How do you feel about bullpups? Do you think they're an evolutionary dead end, a niche sidegrade, or the future of combat rifles we just haven't accepted yet?
Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
How do you feel about bullpups? Do you think they're an evolutionary dead end, a niche sidegrade, or the future of combat rifles we just haven't accepted yet?
I feel like they're good for PDW roles but as standard issue combat rifles, the OAL benefits are outweighed by ergonomic issues
They're awesome, but still relatively new by rifle standards in terms of development, and there is more tech coming down the pipe that will make them matter more and be better. Smart gun shift favors fewer bigger rounds and more velocity so longer barrels for regular combat, and for CQB bullpups are far, far more compact with the same performance. But it'll be years more before any of that starts maturing.
They're also expensive too. Doing really good triggers in them and overall setup seems to cost a bit more and they don't have the same economies of scale. You can get a very solid AR for $500-1k. All those bullpups (and the RDB/RFB) are a lot more.
They don't have any ergonomic issues, if anything they have better ergonomics. They do have a different manual of arms though and in turn don't work with muscle memory for people using standard pattern, which is indeed a real issue. If somehow we had to start from zero in 2023 it'd be a different story but existing training matters. Of course for civilians starting fresh they can pick one if they want.
>They don't have any ergonomic issues, if anything they have better ergonomics.
bud, come on, you can't even adjust your LOP which anyone who's shot with plates on can tell you is a biggie. you have used your rifle beyond a range setting where you were in a tshirt and jeans, right?
>adjust your LOP
>b-but it's already longe-
This kind of mechanism could help immensely with the LOP issue. Enough room for an adjustable stock. Someone just needs to build it.
I need one of these in 7mm Practical with like a 26" barrel and an integral bipod
It'd still be shorter than an M4 even with a can and could reach out and touch virtually anything you could lay eyes on
I dunno man
This still annoys me because what retard thought firing the fucking casing directly out the front without a side deflector was a good idea
>ackshually adjustable LOP is important because armor
unironically only manlets ever need to adjust LOP unless you're collapsing a stock for vehicle work
What is this cope? Bullpups have been around for decades. They always have the same fundamental problem: putting the mechanism right under the shooter's face is not ideal.
>They always have the same fundamental problem: putting the mechanism right under the shooter's face is not ideal.
That's not the problem with bullpups.
All major problems with bullpups will get solved eventually. Most already have, only a few remain.
>Bullpups have been around for decades
That's still very new compared to conventional rifles which have been around for hundreds of years. And bullpups recently are rapidly catching up to conventional in terms of features and ergos. Expect more bullpup success and innovation in the coming decades.
>conventional rifles which have been around for hundreds of years
The "rifle you slap a box mag in" has barely been around for 100 years, no country issued one as a service rifle until *AFTER* WW2
This is code for "I'm a fat retard".
i like em
This is the evolution of the Bullpup, this is what a modern Bullpup is.
I feel like if I typed "Toy Story in real life, but Woody's a lesbian" into an AI image generator I'd get Hop
How has this "dude" not been raped? It's certainly not because he carries or anything.
There was a vid where some dude shouted "let's go girl" and hop lost his shit. Girl wanted to punch dude so bad after that harassing comment
Consistently interested, and just an alternative. I love the idea of having more barrel in a smaller package, but that trade off is weird.
I think they're far superior to standard layout for CQB work. So for police forces and civilian home defense it's the better layout. With suppressors becoming more and more commonplace I think it'll take off as the dominant format to save length. Eventually we'll get it through our thick skulls most rounds do better with a longer barrel
so yeah bullups le goated
I want one but I'm concerned about the difficulty of clearing malfs.
That's only an issue on guns like the MDR and F2000 that have ambi-friendly ejection gimmicks. Guns like the AUG that eject normally are actually easier to clear malfs on than an AR since the charging handle is in a reasonable location and can be used to lock the bolt open with one hand instead of three.
They're a sidegrade. Depending on user preference and operational requirements they may be better or worse than a traditional rifle configuration.
Bullpups are the future
Unfortunately they are the far future and no company has yet to make a good one
Nothing has changed, why do you keep making this thread?
They're cool. I'll probably never buy one unless it's on clearance for like 50% off.
>that kids face when he WOOAAAHHs
Fucking gets me every time
I like bulpups on paper but none of the ones I've fired felt like it was worth buying my own
Have you tried an AUG?
No, all I've had a chance with were an RDB, Hellion, and a Tavor. Are any of those comparable?
IDK I've only shot an FS2000 and AUG, bullpupwise, but the AUG aroused my interest enough that I spent $1800 on one even though I already had a perfectly good AR
They are a sidegrade to your standard infantry combat rifle. they are not better, they are not worse, they simply are. more often than not bullpups are dropped/adopted by militaries for political reasons and not because of the utility they bring to the table vs conventional rifles.
1. it's all in the back
2. get fit nerd
>Manual of arms bad
everyone I've seen say this has either never used a bullpup and/or only uses AR's; ergo; skill issue.
it's a fucking infantry gun this doesn't need a match trigger (in fact I don't think you really should be using expensive triggers in the first place unless you're doing high-level comp shooting but that's neither here nor there)
It's a nicety, but it really isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be. consider that your grandfathers were clearing rooms in fr*nce, germany with 24 in. Garands, and that there is a non-zero chance that there are people here who have done cqb in Iraq with 20 in. M16's. if given the choice, they'd be crazy not to pick the shorter barrel but they still made it work regardless because in the grand scheme of warfare OAL is just that, a nicety.
the only remotely credible critique that I've seen anyone give of bullpups but it is not a deal breaker at all
I guaran-fucking-tee you we'd be having the exact opposite conversation if the AR-15 platform was built from the ground up as a bullpup.
t. X95 user
As a bullpup lover I don't entirely say "AR muscle memory = skill issue" would be my main disagreement, not like standard patterns don't still work, so if you've been using an AR for decades and are happy with it then no need to move. Built up skill and practice matters more than the platform. But for anyone else yeah, just train.
Other reasonable critique IMO is that I don't think we're quite at the point yet where one can just point at a bunch of bullpups and say
>yeah all these are great, all can do single moa or sub-moa, minor differences no real drawbacks
Also would like options like 300bo SBR. But in another 5 years I think the market will be there at the rate things are going.
Outs himself in his own "argument" cope.
This explains it
Who was it that just dropped AUGs? Liechtenstein or whatever? Australia and Israel will fall soon enough and adopt a real weapon like the rest of the world. There's no saving the Bongs tho.
Shitpups are on their way out and we'll all be better off when they do go.
>I guaran-fucking-tee you we'd be having the exact opposite conversation if the AR-15 platform was built from the ground up as a bullpup.
Your own cope headcanon isn't valid just because you're assblasted your garden gnome gun is your personality. Physics/reality doesn't change just because something is popular now. All non-memepup firearms would have to be bullpups and all bullpups would have to be conventional throughout history for your dumbass cope to even make sense.
Since when has Luxembourg been an indicator of fucking anything? You're talking about the same nation that adopted the FN49 and Ross rifles
Just another country that's dropping shitpups. Mald all you want, but the list grows every year.
>Shitpups are on their way out
I wouldn't be so sure. The past 20 years were one of relative peace and stability, with no peer threats. We didn't need to innovate. Many militaries stopped upgrading their weapons (why do you think many countries have the same rifles, main battle tanks and aircraft they did at Cold War's end?). Because of that, bullpups stopped being upgraded, hence many countries are now replacing their old weapons for ARs which have been upgraded.
But we're entering another cold war now. Great power competition is back, and soon countries will have to innovate like their mothers' life depends on it. In that environment bullpups will thrive, like they did last Cold War. Expect it in the coming decades.
Again, enough with this "muh Cold War 2.0" cope.
And to say bullpups haven't been upgraded is a flat-out lie. Looks at what the original Tavors were like compared to now, look at the EF88, the FAMAS even had G2 & Felin versions, How many iterations has the L85 gone through? China's QBZ's had an upgrade at some point even. The VHS-2 is a thing, there's plenty of civilian bullpups countries could adopt if they mattered so much to them like the MDR, but each and every time, countries will look for a new rifle, like New Zealand, have bullpups compete against conventional rifles, and end up choosing the conventional rifle. They've grown/wisened up since the 70's, everyone knows the superiority of conventional rifles, and is unlikely to adopt new bullpups, on their face.
Most modern rifles like the HK433, Bren 2, Grot, etc. etc. are all just AR18/ACR/SCAR hybrid things nowadays, and that'll likely be what you see going forward.
Most of those upgrades happened recently, the past 10 years. Before that, bullpups were barely touched. And the FAMAS G2 isn't much different from the original FAMAS, just minor changes.
The fact is, countries are getting rid of only old bullpups, AUGs and FAMASs that are barely different from post 1991. New bullpups are being made and are actually seeing more adoption now, (eg, X95, VHS-2, Malyuk) so the notion that "bullpups are going away" is a myth.
Plenty of time for them to have taken part in the competitions countries had to replace the old models, yet they didn't.
>G2 minor changes
Moving the goalposts? It's not like an URGI is that different from a Vietnam-era M16 in the grand scheme of things.
>Seeing more adoption
Compared to being dropped and passed over for conventional? Not by a long shot.
Not adopted, not even in major production.
Who are the new adoptees?
>Bullpups are going away
It's a fact.
>Heaps adopted the X95
Not more than the 716i, it's not their main weapon.
It's the adopting country that already has it in service. It's not a "new" adoptee, it's still not entirely replacing their AR's, etc. That's like saying the US is a "new" adoptee of the AR when they ordered URGI's. And besides, that starts getting too pedantic if we're gonna start talking about small orders, replacements, etc. As we could start talking about the L1129A1's the brits started adopting, their C8's their SF uses, the various French agencies that used 416's before the Army even adopted them, the Marines equipping everyone with 416's, the various Israeli SF and police that use AR's, etc. etc. Same as I wouldn't consider the one or two police agencies in the US that use AUG's or Tavors or whichever it was. Or how the SS uses P90's I guess.
>They are converting their own AKs into bullpups. This goes beyond "take what they can get". The bullpups are simply superior.
They simply are not or you'd see them more and it'd be a main focus, whereas that's clearly not the case. Why wouldn't they convert the M14's they received into bullpups? There's kits for them. What about all the Bren 2's you see? Or all of Zelensky's guards using AR's? What about their PKM's?
This is the worst non-"argument" I've heard yet.
>Plenty of time for them to have taken part in the competitions countries had to replace the old models, yet they didn't.
So? Not every rifle will feature on every evaluation. New bullpups have been evaluated and adopted recently, in other places.
>moving the goalposts?
What do you mean? Fact is, most bullpups have barely been changed since 1991, those are the ones being replaced right now.
>Compared to being dropped and passed over for conventional? Not by a long shot
While true for now, bullpup adoption has still accelerated recently.
>Who adopted the X95
An exhaustive list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor_X95#Users
>Ukraine simply is not converting
Actually they are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elu3KZKdBOc
Bullpups are more complex than traditional. Yet Ukraine is going out of its way to make or convert new ones. If it was just "take what they can get", then they'd try to maximise production by making simpler traditional rifles. But they're also making/converting bullpups too.
Oops, when I said "most bullpups haven't been changed" I forgot to add "until very recently". Recently there's been a small explosion of bullpups
>"bullpups aren't bad, they're just a sidegrade compared to convention and not worth it for a military"
>"FUCK YOUR SHITPUP INFERIORITY have a nice day gay"
Do morons really?
>FUCK YOUR SHITPUP INFERIORITY have a nice day gay
You really should tho
Let's do it together
I have anime to watch, sorry.
ARfags are seemingly the most insecure of gun owners
Sounds like bullpup cope. AR's live rent-free in all of your heads.
And yet, you don’t see autistic screeching about bullpups every time ARs are mentioned. Curious, huh?
Seems to come up in a lot of threads, actually.
I dare /bpg/ to have ONE thread where they don't compare their guns to AR's a SINGLE time. If a shitstirrer comes in and mentions it, that's fine, just ignore them.
Talk about shooting them, accessorizing them, whatever, but do it WITHOUT comparing it to any other conventional firearm.
>have one thread where you don't compare it to the default option even once
Even /akg/ can't pass that test, fuck off.
/akg/ doesn't count, they're as bad as or worse than /arg/. I posted my Meridian in there once and they shat on it for being a "hypebeast AK" and I overpaid and should've just gotten a Jack or whatever.
Anything similar on the aftermarket?
Manticore Arms cantilever handguard, ARID Dev. handguard
Oh shid, that Manticore one actually looks pretty cool! Didn't find much on the ARID though.
The ARID rail is forthcoming but it's based on user feedback so it'll retain the barrel QD if that matters to you.
Meridian is a hypebeast AK. Even their most basic build is $1900 and has a 10-month lead time, and they only get closer to $FN SCAR from there for a literally-whom boutique AK shop—even if you think spending that kind of money on a artisan Romanian parts kit build is reasonable, you could've gotten a Rifle Dynamics gun for that money—yeah, Jim Fuller has moved on to other projects, but most of the guys at RD were trained by him, so there's *something* there to justify the price point, arguably
I'm satisfied with my Meridian product.
>1.5yrs and $2.5k later
you might find something useable on the Airshit market
I was originally on the fence about the bullpup pill, but after going for it I genuinely think they're incredible. Very intuitive, good ergos, aftermarket triggers fix all the issues, it's code of arms isn't as difficult or strenuous as people claim but if you've drilled nothing but an AR15 then you'll need to reprogram.
How is that safety-wise with no triggerguard. Is it possible to go to pick the gun up, trigger finger extended, and still fire the gun accidentally with your middle finger?
even if your hand slid up the grip it'd go behind the trigger
Tavor anon here.
If I'm interpreting this right, I grab the gun with either a full grip fingers behind the trigger and as I shoulder I stage finger on trigger or if I'm just picking it off a table I grab the center of the gun where the holes are.
Tavor is original, made in 2003 the Israelis focused on ergonomics first in order to have a rifle that anyone conscripted could use.
Also the Jericho is a Tanfoglio/CZ75 clone not a hi-power, but the CZ was influenced by the Hi-power.
>T. Jericho owner as well
>Israelis focused on ergonomics first in order to have a rifle that anyone conscripted could use.
>Dies of gassing (ironically) if you use a can
>6 MOA using ball ammo
>Still not as ergonomic as an AR that nearly everyone in America knows how to use, and hasn't been hard to train sub-90 IQ city morons on since the 60's
>Still less accurate than clapped-out 70's-era M16's
Gee, way to go garden gnomes.
Accuracy could be fixed with a better bolt and barrel but they're just too cheap
I've heard you can take the handguard retainer thing off and it helps too, but it's still embarrassing.
Is the Israeli Tavor an original design or did they copy another gun?
I know the Jericho 941 is a Browning High Power clone.
It's an original design, a weird gun too since the original SAR was first developed with the general shape first then the engineers figured out how to cram the mechanics in there.
based. Tavor isnt bad at all.
I recommend a super sabra for the trigger pack. Lightning bow or any trigger that has more bite will help the shooting experience too. Would be nice if they came with ambidextrous safeties too. Those are the only things I'm changing as it's not meant for anything beyond 300 meters.
They are the future but we need an actual peer war for ita advantages to be relised and put to productionen masse so never going to happen.
To add to this, ukrainians were making bullpup AKs in prep of their peer war. Now they'll take anything but why would they bother before if it wasn't better?
Fortunately I don't think we'll need an actual peer war for the change to bullpups. Just a cold war will be enough. Bullpups made their first major appearance during the previous Cold War, after all.
What's this "muh Cold War" cope here? You all sound like boomers with "it's just a fad, they're cyclical! Phonographs are making a comeback! VHS is better than DVD!".
Fact of the matter is, NATO is more integrated than they've ever been (like they want/by design) and have learned from the past, so they'd focus more on logistics than any niche snowflake alleged "advantages" bullpups (fail to) offer, and since everyone under the sun is adopting 416's, and/or has M4's/etc inventoried, they'd be insane to push new shitpups.
The whole raison d'etre of bullpups is going away too. With these new uberpressure hybrid rounds, you can get ballistics that match/exceed longer barrels in a shorter package, negating the need to hamstring yourself with a shitty bullpup design.
Actually, the whole reason for being of bullpups is to NOT be AR's. Shitpuppers can never stop bringing them up, it lives rent free in all their heads. That shows you just how much of a cope choice they are.
You think we will emerge from this new cold war with the same weapons we started with? The new cold war will drive innovation like we haven't seen in the last 30 years. Even if NATO is more standardised than ever, we will still innovate. And peer conflict has a way of forcing change even if it's unfamiliar. This has already happened with bullpups before, it will happen again.
>with these new uberpressure rounds
Which come with their own major downsides of higher recoil and stronger materials needed. A longer barrel will still be an advantage, as you can either get more power for the same pressure, or the same power for less pressure (thus less recoil). This will be more useful as body armor improves.
>You think we will emerge from this new cold war with the same weapons we started with?
Without a crystal ball and being as stuck up my ass as you are, I can't predict the future, they might, they might not. You seem to be under the impression the Cold War had just unbound "innovation", even though we stuck with the M16 family throughout all of it, and even the AUG's/L85's/etc. for that matter. How long did Abrams, F16's, F15's, Apaches, B-52's, etc. serve too, by the way?
