www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/9909/V9900204.jpg

Should the US take the bullpup route for the next rifle due in the coming years?

maybe a bullpup modified AR15 with an improved gas system?....who knows? what do u guys think?

Sign me up for mushy breakage prone trigger pulls and the inability to shoot off the weak shoulder.

Have not shot a combat capable bullpup, this include the F2000 and the AUG, and I own an AUGA2.

Everything Lumpy said.  the three best rifle currently in production, M16/M4, SG55x and G36.

As an AUG owner, an emphatic NO from me.  Barring some amazing new rifle with an amazing new round, downward ejection or caseless ammo, ... then there would have to be lots of testing.

Can I add pathetically slow and awkward reloads to my list?

I'd say it would still reload faster than an AK. Which happens to be what most of our enemies are shooting.

You speaking from experience?

Yeah, I've got a SAR-1...those things are a pain to unload and load. I can load a Bushmaster M17 ten times faster than that.
IMHO

What about the new IMI Tavor about to be adopted by Israeli forces to replace their Galil and aging M16s? Seems they are quite an improvement on the existing Bullpup designs according to the defense reviews.

http://www.defense-update.com/news/62302tavor.htm

I just saw a program on the discovery channel about the Tavor, it seems like a pretty good weapon. The barrel is free floating, unlike the ar-15 bull pup, this allows for much beter accuracy. It also fires at 750rpm, thats pretty fast.
The problem for lefties was solved with the M-16, I think the same solution could work for the bull pup.

Ive never shot a Tavor, let alone handled one.

Having seen pictures of them Im still trying to figure out how they've overcome the crappy trigger pulls that come from the long draw bars required by the design, the awkward to execute magazine well at your armpit reloads, and brass in your face if you're left handed or shooting off your weak shoulder.  I suspect they havent.

NO.  NO FUGLY RIFLES.  Not even if they're functionally superior, which they are definitely NOT.

I'd rather see our troops switch to AK47's or AK74's or some other AK variant before switching to a fugly bullpup design.

CJ

I believe the F2000 now ejects the spent cartridges down instead of out the side.  That indicates the ambidexterity issue can be solved for this style of rifle.  As for speed of reloading, I don't have a solution for that one.  With every design there are going to be certain advantages and certain drawbacks.

Personally I think the SAR-21 is kind of pretty, but that's just personal taste.  I don't know how it would hold up to an AR in combat scenarios.

[img]http://world.guns.ru/assault/sar21_3.jpg[/img]
looks like a revamped AUG to me, but its an improvement none the less!

 Can be solved if you go to a magazine style that is even slower to reload.  There are always tradeoffs, but getting a shorter weapon isn't worth all the other problems that are introduced.

FN 2000 ejects forward and the brass kind of trickles out the front.  I dont see the Tavor ever happening.  Barret was supposed to produce them hear a couple years ago and the deal fell through.  Israelis were going to use US funding for the project with the stipulation they purchase an American made product.  Since they will not be made here I doubt they can afford to field them in an Israeli made variation.

The grenade launcher on the FN2000 is cool with that laser range finder computer controled level thingy.

The bullpup concept is supposed to offer a couple of advantages over a conventional design.  However, in light of recent developments, those advantages may no longer exist.

[b]1.  Shorter overall length without having to collapse or fold a stock.[/b]  While this may have once been an advantage, it is no longer.  The collapsible stock of the CAR-15/M-4 used to be disparaged because you only lost 4-6" of length from a fixed stock and it wasn't as compact when collapsed as a folding stock.  Now with chest rigs, body armor, etc, the ability to adjust the stock length to accomodate what you're wearing is seen as a big advantage.  Take a look at the stock of the XM-8.  It can fold, but it can also collapse to adjust the length of pull.

So, while the short length may still be a desired feature, the lack of adjustability is a detraction.

[b]2.  Barrel length.[/b]  This ties in with the shorter overall length, but the idea was you could have a rifle length barrel (20") in a carbine sized package.  This is still true, but you have to ask yourself why you want a longer barrel.  A longer barrel gives you greater velocity and in some cases, a longer sight radius.  Since 55gr and 62gr 5.56mm are very dependent on velocity for fragmentation and upon fragmentation for lethality, this is a valid consideration.  But it appears that the 77gr bullet provides fragmentation and lethality at lower velocities.  Consequently, with the right type of ammo we may not need the extra length/velocity.

[b]3.  Ergonomics.[/b]  This is the biggest disadvantage of the bullpups and it is one that both covers a lot of territory and is still unsolved.  Bullpups usually have poor balance, being very muzzle light.  As others have said, they are slower to reload than the AR15/M16.  They require substitution of parts to switch from a right handed shooter to a left handed.  This can be an issue when shooting around corners, shooting from the weak side if you receive a wound on the strong side, or say a lefty has a damaged or non-functional weapon and  he has to pick one up on the battlefield.  Only the FN2000 has addressed this issue.  But, has anyone tested it shooting upwards, as in clearing a stairwell?  How well does forward ejection work when gravity is an issue?  Anyone think you might get a stoppage that could be difficult to clear?

[b]4.  Added equipment.[/b]  Face it, the days of a bare rifle are almost gone.  Day optics, night optics, laser designators, grenade launchers, flashlights, bipods, etc.  The etc. is 'cause I'm sure some of you can think of other things to hang on it :)
The bullpups are usually lacking in forward real-estate for all this gear, though I'll say if a GL can be mounted, it probably improves the balance while providing a better handguard.

[b]5.  Value to cost.[/b]  Finally, what do you gain for what you spend?  I don't think there is a bullpup design in existence that offers a net increase in performance over the M4/M16 series sufficient (if there is one) to justify the cost  of switching over.

No.

I've shot the British SA80A2. It's a nifty little weapon, and IMO not as bad as some say (then again, I was just fooling around), but overall, bullpups don't really have any advantages over what we've got now. Instead of a whole new weapons system, I am personally in favor of new ranges and a lot of ammo. Screw the EO classes and all that B.S.; let us start going to the range a WHOLE lot more!

ANM

steyr aug ... trigger pull has been worked over and there is a company out there who has helped that problem .. as for firing off shoulder .. if you have a left hand bolt you can shoot left .. only .. not off hand .. its a semi permanant thing .. i have a black aug .. 907 series .. NICE .. love it .. although i have to admit .. its a safe queen ..