Hello
I’ve been seeing more of these bullpup type guns (clip behind the trigger) and i’m wondering what are the advantages of this configuration ? , all i can think of as an avantage would be longer barrel = +accuracy since the barrel goes into the stock .I’ve seen army videos and the soldiers have to hold them awkardly , anybody any ideas as to any real advantages of the bullpup gun configuration?
The main advantage is that you can have a much shorter weapon with a standard barrel length, which is nice for urban/close in areas, transport, etc. You can also have a longer than standard barrel, while still keeping a manageable overall length.
Disadvantages are that left handers have some pretty big problems with them, and that right handed shooters cannot carry/train them in a left handed fashion, which comes in handy during patrols. Another is that because of the short length, putting a bayonent on it is almost useless for hand to hand fighting.
Some orginizations that have Bullpups are considering replacing them with standard carbines. Cool weapons, but the disadvantages in a tactical environment outweigh the more convenient length.
The only real advantage is compactness. The Steyr AUG is known for outstanding accuracy but not because of a long barrel. Hammer forged Steyr barrels are legendary for accuracy and long service life.
They have a lot of disadvantages and have never gained a lot of popularity among folks who have a choice. Remember that soldies can only carry what they are issued. The short overall length puts muzzle blast closer to the shooter’s face making for more hearing loss when shooting unprotected. Bullpups are also not made to shot from either side in the field. If a lefty grabs a battefield pickup he’ll have to fire right handed. A righty also can’t shoot from the left shoulder which is handy when shooting around an obstical. The Steyr AUG can be converted to eject left for a left handed shooter but it’s an armorer switch that can’t be done in the field. An M-16 can be easily be shot from either shoulder.
My father was part of the team that evaluated the Styer AUG for US service. It failed miserably on Human Factors grounds. It caused soldiers to flinch when firing, and damaged hearing, by placing the chamber and muzzle too close to the ear. This in addition to the other factors already mentioned.
I had to jump in here. Blaming it on the lefties, definitely not cool. I fire the M-16 left-handed. I’ve got news for you, even with the built in brass deflector on the A2 model I still get hot shell casings in my face and down the shirt. The clip in brass deflector worked for the A1. However, it occasionally tossed brass back into the bolt and caused some really horrific jams. In short the current standard issue rifle is not user friendly in that regard.
To short for a bayonet? The three most effect hand to hand strikes with a rifle (the but stroke, smash and stab) have nothing to do with the rifles length. Besides using the ‘Mattel’-16 in hand to hand is a joke. I’ve broken hand guards getting out of a HMMV. You’re better off swinging it as a club.
Hearing damage may be an issue. However earplugs are standard issue. Beside the hearing filters on the helmets for the new “X-force” (or whatever they’re calling these days) are supposed to suppress that noise.
I think most of the arguments that the bull pup design was not user friendly are the conservative military establishment balking at a massive design change. Remember rifles have “always” had a stock and the world’s military establishments are some of the most conservative organizations around
Earplugs don’t get it. The AUG is harsh. Worse, earplugs interfere with command and control (adversely impacts intelligibility of orders), and are right out in combat. The man who designed the “fritz” helmet, and the hearing protection that is compatable with it, worked for my father. They tested exstensively, and it’s not only an ear-drum issue, it’s an impulse issue. Simply put, despite earplugs, hearing protection, or whatever, having that much sonic energy dumped into your head at that short a range wipes out your hearing in pretty short order. Fortunately, sonic energy dissapates quickly, and moving the action just a short distance away greatly reduces the damage.
As for lefties, if you’re having such a tough time with the M-16, imagine how tough it would be if the action was extracting next to your head, as is the case with the right-hand version of the AUG in the hands of a lefty.
As for conservatism, well, you’d have to know my father and the rest of the guys at DARPA/AMSAA/HEL. Conservative, my ass! These are the guys who went around scaring the brass out of the Army with their interesting solutions to various problems. If they failed something, it’s because it was unworkable or ill advised, not because it was new.
Tranquilis,
My apologies to everyone for the hijack, as this vears into IMHO territory, but I was wondering what your Dadquilis thinks about the Objective Individual Combat Weapon program? (Well, it is a bullpuppish looking thing)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/smartrifle010926.html
I did some work with ATK a couple years ago with a few of the people running the OICW program. Ergonomics has been an issue for years with it, and lefties cannot use it (something they were working on addressing at the time). I fired it myself a few times during some testing and it is about the most uncomfortable weapon I’ve ever felt. Get a 3 X 8 chunk of lumber, put a pistol grip and scope on it, and you’ll have an idea. The technology however, is awesome on the 20mm rounds and if it does get fielded, I think it will be for special units, as a squad weapon, or will be something for SWAT and the like. For an individual weapon, I don’t see it getting fielded for many years, if ever. The cost alone, about 12K each, not counting the cost of the ammo, is pretty bad. Personally, I loved the concept and the technocrap, but hated the weapon. I would not have wanted to carry it around.
He’s pretty jaundiced about it. It has some nifty ideas, but much of what it’s trying to do is “Technology-For-Technolgy’s-Sake”, and is currently unworkable in real-world combat, as the soldier has to think too much about his weapon, which means he’s spending too little time thinking about the enemy.
He’s not on that project any more, but it’s his old command that’s working on it, partly based upon his original team’s work. He was booted off that (and out of the agency) in part because of his insistance that weapons be simple, comfortable, and easy to fire. That didn’t sit well with some technocrats (many of whom like “Gee-Wiz” stuff), and dad can be pretty abrasive when he’s telling it like it is.
Properly suppressed, a bull-pup isn’t a disaster, but that suppression adds to the weight of the weapon, which is contrary to another of his major crusades: Reducing the weight a combat soldier has to carry.
And there’s still that nasty “lefty” issue.
All that said, there are (in his opinion) some important ideas in the OICW, and increasing the effective firepower of the individual soldier is a good thing (usually).
Currently, however, the OICW is one of those things that make Generals go “wow”, and grunts go “aw, @#$%&”.
Note that the rifle is not in bullpup configuration, only the grenade launcher. The whole mess looks pretty damnned awkward and not much shorter than an M4 carbine. The thing looks like a big fat abortion and it appears to be very uncomfortable to hold.
Tech is as tech does. I see no reason the 20mm grenade launcher could not be mounted underbarrel on existing M4 carbines with the new optical sight on a flattop upper. It would be longer but have better ergonomics for a fraction of the price.
I’m suprised there hasn’t been more use of electronic hearing protection in the military. They’ve been popular among civilian shooters and SWAT guys for years. I’ve been using Dillon HP1 protectors for over a year now and they are the best I’ve tried. Gunfire sounds like it’s on TV while speech sounds normal. Each earcup has it’s own external microphone so stereo hearing is maintaintained and maybe even enhanced a little. With the volume turned up I can hear sounds I couldn’t even under normal conditions.
Heh! Where d’ya think that technology was perfected? HEL at Aberdeen. They are used, but in infantry combat conditions, those hearing protectors turned out to be more of a pain than they were worth.
But, it does prove that with our superior manufacturing capabilities, determination, and hard work, the good old US of A can build a gun even uglier than the French can! It even makes an M-79 look sexy.
45ACP
(human equivalent of the OICW)
<massive hijack>
Don’t get me started about ugly guns… too late 
There was a time when gun design was as much art as science. Too bad we don’t have military weapons with the heart and sould of the Krag, Springfield and Garand. The 1911? One more example of how a brilliant design was replaced by one inferior in function and looks. My own 1911 is pretty tarted up with a beavertail safety and other doo-dads but it’s heart is the same as the one Sgt. York carried in the great war. Even the carbine versions of the M-16 have an okay look and good ergonimics. I’ve got a flattop M4 replica and the only thing I don’t like is when I get a beard hair stuck in the collapsable buttstock.