Bullpups: Wave of the Future?

**Red Team** · 10 Oct 11,, 02:26

As many of you guys well know, M16 series rifles/conventional designs used to be much more common around NATO. With recent adoptions by many countries such as the British SA80, French FAMAS or even ones as early as the Steyr AUG for the Australians...do Bullpup design pros outweigh the cons in terms of US military's needs?

First the pros: shorter weapon for same barrel length, basically allows effective range of a full sized assault rifle with the overall length of a carbine (a major plus for urban combat/mid range firefights)...can't really think of anymore.

And the cons: awkward trigger pull, awkward magazine changes, generally bad ergonomics for the left handed shooter, action in shooters face, weird balancing issues with majority of mass in the back.

If I'm missing any major pros or cons please do tell.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Oct 11,, 04:30

Originally Posted by Red Team

As many of you guys well know, M16 series rifles/conventional designs used to be much more common around NATO. With recent adoptions by many countries such as the British SA80, French FAMAS or even ones as early as the Steyr AUG for the Australians...do Bullpup design pros outweigh the cons in terms of US military's needs?

First the pros: shorter weapon for same barrel length, basically allows effective range of a full sized assault rifle with the overall length of a carbine (a major plus for urban combat/mid range firefights)...can't really think of anymore.

And the cons: awkward trigger pull, awkward magazine changes, generally bad ergonomics for the left handed shooter, action in shooters face, weird balancing issues with majority of mass in the back.

If I'm missing any major pros or cons please do tell.

There's only one thing you need to know. You use what the Quarter-Master gives you and when you finished using it, the QM expects it back in identical condition that you receive it.

**troung** · 10 Oct 11,, 05:22

you are back!

**bigross86** · 10 Oct 11,, 09:58

And as chipper and cheerful as ever

**Nightowl** · 10 Oct 11,, 12:53

Originally Posted by Red Team

As many of you guys well know, M16 series rifles/conventional designs used to be much more common around NATO. With recent adoptions by many countries such as the British SA80, French FAMAS or even ones as early as the Steyr AUG for the Australians...do Bullpup design pros outweigh the cons in terms of US military's needs?

First the pros: shorter weapon for same barrel length, basically allows effective range of a full sized assault rifle with the overall length of a carbine (a major plus for urban combat/mid range firefights)...can't really think of anymore.

And the cons: awkward trigger pull, awkward magazine changes, generally bad ergonomics for the left handed shooter, action in shooters face, weird balancing issues with majority of mass in the back.

If I'm missing any major pros or cons please do tell.

The FN F2000 hasn't got the drawback for left handed shooters cuz of the way it ejects it's cartridges.

Any awkwardness might just be a matter of getting used to. If anything it seems easier to me to reload a bullpup, as you insert the magazine in between the places the rifle is supported while you're changing: pistolgrip and shoulder. I have no experience with bullpup rifles unfortunately but when I had my C8A1 (M4 clone) I couldn't wait for dutchy recon to get F2000's.

**Red Team** · 10 Oct 11,, 13:12

Originally Posted by Nightowl

The FN F2000 hasn't got the drawback for left handed shooters cuz of the way it ejects it's cartridges.

Any awkwardness might just be a matter of getting used to. If anything it seems easier to me to reload a bullpup, as you insert the magazine in between the places the rifle is supported while you're changing: pistolgrip and shoulder. I have no experience with bullpup rifles unfortunately but when I had my C8A1 (M4 clone) I couldn't wait for dutchy recon to get F2000's.

Yeah I was thinking the same kind of thing with FN's P90 (although downwards ejection). Maybe a great way to solve balancing issues and trigger pull is to develop on caseless technology? Less moving parts so I would assume less recoil as well...

**Nightowl** · 10 Oct 11,, 13:39

Originally Posted by Red Team

Yeah I was thinking the same kind of thing with FN's P90 (although downwards ejection). Maybe a great way to solve balancing issues and trigger pull is to develop on caseless technology? Less moving parts so I would assume less recoil as well...

I think caseless is a loong time away from us. The Germans put a lot of effort into developping the G11. Design looked alright, but funding was pulled after east-west german reunification, and cuz of the NATO policy of unification of the ammunition and rifle magazines.

