Let's face it.  The AR had a damned good run.  50 years.  It became something it wasn't and that was a "modular" adaptive rifle.  And in the typical American fashion, what I'll be proposing will be considered un-American.  But wait.  That's the typical mumbo jumbo I've always heard from nay sayers.  When I started my time in the Army it was 1982 and we had no shortage of old vets who swear by the M14 and then some going back to the M1 Garand.  Fact is the M16/M4 definitely advanced where the old design left off.  Light and more ammo.  No one then could have imagined how far the AR would have advanced and how much the AR would have propagated.  Yet here we are.



Hind sight tells me US Mil wants to stay American. Good concept except we are no longer there anymore now that FN, HK, Steyr, IWI and others have a solid footing here in the good ol'USA with this global economy.  When the M14 was being considered, we should have gone with the FAL.  In fact it was the US who insisted on the 308 for NATO use.  And about the time the M16 reached 12 years since being adopted, the Steyr AUG came out.  That was 38 years ago.



Since then look how many bullpups have been developed and adopted.  At least we now know the STANAG mag will stay in service probably for another 50 years.  Now, the only advantage the M4 has over all the other bullpups is about 1 lb difference or less.  I was a grunt and I will say that 1 lb difference isn't all that enough for me to stay with such.  The M16 got shortened from 40" to 30" with a collapsed stock. Add another 3" with stock extended.  Now the buffer tube is exposed and subject to damage to the point if it gets bent or dented the weapon will not work.  It happens.  Now we see 10" barrel versions cutting off another 4".



So if the trend is to shorten the rifle, why not go bullpup?  Look at the Tavor.  Just over 26" with a 16" barrel with the capability to be shorter.  Or look at the X95.  



There is a definite advantage to have a compact weapon.  Vehicles, going through obstacles, close quarters, and a few more.  So we won't be doing too many bayonet charges anymore.  But you still can with a bullpup with less worrying about damaging buffer extension.  We can be proud of our trusty M4. After all it is the American carbine.  I've had a M16 or M4 as my issued weapon for the last 34 years practically non-stop.  Not to mention what I've owned. But I for one, would like our troops to have every advantage and it's time to get a new gun.  Tavor, L85, Famas, AUG.  I don't see or hear any one of those being considered to be phased out other than for another bullpup.



Maybe Desert Tech can stir DOD's interests.

in before the hated!

not with cased ammunition

Maybe plasma guns or something

Think of it this way; there are some units in the military with wide latitude when it comes to gear selection, and how many do you hear/see fielding bullpups?

Pretty much none. I think that's a pretty good indication that the value isn't seen in bullpups compared to the M16/M4 platform.

I'd much rather see them adopt the Scar 17.

Despite all the shortcomings of the bullpup, the Tavor really looking interesting...I would love to handle/fire one.

Or some variation. The French JTAC's I knew were rolling with HK416's, while the FAMAS is standard issue.

Either way, it speaks volumes when people have a choice and they choose our toys.

OP, the rifle is not outdated.

If the military wants to see more kills per round, it means training the people using the weapons to do that. When I deployed as a US Navy expeditionary unit attached to the US Army in 2009, there were people that were using an M4 for the very first time. The qual for these people, involved shooting simulated 200 meters, which means a small target at 50 yards. Then people that wanted to take on more advanced shooting were able to while many opted out. The qual was 50 rounds if I remember correctly.

Lets place a non shooter into a combat scenario after shooting paper targets and watch them expend 300 rounds of ammunition and have zero hits.

THAT OP, is what is happening. The rifle is outstanding, the people are not and that is because of military decision makers.

Same argument can be said of spec op units who do chose a AUG or Tavor over general issued weapons.





As I said in my OP, the US Mil is very stubborn when it come to adopting new rifle designs.  My argument was the idea to adopt a bullpup design, not specific bullpup.





The SCAR or 416 doesn't really offer anything more than what the M4 has, except a tad better reliability and higher price tag.  The bullpup does offer a compact weapon platform.





SOC units may have some lateral choice in gear, when it comes to weapons it's not as lateral and first choice given to US produced weapons or those with better contract obligations with the US Mil (FN and HK).  I don't expect to see a L85 ever making it to any US arms room.  The AUG was issued to US Customs until dissolved into DHS which then got their M4's for free or at 1/3 the cost of an AUG.  FN screwed the pooch with the F2000 design but I wouldn't doubt seeing them take a shot or HK will give it a try.  And look how long it took the US Mil to finally OK the Glock for service.  So even with units given lateral choices, only now they finally accepted the Glock 19, a gun universally accepted as a reliable and accurate, yet easy to maintain hand gun.  





Historically Steyr really didn't want to do business with the US and they didn't want to sell Israel AUGs because they would have lost lucrative contracts in the ME, specifically Saudi, UAE, and Kuwait.  That's probably why Israel designed the Tavor, which for the most part, is about as close as they would get to an AUG with some obvious differences.  



Don't be shocked to see Canada get a bullpup within the next 10 years.  Maybe with a Colt logo!!!





 

I don't think I said the M4 is outdated.  I will almost say that about the AK and I will say that about the M14.  The M4 no. And outdated, not obsolete.





And I hear what you are saying about lack of training, but I'm not sure how that adds to the discussion.  I will say any rifle designed for combat use is designed to be used by the lowest common denominator.  Bullpups are no exceptions. We are still at least 50 years away from fielding smart rifles or smart bullets.  





One of the things IDF claimed about adopting the Tavor was how quickly new conscripts were to acclimate to the Tavor.  I don't know how much weight I give that but the Tavor is easier to shoulder and maintain it sighted on target.  Inherent to the design and weight distribution of THAT weapon.  Trigger blows but still doable.



If a poorly trained shooter will waste 300 round in combat using an M4, I'm almost certain they will do the same with a bullpup.  I'm dismayed about mil members "opting" out of training before deployment.  If I were their commander, there would be no "opt out" option for training where their lives and that of others will matter, unless the they want to opt themselves into an AWOL charge.
 

Caseless ammo isn't going to happen.  We will see plasma or laser guns before we see caseless ammo.  That will happen after we die of old age.
We might see smart bullets first.
About the closest we will have caseless ammo is if someone develops a gas, magnetic or liquid propellant gun. But that HK G11 looked good on paper though.  

And the G11 resembles a.........?
 

Great points and great post, I think if we could figure an american made bullpup as good as the tavor it could be possible but I don't see us doing it with a foreign brand even with the positivity towards it.

I don't know about that.

We went from basic combustion engines to landing on the moon in a relatively short period of time.

Desert Tech is showing potential as a good candidate.  Bushmaster tried and KelTec fielded a 308 and now 223 bullpup.  All indications showing this  trend is growing,  And besides, HK, FN, and now Steyr and IWI are now technically produced in the US.  US Mil have taken foreign made weapons in the past 20 years, not to mentioned M249.  I definitely don't see a foreign produced standard issued carbine.  It'll be something designed for/by US Mil.  



If you look at the history of the M16 and how it was adopted, very well likely repeat history.
 

Well the electric car was more popular than gas engines in early 1900's.  HK was left holding the bag with the G11,  I just don't hear or see anyone trying to push it right now.  Militaries are reluctant to take on a new product unless extensive R&D followed with evaluations.  That's tough act to follow as a sole company.  Companies would usually have about 15 to 20 years invested in a product before the US Mil gets around to take a look.



 

But we still use gasoline/diesel for+/-95% of all major transportation after a century of powered locomotion.

As a species, we tend to get stuck in our ways

No.

The triggers always suck and you need to change out parts for left handed shooters. With a conventional rifle you simply switch shoulders.

Was thinking of the same thing and agree. Had a group guy tell me he didn't like the ergonomics of the Tavor

I regard to the questions .... why doesn't the US military adopt a bullpup or AK47 or ....?

The answer is because the AR is a better combat weapon for many reasons.

Ergonomics
Trigger
weight
cost
multi caliber 22, 5.7, 6,8. 6.5. 308 ,,,,,
easy to fix
accurate
reliable

Now they have pistons and folding stocks,
Don't take my word for it ask the professionals (LE/SRT, SOF, PSD....) that can have any weapon they want but still chose the AR

This question gets asked many many times...mostly by people with no field experience that just picked up a bulpup.

Although more training helps, shooting in combat is not going to improve all that much because of stressors and minimum to no target exposure that are very will not be fully replicate in training.  The closest you can really get is with Simmunitions, but that probably only gets you 75 percent of what you get in a full on fire fight.

I agree with a lot of what is said here.

I have always suspected a bullpup is the result of a big committee that is trying to make a name for itself when the answer to the problems they are trying to solve is spend more money on good training and keep spending that money in the future

What's telling to me, is at least judging from news footage, not only the special forces of countries whose military uses bullpups but the police forces as well (who I would assume would have access to reduced cost or free bullpups from their military or would be able to buy whatever platform they wanted) mainly all use the AR. Just one example is look at the recent shooting in Paris at the Charlie offices, most of the cops I saw were carrying what appeared to be HK416's which is an AR variant.

The US military has a historical problem with equipment changes, so moving to a bullpup is unlikely for that reason alone. We resisted an intermediate rifle caliber for an absurd amount of time, and don't even get me started on the M14.

I do think bullpups make more sense for mechanized infantry and vehicle crews, and could envision a future service rifle that was configurable for both bullpup and standard modes, ala the MSBS Radom. (Really, a rifle that combined the features of the ARX-160 and the MSBS Radom would be phenomenal...)

When I was an instructor at the SF weapons course we trained the students on the FAMAS and the Steyr. The FAMAS is just a piss-poor design- not very rugged, too much crappy plastic, a bipod that collapses, not very accurate. The AUG has a horrible trigger and isn't very accesory friendly, esp. for GLs. All of these types of weapons have ejection issues. Even though you can switch the ejection for left handed shooters, shit happens and in the real world people end up having to swap weapons for any number of reasons- often when there isn't time to switch the ejection side (which requires disassembly of the bolt). I have never messed with the FN , the Tavor, or the Brit bullpup. HOWEVER- The Brits issue a bullpup- but there special ops units use M4s cause they hate the bullpups. The Australian mil issues a steyr- but their spec ops units use M4s. The French mil issues the FAMAS, but their specops units use HK 416s because they hate the bull pups. Maybe these other highly capable and well respected specops units just saved us the pain of going to something that didn't perform as cool as it looked. Maybe we're the ones who got it right.

I had a chance to shoot the FAMAS and L85 a few decades ago when I was stationed in then W. Germany.  I didn't think much of them back then either.  The FAMAS I shot was kinda new while the L85 was beat up with fogged up optics.  I didn't get enough trigger time then to get a complete opinion.
I later got a chance to shoot the AUG and later own one (A1 and USR).  I liked much about it and somethings needed (and has been) updated, primarily last round lock back which is in the A3 models.
About the left side shooters, well the M16 had the same issue.  It wasn't until the A2 version came out with the built in brass deflector did that change... for the ejection issue only.  I've shot M16A1 and A2 (and M4's now) left side and brass in the face is distracting but far from impossible.  That was before mandatory eye pro days. In the middle of combat chances are you will notice it less.  Just might to want to button up your shirt.  Even with the brass deflector a left will take one in the mouth or down the shirt once in a while.  Or the fluky hot brass on top of the eye pro burning a spot on the forehead.  Ask me how I know?
I will say it that the AUG is dated.  Other than the BHO sling attachments aren't ideal to what we have now and I hear that there is an attachable brass deflector.  I can't imagine why Steyr can't simply incorporate one along with QD mounts.  But the AUG also has a slew of advantages which the AR lacks.  Quick release barrel, incorporated pistol grip (mandatory) piston adjustable.  And the AUG is durable and reliable.  I find them to be as accurate as any similar grade AR.  The fact for a lefty there is an option where as the AR is far less of an option, and nil for those in the military.  Mag release is ambi on the AUG.  The Tavor I do like a lot.  You will have to look at it to see what I mean.  The Tavor did take away a lot from the AUG and some from the AR (sights, mics., mags and safety sel) and AK (gas operation system and bolt).
And yes, every country specialized units do have flexibility on weapon choices.  The AR platform is a very good and STANDARDIZED platform.  It's also economical although I'm sure that's not a factor in smaller units.  But same can be said as to units who run SAN 55X, G36/MP5/40, Beretta ARX, FN platforms.  They didn't chose the AR.  I'm sure it has more to do with a sales rep doing their job and not because they think the other gun sucked.  But there are also specialized units who do run AUG and Tavors and some FAMAS while their military uses an AR, AK, or other.  The L85 and FAMAS have a less successful adoption of those platforms and I'm sure whomever did adopt them was because of GB and France giving it to them.  That and where was the last time we've heard of a sales rep selling those off besides the issue that the L85 and FAMAS offer next to nothing in the development of the weapon thanks to their government.  This is which the AR excelled and grew exponentially.  How many spec op units still roll with the AK?  I respect the AK, but it's outdated already (not obsolete yet).
The AUG and Tavor have had the opposite experience.  And Steyr will license out their patent and I wouldn't doubt IWI will hold back either.  
The thing is the AR, just as the AK, has a huge global proliferation with the AR taking on and beating the AK over the past 15 years.  China now makes ARs.  And speaking of China... QBZ-95, a bullpup as their main carbine.  Which I'm sure it has it's short comings, but gives perspective to my point.
 

Any advantages the bullpup offers (and they're relatively few) is off set by the cost to re-equip.  At the end of the day, you're shooting the same bullets down range. The AR works, we have a bajillion of them in service and plus all the spare parts and tooling.

There is also the cost to maintain an aging fleet.  Back then the same was said about the AR on it's adoption, that processing aluminum into a weapon was more complicated.  You have to remember the only place which specialized in aluminum milling was the aerospace industry.  Now it's Jim Bob's shop down the street.





Industry depends of change.  big armies with rich governments are more than capable to make this happen.  If cost was the primary concern, we would be using AK's and driving Datsun B-210.  Proliferation makes it cheaper.  The M14 and Garand worked and we had a bajillion of them in service when the AR came along.





But if you look at the Tavor, it has less milled parts, and plastic mold injection is a breeze compared to milling 2 parts,  The Tavor alum receiver is quite simple and straight foward.  The AUG has a cast receiver, well mostly cast.  A majority of the rest are plastic parts.   Plastic parts is by far easier and cheaper to produce.





The US Mil will be adopting a new platform any year now.  That's a given.  There are enough short comings of the M16/M4 to justify such.  This very well may be a new round all together.





 

The Bullpup had some advantages in the Cold War. For riding in an APC then shooting out of a fighting position at 0-300m targets while wearing a light cotton shirt they make a lot of sense.

I'll be more interested when they take 5" off the length of pull.

ETA: 15 3/4" LOP is far too much for females also.

The US myth of the riflemen is what prevents the US from adopting one.

I don't think long range shooting is incompatible with a bullpup.

keep telling yourself that...the moon part

Its not just long range shooting (the Royal Marines do very well with the L85 on KD courses), it weapons manipulation, trigger, etc

The other nations generally don't see aim rifle fire as the "war winner" we do, they see them more as a means at delivering bullets.

Spending billions for a to save five inches in overall length.  No.  We are not a rich government awash is cash.  Military budgets are going to be squeezed tight in coming years.  There are already several big dollar programs (F-35, new carriers, new bomber plus increasing health care costs) ahead of any potential AR replacement.  Rebuilding/maintaining the current AR inventory is chump change.  Most of us on this board can do it, and probably have done it to our own rifles.  

The AUG has been in service for decades and hasn't exactly taken the world by storm.  The Tavor may very well be the greatest thing since canned beer but is still new on the scene.  The Israelis thought the Galil was the answer at one time.  Then they discovered free AR's worked just as well and were, well, free.  

This isn't a technology issue.  This is a budget priority issue.  Small arms don't generate big enough contracts to get congressional attention.  And we can't spread AR production over 50 states like we do with aircraft.  

Are you disputing we went to the moon?

It isn't a war winner, but a good rifle can save a lot of individual lives.

The .mil is looking for a service rifle that is a profound improvement over the M4 Carbine. Right now there is nothing out there that is a profound improvment, especially not anything in the bullpup family. Sure, there are certain individual things that a bullpup does better, and so with a SCAR, etc., but each individual submission as whole does not out profoundly out perform the M4. The bottom line is that the new service rifle must be so far ahead of the M4 FOW that it justifies the investment.

IMO, going to an M4 would be taking a step back, especially if you are suggesting the L85/SA80 as a candidate.

No I don't see the US Mil adopting an existing bullpup already in service, much less L85, FAMAS, or AUG.  It will likely be a new product and good chance a new caliber.  
I hear what ya'll saying about a profound difference over the M4, and what some said about cost that will be, but the reality M4's are replaced all the time as they wear out.  For most units these aren't safe queens.  The average service rifle has about a 10 to 15 year use in active service.  The US Mil went from the M16A1 to the A2 before the M16 reached 25 years in service and within 15 years those were mostly replaced with M4's or M16A4.  Those are already in the 15 year zone so the likely hood of replacement is coming up fast.  US Mil post war draw down will buy a few more years I'm sure.  



An M4 cost the G about $600 to $700 a piece.  If another rifle is adopted let's say at twice the price,
$1,400, it's still chump change for most governments.  US Mil spends far more than that just to fly new recruits to camp and to their 1st duty station.  Personnel is the US Mil biggest cost factor.  So the price per rifle unit isn't such a factor if you are looking at a 15 to 20 year service life.  And nowadays, the US Mil doesn't foot the bill for things like this to be developed, unless it's a tank or aircraft.  Besides a high bill item isn't funded for this on a one time use, it's stretched over a period of time.  Something like this will last about 10 years to replace US Mil main rifle and still will find M4's being used for another 20 years until we pawn those off to other poor countries.



What I would say the profound difference will be a modular weapon system which incorporates grenade launchers, advanced sight systems, and possibly the push to further the use of smart munitions weapons.  It won't be smart munitions for the rifle itself, but to work in conjunction with the rifle.  The M4 can to a lot but it's not going to fill all holes.  



 

I've owned a preban AUG that was converted to A3.  While it was nice, it is more a novelty item.  Not being ambidextrous, though the FN bullpup addressed that, and magazine changes being awkward are why this is not my first choice.

God I hope not.

If a native USA design comes out then sure, we should look at it. But don't fix what isn't broken. Its not as if the M4/M16/C7/AR is super outdated and our troops are being outgunned or something.

I would bet that in 10 more years, we are still using an M4 or variant.

The AR rifle just plain works and the 5.56 is an outstanding cartridge.

Our country can barely stay financially above a recession. New weapons platforms are not coming.

Agreed, especially since the Army is investing money in retrofitting existing M4s with full auto selection.

Probably not.

I'd rather replace the M9 than the M4....

New aircraft and vehicles are far more important than individual weapons in the great scheme of things...

AR15 is best gun, all others false prophet.

If you guys need me to settle any other debates i'm usually in GD threadshitting ;)

Which in my opinion is a huge mistake- they should be retrofitted to semi only. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed.

Source that even hints of this happening with any level prevalence?