Bullpup or Conventional rifle?

[Chino]

The following paper looks at the much derided SA80 and possible alternatives based on weight rather than configeration (bullpup or conventional layout). Some very interesting observations.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf

I strongly agree with the author's contention that it's the other stuff that infantrymen can carry - like AT weapons, AGL grenades, comms, surveillance etc that will affect the outcome of battles.

A book about Australians in Vietnam stated that 90% of the time, they couldn't see what they were shooting at, so volume of fire was more important than marksmanship. And this makes the case for more area weapons like AGLs.

...

However, I do not agree to reducing the curent 5.56 to PDW calibre. Already the 5.56 face serious challenge punching through barriers and being deflected by vegetations etc.

...

On the opposite scale I am against what many in the west are clamouring for - a larger calibre for standard infantry - for their so-called "knock down" power.

As one US Marine veteran said: "I've shot people with .22, 9mm, 5.56 etc... They all died."

There are some people no matter what you shoot them with, they will go down fighting.

And there are no known rifle calibre with more knock down power than a 40mm grenade. So if current 5.56 IW package means my section can have more 40mm explosives compared to a 7.62 or 6.8 package, the choice is obvious.

A bigger calibre will mean a heavier IW package - no question. And this means troops will carry less ammo, tire earlier, and carry less of other important stuff. The argument for a larger calibre rifle would be right in the old days before UGL and AGL etc when there was nothing else to shoot with other than the rifle. But this is no longer the case. I would definitely give priority to more SAW, sniper rifles, LAW and AGL within the section than a overall bigger rifle for everyone as standard.

...

Despite what the author would have us believe, many countries are actually pretty satisfied with the 5.56mm. Until something significantly better is available, who would want to go through another round of calibre change?

And the PDW is in no way significantly better than the 5.56.

Its main selling point is armour penetration. But many existing and potential enemies aren't even wearing body armour, so you can't expect any armies to go out on anti body-armour small arms purchase.

...

In Singapore, SAF uses the FN P90 in its silenced role for Commandos. It is hard to silence a 5.56 and the 5.7 P90 is more effective in range than a 9mm.

The 5.7 calibre is also used by STK to pair with its OIWS-style SSW - Section Support Weapon. This is a hefty 40mm AGL firing a smarter grenade than the M203 dumb bomb. And I believe a SMG (or PDW) of the same calibre is also in the works.

 

[McTaff]

Wow. There are a lot of interesting points made in this thread, and a few people have mentioned calibres and so on... I'll get to that.

Firstly, bullpup.

From my experience with a Steyr (F88), I found it to be a nice weapon. Fairly decent ergonomics, firing from most positions was comfortable, and all in all it was a bit of fun in the end. As mentioned earlier, you can convert to left-handed, which is quite a neat conversion, but it still can be used right-handed if you have the nerves for it. What AGRA said made me laugh; it's true, as long as the brass doesn't invade your collar, nothing serious happens - but it was kinda funny seeing a leftie with a spent shell in his once-peice combats doing the 'hot dance' while also trying to hold a loaded assault rifle downrange

Downward ejecting shells (as has been tried) can be just as hard to deal with if you are standing or kneeling, as you crook your right arm and that could mean a hot spent casing could sit there and potentially make your life quite interesting.

Bullpup is a cute system for in vehicle weapons, though.

--

In the matter of calibre, it is all a matter of preference. I know plenty of folk who rue the day that the 5.56mm was adopted. The horror stories of a oppponent positively peppered with 5.56mm rounds and still fighting are bought to the fore because people want their old calibre back. We just aren't sure if that ever happened with the 7.62mm because there wasn't something to complain about - so they never really would have said the round was underpowered, would they? Mogadishu definitely highlighted the inadequacy of the 5.56mm in a lot of cases, but that was a case of people with no support, massively outmanned and had limited intelligence, which would have compounded the issues they had. Furthermore, there is always the matter of ammo loadout, also as previously stated.

In the long run, 7.62mm is better, but there are plenty of times when stopping power really isn't the issue. As stated before:
If you're sniping, chances are you have a massive calibre with a barrel of powder behind it anyway, and that is where the size and stopping power do count.
If you're in a house-to-house situation, indirect fire and explosive projectiles, etc, might be what wins the day.
In a forest, you may not be able to see your enemy, and oly have a general position so volume might be the key.

Me? I prefer the 7.62mm, but that's because I can shoot with it well. Amongst a sizeable group, we had this discussion, and it was surprisng the distribution of people who tended to like which round:
The real lightweights liked the 5.56mm
Then the next weight range up liked the 7.62mm.
Then the next range liked the 5.56mm
Then the heavier guys preferred the 7.62mm.

Turned out, the light guys couldn't deal with recoil of the bigger round.
Then the next group preferred the bigger round because they could deal with the recoil and thus be reasonably accurate with either round.
Then the next group up found that the recoil of the 5.56 was almost negligile, and they were very accurate with it.
Then the last group started to find the 7.62mm recoil gave them little trouble.

Strange isn't it?

But, Chino is right. The better the resources at your disposal, the better. Loadout with something that puts someone out of action. You don't have to blow them to bits with your rifle, that's what the other shiny toys are for.

 

[Chino]

Firstly, bullpup.

From my experience with a Steyr (F88), I found it to be a nice weapon. Fairly decent ergonomics, firing from most positions was comfortable, and all in all it was a bit of fun in the end.

I never had a chance with our new bullpup the SAR-21. I was M16 all the way and I love everything about the weapon including its superb accuracy over iron sights.

The few times I did handle a bullpup I found all the switches in the wrong place, and changing mags to be slow especially in the prone position. But I'm told that training and familiarity will sort that out soon enough.

 

[Tracer]

It should be remembered that a bullpup rifle gets the overall lenght of the rifle down but keeps the barrel lenght long, thus rounds attain the velocity needed for maximum effectiveness. A 20" bullpup will be the same lenght as a conventional 14" rifle. The effectiveness of the 5.56mm drops dramatically when fired from a barrel under 16".

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Totaly agree, please don't get me wrong when it comes to BPups.

I have said here before, the best rifle I ever had the chance to shoot is the Steyr AUG, a wonderful piece of kit.

Granted, it doesn't look the most robust of rifles, at first sight it looks pretty fragile. But as soon as you pick it up, the ergonomics of its design come out. The grip felt good, the weight of it for me was centred in the right place - for me it sat well, lifted little - it felt right. Dare I say it though, it's now a dated design!!!

The FA MAS, through sheer luck I got to handle it thanks to a long story involving my French-teaching Dad. You have to put your shoulder into the 'clarion' because when it goes auto, it expresses itself. Great fun, but perhaps designed for a different era of ideas.



BPups have their qualities, but if I had to choose a next-gen weapon for the British Army - let it be the G-36, IMHO.

I didn't like the sight system of Steyr AUG. The 1.5X scope reticule is rather imprecise and overall the sight feels flimsy. I love what the Australian army did with it though. In a few of the photos I saw, they replaced the Swarovski sight with the Elcan C79 sight. That sight is the sturdiest weapon optical sight I've touched so far, weights nearly a pound and performs well under low light conditions. Granted, it has some problems, but I'd take it over the Swarovski any day.

 

[Chino]

Of course, a shorter weapon wil be very welcome!!

But... unfortunately, Singapore's SAR-21 bullpup ranks among the heaviest AR at 3.82kg empty.

Unloaded weight
M4A1 - 2.52kg
M16A1 - 2.89kg
TAR21 - 3.27kg
AK74 - 3.3kg
HKG36 - 3.6kg
FN2000 - 3.6kg
SteyrAUG -3.8kg
SAR21- 3.82kg

I thought the way forward is to reduce weapon weight...

Sure, it's got a scope and a LAD and a kevlar plate for safety. But the boffins really should work on having a lighter weapon even with all these accessories. The designers of the weapon have probably never humped a big load of equipment and walked for miles without having slept. Any reduction of weight is welcome. Any increase is NOT!

 

[Chrom]

Bullap is surery good for close-quarter combat (like inside buildings or jungles). It is also easer to handle in cramped space like IFV or helo. But as general purpose rifle it have some disadvantages already named.

 

[AGRA]

Sure, it's got a scope and a LAD and a kevlar plate for safety. But the boffins really should work on having a lighter weapon even with all these accessories. The designers of the weapon have probably never humped a big load of equipment and walked for miles without having slept. Any reduction of weight is welcome. Any increase is NOT!

Its because it has a scope and LAD/NAD integral is why it weighs more. You add a scope and pointer aiming device to any of those other rifles and their weight will be similar. Empty weight is not a good indication of actual weight.

 

[rossfrb_1]

snip

In the matter of calibre, it is all a matter of preference. I know plenty of folk who rue the day that the 5.56mm was adopted. The horror stories of a oppponent positively peppered with 5.56mm rounds and still fighting are bought to the fore because people want their old calibre back. We just aren't sure if that ever happened with the 7.62mm because there wasn't something to complain about - so they never really would have said the round was underpowered, would they? Mogadishu definitely highlighted the inadequacy of the 5.56mm in a lot of cases,
snip

Re Mogadishu, there's hearsay that the problem there was the use of 'teflon' bullets. Whether this is true I don't know.
I'm guessing that when the 7.62 was in use, there were those who moaned that it wasn't as good as the .303 or 30.06.

rb

 

[Awang se]

Re Mogadishu, there's hearsay that the problem there was the use of 'teflon' bullets. Whether this is true I don't know.
I'm guessing that when the 7.62 was in use, there were those who moaned that it wasn't as good as the .303 or 30.06.

rb

Read the history of M-16 and you'll find out a hell it goes through cause by the military conservatives who wish to stay with .30 calibre.

personally, i prefer an M4 over the AUG. though lack in range, it feel quite well balance and easier to handle. but i guess it depend on who you're talking to. some of my friends prefer the AUG over conventional design.

One more thing, have you seen russian made OC-14 groza? it was suppose to fire a slow and heavy 9 x 39mm bullet. try to get hit with that. 1 or 2 round will knock an air out of you.

 

[Chino]

Its because it has a scope and LAD/NAD integral is why it weighs more. You add a scope and pointer aiming device to any of those other rifles and their weight will be similar. Empty weight is not a good indication of actual weight.

I understand that, as my post stated.

i was saying that we should've worked on making it lighter inspite of all these add-ons. It is possible because the same company that produce the SAR-21 also produces the lightest LMG in the world.

 

[Chino]

The rifleman's load is increasing. Even the average-built conscripts of SAF will eventually wear body armour as standard.

And in the infantry section, most men have a secondary weapon or load to carry that is usually heavier than the rifle. Grenadiers, radioman, LAW, claymore mines, spare ammo, hand grenades etc etc.

This makes the case for lightweight M4 over a heavier Steyr AUG or SAR-21.

The M4 is so light, even after adding on stuff, it is still lighter than the Steyr or SAR-21.

...

The killing power of the Individual rifle beyong 200m is quite secondary in SE Asia.

The short barrel of the M4 is not a problem in this region as jungle and urban places have short range combat.

Besides the section will have sharpshooters and SAW which all have a longer range. And engaging at long range like 300m is quite combat ineffective anyway for infantry.

And people who say that the M4's bullet is ineffective oughta volunteer themselves for a simple experiment. I'll bet you 95% of the time, someone's who's hit will stop fighting - M4 or M whatever...

...

A further advantage of the M4 is its adjustable length buttstock. When wearing thick body armour, people with shorter hands may need to shorten the butt to shoot comfortably. there isn't yet a bullpup that can do that.

...

IMO, Malaysia has made a great choice in picking the M4. It is furthermore a system that Malaysia has logistics for in place like spare parts, magazines etc etc.

 

[Waylander]

Its because it has a scope and LAD/NAD integral is why it weighs more. You add a scope and pointer aiming device to any of those other rifles and their weight will be similar. Empty weight is not a good indication of actual weight.

[Mr. Picky]

In the end at least the G36 already includes a red dot and a scope.

[/MR. Picky]

 

[AGRA]

Re Mogadishu, there's hearsay that the problem there was the use of 'teflon' bullets. Whether this is true I don't know.
I'm guessing that when the 7.62 was in use, there were those who moaned that it wasn't as good as the .303 or 30.06.

Teflon bullets! Sci-fi pseudo babble nonsense.

The problem was with US 5.56x45 Armour Piercing (AP) bullets, called M955, that have a tungsten core.

5.56x45 is less lethal than 7.62x51 when it hits a body because it is a much smaller bullet and the difference in velocity in favour of 5.56 (at shorter ranges) is not enough to outweigh this deficiency. However you are more likely to hit someone with 5.56x45 than 7.62x51 with all things being equal (you have more bullets to shoot and they travel between you and the target much quicker and flatter).

With AP ammo you take away the chance of fragmentation in the bullet which is one of the ways 5.56x45 SS109 achieves lethality. But if you are shooting at people with modern body armour AP ammo at least allows you to achieve a penetrating hit. Of course the locals in Somalia did not have body armour.

The 7.62x51 is effectively identical in ballistic performance to the 30.06, they just shortened the cartridge to 51mm length as less propellant volume was needed because more efficient propellant was used. 7.52x51 has higher velocity than the old .303 so is a much better round. So no one was complaining back in the 50s.

 

[McTaff]

With AP ammo you take away the chance of fragmentation in the bullet which is one of the ways 5.56x45 SS109 achieves lethality. But if you are shooting at people with modern body armour AP ammo at least allows you to achieve a penetrating hit. Of course the locals in Somalia did not have body armour.

...and the reason that most Vietnam-era servicemen hated the M16 was a combination of two problems. (I'm dredging this material up from the grey matter, so it is probably inaccurate)

IIRC, The first was the fact they were promised a magical 'tumbling' bullet due to a specific rifling ratio. When it was changed to a different rifling (OTTOMH I forget why - perhaps inaccuracy?), it failed to produce the 'meat axe' effect they were hoping for.

Secondly, the M16 in it's first incarnation was a notoriously unreliable weapon, mostly because it required constant cleaning (which didn't happen in the field), and other issues.

Because of this, the M16 had a bad reputation, partly due to the choice of calibre, but partly due to engineering and RTFM issues. This made people hate the 5.56mm round pretty much forever... Even though the M16A2 is a whole lot better, and they've fixed the issues, the stigma remains. When Mogadishu went down, it re-affirmed the Bad Choice of 5.56mm, without any further investigation.

That's why so many peeps dislike 5.56mm to this day. Thanks to AGRA for shedding more light on this, too.

-

Anyways, to re-rail the thread, Bullpup rifles are a more easily transportable weapon for aircrew, vehicle crew, paratroopers, and such. A conventional rifle with a folding buttstock might come close to this versatility, can anyone out there comment?

One more thing; a bullpup design can not only be used to reduce overall length while maintaining barrel length - it can be used in the reverse to construct a rifle of normal dimensions with a longer barrel. This is a consideration for a designated marksman rifle in an infantry squad, should a suitable assault rifle be used.

 

[Awang se]

Bullpup sniper rifle

http://www.dragunov.net/svd/svu_auto.jpg

 

[McTaff]

Bullpup sniper rifle

http://www.dragunov.net/svd/svu_auto.jpg

I was referring to a modified assault rifle rather than a purpose built sniper rifle, but the principle is pretty much there.

On another note, a bullpup design does allow interesting things, like the Pancor Jackhammer, and it's cylindrical magazine that does not eject the shells. It's an interesting design approach that certainly makes the ejection issue a moot point.

 

[Awang se]

On another note, a bullpup design does allow interesting things, like the Pancor Jackhammer, and it's cylindrical magazine that does not eject the shells. It's an interesting design approach that certainly makes the ejection issue a moot point.

which will make the magazine's big and bulky. a big bulky magazine for a ejectionless system. not a good trade in my book.

 

[McTaff]

which will make the magazine's big and bulky. a big bulky magazine for a ejectionless system. not a good trade in my book.

The trick is that you aren't using a conventional feed/fire action then catching the expended casings, you simply don't move them in the first place. The magazine itself isn't very big, still equivalent to the size of a normal drum magazine because there is no need to make it any bigger. Remember this is shotgun shells, not assault rifle rounds, so the magazine is already large to begin with.

Having assault rifle rounds in a cylindrical magazine makes it difficult to use all of the space you have available in the centre, so yes magazines of that type may be fairly large for the amount of ammo contained within. However, you could simply have a slot through which the expended cases are pushed through once they have advanced through the firing mechanism, and thus they'd drop out (not be ejected with force). This would allow you to have a cylindrical magazine with a spiral interior, allowing you to use all that space inside.

From my limited knowledge, that'd possibly guard against ejected shells getting jammed in the ejection port (which I've seen a fair bit), as they aren't required to vacate the port forcefully. They simply follow the 'belt' and are dropped out the other side.

Trouble is, although technically not a belt-fed system, you are exposing yourself to feeding issues without having a nice, straight feed that is spring loaded, but that is what engineers are for. The cocking handle arrangement would still be the same. I don't know - I've not encountered a weapon of this design, I'm simply theorising.

That'd mean you would have perhaps one or two magazines with anywhere between 50 - 150 rounds depending on the size of your ammunition and the size of the magazine you choose.

 

[Awang se]

They simply follow the 'belt' and are dropped out the other side.

that will be problematic if you take a high angle shot.

This would allow you to have a cylindrical magazine with a spiral interior, allowing you to use all that space inside

i once test this concept for drum magazine. the long curve path took a heavy toll on a spring. halfway through, the spring aren't strong enough to push the round reliably. an extra strong spring may cause a problem when feeding the bullet into the magazine. furthermore, the strong spring may cause the bullets to "jump" out of magazine.