Bullpup or Conventional rifle?

[Mr Ignorant]

FAMAS, Steyr, SA80, Tavor and EM2 has brought the issue to the fore.

Why is the Bullpup getting more popular??

And what does it mean for more traditional makes like the M16 family of rifles and AKs???

Discuss.

[SgtStu]

FAMAS, Steyr, SA80, Tavor and EM2 has brought the issue to the fore.

Why is the Bullpup getting more popular??

And what does it mean for more traditional makes like the M16 family of rifles and AKs???

Discuss.

The reason that so many armies are adopting the Bullpup design is very simple: It makes a rifle much shorter and does not take away the accuracy. The primary reason that the British Army decided to adopt the SA80 was that they found that the old SLR 7.62 was too large, especially in the confines of helicopters, APC's, Land Rovers etc and proved to be a real headache on the streets of Northern Ireland, especially in built up urban areas. The introduction of the SA80 solved a lot of these problems overnight, but also created a few too because initially the were a lot of problems with reliability, however these have now been solved and the SA80 is now recognized as one of the finest assault rifles in the world..

It should also be said that because of the design and placement of the bolt system(s) the recoil is considerably reduced and more accuracy is attained on short bursts of automatic fire, a feature especially handy in urban areas.

Hope that answers a few questions for you,

Best regards,

Stuart

[Izzy1]

The reason that so many armies are adopting the Bullpup design is very simple: It makes a rifle much shorter and does not take away the accuracy. The primary reason that the British Army decided to adopt the SA80 was that they found that the old SLR 7.62 was too large, especially in the confines of helicopters, APC's, Land Rovers etc and proved to be a real headache on the streets of Northern Ireland, especially in built up urban areas. The introduction of the SA80 solved a lot of these problems overnight, but also created a few too because initially the were a lot of problems with reliability, however these have now been solved and the SA80 is now recognized as one of the finest assault rifles in the world..

It should also be said that because of the design and placement of the bolt system(s) the recoil is considerably reduced and more accuracy is attained on short bursts of automatic fire, a feature especially handy in urban areas.

Hope that answers a few questions for you,

Best regards,

Stuart



Stuart,

Sorry, no, its an awful piece of kit inflicted upon the British Army.

Way too heavy, SUSAT fogs up too easy and remains too delicate despite the L85-A2 upgrade by Heckler & Koch.

And let's not start on the LSW. Absolute rubbish.


Give them the kit.

[extern]

The bulpap design has its shortcomings too:
1) The case evacuation for the right side is too close to the face - especially awful for left-handers and when you shoot all along of the right corner. This problem must be treated somewhere with forward case evacuation.
2) Poor ergonomics for shooting from low body position: the head of the soldier is too high, so it is becoming more vulnerable for enemy fire.

[Manfred2]

The Bullpup has to make Drill a nightmare!
Bad enough with an M-16, but that thing the British have to deal with...

I noticed the guard at Buckinghan have those also. I realize that this is an actual post, but wouldn't a Lee-Enfield be more handy for whacking the punks that get too touchey-feeley?:laugh

[Mr Ignorant]

Stuart,

Sorry, no, its an awful piece of kit inflicted upon the British Army.

Way too heavy, SUSAT fogs up too easy and remains too delicate despite the L85-A2 upgrade by Heckler & Koch.

And let's not start on the LSW. Absolute rubbish.


Give them the kit.

Hi guys

Thanks for the interesting comments. I never knew this would kick up a few old chestnuts.

Anyho

The Bull Pup looks like a futuristic design with practical advantages, as mentioned by a few, namely;

1) retaining the barrel length of some 20 inches

2) Shortening the overall design, excellent in CQB

But, as traditionalists point out;

1) The conventional design has not disappeared - refer the Russians and Americans, a relevant point in case.

2) CQB scenarios in Urban Warfare may be a factor, but not one impinging decisive battles, as observed in Grozhny and Stalingrad, where the Russians
favoured artillery and tanks to just take out snipers nests.

3) Armies in general, are still prejudiced towards conventional designs, Germans and Spanish with the G36; Americans with the M16s; Russians with the AKs and now Nikonovas; Iranians with their assorted G3s and AKs; and so on-

Must we proudly proclaim the virtues of the Bull Pup and if so, what is the likelihood of British armed Forces abandoning the design for something off the shelf and can still do the job???

The SA80 will be replaced in 2015 and currently it is one of the heaviest battle rifles around. Or is the Bull Pup still way ahead of its time??

Mr Ignorant who shall remain ignorant for the benefit of this discussion.

[Tasman]

The Bullpup has to make Drill a nightmare!
Bad enough with an M-16, but that thing the British have to deal with...

I noticed the guard at Buckinghan have those also. I realize that this is an actual post, but wouldn't a Lee-Enfield be more handy for whacking the punks that get too touchey-feeley?:laugh

Hence the reason some precision drill teams (e.g. Australian Federation Guard) revert to older weapons for their displays(see image below from "Digger History" website).
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-army-today/fed-guard.htm

I guess a lot comes down to personal preference. I realise that the shorter length could be handy in some situations but problems like that of the cases ejecting too close to the face of a left hander is a negative. Personally I just don't like it and much prefer the more 'traditional' designs.

Having said that I know a number of ADF personnel who say that they like the Steyr.