**bigross86** · 10 Oct 11,, 15:26

On the IMI Tavor you can choose which side the casings will eject from. It takes about 30 seconds to open it up, switch a few parts around and close it back up and it's good as gold

**kato** · 10 Oct 11,, 16:19

Originally Posted by Nightowl

and cuz of the NATO policy of unification of the ammunition and rifle magazines.

NATO had nothing to do with it. It was entirely due to a lack of money* - which led the Bundeswehr to dictate in 1992 that the G3 successor had to be a proven, cheap MOTS product. Tested were HK's HK50/G36 and Steyr's AUG, so there weren't any reservations about bullpups either. The G36 cost about one third of what a G11 was projected to cost.

*once the government started pumping trillions into East Germany in 1991; preliminary cancellation was in 1992, final in 1993. The G11 finished the development phase in 1992, was approved by the BWB and was ready for serial production.

**Red Team** · 10 Oct 11,, 19:40

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

There's only one thing you need to know. You use what the Quarter-Master gives you and when you finished using it, the QM expects it back in identical condition that you receive it.

Lest you want to endure an hour long rant on logistics and proper weapons maintenance

And to Nightowl, yes caseless technology is still quite in a fledgeling stage of development, many issues especially with runaway discharges...but developing this technology into practical use has the potential for very significant tactical and perhaps some strategic advantages. Unfortunately, its expense and required restructuring of NATO standards tends to keep this technology in the dark

**Mihais** · 10 Oct 11,, 20:28

NATO sees no real incentive to develop new ammo right now,because a) what exists is good enough and b) new technologies don't offer the potential for a radical improvement. That's why you won't see 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel in NATO use.Truth is weapon development has come to a standstill.The big thing these days are gadgetry and modularity.And up until ballistic protection becomes as widespread as the AK 47,we won't see any incentive to do more.

Btw,I hate the idea of bulpups.Way to many complicated things going on right in my face.Weapon manipulation is a question of training,not really of design(that helps of course).
As for the Tavor,I held one once.Damn,that thing is small and light.Good things if you fight in the cities.But shooting anything beyond 300m is doubtful. I'll trust it when I'll see it.To be fair,the M4 and derivatives and the AK derivatives even more so,are reliable,tested in combat extensively and meet all the standards for versatility.The Tavor is too Israeli specific.Could be great for police though.

**bigross86** · 10 Oct 11,, 20:45

IMI Tavor TAR-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Red Team** · 10 Oct 11,, 21:00

Originally Posted by Mihais

NATO sees no real incentive to develop new ammo right now,because a) what exists is good enough and b) new technologies don't offer the potential for a radical improvement. That's why you won't see 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel in NATO use.Truth is weapon development has come to a standstill.The big thing these days are gadgetry and modularity.And up until ballistic protection becomes as widespread as the AK 47,we won't see any incentive to do more.

Btw,I hate the idea of bulpups.Way to many complicated things going on right in my face.Weapon manipulation is a
question of training,not really of design(that helps of course).

As for the Tavor,I held one once.Damn,that thing is small and light.Good things if you fight in the cities.But shooting anything beyond 300m is doubtful. I'll trust it when I'll see it.To be fair,the M4 and derivatives and the AK derivatives even
more so,are reliable,tested in combat extensively and meet all the standards for versatility.The Tavor is too Israeli specific.Could be great for police though.

The one major advantage the bullpups actually have against conventional design include their great compactness without sacrifices in effective range (Tavor packs the same barrel length and range of an M16 but with the compactness meeting or even exceeding an M4) so that is no problem if one needs to take a long shot above 200-300m (which is rare). But you are right in that different militaries have different needs, and generally the US military likes to stick with
what works (plus I've heard the new 5.56 bullet extends the effective range of current weapons among other things negating the need for a new weapon design for the time being).

**ace16807** · 10 Oct 11,, 21:06

Originally Posted by bigross86

IMI Tavor TAR-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have any insight regarding the MTAR-21? I heard that there are considerations regarding the MTAR becoming the standard issue assault rifle, but nothing concrete. Have you ever handled/fired one? Opinions?

**gunnut** · 10 Oct 11,, 21:48

Originally Posted by troung

you are back!

I second that.

Thread: Bullpups: Wave of the Future?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Bullpups: Wave of the Future?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Google Wave !

Nuclear Proliferation: The Last Wave

New Wave of Outsourcing

Future weapons is a joke comapred to future fighting machines

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions