Carbine V Bullpup

[95th Rifleman]

The US army is moving towards the M4 as a standard issue weapon instead of the M16. A shorter weapon, better suited to CQB is the preferred standard given experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure about the USMC but i think they are sticking with the M16A4.

Some other countries (notably the UK, Belgium, France and Australia) have taken the bullpup route, which provides a carbine sized weapon with te barrel (and range) of a full rifle.

The L85A2 has a 20 inch barrel in a weapon that is just under 31 inches long.
The FAMAS is just under 30 inches long with a 19 inch barrel.
The AUG is 31 inches long with a 20 inch barrel.
Finaly the F2000 is 27 inches long with a 15.7 inch barrel.

Compare this to the M4 which is just under 30 inches long with a 14.5 inch barrel.

It's an interetsing and valid point to consider that the future of firearms is the bullpup configuration. FNH have proven with their F2000 that a bullpup weapon can be fully ambidextrous and with bullpup you do not have to sacrifice range and accuracy for CQB ability.

the latest L85A2's are now issude with a combined ACOG/Reflex sight so you can really have an all-purpose weapon.

I'm curious about other's views on this.

[Raellus]

I've heard and read that Bullpup weapons are trickier to reload due to ergonomics. IIRC, this is especially the case when firing from the prone. I have no first-hand experience with this so I wouldn't know. In my mind, the benefits of a bullpup configured weapon outweight the disadvantages but I still have an open mind and am hoping others can shed some light on this issue.

It's also worth noting that both the IDF and the PRC have recently adopted new bullpup rifles for significant parts of their armed forces (the Tavor and the Type 95, respectively). There has to be something to it.

[copeab]

IIRC, bullpup weapons have less accuracy than a rifle with conventional stock and the same barrel length, due to the reduced distance between front and rear sights. However, I don't think this is a disadvantage against carbines, which suffer more compared to a rifle by having a short barrel and, anyway, a bullpup weapon can have a low-magnification sight added to offeset this loss in accuracy.

[HorseSoldier]

A bullpup with irons will have accuracy limitations due to the shorter sight radius, but inclusion of a magnified optic or red dot pretty much levels the playing field in that respect.

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've heard and read that Bullpup weapons are trickier to reload due to ergonomics. IIRC, this is especially the case when firing from the prone. I have no first-hand experience with this so I wouldn't know. In my mind, the benefits of a bullpup configured weapon outweight the disadvantages but I still have an open mind and am hoping others can shed some light on this issue.

In my personal experiance they are alot slower to reload due to the position of the magazine release and the triggers are usually horrible compared to a conventional weapon.

That being said they really don't have a great advantage in CQB for the most part. you clear a building just as fast with a conventional weapon as you do with a bullpup.

Besides I have relatives who have seen combat and have experiance with bullpups with the British Millitary and what they prefer as a rifle. They own conventional rifles even when there are now some interesting bullpups on the market.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by copeab

IIRC, bullpup weapons have less accuracy than a rifle with conventional stock and the same barrel length, due to the reduced distance between front and rear sights. However, I don't think this is a disadvantage against carbines, which suffer more compared to a rifle by having a short barrel and, anyway, a bullpup weapon can have a low-magnification sight added to offeset this loss in accuracy.

Most bullpup designs have custom optics (SUSAT, swarovski optic and mars sight to name a few) and seem to compare favourably with conventioal desighns.

iron sights\are fast becoming an emergency option as militaries adopt combat sights on all front line weapons.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've heard and read that Bullpup weapons are trickier to reload due to ergonomics. IIRC, this is especially the case when firing from the prone. I have no first-hand experience with this so I wouldn't know. In my mind, the benefits of a bullpup configured weapon outweight the disadvantages but I still have an open mind and am hoping others can shed some light on this issue.

