Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Hispeed1
but I do know a couple of things, things that I can't & won't talk about.
I think, most people would just prefered you just didn't talk... about anything. Reason is not important, just don't.
Wait till I waterboard your ass.Umm-ok, sure. No bullpup assault rifles for the US in the future-that's correct right? FN SCAR-L in the final testing phase, M4's still in use, .45 cal. pistol program cancelled for now, etc. I might sound stupid in here, but I do know a couple of things, things that I can't & won't talk about.
but I do know a couple of things, things that I can't & won't talk about.
I think, most people would just prefered you just didn't talk... about anything. Reason is not important, just don't.
0123456789
Last edited by Hispeed1; 12-30-2007 at 02:36 AM.
0123456789
Last edited by Hispeed1; 12-30-2007 at 02:38 AM.
nothing personal, just mark the big guns - lots of real life experience there.
Perhaps if you acted less like a knob it might ease off, think about it.
Gun balance is, to a great extent, a matter of what you are used to. Bullpup users usually prefer the rearwards weight balance, arguing that it is easier to hold one-handed, or for extended periods, and makes the rifle quicker to change aim. What is undoubtedly true is that a bullpup is far more evenly balanced once an under-barrel grenade launcher, optical sights and other tactical kit (e.g. torches) start being added: a traditional rifle then becomes massively front-heavy.
I just came back from Lithgow, where I visited the small arms factory museum.
As expected there were the steyrs, minimis, SLRs and Lee-enfield type weapons. But they also have a whole heap of other foreign guns like mp-44, French Chauchat.
But back to bullpups - They had a British EM-2 there as well. Probably one of a handful (if not the only one) in Australia.
I have read that the Russians flirted with bullpup designs because with a scope and an under barrel grenade launcher an AK-74 gets very front heavy but then an AK-74 is already a relatively compact weapon as it is with the shorter barrel AKS-74U considered by users to be too short and therefore inaccurate with the AK-100 series there are models with long barrels and shorter barrels in several calibres.
Perhaps the real solution is not bullpups, but decent ammo that doesn't require a 20 inch tube to do something to the target.
(Note there is a model AK with a barrel as long as the M16... it is the RPK LMG)
I like the p90 and have wondered the same thing about it being beefed up for 556. Would solve lots of ergonomics issues. i.e. wronghanders vs. righthanders... jk
The bullpup allows for better handling and firing in confided spaces. And will remain on target better then a traditional asault rifle becouse the soldier's body help control the kick back better. Also the barrel on a bullpup is a full length so the stopping power is the same as a tradional designed rifle.
I know I won't be issued any bullpup in the rest of my reservist time (another 10 to 12 years to go), and I wish I could.
I've been issued a sawn off M16 A1 for the two last reserve stints I did, and while pretty short and nice to show off with, they shoot like sh!t, give a huge flash and offer the accuracy of a sub standard SMG.
I didn't like the M16A1 lenght, but appreciated it's accuracy, now, all the idf has done by shortening all those rifles, was creating on the cheap PDW weapons.
The FAMAS, while not perfect, (beside the proprietary mag, extraction hook breaks easily, and the extraction is violent, the safety lever is stupidly placed, and some firing incidents are a pain to solve) is a great rifle, and the new Tavor, despite the lack of a trigger guard (how stupid), seems to have all of it's youth flaws corrected.
The capacity to engage at longer range is still a plus, so if it's doable with a compact weapon adapted to confined spaces, that's great.
I want a Tavor NOW
Depends upon the ammo, the AKS-74U for example has been criticised for a lack of accuracy, but not for a lack of effectiveness on target...Also the barrel on a bullpup is a full length so the stopping power is the same as a tradional designed rifle.
The real problem that everyone seems to be ignoring is the 5.56mm ammo needs a 20 inch barrel to do its thing on target at acceptable combat ranges.
Adopting a 5.45 cal bullet design for the 5.56mm round would improve it immediately and probably improve ballistics as well due to the longer bullet being a better aerodynamic shape.
At the root of the problem the 5.45 is effective because it tumbles, while the 5.56 is effective because it fragments. The 5.56 will fragment only at certain velocities which requires specific target distances and specific barrel lengths. The 5.45mm round will tumble at any range (all bullets tumble anyway) at any speed from any length barrel.
how many companies make 7.62 or heavy bullpups, i know the IDF did make one .......based on the m-14.....but who else does .....some of us old timers like the bigger boomsticks ..........if i had a choice between styer and a SLR ide still pick the SLR .......so do they make any ???
Thats new... In the past years I was hearing only bad things about the rifle... Bad in the sense no one wants it, not anything particularly bad about the gun itself...
Posting Permissions
