User Panel
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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 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. OP, I think you're discounting the rather glaring point made by several others. Most, if not all, western/NATO/'folks who can use what they want' invariably use the M4-type weapon. You mentioned a 'standardized' platform, that doesn't match with the facts. The point being made is that these units (any of the wild, wacky US 'cool kids', UK SAS, Aussie or Kiwi SAS, etc) are anything BUT standardized. They aren't picking a rifle for a mission because they are worried about falling in line with whatever their Big Army/Navy/Underground Mole Troops issues the rest of the line. They're pulling the best weapon for the job. I think the Tavor is a really neat weapon. They operate great and are a lot of fun. All word is that the Israelis have had success with it. However it'll be interesting to see if it replaces any number of M16 variants that are still in service over the majority of their armed forces. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote Switching from the A1, A2 to M4 to all the other variants like the MK18 and MK12 doesn't face the hurdles of buying a whole new weapon because those weapons are all part of the same family and same manual of arms. Switching out the entire active, reserves and guard components would take a decade or more, and cost hundreds of billions to facilitate. I can see the HK416 getting more use for a couple of good reasons, but that's about it. Not a bullpup though. |
|
No, no bullpup out there offers any significant increase in capability to make that sort of change. Not only would you be changing out a weapon system but also the whole training aspect side of it would have to be addressed and at this point in time there isn't anything out there driving such a requirement. Change cost money and in the Army training is getting hit hard by the budget cuts. The M4 works period, there is a reason it is used across the world. You do not see Tier 1 units across the world choosing a bullpup, their weapon of choice is some sort of M4 variant.
|
|
You know what the interesting thing is? Half of the countries you posted pictures of don't issue bullpups to their special force units. The British use the C8, French use the SCAR/HK416/SIG-551 and Australia uses the M4. I think that says something.
Quoted:
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. View Quote I think even Chinese SF units use their M4s over their bullpup (which looks rather poor). Quoted:
OP, I think you're discounting the rather glaring point made by several others. Most, if not all, western/NATO/'folks who can use what they want' invariably use the M4-type weapon. You mentioned a 'standardized' platform, that doesn't match with the facts. The point being made is that these units (any of the wild, wacky US 'cool kids', UK SAS, Aussie or Kiwi SAS, etc) are anything BUT standardized. View Quote Also worth quoting. Look at pictures of the recent Paris attacks. You'll see French SF soldiers right next to each other using the following weapons: SG-551 HK 416 HK 417 FAMAS MP7 With police units using mostly the G-36 and MP5. There are a good number of pictures of the French using the SCAR in Africa to. All those weapons and we're talking about one country. On another slightly unrelated note, it seems like the G-36 is popular with police units that don't have to use their weapon much, like the British/French police. But their SF/SWAT units tend to use other weapons. |
|
You won't see a bullpup until you see a switch to a new caliber or type of ammunition.
At that point (which could be 20+ years from now) I would say any changes that improve the ability to use the weapon in close quarters without an real effect on the overall performance of the weapon (i.e. bullpup compactness, and the ability to use right or left handed with no issues due to design) would help sell the weapon system. But right now, you won't see the adoption of a bullpup or any other rifle across the military while it is still throwing a 5.56 bullet downrange- the M4 adnM16 has 40+ years of field use, training, experience, and logistics to back it up, and there is no point in switching rifles while still keeping the same 5.56 round and going through and turning all of that upside down until the weapon is more accurate and more deadly than the M4 or M16. Honestly the most impressive increase in lethality in the last 20 years has not been in the bullet the weapon fires, but in the optics that make that fire far more accurate and easier to put on target, and with the good old picatinny rail on top of the M4, I suspect we will see the base core of the gun stay while the accessories mounted on it continue to improve putting that 5.56 round onto the target more and more accurately. Sven Manticore Arms |
|
Quoted:
You won't see a bullpup until you see a switch to a new caliber or type of ammunition. At that point (which could be 20+ years from now) I would say any changes that improve the ability to use the weapon in close quarters without an real effect on the overall performance of the weapon (i.e. bullpup compactness, and the ability to use right or left handed with no issues due to design) would help sell the weapon system. But right now, you won't see the adoption of a bullpup or any other rifle across the military while it is still throwing a 5.56 bullet downrange- the M4 adnM16 has 40+ years of field use, training, experience, and logistics to back it up, and there is no point in switching rifles while still keeping the same 5.56 round and going through and turning all of that upside down until the weapon is more accurate and more deadly than the M4 or M16. Honestly the most impressive increase in lethality in the last 20 years has not been in the bullet the weapon fires, but in the optics that make that fire far more accurate and easier to put on target, and with the good old picatinny rail on top of the M4, I suspect we will see the base core of the gun stay while the accessories mounted on it continue to improve putting that 5.56 round onto the target more and more accurately. Sven Manticore Arms View Quote I concur. I think a change to a more effective cartridge would and should take priority over a change in weapon. Between that and improvements in devices for increasing accuracy and other peripheral accessories, I don't see a bullpup or anything else replacing what we have anytime soon. |
|
Honestly, just another thread with civilians thinking the military should immediately adopt the latest fad in the firearms community.Especially the ONLINE firearms community....
|
|
Quoted:
Honestly, just another thread with civilians thinking the military should immediately adopt the latest fad in the firearms community.Especially the ONLINE firearms community.... View Quote Yep. Bullpups have been around for sixty years and have failed to shed their novelty status, There have been many factors conspiring against their widespread adoption, and most of those factors are inherent in the principles of the design. |
|
Quoted:
No, no bullpup out there offers any significant increase in capability to make that sort of change. Not only would you be changing out a weapon system but also the whole training aspect side of it would have to be addressed and at this point in time there isn't anything out there driving such a requirement. Change cost money and in the Army training is getting hit hard by the budget cuts. The M4 works period, there is a reason it is used across the world. You do not see Tier 1 units across the world choosing a bullpup, their weapon of choice is some sort of M4 variant. View Quote This. Any replacement for the M4/ AR platform would have to be leaps and bounds better than what is currently offered. |
|
Blast(close to face ), flash(close to face), mag change, muzzle awareness and ease or i should say unease of transition will keep the bullpup concept out of the US dod.
|
|
Quoted:
You won't see a bullpup until you see a switch to a new caliber or type of ammunition. At that point (which could be 20+ years from now) I would say any changes that improve the ability to use the weapon in close quarters without an real effect on the overall performance of the weapon (i.e. bullpup compactness, and the ability to use right or left handed with no issues due to design) would help sell the weapon system. But right now, you won't see the adoption of a bullpup or any other rifle across the military while it is still throwing a 5.56 bullet downrange- the M4 adnM16 has 40+ years of field use, training, experience, and logistics to back it up, and there is no point in switching rifles while still keeping the same 5.56 round and going through and turning all of that upside down until the weapon is more accurate and more deadly than the M4 or M16. Honestly the most impressive increase in lethality in the last 20 years has not been in the bullet the weapon fires, but in the optics that make that fire far more accurate and easier to put on target, and with the good old picatinny rail on top of the M4, I suspect we will see the base core of the gun stay while the accessories mounted on it continue to improve putting that 5.56 round onto the target more and more accurately. Sven Manticore Arms View Quote Bingo |
|
Quoted: Yep. Bullpups have been around for sixty years and have failed to shed their novelty status, There have been many factors conspiring against their widespread adoption, and most of those factors are inherent in the principles of the design. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Honestly, just another thread with civilians thinking the military should immediately adopt the latest fad in the firearms community.Especially the ONLINE firearms community.... Yep. Bullpups have been around for sixty years and have failed to shed their novelty status, There have been many factors conspiring against their widespread adoption, and most of those factors are inherent in the principles of the design. |
|
|
Quoted:
114 years. The first bullpup was invented on 1901 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, just another thread with civilians thinking the military should immediately adopt the latest fad in the firearms community.Especially the ONLINE firearms community.... Yep. Bullpups have been around for sixty years and have failed to shed their novelty status, There have been many factors conspiring against their widespread adoption, and most of those factors are inherent in the principles of the design. Good point. I forgot about the kooky bolt action bullpup. The point remains and is further reinforced. Cheers! |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote This. our military units that have no budget and can use whatever they want still use the M4 or a variation thereof. Not to mention, look at how many of their "tier 1" counterparts across the globe use the M4 or a variation. For example the Australian SAS, photographed numerous times carrying ARs…but wait their military is issued one of your beloved bull pups? The AR15 style rifle does everything needed and does the job damn well. Can you seriously say a new rifle of any type would offer enough of an improvement to justify the cost? It could be argued that we have peaked in terms of small arms and what they are capable of. An above post mentioned case-less ammo…its going to take a technology like that and widely adopted to justify a new rifle. ETA: apparently I should've read all the way through…tons of people have already pointed this out. In summary, all the cool kids use the M4/variant because its the best at the job. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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 Bullpups are rear balanced and can be shoulder and fired comfortably one handed Trigger You haven't tried any of the aftermarket triggers for Tavors lately, have you weight Bullpups weigh about the same as an AR with a comparable length barrel cost Bullpups and SCARs are about the same price multi caliber 22, 5.7, 6,8. 6.5. 308 ,,,,, There are bullpups chambered in every mainstream caliber easy to fix Tavor is pretty easy to take apart and reassemble, as are several other bullpups accurate Are you suggesting that bullpups are not accurate? reliable Are you suggesting that bullpups are less reliable than ARs? 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. No, he is saying that the M4 is all of those things…so why adopt another weapon that does all those things too, just looks different? Say that a few times and hear how silly it sounds |
|
I've had the chance to spend an afternoon shooting an F2000 and Aug, full auto versions. Enjoyed them both. It was different.
But...I've no military experience, so it was just an exercise in fun for me. But, I've no plans to buy one for the safe. I will stick with my ARs. At least for now. |
|
I have had opportunities to mess with s number of bullpup rifles, and the big big glaring flaw in the entire design comes during reloads. I watched a number of shooters get uniforms snagged in mag wells, wrestle mags out of the wells because they got snagged on clothing or kit, sand just generally present problems. It was next to impossible for shooters to get the mag well up into their workspace while reloading. Reloading in the prone is also good for laughs. Shooting from barriers is only about 50% doable, and shooting from weak side is impossible without catching brass or interfering with the bolt. Want to use your mag as a field expedient monopod? Tough shit! These problems aren't a flaw in one model of rifle, they're caused by a flaw in the base design.
Additionally the Tavor has major issues with the ejector, specifically the little green gummy bear looking thing under it, which leads to some pretty consistent and spectacular failures in operation. As mentioned the Spec Ops units (no I don't count police SWAT teams) of all NATO countries use some sort of traditionally modeled platform be it a variant of the M4, G36, or AK. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.