Bullpup vs. classic rifle designs?

Pros: Shorter yet still accurate weapon, "up-to-date", easily maneuverable in CQB. Prone might be better with magazine as support, but all of my instructors have made it pretty clear that the magazine is not a unipod.

Cons: Retraining expenses are immense, M-16 and accessories are long-established standard, we'd probably need a new grenade launcher, reloading can be difficult in certain situations (training), and (why the Marines were iffy about the XM-8) you can't drill with a weapon that short using the current manual. You laugh, but it's a consideration someone would bring up.
 
Forget retraining,.. it is an ongoing process. No retraining,.. your force has no future

How many of your instructors have ever used a Bullpup weapon in a military sense for any time. Most people only resist change because it means that they might have to get off their big fat duff and do something new for once. It takes them out of their comfort zone.

Do the Marine Drill Team use M-16 series weapons for drill purposes? With considerations like "drill", being bought up as an example of why a particular weapon type should or should not be used I feel that you already have major problems in your selection system. I can think of a million things that Bullpup weapons are not useful for, however they have little or nothing to do with whether the weapon is a better choice as a weapon of war for your troops. Everywhere else in the world the purpose of a new weapon is to improve the chances of the people who have to use them. Not whether they are suitable for drill, or look sexy or anything else.

I saw all this when we changed over from the FN FAL, I could make that rifle talk, the AUG felt stumpy and unfamiliar, plus it only used a "childrens" calibre. If I were to go back today and push my case for the FN I would probably be howled down.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the case, the weapon should be modular so a guy can adopt a role without having to switch his entire weapon.
Bullpup, never used one but I'd say that keeping it ambidextrous should be a priority. If the casings all eject out the right side only, guys like me would be very pissed off. A switch to make it eject from left to right with minimal fuss would do very nicely, especially if you have to switch hands due to awkward corners.
I wonder if the forward pistol grip on the AUG is long enough to serve as a unipod when prone. Using the magazine as a unipod is pretty standard procedure in these neck of the woods and we haven't had anything like a jam or a malfunction of any sort while doing it.
Personally I HATE people who hate trying a new idea. That's why the South Korean military is STILL using the damned tent halves even though during a few of our FTXs, we didn't bring them and it was FAR more successful that way. Tent halves = useless. Not thinking = useless. A better idea: waterproof sleeping bag cover + poncho supported by two twigs or sticks to cover your head and chest > Tent half.
Sorry guys but Spike bringing up the part about not thinking just brought back some memories.
 
1. Grenade launcher wouldn't need to be changed. We use the M203 (GLA) on the Steyr

2. Magazine as a rest during shooting with a bullpup is very settled as it is usually at a very good balance point, and c/Commander, your instructors must be idiots if they think that a mag can't be used as a support. It is probably the most stable shooting platform I've ever used without a bipod.

3. Rifle bling..... I hate it, but we use it on the Steyr. Night aiming devices, interchangable weapon sights, white light, etc etc etc.... stupid. It's just more junk to keep clean and for diggers to break.

4. Drill.... that depends on your drills doesn't it. 4 RAR uses the M4, and the other infantry battalions use the Steyr, and they both use the same drills with different rifles. A bit of ingenuity and you can do it.
 
Last edited:
We're on the same page about the magazine as a unipod. It's just how accurate shooting is done. Just what exactly do those instructors instruct?

As for rifle bling... there's no need for a lot of it. It's that if we have a guy who's been shooting real well and we have him as our designated marksman, I think it's better that you have him keep the same weapon and just issue him a scope plus the training to go with it.
As for night sights. Something we totally need. It's a pain in the ass to maintain but it's got to be done.
White light on rifles. What a great idea. SHOOT ME!
As for drill... I think the importance of a good weapon trumps any old drill. Change your drill procedures if you have to but apparently AussieNick says you don't need to and I believe him.
 
When it comes to drill our drill looks pretty stupid, the steyr isn't a graceful weapon.

As for white light, it's used during room clearances, that's all. But yeah the night weapon sights are a good thing, they weigh a lot, they need cleaning and chew up the double A's but having a 9 IR scopes in your platoon is an awesome thing.
 
Damned thing about the NVGs... doesn't like close quarters much.
Ain't quite like those First Person Shooters where you turn on your NVG and the room looks crystal clear, regardless of distance and you got absolutely wonderful peripheral vision. If only that were the case...
We have a policy that a rifle issued with a GL must stay with that GL but I've had guys who got assigned the GL who wanted to stick with their old rifles. Felt that would be true of scopes as well.
The thing about if it isn't modular... you need to get screws to attach things like scopes and GL sights. Guess what? Our unit didn't have a single one of those screws. Not one! So I had to go and scrounge some screws of a similar diameter and twist and adjust properly. Front GL ladder sights, had to do that with strong double sided tape! Hence my call for a need for modular rifle furniture. If this is going to be a problem during peace time, guess what it'll be like during war time!
Drill is not important. Personally I think it's a pain in the ass. As long as you got the guys marching in a neat box shape and the feet match and no one's running into each other and it looks orderly, I say it's enough for a unit that's designed for the unpaved outdoors.
 
I don't get why everyone still says AR-15 is so vesatile. You can change out upper receivers. There are rifles out there these days that can change caliber with little more than a barrel change that is much less expensive than an upper. And those accessories will attach to any rifle with a quad rail, including bullpups like the AUG A3 and F2000 Tactical.

White lights on guns do serve a purpose, but in my opinion they're way more useful for LE or civilians. The right light can temporarily blind someone in low light. You're only supposed to turn it on once you see the guy...

Never knew that having the mag stick out was actually beneficial. You're making me want to buy the Microtech AUG at the gun shop...
 
Magazine as a rest during shooting with a bullpup is very settled as it is usually at a very good balance point, and c/Commander, your instructors must be idiots if they think that a mag can't be used as a support. It is probably the most stable shooting platform I've ever used without a bipod.
Click to expand...

they arnt idiots. everything is a matter of what your use to. to them, like me as someone who trained people to use the m16, prone means mag dose not touch the ground. ill give you a funny example:
during a course i did in the IDF, the instructor was revewing shooting positions in ambush, including prone and ambush sitting position. one of the other guys in the course was laughing, i asked him why to which he replied:"In my training i was taught if im laying down im already dead!". he was from a very specific unit built for very specific things, and had nothing to do with shooting at ranges of more than 50 meters, and usually nothing to do with rifles...so to him the concept of laying down while shooting was absurd. :)
 
SHERMAN said:
they arnt idiots. everything is a matter of what your use to. to them, like me as someone who trained people to use the m16, prone means mag dose not touch the ground.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, glad I'm not just being instructed by idiots :p. And you'll notice that I don't really care about drill, I just said that someone, probably a Marine, would bring that up as a reason not to switch. Also, training is not an ongoing process when you're switching to an entirely new basic infantry weapon - everyone has to be equally well trained on it, if only for the interchangeability factor. That's what I suggest a limited (regiment or smaller) trial just to see what some of the growing pains are.
 
the IDF has so far only changedone inf brigade to the Tavor, and they did their training on both M16 and Tavor
 
c/Commander said:
Also, training is not an ongoing process when you're switching to an entirely new basic infantry weapon
Click to expand...
Well,... all I can say is that you must be in the only force in the world where training is not an ongoing process at all times. Even in units on active service training is ongoing. The use of new equipment and advanced proficiency in using the old equipment never stops, unless of course you think you know it all and your level of proficiency can't be improved.

Armed forces of all nationalities undertake changes in equipment regularly and it is never viewed as a problem, unless of course you consider improving your equipment is a problem. Not to mention a weapon that was far better suited to the style of warfare being conducted at the time.

During the Vietnam era the US changed over from the M-14 to the M-16, and even taking into account the excessive fouling problems experienced in the early stages, the average bloke in the field was more than pleased to change over to a lighter weapon and lighter ammo.

The problem was later found to be a problem caused more by ammunition and poor cleaning practices rather than a weapon fault. Never the less in the end the introduction of the new weapon was viewed as a great improvement by the grunt in the field. This weapon of course is the great grand daddy of your present M-4 series & etc., which if we adopted your view, you would not have. In fact you might well still have the Springfield 06 or something even older.

If your technology is not advancing, you are effectively going backward, as the rest of the world will not wait for you.
 
lol well, it depends. somtimes you have things that seem advanced but are just rubbish. i still think the IDF shold have kep the Galil and not taken the M16.
 
senojekips said:
During the Vietnam era the US changed over from the M-14 to the M-16, and even taking into account the excessive fouling problems experienced in the early stages, the average bloke in the field was more than pleased to change over to a lighter weapon and lighter ammo.

The problem was later found to be a problem caused more by ammunition and poor cleaning practices rather than a weapon fault.
Click to expand...

You mean that it was a problem caused by unfamiliarity with new equipment and misinformation about that equipment? You can't train troops with an entirely new weapon in the middle of a war zone as effectively as you can during peacetime.

Your point about the M1903 Springfield is also invalid. Bolt action to semiautomatic is a big change. Semiautomatic to automatic is a big change. The 7.62 to 5.56 change, however, is still controversial, because the benefits that it provided during the Vietnam era are disappearing in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts - there are many calls for changes to intermediate caliber rounds. I'm not suggesting that the bullpup is a bad idea; I just don't think we should charge in immediately just because it's the "latest and greatest". Tried and true might not be the best strategy for a more technologically advanced unit such as an air force, but it seems to work quite well for grunts.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately I know nothing of the Galil other than it was regarded by all who knew it as a fine weapon. You might find the answer to your question to be more of political expediency than for real practical reasons. :wink:
 
The only gripe I ever heard about the Galil was that it was heavy. It was 5.56mm with an AK-style action, correct?
 
The K-2 is a 5.56mm with a AK style kind of gas system. It's a fine weapon but it needs better furniture and is a little left handed shooter unfriendly (but you get used to that).
 
M-16's not very lefty-friendly either - no side-ejecting rifle is going to be very friendly to left-handed shooters, even with a case deflector. Which bullpup rifles eject downward?
 
The galil was heavy and had bad sights. the first problem is not a huge one and the second is easily fixed, and was infact solved in later veriants.
 
c/Commander said:
You mean that it was a problem caused by unfamiliarity with new equipment and misinformation about that equipment? You can't train troops with an entirely new weapon in the middle of a war zone as effectively as you can during peacetime.

Your point about the M1903 Springfield is also invalid. Bolt action to semiautomatic is a big change. Semiautomatic to automatic is a big change. The 7.62 to 5.56 change, however, is still controversial, because the benefits that it provided during the Vietnam era are disappearing in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts - there are many calls for changes to intermediate caliber rounds. I'm not suggesting that the bullpup is a bad idea; I just don't think we should charge in immediately just because it's the "latest and greatest". Tried and true might not be the best strategy for an air force, but it seems to work quite well for grunts.
Click to expand...
My point about the chances you quoted was merely to emphasise that change is not an insurmountable problem, it is happening all the time, In fact it's not a problem at all. Not all the changes we have made have been big ones, in fact the majority are not, it's called improvement.

Every now and again we fall on our bum, but if we feel that the occasional risk of failure outweighs the end result we will go nowhere. There will always be a excuse from someone as to why "now" is not the time to do things.

In actual fact most changes of this kind are done in time of war, when it would normally be considered inappropriate, as this is when shortcomings in our equipment become most apparent. (Plus in peacetime forces don't have the "money" allocated to allow it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top