Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,744
Does anyone remember Beverly Hills Cop III?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Bullpups have inherent disadvantages that are difficult to overcome. They tend to have an awkward balance, they are slower to reload, difficult to impossible to reload while maintaining a sight picture, lack adjustable stocks and have shitty triggers. A lack of forward rail space is a problem in military applications where IR lasers, lights and other devices need to be mounted.
Even being more compact overall is a hard sell given how short some AR variants are. Rounds can be designed to achieve ballistic effectiveness without having barrels longer than 8 or 9 inches as we've seen with .300 Blackout.
Drum magazines are also right out. This can limit ammunition capacity. Box magazines in a SAW type variant would be off the table as well. The Tavor in particular, exemplifies everything I'm talking about that's wrong with bullpups in general. It's even worse as it's an absolutely shitty suppressor host.
Don't get me wrong, some bullpups look cool, but they have more inherent disadvantages than advantages. I have yet to see a design which would change my mind on this.
Um, reload is not an issue with any modern bullpup (any issues are just training/learning and that has been proven in studies). And traditional rifles have the disadvantage that they are useless with short barrels that can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Heck, the Marines have even switched their main service rifle from the M16 to the M4 now since 2015, and it has been going over VERY well.
Like everyone else the Marine Corps fields a mish mash of things based on the AR15 lower. They currently field M16A4's, M4's, M4A1's, and M27's. The M27's are being expanded beyond the squad automatic rifel man and the Commandant is keen on continuing to expand it. As they do so, barrel length is getting pushed back out. The Marines were the least happy with the switch to the M4 as their doctrine of being riflemen first put far much more emphasis on ability to engage an enemy with a rifle at distance than the Army does.
I'll admit I'm not up on the latest rifle tech, but this screams development hole for military budget inflation. Wouldn't surprise me if they're likely facing cutbacks. I imagine field maintenance issues would put a stop to any fancy computer bullshit. Having your gun reboot and stop detecting your thumb print wouldn't be so hot when youre kicking down a door.
If you read the linked article, that's not the response it seemed like it got from the field. It seemed like overall Marines on the ground thought the switch to the M4 was long overdue and made them much more effective.
I think this could be a welcome development.
I always wondered why we were still using gas operated designs with all of their moving parts and potential for failure in the field.
It would be interesting to see an electrically operated design. Maybe even with a selectable fire-rate.
Could be neat.
I'm interested to see where they will go with it.
If you read the linked article, that's not the response it seemed like it got from the field. It seemed like overall Marines on the ground thought the switch to the M4 was long overdue and made them much more effective.
Any design is a trade-off. Bullpups offer longer barrel lengths in a more compact and easily maneuverable size.
There is no perfect rifle.
they literally liked it so much that they immediately set out replacing it with a back door program in the M27. The M4 were better than the old and worn out M16s they were using but still had issues.
The main reason for the switch to the M27 is because the M4 is essentially frozen at around year 2000 in terms of specifications, itself essentially being a design subset of the late 80s with minor tweaking to the buffers and a railed top receiver. The platform itself has moved on but both the USMC and Army are reluctant to upgrade it to something contemporary even if that is the logical and better solution. As far as the USMC was concerned, the option was either the same outdated M4 or the M27, itself an improvement over the old M4. The M27 itself is nothing special; it is merely better than the ~2000 specification M4. But the trigger, barrel profile & construction is superior.
The M27 (and other HK 416s) have some issues that traditional AR-15s don't have, but again, if your option is circa 2000 M4 or M27 you'll go with the M27. The Army and USMC should be issuing the M4A1 URGI, which is what the special forces and USAF are moving to. It has a mid length gas system, more durable barrel, drops the M4 profile barrel altogether, lighter rail and other tweaks. It is hard to even call it an "M4" considering how big of a departure it is. And it would be lighter, shorter and more accurate than the M27. But again, that is not how government procurement works. That would be logical and cheap.
Instead, the USMC gets their own oddball rifle that is long and heavy for riflemen, not a great DMR, and a poor SAW while the Army continues to rebuild rifles with older parts that don't last as long. At least the USAF went ahead and is doing the sensible thing.
IIRC the Marines didn't get M4A1s, they got mothballed Army M4s. In that sense the URG is a clear improvement.
The Army and USMC should be issuing the M4A1 URGI, which is what the special forces and USAF are moving to. At least the USAF went ahead and is doing the sensible thing.
- Bullpup? If I had my druthers, I'druther not. Also I am ambidextrous when shooting; bullpups are not. I just don't like bullpups.
- Auto-targeting is a real thing, but I see too many problems for military use (right now), especially in an urban environment. I like tech, I'm in favor of driving aids for cars, but I would hate to be clearing buildings knowing that the guy on overwatch had auto-targeting.
