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

[blind_dead_mcjones]

one important thing to consider is that the US military suffers from a case of 'once bitten twice shy' in regards to getting a new service rifle ever since the issue with the first batch of M16's over 30 years ago, and its made them rather hypercritical over any real or percieved flaws with any of the submissions for contracts like these

as to issues with bullpup weapons, there are a couple, one of them that affects all designs (excluding the F2000) is to fire them with your off hand you essentialy have to take the thing apart and convert it if possible, or not bother at all. another is that some people find having the ejection port that close to their cheek rather disconcerting, as well as some finding difficulty with reloading

 

[Asehujiko]

Because Colt has the BuOrd by the balls and gets everything that isn't a new Colt rejected, simple corporate dickery at it's worst.

 

[Gaiseric]

If I remember correctly I saw an article awhile back which basically said until they come up with a rifle that is significantly better than the M-16/M-4 they won't switch.The military wants to be sure that when they get a new primary weapon it will be worth the time and money. Even if it was replaced in waves the logistics have the potential to be a nightmare.

The cost alone would be staggering:
Training
Transporting them to the troops
Transporting the old guns back
Storage or disposal of the old weapons
New mags(if the weapon doesn't take the old ones)
Ammo needed for the training
Replacement parts
Training manuals
Any accessories/gear that isn't compatible.

Edit: and then there is the corporate side of things which I don't know crap about other than that Colt has a contract.

 

[DTWolfwood]

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.

The 5.56 NATO is deadlier than the 7.62x39mm used in the AK when it hits soft tissue. the bullet is the one thing that doesn't need changing. High velocity round thats easy to handle is exactly what you want in an assault rifle. Most NATO countries use the 5.56 round as well. (I am aware that its a 22cal vs 30cal but its always funny that caliber is used when discussing assault weapons because its the length of the shell that matters not the width of the bullet XD)

everything else im in agreement.

 

[Nethenial]

Why doesn't my country use it? Because quiet simply put the bullpup is a bad idea that's stuck around for far to long. Why you ask?

1. Your rifles action is right next to your face. If your rifle has a catastrophic failure (not unheard of in even the best weapons) rather then it happening several inches infront of your eye, its happening right under your eye socket.

2. Going prone is next to impossible with most bullpup style assault rifles due to the magazine extending farther then the pistol grip.

3. On the majority of bullpup designs the action ejects spent cartridges to the right...a few inches from your face. If the user is either A. left handed or B. Transitioning to their week hand to shoot, the user is going to be taking hot brass to the face.

4. The ergonomics are quiet terrible on bullpup's compared to modern assault rifles like the XCR and ACR. Often requiring the user to fully dismount the rifle to reload.

5. Trigger and other control linkages are often long, and bulky.

6. The weight is naturally placed in a not instinctive way. Between the shoulder and support hand as opposed to infront of the support hand.

Also, the last time I checked FN made the majority of the M4's used by the US military under license from colt.

And Dulc, of all bullpups the steyr aug is one of the worst designs on the market with the ergonomics of a brick. The only bullpups with redeeming qualities in my mind at the FN2000 and Tavor.

And yes, I have fired several bullpups and conventional rifles (I love the second amendment)

Any questions folks?

 

[WolfThomas]

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.

Heh, if riflemen could get what they needed when they needed it they would be happy and wouldn't ready to kill people all of the time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If I remember correctly I saw an article awhile back which basically said until they come up with a rifle that is significantly better than the M-16/M-4 they won't switch.The military wants to be sure that when they get a new primary weapon it will be worth the time and money. Even if it was replaced in waves the logistics have the potential to be a nightmare.

The cost alone would be staggering:
Training
Transporting them to the troops
Transporting the old guns back
Storage or disposal of the old weapons
New mags(if the weapon doesn't take the old ones)
Ammo needed for the training
Replacement parts
Training manuals
Any accessories/gear that isn't compatible.

The new weapons should be compatible with STANAG mags, and legacy equipment, and training is something that needs to be done continually anyway, but otherwise, yes.

On the other hand, this applied to everyone else that has upgraded their weapons...the US has more to do, but has a bigger budget to do it with. Buth political considerations will make this unlikely any time soon.

On the other hand, I thought the USMC were upgrading to G36? Not a bullpup, but still a major undertaking. Also, the USMC service rifles won't be interchangable with the rest of the US military's, which was a plus.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Lack of Ambidextrous use

That's a problem that applies to both configurations, not just bullpups. If anything, though, most bullpups are much more easily adaptable to right/left ejection.

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.

My question would then be: why don't they use the HK416?

OT: Now that I think on it, everyone's mentioned the prohibitive administration and cost of retraining/re-equipping with bullpup-type rifles. But another problem is discarding the old weapon stock, which is going to be a problem by itself, one would've thought.

 

[Gaiseric]

On the other hand, I thought the USMC were upgrading to G36? Not a bullpup, but still a major undertaking. Also, the USMC service rifles won't be interchangable with the rest of the US military's, which was a plus.

I hadn't heard that. That would be interesting as I'm going to join the Corps when I get in better shape(f**k you slow ass metabolism!). I've heard good things about the G36, but haven't had a chance to use one and the only way I could would be to spend a bunch of money I don't have and go to another state.

 

[Thaluikhain]

OT: Now that I think on it, everyone's mentioned the prohibitive administration and cost of retraining/re-equipping with bullpup-type rifles. But another problem is discarding the old weapon stock, which is going to be a problem by itself, one would've thought.

Not as such...it can be quiet profitable for weapons to quielty wander off. Alot of captured weapons from one third world country mysteriously appear in other ones a few years later.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

OT: Now that I think on it, everyone's mentioned the prohibitive administration and cost of retraining/re-equipping with bullpup-type rifles. But another problem is discarding the old weapon stock, which is going to be a problem by itself, one would've thought.

not really, just recycle/melt them down

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Why doesn't my country use it? Because quiet simply put the bullpup is a bad idea that's stuck around for far to long. Why you ask?

1. Your rifles action is right next to your face. If your rifle has a catastrophic failure (not unheard of in even the best weapons) rather then it happening several inches infront of your eye, its happening right under your eye socket.

2. Going prone is next to impossible with most bullpup style assault rifles due to the magazine extending farther then the pistol grip.

3. On the majority of bullpup designs the action ejects spent cartridges to the right...a few inches from your face. If the user is either A. left handed or B. Transitioning to their week hand to shoot, the user is going to be taking hot brass to the face.

4. The ergonomics are quiet terrible on bullpup's compared to modern assault rifles like the XCR and ACR. Often requiring the user to fully dismount the rifle to reload.

5. Trigger and other control linkages are often long, and bulky.

6. The weight is naturally placed in a not instinctive way. Between the shoulder and support hand as opposed to infront of the support hand.

Also, the last time I checked FN made the majority of the M4's used by the US military under license from colt.

And Dulc, of all bullpups the steyr aug is one of the worst designs on the market with the ergonomics of a brick. The only bullpups with redeeming qualities in my mind at the FN2000 and Tavor.

And yes, I have fired several bullpups and conventional rifles (I love the second amendment)

Any questions folks?

The bolded parts are 100% correct.

1. I've never heard of this happening in my life in regards to a steyr, not saying it can't happen but it has to be one of the rarest things to occur around, kind of like the mythical expanded brass that can get stuck in a Mag58 barrel.

2. Never had any problems firing from a prone position with a steyr unless you're trying to rest the rifle on the ground and fire it, in which case you've got the front foregrip to counter that, I do pretty much all my firing from a prone position.

3. You can swap which side the round ejects from, but yeah, copping a round to the face isn't fun.

But in closing, the Steyr is a piece of shit.

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.

Heh, if riflemen could get what they needed when they needed it they would be happy and wouldn't ready to kill people all of the time.

Ugh, you don't know the half of it. I'm pretty sure we'll be told loot enemy bodies for weapons and ammo the way things are headed

 

[ApeShapeDeity]

Higher recoil
Hard to reload
Training
Lack of Ambidextrous use


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

Cost, yes. Reloads? You've gotta be kidding! Clip in, clip out, like any other. Abibexterous use? Well, ok the far rear action of a bullpup does tend to prohibit cocking mechs like on the colt, but the ejection port still has to be directional. So, meh. Hot brass in the face always sucks.

The bullpup layout is however more acurate and allows for shorter overall weapon length making it a better deign (especially) for urban/jungle rifles. In my humble opinion...

P.S. I'm ex Australian army, not American.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I hadn't heard that. That would be interesting as I'm going to join the Corps when I get in better shape(f**k you slow ass metabolism!). I've heard good things about the G36, but haven't had a chance to use one and the only way I could would be to spend a bunch of money I don't have and go to another state.