The PS90 (civilian P90) is a pain in the ass to reload at any angle. Its ergos really aren't like those of any other weapon. You're actually slipping the mag in between the vertical supports of the optic mount, then rocking it down to lock it in. I imagine it'd get smoother with practice but it's just so damned unintuitive, at least for me. The fact that the mag is top-mounted does seem to make it less annoying to reload prone than other bullpups would seem to be.

Standing, the FS2000 (civilian F2000) is about as fast to reload as an AK, and not nearly as awkward as it looks. Like the AK, you can't just press a button and drop the mag - you need to actuate the release and manually remove the empty. The trick with the FS2k seems to be to slam the release hard on your upstroke as your hand goes to grip the mag, then immediately and vigorously rip the empty out of the well. I didn't have a chance to play with it prone, but I imagine the best manipulation there would be to extend it forward, getting the magazine far enough out from your body that you can acquire a good grip on it.

Speaking from very limited range time. YMMV.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think that what's being illustrated here is the need for training on any new weapon you may get. For example, the first military rifle I trained on was the L1A1, the second was the M16A1 and finally the F88 Austeyr (Australian AUG). All three have different magazine releases and while I found the M16 has few competitors for a fast mag release, I was just as fast on the F88 as I was on the L1A1 despite the F88 being a bullpup.
I'd hazard a guess and say that people who have trained on the M16 family would probably find many other rifles to be slower when releasing the magazine simply because the M16 family have a very positive, gravity assisted magazine drop action when most of the others require you to activate the release and manipulate the mag in some manner.

[Rockwolf66]

So I think you are sugesting that people do magazine drills for a while.

Start with the rifle shouldered and have at least a half dozen magazines at waist height in front of you. Start swapping out magazines until you can swap out a magazine and recharge the weapon without looking at the weapon. Then you put on whatever web gear you normally use and start over until you can go through all of your magazines on your kit without looking at the weapon or your kit. Start over kneeling and then prone.

[Legbreaker]

That's exactly right. Train, train train, practise, practise, practise and anyone will be able to change mags and carry out the necessary stoppage drills quickly.
As for accuracy, yes the shorter distance between front and rear sights may indeed have an impact, however we have also already dealt with this topic in an older thread. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...0314#post10314

[James Langham]

Muscle memory is a wonderful thing, my hand instinctively goes to the right place for an SA80 series while I have to think when using an AK or M16 - I have to think even with that easiest of weapons the Uzi.

The biggest problem with reloading I have found is doing up the mag pouch (especially on my old 58 pattern until I modified the buckles).

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

The PS90 (civilian P90) is a pain in the ass to reload at any angle. Its ergos really aren't like those of any other weapon. You're actually slipping the mag in between the vertical supports of the optic mount, then rocking it down to lock it in. I imagine it'd get smoother with practice but it's just so damned unintuitive, at least for me. The fact that the mag is top-mounted does seem to make it less annoying to reload prone than other bullpups would seem to be.

*snippage*

- C.

As mentioned elsewhere, training and time does help: In my personal experience, yes: for a short while learning how to reload the P90 series is something of a pain in the rear: you are spot on that the process is so different than any other weapon. But, once you have had time to learn the tricks its not that hard nor significantly slower than any other method. Which isn't that it isn't slower: it is by a little bit. No way to avoid it really, as the fastest way I've found is to point the weapon down while doing so, so bringing it in and out of battery is where the extra time comes from.

[Legbreaker]

With a larger magazine, spending an extra moment or two reloading probably isn't a big problem anyway, especially since you've probably got half a dozen + people around you firing away while you do it anyway.

[HorseSoldier]

Haven't been able to access the original article, but in relation to this discussion it's worth mentioning that apparently a serving member of the SASR has written a critique of the F88 where the solution he advocates is something in a conventional format. See Soldier Systems Daily for link.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Haven't been able to access the original article, but in relation to this discussion it's worth mentioning that apparently a serving member of the SASR has written a critique of the F88 where the solution he advocates is something in a conventional format. See Soldier Systems Daily for link.

Yeah I read that article on Soldier Systems. I recall hearing the same criticism with the early body armour vests and the L1A1 SLR. The butt would slip of the vest or the vest would prevent the soldier from seating the butt into the shoulder. The Brits had a similar problem and modified their body armour. It's certainly not an issue that just happened because we use the F88 which is sort of the implication the author is making.

I can appreciate that for a specialist unit with a small number of personnel, the reloading issue could be significant. An SASR unit might be operating with just six men in combat but for an infantry unit, it's typically going to be a platoon. I don't feel that the reloading time is as big an issue in those circumstances.

The F88 might not be well suited for special forces use, fair enough, but to suggest that because it doesn't suit his 'apparent' experiences in special forces doesn't mean it should be dropped from all infantry use. I feel he is letting more of his personal opinion into that statement than a professional opinion.

In regards to warrant officers in Australia, they are senior NCOs with long military experience placed in a position between NCOs and officers - in local terms, warrant officers tell generals how to use the army and give policy guidance to god - so it bothers me that a serving warrant officer of the SASR prefers to remain anonymous when voicing such criticism.
His position alone would normally mean his opinion in the matter would be well regarded but by refusing to identify himself, he weakens his position. The F88 has been in service for nearly 20 years now so it's unlikely that it would jeopardize his career if he made legitimate criticism of it now. Unless of course he is just expressing a purely personal opinion or he isn't actually quite what he says he is.

[Legbreaker]

Well said SSC. Although the SASR do tend towards keeping their identity secret (for good reason) just about everything in that article just doesn't feel right to me. Ok, I maybe a machinegunner first and foremost, but I've spent plenty of time with the F88 as well, and to be honest, found it to be a damn fine infantry weapon (maybe not as good as the L1A1 SLR, but I'm biased towards the heavier round anyway).

[dragoon500ly]

Finally had a chance to fire my first bullpup design yesterday, it was a French FA-MAS and I'm of mixed feelings.

I had issues with the sight picture, especially with the iron sights, when the owner clipped on a optical sight, greatly improved! I also had some issues with reloading, especially in rapid changes, I almost always had to remove the weapon from my shoulder to remove and replace the mag. But I feel that this could be overcome with training.

Overall, the ergonomics seemed adequate, it was certainly easy to point and shot at close range targets, I had problems with engaging targets beyond 300 meters, unless I used the optic sight. Changing mags took some getting used to and never approached the speed that I can get with my AR-15, but this would be overcome with more practise.

One thing that I noticed when holding a cheek weld was that it seemed noticeably warmer, especially after burning through five magazines, anyone else noticed this?

[Legbreaker]

Five mags is a LOT of ammo, especially in a combat setting. Don't see that happening off the range very often so it's likely not an issue.
150 rounds is what I'd expect to use in one 5 minute contact with an M60 - rifle, not so much.

[dragoon500ly]

Well, my friend has a Class III auto license and this was the first time that either of us had ever fired a bullpup, so we may have gotten a little carried away (yeah, right!).

Its not a bad design and I can better see both sides, but I'm also a old-timer, I like the traditional layout because I've fired that way for over thirty-five years....

[Panther Al]

Bullpups do take getting used to: there is no way around that, and reloading drills are significantly different. Is one better than the other? Depends on the use.

I could see that in a small unit operation the traditional rifles, ones that can be reloaded without loosing your sight picture might be preferred, or for better iron sight accuracy. After all, most small unit elite stuff will be done at close range, so overall length isn't as much as an issue. Now line units, particularly mounted units, Bullpups I believe are the thing: For the same overall length of rifle, you get around 6 more inches of barrel length, and coupled with the fact that more and more optical sights are being used, negates the short sight picture of a bullpup. Like everything else, depends more on the projected use more than anything. The M4 is gaining ground over the M16 because its shorter and handier, not because its felt that it is a better more accurate rifle. A bullpup - like the AUG/F88, FAMAS, FN2000, and etc - is the better solution IMHO because it has the handiness of a carbine with the performance potential of a full up rifle.

Just my 2 cents of course.

[dragoon500ly]

Still...

Nothing beats a Ma Deuce loaded with API!!!

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Still...

Nothing beats a Ma Deuce loaded with API!!!

Good points for range and firepower....

Not too mobile however.

[Sanjuro]

The SA80 has one problem not often discussed- rifle drill is a bit tricky! I'm 5'9" and could just about manage- taller guys would find it more difficult.
When I first learned rifle drill with the L1A1, the rifle at parade rest sat comfortably at my side, and my hand rested on the front stock just behind the foresight with a slightly curved arm. With the SA80 in the same position, I could just reach the tip of the barrel. Some time I must go into London to watch the changing of the guard at Buck House and see how they deal with it...

[HorseSoldier]

The difficulty of adapting existing drill and ceremonies practices for the M16 to the M4 is widely believed to be one of the reasons for the USMC deciding not to adopt the M4 some years ago. Fairly sad reasoning, to say the least.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The difficulty of adapting existing drill and ceremonies practices for the M16 to the M4 is widely believed to be one of the reasons for the USMC deciding not to adopt the M4 some years ago. Fairly sad reasoning, to say the least.

That's very interesting. There must be more to the story, though I'd believe D&C being one of the factors.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

All rifle drill was given a major change in Australia when the F88 was adopted so that the rifle is used with a sling and for ceremonies, such positions as 'Rest on arms reversed' (i.e. with the SMLE or L1A1, the barrel was placed on the toe of the boot and the soldier rested their hands on the upward facing butt) have been changed so that the rifle is slung across the body and the soldier rests their hands on the body of the F88.

SLR reversed


F88 "reversed"


All drills (ceremonial and paradeground) are changed to use the sling and such positions as 'Stand at ease' or 'Attention' don't require the rifle to have its butt placed on the ground near the boot, but using the sling and the forestock grip, it is held to the side of the body.

Parade drill (old RAN working dress)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The difficulty of adapting existing drill and ceremonies practices for the M16 to the M4 is widely believed to be one of the reasons for the USMC deciding not to adopt the M4 some years ago. Fairly sad reasoning, to say the least.

I thought it had to do with the Marine Corps' institutional emphasis on marksmanship. The M16A4 has a longer effective range than the M4.

It also has a nifty forward pistol grip and a flat-topped, picatinny compatible receiver for the mounting of optics.

I've read a couple of accounts of the Marines' battles in Fallujah and I have yet to come across any complaints about the longer M16A2-A4 in CQB scenarios.

From a pratical as well as an asthetic standpoint, I prefer the M16A4 to the M4 carbine.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I thought it had to do with the Marine Corps' institutional emphasis on marksmanship. The M16A4 has a longer effective range than the M4.

It also has a nifty forward pistol grip and a flat-topped, picatinny compatible receiver for the mounting of optics.

I've read a couple of accounts of the Marines' battles in Fallujah and I have yet to come across any complaints about the longer M16A2-A4 in CQB scenarios.

From a pratical as well as an asthetic standpoint, I prefer the M16A4 to the M4 carbine.

This was the issue when I was in. As grunts we where pissed off as to the fact that the Corps was using drill as one of the reasons for not going to the M4 carbine. Drill is worthless and has nothing to do with fighting the good fight. The marksmenship view I can understand, but then again we did not train how we would fight at the qualifying range. We didn't wear a helmet or any other bullshit body armour. It was duece gear and a soft cover. Another reason, a general told a hand full of us once was that the carbine was found to be less reliable to the rifle. The Marines have this hard-on with trying to outshine everyone even when it's reasons are not the best of reasons. All the body armour is the real probelm with the full size rifles, it adds extra inches to your shoulder and makes shouldering it a bitch. Outside built up areas I would rather use a fullsize rifle, but nowdays those open ranges are rarer happenings then the close ones.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

