t matter to me. But for civilian use, being able to fit into smaller bags/cases is handy.

    However, there’s no reason a DI upper couldn’t also have a self contained recoil system. It’s not something that’s only possible with piston guns. And I prefer the DI system.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Charmingmander
    #27
    PappyM3 said:
    Thank you.

    I will say I do like the option of a fully telescoping or folding stock. For a military carbine, it doesn’t matter to me. But for civilian use, being able to fit into smaller bags/cases is handy.

    However, there’s no reason a DI upper couldn’t also have a self contained recoil system. It’s not something that’s only possible with piston guns. And I prefer the DI system.
    Click to expand...
    My issue is, and this is just my outlook, that the folding stock is a gimmick that the vast majority of people don't need anyway. Just run a short upper and collapse the stock when you need to.

    If it's about storage and transfer, just separate the upper and lower. It's the same gimmicky thing as "modular". Why do you need to change grip modules or barrels? If it's a rifle, have a different upper with a different optic. If it's a handgun, why wouldn't you have dedicated handguns for specific purposes?
     
    #28
    PappyM3 said:
    Thank you.

    I will say I do like the option of a fully telescoping or folding stock. For a military carbine, it doesn’t matter to me. But for civilian use, being able to fit into smaller bags/cases is handy.

    However, there’s no reason a DI upper couldn’t also have a self contained recoil system. It’s not something that’s only possible with piston guns. And I prefer the DI system.
    Click to expand...
    iu


    tfb-review-a-clear-and-present-olympic-arms-oa-93.jpg


    tfb-review-a-clear-and-present-olympic-arms-oa-93.jpg


    tfb-review-a-clear-and-present-olympic-arms-oa-93.jpg


    tfb-review-a-clear-and-present-olympic-arms-oa-93.jpg
     
    • Like
    • Love
    Reactions: Charmingmander, PappyM3 and carbonbased
    #29
    Charmingmander said:
    My issue is, and this is just my outlook, that the folding stock is a gimmick that the vast majority of people don't need anyway. Just run a short upper and collapse the stock when you need to.

    If it's about storage and transfer, just separate the upper and lower. It's the same gimmicky thing as "modular". Why do you need to change grip modules or barrels? If it's a rifle, have a different upper with a different optic. If it's a handgun, why wouldn't you have dedicated handguns for specific purposes?
    Click to expand...
    Everybody thinks they need a suppressed folding SBR that fits in a Jansport backpack, so they can survive rush hour traffic on their daily commute to and from the burbs.
     
    • Love
    • Haha
    Reactions: Charmingmander, TonyTheTiger, carbonbased and 1 other person
    #31
    hlee said:
    Everybody thinks they need a suppressed folding SBR that fits in a Jansport backpack, so they can survive rush hour traffic on their daily commute to and from the burbs.
    Click to expand...
    “Better to have and not need than to pay down my mortgage.”

    -Sniper’s Hide
     
    • Haha
    • Love
    • Like
    Reactions: Docsherm, LRRPF52, Charmingmander and 2 others
    #32
    Charmingmander said:
    My issue is, and this is just my outlook, that the folding stock is a gimmick that the vast majority of people don't need anyway. Just run a short upper and collapse the stock when you need to.

    If it's about storage and transfer, just separate the upper and lower. It's the same gimmicky thing as "modular". Why do you need to change grip modules or barrels? If it's a rifle, have a different upper with a different optic. If it's a handgun, why wouldn't you have dedicated handguns for specific purposes?
    Click to expand...
    I get all that, but a telescoping or folding stock is just plain easier than separating uppers/lowers. And it also takes up less space than separate receiver halves.

    I like the folding and telescoping stocks/braces on my SP5, Flux Raider, Solo 300 AR, and KRG Whiskey 3 chassis. If there was a good option for a DI AR, I’d probably have and enjoy that too. The buffer system with receiver extension on the AR was a good design, but it’s not the end all/be all. Just because something is different doesn’t mean it’s a gimmick. Folding/telescoping stocks have been used considerably throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st.

    As for modular, I’m also a fan. For grip modules, it’s not so much changing with different use cases, but it does greatly increase options for preferences. And quick changed barrels can be good too but there is a lot of nuance there, and the benefits aren’t usually there for ARs. Mostly because the barrels people would switch between would generally dictate a different optic too because the uses are so different.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Charmingmander
    #33
    PappyM3 said:
    I get all that, but a telescoping or folding stock is just plain easier than separating uppers/lowers. And it also takes up less space than separate receiver halves.

    I like the folding and telescoping stocks/braces on my SP5, Flux Raider, Solo 300 AR, and KRG Whiskey 3 chassis. If there was a good option for a DI AR, I’d probably have and enjoy that too. The buffer system with receiver extension on the AR was a good design, but it’s not the end all/be all. Just because something is different doesn’t mean it’s a gimmick. Folding/telescoping stocks have been used considerably throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st.

    As for modular, I’m also a fan. For grip modules, it’s not so much changing with different use cases, but it does greatly increase options for preferences. And quick changed barrels can be good too but there is a lot of nuance there, and the benefits aren’t usually there for ARs. Mostly because the barrels people would switch between would generally dictate a different optic too because the uses are so different.
    Click to expand...
    Too bad ZM isn't around anymore. They were really ahead of their time. Only real downside, and the BRN180 has the same problem, is you need to modify the lower for an auto sear if you have a register lower.

     
    • Like
    Reactions: LRRPF52, PappyM3, Charmingmander and 1 other person
    #34
    Cascade Hemi said:
    Too bad ZM isn't around anymore. They were really ahead of their time. Only real downside, and the BRN180 has the same problem, is you need to modify the lower for an auto sear if you have a register lower.

    Click to expand...

    First time I ever saw that gun was as a teenager playing STALKER. By the time I was buying ARs I was sad to find out that ZM was gone. Really cool rifle.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: PappyM3
    #40
    The problem with folders has and always will be bulk in depth when folded. They get thick pretty fast. Two of the exceptions are the M1 Carbine Para folder and the Mini-14 factory folder.

    I prefer compact telescoping furniture if length is your concern with AR-15s.

    Something like this:

    iu
     
    #41
    LRRPF52 said:
    The problem with folders has and always will be bulk in depth when folded. They get thick pretty fast. Two of the exceptions are the M1 Carbine Para folder and the Mini-14 factory folder.

    I prefer compact telescoping furniture if length is your concern with AR-15s.

    Something like this:

    iu
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, it’s all a trade space. Telescoping stocks are very compact, but sacrifice cheek weld.

    IMG_3990.jpeg


    The folding skeleton stocks don’t add much bulk, but do offer slightly better cheek welds. They’re not as good for cheek welds as full stocks, but again, there is increased size. All a trade space.
     
    #42
    PappyM3 said:
    Yeah, it’s all a trade space. Telescoping stocks are very compact, but sacrifice cheek weld.

    View attachment 8616627

    The folding skeleton stocks don’t add much bulk, but do offer slightly better cheek welds. They’re not as good for cheek welds as full stocks, but again, there is increased size. All a trade space.
    Click to expand...
    What is that? I haven’t seen it before.
     
    #46
    long range fire said:
    I actually have a Gen2 that i bought the polymer bumper to replace the rubber bumper. It has worked well and stayed in place so far. Otherwise the Gen2 works well.
    Click to expand...
    But that single microscopic screw remains, simultaneously holding that bumper on outside and a critical BCG guide in place inside…

    Unless you’ve somehow beefed up that connection.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    cecchino76
    SOLD Brownells BRN-180 Gen 2 300 blackout upper
    Replies
    15
    Views
    798
    cecchino76
    cecchino76
    Bakwa
    Casual KAC SR-15 Comparison [a study in performance]
    Replies
    74
    Views
    7K
    SigSauerM7
    SigSauerM7
    S
    Rifle Scopes Brand New straight out of box Athlon Cronus BTR Gen 1 and Gen 2 factory defectiveNO warranty NO replacement by Athlon Optics WARNING BUYER BEWARE!!!
    Replies
    126
    Views
    8K
    Mattv931
    Mattv931
    pangris
    Battle Arms Development barrels and customer service – Caveat Emptor
    Replies
    19
    Views
    1K
    pangris
    pangris
    JohnDeereGuy1996
    Geissele GFR Maritime Reconnaissance 6mm arc write up and review
    Replies
    104
    Views
    15K
    JohnDeereGuy1996
    JohnDeereGuy1996
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts