Tactical Life posts that the military is changing to the 6.8 in SAW and M4

[hill37]

If a bullpup won't take a bayonet the Marines don't.

[Fess]

Maybe they would go for this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14559[/ATTACH]

[LRRPF52]

Of course they do not want it. Just like they did not want the .280 British which is more like they are looking at now. And they did not want the FN-FAL either but then went with the M16.

The bullpup is a better format for CQB.

It's telling that the SAS never took well to the L85A1 or A2, and continued to use Diameco AR15s and Colt Commandos as their primary shoulder-fired weapons in the assault rifle role.

Same with SBS, Australian SAS, and several other commando units that have the freedom to choose whatever weapons they will actually use.

[stanc]

It's telling that the SAS never took well to the L85A1 or A2, and continued to use Diameco AR15s and Colt Commandos as their primary shoulder-fired weapons in the assault rifle role.

Since the L85 is perhaps one of the worst bullpups in military service in regards to ergonomics and weight (It's almost as heavy as the M14!), I would view the SAS preference for AR15 variants as telling more of the drawbacks of the L85 in particular, than of the bullpup concept itself.

[stanc]

Of course they do not want it. Just like they did not want the .280 British which is more like they are looking at now. And they did not want the FN-FAL either but then went with the M16.

The .280 British was rightly rejected back then, and it is not even close to what they're looking at now.

The bullpup is a better format for CQB.

True, in theory. But in reality, nobody has yet developed a military bullpup rifle that has the desirable characteristics of a conventional configuration, and does not have the undesirable characteristics of the bullpup format.

[Kswhitetails]

Stan, this is just me being a smartass, but methinks it'd be rather difficult to design a bullpup without the drawbacks of a bullpup...

[LRRPF52]

Since the L85 is perhaps one of the worst bullpups in military service in regards to ergonomics and weight (It's almost as heavy as the M14!), I would view the SAS preference for AR15 variants as telling more of the drawbacks of the L85 in particular, than of the bullpup concept itself.

They could have used Steyr AUGs just the same, but preferred Colt Commandos and ArmaLites instead.

When you start shooting them all in high volume, you start to see why the AR15 design shines above the rest, especially the Canadian-made military contract rifles.

Bullpups are a non-starter for many reasons, weight being one of them. Trigger weight being another. Ejection pattern, ergonomics, malfunction clearance drills, fire control interface, etc.

Bullpups introduce more problems than they solve, and recent efforts to address the laundry list of bullpup problems have fallen flat on their faces.

I was a big fan of bullpups, until I started seeing all of these issues. I still like the AUG a lot, a design well ahead of its time, but it isn't much of a contender next to an AR15.

[LR1955]

It's telling that the SAS never took well to the L85A1 or A2, and continued to use Diameco AR15s and Colt Commandos as their primary shoulder-fired weapons in the assault rifle role.

Same with SBS, Australian SAS, and several other commando units that have the freedom to choose whatever weapons they will actually use.

Many years ago I got the opportunity to use a L85A1 in some 'CQB' live fire. It sucked immensely. Even the Brits themselves said they would rather have our M-16's.

Changing a magazine required three arms and the trigger pull was worse than most Soviet AK's. And if for some reason you had to go prone it was almost impossible to deal with due to the magazine location. That little 2 or 3 X built in scope was completely useless too.

LR55

[Fess]

The main reason I can see for putting up with bullpup issuers is when the longer barrel in a short package is critical. That would be a major advantage if you are stuck with a bullet like M855 that requires a relatively high velocity to fragment. In a recent interview, Larry Vickers called the Colt 723 he used in Delta Force "a 200 meter gun". I have read that Great Britain and France use thicker-jacketed rounds that do not fragment, so the velocity advantage is not nearly as important for them. I don't know if Australia and New Zealand use American spec ammo or not.

Of course, the US's solution was to redesign its ammo, but it took a while for that to happen.

I could see the velocity advantage of bullpups again being important if it turns out that the short-barreled versions of the NGSW carbines can't reliably penetrate an opponent's body armor. But how likely is that?

[Klem]

[quote=Fess] I don't know if Australia and New Zealand use American spec ammo or not.

/[QUOTE]

Australian Munitions makes the F1A1 which is designed to comply with STANAG 4171 specs. This means it is similar to the FN SS109 and the US M855. It comes with a green tip. It is tuned for the standard issue Steyr F88 (bullpup) and Minimi. It is also used by SF units who use the M4A1 and derivatives.

The F88 bullpup is not used by SF units because it is no good out of water and the trigger is imprecise.

[Klem]

I don't know if Australia and New Zealand use American spec ammo or not.

Australia manufactures the F1A1 which is designed to comply with STANAG 4171 specs. This means it is similar to the FN SS109 and the US M855. It comes with a green tip. It is tuned for the standard issue Steyr F88 (bullpup) and Minimi. It is also used by SF units who use the M4A1 and derivatives.

The F88 bullpup is not used by SF units because it is no good out of water and the trigger is imprecise.

[n9nwo]

Anyone shot the IWI Tavor?

In many ways I prefer it over the M4. Better gas system, more like the FAL. Very flexible in terms of being able to use multiple calibers.

[stanc]

They could have used Steyr AUGs just the same, but preferred Colt Commandos and ArmaLites instead.

When you start shooting them all in high volume, you start to see why the AR15 design shines above the rest, especially the Canadian-made military contract rifles.

Bullpups are a non-starter for many reasons, weight being one of them. Trigger weight being another. Ejection pattern, ergonomics, malfunction clearance drills, fire control interface, etc.

Bullpups introduce more problems than they solve, and recent efforts to address the laundry list of bullpup problems have fallen flat on their faces.

I was a big fan of bullpups, until I started seeing all of these issues. I still like the AUG a lot, a design well ahead of its time, but it isn't much of a contender next to an AR15.

I used to own two AR15s -- a Colt 16" carbine and a Colt 20" rifle -- as well as an AUG. I liked the AUG. Did not like the AR15s.

Some of your objections are matters of personal preference, not genuine flaws.

Bullpup trigger pull may not meet spec ops needs, but it is a non-issue for regular infantry.

Ejection pattern is easily solved by a case deflector. I fired a friend's SAR21 (which has an integral case deflector) from the left shoulder, without incident.

Ergonomics vary, but I'll take the AUG charging handle ergonomics over that of the AR15 any day. I'd rank the AR15 T-handle as having the worst ergonomics of any military rifle in my experience.

And while conventional rifles become excessively muzzle heavy and poorly balanced with addition of a UBGL, bullpups do not.

[stanc]

Many years ago I got the opportunity to use a L85A1 in some 'CQB' live fire. It sucked immensely.

Changing a magazine required three arms...

That's curious. Perhaps there was something wrong with that particular rifle?

Mag changes don't appear to be a problem in any of the videos I've watched.

For example, 0:25-0:35 in the below video:

[video=youtube;5SEI-P1sxhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SEI-P1sxhc[/video]

[LR1955]

Stan:

That was 25 years ago or maybe even 30. A Brit Infantry Battalion was on post and and for some reason I was with them for some CQB stuff in an old tire house. They handed me one of those bullpups and gave me a block of instruction and I cleared a couple of 'rooms'. Not used to one? Maybe but I also watched them use their own weapons and due to the design, they were not as fast or as precise as our guys using standard M-16A2's with iron sights.

They really had problems when they tried to qualify on one of the Train Fire ranges. A lot of the scopes on their rifles were basically inoperable and the others fogged up badly. Prone was difficult but not impossible.

LR55

[VASCAR2]

I have a Tavor SAR and I like it in and around vehicles. The Tavor does swing and handle differently but for me it’s ergos are fine. I have a Geissele Super Sabra trigger pack in mine and is a very good trigger. My Tavor SAR seems to shoot 55 grain and 69 grain bullets better than 62 grain FMJ and 75-77 grain match bullets even though it has a 1-7 twist barrel.

The Tavor has a brass defector and can be configured with right or left eject. Being right handed my Tavor ejects to the right but I have no trouble shooting weak side drills. If the Tavor was issued to a new recruit who had no firearms experience I think they could learn to shoot the Tavor quickly and effectively.

The Tavor design being a long stroke gas piston doesn’t have the accuracy of the M-16 but is definitely adequate. My biggest complaint about the Tavor SAR is the weight but that is the price you pay with the bullpup. I don’t notice the weight while shooting because the weight is next to the shoulder. I like the way the Tavor handles in CQB but I’m not sure I could be any faster on a shot timer than with an AR-15 style rifle.

The safety/selector is basically the same as an AR-15 and I like the charging handle and mag location/release. The different optic height over bore is a training issue and is not a factor for me. I think the Tavor would make a good LE patrol carbine. For troops working out of APC’s or aircraft I think Bullpups have their advantages in confined spaces.

For a general issue rifle I think the AR-15 is hard to beat. I can see why special forces would want an M-4 over a Tavor/AUG/SA80.

[montana]

The AR is far Superior to the Aug or any other bull pup. Multi gun and 3 gun has proven which rifles are dominant. Speed, ergonomics, accuracy, recoil control and reliability, nothing is better than the AR Stoner rifle system.

[A5BLASTER]

So who makes the best 1/2 ton truck? Chevy or Ford?

[montana]

So who makes the best 1/2 ton truck? Chevy or Ford?

Ford

[stanc]

Stan, this is just me being a smartass, but methinks it'd be rather difficult to design a bullpup without the drawbacks of a bullpup...

And this is me giving a smartass response: Well, duh. If it were easy, somebody would already have done it.