Why "conventional" combat rifle over bullpup?

[simonov jr]

I know the supposed advantages of a bullpup assault rifle design- same barrel length in a shorter overall package. More velocity for longer range engagements but better for mounted troops and close quarters combat. Users include Austria, France, UK, Finland, and lately Israel, China and South Africa. BUT...the US military is about to adopt the XM-8- a "conventional" design and Russia recently adopted the Nikonov 94- again a "conventional" design. Ditto the Swiss Sig-500 series, H&K G-36 and all those AK and AR legacy rifles being retained throughout the world. So my question is, what is the advantage of NOT using a bullpup design? Why stick with the "conventional" layout if it has the weight and length DIS-advantages vs the bullpup?

 

[Handy]

Lack of imagination.

 

[Crosshair]

One of the disadvantages of the bullpub is that it can't be used by someone shooting left hand. The Isralies solved this problem with the Travor, where a weapon can be converted to shoot left hand with basicly a bolt change. The XM8 is basicly the 5.56 part of the failed OICW project, just seems to be political BS at this point unfortunatly. Everything good that the XM8 offers could be had with a new upper for the M16/M4 weapons. The Isralies have the motivation against BS weapons. (they will get their @$$es handed to them by the arabs if they don't) I think with the Travor the Isralies may have the next "big thing" (though saing no to free/cheap M16's from the US might be hard) I never did see the disadvantage by going with something like the AUG, aside from lefties being SOL.

Sorry for the rambling, but it is 1AM here and I just wanted to get my $.02 in.

 

[yorec]

'sides - who'd wanna follow the French?

 

[Handy]

One of the disadvantages of the bullpub is that it can't be used by someone shooting left hand.

This is no longer true. The FN 2000 ejects toward the front. And the 25 year old FAMAS was left to right changeable by fieldstripping - no new parts required. The FN P90 ejects straight down.

The G11 solved the problem by not ejecting at all.




Lack of imagination.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Bullpups can be a PITA to relaod fast.

 

[croyance]

I think there are advantages to the bullpup design, but if I had to come up with reasons not to use it:

1. Difficult to reload fast.

2. Greater hearing loss (chamber that much closer to ear). Proximity to cheek bone might make it harder to cushion from transmitted sound.

3. Face that much closer to KB. (Not that having chamber right in front of eyes is ideal).

 

[support_six]

...AND, although it may sound insignificant to "you", it reduces the thrusting distance of your bayonet by about a foot!

 

[Tamara]

The main advantages of the bullpup are as follows: an equivalent barrel length in a more compact package, and... and... well, really, that's pretty much it. There's rarely any weight savings (the SA-80 and FAMAS are little porkers when compared to conventional lightweights like the M4/M16, Daewoo, or AR-18.) In return, they aren't ambidextrous (or they require that complicated monkey-motions be added to the ejection process in order that the rifle be ambidextrous,) shorten the sight radius for irons (which wouldn't matter in a world where optics never fog and dots never break,) and render a fast tactical reload a thing of the past. Until those three issues are adequately addressed, it doesn't take much imagination to see that one step forward is frequently accompanied by three steps back.

It seems so often taken as an article of faith that The Next Rifle will be a bullpup that the issue is rarely examined with a critical eye anymore. Hey, if bullpups were so futuristic, why didn't Sgt. Apone and his USCM grunts use them?

 

[MeekAndMild]

How about the mud factor? Troops have known for 500 years that a little bit of mud in the barrel makes the rifle go kablooey when it is shot. Better to have a KB in front of you than tucked under your chin.

 

[Crosshair]

How about the mud factor? Troops have known for 500 years that a little bit of mud in the barrel makes the rifle go kablooey when it is shot. Better to have a KB in front of you than tucked under your chin.

Having a gun go boom ruin's anyones day, regardless of where the chamber is.

 

[too many choices!?]

I think it boils down to this....

If you want a shorter overall length with an M-16/M-4/ar-15 either;retract the stock or switch uppers . Either option does the same as the bullpup and you don't have to replace all the '16s that are out there(or the training program). In other words there is no significant gain achieved by switching to a bullpup configuration in the same caliber that can't be had easier with the modualrity of the ar-15/m-16 system. Besides, none(except for Bushmaster) are produced domestic. On the other hand, I would like to see a bullpup in a battle rifle cartridge(.308 or better)/semi auto only/with a 18" barrel/built in red dot-magniflying(4x) optic/over all length30"-32" Make it the new Designated Marksman Rifle because they are still cool .

 

[Handy]

Well, as always, lowest bidder logic prevails: "No one has built the perfect bullpup yet, so it must be impossible."

Weight: Tamara matches up the two beefiest bullpups against the lightest rifles, cleverly ignoring that the most common bullpup, the Aug, weighs LESS than a Galil, AR-70, Sig 550 or FNC. In fact, it is the third lightest NATO rifle, only 0.2 more than the plastic G-36! The obvious fact of the matter is that a bullpup of the same construction will be lighter than the comparable conventional rifle.

And let's talk about plastic: Bullpups don't protect the user enough from failures, but a gun with a plastic receiver does?! Has anyone even heard of an injury directly related to the bullpup design?

Complication: The Russians, of all people, just adopted the most complicated feed mechanism ever used in a firearm as their service rifle (AN-94). We should be embarrased to even entertain that changing just the ejection cycle is problematic. The M-16, for instance, seems to eject just fine despite the addition of a spring loaded door and a spring powered ejector; hardly the simplest possible system. The FN2000 works, the P90 works - get used to it.

Iron sights: Sights can be fixed to a 20 inch barrel bullpup that are exactly the same sight radius as the M4. This is a non-issue. But someone needs to ask for them, and more rifles of all configurations are doing without.


Right now there is considerable concern with ammunition effectiveness and fielding rifles that aren't unwieldy in vehicles and buildings. The bullpup is by far the easiest solution to both. Saying that a better solution to making a left handed bullpup is chopping the barrel and adding an extra mechanism to fold the stock is laughably illogical. The technical problems are miniscule - the only hurtles in bullpup design is inflexible thinking.

 

[simonov jr]

great points...

Although I don't quite agree that the bullpup's reach disadvantage in a bayonette duel is exactly decisive. Besides, can't you just issue a 2-foot pigsticker? ; ) As to the speed reload, I used to have an AUG and never noticed that I had supposedly lost it. Assuming it WERE true, isn't a speed reload about as useful in a high-cap assault rifle as, well, a bayonette? Guess I'm still not getting why I want to have to choose between a longer rifle or a shorter barrel when a bullpup design seems to give me a free lunch...?

 

[LAK]

Bullpups just do not balance right.

In addtion to a bayonet at something greater than average reach, if I want a battle rifle, I want something that can be used as an effective club as well.

 

[shaggy]

Quote:
One of the disadvantages of the bullpub is that it can't be used by someone shooting left hand.

This is no longer true. The FN 2000 ejects toward the front. And the 25 year old FAMAS was left to right changeable by fieldstripping - no new parts required. The FN P90 ejects straight down.

Handy, while thats true, I'm not sure I'd want something dumping empties in my path. Banana peel anyone?

AFAIK, the FN2000 is the only rifle caliber bullpup with a downward ejection. While the FAMAS can be changed, its not something you're going to do on the fly before crossing a potentially dangerous corner. With a conventional design like an M16 or AK47, you can switch to your weak side instantly to cover an opposing corner without exposing your full body to a potential shooter. Can't do that with a FAMAS, AUG, etc. If you're shooting an AUG or FAMAS (, shouldered on the right, configured for right hand ejection) and come to a corner on your right, you have to expose most of your left side to any potential enemies before you'll get your muzzle around the corner to get a clear line of fire on them. While the FN2000 solves this with a downward ejection pattern, it still has the problem of the location of the mag well. With the location of the mag well at the back of the weapon, it makes for much slower mag changes, and makes it very difficult to cover a target during the mag change. With a conventional design weapon like an M4, you can leave one round in the chamber and ready to fire, while covering any potential enemies during the mag change. Additionally, the mag well placement will make mag changes in the dark or heat of battle more difficult in addition to being slower. While an M16/M4 isn't fed through the grip (like an Uzi or MAC type SMG), it still retains much of the ease of the 'hand meets hand' principle as the mag well is situated just a couple inches forward, right at the tip of the index finger. Left hand finding right hand (or even left hand finding tip of right finger) quickly in the dark and under pressure is a lot quicker and easier than left hand finding the right place on an inanimate object.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Regarding ejection vis a vis your face: Yes, although designs like the FAMAS and the AUG (as I understand it) can be switched to either right or left-handed ejection, this *still* doesn't solve the problem. Because left-handed shooter may need to grab his rifle and shoot RIGHT handed around a corner, and right-handed shooter may have to grab his rifle and shoot LEFT handed around a corner. So merely having a "switchable" bolt ain't good enough, IMO. HOWEVER, if the FN2000 ejects "forward" as you say Handy, does this mean that you can avoid brass in the face shooting it either way, without modification? If so, then there's your answer...voila. (I'm not familiar with the FN2000 - I asked to buy the civilian version of it at my local gunshop but received nothing save quizzical stares).

