Bullpup or conventional?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

shawn RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/21/2004 11:20:35 AM

This topic was recently discussed about a month ago. But in general, you are correct that bullpup rifles do have a problem in being able to be quickly shifted from a soldier's right to left shoulder during combat situations (say, for firing around left hand corners). The bullpup configuration seems to have become trendy in recent years, even though its been in military use for almost 30 years, beginning with the French FAMAS. I would think that enough combat experience has now been gained from users to guage the combat utility of bullpups, especially the British in urban fighting during GW2. On the other hand, its quite significant that the US Army has resisted the bullpup trend, especially if it adopts the XM-8 to replace the M-16. Unlike most other bullpup rifles, the SAR-21 cannot be converted to eject cartridges from the left, and thus cannot be fired from the left at all. (unless you like hot brass tatoos on your cheek) The rational for this is that the SAR-21 has a sight that make it easy for a 'lefty' to adapt to firing it right handed, and that since 1 in 4 people are left handed, in infantry units these guys could always become SAW gunners.

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/21/2004 11:48:13 AM

Bullpup rifles like Styr, Tavor, Famas, ... don't fell comfortable while firing some friends who shoot the Styr told me. I don't know why. Maybe because of all the moving parts near your face. Most soldiers I know prefer the M 16 and the G 36 (from H&K). They don't like startrooper-weapons like the bullpup-designed rifles. Maybe it's because you cant't fire bullpups by instinct very well (same for firing from the hip). And bullpups maybe are not well balanced(wrong center of gravity). So just ask the soldiers. And they will prefer rifles like the M 16, the M 8 or the G 36. There are rumors that the brits will change to the G 36. The SAS and the SAS are currently using M16 rifles. The current british bullpup rifles don't fit there needs.

Quote Reply

Matt641 RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/21/2004 2:57:16 PM

Its not the fact that its bullpup that the SAS dont use it. The L85 may be more accurate and compact, but its the fact that you can leave an M16 on a jungle floor for a day, come back, wipe it and keep firing. The L85A2 is very reliable but needs gods amount of oil and attention. I seriously doubt anything beginning with a G will come into the British Army - future systems are being designed around the L85. Back to the topic at hand. I am very comfortable shooting with an L85 and the LSW. When you join the army you learn to shoot from the right shoulder anyway - if you cant adapt as a soldier, you're not much use. The L85 I've found to be excellent in CQB when compactness is the key. The SUSAT isnt made for CQB, but the emergency sights do fine. In short, bullpups are great weapons for the ability to have extra barell length and hence greater accuracy - look how accurate the L85 is, and the Steyr is pretty got out to 400m too.

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/22/2004 10:10:20 AM

Barrel length is neccesary for velocity and therefore range. But most infantry shootouts are done up to 200 meters (300 most - for more range you have the heavy weapons). So you don't need high velocities. It would just be fine if it don't lead to more recoil, noise and muzzle flash. And more recoil is bad news for firing quick aimed single shots. So I assume a carbine will be the best for modern infantry.

Quote Reply

Matt641 RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/22/2004 1:13:13 PM

Yeah, recoil is a problem with some bullpups. The L85A2 which is really my only speciality, is a like lead weight when loaded and with sight, so its not too bad recoil wise. Having said that, a lot of the weight is to the rear - that needs fixing. They have yet to invent the perfect bullpup. Oh yeah, its always nice and useful to be able to pick off a sniper in a house with an LSW at 800 metres when a .50cal would make a lot of noise and tear the house apart - I assume that is what you mean by heavy weapons. Look at the problem the US faced in Iraq when no sniper support was availiable - it took an anti-tank missile and heavy armour to take 1 house. That may have been down to the ground commander though...

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/22/2004 3:32:57 PM

I find the reasoning to support the standardization of riflemen with carbines to be a little questionable. Even if "most" engagements occur inside 200 meters .... that leaves "some" that dont. It has been my experiance (and my honest belief)that range and distance is the friend of the trained. AKs arent good past 200, why should I limit myself to the same range? Give me a real rifle that is capable of inflicting something more than bee stings out past 400 ... talk about a force multiplier. Heavy Weapons, Air support, and Arty on call or all important assets. They are not something that should be relied on when equiping Infantry to succeed as Infantry. Even if that Infantry rarely stands alone, it needs all the advantages it can get if/when it has to. Now to be relevant, I like bullpups. I like traditional designs. They both have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other. All things being equal, I think a good bullpup is better than a good conventional design.

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/23/2004 9:44:26 AM

Snipers are very useful. Units shouldn't wage urban warfare without them (same for most other scenarios). But the average infantry soldier don't need a sniper rifle. He needs a weapon for shootouts up to 200/300 meters. And thats a short light weapon with little recoil. Thats a carbine. A modern squad/chalk/combat team will have something like the M 8 with its differnt variants. So they will always have an sharpshooter version (not a sniper weapon!)and a squad automatic weaopn (light machine gun) at hands. The M 8 - for example - will fit this needs. And by the way: modern infantry always have some heavy wapons with them (IFV, artillery and mortar support, ATGW, AT 4, heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, helicopers, tanks, ....). They take the fire to the long range.

Quote Reply

Eno RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/23/2004 11:14:07 AM

Carbines are not the way forward for general use - the US found this one out the hard way in Afganistan, where their M4s just weren't accurate at enough at the longer ranges they often found themselves dealing with. The primary advantage of a bullpup is that its the size of a carbine, which makes it good for CQB, whilst the barrel is as long as a normal rifle, giving it a long accurate range for outdoor work, and making it more accurate for mid range (100-300m) than a carbine. Downsides can include loss of ambidexterity, awkward balance, ease of access to the magazine, mechanical complexity and reliability due to the more complex design. Most of those are down to the design of the gun, and vary from make to make: for instance, some better designed bullpups can have their side changed with varying degrees of ease, or eject cartridges forward. From what I've seen, much of the resistance to bullpups comes from sheer aesthetics. A lot of people just don't like the looks of them, or reckon they look too "space age" (That said, the XM8 looks to be giving the FN-P90 a run for its money in the futuristic looks department)

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/23/2004 12:24:44 PM

So if the US forces in Afganistan really think they need more range (what are their heavy weapons for?) they could - if equipped with something like the M 8 - the barrels and switch to the "sharpshooter version" (not a sniper rifle). Analysis of many wars shows that infantry mostly have to shoot just up to 200/300 m. And normaly soldiers have to fire quick well aimed shots. And a squad/chalk/combat team should have a squad automatic weapon (light machine gun)and a sharshooter weapon. So the team should be able to fire at targets beyond the carbines range.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:Bullpup or conventional? 1/23/2004 3:45:22 PM

I wasnt reffering to snipers, or advocating the general issue of sniper rifles. I'm not even referring to sharpshooters or designated marksmen. I am referring to riflemen. Riflemen need rifles capable of performing the fundemental task of accurately engaging the enemy at whatever distance or in whatever situation they may be encountered. To limit yourself with your equipment with the notion that youll never need to shoot over 200 meters is a little idiotic. Its taking away an option. One less option compounds the problem at hand exponentially when that is the option needed at that time and place. CQB/MOUT is to be considered as one part of the requirements. Not the end all be all criteria of weapons selection. One thing that bugs me about the M-8 is it sounds to me all the hype behind it is because its new. In the age of gadgetry I guess that carries some wieght. I think there was a day and age when brand new Edsels sat on showroom floors with all the latest gadgets as well. The M-8 may not be a bad rifle. I just dont think its the right rifle at the right time and place. Another thing that bugs me about all this. All the talk of not being able to handle their weapons while in a HMMWV. Now maybe I'm a little dated, and my experiances may not even be relevant to the current area and operations ... but the fastest way to catch a round is to stay crouched down in your mount. If they are taking fire and need to engage ...... why are they not dismounting and attacking into the threat? By hearing this it makes me envision flooring it, firing blindly out the windows, and gettin the hell out of dodge. Not exactly the way to secure a route or eleviate that threat so it doesnt happen again tomorrow. Just my thoughts on that. I'm not anti M-8 because it's the M-8. I'm anti M-8 because posts like that. Posts that sound good but you shake your head when you contemplate it in a realistic fashion. The SAW M-8 is something I havent heard much of. It sounds like a real loser though. Magazine fed and lacking a quick change barrel? Isnt that the arguement everyone uses against the BAR and M-14E2? The guys in the funny shaped building have lost it if the M-8 is being considered in that role to replace the M-249. A sharpshooter M-8 would be just about as lacking. It may be fired more accurately and outrange the standard 12.5 incher M-8 ... but so does a standard M-16A2. And no, infantry dont always find themselves surrounded by IFVs, Apaches, and Arty. There are times when you find yourself in small groups without good coordination and have no one else to rely on. This is something I know firsthand, and a reason I feel somewhat passionate about the need to equip the individual soldiers to be able to carry their own wieght and make it home. It may not be the contengency thats envisioned when you see hundreds of Abrahms charging on line across a desert ... but its none the less a very real contengency that has to be wieghed.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT