The Compact CZ-2000 “Krinkov” Variant

We have previously looked at the development of the CZ 2000 and Lada rifle programs in Czechoslovakia and then the Czech Republic, and today we are taking a close look at one specific variant. This is the SMG pattern CZ 2000, although by current nomenclature it would not be called an SMG because it is chambered for an intermediate rifle cartridge (5.56mm NATO). Following the model of Russia and other AK-using countries, the CZ 2000 was made as a standard infantry rifle for most troops, an RPK-like light machine gun, and a compact “Krinkov” pattern as a personal defense weapon for armored vehicle crews, pilots, and so on.Only a very small number or CZ 2000 rifles were made in all patterns combined, as the project never went into mass production.

Thanks to CZ in Uhersky Brod for inviting me to take a look at these and other firearms in their reference library! Make sure to check them out on Facebook and Instagram!


  1. Why wouldn’t CZ have gone ahead and incorporated some form of muzzle climb compensator on this short version? Seems like a missed opportunity.

  2. Ian
    What factors do you attribute the soft shooting to?

    Better engineered Spring rates?

    Less over gassed?

    5.56 chambering?

  3. This does not quality as a Krinkov muzzle extension. The Krinkov has an expansion chamber to retain gas pressure ended with a cone. This model is only a cone/muzzle flash attenuator. In any case it is remarkable that the expansion chamber is not needed for reliable function.

    • I don’t think there is a formal definition of what constitutes a “Krinkov” muzzle device, considering that the term is of uncertain origins and mostly used in the American clone market to refer to all sorts of short AK platforms.

      Certainly, there’s a big difference between this simple conical flash hider and the complex muzzle boosters seen on AKS-74U or skbk wz. 89

  4. Interesting to see the realization of what they wanted to do with the XM-177 realized in Czechoslovakia, and with better results than what Colt got.

    The question I always have with these things is, what’s the actual lethality downrange? If the velocity with M855 is off enough to cause problems with the 14.5″ barrel on the M4, what the heck is it gonna do out of a 185mm one?

    I still think the average guy in a tank is better off with a full-size combat rifle, if he has to dismount. Compact is nice, but… Man, I’d rather be able to win that gunfight.

    • As far as muzzle energy goes, a comparison to the .221 Remington Fireball in the 10-inch barrel of the XP-100 single-shot bolt action pistol would seem appropriate.

      With a 50-grain bullet, MV is 2,650 F/S and ME is 780 FPE. Which is roughly equal to a .44 Remington Magnum 250-grain at 1,200 F/S.

      A 55-grain M193 or equivalent out of the short barrel of a PDW like this should be in the same general category. The heavier M855 should as well.

      At about 100 meters, which would be defined as “gunfight” range, any of the above will hit about as hard as a .357 Magnum out of a 6″ revolver barrel at 25 meters. Which is “good enough”.

      Also note that if your crew is doing the bailout right, the No. 3 should have unshipped the GPMG from the mount over the loader’s hatch and the No. 4 should have broken out the tripod.

      And everybody should have grabbed at least two cans of GPMG ammo each.

      The job of your crew’s PDWs is to provide flank protection, while the GPMG gets on with the business of doing the killing until you can grab a ride.



      • Concur.
        At 175 yards, 400 ftlb (45 ACP, 5” barrel) = Fight-stopper.
        Trajectory deviation < 3 in.
        At 375 yards, 220 ftlb (38 Special, 4” barrel) = Suppressing fire.
        At 775 yards, 110 ftlb (22 LR, 17” barrel) = Harrassing fire.

    • “I still think the average guy in a tank is better off with a full-size combat rifle(…)”
      Keep in mind that WarPact tanks were cramped inside when compared to Centurion (and derivatives). Israel at one time did used Centurion tanks and Soviet T-55 tanks, after which they concluded that
      As regard to human engineering the best were the Patton tanks (M60/48), then the Centurion and way behind the T-62/55 tanks. The meaning is that the crews of the Patton and Centurion tanks could fight longer periods of time without being exhausted relative to the crews in the T-62/55 tanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.