Other issues:

-Reloading speed...not sure whether trained troops could reload as fast or if a bullpup is *necessarily* always going to be slower. Scientifically controlled testing needs to be done to see if it really is slower, *after thorough training*.
-Balance....although a bullpup does balance *differently* from what most people are used to, I don't think this is a real issue. I think a bullpup can balance equally "naturally* if that's what you're used - if what you train with.
-Sight radius...hmmm...I want to agree with Handy, that this is a non-issue, but I'm going to have to think on this some more...it does stand to reason that shorter rifle=shorter sight radius, given equal placement of eyes, relative to the rear of the rifle. So perhaps this is an issue, but it seems extremely minor to me. In fact, the sight radius thing can be anaylzed in the same way as the bayonet thing: Of course you have less reach/less sight radius in a shorter rifle. If longer is better, then let's go back to a 30" bbled rifle, then we'd have a hell of a reach for bayos, and a hell of a sight radius. So where do you draw the line? So I don't think they're big issues, but they are arguable issues, I suppose.
-Kbs....yes, if the action is under your chin, you ARE more likely to be injured in the event of a Kb, IINM. The question then becomes, are Kbs going to happen, ever, and if so, why, and with what frequency? Can they be eliminated through good ammo and training from a .mil perspective? If so, then this is a non-issue.
-Smoke, noise, fumes, in the face/hearing loss increase. Yes this is a definite issue, IMO. The weight of this issue, I'm not sure.

 

[Handy]

Shaggy, the FN2000 does not eject down.

It ejects forward.



The 'big reloading problem' also seems like a red herring. If the mag release is of the lever type (AK, HK, etc.) you just grab the mag and pull (most armies don't want the troops just dropping the mags). If you want an AR type convenience, move the release button forward until it is by the trigger hand.

Actually finding a bullpup magwell in the dark is going to be easier than a conventional rifle.

 

[Handy]

Since I'm complaining about a lack of vision, allow me to use mine. Here are all the ways to accomplish ambidextrous ejection I can think of:

1. Side or top mag and bottom eject, as used in the P90 and Calico.

2. Caseless ammo and no ejection.

3. FN2000 forward ejection.

4. Quick flip ejection port. Push the ejection port cover to the correct side and the ejector alternates to throw the brass in the right direction. This involves the least scary engineering.

5. Non-disintegrating belted ammo.

6. Behind the shoulder ejection.


That's 30 seconds of concentration on the problem - there are certainly other solutions.

 

[support_six]

simonov jr, decisive for who? True that an Army probably will not lose the battle because their soldiers lack bayonet (check your spelling) reach, but an individual soldier without ammunition may disagree with you.

BTW, what is your experience with bayonets and bayonet warfare? Any?

It's always some staff planner/combat developer who says that someone doesn't need that widget. It's never the widget operator. And don't tell me you have no military experience at all!

My recollection is that the British Army still issues the bayonet with their SA80's so it must be important to someone.

...and get real about the 2 foot pigsticker. Obviously you haven't humped a ruck, weapon, and basic load of ammo before. Evan a knife with an 8" blade can get in the way very fast.