CZ 805 - Czech Assault Rifle

[sparks50]

Yes, and I think it looks a bit SCAR-ish.

[fludblud]

well it sure as hell looks like it means business

[Zrix]

YouTube Video

[master of the templars]

Reminds me of a UMP-45 a little actually

[anglomanii]

assault rifles seem to be going the way of modern cars, they are staring to look very similar.

[Pariel]

Why don't you take a look at rifles used by most armies around 1900.

The point is, there are certain features that are incorporated into most weapons because they're pretty important. Assault rifles, much like bolt action rifles around 1900, have been around for long enough that the designs incorporate mostly the same features.

[CroCop]

*cough* the only similarity between bolt actions in WW1 was the fact that they were bolt action. If you take a look at WW2 you will see how every single weapon is different. And if you take a look at the Cold War you will notice the same thing (that is if you disregard all the countless AK and M16 clones)

[Pariel]

Originally Posted by CroCop

*cough* the only similarity between bolt actions in WW1 was the fact that they were bolt action. If you take a look at WW2 you will see how every single weapon is different. And if you take a look at the Cold War you will notice the same thing (that is if you disregard all the countless AK and M16 clones)

Perhaps their manufacturers and minor design features (sights, magazines) were different, but overall, most rifles of the period are quite similar, in form and certainly in function.

The CZ 805 bears no more resemblance to an M16A4/M4A1 than the Lee Enfield SMLE resembles the Krag.

If you're saying that all weapons look different when they have a different function, well, of course. You wouldn't confuse most assault rifles with submachine guns (well, unless the rifle was a bullpup). Furthermore, WWII prevented the diffusion of weapons designs that exist today, since the majority of weapons were not reverse-engineered enemy weapons (with the exception of bazookas/panzerfausts). But take a look at the .30 and .50 machineguns used by the US, the M3 and the MP40, the Mosin and the Kar98. Sure, you can tell them apart, but the weapons adopted by most modern armed forces are just as differentiable from an M16 or AK. With the adoption of gas piston weapons, many modern rifles differ significantly further in function than the weapons of WWII, as well.

[Warpig-]

Originally Posted by master of the templars

Reminds me of a UMP-45 a little actually

It's rail system has a very similar shape to the UMP RIS system (If you imagine it's flat-topped). The stock also has a similar shape

[anglomanii]

Originally Posted by Pariel

Perhaps their manufacturers a minor design features (sights, magazines) were different, but overall, most rifles of the period are quite similar, in form and certainly in function.

The CZ 805 bears no more resemblance to an M16A4/M4A1 than the Lee Enfield SMLE resembles the Krag.

If you're saying that all weapons look different when they have a different function, well, of course. You wouldn't confuse most assault rifles with submachine guns (well, unless the rifle was a bullpup). Furthermore, WWII prevented the diffusion of weapons designs that exist today, since the majority of weapons were not reverse-engineered enemy weapons (with the exception of bazookas/panzerfausts). But take a look at the .30 and .50 machineguns used by the US, the M3 and the MP40, the Mosin and the Kar98. Sure, you can tell them apart, but the weapons adopted by most modern armed forces are just as differentiable from an M16 or AK. With the adoption of gas piston weapons, many modern rifles differ significantly further in function than the weapons of WWII, as well.

you need to have a chat with BOB.