Ummm...next time try English,then again from the small amount of content from your post I can piece together we didn't miss much. You don't have a clue what you are talking about here.
Why Bullpups are SICKKKKK!
- Thread starter chrisward3
- Start date
Ummm...next time try English,then again from the small amount of content from your post I can piece together we didn't miss much. You don't have a clue what you are talking about here.
Clothing sure, what about body armor and webbing, what about the 5'2" guy or the female in the unit? Winter clothing and armor??
Same goes for adaptable systems for lefties. Adding more parts to the logistics chain only adds room for error. You break a lefty bolt and the unit armorer only has right hand bolts. Issued kit is all uniform for a reason.
At 300 yards are you going to expose yourself on the pretense that the enemy is only running 10.5" barrels and won't be able to hit you? No one will know the skill of the shooter, what length of barrel or weight/style of bullet is being fired at them. Again, I never said I would run a 10.5" or suggest running one as an all around length. There's many soldiers kicking doors with an M249 SAW. The length issue is moot when comparing a 14.5" carbine to the 20" bullpup.
A 10.5" barrel running the heavy and effective 77gr Mk262 round is pushing 2363 fps which is in the ball park of 123gr M43 7.62x39 which runs around 2329 fps from a 16" barrel. If we consider the M855 62gr FMJ being issued the velocity from a 10.5" gun is 2639fps. With the aid of an online ballistics program we see that the drop at 300 yards is as follows.
(both calculations were done with a 50 yard zero)
5.56 62gr 22.7 inches with 298 ft/lbs
7.62x39 123 gr 32.9 inches with 417 ft/lbs
I'm sure no one has ever made reliable shots at 300 yards with the 7.62x39 round.
With come ups, hold over, or adjustable sights shots to 300 are very doable with both calibres. in the configurations above.TDC
Israel is not mostly urban - there are lots of open ground in Golan height area and Negev as well. The adoption of Micro-Tavor is a lesson learnt after Operation Cast Lead, after they realize the shortcomings of M-Tavor.
You have to realize the IDF,including border police, is a conscript army - a motivated one but the bulk of the soldiers are late teenagers and young adults. Soldiers are not trained as dedicated "gunfighters". There is a difference between "gunfighting" and "infantry" operations" In my opinion, they are two different things. For a regular soldier - bullpup is probably a good solution for 85% of the time, which is a good enough justification for general issue depending on the thinking of your defence establishment.
A short rifle is good for running around and riding in vehicle - however, it doesn't automatically mean a rifle, that is easy to get around in urban terrain, is also ideal of close range gunfighting. you need to pick the tool for the job. In my mind, there is a difference between CQB and urban operations - CQB is just one of the things that can happen in an urban environment.
Also, bullpup has a long LOP for a reason - you cannot design a rifle with a stock too short- otherwise the magazine working space will interfere with the pistol grip. Also, there needs to be space for the bolt to retract and to house the trigger group.
You have to realize the IDF,including border police, is a conscript army - a motivated one but the bulk of the soldiers are late teenagers and young adults. Soldiers are not trained as dedicated "gunfighters". There is a difference between "gunfighting" and "infantry" operations" In my opinion, they are two different things. For a regular soldier - bullpup is probably a good solution for 85% of the time, which is a good enough justification for general issue depending on the thinking of your defence establishment.
A short rifle is good for running around and riding in vehicle - however, it doesn't automatically mean a rifle, that is easy to get around in urban terrain, is also ideal of close range gunfighting. you need to pick the tool for the job. In my mind, there is a difference between CQB and urban operations - CQB is just one of the things that can happen in an urban environment.
Also, bullpup has a long LOP for a reason - you cannot design a rifle with a stock too short- otherwise the magazine working space will interfere with the pistol grip. Also, there needs to be space for the bolt to retract and to house the trigger group.
Exactly. Take it one step further and its just one thing that one type of soldier can do in an entire army.
For line soldiers "picking the tool for the job" isn't all that practical especially when you don't know what exactly the job may be, the field is dynamic and you have to dynamically support troops in dynamic operations etc. The logistics of supplying troops with a variety of rifle options in all of that is much worse then ensuring your armorers have supply of a couple extra parts for the lefty dudes.
You have to choose the lowest common denominator and this is why I think a lot of military orgs are choosing bullpups. By my last count Israel has orders/licences for about a million Tavors, some of the countries buying them chose them over M16FOW options.
I do get it, soldiers in specialty units that can support choice will likely not use bullpups given the option, we're talking about the 5% though.
It is heavy but crisp enough, I've modded one to be well under half the factory weight.
The bullpup negatives are based on cheapo conversions of old rifles. You could eliminate all of these problems by proper design.
It is brutally difficult to sell people a rifle that wasn't designed 50 years ago.
It is brutally difficult to sell people a rifle that wasn't designed 50 years ago.
All this talk of bullpups having much longer LOP makes me happy. No more adding crap to the end of the stock for a proper fit
If you're not square to the target you're wrong. Stationary precision type shooting is irrelevant when discussing combat arms. A good buddy of mine is 6'5" and he runs his carbine one click from closed. The vast majority of shooters run their stocks too far out.
TDC
Very true, but if you compete in any sort of dynamic discipline, the same problem exists.
TDC
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Sounds like someone has been drinking the Gunfighter Kool-aid.
What about in the Defensive?
Being defensive doesn't mean you have to be stationary. Regardless, a stance that does not offer the ability to move is a handicap.
TDC
Farmer Harv
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Scratchnwin
So if I'm actually doing stationary precision type shooting* with a "combat arm", what would be relevant?
*Note this does not contain the words fight, competition, range, or anything to that effect, but may have reference to words like target, varmint, gopher or concepts like enjoyment or choice.
Why change your stance?? A squared stance works for all types of shooting from pistol to rifle to shotgun. I suppose you could use a bladed stance but the question is why?
TDC
The square fighting stance is a pure muscle move for a short sight picture window - I want to see anyone who can run 400m and do a square stance to fire at 100m. Like the rifle - use the appropriate tool for the application on hand. Speed vs precision. The more stable it is, the less mobile it beccomes.
