On a wholly separate note & without reference to anybody…
I do concur with gilgoul on bullpups. They are the way forward... & that's coming from one who was trained to use the M16 for years in the army. I've shot the SAR-21 & the benefits of a bullpup are tremendous.
Yet putting aside everything else, there are only 2 things that matter in a rifle... reliability and projectile lethality. AKA, being able to fire whenever needed and hitting with deadly force. AKA, the AK-47 (pun unintended though convenient).
Given the state of today's technology, the 1st is most simply achieved by using modern propellants and gas-piston mechanisms. No-brainer. The AK-47 has been doing that for umpteenth years.
The 2nd is met perfectly by the bullpup which detractors refuse to admit due to old school stubborness. Its called BARREL LENGTH!
Whatever overall length of the weapon, the bullpup offers 25-30% greater barrel length compared to traditional layout rifles. Accuracy, range & projectile power improves markedly as a result - whatever projectile/propellant/ergonomics/optics used!
I’m so sick & tired of folks who whine and moan about “Oh, I’m not used to it… I don’t like it… its too difficult…its too unusual… I can’t this or that”. They ought to shut up, re-train and get on with the serious business. Although we’re trained to call it our wives in the army, the rifle is not your *********ion device for you to derive pleasure rubbing, lubing & operating its parts. Its like the Nikon camera users who moan that their lenses & camera bodies give them a smoother ergonomic feel when the specifications are crap.
The reason why your American soldiers are dying with substandard rifles is because the M4 is precisely that – crap. It’s a CARBINE for bloody sakes… get it? It’s a compromised pea-shooter lacking range, power nor accuracy. All because of the magic word – BARREL LENGTH! Or the lack thereof.
It’s the reason why the urban legend “I shot the guy 3-4 times but he just got up and ran off” crap came about. No mention of distance, red mist or medical evidence – the shooter missed pure & simple! That’s what happens under combat stress with a shortened rifle barrel. Just like putting margarine in your car tank, but complaining about the engine. But let’s face it, if it happened to us, we probably wouldn’t admit missing a critical shot either.
It’s also how that “let’s go 6.8mm Grendel” crap came about… ppl think a bigger round will solve all problems. Notice how no evidence could be found that the 5.56mm lacks lethality if landed on the torso within the prescribed shooting range? Notice how armed forces using the bullpups NEVER complain about 5.56mm lethality??
The 5.56mm was invented for a 20” barrel. Get that right. Whatever projectile weight or barrel rifling twists used, give the round (& its projectile’s base surface area) the 20” it deserves.
On that count alone, bullpups are the only way forward. But they offer way more than just the sacrosanct lethality.
Ergonomics are way better & saves lives. Being more compact, troops get in/out of vehicles much faster. CQB is much better too for daily house to house searches (a soldier’s nightmare). Bullpups are easier to keep pointed forwards not upwards when going around walls, corridors and doors. Meaning you shoot the other guy first b4 he shoots u. All that while retaining the full 5.56mm kinetic energy.
The trite moaning about ease of magazine change is also ridiculous. There’s no difficulty unless u’re a retard whose brain cannot be retrained. In fact I find the wrist forms a natural guide to the magazine well, the same way the Uzi uses the hand as an instinctive guide. If I can reload an M16 in total darkness by stuffing a magazine into the emptiness of the space in front of my right hand, I sure can do a bullpup magazine more easily. It’s a matter of how you practice & make correlational mental linkages!
The Brits in Iraq love their bullpup SA80s because firing from within cramped vehicles is so much easier and reloading is a breeze too since the loading hand does not need to reach as far away from the body into harms way.
The other trite moan is about the weight distribution. They say traditional rifles which are front heavy aid accurate fire by reducing muzzle rise. That’s the old-school-dumb-***-swing-the-sledgehammer approach. Its like saying give a car a more comfortable ride by making it as heavy as possible (sprung vs unsprung weight). But the smarter way is to improve the suspension, damping, weight distribution, balance, chasis strength etc.
Bullpups’ shorter length means that for every given barrel length, the muzzle is closer to the body, which means that the torque and twist acting on the shoulder is not as ****ounced. The supporting hand is also nearer the muzzle and able to exert greater control. Given the inherently in-line layout of most bullpups, recoil can be just as good if not better controlled. Its all physics and moments.
Considering that assault rifles are regarded as weapon systems capable of mounting grenade launchers, laser illuminators, tactical lights et al, traditional rifles become too ridiculously front heavy once you pile it on. U end up with the Hollywood phallic symbol rifles like the XM8. They are too unbalanced and must be supported 2 handed at all times. Notice how bullpups, once shoulder slung are basically held one handed? Rifles are a pain to carry and wear, which is 99.9% of the time. They are useful only during that brief moment when u pull the trigger. It’s the comfort that leads to less fatigue which leads to better performance during that 0.1% of the time that counts.
While earlier bullpups like the SA80 & FAMAS tends to be rear heavy, modern ones like the SAR-21 have a center of gravity directly on the pistol grip, which makes it a joy to hold & fire accurately.
Some cite the traditional rifle layout as offering advantages of more varied magazine choice. In practice, C-Mags will never be standard issue anyway, given how expensive (& unreliable) they are. It also goes against all good military training regarding making every shot count. Not to mention the logistics strain of replenishing rounds to the troops. While an adjustable butt stock offers advantages for body armour / winter clothing use, well-designed bullpups (with piccatiny rail mounted optical sights) offer great comfort for a suitably wide range of soldier sizes anyway, while offering all the advantages spelt out above.
Perhaps this explains why the XM8 has been such a fiasco. Congress wasn’t stupid in calling it an unnecessary and expensive toy not worth the marginal benefits. Its basically a gas-pistoned rifle with Hollywood style makeover and nothing else. Different configurations & interchangeable parts? All modern bullpups from the STEYR, FAMAS, SA80, Tavor, SAR-21 already do that. In fact, its so desperate to justify itself, they probably tried to shave ounces off the overall weight by using thinner/poorer polymer that promptly overheats and melts. Polymers are no longer new in gun design, rule of diminishing returns apply. So much so the Marines do not want it. Even the FN SCAR doesn’t impress me much – a mere rehash of existing gas-piston designs.
If the troops in Iraq need more reliable weapons, then issue drop-in replacement gas-piston upper receivers for every M16s & be done with it. Relatively cost effective & quick with no retraining needed. But if a more compact weapon is needed, the M4 or any other traditional rifle with a sawed off barrel is not it! The shorter barrel & gas tube increases the rate of fire and places huge stress on the internal mechanisms, not to mention worsening accuracy further beyond barrel length issues.. For a better weapon all round, the most of the modern armed forces have already gone bullpup – numerous military thinkers and independent analyses round the world can’t be all wrong at once.