This poor rifle...

Ugly but functional. The outer case locates the parts and protects them from dirt while shielding the operator from the moving and hot parts. The outer case is also shaped to minimize the potential for snags.

The height over bore is large because the case ejection tube runs over the top of the bore, where most rifles would have their gas system. The deep magwell provides support for the magazine and keeps it from getting damaged.

The damage to the lower case would require replacing the lower, which isn't the serial numbered 'firearm' for ATF purposes. I didn't see any for sale online, but I think they cost a couple hundred dollars.

BSW

the F2000 is a failed design anyway, the AUG and tavor own the bullpup market

the F2000 is a failed design anyway, the AUG and tavor own the bullpup market

Click to expand...

In the US the Tavor and AUG seem to be selling much better. The F2000 has had some sales outside Belgium and the EU.

The French and UK armies need to replace their aging inventory of small arms. Both have fielded bullpup rifles with mixed results and both no longer have the wherewithal to design and manufacture rifles themselves.

I don't see a non-EU area design like the Tavor being bought by either, and the F2000, unlike the AUG, was designed for grenade launching, to the point where it has a laser range finding grenade sight available and has space in the butt designed for the battery pack.

Also, the AUG requires a left handed bolt to change it for left handed shooters, the F2000 doesn't.

However, I could easily see the Indian Army going to the Tavor, since the INSAS program has been a mess.

It'll be interesting to see which way the arms sales market goes.

BSW

"the F2000 is a failed design anyway, the AUG and tavor own the bullpup market"
Tavor hasn't been around long enough, and the AUG is basically the only successful bullpup that's been done (and still has its own issues that limit its popularity). The FN rifle predates the current rail/modular fad, so keep that in mind when critiquing the design.

TCB

Unlike most here, I like Bubba; he makes expensive guns accessible (well, at least when he has to sell them --the gun here is priced like it was worked over by Wilson). I've scored a VZ61 half off because Bubba ground off the rear sight and scabbed a shelf bracket onto the rear for a red dot "sight mount" that was easily fixed, and just recently an unfired Steyr SPP for one third of the going rate because some dummy lost the (non structural) top cover.

TCB

What's even sadder than what was done to this rifle is the disclaimer "may need some work" and the $1700 asking price!

the FN2000 is not just a failed design in poor sales, the whole concept of the rifle is inherently flawed, its nearly completely impossible without completely disassembling the rifle to clear a jam, and its going to jam, all rifles do.. the idea of creating a sealed rifle in an attempt to prevent dirt and debris from getting inside it doesnt really work, especially when the dirt and debris could be within the magazine itself, once in the rifle you cant get that out without completely disassembling it

its such a bad design on paper, in practice, in the field, and in the market and last i heard the militaries that were trying them out were not very impressed.. even though the AUG has a few issues of its own, its still on an entirely different level than the F2000, you dont NEED a rifle that ejects from the left side, but a port buffer, a simple addition to the AUG would allow it to be fired left handed, and compared to the tavor, at least the AUG has the option of left eject

the new AUG A3 M1 has some modern updates to it, hard to say if its what these militaries want right now or not, there are a couple things they could change to improve it, one example would be using a pull vs a push trigger link, by using a link that pulls vs pushes you greatly improve the feel and weight of the trigger group.. something the AUG, F2000, and i believe even the tavor all do that they seriously need to quit doing is using those cheap ass plastic trigger groups.. plastic on plastic usually means a lot of friction, on top of that a lightweight hammer has little momentum and requires a much heavier hammer spring, increasing the weight and the grit giving the bullpups their reputation for junk triggers

one rifle i'm REALLY keeping my eye on right now is the K&M M17S, which is like the old bushmaster M17S but has been greatly improved, it's all steel construction however it weighs less than any other bullpup on the market, its trigger uses a modified AR-15 steel trigger pack and a pull link which also gives it a trigger that mirrors that of any conventional rifle and to make it even more aftermarket compatible it uses an AR-15 pistol grip, and the same type of buttpad that magpul uses on their stocks.. if its reliable, it may just be the best bullpup on the market

its nearly completely impossible without completely disassembling the rifle to clear a jam

Click to expand...

You know, I keep hearing this, but haven't experienced it myself. The only stoppages I've ever had were induced by not fully seating the magazine. These were easily cleared by removing the magazine and cycling the charging handle. Field stripping wasn't required.

you dont NEED a rifle that ejects from the left side, but a port buffer, a simple addition to the AUG would allow it to be fired left handed, and compared to the tavor, at least the AUG has the option of left eject

Click to expand...

Because of the AUG's ejection port location, a port buffer would be very uncomfortable or actually cause bruises or other injuries.

The Tavor is actually better than the AUG from the aspect of left handed conversion, since the charging handle can be swapped to the right side, as well as the ejection port being moved to the left.

Left handed bullpup shooters (or left eye dominate shooters) need a left ejecting rifle. My left handed friends who have shot the FS2000 liked it, as it was the only bullpup they could pick up and shoot comfortably w/o need to swap parts.

BSW

If I had an FS2000, I might buy the Frankenstein for spare parts.

$1,700 with issues?

I'm thinking...NOT!

When I was a teenager in the 80s and looking to buy a muscle car from the 60s I would pass on cars that had been hot rodded by the prior owner for the same reasons I would pass on this. My assumption when modifying a gun is it will be mine for life or I will take a huge hit on resale.

My current delima is I bought a pre-cross bolt safety marlin 336 Texan (straight stock) with the intention of chopping the barrel to 16.5". I know I will never sell it. It I still find it hard to permanently modify it even though I bought it specifically for this. Also, it's not like they are that rare and it will be Wild West guns who does the work.

Go done wake Bubba up. A bunch a people is eyeballing his special rifle.

I wouldn't win that thing in a reverse lottery.

briansmithwins said:

Ugly but functional. The outer case locates the parts and protects them from dirt while shielding the operator from the moving and hot parts. The outer case is also shaped to minimize the potential for snags.

The height over bore is large because the case ejection tube runs over the top of the bore, where most rifles would have their gas system. The deep magwell provides support for the magazine and keeps it from getting damaged.

The damage to the lower case would require replacing the lower, which isn't the serial numbered 'firearm' for ATF purposes. I didn't see any for sale online, but I think they cost a couple hundred dollars.

BSW

Click to expand...

Where is the serial and which part is considered the firearm?

Looks like a bargin . A little super glue and some duck tape ought to fixer right up !

So I'm guessing the big freakout is that the plastic magwell was cut up? I'm assuming ATI, Tapco or promag doesn't make replacement plastic stocks.

Might be assuming too much .

One has no way of knowing what all has been buggered up, or if the parts are available . Also the cost of a stock (and possible other parts) and installation.
Even if it is only the stock, and they are available, I'm thinking by the time you add that cost to the asking price you will have no bargin. Just a lot of extra risk and maybe even more money than buying an unaltered one.

The "big plastick stock" is the 2-piece clamshell receiver. By definition, that big plastick stock *is* the firearm.

Not exactly trivial to replace that piece.

ETA: Nevermind. They declared the left side barrel support bracket is the receiver. You can't order that as a replacement part from FN.

You should be able to order the stock? No idea what it costs though.

Update: I did some googling. The stock serial # is matched to the "receiver", which is the barrel support bracket. You cannot buy the stocks at any cost.

Click to expand...

There are two versions of the FS2000, one with the integrated optic and cover, and the one with the flat top rail.

On the flat top version, the rail is the serial numbered ATF 'firearm'.

The original lower receiver (plastic clamshell) has a matching serial number imprinted on it, but that one doesn't mean anything, legally. I have seen replacement lowers for sale that were manufactured as replacement parts, and those are simply blank in the serial number area.

BSW

I know they cannot be obtained from FNH, but it doesn't seem like fabrication would be much of an issue - it's just injected polymer.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

There is a steel pin that the fired cartridge case rammer rubs against, steel rails inside the lower that the BCG runs on, and a rubber buffer that stops the end travel of the BCG.

As far a getting a new lower, try this guy:

http://www.strykerenterprises.com/contact.html

He sells a lot of FN gear on gun broker.com and directly that FN USA has a hard time getting (or at least admitting they have).

BSW

I haven't even been able to buy recoil springs for my FNP. Love FN products but wish the aftermarket support was better.