Concept doesn’t equate to prototype. I did not say that the photo was of a real, prototype vehicle, only that the concept may have been proposed / pitched.
There are, however, a number of actual prototypes of turreted AMPVs. True that none have been accepted for production by the US Army, but turreted variants are being tried and proposed for production. (And not just proposed to the US Army. The AMPV is likely to be offered for foreign military sales.)
Personally, I think it would be a disaster. You might be able to reuse the driver’s hatch.
Having personally photographed all five variants inside and out, I find little that the Magic Factory kit can offer. After all this time, we still have to rely on our 3D printing friends to give us accurate tracks and wheels. Those from Magic Factory are unacceptable. Even the upper hull can’t be used.
I guess they could recycle their ramp assembly as well. 
I’d be much more comfortable seeing another company tackle it.
Having spent several years recently around the old I-bar and Building 4 on Fort Benning, I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the “M2128” was never a concept, or even an item. The program manager works with us at the Collecttion on Fort Benning. BFVs were used as surrogates to test turrets from Oshkos, which are now showing up on AMPVs.
Several variant turrets were tried; this is the Oshkosh 30mm MCWS:
This is a Bushmaster
The Kongsberg XM914 30mm was tried on the BFV surrogate.
All these turrets are unmanned RWS.
LOLZ Jakko- “It’s on Wikipedia”. Well, I am so busted!
No harm meant, but since that model is based on the Wiki, I expect a reference fee! Or a beverage!
Here’s the “hull” part of the photomontage
H.P.
I was responding to you posting kit box art, by pointing out that the box art is based on a photo that can be found on Wikipedia (and, therefore, probably untold other places around the Internet).
Jakko-
An American idiom, no harm meant and no offense taken!
I’d surfed probably 20-25 variations of some M4 adaptation with a new turret. I even visited the Wikipedia pages of several systems and had seen that. But while surfing Scalemates (where else can you find reality made into styrene) I found that MGS pic. Parfait!
Good fun!
IT IS A REAL MODEL KIT slated for release in June at $118.93 so please do shop around.
An M68 105mm in a Stryker MGS turret is not an ADA platform. You need to hang radars (scan, track, terminal guidance) and have a large fast-firing auto-cannon (or two) mixed with missiles for the threats.
ADA is more complex than MBT gunnery: the angular rates (slew rates) can be huge (> tens of degrees/second). So a slow (even the autoloader isn’t faster than about 6 rpm) 105 mm gun is not too good. In addition, there’s no ADA ammunition for the L7A1/M68 cannon.
Lastly, the gun(s) must be able to go from about -10 to nearly +90 elevation, or very close to those limits.
The M109 (did I read that right) fires a 400 m/sec low pressure heavy-walled projectile. Not really an ADA munition either.
As an MGS ‘hypothetical’; it really wont fit the BFV top plate. They (MF designers) are jiggering the turret/turret ring/hull somehow to fit
I like hypotheticals that are based in some kind of reality. They don’t have to be a prototype, but they do need to be “systems engineered” to the degree that they make sense and are achievable. Otherwise, enter them in the fantasy category. Good modeling is good, regardless of the entry type.
That problem has been solved, though 
Which? The range? Or the altitude? Enquiring mind wants to know! It takes a max range/max ordinate 155mm about 75 seconds to reach anything.
Not really. Those “beehive” shells were a complete failure, US aircrew saw them as nothing more than a nice fireworks show.
Ken
Note the smiley …
I wonder if the gun crews and spotters on Musashi and Yamato were smiling when their big ADA rounds “Sanshiki” for everything from 12.7 cm to 46 cm were essentially a waste. I recall one anecdote from US pilot(s) attacking Yamato: you were more likely to die from a mid-air collision with another USN plane than from Yamato air defense artillery.
Yes, because sellers often buy their kits from Asia and then raise the prices here in the US or Europe to make a profit. “Limit three per household” makes sense to prevent buyers and sellers from hoarding the stock for themselves.
Some modelers say that they can wait and “No Big Deal” if sold out because there will be reissues in the future. That might ring true to plastic kits, but for resin garage kits, especially Japanese resin kits such as those from JAFCON or WonderFest annual expos, they are extremely Limited Editions, so once sold out, they will never ever be released again unless you can find one available for sale at online auction or a forum marketplace section.
The idea of the MGS turret on a M2A2 Bradley hull was considered in brainstorming only. Back in the 1990’s when these systems were being thought up. The thought at the time was the MGS turret (I don’t know the systems proper military nomenclature) would be too much for a 8-wheeled armoured car chassis to properly handle (and born out to be true). Defense contractors, used to lucrative deals in the past, especially the 1980’s, were scrambling to get whatever contracts they could and a lot more politics than normal where being injected into the procurement process. Thus it was CONCEPTUALIZED to put the MGS turret on the M2A2 hull for a pure Mechanized Infantry Division to have some organic direct fire capability (no one at that time was using the terminology of assualt gun). The thinking then was as has been suggested in this thread…the M2A2 hull would provide a more balanced chassis for the mission of the gun system AND a more stable firing platform with more room to update systems in the future. I would say this was running around in 1995/96 is time frame, around when they were working out the layout for the M7 BFiST. Direct competition at the time was the M8 AGS. As history shows us, the idea of putting the MGS on the Styker chassis won out…for a short time until the reality of physics and deployment were revealed.
So it WAS a realistic idea batted around for a short time in a few peoples heads. I am sure if they had gone forward with it THEN it could have been engineered to work. It is NOT a proposal now, the M10 is a better platform for the job. But it does look cool as hell.
What I want to know is…where is MF getting the MGS turret from? Limited production of the AFV Club kit parts? Is MF affiliated with AFV Club somehow?
