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

[LastCelt1989]

A lot of the issues that are being pointed out here against the bullpup design, I have to say as a British Infantryman I've never come across half of them. The only bullpup I've fired is our SA80 admittedly but....

Cant fire in the prone? - Um why not? I have never had an issue firing in the prone and its now even easier since we got bipod legs attached to the front of the weapon system.

Inaccurate at longer ranges? - Well we can still fire pretty accurate enough at 400 meters, anything more than that and yeah you would bring in some form of GPMG or Sniper rifle but thats still pretty good if you ask me.

The round being ejected on towards the firer? - Um no I really dont see the issue here. Your cheek will be on the left, the round will be ejected on the right. If someone is next to you then yeah theres a risk i guess but the only time thats ever become an issue for me has been with rapid fire weapons such as the SAW. (as an aside, if you get ejected brass down the inside of your body armour...wooh does that ever sting!)

Not ambidextrous - Well yeah I guess its not but there are plenty of left handed in my battalion and they all seem to be able to cope well enough.

So yeah I think the SA80 (nowadays) is a pretty good weapon system. The LSW (featured in MW2) is still a titanic piece of ass but the actual rifle is okay. I've never been firing it and thought 'Y'know I'm sick of this goddamn thing, why couldnt the magazine be in front of the pistol grip?'

As for the 5.56mm round, as some of you are no doubt aware, its not really designed to kill at long ranges. Its more to wound and as such take the target and at least a 2 man CASEVAC team out of the firefight together. I dont fully agree with the logic but I find that its still very effective after 100 meters.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is expensive and Obama doesn't want to spend money unless it goes to poor people or the elderly, also the stuff everyone else has said.

Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it, it'd be run by each branch independantly (or hopefully, working in concert).

 

[ryai458]

It is expensive and Obama doesn't want to spend money unless it goes to poor people or the elderly, also the stuff everyone else has said.

Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it, it'd be run by each branch independantly (or hopefully, working in concert).

I say Obama to generalize the US government they have been trying to cut military spending, which is stupid, so why would the want to put out 10s of millions of dollars to transition to a new gun.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is expensive and Obama doesn't want to spend money unless it goes to poor people or the elderly, also the stuff everyone else has said.

Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it, it'd be run by each branch independantly (or hopefully, working in concert).

I say Obama to generalize the US government they have been trying to cut military spending, which is stupid, so why would the want to put out 10s of millions of dollars to transition to a new gun.

Ok, fair enough, but again, AFAIK, they wouldn't make the decision. They'd approve the budget for the military, the various branches spend it on what they choose (after the usual skullduggery that goes on when large amounts of money is involved).

 

[ryai458]

It is expensive and Obama doesn't want to spend money unless it goes to poor people or the elderly, also the stuff everyone else has said.

Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it, it'd be run by each branch independantly (or hopefully, working in concert).

I say Obama to generalize the US government they have been trying to cut military spending, which is stupid, so why would the want to put out 10s of millions of dollars to transition to a new gun.

Ok, fair enough, but again, AFAIK, they wouldn't make the decision. They'd approve the budget for the military, the various branches spend it on what they choose (after the usual skullduggery that goes on when large amounts of money is involved).

Ya essentially what you said but with the cuts to the military budget they don't have the leftover capital to spend on new stuff they are trying to keep equipment that is 30yrs old up and running.

 

[KaiRai]

The US has one of the biggest armies in the world. Regasrdless of how small a problem it seems, training someone to shoot only right-handed is a bit of a problem. Although the bullpup design does seem a little better in terms of handling, the kick is always pretty high.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ok, fair enough, but again, AFAIK, they wouldn't make the decision. They'd approve the budget for the military, the various branches spend it on what they choose (after the usual skullduggery that goes on when large amounts of money is involved).

Ya essentially what you said but with the cuts to the military budget they don't have the leftover capital to spend on new stuff they are trying to keep equipment that is 30yrs old up and running.[/quote]

Oh, right, I see what you mean.

 

[teebeeohh]

the real question is why nobody has picked up the G11 design yet.
i am not sure whether this would be a bullpup since it doesn't use traditional ammunition but still.

 

[FarleShadow]

When I went to a firing range in New Vegas, the kid (I swear he was only 15, or just really young lookin) said most of the guys in the army didn't like the M16 (Piece of crap! he said).

Why, I asked.

'cause you can't shoot through an engine block with it.

I was going to ask why, but then acouple marines piped up with "Damn right son!" and suggested a more manly weapon. (Something that could fire through an engine block, apparently).

....I decided not to argue with them. My shoulder hurt for a week afterward though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

the real question is why nobody has picked up the G11 design yet.
i am not sure whether this would be a bullpup since it doesn't use traditional ammunition but still.

It'd be the ammunition, probably. There are serious advantages to keeping with NATO standard 5.56 ammunition, preferably in STANAG magazines. Not only do you get to keep your own existing stockpiles, but you can use those from other nations.

 

[Gaiseric]

When I went to a firing range in New Vegas

Have you been playing too many video games?

My shoulder hurt for a week afterward though.

You get used to that. Happened to me when I first fired my 12 gauge, but after a bit it didn't hurt anymore.

 

[Adam Galli]

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 round the M4/M16 uses is designed to tumble end over end so when it hits you it does a lot more damage than a normal .22. Besides, powder charge and grain weight of the bullet makes a difference in the stopping power of the round.

U.S. soldiers are not shooting .22 varmint rounds at enemies, if they were we wouldn't stand a chance of winning any battles.

 

[Wicky_42]

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.

Thought it was the other way around - in fact, pretty sure it is. The 5.56 has better armour penetration, and if you're wearing body armour it has more damage potential as the bullet gets flattened to rip a nice hole through you. However, on unarmoured targets it just punches straight through - sounds bad, but the 7.62 causes a LOT more damage and a MUCH bigger exit hole.
Anecdotally (an example I recently saw)
5.56 at 1:15
7.62 at 2:05 (lol gold AK ^_^)

7.62 gives you very, very bad day

Anyway, with a large military it only makes sense to upgrade when there's a serious need to do so. Their current arms seem to work fine, no big kerfuffles like there were with the first generation of the SA80s, so why worry? Save the money and effort for a serious change - not some small accuracy percentage increase but a decent paradigm shift.

Like lasers or something

 

[Thaluikhain]

The round the M4/M16 uses is designed to tumble end over end so when it hits you it does a lot more damage than a normal .22. Besides, powder charge and grain weight of the bullet makes a difference in the stopping power of the round.

Do not all conical bullets tumble, due to the centre of mass being behind the centre of length? Though, you can increase how much they tumble, of course.

 

[Jfswift]

I've had a chance to test out several rifles although I've never fired one with a bullpup design. It does seem like a good idea with a longer barrel tucked away like that but wouldn't it be slower or harder to reload?

 

[Daverson]

Actually, the US military experimented with a bullpup variation of the M1 Garand (designated T-31) after WW2.

Bullpups aren't necessarily that much better than rifles built around the standard layout, though. The main advantage is that they're much shorter, so are easier to fit inside vehicles, but you'd get the same advantage with rifles fitted with folding stocks. Then there's the issue the soldier will quite literally be resting his face on the receiver while aiming the weapon, which raises all sorts of problems...

 

[scar_47]

Cost and training times are the biggest factors, the cost of replace the current m4 and m16 would be astranomical and then your left with a large amount of usable weapons no longer in usw, and training under stress you revert to what you know so retraining the whole of the military would end up involving sending everyone for a week or two of training and during that time you'd have to deal with a mixture of weapons being non compatible. Its not worth the money and hassle for what would be only a slightly better weapon especially since they work on todays battlefield, most militaries only adopt new weapon system when absolutely necessary like the 1911 used for what 95 years the only reason we adopted the m9 was to stick with NATO ammo.

 

[Thamian]

the real question is why nobody has picked up the G11 design yet.

Politics and price of ammunition. Yes, caseless ammo has a whole range of advantages, but the NATO standard rounds and magazines are... well, standard, and I think are enforced by the legal terms of the NATO treaty.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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.

Probably because the L85A2 entered service quite late after most of it's competitors, and we were the only ones who used the L85A1 because, well, it didn't work very well. So while we were using the A1 variant other countries opted for the M4A1, FAMAS G2, F2000 etc. So even though the A2 (as well as the Carbine and the LSW versions) variant works fine, other armed forces had already made their choices and it would have been too expensive to re-equip everyone again for what would have only been a very minor change to what they already had.