Um, reload is not an issue with any modern bullpup (any issues are just training/learning and that has been proven in studies). And traditional rifles have the disadvantage that they are useless with short barrels that can't hit the broad side of a barn. An 18" barrel bullpup has a shorter OAL than a 8" carbine. Literally the whole point of these programs is the 8" barrels M4s, which are required to get reasonable CQB OAL rifle lengths, have horrible range. Just going to a bullpup with 5.56 basically doubles range while using the same ammo, same mags, same accessories, etc.
what was wrong with the m4 and if they really wanted to follow Iphone design like samsung thinner and lighter keep making them thinner and lighter until the guns have flaws like frame bending and magazines losing capacity the more they are used and in response the fire rate going down.
Infantry doesn't need a short barrel unless they are playing stupid cop games. Face it, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were learning experiences ..... where we learned that an Army shouldn't be used as a police force. We warped our entire military around that bullshit and it never should have happened that way.
The problem is that leadership can't back track and admit it was a big mistake, so instead we have to carry along that garbage concept, while we try to rebuild what our Military used to be. With the exception of SOF, the only soldiers who might need a shorter rifle are actually vehicle crewmen, maybe MPs.
Look guys, in real combat, soldiers don't clear buildings when we think the enemy is inside, we just blow the damned thing up.
Infantry doesn't need a short barrel unless they are playing stupid cop games. Face it, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were learning experiences ..... where we learned that an Army shouldn't be used as a police force. We warped our entire military around that bullshit and it never should have happened that way.
The problem is that leadership can't back track and admit it was a big mistake, so instead we have to carry along that garbage concept, while we try to rebuild what our Military used to be. With the exception of SOF, the only soldiers who might need a shorter rifle are actually vehicle crewmen, maybe MPs.
Look guys, in real combat, soldiers don't clear buildings when we think the enemy is inside, we just blow the damned thing up.
what was wrong with the m4 and if they really wanted to follow Iphone design like samsung thinner and lighter keep making them thinner and lighter until the guns have flaws like frame bending and magazines losing capacity the more they are used and in response the fire rate going down.
I think some people are misunderstanding the iphone comment.
The point the man was making is that they should focus on the platform. A basic building block that all other weapon requirements can be filled with. If I need a CQB weapon for MPs, add short barrels, a rail kit, adjustable stock, etc. A sniper rifle get's a long barrel, a different stock, etc, A SAW get's a barrel group with easily swapped MG type barrels with integrated bi-pods, and the list goes on. And all along, the base platform remains the same. You can even swap out different calibers under this concept.
You do that, you also wind up blowing up more civilians, women and children.
Sure, it is wrong for fighters to hide with civilians, but that's how insurgencies work, and their friends and families never remember that the fighters were hiding with their loved ones when they were blown up, just that Americans blew them up.
Now you have successfully served as an effective recruitment tool for your enemy.
The rules of engagement necessarily have to change when you aren't fighting a traditional war, where you can count on your opponent having the decency to clear civilians away from the front lines and not hide behind them. You can't just "burn the village, burn the whole fucking village".
Nothing is wrong enough with it or right enough with the replacements. That's why the Army keeps running trials and then deciding to stick with something based on the AR-15 lower.
Well, the AR-15 lower does that and has done that for almost 50 years.
Someone what, not really though when it comes to the scope of what this guy is talking about. There is no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW based on the AR platform either.
The M27 does double-duty as a DMR and a LMG. The M110 SASS was an AR and so is the CSASS.no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW
Beat me to it while typing.such as the M110
There are numerous configurations out there:
View attachment 141342
And yes, some of them did have full auto M16A1 lowers initially like in this picture. In general the push has been to larger calibers, some of which will work in the same lower. The standard 7.62x51 requires a different receiver but those are still AR based, such as the M110.
The M27 does double-duty as a DMR and a LMG. The M110 SASS was an AR and so is the CSASS.
Beat me to it while typing.
Someone what, not really though when it comes to the scope of what this guy is talking about. There is no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW based on the AR platform either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle
I'm an Army guy, not a Marine, and I see that this platform is HK's version, based off the M416. Is the HK M416 based off the M16 platform or is their something significantly different?
I am asking, it's looking like the Marines are going to make me eat crow.
Is the HK M416 based off the M16 platform
then he should not have used iphone as a buzzword to get attention to his article...I think some people are misunderstanding the iphone comment.
The point the man was making is that they should focus on the platform. A basic building block that all other weapon requirements can be filled with. If I need a CQB weapon for MPs, add short barrels, a rail kit, adjustable stock, etc. A sniper rifle get's a long barrel, a different stock, etc, A SAW get's a barrel group with easily swapped MG type barrels with integrated bi-pods, and the list goes on. And all along, the base platform remains the same. You can even swap out different calibers under this concept.