Tas

[extern]

Bulpap - is a great design but its shortcomings noted above must be treated.
As an example I can offer the successeful Tula's A-91 assaulte rifle. It's popular in some Russian special units. It has a proved AK input in reloading mech, but the case ejection works in forward direction. It also very comfortable for left-handers too.

One can find more info about the device in the follow article:

"Caliber: 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: 660 mm
Barrel length: ??
Weight: 3.97 kg empty (with integral grenade launcher)
Rate of fire: 600-800 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds

The A-91 bullpup assault rifle (also known as A-91M) was developed during the 1990s by KBP (Instrument Design Bureau) in Tula, as an offspring of the A-91 family of compact assault rifles described above in the 9A-91 article. While the A-91 retains the basic gas-operated, rotating bolt action and a trigger unit design from 9A-91, it features a bullpup polymer housing, with an integral 40 mm single-shot grenade launcher mounted under the barrel. The earliest prototypes of the A-91 bullpup were fitted with the grenade launcher above the barrel, and with a front vertical foregrip; current models are fitted with the underbarrel launcher, which also serves as a forearm. The A-91 features a forward ejection system, initially developed in Tula by designers like Afanasiev during the early 1960s. In this system, the ejection port is located above the pistol grip, and points forward. Extracted cases are fed from bolt head through the short ejection tube to the ejection port, and fall out of the gun well clear of the shooter's face, even when firing from the left shoulder. As for now, the A-91 is made in small number and, probably, is used by some elite law enforcement units in Russia; it is also offered for export and domestic military and police sales.

The controls include double triggers (front for grenade launcher, back for rifle), and a large fire mode / safety lever at the right side of the receiver, above the magazine housing. The rifle trigger is fitted with an additional automatic trigger safety. The charging handle is located above the receiver, under the carrying handle, and is easily accessible for either hand.
The sights include a front post, mounted on a high base, and an aperture rear, adjustable for range, which is mounted on the integral carrying handle. The top of the carrying handle is shaped as a Weaver-type rail, and can accept a vide variety of scopes and sights. Folding grenade launcher sights are mounted at the front of the barrel.
Originally developed for 7.62 x 39 ammunition and standard AK-pattern magazines, the A-91 bullpup is now also available in 5.56 x 45 NATO chambering, which uses proprietary 30 round polymer magazines.
Source: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:M5qnNeEmKMAJ:world.guns.ru/assault/as66-e.htm+a-91+assault+rifle&hl=ru&client=opera&strip=1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/A-91.jpg

[extern]

More one article about A-91 bullpap assault rifle on the developer's page:
http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/strelk/556a91.htm

I think, the forward case ejection and two-shoulder usableness must become the standard before bullpap rifles come to broad service. Otherwise, I cannot understand, what an advance of the bullpap rifle in the quarter combat while the maneurability from corner to corner is the question of life or death.

[swerve]

The FN F2000 is also forward-ejection, & not the only one so designed, though I'm not sure if any others are actually in production.

Isn't the Steyr AUG one of those which are reversible, so you can choose left or right ejection?

About the SA80 -

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

[AGRA]

The AUG can be converted from left to right ejection but it needs a different bolt for either configuration. So its not something you do in the field when you need to change the side you shoot from to take advantage of firing around cover.

From personal experience I can assure you all that firing an AUG (F88) from the left shoulder is quite possible. The odd brass in the face is not the end of the world and as long as it doesn’t go down your shirt life goes on. However some other bullpup weapons like the SA80 can not be fired from the left shoulder. They have a charging handle fixed to the bolt carrier that moves back and forth as the action cycles. This is courtesy of the SA80 just being a copy of the AR18. If you try and shoot the SA80 from the left shoulder it will knock your teeth out.

The most problematic thing about a bullpup rifle is the full use of the butt stock space for the action means it isn’t easy to add an adjustable stock allowing for reducing the length. Reducing stock length is needed for wearing body armour vests that change the comfortable length relationship between the butt stock and where the firing hand will be. Of course there are solutions to this problem, just like the shell ejection issue.

[swerve]

The AUG can be converted from left to right ejection but it needs a different bolt for either configuration. So its not something you do in the field when you need to change the side you shoot from to take advantage of firing around cover.

From personal experience I can assure you all that firing an AUG (F88) from the left shoulder is quite possible. The odd brass in the face is not the end of the world and as long as it doesn’t go down your shirt life goes on. However some other bullpup weapons like the SA80 can not be fired from the left shoulder. They have a charging handle fixed to the bolt carrier that moves back and forth as the action cycles. This is courtesy of the SA80 just being a copy of the AR18. If you try and shoot the SA80 from the left shoulder it will knock your teeth out....

Ta. Yet another thing to back up my gut feeling that the SA80 was a ghastly mistake. It may have eventually turned into a useful weapon, but it took so long! And the cost! It cost so much to rebuild our stock of SA80s to make them reliable I suspect it might have been cheaper to throw them away & buy the FAMAS, or AUG, or FN2000 - or almost anything else.

[Mr Ignorant]

I was thinking about the SA 80 in particular. But if the Rifle performs in the extremes of desert and mountain warfare, is that not justifiable???

Yes, it was removed from the NATO list of small arms, back in the 90s. But, I feel maybe the British should have dropped altogether and purchase Diemaco C7 Rifles.

Expediency or Pride???

[Doan]

edited

[Izzy1]

I was thinking about the SA 80 in particular. But if the Rifle performs in the extremes of desert and mountain warfare, is that not justifiable???

