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

[Slim-Shot]

I live in NZ and we use the 5.56 Steyer. I reckon its a pretty nice looking rifle. I studied Defence Studies at University and a lot of my class mates were officer cadets. Being that I live in a Military town I also have a few friends in the army. Basically all of them have said that the M4 & M16 is a better rifle to use. The main reason they've offered is the versatility of the weapon with regards to scopes and attachments.

With regards to upgrading the standard rifle, there seems to be a shift in NZ towards a 7.62mm rifle. The 5.56mm round simply lacks stopping power. In regular warfare where wounding soldiers was sufficient, and even desirable given the man power required to extract and treat wounded men, the 5.56mm was fine. However, nowadays with asymmetric (irregular/anti-guerrilla) warfare, simply wounding a man isn't enough, especially if he is in a drugged up religiously fanatical state. The 7.62mm round also has greater penetration through cover.

 

[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.

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

The sentence i have bold doesn't sound like a contradiction in logic to you? If it does flatten out doesn't that mean it will not penetrate armor? especially since ballistic armor was designed to dissipate the kinetic energy of a round by flattening it, so if it flattens more easily, logically it will be stopped by armor more readily. The flattening characteristic was designed into to the 5.56, it effectively makes it work like a hollow point. And we all know how well hollow points work on armor.

7.62 being a larger and heavier round actually has more armor penetrating power (theory behind the harden tungsten sabot rounds on large caliber guns, 105mm+,) where as the lighter smaller 5.56's cavitation inside the body when it hits causing way more internal damage. Where as the 7.62 will go straight through a target in more or less a straight line. (7.62 leaves a large exit wound) The 5.56 leaves a much smaller exit wound in a different direction from where it enters, your insides are no more. (which is y when you shoot fruit, the 7.62 looks more impressive.) 5.56 isn't a "stopping" round so much as it is a "killing" round. If im engaging a heavily armored enemy i'll take the 7.62 over a 5.56.

Also have to mention i'm talking about the 7.62x39mm FULL METAL JACKET not the HOLLOW POINT round. There is also a BIG difference between a 7.62x51mm and 7.62x39mm.

An interesting read about the 5.56. [http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge] Its not the bullet, its the gun.

...which is a round about way of bring it back on topic for this tread! I'm all for the adoption of better weapons systems like a bullpup rifle. But too much bureaucracy and money involved for that to ever happen.

edit: best of both worlds would be to adopt the 6mm round [http://www.chuckhawks.com/6mm_military_cartridge.htm]

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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

While the 7.62mm does do more damage the 5.56mm does have significant advantages too.

The 5.56mm is lighter, which makes a difference when you're a soldier having to lug around hundreds of rounds of it wherever you go along with everything else you have to carry. This does make a big difference on long patrols in harsh conditions.

The 5.56mm is smaller. When you combine this with it being lighter too that means it is not affected by bullet drop of wind direction as badly as the 7.62mm is, meaning that it can fly further before you lose all sense of accuracy.

Also, because of the two attributes above the 5.56mm doesn't need the same explosive force behind it as the 7.62mm to fly at similar velocities, which translates as less recoil from the rifle you fire it from which also helps improve accuracy.

So when you add that together, easier to carry, more accuracy over longer range and less recoil, the 5.56mm has more going for it than the 7.62mm. The 7.62mm might do more damage when it hits something, but you've got a better chance of hitting something in the first place with the 5.56mm.

Also, FPS Russia is awesome

 

[pablackhawk]

What I've noticed with standard M16/M4 rifles is that I can reload it without taking the rifle off the target and without looking, whereas a bullpup, I've had to take the rifle off target every time to access the magazine well. It might be a familiarity problem, but I'm not a fan of losing sight picture every time I have to reload...Also, at least in Afghanistan, engagements are actually occurring at longer distances, not shorter ones. I'd be in favor of adoption of something like the SCAR-H which uses the heavier (still NATO) 7.62x51 round, and can be used in both short and long range battle

 

[Ravenbom]

Welcome to the military industrial complex. It's something Eisenhower fought against and warned the American people about in his farewell address.

(I'm neither republican nor democrat, I hate both parties)

Nowadays we tend to think of republicans as war mongers, but democrats were our biggest cold-warriors and they nearly pushed us into World War III.

My point is, for most of the last century BOTH parties have been pushing forward the military industrial complex.
It's a HUGE industry and the wars we've been fighting are costing us billions of dollars a month for nearly a decade. And we still blame the global recession on the housing crisis/sub-prime lending/real estate speculation.



And since when do the best products don't get pushed forward in any business? War is our government's business. War is when our president has real power, he is Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. I could really get into this but if I write too much, no one will read this.

Don't take just my word. You should watch the documentary Why We Fight from the 2006. The B-2 has a part built in every state so if it gets canned by congress, congressmen in every state will lose votes.

You know why we're still in Iraq? Because we sell our Humvees to the Iraqis because we have the MRAP now. We've always sold our old guns and equipment to other countries.



As for why the countries that OP stated that use a bullpup rifle, those countries all manufacture their rifles and have a (smaller) military industrial complex that they feed.

Besides being in the business deals with specific arms manufacturers, IMHO, bullpups are horribly balanced. They're also slower to reload. You sort of have to point them upwards to reload, when with an M4 you can keep it propped up between your shoulder and forehand to keep a bead on your potential target.
Depends how far your potential target is away from you, but re-drawing a bead can take some precious seconds.
And for anyone who's ever had to learn to shoot with iron sights, you very well know that longer barrels = easier to aim because the only sight you're concentrating on is that front sight. The longer the gun is between your back sight and your front sight = longer sight radius. Longer sight radius = easier to aim.


I think the bullpup has it's military applications. They're shorter so they could have applications in urban warfare and as stow away weapons for vehicular crews who wouldn't normally be in a front line position.

 

[Wicky_42]

The 5.56 NATO is deadlier than the 7.62x39mm used in the AK when it hits soft tissue.

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.

The sentence i have bold doesn't sound like a contradiction in logic to you? If it does flatten out doesn't that mean it will not penetrate armor? especially since ballistic armor was designed to dissipate the kinetic energy of a round by flattening it, so if it flattens more easily, logically it will be stopped by armor more readily. The flattening characteristic was designed into to the 5.56, it effectively makes it work like a hollow point. And we all know how well hollow points work on armor.

7.62 being a larger and heavier round actually has more armor penetrating power (theory behind the harden tungsten sabot rounds on large caliber guns, 105mm+,) where as the lighter smaller 5.56's cavitation inside the body when it hits causing way more internal damage. Where as the 7.62 will go straight through a target in more or less a straight line. (7.62 leaves a large exit wound) The 5.56 leaves a much smaller exit wound in a different direction from where it enters, your insides are no more. (which is y when you shoot fruit, the 7.62 looks more impressive.)

If you read what I wrote, the presence of armour flattens the round, hence it doing more damage against people wearing armour than not. The smaller size of the 5.56 means that against unarmoured[/i] or soft targets, like you mentioned originally, it over-penetrates, meaning it deposits less energy into the target, doing less damage as it goes through and through. The 7.62, with its larger facing surface area, puts more energy into the target and, being heavier, carrier more energy in the first place. The difference in exit wound is correlated to the shockwaves of energy transferred into the target - the opposite of what you seem to be supposing. Small rounds may well tumble inside the target, but it's not a deflection of more than a few degrees - I'd take blowing a melon-sized chunk out of someone's back to scouring a cm-wide slightly curving path through them if I was looking to kill them.

 

[Treblaine]

But I think things are beginning to slip.

AR15 style rifles are hugely popular with the civilian market both in the US and to a lesser extent globally, so companies like Colt are no longer utterly dependant on long-term government contracts for a steady revenue stream. They can just sell more to civilians, police and so on.

In fact the AR15 is probably far more suited as a civilian rifle than military one:
-sensitivity to dirt/dust, not such a problem in peacetime
-overheating on full auto fire, but even police tend to use only semi-auto versions.
-cartridge ineffective terminal-ballistics beyond 100m UNLESS hollow-points are used, that are generally illegal to use in the military
-Light-weight and light-recoil far more suited to the generally weaker and less fit civilian population
-poor hard-barrier penetration, a negative for military who encounter many "dug-in" enemies but boon for more liable conscious police

It's quite clear that police would benefit from being armed with rifles like these, the standard-issue pump-shotgun truly has become obsolete; it does not have adequate range, the recoil is too high, the penetration too low, the capacity too small and not to mention how police have to account for every shot, how do they account for every pellet of buckshot?

Colt needs to DIVERSIFY and target law-enforcement.


But what kind of rifle does the military need?

7.62x39mm is good, recoil is reasonable but bullet is a bit too slow and heavy, but has to be for enough sectional density.

What all the pundits seems to be clamouring over is a 100grain 6.5mm round fired at around 2800fps.
-excellent ballistic performance, much like 7.62x51mm
-recoil like AK47 round = controllable on full auto
-fragmenting in target (for maximum damage) right out to 300m, single-shot kills to torso are a reality
-nice big temporary cavity, high likelihood of one-shot-stop*
-good barrier penetration, no more insurgents using cinder-blocks and mud walls for cover


The problem with this calibre is it really needs something like a 22 inch barrel to make the performance gains. THIS is where bullpups need to come in, a new cartridge, a new rifle to make best use of its balance between recoil and performance.


But I know americans never like to compromise, they do not like how with bullpups you can only fire from the right shoulder. That means this new weapons must:
-eject forward,
-eject to to bottom, or
-don't eject at all!

