Bullpup Rifle Competing To Replace The M4s And M249s
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 1 month ago
From The Drive.
Great idea. Put the explosion closer to the shooter’s ear and cause even more hearing damage.
In the mean time, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the M4 or M249.
On October 18, 2019 at 7:48 am, Bram said:
I have to disagree. The short-barrel on the M4 makes it useless at distance. I know, I know – all our fire-fights are supposed to be inside 300 yards – until they aren’t. We were in fights in ’91 at over 800 yards.
Bullpups are the logical way to shorten the rifle without just chopping down the barrel. Probably why the Saudis picked the Steyr AUG with 20″ barrels when they switched over to 5.56. Rifle design is all about trade-offs, this is one I kind of agree with.
Not that I expect anything to ever come of the trials or the fancy new ammo.
On October 18, 2019 at 8:39 am, Fred said:
For the House of Saud the choice kinda makes sense due to terrain. With nearly zero mountains and vegetation the need for longer reach may be necessary. Not sure that the same applies to a US general purpose service rifle. Of course if we plan to stay in the middle east for another 20 years, and why wouldn’t we, after all making the Zionist and Wahhabi cults great again is clearly in the national interest (sarc), then maybe a longer barrel with similar overall length is a plus.
On October 18, 2019 at 9:24 am, George said:
On the firing line once I saw an old M-16 explode. The result was minor injuries to the shooter. If something like that happened with a bullpup I hate to think what could happen. I don’t want a chamber near my face. Also the m-4 has hardened aluminium receivers around the bolt parts. Bullpups like the Tavor are polymer. Granted I can’t tell what the bullpups above are made of.
Also I have observed that malfunction clearance is more problematic with bullpups than with an m4 type weapon. Yes, training can overcome a lot but in my very not modern opinion the m-4 system is much easier to learn and become proficient with.
Many express concern that the M-4 type is “complex to disassemble in the field” and has “many small parts”. The reality is the M-4 type is quite easy to disassemble and re-assemble in the field. Go look at some videos of the Tavor being field stripped and tell me it is simpler than the m-4 would be to field strip. Also note that some of the operating components of weapons like the Tavor are basically not accessible to the field soldier and will require an armorer to replace if need be. Just about everything that is likely to go wrong with an M-4 is readily replaceable by a soldier in the field.
Not sure about the weapons above but the Tavor/X-95 types are also significantly heavier than an M-4.
On October 18, 2019 at 11:40 am, MTHead said:
And the compound linkage means the triggers always suck. And i’m sorry, but most soldiers can’t shoot at 800 yrds. accurately anyway. Adding weight, (cartridge loadout), to a soldier that’s just spitting rounds anyway isn’t going to change anything for the better.
The M4 is the best, most adaptable system in the world.(thanks to civilian technology upgrades). The military should be incorporating those upgrades, rather than always beating the replacement drum.
On October 18, 2019 at 11:42 am, Bram said:
The Tavor and the FN bullpups look incredibly easy to strip. Some of the others not so much.
On October 18, 2019 at 5:57 pm, George said:
Bram, no I would not say it is difficult however you do need a few tools and to take out the bolt for maintenance it is a bit more complex than an M-4. Also recoil spring replacement requires a thin dowel and a tool to capture the spring toward the front of the assembly.
Not a massively difficult chore but I would say it is more involved than an M4.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tavor+dissassembly+field+strip&t=h_&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=gdtQIvfERAk
On October 18, 2019 at 7:22 pm, Stacy0311 said:
Don’t worry about hearing damage. The VA will say it wasn’t service connected anyway. And yes, I’m speaking from experience: 13 years as an 0311 (including sea duty on a carrier for a few years) and then another 18 years as a tanker. In spite of 30+ years of declining audiograms, the VA has determined that my hearing loss is NOT service connected…..
On October 18, 2019 at 10:01 pm, Badger said:
The technicians seem to be weighing in with style & flair, for and against, or maybe fore & aft. In the “inconsequential drivel” department I’ll just observe that the bullpup displayed is absolutely one FUGLY piece of hardware.
On October 22, 2019 at 8:39 am, jayne cobb said:
Badger, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I think it’s a good-looking rifle. mechanical looking…