Quote:
|
Originally Posted by x SF med
As a FOG, I've wondered for years why the Army doesn't go to a proven bullpup design to preserve barrel length and velocity. I'm not a huge fan of the bullpup design, due to mag placement and shoulder/cheeck weld issues, but most are lighter or the same weight as the current battle rifles. There are a few proven ones out there, in both 7.62 and 5.56 NATO, just my .02.
TR, et al, please do not stomp on me too hard for this comment, ok?
|
I am not a weapons designer, but since you invoked my name, let me give you a few thoughts.
1. None of the bullpups I am familiar with are as reliable as their conventional configured counterparts. Ask the Brits what they think of their L85 rifle, only after HK bought the company has it become even marginally reliable. I have not seen too many Israeli units using the Tavor either. Most countries using the Steyr AUG have changed to another weapon. Maybe the French like the FAMAS, but I am not sure that French weapons design is a good authoritative source. Who has a bullpup design that liked it and that worked better than a conventionally configured weapon?
2. Must of the bullpups I have used have terrible ergonomics. With the controls well-forward of the operating components, they tend to be poorly laid out and with a bad feel. I have never seen a bullpup with a decent trigger, for example.
3. As with the body armor or any other military system, there are two schools of thought on weapons design. One prefers an incremental, evolutionary approach that makes regular methodical improvements and the other school looks for vast, revolutionary improvements at long intervals and great expense. Regardless, any change made needs to be a well-thought out improvement in at least one area over the current system, while maintaining all of the other positive attributes, such as weight, size, accuracy, reliability, durability, ergonomics, lethality, etc. Both systems have their merits, but I tend to think that I would prefer a Product Improved M-4 combat rifle, with the latest optics, an improved closed gas system, better accuracy, more lethal ammunition, improved magazines, etc. Most of these improvements are available right now. IMHO, the size, weight, and ergonomics of the M-4/M-16 family of weapons are hard to beat. The OICW was a huge waste of resources for a very dubious improvement (huge power supply requirements, a defective primary smart grenade launcher, only very close range rifle capability) and the residue XM-8 program attempting to recover part of that expenditure was a questionable improvement at significant expense.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR