Thank you. It looks like the danger from round failure is hot gasses blowing back at the shooter, correct? But isn’t the chamber completely enclosed in any military rifle, such that the gasses would go out the ejection port? Big problem in a bullpup that ejects rounds near the face, lesser problem with rounds ejected down.
The P-90 uses bottom ejection to solve the face-smacking issue. As did the G11. This may work better with shorter rounds.
Bottom ejections is also possible with machineguns like the M240 and the M2 although feeding a bullpup from a belt would require ingenuity. It’s conceivable if an M2-like feeding system is used with the belt placed above the chamber and the round being pulled back before being fed in the chamber.
A fly-by-wire trigger would solve the mediocre trigger issue although electronics tend to be mistrusted in guns.
They are back-end heavy, which most people do not like, can’t be used by left-handers without major alterations, and the trigger pull is usually poor due to the often complex linkages and levers needed.
True – it also helps the P90 is a top-feeder, the mag is on top of the weapon, lying parallel to the barrel and the round makes a half-turn when feeding down.
Or you use a sideways-in mag like a Sten/Sterling, but then you have a perhaps even worse problem with right v. left handed use.
I’d think yes, mostly. Modern auto weapons made by legit factories and halfway well maintained should have a low rate of catastrophic failure unless you do something like keep firing after squib rounds, with one or more bullet stuck in the barrel, and that is less likely if you use decent factory ammo.
The back-end heaviness is supposed to be a major advantage, because most the weight of the rifle rests on the shoulder, rather than on the hands. This makes it much more stable and easy to carry when shooting on the move. I think the difference here is between civilian and military shooters: civilian shooters are more likely to be firing lying down or of a bench, and thus prefer that the rifle rest on their hands; military shooters are more likely to be shooting standing up and maneuvering, where a weapon that rests more firmly on their shoulder will have an advantage.
As for left-hand conversion, I understand the Tavor can be converted from right to left (and vice versa) in under a minute, with no tools. I’ve never fired one myself, so I can’t tell you about the trigger, bu again, precision shooting is less important when you’re firing on your feet. It’s not as if you’ll be getting your breathing right, anyway.
I will note that MkVII is British, and their experiences with the SA-80, might have soured him on the concept.
I believe the Austeyr can be reconfigured for left-hand use as well without too much trouble, but I’m not 100% sure on that.
One especially weird mechanical solution is in the Belgian FN F2000, which ejects spent cartridges forward through a tunnel in sets of five. And yes, it does look like it’s from a science fiction movie.
Yes, it would. If your goal is civilian sales in the US, you’d quite likely run into trouble with the BATFE. If the electronic trigger mechanism can be jiggered to make the gun fire more than a single shot with one action by the shooter, they will rule it a machine gun. Electronic triggers have been seen in the US on only a few guns…most of them single shots or bolt guns. I think Pardini might have briefly marketed a .22 short target pistol too.
It looks like the Johnny Seven One-man Army gun.