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

[SckizoBoy]

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.

Y'know, I kinda knew that... as with all things German, the HK416 is a little on the overengineered side (even if they massively improved the SA80), and I think per unit it is a lot more expensive to manufacture than the M4/M16. Which sort of explains why only the Norwegian army uses it.

Question: what happened to the XCR?

Anyone?

 

[Zhukov]

My mum and dad trained with the Steyr when they were in -- my mum was in sigs and my dad was a medic. They both said it was an awesome rifle - very reliable and easy to maintain. In fact, I've only ever heard good things about it.

On the other hand, it has a nasty habit of trying to chamber two rounds at once and subsequently jamming. Also, for some stupid reason the cocking handle is made of plastic and breaks way too easily. I've seen them rendered completely inoperable simply from being dropped or sat on.

But other than that, yeah, it's a pretty good weapon.

 

[Gaiseric]

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.

Doesn't the US military uses a lot of weapons made by FN and Beretta?

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.

I thought the XM8 was canceled a few years back.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

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

Hope this helps

Retraining is a bullshit excuse, not that you should change to a bullpup design. I was trained with a steyr and within 5 minutes of someone showing me how to use an M4 I could use it fluently as could everyone else who got a go. How I wish I could have kept that weapon.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

True...but the US is hardly immune to making decisions based on short term concerns with long term problems. Stingers in Afghanistan, chemical weapons in Iraq, why not M16s somewhere else?

On ther other hand, yes, there are various friendlier nations that use M16s or variants that would appreciate them.

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.

Overall length is significantly shorter, which is useful under certain circumstances, but yeah, it's hardly the be all and end all of weapons designs.

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.

XM8? Didn't they abandon that project years ago? Shame, though, seemed to show promise. Though, mostly they looked awesome.

 

[Dragonblade146]

Overall length is significantly shorter, which is useful under certain circumstances, but yeah, it's hardly the be all and end all of weapons designs.


XM8? Didn't they abandon that project years ago? Shame, though, seemed to show promise. Though, mostly they looked awesome.

Yeah, and its the problem of ambidexterity too, sure they can be modified but the US military wouldn't really pay attention to that.

I heard something just recently, like a few months ago from one of my buddies in the Marines, there has been talks of replacing all the guns. With XM8s. I haven't really been bothered to look it up but it could be being brought back or not. I'm not sure.
Peosonally, I wish they didn't cancel that, it was a gorgeous gun, and you could carry any of the barrels on field and change them in a heart beat and then you are golden for what you need at the time. Marksman, Assualt, Carbine, or LMG.

I thought the XM8 was canceled a few years back.

Like I said in that above post, its what I heard.

 

[SckizoBoy]

XM8? Didn't they abandon that project years ago? Shame, though, seemed to show promise. Though, mostly they looked awesome.

Fall 2005... I think... though they still wheel it out every so often for comparative testing of potential successor infantry weapons. Unlike you, though, I thought they looked hideous! -_-

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Well, that sucks. Maybe they used different makes?

The older rifles (A) with the fixed sights aren't as good as the ones before the current model (B), but the current model (C) isn't as good as the previous model, if that makes sense? The previous model (B) is what's used overseas at the moment, model (C) had a bad habit of it's firing completely breaking if you tried to shoot it on auto, which wasn't very helpful.

But the weapon has never been anything stellar, compared to a M4, it weighs a fucking tonne, the M4 has a longer effect range, the M4 is easier to clean, the M4 is easier to reload, and the M4 is easier to switch between firing modes. (Yes, I know the steyr has a dual-stage trigger, but how many times have you seen those special kids shootan auto-burst when meaning to fire a single shot?)

 

[Treblaine]

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

Consider that it's not so much bullpup distaste but an obsession with anything that isn't an M16 variant.

Far far too many companies have vested interest in continued use of the M16 series, they have vast infrastructure based around manufacturing M16 and M4 weapons from magazines to replacement parts to turn away from that would mean very influential companies lose vast sums of money and worse than that: jeopardise guaranteed steady profits in the future.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec07/rifles_09-24.html

Companies like Colt don't want some AK type rifle coming in, all their experience, expertise and equipment is not specialised for those kinds of weapons.

It's profit before patriotism.

The US military just loves the M16 way more than it should, it has grown fond through familiarity with the buttstock, that magazine well and the safety style and they don't want to change.

Also, jsut to play devil's advocate, why is a bullpup so great?

The idea is a short rifle with a full length barrel but that is still very heavy, the SA-80 is 5kg fully loaded with the sight affixed and much of the weight towards the rear where it must be firmly shouldered.

The M4 may be unreliable under sustained fire, but it IS handy, it is almost half the weight of an SA-80 and even shorter. Sure the barrel length is only 14.5 inches compared to 20 inches for SA80 but consider the M4 carbine more as a sub-machine gun for combat mainly at 0-100 meters then it is very good for that job. In fact if wound ballistics based on in-air-yaw is understood correclty ALL 5.56mm rifle rounds are mostly ineffective beyond 100m.

(it seems the 5.56mm round when fired yaws about 1-4 degrees for the first 100m of flight then stabilises. If it hits a person while yawing slightly then it yaws very quickly on impact leaving a massive wound, but after 100m when stabilises the bullet hits and stays pointed right through the target stabbing through like an icepick)

What the US military definitely needs is a heavy hitting assault rifle like the AK47. M4 carbine is great as a light rifle and M4 carbine is probably best use of 5.56mm cartridge.

 

[Dragonblade146]

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.

The bullpup is not as accurate as some riles. Shorter design does not mean accuracy, if anything its less accuracy. The shorter the barrel (Bullpups are FAMOUS for shorter barrels.), the less accuracy you have at distance beyond say, 200 yards. Which yes in urban combat would matter, but saying that the M4 Carbine,(Even if it is an already crazy short barrel.), which is a short design still has a longer barrel then the MOST Bullpup is just as manuverable yet far more accurate.

*Spelling and a few more words.

 

[Autofaux]

What the US military definitely needs is a heavy hitting assault rifle like the AK47. M4 carbine is great as a light rifle and M4 carbine is probably best use of 5.56mm cartridge.

I'm a fan of the Remington SPC. 6.8mm kicks harder than the standard NATO intermediate cartridge, and is a solution to the issue of enemy combatants wearing body armour, without breaking out ye olde M14s, or rechambering individual weapons to chamber the 7.62.

 

[kelevra]

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

Hope this helps

Retraining is a bullshit excuse, not that you should change to a bullpup design. I was trained with a steyr and within 5 minutes of someone showing me how to use an M4 I could use it fluently as could everyone else who got a go. How I wish I could have kept that weapon.

Heh, fair enough, but the main point there was that re-arming and resupplying would take years. Manufacturers need time to change designs- and every retooling for manufacture costs money. And its not just a matter of learning how to shoot with a new gun, if you've ever owned one- and it sounds like you have- you'll know that its a pain to clean it (UND IT MUST BE CLEAN!) strip it, and maintain it. Teaching recruits where the parts go also can't be fun, especially if they're just out of school. My old man still thinks everything is a G3 from back when he was in the Bundeswehr, its taken years for him to break those habits

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Doesn't the US military uses a lot of weapons made by FN and Beretta?

From what I understand: NATO yes, US no. Last I heard, the M1911A1 .45 Colt Automatic was still the standard firearm of American military personnel.

I thought the XM8 was canceled a few years back.

Last I heard, yes, it was cancelled. Showed promise but someone somewhere decided it wasn't worth the effort to work on an improved rifle in an army required to do almost exclusively small-arms infantry actions. Instead, until this year, the F-22 stealth jet, a weapon only conceivably more useful than a Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom if the target actually has sophisticated detection equipment, received preferential treatment over the XM8.

Welcome to the American Military, where we'll arm ourselves to fight Russia even if it means not appropriately arming ourselves against the people actually shooting at us.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The bullpup is not as accurate as some riles. Shorter design does not mean accuracy, if anything its less accuracy. The shorter the barrel (Bullpups are FAMOUS for shor barrels.), the less accuracy you have at distance beyond say, 200 yards. Which yes in urban combat would matter, but saying that the M4 Carbine, which is a short design still has a longer barrel then the Bullpup is just as manuverable yet far more accurate.

Hey? The Steyr AUG has a 20 inch barrel, same as M16, the L85 has slightly more, the Famas slightly less.

The M4 has only has a 14.5 inch barrel.

 

[Dragonblade146]

The bullpup is not as accurate as some riles. Shorter design does not mean accuracy, if anything its less accuracy. The shorter the barrel (Bullpups are FAMOUS for shor barrels.), the less accuracy you have at distance beyond say, 200 yards. Which yes in urban combat would matter, but saying that the M4 Carbine, which is a short design still has a longer barrel then the Bullpup is just as manuverable yet far more accurate.

Hey? The Steyr AUG has a 20 inch barrel, same as M16, the L85 has slightly more, the Famas slightly less.

The M4 has only has a 14.5 inch barrel.

Yes I wasn't talking about those ones, I know they have longer barrels then carbine. I was talking about the Famas Carbine. I don't remember its exactly name but it looks exactly like a FAMAS, and it is pretty big out there.
I was comparing Carbine with Bullpup desgin carbine, for that shorter barrel like he was talking about.

The AUG and the M16 are practically on even ground between the two.

 

[nonl33t m4st3r]

XM8? Didn't they abandon that project years ago? Shame, though, seemed to show promise. Though, mostly they looked awesome.

Fall 2005... I think... though they still wheel it out every so often for comparative testing of potential successor infantry weapons. Unlike you, though, I thought they looked hideous! -_-

Yeah, the XM8 was just a G36 in a stupid plastic frame that didn't even have a rail, which would make it incompatible with almost all the equipment used with the M16/M4 family.

People who say that Colt has the US military in a stranglehold, most of the weapons today are made by European companies like FN and Beretta. I haven't seen a Colt made M16 in my whole military career (6 years).

The M16 is a pretty good weapon these days. I've only used some old A2's, and he few malfunctions I had were from shit magazines and firing blanks.

The reason the US military hasn't upgraded their rifles is because the cost is just too high for any benefits. They released the data in the Army Times, and while all the rifles tested had a fraction of the malfunctions of the M4 (I think the XM8, the HK416, and the XCR were tested, it was last year I think), the brass still didn't think it was worth it.

 

[uttaku]

No idea why the SA80/L95 hasn't popped up more but its a beatiful bullpup, yes its heavy as hell for a rifle but it is the most accurate rifle issued, can be used prone just fine and i never had any problems reloading it. although its not ambidextrous but tbh thats a minor problem.

 

[Gaiseric]

Doesn't the US military uses a lot of weapons made by FN and Beretta?

From what I understand: NATO yes, US no. Last I heard, the M1911A1 .45 Colt Automatic was still the standard firearm of American military personnel.

Nope the M9 Beretta was adopted in the late 80s or 90s.

 

[Kathinka]

-snip-

largely this!
the problem is that in the u.s. industry and politics are way more connected then they should be, as in that the industry has a lot of power over political decisions. they know the ar-15 design is horribly outdated and outperformed by many other weapon systems, american and foreign. but as long as they have a say in it (and they do. if some politician would dare to advocate getting another rifle he would soon find himself out of donations for the next campain) they will rather have the army go out with a second rate rifle that they sell then a really good one another company sells.

the 5.56mm cartridge is another problem, originally designed to kill varmin (therefore nicknamed "poodleshooter" by it's opponents) and it's range us rather small and it's not reliably powerfull enough to engage humans. the reason it was adopted is that it is easy and cheap to teach unexperienced personel how to shoot and hit with it, due to its lack of recoil. it's light and small and cheap, so much can be brought and transported. it gives a force some strategic advantages in a tradeoff for some tactical cons.

as for the whole bullpup thing: it seems usefull. my boyfriend though was in the german jäger brigade, the german armies equivalent of the rangers, light infantry for urban operations. and he said that he'd go for the standard design any day, because a: it's easyer and quicker to load and b: on every second corner you have to fire over the left and not the right shoulder. with a normal rifle no issue. with a bullpup you'd get hot brass in your face and therefore have to expose more of your body to bring your right shoulder arround a left-facing corner.

little video to poke even more fun at the ar-15 design.