Why "conventional" combat rifle over bullpup?
- Thread starter simonov jr
- Start date
Because the first goal of any bureaucrat is to keep his/her phonybalony job. Risk aversion is the game and saying no to anything innovative is the play, it might not work out and you don't want your signature on it. So you spend buttloads of money on studies and call the result a major improvement.
Most of the arguements people use to bash bullpups have already been answered on this thread. If your fear is a KB (love that technical talk) wrap a few layers of ballistic cloth around the action and direct the explosion downwards and away from the face.
The bayonet feature is a false issue. The new wunderrifle has a 12.5" barrel, a bullpup rifle might have the same OAL but with a usable barrel length.
Personally I like bullpups. Not ready for lay-up but I'm getting close.
Mini-30/Ruger 10-22/12 GA SEMI-AUTO/BAR 30/06
Most of the arguements people use to bash bullpups have already been answered on this thread. If your fear is a KB (love that technical talk) wrap a few layers of ballistic cloth around the action and direct the explosion downwards and away from the face.
The bayonet feature is a false issue. The new wunderrifle has a 12.5" barrel, a bullpup rifle might have the same OAL but with a usable barrel length.
Personally I like bullpups. Not ready for lay-up but I'm getting close.
Mini-30/Ruger 10-22/12 GA SEMI-AUTO/BAR 30/06
Attachments
Well, in addition to everything else that has been mentioned, (poor balance, ejection patterns, sight radius, etc.) I'm also going to say that there has been not one bullpup I have shot that has had a decent trigger, PERIOD! The problem is in the linkage creating more moving parts leading to more creep, weight and overall rough feeling that is just going to be part of the bullpup design. I'm sure Handy or some of the other bullpup advocates will say that it can be made better and it may have been but doing it in way that is cost effective, simple and doesn't effect the reliability while still lending itself to mass production is another matter. Maybe after all the riflemen have gone the way of the dinasour and all our weapons have turned to rust, a good trigger on a battle rifle will be forgotten and the heavy gritty sponges of the bullpup will be accepted but as long as people can remember what a good trigger feels like, the bullpup isn't going to be accepted by riflemen.
I would say it can easily be improved - most every auto pistol is essentially a bullpup as well - we manage to get along with long trigger bars without throwing our hands in the air and demanding the return of the Mauser Broomhandle.
Moreover, most foreign military rifles, bullpup or not, have crummy trigger pulls. William's Trigger Specialties does alot of business on HK91s for this reason. You have to judge the trigger pulls in light of this reality. US service rifles have always been built more like target rifles with better triggers and fully adjustable sights. If the US chose to make a bullpup they would address this.
If you want to see how good a bullpup trigger can be, simply take your AR and rig it so the trigger can be dryfired with a nail sticking out of a 12" length of wood dowel held parallel to the bore. That is all a bullpup trigger amounts to. You'll find it hardly matters at all.
Moreover, most foreign military rifles, bullpup or not, have crummy trigger pulls. William's Trigger Specialties does alot of business on HK91s for this reason. You have to judge the trigger pulls in light of this reality. US service rifles have always been built more like target rifles with better triggers and fully adjustable sights. If the US chose to make a bullpup they would address this.
If you want to see how good a bullpup trigger can be, simply take your AR and rig it so the trigger can be dryfired with a nail sticking out of a 12" length of wood dowel held parallel to the bore. That is all a bullpup trigger amounts to. You'll find it hardly matters at all.
Perhaps the last time Americans fixed bayonets was in Korea, however, the last time it was actually done and used in conbat was Iraq II.
http://gilkeson.net/iraq/archives/2004/05/17/scots_fix_bayonets_against_shia
The question:To bullpup or not to bullpup has been ongoing since a British engineer came up with the first design in 1902, a bullpup bolt action. Because it's performance was no better than any of the rifles in production at the time, it never made it out of trials.
The arguement will continue well after all of us are dead.
http://gilkeson.net/iraq/archives/2004/05/17/scots_fix_bayonets_against_shia
The question:To bullpup or not to bullpup has been ongoing since a British engineer came up with the first design in 1902, a bullpup bolt action. Because it's performance was no better than any of the rifles in production at the time, it never made it out of trials.
The arguement will continue well after all of us are dead.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
a) Uh-huh, so that the rifle won't eject anything?
b) Why should soldiers have to macgyver thier rifles in the field?
Not saying that Kbs are or are not an issue; just saying that IF they are, that certainly is no answer.
And, fixing bayos and charging the enemy may be with us for some time (forever even), but those Scots who used them in Iraq would have been as equally well-served with a bullpup with a bayo as with a M16 or some such with bayo (what rifles WERE they on?). After all, they were charging people with small arms and mortars, not people with long spears that would have rendered their short-weapon-bayos insufficient.
FWIW, the Scots use the same weapon as the Brits, SA-80. Let's ask the survivors of the Shia if that shorter reach makes a difference.
Rifles were used differently? May want to re-consider that statememt. Rifles have been, and will always be, used to kill the enemy before he can kill you. Perhaps you mean the tactics used now are different than in 1902? In 1902 the tactics of the day used mounted infantry (not cavalry) and the premier weapon was the Enfield No 1 Mk III (which was used by regular infantry and cavalry troops), can you say 'mobile infantry'? Fixed trench warfare was not widespread before WWI. I have no doubt that, given a choice, the soldier riding the horse and the soldier in the trench of both periods would have liked a shorter rifle to get around with.
I was not jumping on either band wagon here. There is nothing I can add that hasn't already been said on both sides. Every design has it good points and bad points.
The problem is not lack of imagination or vision. The problem is trying to find one weapon that will fit everyone's needs. It's not going to happen. Each branch of service and each branch within each service has different needs from each other.
No matter what you design, someone will always come up with something that is wrong with it from their perspective. To paraphrase, perspective is subjective.
As I said, it's going to go on long after we're feeding the worms.
Rifles were used differently? May want to re-consider that statememt. Rifles have been, and will always be, used to kill the enemy before he can kill you. Perhaps you mean the tactics used now are different than in 1902? In 1902 the tactics of the day used mounted infantry (not cavalry) and the premier weapon was the Enfield No 1 Mk III (which was used by regular infantry and cavalry troops), can you say 'mobile infantry'? Fixed trench warfare was not widespread before WWI. I have no doubt that, given a choice, the soldier riding the horse and the soldier in the trench of both periods would have liked a shorter rifle to get around with.
I was not jumping on either band wagon here. There is nothing I can add that hasn't already been said on both sides. Every design has it good points and bad points.
The problem is not lack of imagination or vision. The problem is trying to find one weapon that will fit everyone's needs. It's not going to happen. Each branch of service and each branch within each service has different needs from each other.
No matter what you design, someone will always come up with something that is wrong with it from their perspective. To paraphrase, perspective is subjective.
As I said, it's going to go on long after we're feeding the worms.
Done! No, I still feel that the rifles of the WWI period and before were used for volley fire and other tactics that have been discarded.
Modern service rifles are not equipped with 2000 yard sights. They are not a pole arm that also shoots. They are closer to submachineguns in their need and use. Infantry rifles used to serve roles that now taken by tanks, planes and rocket launchers. No one in 1902 was concerned with a rifle's usefulness in clearing tight spaces because proper warfare was conducted in open fields.
When those tight spaces did present themselves in WWI we saw a great deal of new gun design to deal with it. Modern assault rifles are mainly an effort to bring together all of what is necessary in a general infantry weapon and discarding what is not. An M4 would have been identified as a subgun or stocked pistol by the turn of the century folks.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Well, interesting, if the Scots charged with bayos fixed on their BULLPUPS, with great success, then that sheds much light on that sub-debate within this thread, doesn't it?
Handy, how exactly does the FN2000 eject? When you say "forward", do you mean "due north" or forward with a little bit rightward as well, or what? Is it perfectly safe to grab it and shoot it left handed with no fear of a brass nose ring? Thanks.
Handy, how exactly does the FN2000 eject? When you say "forward", do you mean "due north" or forward with a little bit rightward as well, or what? Is it perfectly safe to grab it and shoot it left handed with no fear of a brass nose ring? Thanks.
First Freedom,
The FN2000 a case is ejected into a tube that runs under the barrel, then each successive case pushes that one forward until they drop out the end of the tube ontothe ground in front of you. Any person, left or right handed, can pick up any FN2000 and shoot it without getting brass in the face.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm
The FN2000 a case is ejected into a tube that runs under the barrel, then each successive case pushes that one forward until they drop out the end of the tube ontothe ground in front of you. Any person, left or right handed, can pick up any FN2000 and shoot it without getting brass in the face.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm
FirstFreedom, my mistake. When I said ballistic cloth what I meant was a composite layer in the stock. I'm laying up fiberglass cloth now, I'll be using carbon cloth later. Nasty stuff. :barf:
Quote from an article about the SAR 21 bullpup.
"Many shooters are wary of bullpup rifles because the receiver and chamber are placed close to the cheekbone, but the SAR-21 has a patented safety system to prevent injuries in the unlikely event of a burst barrel or chamber explosion. The first component of the safety system is a molded-in composite plate directly beneath the cheek rest that protects the shooter's face. The second element of the safety system is a vent in the barrel extension to direct any high-pressure gases that might escape in the event of a ruptured primer or cartridge case away from the shooter's face. This system should eliminate safety concerns".
Handy,
Not if the magwell of the conventional rifle is right under your index finger. "Hand finds hand" is an established principle of ergonomics. "Hand finds a point in space some variable number of inches in front of your armpit, depending on what type of LBV you're wearing and how tight you're tugging the rifle to your shoulder" is most assuredly not.
As for my 30 seconds of ejection imagination:
Only works with a slow-and-awkward-to-change top or bottom magazine.
Make a simple caseless rifle with quick-change mags, and I'm on board with this one.
A long tunnel on the rifle that must be protected from clogging by foreign objects and which turns an FTE into depot-level maintenance? Where do I sign up?
Engineering doesn't scare me, but this is the most viable answer yet. Still, it adds an awkward and un-necessary step when switching the rifle from shoulder to shoulder; an evolution most likely to occur when one has the least time for extra control manipulations...
Again, adds weight, bulk, and complexity to the rifle/carbine, which is something the bullpup is supposed to avoid.
See #3.
Re: The trigger.
I know that an engineering rationalist like you isn't really comparing the inch-long trigger bar on a pistol to the foot-long one on a bullpup carbine, right?
Look, Handy, you're my most valued debate foe on this board. I've lost count of the times you've made me re-examine my premises on more than one topic. May I take a whirl at re-ordering yours?
The carbine I currently keep for home defense and eventual three-gun usage is not a design I feel any affinity for as a gun nut. Its construction and materials are chintzy. Its method of operation is offensive from a mechanical standpoint. However, it wins me over from a practical usage standpoint on one basis, and one basis only: I don't have to fight the carbine in order to fight the carbine. From an end-user standpoint, I don't care if its bolt carrier is moved by a gas piston, direct gas impingement, or a miniature drunk chimpanzee shuttling it back and forth on its appointed rounds. I don't care if its breech is locked by a tipping bolt, rotating lugs, rollers, or angels dancing on a pinhead. What I do care about is that the bullets come out when I pull the trigger, fly where I sight them, and that any control manipulation or stoppage rectification can be accomplished with maximum economy of motion, in order that I may keep the rifle, and thus myself, in the fight. To reiterate: I don't want to have to fight the rifle to fight the rifle. If I can get a package that is shorter, yet just as powerful, which gives up nothing in human engineering factors, I will drop what I am using now like a live grenade; I have no personal loyalty to it, and I don't care if its replacement is of a conventional design, or a bullpup, or has the fresh rounds teleported in from the Twelfth Dimension. However, if its only selling point is "Well, it's shorter," then expect me to be a hard sell.
God help me, but I apologize to KSFreeman for every time I jumped down his throat about his usage of the term "Iwannacoolgun virus."
Not if the magwell of the conventional rifle is right under your index finger. "Hand finds hand" is an established principle of ergonomics. "Hand finds a point in space some variable number of inches in front of your armpit, depending on what type of LBV you're wearing and how tight you're tugging the rifle to your shoulder" is most assuredly not.
As for my 30 seconds of ejection imagination:
Only works with a slow-and-awkward-to-change top or bottom magazine.
Make a simple caseless rifle with quick-change mags, and I'm on board with this one.
A long tunnel on the rifle that must be protected from clogging by foreign objects and which turns an FTE into depot-level maintenance? Where do I sign up?
Engineering doesn't scare me, but this is the most viable answer yet. Still, it adds an awkward and un-necessary step when switching the rifle from shoulder to shoulder; an evolution most likely to occur when one has the least time for extra control manipulations...
Again, adds weight, bulk, and complexity to the rifle/carbine, which is something the bullpup is supposed to avoid.
See #3.
Re: The trigger.
I know that an engineering rationalist like you isn't really comparing the inch-long trigger bar on a pistol to the foot-long one on a bullpup carbine, right?
Look, Handy, you're my most valued debate foe on this board. I've lost count of the times you've made me re-examine my premises on more than one topic. May I take a whirl at re-ordering yours?
The carbine I currently keep for home defense and eventual three-gun usage is not a design I feel any affinity for as a gun nut. Its construction and materials are chintzy. Its method of operation is offensive from a mechanical standpoint. However, it wins me over from a practical usage standpoint on one basis, and one basis only: I don't have to fight the carbine in order to fight the carbine. From an end-user standpoint, I don't care if its bolt carrier is moved by a gas piston, direct gas impingement, or a miniature drunk chimpanzee shuttling it back and forth on its appointed rounds. I don't care if its breech is locked by a tipping bolt, rotating lugs, rollers, or angels dancing on a pinhead. What I do care about is that the bullets come out when I pull the trigger, fly where I sight them, and that any control manipulation or stoppage rectification can be accomplished with maximum economy of motion, in order that I may keep the rifle, and thus myself, in the fight. To reiterate: I don't want to have to fight the rifle to fight the rifle. If I can get a package that is shorter, yet just as powerful, which gives up nothing in human engineering factors, I will drop what I am using now like a live grenade; I have no personal loyalty to it, and I don't care if its replacement is of a conventional design, or a bullpup, or has the fresh rounds teleported in from the Twelfth Dimension. However, if its only selling point is "Well, it's shorter," then expect me to be a hard sell.
God help me, but I apologize to KSFreeman for every time I jumped down his throat about his usage of the term "Iwannacoolgun virus."
Well, I'm not always your foe, but I appreciate the sentiment.
I'm painfully aware that no bullpup is currently the perfect weapon system. I am curious how the FN2000 does in tests - I'd like to think the esteemed folks at FN are a little smarter than you give them credit for. The idea of the brass not spraying out has its appeal.
A couple thoughts on your critique:
In another thread I detailed the flip ejection port idea. The simplicity comes from the fact that it is also the cheekpiece - if in the wrong position you both feel it and force into the proper orientation as you acquire the sights.
If the mag is located immediately behind the wrist, that is not such a hard place to find - easier than at the end of an index finger. But with use, its a wash. The main problem with bullpups currently is using a push button release that isn't near anything.
For the trigger: I'd sure like to think that a rifle has enough extra room in it to fit a trigger bar of more than adequate stiffness. I think you also realize that this is really not an engineering problem - especially if the bar is drawn forward. A 1/4 alloy tube would be stiffer at a foot than the inch of sheet metal used in pistols.
The main reason to change away from the conventional layout was as I said before: To cut size (and weight) while keeping ballistics. Developing a truly modern bullpup is a much better goal than developing a plastic AR-18 with a 12" barrel.
I'm painfully aware that no bullpup is currently the perfect weapon system. I am curious how the FN2000 does in tests - I'd like to think the esteemed folks at FN are a little smarter than you give them credit for. The idea of the brass not spraying out has its appeal.
A couple thoughts on your critique:
In another thread I detailed the flip ejection port idea. The simplicity comes from the fact that it is also the cheekpiece - if in the wrong position you both feel it and force into the proper orientation as you acquire the sights.
If the mag is located immediately behind the wrist, that is not such a hard place to find - easier than at the end of an index finger. But with use, its a wash. The main problem with bullpups currently is using a push button release that isn't near anything.
For the trigger: I'd sure like to think that a rifle has enough extra room in it to fit a trigger bar of more than adequate stiffness. I think you also realize that this is really not an engineering problem - especially if the bar is drawn forward. A 1/4 alloy tube would be stiffer at a foot than the inch of sheet metal used in pistols.
The main reason to change away from the conventional layout was as I said before: To cut size (and weight) while keeping ballistics. Developing a truly modern bullpup is a much better goal than developing a plastic AR-18 with a 12" barrel.
simonov jr
New member
Balance and bayonet questions
All this talk about balance and pointability really does make me wonder if there is a quantifiable position along the length of any given longarm that makes the gun point for maximum effectiveness. The fine Italian shotguns are supposed to point like your own hand, do they balance at the 50 yard line or slightly fore/aft? Whatever the optimum CG postion, is it really beyond the capability of a good engineer working with polymers and able to manipulate any component of the gun to do this? Seems like he could "ballast" the gun with a bull barrel, fluting, cleaning kit in the back (like Aug), etc. I would also think on average a gun would be more controllable by virtue of having it's weight closer to the shooter's own CG, vs a longer extended barrel and overall length, aka "lever arm".
As to the bayonet issue, is the argument that there is a certain overall length that you need to be effective with a bayonet? Since all of the bullpups that I'm aware of include a bayonet, their users must not have concluded that they were combat ineffective. A tradeoff? Possibly, but again many of the bullpups aren't so much shorter as the same length but with a longer barrel and higher velocity. In those cases where bayonts are used in modern combat, I'm guessing (never having been in a bayonet charge myself) that more of them are decided by the elements of surprise and training than one guy's spear being bigger than the other guy's. Also, if you accept the premise that special forces are more likely than the average soldier to engage in hand to hand combat (including bayonet and other edged weapons) by virtue of their covert missions behind enemy lines, ie sentry removal, unconventional COIN ops, assasinations, etc., why then were they the first to embrace the M-4 carbine and similar short-barrel rifles?
All this talk about balance and pointability really does make me wonder if there is a quantifiable position along the length of any given longarm that makes the gun point for maximum effectiveness. The fine Italian shotguns are supposed to point like your own hand, do they balance at the 50 yard line or slightly fore/aft? Whatever the optimum CG postion, is it really beyond the capability of a good engineer working with polymers and able to manipulate any component of the gun to do this? Seems like he could "ballast" the gun with a bull barrel, fluting, cleaning kit in the back (like Aug), etc. I would also think on average a gun would be more controllable by virtue of having it's weight closer to the shooter's own CG, vs a longer extended barrel and overall length, aka "lever arm".
As to the bayonet issue, is the argument that there is a certain overall length that you need to be effective with a bayonet? Since all of the bullpups that I'm aware of include a bayonet, their users must not have concluded that they were combat ineffective. A tradeoff? Possibly, but again many of the bullpups aren't so much shorter as the same length but with a longer barrel and higher velocity. In those cases where bayonts are used in modern combat, I'm guessing (never having been in a bayonet charge myself) that more of them are decided by the elements of surprise and training than one guy's spear being bigger than the other guy's. Also, if you accept the premise that special forces are more likely than the average soldier to engage in hand to hand combat (including bayonet and other edged weapons) by virtue of their covert missions behind enemy lines, ie sentry removal, unconventional COIN ops, assasinations, etc., why then were they the first to embrace the M-4 carbine and similar short-barrel rifles?
A bayonet is the last ditch defense of a frontal assault. Not a methodology that spec ops guys are likely to embrace.
In terms of balance, the best way (IMO) to move CG around is by locating the primary mass of the bolt carrier forward or aft of the bolt. Generally, that's the heaviest part of the rifle that can be manipulated, and it is better to relocate mass than add counter-weight (and therefore, total weight).
In terms of balance, the best way (IMO) to move CG around is by locating the primary mass of the bolt carrier forward or aft of the bolt. Generally, that's the heaviest part of the rifle that can be manipulated, and it is better to relocate mass than add counter-weight (and therefore, total weight).
support_six
New member
"A bayonet is the last ditch defense of a frontal assault. Not a methodology that spec ops guys are likely to embrace."
True at the unit level. It is also the primary weapon of an "individual" soldier who is out of ammunition and cannot obtain compatible ammo from friendly forces or has no access to captured enemy weapons.
Bayonets are also used for riot control (sheathed or unsheathed, depending on the agressiveness of the crowd) and ceremonial purposes. The former may be a partial reason the British decided to issue a bayonet with the SA80.
True at the unit level. It is also the primary weapon of an "individual" soldier who is out of ammunition and cannot obtain compatible ammo from friendly forces or has no access to captured enemy weapons.
Bayonets are also used for riot control (sheathed or unsheathed, depending on the agressiveness of the crowd) and ceremonial purposes. The former may be a partial reason the British decided to issue a bayonet with the SA80.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
That much is fascinating. Handy, detail that and sign it and date it so that if you ever try to patent it, you'll have a contemporaneous record of WHEN you created it, in case there are competing patents simultaneously submitted to the patent office. Sometimes in IP law legal issues, the first in time wins, even if the timing in question is not of a formal application with the gov't office.