Not sure that it's true, now that I think of it, you'd think it'd be more talked about if it was true.

But yeah, an integral scope inside the carry handle? That's pretty cool. Also, H&K is a very reputable company.

1. I've never heard of this happening in my life in regards to a steyr, not saying it can't happen but it has to be one of the rarest things to occur around, kind of like the mythical expanded brass that can get stuck in a Mag58 barrel.

That is a concern that gets talked about, rightly or wrongly, with bullpups, leading to reinforced plates covering those areas for safety reasons.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Not as such...it can be quiet profitable for weapons to quielty wander off. Alot of captured weapons from one third world country mysteriously appear in other ones a few years later.

not really, just recycle/melt them down

See, that's what I thought at first... but with the case of the US Army rearming, it'd turn into a massive diplomatic/political situation when in a subsequent war, soldiers are being killed by 'misappropriated' surplus. Also, I can't really think of any company that would take a contract to disassemble roughly half a million M16's (or however many are in use) and melt the subsequent metal/polymer piles. And it's not so much the act itself, but the cost of it. Why bother paying someone else to do that, when the gun itself is functional (after a fashion) and free to simply chuck away down a convenient hole. *shrug*

I suppose the easiest way to deal with it is to palm them off to a few armed forces of smaller countries for peanuts. Still get money out of it...

 

[Wadders]

Lack of Ambidextrous use

That's a problem that applies to both configurations, not just bullpups. If anything, though, most bullpups are much more easily adaptable to right/left ejection.

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.

My question would then be: why don't they use the HK416?

I'm guessing because the moderate benefits it offers in comparison to the M4 do not justify the cost and logistics of entirely replacing existing weapons.

 

[Dragonblade146]

Because bullpup designs do not mean superior weapons.
The difference between a standard rifle and a bullpup can be labled almost purley asthetic. I'm sure there are some minute differences, but if I take an M4 Carbine, and replace it with say a Tavor, it would be almost the same. Well, save for the fact its a Carbine, and the Tavor is not.

On top of that the US military is replacing most of our rifles with the XM8. Completely interchangable barrels, and can be anything from a Marksman rifle like the M14, to a SAW. All while being lighter, better durability, and a sleeker, easier to carry design.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

It wasn't invented by Americans and, thus far, aren't being made by American companies. The US Military establishment has made a specific effort, since the 1940s, to only purchase their arms from American contractors. If there is a better weapon somewhere else in the world, the American style is to imitate it or ignore it, never buy it. Everyone in the Pentagon knows that any arms they purchase has to be listed on a defense spending bill passed in congress. Congressmen will kill anything that could be made in the US (especially in their state/voting district!) but is being bought overseas instead.

If Colt or Winchester starts building a bullpup design and tries to sell it to the US Army, then and only then will the US Army have bullpups.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

That is a concern that gets talked about, rightly or wrongly, with bullpups, leading to reinforced plates covering those areas for safety reasons.

Yeah, didn't know about the reinforced plates, I'm glad to see they were cut away because of cost I'm gathering, the steyrs I've used have a piece of plastic to stop the round coming out the wrong side of the ejection port, in saying that, I've used ones which have had both sides of the ejection port open which is kinda like playing russian roulette as to which way the round will eject, hoping the ejection pin will work and shoot things out the right way.

I've also used ones with some rape tape covering one side of the ejection port to stop the round hitting you in the face.

I can't speak for other bullpup weapons, but compared to the steyr, the M4 is a god of a weapon.

 

[kelevra]

Well, I don't serve in the American military, but I remember reading an article explaining contemporary gun designs in Janes- and I know the Bundeswehr chose against adopting bullpups when the G11 programme was cancelled. We wound up with the advanced- but still traditionally laid out G36.

The first issue is recoil- bullpup designs have the action- specifically the firing chamber- closer to the trigger hand/arm- a shooter has less leverage to help control recoil, so bullpup guns have higher recoil for the same caliber. Check out FPS Russia on youtube, he shoots a semi-auto AUG and you can see the difference compared to say an AR-15.

A second problem- if you're a lefty like me- is that bullpups will hate your face- they've got tricky layouts, and can't easily be modified for ambidextrous shooting. In practical terms this means getting spent casings blasted into your face. Not fun.

Then there's the issue of retraining, resupplying, reorganising... a problem when you've got 1.2 million odd active personel.

Hope this helps