If anything, I'd wager, as I said, it'd be either something along the lines of the Bren 2's, SCAR's, HK433's, or so on, MAYBE a magnum caliber like the XM7 if that actually becomes more of a thing. I highly highly doubt it'll be bullpups though.
You provide no reasoning as to why they MIGHT go with bullpups other than your own personal preference and well-wishing.
Recoil mitigation features, like SIG's original NGSW patent had for example will just become more important.
Not a downside. Even extant firearms would benefit from this.
>Longer barrel advantage
No, it won't. This isn't some schoolyard argument where "nuh uh! More is better always!" is an argument. Pressure curves, friction, etc. aren't magic, like acting like a 60" barrel on an AR15 is going to be breaking lightspeed compared to a 20". Interestingly, if you read some papers on tank cannons, just pushing the same projectiles faster doesn't make them better, and it basically requires either a longer or a larger diameter rod to increase penetration. By the time we get to THAT point, after this whole supermagnum thing, I feel we'd be better served trying to flesh out flechettes more, or larger rounds with explosive properties. Not even meaning exoskeletons toting Mk.19's, just maybe an ubermagnum .375 filled with some advanced explosive or shaped charge or something instead of just trying to reinvent the wheel with advanced jacketed penetrator designs or such, like an evolved EPR.
It's because history has already shown it. Bullpups became common during the Cold War, and another cold war will likely trigger the same scenario. Also, countries at war (eg. Iraq, Ukraine) have shown they're more likely to adopt or make more bullpups, even if it means cutting through their conventional stock, implying bullpups are superior.
>recoil mitigation technologies
when combined with a long barrel (bullpup) and thus lower pressure, would be even more beneficial.
>Stronger materials not a downside
Debatable. These materials might cost more. And even if they became common, bullpups would still have the advantage, as having lower pressure for the same power means they'll last longer. Ergo easier to maintain.
>Pressure curves aren't magic
But a 18-20'' barrel provides significant power increase compared to 13'' one. Especially with slower burning propellant.
Have you noticed that the MBT cannons have been growing longer since their beginning, as caliber also increased? We're pushing 6.63m now with the 130mm Rh-130. So while it's true that higher energies need bigger rounds, history shows that, as armor improves, rounds get heavier while energy gets higher, and barrels inch ever longer.
You're like a broken record.
There's only been one, "history" hasn't shown a thing. It's been the ONLY time in history bullpups were adopted, there's no precedent, you're just well-wishing and hoping.
You keep bringing this up, but again, they're not adopting bullpups by and large.
>Cutting through traditional stock
Which they haven't done, btw.
Again, a higher pressure round is the way forward, all else being equal, a 80kpsi round is going to perform better out of both 12" and 20" barrels than a 55kpsi round is even out of a 32" barrel. Bullpups also have more recoil in general do to their layout, so you're fighting there as well.
It's literally not. France has some special barrel material for their 416F's that's even stronger than the German stuff, meaning they last longer, and it's cost is so comparable to normal steel, that the savings in replacements more than pay for it. It's a straight upgrade. Like saying MG barrels shouldn't use Stellite.
Again, see above.
>You're like a broken record
Because you keep ignoring important history, so I have to bring it up. How can we understand bullpup trends, without understanding the factors that lead to their adoption?
>It's been the ONLY time in history bullpups were adopted,
And yet, it was the time that made bullpup adoption possible. So it's reasonable to think another similar conflict will bring about similar advancement.
>Ukraine aren't adopting bullpups by and large.
Just because bullpups aren't a majority of their weapons doesn't mean they haven't been adopted. Or else the US didn't adopt the SCAR.
>Higher pressure round is the way forward
What I meant to say was, for the same muzzle energy, the bullpup would have lower recoil and pressures needed. But yes, higher pressures compared to today will be the way.
But even so, Like I mentioned with tank cannons on another post, higher pressures, heavier rounds and longer barrels have gone hand-in-hand. If body armor keeps improving, the same will happen with rifles. In that scenario bullpups will have the advantage
>Bullpups also have more recoil in general do to their layout
That's really debatable, there are a range of differing opinions on that, including on this forum. On one hand the rearwards weight might enhance muzzle flip. But on the other, the closer action means reduced torque.
>Special materials are a straight upgrade
Even if that's true, again, a rifle that relies on both higher pressures and longer barrel, will last longer than a rifle that uses higher pressures alone to achieve the same performance.
>Because you keep ignoring important history, so I have to bring it up. How can we understand bullpup trends, without understanding the factors that lead to their adoption?
I'm not ignoring it, you're the one that's bringing up non-related and non-trending data and acting as if it's gospel. A single number a set of data does not make.
And yet nothing, see above. What about afterwards? When they're all going away faster than being replaced? Does that mean they'll end up being shit and in hindsight should've not been adopted, like we see nowadays? See? It's not even an argument.
It literally does mean that. The SCAR *WASN'T* adopted. It's a personal preference for the Ukie's, just like the airsoft-tier UltraDot Pan AV's you can see on some of those pictures in the video. Otherwise, the preference of the vast majority seem to be NOT having a bullpup.
Except, again, that's not how it works or what I'm getting at, but putting that aside, you also lose weight with a shorter barrel without sacrificing usability with something P90-sized in regards to mounting things to it or bracing it off cover, or literally anything you'd do with a combat rifle instead of an orc-design overcompensating "PDW", for example. If we wanted to just go off "better" and "worse", bullpups lose on weight. Does barrel length offset that? No, it doesn't. Probably why the XM7 isn't 16" and why it's main critic right now is weight. According to Hogdon, a 7mm-08 Remington, loaded with a 140-grain pill is getting 100fps LESS than the .277 Fury out of a barrel 11 inches LONGER. It's not a 1:1 thing, and you really should stop thinking of it as such.
Re-read what I wrote. They haven't substantially increased in length. The caliber rating per diameter is similar, and things like the XM360 are shorter by comparison with similar performance.
To be honest man, I agree with you, I've never really been super recoil sensitive, but I've heard it said enough, I'm just gonna go with it.
>Longer barrel lasts longer higher pressure
Not true at all. Muzzle erosion and throat erosion are where most wear takes place, it has nothing to do with length. The pressures being similar are more of a factor than length, like comparing 6.5 Sneedmoor to 6.5 Arisaka. And again, the "lower pressure" argument makes no sense in the context of "more is always better" from shitpuppers, considering the above.
>Muzzle erosion and throat erosion are where most wear takes place, pressures being similar are more of a factor than length
But a longer barrel allows the use of lower pressure compared to the shorter barrel for the same muzzle energy.
Look. I get it that higher pressures are the future. But increasing pressure alone means you will need even more pressure than if you increased both pressure and barrel length, to achieve the same muzzle velocity. I'm saying that, by increasing barrel length, you won't have to increase pressure as much, hence, the barrel will last longer.
Increasing both pressure AND barrel length will make for more reliability than focusing on pressure for the required velocities.
>But a longer barrel allows the use of lower pressure compared to the shorter barrel for the same muzzle energy.
How many times do I have to keep going over this? That's not at all how it works. You don't magically just get the same energy by increasing the barrel. A barrel nearly twice as long in 7mm-08 doesn't even produce the same energies as .277 Fury does in a nearly half as short barrel when loaded to with similar projectiles. Hogden has 140gr pills from the '08 in the 2800fps ballpark from a 24" tube, whereas you can find verified chronographing of an actual SIG SPEAR getting ~2950 with the same bullet weight in a 13" barrel. You're not just magically going to increase the length until it works. As if you can just lengthen a 5.56 gun's barrel until it has the same muzzle energy as a .50BMG.
To your next "point", if the "lower pressure" stuff is good at, let's just say 20" barrels, and the "higher pressure" stuff can do all that (and more) in a barrel that's 8" shorter, that doesn't suddenly make it "bad" somehow just because if you increased the "higher pressure" rounds' barrels to be 20". And, as I keep fucking saying, just increasing the barrel isn't going to keep increasing the velocity/energy exponentially like you seem to think. Some rounds, their pressure curves, and so on are specifically made to work in certain lengths. .300BLK is a good example, but a more personal example would be XM193I from Independance. I can get ~3200fps from a 16" barrel, so I thought it'd be breaking space-time if I went up to 20", but it barely gained 100fps for 4" of barrel. The SD was pretty bad at ~32fps IIRC, so it's almost within the realm of not mattering.
Not a magic word. If the XM7 (for example) can pass all the requirements set for it just as well as an M4 could, neither is any more or less "reliable", they're as "reliable" as dictated. You add a stellite barrel or something crazy to the M4, and sure, but that's not because of the XM7 sucking
You're comparing apples to oranges. Use a more similar round, like the 6.8 TVC. It can achieve the same velocity at 60kpsi from a 19'' barrel.
I know there are diminishing returns to barrel length. I never said otherwise. But, using comparable rounds, it's true that lengthening the barrel a little will allow lower pressures to achieve the same result, which will increase reliability.
>Some rounds, their pressure curves, and so on are specifically made to work in certain lengths
I am aware. But rounds optimised for a short barrel require higher pressures than rounds optimised for a longer barrel, for the same muzzle energy. Therefore, to achieve similar velocities, the shorter barrel still risks wearing faster than the longer barrel.
>Apples to Oranges
No, I'm not. You're talking lower pressure, and it's a lower pressure than .277 Fury while being a very similar form factor. It's not made out of crazy proprietary materials that you hate, it doesn't have a crazy amount more case volume, none of that. 7mm-08 is also rated @ 60kpsi, in case you didn't know. Weird how it's taking 5" more barrel with a 5 grain heavier bullet to accelerate to speeds SLOWER than a supposedly lower-pressure round, hmm? Maybe there's more to it than barrel length, and that anything that's causing that could ALSO be applied to shorter barrels (as it is in the case of TVCM vs 7mm-08 here.)
The only data I've seen on TV's ammo is a 135gr @ 3kps. That's pathetic considering SIG is getting a heavier bullet as fast from a 6" shorter barrel, and has the SAME load rated 200fps faster from a 3" shorter barrel still. That's like saying 6.5 Creedmoor is God's gift because it's faster than the worst bullet you can fit into a Grendel case.
Give me any shred of evidence saying the RM277 and it's TV ammo is any more reliable than the XM7. You just keep throwing that word out there like it's some agreed upon wisdom, which is clearly horseshit.
>Short barrels, muh pressures
.300BLK is a lower pressure round than 5.56. XM193I is (supposedly) within SAAMI spec.
>Maybe there's more to it than barrel length
I never said barrel length was the only thing that matters. Just that it does matter, and shouldn't be discounted.
>The only data I've seen on TV's ammo is a 135gr @ 3kps
That's only the commercial TVC ammo. The RM277 using military grade TVCM supposedly has similar performance to the XM7.
>Give me any shred of evidence saying the RM277 and it's TV ammo is any more reliable than the XM7
The rifles use different barrel material. Assuming same barrel material, a lower pressure wears the barrel less than higher pressure. That's just common sense.
>.300 BLK is lower pressure
And has larger caliber. With caliber being equal, for a shorter barrel you need higher pressures to achieve the same muzzle energy from a longer barrel.
>I never said barrel length was the only thing that matters. Just that it does matter, and shouldn't be discounted.
I can SORT OF agree here. Does it matter? Yes. Does it matter MORE than other aspects? Definitely not most of the time, especially nowadays.
Hence, my original point about the bullpups' raison d'etre, being less relevant than ever.
Source? Not even shitting on you, I'm genuinely curious. I heard LMT was going to offer rifles in that caliber, and as much as I hate bullpups, I'd like to own an RM277 if they ever release, and unironically think it's likely a better rifle than Ronnie Cohen's goyfunder 6000.
You're specifically building up the RM277 and discounting the XM7. If they're both designed and built to do X amount of rounds, and both pass, they're equally reliable. Just because you COULD make one with an inferior barrel, doesn't mean it itself is inferior. The modern materials, according not to just SIG, but France and HK, are equivalently priced, longer-lasting (lower lifetime costs thusly), and not much harder to work than current stuff. There is literally no downside I can think of. ALL barrels should be made of this new stuff going forward if feasible/popular/etc. Should be sold to the public to turn our own barrels. KAC should put it in their SR15's, I should be able to rebarrel an SFAR for .277 Fury, etc.
That wasn't your point though, was it? And it's not even true. What's the muzzle energy of a .300BLK from an 8" barrel compared to 5.56 from an 11.5" barrel? Don't use retarded loadings either, no 79 grain meme BLK rounds, no 88 grain VLD's stuffed into a 5.56 case, etc. etc.
And I said before, even if BL doesn't matter as much as other factors, it still matters enough that barrel lengths of every weapon system that has to deal with armor have been inching longer.
The NGSW specs require all rifles could pen lvl. 4 body armor at 400m, so all rifles should have comparable performance. Many commentators who've covered NGSW have stated they have similar performance I think.
>RM277 and XM7 are equally reliable
Never denied this, just said that they have different barrel materials. But those same materials the XM7 uses, would last longer on a lower pressure platform.
>There is literally no downside I can think of. ALL barrels should be made of this new stuff going forward if feasible/popular/etc.
And higher-pressure barrels will wear out faster than lower pressure ones using the same material.
>That wasn't your point though, was it?
My point was that a longer barrel could use lower pressure for the same muzzle energy, assuming all else being equal. Obviously caliber changes things. But if caliber is constant, then my point stands.
Except, as I keep telling you, they HAVEN'T been inching longer. No modern rifle has had a barrel longer than 16-20", whereas 22"+ used to be common, no tank has had a cannon longer than L/56, not even since the 70's when the 140's were being considered.
Damn, I thought it was some sort of paper, that sucks. I don't really believe the body armor aspect that much anyways, even with the ubermagnum rounds, if they're not using some advanced penetrator (NOT TUNGSTEN), I'm really keen on seeing actual proof they can pen VPAM12 or whatever out to those distances.
Heat flux and other factors can determine longevity, and the lower pressure rounds aren't comparable in performance anyhow, as SIG is telling us the barrel life exceeds current standards, whereas something like 300RUM has shorter barrel life and is lower pressure.
Not true, science is more complex than yes/no.
>Same muzzle energy
Except it doesn't stand. You're not getting the same energy without sacrificing something else. It'll either be horrendously overbore, not generate the same velocities/energies, be heavier, etc. I can stick a .30-06 in a 26" barrel, push some hot loads, and still have less erosion than .300RUM loads similarly loaded in a similar barrel due to other factors like I said such as heat flux, overbore/throat erosion, etc.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and can't even keep track of your "arguments". Just buy saying "slower burning propellants" outs you as a retard that can't keep up with the conversation.
Let's simplify this. Using a conventional round, .300BLK, how much velocity in a modern loading would you say it gains going from a 12" barrel, to an 18"? What about a 14.5" barrel to an 18"?
Now, let's say the 18" are "substantially" higher (hundreds of fps), you go to the high-pressure rounds, and now you get all those hundreds of fps back that you're so keen on, but, now you say, "Well, we could g-get m-more!", which is classic moving the goalposts. Here, you could keep the shorter barrel and not be saddled with a POS bullpup and have great terminal performance. And, since SIG even said their ammo can go much higher than 80kpsi, there's room for improvement. At that point though, what do you really envision people doing with these rifles that they're going to be toting the equivalent to an anti-tank rifle around? Taking potshots at each other 4km away? Trying to clear a house with a round that'll zip through three buildings? You just keep saying "more more more!" without thinking of any other factors, and it really shows your lack of depth of understanding.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say? It proves my point. Bigger/Longer rounds are needed for armor penetration, not just increased velocities, yes. The cannon lengths are adjusted as well, with things like the XM360 not being as long as a 130mm even though exhibiting almost equivalent energies, and countries foregoing 140/150mm's for the advanced 120's and 130's. If we were only after length, we'd see 120mm's like the Chinks have that are nearly twice as long as is common, but it's more of a balancing act, hence, like bullpups, fails when it comes to trying to compare barrel lengths to high pressure rounds, when the higher pressures can do so much more than just a few extra inches/feet to a barrel. An L/44 vs L/55 is like comparing a 14.5" to a 20", whereas the XM360 is like if a 12.5" is getting the results of a 20". Hence, probably why the army is looking at .277 instead of a 6mm ARC supercharged round, like Rheinmetall is looking at 130mm over a crazy-long 120mm like the Chinks supposedly tried.
Dude, the point is, even despite caliber/pressure increases, barrel lengths have still gotten longer. So caliber and pressure alone wasn't enough. The 130mm is still a tiny bit longer than the 120mm L/55. What Sig is trying to do, relying on pressure and caliber alone, while even shortening the barrel, is unsustainable in the long run.
Hey, if the XM360 can get ETC technology to work, then great, but so far the trend is towards larger bore and longer barrels. For now, XM360 does not have same performance as Rh-130.
No, they haven't. Length of cannons are a function of their caliber. Hence "L/55" meaning it's 55 calibers the length of it's bore. The Rh-130 is only a 52 caliber gun. It's a function of it's bore, not it's length, and this is what you get for conflating small arms and cannons, stuck in your biased bullpup worldview, acting as if everything has to conform to your beliefs.
For only being a "tiny bit longer", it shows my point that pressures/diameter are vastly more important.
For sustainability, again, they said it can go up to 120kpsi. Even then, a 16" barrel isn't going to hurt, we've been using M4's and 416's for decades just fine. After that, as I said, flechettes or chemical energy rounds (meaning explosives et al) are a safer bet by my read, rather than just trying to stick with the same old same old but trying to push and push. Until we have rail guns or whatever I guess.