Yes, it was removed from the NATO list of small arms, back in the 90s. But, I feel maybe the British should have dropped altogether and purchase Diemaco C7 Rifles.

Expediency or Pride???


As Swerve states, cost was the deciding factor in keeping the rifle in service. Not only the expensive and long-winded H&K/ROF refurb to bring it to A2 standard, but the absolutely criminal expense lavished on it's even more protracted development in the 1970's/early-80's.

Also, if memory serves, didn't the SA 80's introduction come shortly before the Government's commercial sale of the original manufacturer? Thus, the conspiracy theory that SA 80 was rushed into service long before being ready, purely for business interests.

A sorry state of affairs that I hope is never repeated.

[Mr Ignorant]

Off target

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,808713,00.html

Paste the link on the navigation bar, and I think this goes some way to explaining why the SA80 turned out as it did.

[Izzy1]

Off target

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,808713,00.html

Paste the link on the navigation bar, and I think this goes some way to explaining why the SA80 turned out as it did.

An excellent article by The Guardian. I recall the conspiracy theories but reading that, the story is even more damming than I thought.

A horrible story of commercial interest coming before common sense.

[Mr Ignorant]

In all fairness, there is some virtue to the Bull Pup, in spite of the SA80. The FAMAS, FN2000, Tavor and Steyr are reputable, but maybe.............it will take some time for most armies to adopt a controversial design.

[Izzy1]

In all fairness, there is some virtue to the Bull Pup, in spite of the SA80. The FAMAS, FN2000, Tavor and Steyr are reputable, but maybe.............it will take some time for most armies to adopt a controversial design.

Totaly agree, please don't get me wrong when it comes to BPups.

I have said here before, the best rifle I ever had the chance to shoot is the Steyr AUG, a wonderful piece of kit.

Granted, it doesn't look the most robust of rifles, at first sight it looks pretty fragile. But as soon as you pick it up, the ergonomics of its design come out. The grip felt good, the weight of it for me was centred in the right place - for me it sat well, lifted little - it felt right. Dare I say it though, it's now a dated design!!!

The FA MAS, through sheer luck I got to handle it thanks to a long story involving my French-teaching Dad. You have to put your shoulder into the 'clarion' because when it goes auto, it expresses itself. Great fun, but perhaps designed for a different era of ideas.



BPups have their qualities, but if I had to choose a next-gen weapon for the British Army - let it be the G-36, IMHO.

[riksavage]

The following paper looks at the much derided SA80 and possible alternatives based on weight rather than configeration (bullpup or conventional layout). Some very interesting observations.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf

[Chino]

The following paper looks at the much derided SA80 and possible alternatives based on weight rather than configeration (bullpup or conventional layout). Some very interesting observations.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf

I strongly agree with the author's contention that it's the other stuff that infantrymen can carry - like AT weapons, AGL grenades, comms, surveillance etc that will affect the outcome of battles.

A book about Australians in Vietnam stated that 90% of the time, they couldn't see what they were shooting at, so volume of fire was more important than marksmanship. And this makes the case for more area weapons like AGLs.

...

However, I do not agree to reducing the curent 5.56 to PDW calibre. Already the 5.56 face serious challenge punching through barriers and being deflected by vegetations etc.

...

On the opposite scale I am against what many in the west are clamouring for - a larger calibre for standard infantry - for their so-called "knock down" power.

As one US Marine veteran said: "I've shot people with .22, 9mm, 5.56 etc... They all died."

There are some people no matter what you shoot them with, they will go down fighting.

And there are no known rifle calibre with more knock down power than a 40mm grenade. So if current 5.56 IW package means my section can have more 40mm explosives compared to a 7.62 or 6.8 package, the choice is obvious.

A bigger calibre will mean a heavier IW package - no question. And this means troops will carry less ammo, tire earlier, and carry less of other important stuff. The argument for a larger calibre rifle would be right in the old days before UGL and AGL etc when there was nothing else to shoot with other than the rifle. But this is no longer the case. I would definitely give priority to more SAW, sniper rifles, LAW and AGL within the section than a overall bigger rifle for everyone as standard.

...

Despite what the author would have us believe, many countries are actually pretty satisfied with the 5.56mm. Until something significantly better is available, who would want to go through another round of calibre change?

And the PDW is in no way significantly better than the 5.56.

Its main selling point is armour penetration. But many existing and potential enemies aren't even wearing body armour, so you can't expect any armies to go out on anti body-armour small arms purchase.

...

In Singapore, SAF uses the FN P90 in its silenced role for Commandos. It is hard to silence a 5.56 and the 5.7 P90 is more effective in range than a 9mm.

The 5.7 calibre is also used by STK to pair with its OIWS-style SSW - Section Support Weapon. This is a hefty 40mm AGL firing a smarter grenade than the M203 dumb bomb. And I believe a SMG (or PDW) of the same calibre is also in the works.

[McTaff]

Wow. There are a lot of interesting points made in this thread, and a few people have mentioned calibres and so on... I'll get to that.

Firstly, bullpup.

From my experience with a Steyr (F88), I found it to be a nice weapon. Fairly decent ergonomics, firing from most positions was comfortable, and all in all it was a bit of fun in the end. As mentioned earlier, you can convert to left-handed, which is quite a neat conversion, but it still can be used right-handed if you have the nerves for it. What AGRA said made me laugh; it's true, as long as the brass doesn't invade your collar, nothing serious happens - but it was kinda funny seeing a leftie with a spent shell in his once-peice combats doing the 'hot dance' while also trying to hold a loaded assault rifle downrange :D

Downward ejecting shells (as has been tried) can be just as hard to deal with if you are standing or kneeling, as you crook your right arm and that could mean a hot spent casing could sit there and potentially make your life quite interesting.

