Bullpups vs. traditional carbines

[wannabe]

Out of curiosity, what are the pros and cons of the two styles in comparison to each other? I ask because, while the US and many others seem to have settled on the traditional form in the M4, the Russians and Chinese seem to be favoring the bullpups, i.e., the Chinese 5.8 mm rifle (Type 95 MWS?) and the Russian OTs-14 Groza, along with the French FAMAS and so-on. For traditional special operations, not CQB, why would one pick one type over the other?

Thanks,

Matt

[JY]

Hi wannabe;

The pros of the bullpup is it has a short averall length and still has a rifle length barrel. The minuses, is it can only be fired from one shoulder a tactical minus.

Most countries adopting the bullpup do not place much importance to actual infantry type combat. As such marksmanship, but instead rely on mass/auto fire WHEN the troops are dismounted from their IFV(Infantry Fighting Vehicles). Those countries who value infantry as a pure form and value marksmanship adopt the standard configuration rifles.

A good example is the british L85A1 it has no modification to allow firing from the left shoulder which handicaps dismounted infantry in firing from left side cover with out exposing more of their body, and in a standard column formation where every other man's weapon would cover the left flank.

For SOF op's all still issue standard configured rifles, the british issue M16 and CARs to SAS, Pathfinders, and Paras grabb all they can, The French also issue various SIGs and such to their SF. Until they make a bullpup that can be switched with a simple lever or other quick means to change ejection, units operating away from the main force will continue to use the more versatile standard rifles.

Good question wannabe, if I can help further give a yell. Take care...Jim

[This message has been edited by JY (edited 04-25-2000).]

[Toadie]

You cant fire the SA80 from the left shoulder like FAMAS??? This rifle must be a piece of crap!!! Then its not even made for BASIC Infantry tactics. Dont know how its called on english, I mean the "Schützenreihe", one half of the squad left on the way, and the half right. How do the left buddies secure? Walking backwards?
Like my new G36 really.

[recce_o]

Pretending to be able to shoot off the left shoulder may work when using blanks in the field, but how many non SOF infantry soldiers have got in enough practice to have sufficient dexterity on their weak side to be able to lay down effective (i.e. accurate fire) from the weak side? In these days of reduced ammunition budgets it is hard enough to find enough ammo to get everyone shooting properly off their strong side.

Any thoughts?

[Toadie]

OK, thats right. But I think you need the possibility of switching fast from one to the other shoulder. Even the AUG or the FAMAS won`t work, if you don`t replace the receiver or the patch(FAMAS). I also don`t like the handling of the bullpup rifles. All say its ideal most of the weight near the shoulder, but i have to disagree. Like it to control the weight with my left hand. This is my view

[JY]

Hi Toadie;

The SA80 (L85A1) is an Armalite AR18 in bullpup configuration. Sterling made the 18 for awhile, and it "grew" into the SA80. Strip off the furniture and you end up with the AR18. The ejection port is in same location as with the AR18, with a solid tin wall on the left, no way to change ejection pattern at all like the FA MAS, which I personally consider the best of the bullpups, where you change the positions of the extractor and ejector and change the ejection port cover. With the AUG77 you have to have an entire new bolt assembly and change the ejection port cover, to easy to loose the thing.

Old Tom the Brit. rifleman can't cover the left flank the easy way we do Toadie if he does he's paid off on contact with a 5.56mm case lodged in his nose =80

I'm with you, like the my M4A1 really, have fired the G36 and like it too, but will stick with my M4A1(would like one in my collection a lot though).

Take care...Jim

[This message has been edited by JY (edited 04-25-2000).]

[reconsweden]

I just gotta wonder: I´ve been told that Sweden has one of the best standards for infantry marksman training where we learn to hit targets up to 300m plus a series of rapid situations, and all these exersises have requierments that you have to pass before movin on to the next exercise. I know that most eastern countries don´t care much about individual marksmanship, but employ sharpshooters at platoon level instead(correct me if I´m wrong). I´ve always assumed that most western countries placed higher priority on marksmanship than easter countries but when I heard that we wore leading in this area I was doubtful. Like to hear what you guys have to say about it. Could post this subject by itself though..

But to justify its precense here I can inform you that most combat units in Sweden have basic wrong shoulder practise and our urban warfare units train almost as much with the wrong shoulder as with the right one.

Question: Is there a bullpup weapon able to mount a underbarrel GL?


------------------
Videre Non Videri

[Adam Victor Zielinski]

Hi!
Reconsweden, I've seen new bullpup (IMI I suppose?) with grenade launcher mounted.
Hope it helps
Adam

[wannabe]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JY:
>[B]Hi wannabe;

>Most countries adopting the bullpup do not >place much importance to actual infantry >type combat. As such marksmanship, but >instead rely on mass/auto fire WHEN the >troops are dismounted from their IFV>(Infantry Fighting Vehicles). Those >countries who value infantry as a pure form >and value marksmanship adopt the standard >configuration rifles.

>For SOF op's all still issue standard >configured rifles, the british issue M16 >and CARs to SAS, Pathfinders, and Paras >grabb all they can, The French also issue >various SIGs and such to their SF. Until >they make a bullpup that can be switched >with a simple lever or other quick means to >change ejection, units operating away from >the main force will continue to use the >more versatile standard rifles.

Hmm.

That makes a lot of sense. However, the Russian OTs bullpup is listed as being specifically for special forces use, and apparently has been issued to them. To be fair, the SPETsNAZ troops are a far cry from the level that they were in their heyday (such as it was) but I would think they have decent conventional alternatives (AKSU, etc).

Also, I thought the Israelis were looking into a new bullpup, and I was never under the impression that they were "spray and pray" troops.

Matt

[Sosah]

Yeah they do have a new bullpup. The IMI Tavor. Looks almost like a streamlined and up-scaled SA80.

[PathfinderJr3325]

Isn't the AUG capable of mounting an M-203?

[JY]

A few of the bullpups have been tested with the M203 and other GLs, the problem is the pistol grip for a M203 is the 30 rd magazine that's now placed behind your ear =80.H&K and some others have made more suitable GLs for the bullpups, though most BPs will launch standard rifle grenades.

The IDF has placed the Tavor on hold and have adopted the M4/M4A1 carbine as standard issue, replacing most of the galils in front line units. With the new M16A4 flat tops soon comming into service as designated marksmen rifles using the ACOG 4X32mm scope.And the US M24 SWS as their sniper rifle.

As far as the Russians go, they are producing all forms of weapons for the overseas markets hoping to snag an order. They are continuing to issue the AK74 in it's various forms and have little money to make any change for a long time to come. And if they ever do the AN94 will probably be the weapon of choice, a superior battle rifle not a bullpup. The Russian use of the title Special Forces is very murky, with MVD and even bank guards wearing SPECIAL FORCES tabs on camo uniforms. Spets always has been anything not Motorized Infantry or VDV, so a scout platoon would be Spets as would an underground mess kit repairman nothing "special" by western standards.

As for range used in training 300 meters is the battle sight zero on the M4A1 carbine, with training to 600 meters with the little carbine.The M16A2 has an 800 meter sight which the USMC specified and it is used regularly in training and by the various Match Teams at that range and longer.

Take care...Jim



[This message has been edited by JY (edited 04-27-2000).]

[realpolypro]

Training for any eventuality is fine, but if I caught any of my "righties" carrying left-handed on a live-fire movement to contact....

Polypro

RLTW!

[recce_o]

Realpolypro:

Can you please expand upon that. I hate to make assumptions on important matters like this.

[realpolypro]

If you're right handed, carry it that way. If your left handed, carry it that way. Unless you are truly ambidexterious, your dominant side is quicker, more accurate, and safer. You can cover 1-3 or 11-9 just the same, however you carry the rifle. CQB is the exception, and about the only time the vertical fore-grip isn't cursed.

Polypro
RLTW!

[recce_o]

Thank you for the clarification.

[dumper]

The Australian's have just finished trials on a grenade launcher for their Steyr-AUG, it will be issued soon. I don't know what they're calling it yet, but its essentially a modified M-203 (40mm)

[0802]

The Marines still qualify out to 500 meters, with the M16A2, I think we are the last service/military in the world that requires that.

[TR]

As far as grenade launchers on the bullpups you do see them out there in service. The French G-2 MAS can accept the M-203 (or the M-203 PI I think) as well as the Steyr AUG. The Russians-well they have their own underbarrel and in some cases over barrel grenade launchers in service today.

T.R.

[abprar]

The Aussie launcher is called,M203PI (Product improved),its made by an American company,R/M Equipment Inc in Florida.It is fitted with a Quadrant reflex sight which incorporates a red dot aimining mark.
The front hand grip on the Steyr is removed to fit it.Its not fitted like a normal M203, a special mount called a interbar mounting system is used.By all accounts its a good piece of kit.
We do not get this weapon until next year when it will be issued,2 per section,at the moment we use 2 M79 per section.Its old but accurate but a pain in the arse to carry.
The New Zealand army has been using a Steyr/M203 combo for years the ones I've seen look pretty good.In fact the Kiwi steyr is also better than ours.

[baboon]

So you guys actually replaced M203s with M79s? I see the SAS and Commandos use a lot of M4s and M16s as well as Austeyrs, some of them with 203s. What do these units see as the advantages of the M16/M4 over the Steyr?

[XS]

Lighter, far more reliable, easier to maintain, doesn't rust at the sight of a cloud...

------------------
"I am going to eat your children. Praise be to Allah."

Mike Tyson

[abprar]

We always had 79's ,they were in storage and used by the reserve.They were a interim measure.Some crusty old salt wanted bullet trap grenades,don't ask me why.What a waste of money but they finally got back on track with 203s.
The reason I heard for the SF units having M16/M4 was that the Steyr was a bastard to swim with,it wasn't about reliability.It was a amphib thing as far as I know.Water ops were using old M16A1 until recently.SF get to buy what they want to an extent so I guess they took a shine to the M4 with all the research done on the wpn by the US and why not its a damn good wpn.

[baboon]

Any idea why the Steyr was adopted in the first place? How has it been received in the infantry compared to the old SLR/FAL and M16?