Armory Sponsor
Why the U.S. military won’t use bullpup rifles (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By Manticore_Arms: Simply put, the M-16 was adopted in the early 1960's, and there was not a single modern bullpup rifle (or really any bullpup rifle, save for the adopted then immediately unadopted British EM series) available at that time, and Uncle Same simply hasn't realistically found a rifle that performs significantly better than the M-16 in the last 60+ years. AUG did not exist until 1977 as a production rifle FAMAS did not exist until 1967 in its earliest forms and was not adopted until 1978 L85 did not exist until 1985, and for obvioius reasons would never have been a contender FN2000, VHS-2, etc, etc are all year 2000 or later. At the end of the day they are all 5.56 projectile launchers, and the benefits in shorter length of a bullpup are offset by the not so ideal chamber location both for potential catastrophic failure issues and offhand shooting for the rare times the average GI does it, the longer length of pull is not idea with the use of body armor, and no reason to spend all that money just to switch over to a different platform with the associated cost, logistics, and training requirements for firing the same cartridge. Throw in that every servicemember who is in the decision making process has used an M4 or M16 during their entire service, and institutional inertia is going to lean towards a conventional layout rifle. There, I saved you the time of watching that video.  Sven Manticore Arms All of this gets my vote. Something like the X95 or F2000 may be superior at the margins, but the incredible amount of money that would have to be spent to adopt different training, equipping, infrastructure, etc, for changes at the margins, means the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. There’s only so much you can do with X caliber out of Y barrel length. I imagine countries switching to the AR these days are doing it because it’s cheap, they can easily translate someone else’s extant manuals, and oftentimes their domestic arms manufacturers / innovations got flushed a long time ago. |
<**Me:**> I just spent 95% of my paycheck on LaRue stuff, within 30 minutes of getting paid. < **mfingar:**> For what it's worth, Dillo Dust is great on Ramen. </**mfingar:**></**me:**>
|
Originally Posted By LeviBarAlphaeus: How does "uninformed opinion" qualify as technical discussion? |
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
"He didnt punch anybody. He punched an idea." DrFrige
Thomas Jefferson
"He didnt punch anybody. He punched an idea." DrFrige
|
I scanned the responses and did not see anyone say "indigenous bias". We adopted the arguably INFERIOR M14 because it was indigenous. The FAL was clearly a superior firearm, but it was foreign. The bullpup concept is VERY FOREIGN to U.S. Arms design. I have no proof that this is an issue and we did adopt the Italian Beretta. Regardless, as someone else mentioned ... in terms of the U.S. Military's small arms selections ... we haven't had the best track record since the 1950s. 7.62x51 over the 280 British M14 over FAL Beretta 92 over Sig P226 Ditched SCAR program Sig 320 Disaster Sig M7 Rifle Issues As far as foreign adoption ... I think a lot of their decision making criteria is cost and manufacturing capability based. We Americans have a very myopic view of the world and don't realize that not every nation spends 13% of their federal budget on defense. Some countries are just trying to survive to the next day. A $1500 per unit rifle vs $300 per unit rifle is an easy choice for them. Go on a few missions trips and you will have a new perspective on life (if you don't have a greater appreciation for the gift of being born in the 20th ... or 21st I guess ... century and in the United States you have some very serious heart condition issues to address). |
|
I have owned 3 different Steyr AUG's and a FN FS2000. The FS2000 was more truly ambidextrous and I liked it and the AUGs. The forward ejection of the FS2000 made it the one I would select for inside a vehicle or anywhere I might have to switch from shoulder to shoulder to shoot. I was always surprised that the AUG rifles always returned to exact zero even after disassembling the rifle for cleaning. Any rifle (including the AR15 pattern) would be difficult to clear out if a case blew up inside the rifle so there was no clear advantage to any of the systems I mentioned. While the AR15 pattern rifles were the most accurate, unless the rifle is intended as a designated marksman's rifle, the accuracy of both the Aug and FS2000 were adequate for a general use rifle. In the end I stayed with the AR15 pattern simply because in the USA the logistics of access to parts and my ability to work on rifles greatly favored that pattern. Both cost and difficulty accessing spare or aftermarket parts for either Aug or FS2000 were negatives. I liked all three patterns of rifles, but in the end the AR15/M16 pattern rifles won out. |
Why the U.S. military won’t use bullpup rifles (Page 2 of 2)
Armory Sponsor