Bullpup is a cute system for in vehicle weapons, though.

--

In the matter of calibre, it is all a matter of preference. I know plenty of folk who rue the day that the 5.56mm was adopted. The horror stories of a oppponent positively peppered with 5.56mm rounds and still fighting are bought to the fore because people want their old calibre back. We just aren't sure if that ever happened with the 7.62mm because there wasn't something to complain about - so they never really would have said the round was underpowered, would they? Mogadishu definitely highlighted the inadequacy of the 5.56mm in a lot of cases, but that was a case of people with no support, massively outmanned and had limited intelligence, which would have compounded the issues they had. Furthermore, there is always the matter of ammo loadout, also as previously stated.

In the long run, 7.62mm is better, but there are plenty of times when stopping power really isn't the issue. As stated before:
If you're sniping, chances are you have a massive calibre with a barrel of powder behind it anyway, and that is where the size and stopping power do count.
If you're in a house-to-house situation, indirect fire and explosive projectiles, etc, might be what wins the day.
In a forest, you may not be able to see your enemy, and oly have a general position so volume might be the key.

Me? I prefer the 7.62mm, but that's because I can shoot with it well. Amongst a sizeable group, we had this discussion, and it was surprisng the distribution of people who tended to like which round:
The real lightweights liked the 5.56mm
Then the next weight range up liked the 7.62mm.
Then the next range liked the 5.56mm
Then the heavier guys preferred the 7.62mm.

Turned out, the light guys couldn't deal with recoil of the bigger round.
Then the next group preferred the bigger round because they could deal with the recoil and thus be reasonably accurate with either round.
Then the next group up found that the recoil of the 5.56 was almost negligile, and they were very accurate with it.
Then the last group started to find the 7.62mm recoil gave them little trouble.

Strange isn't it?

But, Chino is right. The better the resources at your disposal, the better. Loadout with something that puts someone out of action. You don't have to blow them to bits with your rifle, that's what the other shiny toys are for.

[Chino]

Firstly, bullpup.

From my experience with a Steyr (F88), I found it to be a nice weapon. Fairly decent ergonomics, firing from most positions was comfortable, and all in all it was a bit of fun in the end.

I never had a chance with our new bullpup the SAR-21. I was M16 all the way and I love everything about the weapon including its superb accuracy over iron sights.

The few times I did handle a bullpup I found all the switches in the wrong place, and changing mags to be slow especially in the prone position. But I'm told that training and familiarity will sort that out soon enough.

[Tracer]

It should be remembered that a bullpup rifle gets the overall lenght of the rifle down but keeps the barrel lenght long, thus rounds attain the velocity needed for maximum effectiveness. A 20" bullpup will be the same lenght as a conventional 14" rifle. The effectiveness of the 5.56mm drops dramatically when fired from a barrel under 16".

[Pathfinder-X]

Totaly agree, please don't get me wrong when it comes to BPups.

I have said here before, the best rifle I ever had the chance to shoot is the Steyr AUG, a wonderful piece of kit.

Granted, it doesn't look the most robust of rifles, at first sight it looks pretty fragile. But as soon as you pick it up, the ergonomics of its design come out. The grip felt good, the weight of it for me was centred in the right place - for me it sat well, lifted little - it felt right. Dare I say it though, it's now a dated design!!!

The FA MAS, through sheer luck I got to handle it thanks to a long story involving my French-teaching Dad. You have to put your shoulder into the 'clarion' because when it goes auto, it expresses itself. Great fun, but perhaps designed for a different era of ideas.



BPups have their qualities, but if I had to choose a next-gen weapon for the British Army - let it be the G-36, IMHO.
I didn't like the sight system of Steyr AUG. The 1.5X scope reticule is rather imprecise and overall the sight feels flimsy. I love what the Australian army did with it though. In a few of the photos I saw, they replaced the Swarovski sight with the Elcan C79 sight. That sight is the sturdiest weapon optical sight I've touched so far, weights nearly a pound and performs well under low light conditions. Granted, it has some problems, but I'd take it over the Swarovski any day.

[Chino]

Of course, a shorter weapon wil be very welcome!!

But... unfortunately, Singapore's SAR-21 bullpup ranks among the heaviest AR at 3.82kg empty.

Unloaded weight
M4A1 - 2.52kg
M16A1 - 2.89kg
TAR21 - 3.27kg
AK74 - 3.3kg
HKG36 - 3.6kg
FN2000 - 3.6kg
SteyrAUG -3.8kg
SAR21- 3.82kg

I thought the way forward is to reduce weapon weight...

Sure, it's got a scope and a LAD and a kevlar plate for safety. But the boffins really should work on having a lighter weapon even with all these accessories. The designers of the weapon have probably never humped a big load of equipment and walked for miles without having slept. Any reduction of weight is welcome. Any increase is NOT!

[Chrom]

Bullap is surery good for close-quarter combat (like inside buildings or jungles). It is also easer to handle in cramped space like IFV or helo. But as general purpose rifle it have some disadvantages already named.

[AGRA]

Sure, it's got a scope and a LAD and a kevlar plate for safety. But the boffins really should work on having a lighter weapon even with all these accessories. The designers of the weapon have probably never humped a big load of equipment and walked for miles without having slept. Any reduction of weight is welcome. Any increase is NOT!

Its because it has a scope and LAD/NAD integral is why it weighs more. You add a scope and pointer aiming device to any of those other rifles and their weight will be similar. Empty weight is not a good indication of actual weight.

[rossfrb_1]

snip

In the matter of calibre, it is all a matter of preference. I know plenty of folk who rue the day that the 5.56mm was adopted. The horror stories of a oppponent positively peppered with 5.56mm rounds and still fighting are bought to the fore because people want their old calibre back. We just aren't sure if that ever happened with the 7.62mm because there wasn't something to complain about - so they never really would have said the round was underpowered, would they? Mogadishu definitely highlighted the inadequacy of the 5.56mm in a lot of cases,
snip


Re Mogadishu, there's hearsay that the problem there was the use of 'teflon' bullets. Whether this is true I don't know.
I'm guessing that when the 7.62 was in use, there were those who moaned that it wasn't as good as the .303 or 30.06.:)

rb

[Awang se]

Re Mogadishu, there's hearsay that the problem there was the use of 'teflon' bullets. Whether this is true I don't know.
I'm guessing that when the 7.62 was in use, there were those who moaned that it wasn't as good as the .303 or 30.06.:)

rb

Read the history of M-16 and you'll find out a hell it goes through cause by the military conservatives who wish to stay with .30 calibre.

personally, i prefer an M4 over the AUG. though lack in range, it feel quite well balance and easier to handle. but i guess it depend on who you're talking to. some of my friends prefer the AUG over conventional design.

One more thing, have you seen russian made OC-14 groza? it was suppose to fire a slow and heavy 9 x 39mm bullet. try to get hit with that. 1 or 2 round will knock an air out of you.

[Chino]

Its because it has a scope and LAD/NAD integral is why it weighs more. You add a scope and pointer aiming device to any of those other rifles and their weight will be similar. Empty weight is not a good indication of actual weight.

I understand that, as my post stated.

i was saying that we should've worked on making it lighter inspite of all these add-ons. It is possible because the same company that produce the SAR-21 also produces the lightest LMG in the world.

[Chino]

The rifleman's load is increasing. Even the average-built conscripts of SAF will eventually wear body armour as standard.

And in the infantry section, most men have a secondary weapon or load to carry that is usually heavier than the rifle. Grenadiers, radioman, LAW, claymore mines, spare ammo, hand grenades etc etc.

This makes the case for lightweight M4 over a heavier Steyr AUG or SAR-21.

The M4 is so light, even after adding on stuff, it is still lighter than the Steyr or SAR-21.

...

The killing power of the Individual rifle beyong 200m is quite secondary in SE Asia.

The short barrel of the M4 is not a problem in this region as jungle and urban places have short range combat.

Besides the section will have sharpshooters and SAW which all have a longer range. And engaging at long range like 300m is quite combat ineffective anyway for infantry.

And people who say that the M4's bullet is ineffective oughta volunteer themselves for a simple experiment. I'll bet you 95% of the time, someone's who's hit will stop fighting - M4 or M whatever...

...

A further advantage of the M4 is its adjustable length buttstock. When wearing thick body armour, people with shorter hands may need to shorten the butt to shoot comfortably. there isn't yet a bullpup that can do that.

...

IMO, Malaysia has made a great choice in picking the M4. It is furthermore a system that Malaysia has logistics for in place like spare parts, magazines etc etc.

[Waylander]

Its because it has a scope and LAD/NAD integral is why it weighs more. You add a scope and pointer aiming device to any of those other rifles and their weight will be similar. Empty weight is not a good indication of actual weight.

[Mr. Picky]

In the end at least the G36 already includes a red dot and a scope. ;)

[/MR. Picky]

[AGRA]

Re Mogadishu, there's hearsay that the problem there was the use of 'teflon' bullets. Whether this is true I don't know.
I'm guessing that when the 7.62 was in use, there were those who moaned that it wasn't as good as the .303 or 30.06.:)

Teflon bullets! Sci-fi pseudo babble nonsense.

The problem was with US 5.56x45 Armour Piercing (AP) bullets, called M955, that have a tungsten core.

5.56x45 is less lethal than 7.62x51 when it hits a body because it is a much smaller bullet and the difference in velocity in favour of 5.56 (at shorter ranges) is not enough to outweigh this deficiency. However you are more likely to hit someone with 5.56x45 than 7.62x51 with all things being equal (you have more bullets to shoot and they travel between you and the target much quicker and flatter).

With AP ammo you take away the chance of fragmentation in the bullet which is one of the ways 5.56x45 SS109 achieves lethality. But if you are shooting at people with modern body armour AP ammo at least allows you to achieve a penetrating hit. Of course the locals in Somalia did not have body armour.

The 7.62x51 is effectively identical in ballistic performance to the 30.06, they just shortened the cartridge to 51mm length as less propellant volume was needed because more efficient propellant was used. 7.52x51 has higher velocity than the old .303 so is a much better round. So no one was complaining back in the 50s.

[McTaff]

With AP ammo you take away the chance of fragmentation in the bullet which is one of the ways 5.56x45 SS109 achieves lethality. But if you are shooting at people with modern body armour AP ammo at least allows you to achieve a penetrating hit. Of course the locals in Somalia did not have body armour.

...and the reason that most Vietnam-era servicemen hated the M16 was a combination of two problems. (I'm dredging this material up from the grey matter, so it is probably inaccurate)

IIRC, The first was the fact they were promised a magical 'tumbling' bullet due to a specific rifling ratio. When it was changed to a different rifling (OTTOMH I forget why - perhaps inaccuracy?), it failed to produce the 'meat axe' effect they were hoping for.

Secondly, the M16 in it's first incarnation was a notoriously unreliable weapon, mostly because it required constant cleaning (which didn't happen in the field), and other issues.

Because of this, the M16 had a bad reputation, partly due to the choice of calibre, but partly due to engineering and RTFM issues. This made people hate the 5.56mm round pretty much forever... Even though the M16A2 is a whole lot better, and they've fixed the issues, the stigma remains. When Mogadishu went down, it re-affirmed the Bad Choice of 5.56mm, without any further investigation.

That's why so many peeps dislike 5.56mm to this day. Thanks to AGRA for shedding more light on this, too.

-

Anyways, to re-rail the thread, Bullpup rifles are a more easily transportable weapon for aircrew, vehicle crew, paratroopers, and such. A conventional rifle with a folding buttstock might come close to this versatility, can anyone out there comment?

One more thing; a bullpup design can not only be used to reduce overall length while maintaining barrel length - it can be used in the reverse to construct a rifle of normal dimensions with a longer barrel. This is a consideration for a designated marksman rifle in an infantry squad, should a suitable assault rifle be used.

[Awang se]

Bullpup sniper rifle

http://www.dragunov.net/svd/svu_auto.jpg

[McTaff]

Bullpup sniper rifle

http://www.dragunov.net/svd/svu_auto.jpg

I was referring to a modified assault rifle rather than a purpose built sniper rifle, but the principle is pretty much there.

On another note, a bullpup design does allow interesting things, like the Pancor Jackhammer, and it's cylindrical magazine that does not eject the shells. It's an interesting design approach that certainly makes the ejection issue a moot point.

[Awang se]

On another note, a bullpup design does allow interesting things, like the Pancor Jackhammer, and it's cylindrical magazine that does not eject the shells. It's an interesting design approach that certainly makes the ejection issue a moot point.

which will make the magazine's big and bulky. a big bulky magazine for a ejectionless system. not a good trade in my book.

[McTaff]

which will make the magazine's big and bulky. a big bulky magazine for a ejectionless system. not a good trade in my book.

The trick is that you aren't using a conventional feed/fire action then catching the expended casings, you simply don't move them in the first place. The magazine itself isn't very big, still equivalent to the size of a normal drum magazine because there is no need to make it any bigger. Remember this is shotgun shells, not assault rifle rounds, so the magazine is already large to begin with.

Having assault rifle rounds in a cylindrical magazine makes it difficult to use all of the space you have available in the centre, so yes magazines of that type may be fairly large for the amount of ammo contained within. However, you could simply have a slot through which the expended cases are pushed through once they have advanced through the firing mechanism, and thus they'd drop out (not be ejected with force). This would allow you to have a cylindrical magazine with a spiral interior, allowing you to use all that space inside.

From my limited knowledge, that'd possibly guard against ejected shells getting jammed in the ejection port (which I've seen a fair bit), as they aren't required to vacate the port forcefully. They simply follow the 'belt' and are dropped out the other side.

Trouble is, although technically not a belt-fed system, you are exposing yourself to feeding issues without having a nice, straight feed that is spring loaded, but that is what engineers are for. The cocking handle arrangement would still be the same. I don't know - I've not encountered a weapon of this design, I'm simply theorising.

That'd mean you would have perhaps one or two magazines with anywhere between 50 - 150 rounds depending on the size of your ammunition and the size of the magazine you choose.

[Awang se]

They simply follow the 'belt' and are dropped out the other side.

that will be problematic if you take a high angle shot.

This would allow you to have a cylindrical magazine with a spiral interior, allowing you to use all that space inside

i once test this concept for drum magazine. the long curve path took a heavy toll on a spring. halfway through, the spring aren't strong enough to push the round reliably. an extra strong spring may cause a problem when feeding the bullet into the magazine. furthermore, the strong spring may cause the bullets to "jump" out of magazine.

[McTaff]

i once test this concept for drum magazine. the long curve path took a heavy toll on a spring. halfway through, the spring aren't strong enough to push the round reliably. an extra strong spring may cause a problem when feeding the bullet into the magazine. furthermore, the strong spring may cause the bullets to "jump" out of magazine.

I apologise for not being clear in my post - I imagined a different system, not a spring system.

I really need to draw what I'm imagining. It wouldn't be perfect, but I thought it might have potential. What I'm thinking is also a neat way to dispense with the spent cartridges too, and would allow for reasonably safe and easy loading.

I'll need to get back to you on this. (but I am willing to bet pennies that someone has already thought of it, and probably has a patent; and the reason it isn't in common use is because it probably doesn't work!)

EDIT TO ADD:
I just found a drum-magazine patent that outlines the distinct disadvantages of some drum-type arrangements. I can see related issues I hadn't thought of, an although they specifically refer to magazines that feed upwards into a column, there are significant issues that I'd need to look at in-depth. Still, they aren't showstopping items, but it'd require a complicated engineering solution to begin with. Lots of prototypes would need to be designed and tested to fine tune it, as it isn't a simple device.

Seeing that the whole idea of magazines is that they are cheap, simple and have few moving parts, I'm putting this one in the 'too hard basket' as it were.

[mattyem]

The issue tends to be that of a glass "half full or half empty"

Both will have their hardcore supporters and critics.

In the feild every rifle has its downfall and successes.

I would look at the type of rifle SF use in determining which is prefered, which is that of conventional. The fact that these are used more most have some bearing on which is better?

Just my thoughts on the matter anyway. Im and trained on use with the Steyr as it is the infantry weapon of issue here, and I can honestly say that personnally I have had no issues at all with the weapon. I find it both comfortable and reliable, only having jams whilst using blank rounds.

I find the weight distribution of the rifle more comfortable aswell (my personal preference, others find that of the m4 better)

[Eeshaan]

What about the FAMAS ? How does it compare to the other bullpup rifles in use today ?

Also, the Tavor TAR-21 is said to be quite a good weapon. Supposed to be reliable & works well in desert/extreme climate. It is currently being used in small numbers by Indian Special Forces.

But anyways, it should be noted that the rifle that many people state as the most reliable assault rifle currently in use is the G36 series of weapons, which happens to be of conventional design.

Side note : Iran is developing a bullpup rifle called Khaybar KH2002, which is supposed to be an M16 converted into bullpup configuration.

[Chino]

Every new rifle that this nation full of private arms maker invents/makes is a conventional rifle - especially the kazillion different AR types.

While FN of Belgium make the FN2000, the FNH of USA makes the SCAR. And then there's the Masada, XCR etc.

Would you agree that there is a general disinterest in bullpup in the USA?

So, too, the Germans, it seems. Besides not issuing it in the military, this prolific weapons inventing nation have not even shown much interest in developing a bullpup (other than the G11 - but that's a special case).

If the Germans want to make a bullpup they could do it in a jiffy and it would probably be a great weapon. But why are they so disinterested? You can't say there isn't a market for bullpups internationally either. The Germans have already cornered the market for replacement (non-AR) conventionals with the G36. So why not make a bullpup and compete for the bullpup market as well?

[F-15 Eagle]

I would have to choose the conventional rifle as my favorite. The bullpup is a favorite with many smaller nations but it fails to win the harts and minds of the bigger nations like the U.S. and Russia. Most nations use ether the M16/M4 now mostly the M4 as well as the AK-47 and AK-74 all are conventional rifles.

The M4 Carbine is my favorite rifle.;)

[mattyem]

It also appears to be an issue of tried and true.

Many of the larger militarys will keep using a conventional style rifle because it has always been used and due to the length these have been in service problems have time to be ironed out and improvments made, hence we see the M4 and ak74.

With exisiting infilstructure in place for production and maintenance of these weapons, why change?.

We mainly see smaller nations adopting the bullpup, and ones that do generally dont have any thing in place for manurfacture and production of weapons of their own. Here we see the sales and marketing of these bullpups being presented and displayed to the nations who have contracts out for small arms.

Maybe it is in the production costs of theses weapons and market pitch that has seen them enter active service more throughout the world.... just a thought.

Thanks

[DavidDCM]

We mainly see smaller nations adopting the bullpup, and ones that do generally dont have any thing in place for manurfacture and production of weapons of their own.

You mean small nations like France, UK and China? Or nations without development and production facilities of their own like Austria and Singapore?

[F-15 Eagle]

You mean small nations like France, UK and China? Or nations without development and production facilities of their own like Austria and Singapore?

France and the U.K. are small but China is large. China still manly uses the AK-47 the last time i checked.

[DavidDCM]

How did you "check" China? Did you go there and take a look at every single infantry unit and their armoury? They are in the middle of transitioning to their new bullpub rifle and the majority of new pictures shows that this seems to go very well.

Last time I checked, France and UK were pretty big regarding industrial and political influence, and this is what we're talking about, no? Or do you think it's "area in km²" that matters when you buy or sell a new rifle?

[gf0012-aust]

France and the U.K. are small but China is large. China still manly uses the AK-47 the last time i checked.

Incorrect, the chinese are rapidly transiting to their bullpup - and in fact all of their tier one units are using the bullpup. Numerically, just their tier 1 units would be bigger than some countries baseline militaries.

they are extensive and committed users of the bullpup for a variety of reasons.

[Waylander]

And the UK and France are small for you?
Just because they don't have a million men in their army?

If France and the UK, two of the most modern and important countries out there, are not big and important for you who is?
Some 3rd world army just because they have more men in their army? :rolleyes:
Sure they are going to lead the way when it comes to introduction of weapon systems...

[Chino]

France and the U.K. are small but China is large. China still manly uses the AK-47 the last time i checked.

haha, you "checked"....

Either on TV doco, news, in real life, or even in far flung Tibet, I have not seen the PLA using the AK47. and hasn't done so sine the 80s after the Sino-Vietnam border war. They use the Type 81. It only looks like an AK to someone not paying any atention, and has no interchangeable parts.

All these info are on the web.

[Hamdaman101]

Stuart,

Sorry, no, its an awful piece of kit inflicted upon the British Army.

Way too heavy, SUSAT fogs up too easy and remains too delicate despite the L85-A2 upgrade by Heckler & Koch.

And let's not start on the LSW. Absolute rubbish.


Give them the kit.

OK. First thing is that you cant rely on the paperwork alone. Secondly I am only an army cadet but I have used both weapons in the feild in every weather condition short of arctic. I can say with no ego that the only reason the L85A2 will malfunction is because person using was f###ing about with it, i.e. manges to get dirt in the barrel, does not cock properly, or simply likes to hit things with it. (Rifle Butting something is alright because of the butt pad.) Ive used SUSATs also (We only get them on LSWs) and I think they perform just as well as as any other sight. In any case the SUSAT comes with an iron sight on the top just in case.

[o4r]

Why don't just we compare the two type of configuration based on end user rather than from research of other.

I compare both based both type on my experience as a solider and not some study report. I used it and I am a end user.

I am a end user of both M16 and SAR21. I fired severals fire arm like HkG36, HK33, GPMG, Aug and to smaller arms... S&W 500 is a fantasy weapon..... frigthening but need a very large frame monster to carry and fire it. The recoil is like firing a shotgun on one hand... terrible. (All arms testing is an invitation to States, Florida)

Firing bullpup sound louder than a standard rifle. When I use bayonet, I prefer M16, I can still fire , but a bullpup, I think I prefer the knife on my left and rifle on my right.

I prefer to grid a standard M16 over a SAR21 bullpup, I dunno how to describle it but it just different, maybe years of holding a standard rifle, you feel different. At 200m, both seem to perform the same but at 300, I am still better with a standard rifle. I just can't get better with a bullpup... maybe still trying to get use to it.

On ground flat, we were taught a few method, one of the best, was holding the bullpup like a pistol, both hand on the pistol grid, it gives better accuracy then the normal method... so it is not true that bullpup lying on the ground force us to be higher profile.

I prefer standard rifle when changing mag. Bullpup, I have to bring the arm forward and slunt it sideway, likewise with a standard M16, I do not require to do so. One more thing, having plastic mag for bullpup is a waste of time, I can't see my mag but when using M16, I really like it, I know how many rounds I roughly left, and I can still fire when changing my mag.

Personally, the my favorite arm for built up area is still either a pistol or SMG or a shotgun. Rifle whether it is bullpup or standard rifle is just isn't short enough, maybe the word is handy. Bullpup do has a advantage being able to grip the handle with both hand like a pistol in CQB. But pistol and SMG is superb at CQB, going to corner and quicker to turn, HK33 is a interesting little bastard because it really kind of funny to fire a rifle caliber bullet in a compact slightly larger than a MP5. Shotgun is terrifying to the enemy.... a huge diameter barrel is always frightening, good effect.

My 3 cents point of view.

[SuperSLime]

HK33 is a interesting little bastard because it really kind of funny to fire a rifle caliber bullet in a compact slightly larger than a MP5.

I think you mean the HK53, the carbine version of the 33. It's a good weapon all right. Have you tried a G3K though? It's not all that much bigger, and it's 7.62mm. VERY interesting :-)

[kato]

And the G36C is of course even shorter than the HK53. The G3K is considerably longer than a HK53 (several inches).

[SuperSLime]

The G3K is considerably longer than a HK53 (several inches).

It is, but it's still a lot of bang in a pretty small package.

[kato]

It's also a damn unstable platform, has next to no accuracy (for a rifle), and has some damn high recoil for a 7.62mm NATO platform.

[SuperSLime]

It's also a damn unstable platform, has next to no accuracy (for a rifle), and has some damn high recoil for a 7.62mm NATO platform.

Well, it depends what you want to do with it. We used them mainly for COIN in Northern Ireland, loaded with AP rounds. Unlike an MP5 or HK53, they can disable cars by cracking the engine block.

[o4r]

I think you mean the HK53, the carbine version of the 33. It's a good weapon all right. Have you tried a G3K though? It's not all that much bigger, and it's 7.62mm. VERY interesting :-)

I think so... It is just a Hk33 reduced size that all what I see thought.... Have you ever being in a close combat... you will prefer to put more rounds into that idiot you're facing and make sure he drops to the ground and will not do anything after that.

It is not like in a movie.. you shot the target and he flies... they don't, they just drop to the ground and something you gives it a couple more to make sure they don't get up again.......

7.62mm is good but they just can't put that many shots on the person that quickly and ready for another.. The recoil is too much.

That why I said, pistol round is better at very close quarter, a MP5 is good but required a lot of maintenance. I have tried MP7 but have not got a chance to hold a P90. MP7 is good, low recoil but 4.7mm .... hmmm...... but I am able to put 5 to 6 rounds on an idiot in a very short time... that really matter.

[o4r]

Well, it depends what you want to do with it. We used them mainly for COIN in Northern Ireland, loaded with AP rounds. Unlike an MP5 or HK53, they can disable cars by cracking the engine block.

I rather kill the driver..... :p: I crack his skull with a couple of 5.56mm.... :nutkick

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

France and the U.K. are small but China is large. China still manly uses the AK-47 the last time i checked.
errh extremely wrong information you have there.
China frontline troops use the T-95, reserves troops use T-81. Special forces use T-95, T-79/85. The convesion to T-95 for entire PLA force is said to be achieved in mid 2010. With their old T-81 for secondhand sale to African nations that uses the same 7.62x39rounds.
T-81 is not a Kalashnikov copy it bears resemblance of its layout but its internal mechanisms and sights are complelty different to one another. Ive fired both T-81 and AK-47 and with targets +100m its really hard for a AK-47 to get the head shot, though T-81 is way more accurate then the AK-47.