Why "conventional" combat rifle over bullpup?
- Thread starter simonov jr
- Start date
too many choices!?
New member
I just got back to this thread and HANDY......
Seems like Tamara agreed with my post more than yours
! I wish to either add a folding stock and or shorten barrel length(only if non-detrimental) and you suggest things that have not even been tried ! I will keep what works and u go back to the drawing board ! So I guess it would be much easier to design a rifle from scratch, rather than change a workable design !
I do like the caseless ammo idea but how likely is that !
Seems like Tamara agreed with my post more than yours
! I wish to either add a folding stock and or shorten barrel length(only if non-detrimental) and you suggest things that have not even been tried ! I will keep what works and u go back to the drawing board ! So I guess it would be much easier to design a rifle from scratch, rather than change a workable design !I do like the caseless ammo idea but how likely is that
!Yes rifles were used different back than because the tactics techniques and procedures have changed, as the close order battle tactics used by line infantry went away the usefulness of long range rifle fire against massed formations went away. Occurrences like what occurred at Mons in 1914 pointed out that massed formations were suicidal; too bad it took several more years for most of Europe to understand it. Trench warfare in itself was not unusual, but the Europeans arrogantly ignored what happened in the Ruso-Japanese War, the American Civil War and several smaller conflicts that occurred in the Balkans prior to World War I.
Dragoons and “light horse units” were a type of the units of the day however they still formed into line infantry as the closed on the enemy and too note though they were a minor part of the military of almost every nation because of the cost, the vast majority of the infantry was foot mobile infantry.
Dragoons and “light horse units” were a type of the units of the day however they still formed into line infantry as the closed on the enemy and too note though they were a minor part of the military of almost every nation because of the cost, the vast majority of the infantry was foot mobile infantry.
Is that a Beretta? Nice looking rifle, it's like a superninja assault rifle.
We had spent plenty of money on equipment and training our soldiers well to have the edge. Main reason why our adversaries are opting for terrorist tactics because they know they will get their @$$e$ whooped in a blink of an eye if they man up to face our military. Nothing on this earth can equal our military might. I hope the 5.56 round is the smallest our military battle rifle round will come to adopt. Getting used to medium to cqb range fighting is a product of air superiority and unmatched armored vehicles. If we keep designing our rifles tailored for such what happens when the enemy can match our airplanes and tanks? Probably be in the same playing field because they copy what we make. I just hate to see our troops in the future shooting it out and become outgunned at longrange gunbattle because we get too comfortable in our edge in air and armor. Will we lack a battle rifle that can deliver a blow from 800 yards say 20 years from now? God I hope not. josh
We had spent plenty of money on equipment and training our soldiers well to have the edge. Main reason why our adversaries are opting for terrorist tactics because they know they will get their @$$e$ whooped in a blink of an eye if they man up to face our military. Nothing on this earth can equal our military might. I hope the 5.56 round is the smallest our military battle rifle round will come to adopt. Getting used to medium to cqb range fighting is a product of air superiority and unmatched armored vehicles. If we keep designing our rifles tailored for such what happens when the enemy can match our airplanes and tanks? Probably be in the same playing field because they copy what we make.
I just hate to see our troops in the future shooting it out and become outgunned at longrange gunbattle because we get too comfortable in our edge in air and armor. Will we lack a battle rifle that can deliver a blow from 800 yards say 20 years from now? God I hope not. josh
Last edited:
leadcounsel
Moderator
American "might" cockiness.... are we really that "mighty?"
We got our @sses handed to us in Vietnam by peasants with weaker weaponry. While we cleaned house in Iraq twice, we're losing badly to roving guerilla terrorists. We position our soldiers in the line of fire and lose pubic morale when we start filling body bags senselessly. Didn't we learn anything from the Revolutionary War...? We may as well put "redcoats" on our soldiers and give them loud drums to play whilst they march in formation into enemy lines! How does this relate to a battle rifle?
I think many underestimate the NEED for a superior battle rifle. Let's not forget that world allies and enemies can form overnight and it only takes one leadership change and a few years, or a major world event to sever allegences and form allies. WWII is a great history lesson. Shortly after losing WWI, the tiny country of Germany was on the brink of world domination mainly due to surprise and superior weaponry and equipment. While we were "allied" with Russia during WWII, we quickly became bitter enemies with the superpower. World allegencies and enemies can change overnight.
Today's world is as ever evolving and there are serious threats looming over the Free worlds' heads, and the Free world (NATO) can't even agree on who the bad guys are! The world is watching the US limited success (some would say failure) in the Middle East, and the dissention among the ranks back in America; enough public pressure and you bet the US will pull a Vietnam. Meanwhile, China and India, both superpowers, are engaging in massive oil grabs in the Middle East to feed their ever growing economies and industrial growth. China in particular has a very powerful military might and won't hestitate flexing its muscles, and other nations could soon ally with China, including N. Korea. Something of a world war over resources (i.e. oil) with these oil starved nations is not out of the question. China in particular frightens me because they are an organized, well funded, superpower that won't crumble under public sentiment like the United States often does.
Imagine a head-to-head war with China. While the logistics are unlikely because neither will invade the other, they will take 100,000 casualties without flinching and continue fighting without hesitation, yet the US flinches with 1,000 casualties. A head to head fight with China would crush the United States because they have more troops, their troops are fanatics (like the Japs in WWII), and their government is supremely in charge. Contrast that with the US who flinches and wants to pull out prematurely of an operation that is largely successful with few (historically speaking) casualties.
There are REAL threats out there. The M16 may be fine for the weaker armies like the Iraqis, who were poorly trained, malnurished, and frankly unmotivated once it was clear that they would lose. However, if we ever get into a fight with the big kid on the other block, we'll be happy we really invested some R&D into a quality battle rifle.
I echo the sentiments of others above that both like the Bullpup and like the M16 platforms.
However, all things equal, if I have the choice of gun that has a longer barrel in an equivalent sized package (or a shorter gun with the same length barrel), that is also lighter in weight (eg the 'pup), I'll take the pup. Lord knows the M16 was far from perfect when put into battle, and significantly worse than the gun it replaced until it was corrected. And, that design STILL has deficiencies. Given some imagination and R&D $, the deficiencies of the 'pup can be corrected as mentioned above with little thought investment. To address the common problems:
1. Use caseless ammo to reduce weight. Cased ammo can eject downward.
2. Ballistic and noise barriers in the chamber to protect against noise and kabooms
3. Practice quicker reloads -- not a deciding issue as any skill can be learned
4. Bayonets is not a deciding issue either. Due to the reduced weight of the rifle (and caseless ammo), I would carry an extra 30 round mag over a bayonett if given the choice. I see the bayonet as having limited application in modern warfare. I think if you're down to using the bayonet, your time is limited. Besides, a smaller and lighter rifle may actually be easier to wield as a weapon with a bayonet.
Also, this discussion cannot be complete without a nod to needing a better cartridge. IMO the 5.56 is underpowered in many respects, but the 7.62 is probably overkill. Develop an intermediate cartridge, like the 6.5mm. Also, why NOT have ONE rifle that can fire two different lenghts of the same bullet for different applications. Make a 6.5 short and 6.5 long for urban or desert settings.
My .02.
We got our @sses handed to us in Vietnam by peasants with weaker weaponry. While we cleaned house in Iraq twice, we're losing badly to roving guerilla terrorists. We position our soldiers in the line of fire and lose pubic morale when we start filling body bags senselessly. Didn't we learn anything from the Revolutionary War...? We may as well put "redcoats" on our soldiers and give them loud drums to play whilst they march in formation into enemy lines! How does this relate to a battle rifle?
I think many underestimate the NEED for a superior battle rifle. Let's not forget that world allies and enemies can form overnight and it only takes one leadership change and a few years, or a major world event to sever allegences and form allies. WWII is a great history lesson. Shortly after losing WWI, the tiny country of Germany was on the brink of world domination mainly due to surprise and superior weaponry and equipment. While we were "allied" with Russia during WWII, we quickly became bitter enemies with the superpower. World allegencies and enemies can change overnight.
Today's world is as ever evolving and there are serious threats looming over the Free worlds' heads, and the Free world (NATO) can't even agree on who the bad guys are! The world is watching the US limited success (some would say failure) in the Middle East, and the dissention among the ranks back in America; enough public pressure and you bet the US will pull a Vietnam. Meanwhile, China and India, both superpowers, are engaging in massive oil grabs in the Middle East to feed their ever growing economies and industrial growth. China in particular has a very powerful military might and won't hestitate flexing its muscles, and other nations could soon ally with China, including N. Korea. Something of a world war over resources (i.e. oil) with these oil starved nations is not out of the question. China in particular frightens me because they are an organized, well funded, superpower that won't crumble under public sentiment like the United States often does.
Imagine a head-to-head war with China. While the logistics are unlikely because neither will invade the other, they will take 100,000 casualties without flinching and continue fighting without hesitation, yet the US flinches with 1,000 casualties. A head to head fight with China would crush the United States because they have more troops, their troops are fanatics (like the Japs in WWII), and their government is supremely in charge. Contrast that with the US who flinches and wants to pull out prematurely of an operation that is largely successful with few (historically speaking) casualties.
There are REAL threats out there. The M16 may be fine for the weaker armies like the Iraqis, who were poorly trained, malnurished, and frankly unmotivated once it was clear that they would lose. However, if we ever get into a fight with the big kid on the other block, we'll be happy we really invested some R&D into a quality battle rifle.
I echo the sentiments of others above that both like the Bullpup and like the M16 platforms.
However, all things equal, if I have the choice of gun that has a longer barrel in an equivalent sized package (or a shorter gun with the same length barrel), that is also lighter in weight (eg the 'pup), I'll take the pup. Lord knows the M16 was far from perfect when put into battle, and significantly worse than the gun it replaced until it was corrected. And, that design STILL has deficiencies. Given some imagination and R&D $, the deficiencies of the 'pup can be corrected as mentioned above with little thought investment. To address the common problems:
1. Use caseless ammo to reduce weight. Cased ammo can eject downward.
2. Ballistic and noise barriers in the chamber to protect against noise and kabooms
3. Practice quicker reloads -- not a deciding issue as any skill can be learned
4. Bayonets is not a deciding issue either. Due to the reduced weight of the rifle (and caseless ammo), I would carry an extra 30 round mag over a bayonett if given the choice. I see the bayonet as having limited application in modern warfare. I think if you're down to using the bayonet, your time is limited. Besides, a smaller and lighter rifle may actually be easier to wield as a weapon with a bayonet.
Also, this discussion cannot be complete without a nod to needing a better cartridge. IMO the 5.56 is underpowered in many respects, but the 7.62 is probably overkill. Develop an intermediate cartridge, like the 6.5mm. Also, why NOT have ONE rifle that can fire two different lenghts of the same bullet for different applications. Make a 6.5 short and 6.5 long for urban or desert settings.
My .02.
support_six
New member
leadcounsel said, "We got our @sses handed to us in Vietnam by peasants with weaker weaponry. "
This was not a training or weaponry issue, it was purely because the "civilian" government (Congress, Presidency) tried to run the war. If the leash had been slipped on the military, it would have been over and soon.
This was not a training or weaponry issue, it was purely because the "civilian" government (Congress, Presidency) tried to run the war. If the leash had been slipped on the military, it would have been over and soon.
Limeyfellow
New member
FWIW, the Scots use the same weapon as the Brits
Hmm, the Scottish are British. Infact they didn't start using the term British until after the unification of England and Scotland under one ruler as one kingdom. Just one of those annoying things.
Oh and the bayonet was also used in the Falklands war in 1982 by the Scot Guard against Argentine troops and that too was a success.
There was at least one reported bayonet charge led by Lt. Rick Rescorla at LZ X-Ray. The NVA Soldiers would regularly use bayonets in a final charge to overwhelm the enemy and kill them. Theres plenty of accounts of that.
There been a number of bayonet charges that seem to be forgotten by the obsession of the fancy gadget of the week mentality.
Hmm, the Scottish are British. Infact they didn't start using the term British until after the unification of England and Scotland under one ruler as one kingdom. Just one of those annoying things.
Oh and the bayonet was also used in the Falklands war in 1982 by the Scot Guard against Argentine troops and that too was a success.
There was at least one reported bayonet charge led by Lt. Rick Rescorla at LZ X-Ray. The NVA Soldiers would regularly use bayonets in a final charge to overwhelm the enemy and kill them. Theres plenty of accounts of that.
There been a number of bayonet charges that seem to be forgotten by the obsession of the fancy gadget of the week mentality.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Let me be clear that I AM NOT A VIETNAM EXPERT.
However, some Vietnam battles were lost due to failure of the M16.
The mismanagement of the war only contributed to American casualties. The "peasants" had SKS and AK47s, which are find rifles, but lacked the tech advances we had at our disposal including ANY air support whatsoever. let's not forget that those hardened peasants killed 56,000 of our G.I.'s in a decade long war. Their drive and dedication and ability to efficiently kill and maim our troops, and not roll over, all caused us to loss public support and ultimately the war.
Each loss adds to American body bags and lowers morale and public support of the war. Seems we agree on my point about our lack of a true warrior mentality and why we would lose against a hardened opponent, therefore we need the edge of cutting edge battle rifles and caliber. EACH battle can determine if we win the war of public support in favor of a war, and is therefore very important. American sentiment is impatient and unrealistic when it comes to warfare.
Could a perfect battle rifle have changed the outcome of Vietnam? Maybe. If our soldiers had a more perfect weapon, some battles would not have been lost. Some enemy soldiers would have been killed.
Between the AK and the M16 for a battle rifle, which is the better battle rifle? Which would you chose? Which did the NVA chose?
However, some Vietnam battles were lost due to failure of the M16.
The mismanagement of the war only contributed to American casualties. The "peasants" had SKS and AK47s, which are find rifles, but lacked the tech advances we had at our disposal including ANY air support whatsoever. let's not forget that those hardened peasants killed 56,000 of our G.I.'s in a decade long war. Their drive and dedication and ability to efficiently kill and maim our troops, and not roll over, all caused us to loss public support and ultimately the war.
Each loss adds to American body bags and lowers morale and public support of the war. Seems we agree on my point about our lack of a true warrior mentality and why we would lose against a hardened opponent, therefore we need the edge of cutting edge battle rifles and caliber. EACH battle can determine if we win the war of public support in favor of a war, and is therefore very important. American sentiment is impatient and unrealistic when it comes to warfare.
Could a perfect battle rifle have changed the outcome of Vietnam? Maybe. If our soldiers had a more perfect weapon, some battles would not have been lost. Some enemy soldiers would have been killed.
Between the AK and the M16 for a battle rifle, which is the better battle rifle? Which would you chose? Which did the NVA chose?
CobrayCommando
Moderator
cz... airsooffftttt.... LOL
Cheap FAMAS!
Cheap FAMAS!
LOL the NVA picked up every M16 they could get their hands on(grass is allways greener) the failure with the M16 was due to 1. lack of cleaning supplies, and 2. Ball powder(rifle was made and regulated for IMR powder)
Once that was acknowledged and cleaning stuff/training rectified and the chamber and later the bore chrome plated....it turned into a pretty good rifle.
the very first M16 with all the new changes was the Xm177E2 commando.
Once that was acknowledged and cleaning stuff/training rectified and the chamber and later the bore chrome plated....it turned into a pretty good rifle.
the very first M16 with all the new changes was the Xm177E2 commando.
Limeyfellow
New member
A better rifle in Vietnam wouldn't have made much of a difference outside of local conflicts. They had no exit policy, had problems fighting a guerilla force and the morale after that many years had caused the collapse. They had to withdraw the military or it would have collapsed on itself. The main fault lies at the planners and lack of experience in my opinion. Not to say that the NVA would have succeeded with the US was there. Guerilla fighting doesn't win wars but it can cause others to have to give in much as what happened in the British and Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and so on, and it seems these conflicts last for a good 10 years or so before we see a withdraw.
281 Quad Cam
New member
That famas pictured looks like they got rid of the charging handle. Most likely airsoft.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Can anyone think of battles/wars that were won purely because one side had superior guns as compared to their opponents?
I'm sure there are many....
That said, if the US had superior battle rifles in Vietnam, could some of the battles have swung to the US and maybe changed the outcome? Even if it meant less US casualties, I consider that a victory in some regards.
The US certainly should have spent more money on developing ballistic armor, but that's off topic.
I do tend to agree that the politics of the day got us into an unwinnable and pointless war, failed to have an exit strategy, and cost the US the Vietnam war and many lives were wasted.
I'm sure there are many....
That said, if the US had superior battle rifles in Vietnam, could some of the battles have swung to the US and maybe changed the outcome? Even if it meant less US casualties, I consider that a victory in some regards.
The US certainly should have spent more money on developing ballistic armor, but that's off topic.
I do tend to agree that the politics of the day got us into an unwinnable and pointless war, failed to have an exit strategy, and cost the US the Vietnam war and many lives were wasted.
The way they trained for Vietnam is totally different. There are lots of changes done in the branches of services since then. All branches of service are required joint training and are better interfaced with each other through modern technology. The days of fracticide have been decreased to a minimum, instant and accurate target analyzing can be done in a few minutes/hours instead of days. To the foot soldier that is not well versed with a full up Joint Air Ops Center filled with battlefield reps, liaisons from all branches and an intel/recce resources, etc... He may not know the difference, only he is grateful when combat air support drops a 500 lb bomb or cluster munitions on the enemy pinning him down. Vietnam is history, but todays war planners and players won't forget the lessons learned. And someone says, send the spec ops guys to clean up Iraq, holy cow batman aren't they there yet. There was SOFland all over Kuwait and Iraq when I was there. Hey hold up, I think I want a bullpup instead of a standard config assault weapon, but I'll have it in 6.5 caliber. josh
CobrayCommando
Moderator
We won every single major battle in Vietnam, including the Tet offensive...
The Boers almost won the Boer War because they had Mausers (but they also were crack shots, moved on horseback and had good artillery)
The Zulu wars were eventually won by the British because they had guns instead of spears.
The Boers almost won the Boer War because they had Mausers (but they also were crack shots, moved on horseback and had good artillery)
The Zulu wars were eventually won by the British because they had guns instead of spears.