That's the recent innovation with LSAT and likely America won't advance to a new rifle till this technology is either matured or they have exhausted all possibilities of practicality. It has a lot of potential for how short this new telescoped ammunition is could mean very unique loading mechanisms. Who knows.

In the mean time the US military is using the M4 Carbine very well in close quarters, leaning heavily on Light-Machine Guns like the M249 for squad-level suppressive fire and aren't afraid to issue heavy 7.62x51mm battle rifles in the mountains of Afghanistan where the range is appreciated but still there is a huge desire for a single weapon that can do it all:
-suppressive fire (durable)
-long range killer (powerful)
-Close quarters (short and light)
-cover-busting (heavy bullet)

*temporary cavity is from rifle wounds is when the bullet is slowed down very quickly because resistance is greatly increased such as from a hollow-point round mushrooming open, a long bullet "yawing" (turning sideways) or even shattering into dozens of fragments. This increased resistance causes all the kinetic energy of the bullet to be deposited very quickly and in flesh that means violently pushing the flesh away from the path of the bullet, like slapping your hand down hard onto water creating a wave.
This temporary cavity is not strong enough to intrinsically damage tissue, it is like a violent punch, it will however tear some fragile organs like the liver or spleen. It seems to have its most potent effect when the bullet passes near the spine and the temporary cavity intersects the sensitive spinal nerve.
The theory is this gives the nerve such a jolt it causes temporary paralysis, this explains many soldiers' and hunters' experience shooting humans and animals with high power rifles how when shot they drop as if they instantly loss all muscle tone. This seems to be the mechanism of the much coveted "one shot stop" from a hit to the torso, the temporary cavity of a high-power rifle round like the 7.62x51mm is as large as a volleyball!

 

[Treblaine]

There are a few things other than the military-industrial-complex that prevent a wholesale-move away from the M4-Carbine that is currently standard issue with the US Army.

Adjustable Buttstock
Sounds trivial I know but this is a big issue now that body-armour has become as ubiquitous as the helmet and how the military to keep numbers up withotu conscription need to be accepting of far mor varying body-types. But most importantly accuracy, the length of "pull" a weapon has is important to practical accuracy and a bullpup weapon this would be very very hard to adjust.

The only solution I can think of is a modular pistol grip that can be moved backwards or forwards along the underside of the receiver. I'll tell you it's way harder to design for that than a simple telescoping tube but the only alternative is multiple butt-plates.

Weight
The M4 Carbine that soldiers have now gotten VERY used to (not the reliability though) in at 6.36lbs can this new rifle have a variant of similar weight? Interesting this 6.3lbs is the weight the Original M16 and M16A1 variant weighed, the move to M16A2 bulked everything up and now the weapon seem to have "evolved" sacrificing barrel length for sturdiness and light-weight.
It's clear that the US infantry want a LIGHT rifle, not more than 7lbs fully loaded. Definitely no where near the 11lbs fully loaded weight of the SA-80!

Barrel length is nice to have but tired arms make bullets wander, not to mention fuzz the mind. The days of the 11lbs M1 garand was back when the soldier was not have the all the literal millstone around their neck of rifle-resistant body armour.

Now I've looked at a lot of existing bullpup designs out there and a common them is they may be light for a long barrelled weapon but they are heavy for a short weapon.



Reloading
Now far be it from me to claim that you can't reload very quickly with a bullpup design, that's would be a specious argument and anyone can give a dozen examples of people reloading quickly with a bullpup. But I think the argument is analogous to the comparison between bolt-action and self-loading rifles comparing accurate fire at range, key is how with a bolt-action you have to move more to cycle the action, losing your point of aim and tiring yourself out as well.
With bullpup it does require a lot more adjustment of the weapon's position to remove a magazine and insert a new one, especially when you have bulky body armour and chest-webbing. In this scenario the benefit of a fore-placed magazine is clear, you can keep your weapon pointing the same direction to reload, can actually see the magazine well while still facign the enemy's position.

Finishing note
I find it interesting that the unofficial masters of Small arms, the Germans, who invented the assault rifle, the sub-machine gun and the pioneered concept of the General-purpose machine gun have never made any serious exercises into bullpup rifles. They always put the magazine forward of the grip, could this be that the German engineering ideology values ergonomics highly in such a way that it is more important having the operating parts forward in front of the trigger where they are easier to manipulate even at the cost of barrel length relative to overall length.

I don't know.

But you do have to ask the question, is the concept of bullpup rifle based around what the soldier wants or what the engineer wants?

 

[Frankmanik]

There are a number of issues with bullpup weapons.

1. the chamber is directly next to the soldier's ear.Bullpups are god-awful loud.

2. spent shells are generally ejected straight down or forward, which can cause problems when firing from a prone position.

3. Reloading from a prone position can be difficult.

4. less real estate for rail mounted add ons

There are some real issues with the bullpup design, just as their are issues with the conventional carbine design.

 

[Smagmuck_]

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

We do, it's just in limited service...