The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 6, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Bullpup or conventional?
MuN    1/21/2004 10:22:11 AM
Many nation's armies have turned to replace their assualt rifle with bullpup rifles. I am not a great fan of bullpup rifles. My country's army have decided to replace the M-16 with a bullpup rifle.
The SAR-21

link

Friends in the army told me that the SAR-21 is an excellent rifle, and more reliable than the M-16. But i still think that it is VERY important for a rifle to remain 100% ambidextrous at all times. A rifle like the FN2000 should be an excellent choice, instead of a conventional bullpup configuration like the SAR-21. What do you all think?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
MuN    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/24/2004 2:30:28 PM
Question. Oh yar, i sort of realised that i repeated the subject when i posted the topic. Hahahh....
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/25/2004 11:43:39 AM
Well, hope you have a smooth recovery.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/25/2004 12:11:48 PM
>>Barrel length is neccesary for velocity and therefore range. << Velocity is also necessary to ensure lethality from 5.56mm ammunition, so there is merit, in the specifc case of 5.56mm, in a long-barreled but compact format like a FAMAS or an L85.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/25/2004 12:29:18 PM
>>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.<< Finding out that the original M16s were not especially reliable with the original military issue ammunition in Southeast Asia in the mid-1960s was "the hard way." Experience in Afghanistan, where selected personnel used M4s or M203A1s in infantry units (outside of SOCOM, the M16 remains the primary American small arm), was not especially the "hard way." The Afghan experience, as also learned by the Soviets, was that in certain environments (i.e. deserts and barren mountains) are such that a bolt-action .303 Lee Enfield has a certain degree of utility vis a vis a modern assault rifle firing a lighter cartridge. In that setting, L85A2 with SUSAT does not deliver the mail any better than an M16A4 with optics -- the 5.56mm round just doesn't have the legs for shooting in the high desert, and the situation calls for platoon and squad level designated marksmans rifles, or even bolt-action sniper rifles, to provide precision fire alongside 7.62mm GPMGs and on-call artillery, mortar, and air support. Units made do, succeeded, and learned their lessons -- in the case of 101st Airborne, this was evident in their deployment to Iraq with M14 based DMRs for long-range fire.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/25/2004 12:36:30 PM
>>Analysis of many wars shows that infantry mostly have to shoot just up to 200/300 m. << If I am not mistaken, it was analysis of UF forces in World War 2 that established the 300 meter/yard figure -- conscript forces fighting in generally well-vegetated or urban terrain. A generation earlier in WW1, conscript and professional forces firing across man-made moon-scapes tended to engage at rather longer ranges (the long-range precision gunnery of long-service British forces early in the war coming to mind immediately). It should come as absolutely no suprise to anyone that professional soldiers fighting in another open environment favoring long range engagements like the Iraqi desert of Afghan mountains find the 300 meter barrier a hindrance rather than a help. The Soviets encountered the same thing in the same environment twenty years earlier.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/25/2004 12:45:07 PM
>>The M-8 may not be a bad rifle. I just dont think its the right rifle at the right time and place.<< M8 will have commonality with the OICW, if/when it ever enters service. As for the hype and such, it is not a giant step forward, vis a vis the M16, but does include integral optics (instead of strapping them onto the M16) and is supposedly more reliable than the M16, by virtue of using a derivative of the AR18 action. Still, the main driving motivation is commonality with the OICW's 5.56mm portion. >>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?<< Convoy SOP is to suppress and depart the area. Stopping to dismount and engage is all good and wonderful if your convoy happens to be an infantry company or platoon in trucks and hum-vees, but halting your convoy of fuellers, ammunition trucks, and other logistical assets is playing into the hands of the insurgents. >>Not exactly the way to secure a route or eleviate that threat so it doesnt happen again tomorrow. Just my thoughts on that.<< I agree, again, if your convoy is a combat patrol. If it is a supply convoy or the like, it's bad tactics and likely to just get a bunch of CSS soldiers and their security element shot up and their cargo destroyed or captured. >>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.<< If I am not mistaken, the M8 SAW version was dropped for the reasons you outlined above.
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:Bullpup or conventional?   1/25/2004 8:40:28 PM
I guess I was guilty of thinking inside my own little box as far as the need for firing out windows etc. I can see where service and support types might press the pedal on the right and do a little spraying and praying. I was really only thinking of Infantry. So you do have a very vaild point. My questions are why such a weapon (that might be ideal for service and support types to use from the cab of their 5 ton) will also be the weapon of the individual combat rifleman, that doesnt have that same criteria of size restrictions. It appears from what I've read so far it is a simple matter to tailor the weapon configuration. Why then is the 12.5" tube standard? I think it ought to mount a 20" for combat arms types, and put the little 12.5" on there for the troops that are served just as well by a 50 yard over grown SMG. Once again though ... I know its a dead issue and whats done is done. Ive just yet to see an explanation as to why the rifle was adopted as it was.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy