Does the US Military have an issue with the bullpup design?

[Autofaux]

As a genuine query to any former or serving US military personnel who are also Escapist brethren, why has the US Military opted not to adopt a bullpup design for their military?

I know there were selections for replacements for the USSOCOM service rifle a couple of years ago, and recently the USMC has done the odd thing of replacing the SAW with a heavy barreled German M4 variant, and with the Individual Carbine competition to replace the M4 carbine for the Army, the entries are all action-forward, extending stock, select-fire carbines.

The UK, Ireland*, Australia and Austria adopted the bullpup design a long time ago, and Israel opted to change from the Galil to the Tavor citing better handling and reduced silouette, with similar muzzle velocity due to a standard barrel being housed in a smaller package.

I'm just trying to get an idea of how these competitions work, and the mindset behind keeping what has essentially been industry standard in the US since the Vietnam War.

* - edit

 

[Kenko]

I'd guess it takes more time to change Standard Equipment for an Army the size of America's. That and hubris. And it's sort of an iconic rifle for the americans to.

Also, might as well point out "Imperial Vs Metric" Probably a similar reason.

 

[Autofaux]

I don't know much about firearms -- though my dad loves rifles and target shooting, some hunting also -- but I've always wondered why our Australian military uses the Steyr and no one else does. It seems like an awesome rifle.

Our servicemen do, but Maritime TacOps and the SASR like using M4 carbines.. probably because they serve with SAS and SEALs, who use the same equipment.

 

[SckizoBoy]

The UK, Ireland*, Australia and Austria adopted the bullpup design a long time ago, and Israel opted to change from the Galil to the Tavor citing better handling and reduced silouette, with similar muzzle velocity due to a standard barrel being housed in a smaller package.

Has the Tavor entered service already? Oh, bugger, sorry, was thinking of the Micro-Tavor X95.

Meh, I wonder why the British Army is the only one that uses the L85, other than it being rather heavy for an assault-rifle, it's a brilliant weapon.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Yeah, I've never understood it. There are plenty of templates on the market if you want to make your own. Even more advanced rifles like the SCAR aren't bullpup designs.

You're probably dead on with the reasons why they haven't. It would take a while to retrain the whole military, but if you make it to be compatible with the mags and ammo they currently use, I still don't understand why.

 

[Technicolor]

Well at the moment, US has contracts with Colt for manufacturing of many American M4 carbine rifles, same goes for the M16, although I'm not sure if that is Colt.

I don't really know any problems with bullpup design, one of its greatest benefits is that allows for a compact gun to have a long barrel. The F2000 is considerably more compact than the M4 Carbine, yet I believe it has a longer barrel internally.

But the reason the U.S probably hasn't changed service weapons to bullpup, is due to ergonomic design and cost. Ergonomic design refers to how the Soldiers will handle the gun. In this case they will have to be train in a different way in order to learn the new design. The cost of getting new firearms is massive when compared to the cost of simply modifying the M16 and M4 as the situation demands.

 

[ELD3RGoD]

Because apparently, rifles are more accurate and fire further although a number of things counter this AKA, the barrels being the same length etc. I guess it's just the military preferences.

 

[StormShaun]

...well OF COURSE IT ISNT STOLEN FROM AUSTRALIA...not at all...not at all. >_0'

 

[MagicMouse]

Higher recoil
Hard to reload
Training
Lack of Ambidextrous use


I think those were the main reasons, oh and cost obviously.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't know much about firearms -- though my dad loves rifles and target shooting, some hunting also -- but I've always wondered why our Australian military uses the Steyr and no one else does. It seems like an awesome rifle.

Our servicemen do, but Maritime TacOps and the SASR like using M4 carbines.. probably because they serve with SAS and SEALs, who use the same equipment.

You can't use the Austeyr left handedly, without pulling it apart and disambling it first, which is important when leaning round corners...presumably the regular army is less likely to need to do this, fights less in urban environments than SASR or clearance divers.

The latest bullpups don't have this problem, though.

The Austeyr is exported to NZ, and Ireland uses the Steyr. So does the US ICE, but they aren't military.

 

[Torrasque]

Two reasons.

1. It would cost a great amount of money to re-arm the entire military with updated weaponry that wasn't the absolutely terrible M16; the worst gun in the world. Yes, I know not everyone in the military uses it, but the fact that anyone does, is amazingly retarded.

2. Big corporations in the states, determine what guns the military uses. The US is the greatest arms manufacturer in the world, there is no disputing that. These big companies can decide what weapons they make available, for how much, and for who. The American military is an organization like everyone else, and they can't just pilfer the gun store for whatever catches their fancy.

TL;DR. It costs too much, and political reasons get in the way. So American soldiers have to use guns that are no better than .22s, in engagements where the enemy is probably using a better gun.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Colt has the US Military by the balls. Unless you come out with a weapons system that is CHEAPER than what they currently have, they will not switch. There are already better M16/M4 variants out there made by a whole range of manufacturers but none of them will be adopted and they cost more.

Same story goes for the Dragon Skin.

I would love to see a bullpup design adopted. Longer barrel for a the same length gun is win. higher muzzle velocity and increase accuracy, what soldier wouldn't want that? Or shorter gun with the same length barrel.

 

[Smeg_head]

^ But the Steyr AUG can be quickly adjusted to left or right handed shell ejection

 

[Wadders]

A lot of it is about familiarity.

The USA has been using M16-like guns since Vietnam.

If they can give their troops something similar to an M16 then they dont have to radically alter firearms training, and personnel who are used to using M16s and M4s wont have much trouble adapting to a new weapons system that is based off similar weapons.

Throw a bullpup rifle into the mix as the standard weapon, and you have to re-train everyone in it's use, and soldiers are going to have issues with it.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

Probably due to the training required to adapt an army the size of the States is too expensive, and that they already have manufacturing deals with whoever made the M4, M16, SCAR, etc. The ammo thing wouldn't be too big a deal as the SCAR already takes the standard NATO ammunition along with every other european made rifle.

 

[Superior Mind]

We use the F88 Austyer in NZ. It's mostly because the NZ Army specialises in close country battle where having a short rifle is a huge bonus. I've been stuck with a C9 LMG during a close country exercise and it sucked, the shorter design does really have an advantage. It also has an advantage in urban situations, making it easier to manoeuvre. One weakness they do have is that they're more difficult to re-load than traditional rifles but with enough practise and training you can get good enough that the difference is minimal.

I imagine the reason behind the US military not using them is issues of contracts with weapons manufactures and of course re-training. While I think the Steyr is a fantastic rifle and see it as offering many advantages I don't see it or something like it to be so much better than a traditional rifle to require a change.

 

[Trillovinum]

The French also use a bullpup rifle (FAMAS) i think everyone here knows that one ;p

The new Belgian assault rifle (F2000) is also a bullpup and this weapon IS ambidextrous
so is the P-90 (also Belgian and a bullpup) though this is officially an SMG.

I don't really see an issue.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

As a genuine query to any former or serving US military personnel who are also Escapist brethren, why has the US Military opted not to adopt a bullpup design for their military?

I know there were selections for replacements for the USSOCOM service rifle a couple of years ago, and recently the USMC has done the odd thing of replacing the SAW with a heavy barreled German M4 variant, and with the Individual Carbine competition to replace the M4 carbine for the Army, the entries are all action-forward, extending stock, select-fire carbines.

The UK, Ireland*, Australia and Austria adopted the bullpup design a long time ago, and Israel opted to change from the Galil to the Tavor citing better handling and reduced silouette, with similar muzzle velocity due to a standard barrel being housed in a smaller package.

I'm just trying to get an idea of how these competitions work, and the mindset behind keeping what has essentially been industry standard in the US since the Vietnam War.

* - edit

You don't want your army to use a steyr, horrible weapon, keep the M4s and be happy you've got a quality piece of kit. The Australian army has nothing to strive towards in terms of equipment from a US viewpoint. I'm pretty sure I saw some Libyan rebels with better gear than the Australians.

I don't know much about firearms -- though my dad loves rifles and target shooting, some hunting also -- but I've always wondered why our Australian military uses the Steyr and no one else does. It seems like an awesome rifle.

It's not.