Great way to handwaive something that entirely counters your non-"argument", by the way.
I know what L means. The Rh-120 L/55 is 6.6m long. The Rh-130 L/51 is actually slightly longer at 6.63m. Yes, pressure and caliber are more important than barrel length, but them along is still not enough. Barrel length is still inching longer, not shorter like what Sig is trying to do.
>Great way to handwave on the XM360
Then tell me, why isn't ETC tech being pursued with more effort? Why are nations instead focusing on higher bore and long barrels? And even when ETC was being pursued, it was in conjunction with even larger, longer 140mm guns. ETC is a far fetched goal, and won't necessarily reverse the caliber and barrel trends. Same with other speculative techs, like flechettes and CE rounds.
>I know what L means
You clearly don't, unless it means Lose, which is what you clearly excel at.
You have the answer in front of you, but your bias keeps trying to insert itself and make you cope into thinking that it plays any significant part compared to the other two. You're trying to frame it in an extremist proposition as if the answer is either micro barrels or pikes. The length of the barrel is a function of the bore diameter, and yet is infinitesimally, fractionally "longer" than the smaller bores and you take it to mean your point is proven, when it's not. Is a 20" AR15 the same length as a 20" AR10? No, because the rest of the system adds or subtracts size, and if they were SO concerned, they'd make the gun an L/55 or L/60, but they didn't, because it doesn't matter near as much as you want to believe. The sizes are either similar, or smaller, they are not "inching" anywhere.
It's being worked on, what do you expect? Multi-trillion dollar investment for a future tech they likely aren't going to add to any new vehicles in the near term? If they NEEDED it NOW, which they feel they don't, they'd accelerate it.
Again, they're NOT focusing on longer barrels, not in tank guns, and not in rifles.
130mm guns are comparable, L/55 120's are good for now, with America still just advanced their penetrator/propellant designs, no-one is adopting longer barrels on rifles, with most being 16" or below, not the 20" bullpupfags keep trying to say is the only length that makes 5.56 matters. As a matter of fact, France is ordering MORE 11.5's than 16.5's, so clearly they don't see the value in the longer barrels anyways, not to mention the US and it's XM7 debacle.
>You clearly don't
L is the length of the barrel in terms of caliber. L/55 is 55 calibers long, 120x55mm = 6.6m. Easy.
Even if barrel length doesn't matter as much as pressure and caliber, it still does matter, or else the Rh-130 would be shorter than it is. Yet it is still longer than existing NATO barrels. Same as the 140mm ASCALON, at 51-52 calibers (7.14-7.28m) Face it, barrels are still getting longer.
>It's being worked on
Yet not enough to reverse the trend of caliber and barrel length.
>rifle barrels not longer
When body armor and near peer threats become common, expect barrels to get longer like tank guns have. The need to defeat armor will be a huge factor.
>Yet it is still longer than existing NATO barrels
By two decimal places if we're just measuring length, and NOT THE FUCKING MEASUREMENT FUNCTION THEY'RE MADE TO. A 130mm L/55 might be "longer" than a 120mm L/55 if you're measuring it physically, but the SPEC IS THE EXACT FUCKING SAME.
The 130mm could well be MUCH longer IF THEY FELT IT WAS NECESSARY, BUT STRANGELY ENOUGH, THEY KEPT IT WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL DIMENSIONS OF THE SMALLER GUN! WOW! Get this through your dumb fucking head, Christ.
>Not to reverse
Except it does? Their goals are for a gun in similar size the existing 120's with most of the capability of 130's. Technology isn't going to sit still just to cater to your fetish for long cylinders. You won't accept/face that an XM360 that achieves it goals would be directly counter to your dumbass worldview.
For the millionth time, it doesn't matter. Pure speed isn't the main problem anymore, and can be increased with higher pressure rounds, the design of the penetrators is what matters now. You don't need a 40" long barrel to accelerate a flechette to 4kfps, especially nowadays, and breaking the 4-5kfps line is going to take more than just long barrels. Either an explosive round, or ceramic/other-ultrahard/ultrastiff cored projectile is where things are headed, if not advanced flechettes, that, again, could already make 4kfps+ in standard-length barrels in the 60's, made out of new alloys or materials.
Also, body armor only covers so much, more explosives/heavy weaponry at the squad level is a better bet, if not just shooting at the exposed areas with current weapons. In "CQB", it doesn't matter. M993 can already go through most Level 4, AP4 is supposed to replace it and even then is only a heavier penetrator design, nothing fancy or new. Supposedly the ICSR program had .308 and 5.56 rounds that could penetrate advanced armors, your fascination with velocity shows how one-dimensional you are.
Dude, L/X is a relative length w.r.t. caliber. Even if the "spec" of L51 is smaller number than L55, the actual length of the Rh-130 is still longer.
>THEY KEPT IT WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL DIMENSIONS OF THE SMALLER GUN!
And yet, it is still larger, and slightly longer, even if not by much.
>Except it does? Their goals are for a gun in similar size the existing 120's with most of the capability of 130's
Historically, ETC research has gone hand-in-hand with bigger, longer guns, so it's more likely ETC will complement future large guns instead of replacing them.
Despite decades of research into alternatives to kinetic energy projectiles, bottom line is, KEPs and larger and larger guns are still the best way to defeat armor. Tank guns, autocannons, now even small arms are going the way of more and more kinetic energy.
>the design of the penetrators is what matters now
The techs you've mentioned are all far more speculative than bullpups are. And even if those techs do pan out, it's not like new armor-piercing warheads have removed the need for bigger and longer barrels in any role where armor was a threat (eg. tank guns, autocannons). Barrel length and caliber will keep increasing as long as it's practical to do so.
You're clearly trolling at this point. They don't order a cannon and say it's going to be however many inches long, they say it's going to be however many CALIBERS. They literally do not care about length compared to other cannons in that regard. It is entirely dependent on the caliber. If they wanted it to be longer, because that matters so much to you, why did they not order it in the L/55 "length"? Why did they go L/52? You trying to split hairs isn't helping your case. Tank cannons aren't getting "longer", you even say it's so slight, it might as well not even be a factor. If they were getting longer, they'd of ordered an L/58 or L/60, or hell, even an L/70, but they didn't. Moreso than length, weight and recoiling mass is probably more a consideration behind projectile performance. If we compared calibers irrespective of length like you want, how much longer/shorter was the XM291 compared to the 140mm's at the time? Surely it's all comparable, right? Retard.
Historically not. XM291 and XM360 are both geared at making the smaller caliber comparable to the bigger ones, not just to make the huge calibers that much more overkill.
Not even remotely true. As I said, you just don't take everything and make it faster, that's never been the case. Penetrator DESIGN is more a factor, like you see with the US' M829 series, how HEAT entirely changed the paradigm of armor DESIGN, (partially) why flechettes didn't take off as much (though I feel that can be remedied with more modern methods, but maybe we'll have a small arms version of solid shot to capped projectiles to on and on), and so on. There's so many more factors you simply refuse to acknowledge because you're stuck in your own worldview centered around your fetish for bullpups.
As a matter of fact, read this, and tell me exactly how many times they mention increasing velocity over more novel penetrator designs.
>As a matter of fact, read this, and tell me exactly how many times they mention increasing velocity over more novel penetrator designs.
making increasingly refined penetrators instead of just increasing velocity is exactly the sort of behavior I'd expect from someone with an unjustifiable fetish for conventionally laid out rifles, like someone who comes up with all sorts of justifications for how a Gundam or Metal Gear might be reasonable under some extenuating circumstance while deliberately ignoring how any technology that might make a bipedal tank practical would apply to normal tanks just as much
If you'd actually read the goddamn paper, they specifically mention why just increasing velocity doesn't cut it, you fucking retard.
My bad; I didn't realize that was part of the tank chat that's happening in the bullpup thread for some reason. Carry on.
Ah yes, rule #??:
>STRINGENT DISCUSSION IN GENERALS
Heaven forbid we talk about anything that's not Ukraine or China on PrepHole and have discussion about literally anything else.
Consider Japanese/French-sounding board game my friend.
My point is that actual length, not L/X is increasing. Even you acknowledged it.
ETCs were being developed alongside 140mm cannons. One can see ETC complementing future 130-140mm cannons as well as 120mm.
>As I said, you just don't take everything and make it faster, that's never been the case
I'm talking mostly about muzzle energy, not velocity. Muzzle energy has been increasing for weapons that have to deal with armor.
Penetrator design may be the most important, but still, that hasn't stopped the trend towards more and more kinetic/muzzle energy, or else we wouldn't be developing the Rh-130, ASCALON, or 50mm XM913.