This was the issue when I was in. As grunts we where pissed off as to the fact that the Corps was using drill as one of the reasons for not going to the M4 carbine. Drill is worthless and has nothing to do with fighting the good fight. The marksmenship view I can understand, but then again we did not train how we would fight at the qualifying range. We didn't wear a helmet or any other bullshit body armour. It was duece gear and a soft cover. Another reason, a general told a hand full of us once was that the carbine was found to be less reliable to the rifle. The Marines have this hard-on with trying to outshine everyone even when it's reasons are not the best of reasons. All the body armour is the real probelm with the full size rifles, it adds extra inches to your shoulder and makes shouldering it a bitch. Outside built up areas I would rather use a fullsize rifle, but nowdays those open ranges are rarer happenings then the close ones.

Interesting insights.

I've read a lot of complaints about the M4 lacking range in much of the terrain one encounters in Afghanistan. Quite a fuss was made of this after the engagements during Operation Anaconda. I suppose that a lot of bullpup weapons have similar range limitations.

Still, there must be something good about the M4 because practically all of the SOF over there use it (or the C8). When I watched the doc, Armadillo, I was surprised to see most of the Danish troops using it.

It's probably cost prohibitive but why hasn't any major arms manufacturer successfully come up with an assault weapon with a interchangeable barrel/stock? Each soldier would be issued with two barrel/stock assemblies- one carbine-length for CQB and one full-length for open ground or whatever. It's got to be cheaper than buying a whole new system every 5-10 years or so.

[HorseSoldier]

I thought it had to do with the Marine Corps' institutional emphasis on marksmanship. The M16A4 has a longer effective range than the M4.

USMC mythology.

With an ACOG and good ammo (Mk 262) I know from personal experience that an M4A1 is a boringly reliable 600 meter gun, so it will do anything the M16A4 can do in the real world as well as the make believe world of the qual course.

It also has a nifty forward pistol grip and a flat-topped, picatinny compatible receiver for the mounting of optics.

That's no net gain versus the M4, though.

I've read a couple of accounts of the Marines' battles in Fallujah and I have yet to come across any complaints about the longer M16A2-A4 in CQB scenarios.

Marines I worked with were universally envious of our M4s and considered the '16 a liability for real combat and gunfighting. Most thought that the M16 gave them an edge on the USMC Table 1 qual course, but most also thought that did not have much to do with fighting with a gun.

Still, there must be something good about the M4 because practically all of the SOF over there use it (or the C8). When I watched the doc, Armadillo, I was surprised to see most of the Danish troops using it.

The Danes adopted the Canadian flavors of the AR to replace the G3, though don't remember the exact time frame for that.

It's probably cost prohibitive but why hasn't any major arms manufacturer successfully come up with an assault weapon with a interchangeable barrel/stock? Each soldier would be issued with two barrel/stock assemblies- one carbine-length for CQB and one full-length for open ground or whatever. It's got to be cheaper than buying a whole new system every 5-10 years or so.

I know a number of ODAs that went downrange with multiple AR uppers, usually a combo of 10.5-12" barrels on one hand and 18" on the other, which allowed tailoring weapons to mission.

The SCAR, Magpul/Bushmaster/Remington Masada/ACR, and a couple commercial variants of the AR all incorporate user-changeable barrels. The main issue is cost, with a secondary issue of most chains of command being too stupid to use properly use that capability. Give a line infantry battalion two barrels per rifle/carbine and you'll have several hundred guys hauling around a spare barrel in their ruck just in case higher decides they need it (along with the MOPP gear, protective mask, and other crap).

Kind of like body armor. Way too many units, when given a tailorable armor ensemble, just make everyone wear everything and waddle around like turtles. Nobody has the intestinal fortitude to risk their career on incurring casualties that might have been mitigated by deltoid protectors and side plates and armored toe caps for boots, so instead we give up maneuver and winning on the battlefield in favor of surviving . . . and letting the other guy live to fight another day, too.