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

[Dragonblade146]

People who say that Colt has the US military in a stranglehold, most of the weapons today are made by European companies like FN and Beretta. I haven't seen a Colt made M16 in my whole military career (6 years).

Thats pretty weird considering. Up here in the USCG: First District we are issued Smith and Wesson M16s. But I haven't really seen a Colt one around. I know my buddy in th Marines said he had one, but the one he is using is made by FN I think.

 

[HellbirdIV]

I'm by no means an expert, but I read that bullpup designs were dismissed because of having to re-train the entire standing armed forces in the use of a completley different magazine setup would be rather difficult.

I guess they'll eventually have to budge, though, just like the imperial system of metrics is eventually going down the drain.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes I wasn't talking about those ones, I know they have longer barrels then carbine. I was talking about the Famas Carbine. I don't remember its exactly name but it looks exactly like a FAMAS, and it is pretty big out there.
I was comparing Carbine with Bullpup desgin carbine, for that shorter barrel like he was talking about.

The AUG and the M16 are practically on even ground between the two.

Oh, right...there's apparently a SMG version with a 12.6 inch barrel, but it's not fair to compare that to a carbine. The short barrelled FAMAS commando still has a longer barrel than the M4, same as other bullpup carbines.

 

[Saskwach]

My mum and dad trained with the Steyr when they were in -- my mum was in sigs and my dad was a medic. They both said it was an awesome rifle - very reliable and easy to maintain. In fact, I've only ever heard good things about it.

On the other hand, it has a nasty habit of trying to chamber two rounds at once and subsequently jamming. Also, for some stupid reason the cocking handle is made of plastic and breaks way too easily. I've seen them rendered completely inoperable simply from being dropped or sat on.

But other than that, yeah, it's a pretty good weapon.

Re: two rounds being chambered. 9 times out of 10 - if not more - that's the user's fault not the weapon's. The mag's spring can be placed inside the mag in two directions - one is right, one is wrong. A lazy user can easily put it in the wrong way. A good user has three ways to make sure they've got it right:

1. Check the frigging spring.
2. Notice how hard it is to force the last few rounds into the mag.
3. Look into the see-through plastic mag and check whether the rounds are lined up correctly.

I've been handed mags that I could tell from 3 were going to give me obstructions all day. And they did. I've never had obstructions otherwise: I always did 1. Which isn't to say they never happen, just never to me.

tl;dr: Users often blame the weapon for their own cock-ups.

And in response to the complaints that you can't fire it prone, and that it's hard to reload - bull and kinda true. But reloading from prone is a hassle for sure.

But yeah, bullpups are a trade-off and it's understandable that the US military doesn't want to drop everything for that trade-off.

 

[Spacelord]

Also, might as well point out "Imperial Vs Metric" Probably a similar reason.

That's a good point actually. I think it's 90% old habits dying hard.

Add to that the politics of an arms deal of that magnitude: I can imagine that a lot of stakeholders have been pulling strings to get a deal like that. It's more a matter of what weapons manufacturer had the right connections rather than a matter of objective comparison, I reckon.

 

[Dragonblade146]

Yes I wasn't talking about those ones, I know they have longer barrels then carbine. I was talking about the Famas Carbine. I don't remember its exactly name but it looks exactly like a FAMAS, and it is pretty big out there.
I was comparing Carbine with Bullpup desgin carbine, for that shorter barrel like he was talking about.

The AUG and the M16 are practically on even ground between the two.

Oh, right...there's apparently a SMG version with a 12.6 inch barrel, but it's not fair to compare that to a carbine. The short barrelled FAMAS commando still has a longer barrel than the M4, same as other bullpup carbines.

Well to be fair there. The M4 Carbine is basically a SMG. Even if its barrel, is 14.5 inchs. The only thing that doesn't make it an SMG at this point is its caliber. I still think the entire thing comes down to asthetics. There really is very little difference between the two types save for magazine, recoil, and ambidexterity. I personally am a sucker for standard design as they just look good to me. Some bullpup can, like the SA80 is just bloody gorgeous and a fantastic weapon, but I would still want to take an M16 over that.

 

[Cavehybrid]

I'd guess it takes more time to change Standard Equipment for an Army the size of America's. That and hubris. And it's sort of an iconic rifle for the americans to.

Also, might as well point out "Imperial Vs Metric" Probably a similar reason.

what he said

 

[Dectomax]

Well at the moment, US has contracts with Colt for manufacturing of many American M4 carbine rifles, same goes for the M16, although I'm not sure if that is Colt.

I don't really know any problems with bullpup design, one of its greatest benefits is that allows for a compact gun to have a long barrel. The F2000 is considerably more compact than the M4 Carbine, yet I believe it has a longer barrel internally.

But the reason the U.S probably hasn't changed service weapons to bullpup, is due to ergonomic design and cost. Ergonomic design refers to how the Soldiers will handle the gun. In this case they will have to be train in a different way in order to learn the new design. The cost of getting new firearms is massive when compared to the cost of simply modifying the M16 and M4 as the situation demands.

The US army is making a shift towards the H&K M416. It is a very reliable and sturdy weapon based on Colt's M16 Build. Generally H&K make good quality rifles. After The L85A1 ( The UK's first Bullpup Assault rifle ) became a huge mess - Issues with the magazine, prone to jamming and don't even mention jungle warfare ( Jamaica ordered a batch for their special forces and after jungle use got rid of them ) - We gave the L85 contract to German based H&K who have made it one of the most accurate and reliable rifles in the world.

Generally Bullpup rifles are far better than a standard rifle. They are shorter, making them useful in CQB and when you are FISH&CHIPS ( British Military term - google ) The Steyr aug is a classic example of bullpup done right. It is a very reliable rifle. To be fair, I prefer bullpup designs, though I may be biased as living in the UK our Rifle of choice is A bullpup design.

 

[Chris^^]

I don't know much about firearms -- though my dad loves rifles and target shooting, some hunting also -- but I've always wondered why our Australian military uses the Steyr and no one else does. It seems like an awesome rifle.

The Steyr AUG is an awesome rifle, but quite a few different organisations use it..

 

[Spaloooooka]

Contrary to some things. The diameter of the slug does matter a bit. Momentum and blah. A .223 - 5.56 will just go in and bounce a round, while a .30 - 7.62 goes right through and takes out lumps of flesh. I knew a warrant officer who's served in Ireland and had to shoot a car running a road block. They had FN -FAL's at the time ( 7.62x51 ) which took out the backs of every one in the car, " They literally had holes the size of oranges when we took them out. The 5.56 is accurate but bounces when it hits bone, rather than take it with it."
It's also and issue of accuracy and range. A 7.62 is more powerful but has a very quick drop in momentum after about 600-800 meters. Not that many soldiers, obviously snipers, engage at those ranges. The 5.56 has a tendency to remain more accurate for a bit longer.
This is affected by the power, which is not completely related to the length of the propellant. The mix is also important, the US army uses a more powerful mix in their 5.56's to most other nations.

Some of the issues with bullpups - yes they can explode in your face, but, anything that explodes with that force that close to your face will hurt! I have friend who had an M4 malfunction and scar her right brow - luckily she escaped with her sight. Most other problems are either due to laziness or crap design. Like the magazine touching the ground. A lot of old guns have issues with weight.

In terms of changing guns. They stick with what works. The M1 carbine proved successful in WWII and we now have a modern varient for a sniper rifle - [edit] the M21. Russia designs everything around the AK barrel and working parts, also since WWII. All modern guns have pretty well evolved from WWII designs even the L85 was designed in 1944 and was only, intended as, a short term replacement SA80 - Small Arm [of the] 80's.

In short, They stick with the Colt M16 & varietns because they want to.

Check this out too, great over view of lots of guns!

Source: http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html

 

[Deadlock Radium]

In Norway we use MP5's and HK416's (Which is a modified M4 Carbine), and some places where the HK416 haven't replaced the AG3 (Modified, fully automatic G-3), we still use that one.
Also, I think some forces here use the MP7.

But then again, we're Norway, so we're not going to use those weapons at all anyways, because we're so nice n' shiz.

 

[Dragonblade146]

Generally Bullpup rifles are far better than a standard rifle.

Exactly where is the difinative proof in that? All rifles in the right hands can be claimed to be far better. There is a reason why the M16 has been in service since the 60's. Not just because its cheap and easy to make but because the gun is amazing. You can put an M16 against the Steyr and it would literally be the exact same gun.

Bullpups and Standard design really have no difference between the two, they are both very reliable, and both are incrediably accurate.

Same with CQB, both Bullpups and Standard have CQB guns, SMG's. Take the MP5 and compare it to say the... S-2M1. They both are accurate for their purpose and will stop a man, no matter what in CQB.


That being said, I would rather take the standard Coast Guard issue Remington 870. Or the .40 SIG-Sauer P229R. Such a beautifully deadly handgun.

 

[Dense_Electric]

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.

Seriously? You are aware that the modern A4 and the A2 variants (as well as all of their runty little carbine children) statistically have no more jamming issues than other comparable rifles, yes? And that the vast majority of other assault rifles are using the same caliber? But no, I guess a rifle that has one of the best-designed layouts and is more accurate than most others qualifies as "the worst." You really need to do your firearms research.

Anyway, a lot of you guys seem to think that bullpups are somehow the Jesus Christ resurrected of firearms, but they've got their fair share of drawbacks as well. They're generally more difficult to reload, can't quickly be fired from the other shoulder, are more prone to barrel rise during automatic firing, and less easily modified.

The the real reason the US military hasn't shifted over to that design is that there doesn't seem to be much reason to. Engagements rarely occur beyond 300 yards, and the M4, despite being plenty short enough for CQC, can easily hit a man-sized target at that distance. Basically, there's no reason for them to, or at least not enough of one for them to justify spending the amount of money and time it would take for them to switch over to a completely new weapon that does the same job only slightly better.

One other advantage of the AR-15 family of rifles is that they're by far the most easily modifiable firearms ever built. There are literally hundreds of different pistol grips, hand-guards, sights, stocks, suppressors, magazines, rails, and anything else available for them, though to be fair I don't know if this is really a factor in the US's not switching.

Now what they really need to switch is the M9 for the Five-SeveN, a vastly superior weapon.

 

[DrStupid87]

OT: Now that I think on it, everyone's mentioned the prohibitive administration and cost of retraining/re-equipping with bullpup-type rifles. But another problem is discarding the old weapon stock, which is going to be a problem by itself, one would've thought.

not really, just recycle/melt them down

True. Still massively expensive to contract several smelters to melt down hundreds of thousands of service rifles. Then having to ship the recycled metal to whoever wants it etc.

 

[DrStupid87]

Sorry. Accidental double post. Damn captchas...

 

[Dense_Electric]

OT: Now that I think on it, everyone's mentioned the prohibitive administration and cost of retraining/re-equipping with bullpup-type rifles. But another problem is discarding the old weapon stock, which is going to be a problem by itself, one would've thought.

not really, just recycle/melt them down

True. Still massively expensive to contract several smelters to melt down hundreds of thousands of service rifles. Then having to ship the recycled metal to whoever wants it etc.

You could always just sell them as surplus, this is the United States after all.

Nah, but as I said, I don't see that being a big factor in why they don't switch.

 

[WanderingFool]

I'd guess it takes more time to change Standard Equipment for an Army the size of America's. That and hubris. And it's sort of an iconic rifle for the americans to.

Also, might as well point out "Imperial Vs Metric" Probably a similar reason.

While I would agree with the first part, I dont think its as much Hubris as simplicity. Bullpup design rifles have the spent shells ejecting out the stock portion of the gun (most of the time), and that would cause problems for left handed soldiers. So either trian the soldier to shoot right handed, or make the bullpup gun in question mirrored to what it normally is. With a magazine forward gun, whether the soldier is left or right handed, the shells will not actually be a problem whichever side they eject out.

At least, thats what I think...

 

[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.

 

[Jakub324]

Everyone's banging on about having to re-train everyone, but the French, British, new Zealanders, Australians, Austrians, Israelis, Chinese have already done it, so it can't be that hard. a lot of people are also talking about the cost, but if there's one military that can afford it, it's the Americans.