>You're even going to hit a wall, as denoted in that paper, where just increasing the velocity isn't going to do much
Again, I'm not talking about pure velocity. Muzzle energy will keep increasing.
>Rifles have only gotten shorter
Because near peer body armor isn't a threat yet
>tank guns have stabilised
No, they're pushing 7 meters now
Have largely been replaced by missiles, the only area (besides air defense) where missiles have outpaced guns. They are a unique case.
>My point is that actual length, not L/X is increasing. Even you acknowledged it.
Where did I acknowledge it? My whole point is that L/X isn't increasing, the complete opposite of what you're saying.
They've mainly been geared towards increasing the smaller bore's capabilities, but will they be used in the future for larger calibers? I'd personally say so. I don't know if it'll be "exponential", with something crazy like an MBT having a 175mm ETC gun, but I could see it being used for something like a "future SLRC" like the US was looking at (tube artillery hitting >1k miles), maybe on shipboard guns as well. That's more about range then kinetic energy at the target though.
Sure, but barrel length has little to do with that. With existing tech (SIG case), you could make a .375 Raptor do 2700fps+ out of a 12.5" barrel probablymaybe, no-one is calling for a 24" barrel to do that, let alone looking at energy/velocity-independent rounds, sort of like what HEAT rounds did in the 60's for tanks, but small arms of course mesh well with velocity, since lobbing .45ACP at someone 300 yards away isn't ideal, but with current tech, the SIG cases and VLD-style bullets, having >16" barrels makes little sense, even if we're talking flechettes.
>Muzzle energy again
Again, independent of long barrels. The velocity band is already there. You're even saying the energy itself is more important than some arbitrary velocity figure, meaning the barrels increasing in length is dubious. The XM913 specifically, to my knowledge, is actually meant for payload than energy. Higher bursting charge with better electronics for counter-drone, counter-defilade type stuff, rather than penetrative qualities against armor. IFV's have rarely been spec'd to deal with MBT's, and very very few APC's/IFV's aside from MAYBE Namer, and only from the front, would even hope to stand a chance against the current 30-40mm autocannon lineups. And, if they do, Javelin exists.
>When did I acknowledge it?
Apologies on my part, I misread something.
>My whole point is that L/X isn't increasing, the complete opposite of what you're saying.
I never said L/X is increasing either. Actual length is. Newer cannon BLs being developed right now range from 6.63 to 7.28m, which, last time I checked, is longer than the Rh-120's 6.6m.
>but will they be used in the future for larger calibers? I'd personally say so
Exactly, new technologies will be used alongside bigger guns and longer barrels, and won't displace them. Same could be said for small arms.
>Sure, but barrel length has little to do with that.
Barrel length matters enough to warrant increasing BL (alongside other factors) whenever a gun system has to deal with armor. The existing Sig case is powerful, but if body armor keeps improving, then increasing pressure alone won't be enough.
>The XM913 specifically, to my knowledge, is actually meant for payload than energy
There's been a general trend towards heavier IFV armor as well as higher autocannon penetration and caliber. IFVs prefer to be able to penetrate other IFVs with their autocannons, missiles are a last resort (eg, against MBTs)
>You're even saying the energy itself is more important than some arbitrary velocity figure, meaning the barrels increasing in length is dubious
And a longer barrel also helps improve muzzle energy.
>Actual length is
L/X is all that matters in tank cannons, they're not measured like rifle barrels. And again, they've been stagnant since the 90's with the L/55. Recently they increased the pressure rating of the L55's to make the L55A1's, but otherwise it's been unchanged. For the larger cannons to be the same length as they were decades prior, I'd also say those are stagnant, and due to multiple factors, are rarely any significant length longer than the L/55's. Hardly any way to indicate a change towards longer growth of barrels. If the 130's and 140's were L/55 or more, then MAYBE you'd have a point, but just as with rifle barrels, they've stayed about the same since the 90's or thereabouts.
It doesn't matter how they are measured. What matters is that the actual lengths are increasing, period. And are increasing for any weapon system that has to deal with armor. Ergo, when small arms start dealing with near-peer armor, their barrels will also get longer.
It DOES matter, Ttat's WHY they're measured that way. And, they AREN'T increasing, as I've repeatedly said. Since the 90's, the L/55 has been practically the "standard", and only recently has the 2A82 increased the length, and it's still comparable to the Western gun. Those are it. The two main East vs West designs. It's been that way for decades. And the larger calibers that've been waiting in the wings since the SEVENTIES haven't grown either. They all tend to be around the L/52 mark. They've had the sizes set, they've had the lengths set, and the work, such as with ETC, has only mainly been done to add more powerful in like-sized items. Period.
And, again, this hasn't been the case. Barrels, since the 90's, have stayed sub-17", and the latest trends don't seem to indicate them growing, regardless of armor or not. Bore size might increase, but not length.
>I keep saying this
No, what you keep doing is trying to shoehorn it in to make a vain attempt at reassuring yourself bullpups still have a place because of barrel length, when that reason is less relevant than EVER. You can't simple get past it. If it's not as important, then you can see why bullpups are less and less appealing and why, counter to this "muh Cold War" narrative set up here, are unlikely to make any sort of major "comeback".
There is absolutely nothing an XM7, as currently configured, cannot do that would be remedied by adding inches to the barrel.
Bradleys are some of the thinnest--armored IFV's in service right now, and only the front arc is rated against 30mm, that's the standard, not a trend. Instead of adding newer cannons, upgrading existing ones and/or developing better tactics/techniques/procedures to deal with them is the better call. It's not some brawl where the fighters square up nice and fair, look at Ukraine. It doesn't matter if you armor the front of your IFV against 120mm, they'll just go through your side, or launch a drone/javelin, etc.
>And, they AREN'T increasing, as I've repeatedly said
Tell me, in what world is 6.63m and 7m smaller than 6.60m? Simple counting.
>Barrels, since the 90's, have stayed sub-17", and the latest trends don't seem to indicate them growing
Wait until near-peer armor becomes common. I suspect 16-19'' barrels will be the new normal.
>bullpups are unlikely to make any sort of major "comeback".
We'll see in the next few decades. Until then, we can agree to disagree.
YOU tell ME where you're getting this "trend" from. For DECADES the sizes have been that way. And by your own admission, the differences are slight. If Rheinmetal suddenly went "oh shit, we need 140mm L/70", then MAYBE you'd have a point, but you're basically arguing that 12.5", 13.7", 13.9", 14.5", and 14.7" AR barrels are so dissimilar as to portend some grand change. Scratch that, the spread between ALL the barrel you mention is only like 14.5 and 14.7, don't even count the other ones.
Bullshit pal, you keep saying this shit, and all it is is "t-trust me!". This was laid out already, hence the NGSW program. Even before then with the ICSR program.
>Oh shit, maybe other countries will start fielding good armor
>Man, we better address this
>Here you go, a high-pressure, larger-caliber cartridge that doesn't need absurd barrel length to function so you can add a can on the end and still have a handy package while also not blowing your eardrums out!
Now it comes down to penetrator design, like they also explored. I believe it was Milley or some other higher-up testified to congress they've already tested 5.56 and .308 rounds that can pierce advanced armors, so I don't see why not the 6.8x51mm shouldn't be able to.
Most non-committal, cowardly answer. I won't even agree to disagree. I have more confidence in my arguments than that. Bullpups will remain a niche. Only brought out by people/countries trying to be "different", clinging to their own biases in "it'll work THIS time!", contrary to the DECADES worth of knowledge garnered showing bullpups aren't all they're cracked up to be.
But, at the very least, thanks for keeping my attention all night, I slept way too long and now can't get back to bed, and there's nothing to do :/
>And by your own admission, the differences are slight
Slight, but they're there regardless.
>This was laid out already, hence the NGSW program.
As if NGSW was the shining grail of weapons procurement. That clusterfuck.
>Here you go, a high-pressure, larger-caliber cartridge that doesn't need absurd barrel length to function so you can add a can on the end
Orrrr, even better, a bullpup with longer barrel so the round doesn't have to have quite nearly as high pressure, thus will have slightly lower recoil, with rear weight balance so you won't be fatigued carrying and shooting a fat pig of an assault rifle.
> I won't even agree to disagree. I have more confidence in my arguments than that
No, it's the fact that you are far too stubborn to do anything other than hate on bullpups. Not even I hate on ARs as much. Reason can't convince you. Only history and the passage of time will prove you wrong.
Countries in conflict have shown they are more willing to adopt bullpups. Why? Perhaps they know better the value of the weapons they use than we do.
>Orrrr, even better, a bullpup with longer barrel so the round doesn't have to have quite nearly as high pressure, thus will have slightly lower recoil, with rear weight balance so you won't be fatigued carrying and shooting a fat pig of an assault rifle.
You'd end up with a less potent round, with next to no perceivable difference in recoil, that is dramatically heavier and less well-balanced because you're adding a long-ass barrel even outside bullpup norms that destroys any semblance of the "rear-balanced" myth shitmorons like to spew, that literally no-one ever complains about with typical guns outside basketweaving dickmeasuring and IWI shilling, all the while STILL being a shit-ass bullpup that no 1st-world country dare entertain and would STILL get it's shit pushed in by the horrendously under-optimized XM7, to say nothing of something more reasonable like the purported LMT's or SCAR's, etc., in the hotter calibers.
Bullshit, this is the pot calling the kettle black. I've laid out things time and again, and all you can do is go in circles, plug your ears, and point to some unforeseeable future you're doing nothing but HOPING proves you right. Like this part:
>Countries in conflict have shown they are more willing to adopt bullpups. Why? Perhaps they know better the value of the weapons they use than we do.
They literally have not, we've hashed this out ad nauseam in earlier replies. You don't get to change the definition of "adopt" or "conflict" either. Buying new rifles of things already in stock to maintain parts/inventory is not adoption, individual people/units buying rifles on their own preference is not adoption, no more than police/SF using AR's in bullpup-adopted countries or vice-versa. Western nations aren't any less "in conflict" than any of the third world shitholes you want to try and pass off as being.
No. The RM277 had similar weight to the XM7.
>dramatically heavier and less well-balanced because you're adding a long-ass barrel even outside bullpup norms
Also no. A 19'' barrel could suffice. So good weight balance.
>all you can do is go in circles, plug your ears
You've literally harped on and on about "muh pressure" even after I've acknowledged time and time that it's important. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that barrel length is also important. I'm willing to at least accommodate your arguments.
>Buying new rifles of things already in stock to maintain parts/inventory is not adoption
I never said they were. I said some countries recently adopted new bullpups while others recently bought more. Different things. Again and again you keep twisting my words. And SF using a weapon does count as adoption.
I'd also like to add, as the resident bullpup hater; TV definitely made the right choice with the Delta P suppressor, over SIG's unnecessarily long one. I don't get the memes about the chode can, I've only ever heard good things about them. Just a shame you apparently have to order from them direct and it's up in the air if you even can in the first place.
>Same could be said for small arms
How so? Artillery makes sense to me, but the design goals are different. Their job is to lob something as far away as possible, whereas a rifle has different goals, not just to go faster. SCHV came about due to their light weight and wounding potential, whereas a hypothetical "MCHV" is already here and's only goal is apparently to put more kinetic energy on target further away. Increasing from there does little. Increasing the velocity even more just to get more energy is bad math when modern and forthcoming materials excel so well at defeating that, breaking up the penetrator and "catching" it, spreading out the force. What would be better served is a more ductile material that resists failure when loaded against the ultra-hard ceramic composites. Then you could even have slower rounds penetrate better, such as how 9x39 works with it's huge massive penetrator, yet being subsonic. By the point you're accelerating a .35 caliber+ round at 3kfps+, you're moving well beyond the realm of portability/usability, especially at typical engagement scenarios. M993 can go through L4 up close, and even .338 Lapua AP can struggle even at closer distances (see Buffman's test) against certain armors, so just increasing mass/velocity doesn't make sense, especially if you're telling the grunts to schlep the thing around and live and fight with it. It doesn't matter if the guy has a hypothetical "Level 6" armor, if you're in houseing distances, even current rounds can stand a chance, or you're close enough you can hit them in the face/elsewhere. If they're further, you're really better off having access to more explosives or a higher volume of fire afforded by the SCHV rounds, rather than .338LM-equivelant power.
>Barrel length matters
Again, you keep saying this, but it's not true nearly as much as pressure.
As with my other comments, penetrator design/material is more important in the long run, especially for any realistic use, and a longer barrel has less of an effect on velocity than pressure does. How many more inches of barrel does it take for a lower-pressure cartridge to "equal" a higher-pressure cartridge out of a shorter barrel? If we want to compare the suHispanicious TVCM numbers to SIG, it takes 6 extra inches, or with 7mm-08, it takes 11, for only a 10-20kpsi increase. How much would it take to equal the performance of a round loaded to 120kpsi? If you're going to keep increasing the pressure that's available NOW, there's little reason to add on almost FEET of barrel length for next to no gain.
I can load Mk262 clones up to ~2800fps out of a 14.5" barrel, and it doesn't get up much higher from a 20", but if I used a hybrid case, I could load higher and get much more gain than trying to see what a 24" barrel would do.
As I said, there's few things that can stand up to extant rounds, let alone outside of the 60-degree protection arc most are geared towards, even heavy-asses like the Namer, and it sacrifices a lot to have so much protection, that the bigger concern is UAV's and missile teams. IFV's aren't specifically meant to fight other IFV's, and as Ukraine shows, the current 30mm's are absolutely devastating. Javelins are only getting cheaper, and you can stuff 8 of them onto just about anything, which is a LOT of capability, without needing a fuckhuge gun. Not even talking about penetration or whatever, I'm just personally of the opinion that 40mm is already pushing it on ammo capacity, and 30mm seems well enough for plenty of counter-UAS work, counter-defilade, and light-armor-defeat, while having much greater stowage.
>Again, you keep saying this, but it's not true nearly as much as pressure.
Dude, I keep saying I acknowledge that other factors are more important than barrel length. I've acknowledged this over and over again. My point is that BLs still matter, and they matter enough that anti-armor weapons still keep getting longer barrels, even if slightly. How many times do I have to say this?
> the current 30mm's are absolutely devastating
Yes, to thin-skinned BMPs. But IFVs are in general trending towards more armor. Newer ones like Puma, KF41, OMFV, T-15, they're designed to resist 30mm autocannons. And so the caliber/barrel length race will commence with IFVs all the same.
>Longer barrel, energy
Not as much as pressure, just adding more and more isn't a solution or even recommended, is not a long term solution, and so on and so on.
Really man, get over the same old same old, you really are like a broken record.
>Not as much as pressure
Now you're acting like a broken record. I've acknowledged many times, pressure is more important, but you're acting like pressure alone can offset BL increases, which is just false.
It literally can. I don't know why you fail to grasp this. Actually, I do know, you're an obsessed bullpupmoron and wants reality to conform to your worldview.
If you have limited choices to make, and are trying to balance weight, material, etc., adding pressure has better return than adding barrel. Again, take the shit-loaded .277 Fury to it's hot-loaded hybrid-cased stuff. It gains over THREE HUNDRED fps in it's hot loaded short barrel compared to adding EIGHT INCHES of barrel in it's brass-cased, down-loaded ammunition in it's already 16" (compared to 13") configuration to get even remotely comparable performance.
Is length important? Yes. Is it a HUGE factor, especially nowadays? Hell no.
You can have a shorter, lighter gun with as good or better performance than the more "old school" approach and STILL not hamstring yourself with a shitty bullpup.
Bullpupfags always tout "muh compactness", but an AUG HBAR is longer than an M4 unsuppressed and longer than the XM7 suppressed, what fucking sense does that make for the shitpup?
The US sure doesn't think so with the 13" XM7. France doesn't seem that concerned with their 11.5" 416F's, I don't see many HK433's, Bren 2's, SCAR's, etc. with longer than 16" barrels. The AR's Finland and Sweden are adopting aren't 20"-ers if I recall. Not even the Sako AR10, but I could be mistaken on that one.
They've been that way since the L/55 first came about, that's been the size band for nearly every country since that time. I can only think of China having anything longer, and it was mostly an experiment if I understand correctly. Nearly every Western-aligned country is using the L/55, not even the 2A82 is much longer at L/56, whereas the older 2A46 was L/48, and it's been in that range for decades. If they were pushing up towards L/60 or L/70, you MIGHT have a point, but even the 130, 140, and 152mm guns talked about don't exceed L/52 generally.
Fuck you, I can still dream we'll have a battlecruiser revival with 5 triple turrets of 200mm+ each firing HVP's from 1000km on Chink factories.
>On body armor
Near peer body armor isn't much of a threat yet, which is why many countries have gone for short barrels and small calibers. Give it 20 years, and we can have this discussion again. I am very sure by then, 16-19'' barrels will become the norm.
Is 6.6m long. Newer cannons are longer.
>I'm really keen on seeing actual proof they can pen VPAM12 or whatever out to those distances.
We'll have to wait until the program gets declassified, then.
>as SIG is telling us the barrel life exceeds current standards, whereas something like 300RUM has shorter barrel life and is lower pressure.
Do they say that using similar barrel material for both the RUM and Fury? Because assuming barrel material/quality and round dimensions are constant, then a lower-pressure round should wear the barrel less than a higher pressure one.
>You're not getting the same energy without sacrificing something else. It'll either be horrendously overbore, not generate the same velocities/energies, be heavier, etc.
I'm assuming all else being equal, including caliber, cartridge dimension, barrel quality and the like. The only variables in this scenario are barrel length, and chamber pressure. In that case, the point stands. A longer barrel requires lower pressure for the same muzzle energy.
>I can stick a .30-06 in a 26" barrel, push some hot loads, and still have less erosion than .300RUM loads similarly loaded in a similar barrel due to other factors like I said such as heat flux, overbore/throat erosion, etc.
.300 RUM as much larger case capacity (thus propellant energy) than .30-06, so of course it'll wear barrels out faster. Given the same barrel material, quality and thickness, higher propellant energies will wear barrels out faster.
There's not much the XM7 doesn't do that adding 3" of barrel will "fix". As a matter of fact, it's already a heavy POS, and adding more barrel, at that taper, is only asking for pain.
This body armor/penetrator game isn't linear nor is it exponential, I struggle to see where you get this idea that things are just going to go back and forth so smoothly ad infinitum, that adding more barrel, rather than some other aspect, is what's going to keep everyone on.
Like seriously, say the XM7 does all it's cracked up to do RIGHT NOW, what do you really expect to happen after? They make a super-DUPER body armor and an extra 3-6" is going to remedy that? Then they'll just make an EXTRA-super-duper armor right after. Might as well stop using rifles at that point, right? Hence why SCHV and adding more explosives is a much better idea than chasing paper states with superultrashortmagnum loads.
Which ones? They're almost all based on the L/55, or 2A46 and 2A68, some one-off/limited-scale thing isn't going to make a good argument.
I'd like to be hopeful, but I don't trust either SIG or the .mil
No, that's the thing, the RUM has LESS barrel life on standard barrels already than a higher pressure one does on different barrels. If you were to compare both equally, the RUM would STILL burn barrels more, not because of pressure, but because of the overbore nature of the cartridge. Point being, more is at play than just pressure. Hence why I used .30-06 in the comparison as well. Both are similar pressures, but one burns barrels of the "same" construction faster.
> XM7 is already a heavy POS, and adding more barrel, at that taper, is only asking for pain.
Which is why bullpups make sense for heavy, high-powered, armor-piercing assault rifles, beyond just length. Rear weight balance helps.
>Hence why SCHV and adding more explosives is a much better idea than chasing paper states with superultrashortmagnum loads.
There is merit to that, but is yet to be seen whether CE can replace KE as the main anti-armor weapon type.
>Which tank guns are bigger?
Well, like I said, the Rh-130 is 6.63m long, the ASCALON is 7.1-7.28m long, and the 125mm 2A82-1M from Russia could be up to 7m long, comparing it to the 2A46. So yes, newer cannons in development are getting longer.
>RUM has LESS barrel life because overbore, more is at play than just pressure
True, maybe pressure isn't the right word. The energy of the propellant is more apt. But that still means: more propellant energy = shorter barrel life, all else being equal.
>You're not going to get away with just increasing the barrel length
And I'm not saying to do so. I'm saying increase both pressure (propellant energy) AND barrel length. Increasing barrel length or propellant energy alone is not sustainable.
>Which is why bullpups make sense for heavy, high-powered, armor-piercing assault rifles, beyond just length. Rear weight balance helps.
The neat thing is, the non-bullpups don't have to be heavy in the first place! They even have room to grow. An SFAR in .277 would absolutely SHIT on the XM7 in every conceivable way, for example. Make it out of the lithium-aluminum alloys for even more weight savings.
I don't believe in the whole "rear-balance" thing either, especially outside of just statically blasting paper at the range.
I meant more along the lines of "volume of fire". Still accurate, mind you, just that with more SCHV rounds, you can have more available to make shots on the non-protected parts of the opponent, whereas area explosives like Carl Gustav's and the like practically just bypass that altogether. Close-up, like house-to-house distances, even M993 & M995 can penetrate some Level 4 plates, and they're relatively outdated designs by this point. I'm pretty much against the whole idea of the XM7 in general. The rifle especially, and only somewhat indifferent/on the fence about the cartridge. I much rather just see hybrid case designs of aluminum or such to reduce weight further, and be in a similar form factor as .224 Valkyrie or 6mm ARC, then give everyone in the squad a GL, CG, SUAV, whatever, like the French and Marines seem to be doing. I like the smart scopes too, I guess.
The Rh-130 isn't any bigger than previous designs, same with ASCALON. They've been this way since at least the late 70's. The 2A82 is in line with the Rh-120 L/55, a 90's design. They aren't getting bigger, they've been that way for 30+ years.
>the non-bullpups don't have to be heavy in the first place!
Evidently not with the Sig. Such high pressures demand a heavy rifle. The RM277 had a similar weight to the XM7. Bullpups also feel lighter due to weight balance.
>The Rh-130 isn't any bigger than previous designs, same with ASCALON
Uh, yes it is. Their barrels are longer, their chambers are longer, and they weight more. The KF51 Panther has a big ass turret with -9 gun depression instead of -10 the Leo 2 enjoyed with a smaller turret.
>Evidently not with the Sig.
I hate the SIG, you don't have to tell me twice. It's ridiculous we've had all this firearms advancement in the last 70 years and SIG chooses to enter a fat AR10 SBR. They even took out the recoil mechanism from the original patents, the cowards.
A lithium-aluminum alloy SFAR-sized AR10 in .277 Fury with designs inspired from KAC and LMT would be leagues better than Ronnie Cohen's abortion. Alas, what's done is done.
>Yes it is
What are the lengths of the 130 & 140mm guns we're talking about?
A bullpup made with lithium-aluminium alloy would also benefit from the weight savings. And feel lighter too.
>What are the lengths of the 130 & 140mm guns we're talking about?
Uh, didn't we go over this?
Is ASCALON the 140mm? I thought they had a 120mm program as well?
Sure, just not as light as a conventional gun, especially with a shorter barrel.
ASCALON is a scalable gun concept, they're working on both 120 and 140mm versions.
>Sure, just not as light as a conventional gun, especially with a shorter barrel
But it will feel lighter, easier to pivot and aim.
Okay, my bad, I was thinking they were two separate things.
Not true in the slightest. The "rear balance" myth is just that, a myth. Imagine your arms carrying load. With a specifically rear-heavy bullpup (like a Tavor), compared to the more neutrally-balanced bullpups (AUGs, etc.), one arm is doing 80% of the work, and the other is doing 20. It's going to fatigue faster, gravity is pulling it down, not back against your shoulder, and if you try and push it hard to compensate, you're adding to the work your dominant arm is doing, especially if it's compressed in close. Meanwhile, your other arm is doing fuckall. Whereas conventionally, it's much more spread out and you have more leverage points to manipulate the gun, while also being able to cradle/support it better while slung, since it wants to muzzle down instead of flip, and is easier to rest your arms on if you like doing that. And if you've ever listened to people talk about using bullpups, hell, even used one yourself, you'd hear them mention how you tend to overswing when pivoting because the weight at the rear is working against you. Inertia basically.
Yes, and you need that energy to give comparable results in a longer barrel, as I've been trying to say. Trying to put things "equal" doesn't really work in this sense. A 30" .308 isn't going to magically match hot-loaded .277 Fury, it needs more than just barrel. Or else why do you think we see things like .300 RUM? Why wouldn't everyone just add 6" onto their existing .308's or .30-06's? At some point, you either have to increase pressure, or increase volume, if not both. Both being more important overall than barrel length. The brass-cased .277 loads need 24" of barrel (11" more than the hybrid cases) to get similar ballistics, that's not feasible even for bullpups, especially considering SIG can just bump the pressures up to 100k, or 120k and leap ahead again.
I get what you're saying, it's the same as me in a sense; There comes a point where just adding more pressure is almost pointless as well, but, I'm saying, by THAT point, you really ought to already be looking at different methods of achieving your objectives than just forever playing THAT game.
False appeal to moderation. You're trying to posit some far-flung scenario where the pressure increases we're seeing now, which are practically brand-new and not introduced before, need to be augmented with barrel increases, (mainly to satisfy for bullpup-centric worldview in my opinion), without the increase in pressure even having time to develop. Instead of keeping trying to shoehorn your own biases in the equation, work with what is available and would develop more "profitable"/"effective" advances, such as alternate penetrator designs like I mentioned, changes in fireteam equipment, etc.
A 6.8mm DU-core EPR-style VLD round, going 3kfps+ out of 13" barrels, for example of a quick-n'-dirty example/theory/whatever, is not likely to be stopped by most armors currently available, due to not only it's high BC and MV, but incredible SD.
This isn't some "bias". Tank barrels have literally gotten longer, even as pressure/caliber increased. Autocannons are starting to go down the same path. Bigger and longer. It's not what I "want", it's just what's happening.
They literally have not. Show proof. All modern, in-service cannons are of similar size as they have been for the last 30+ years. Not even the prototypes of the larger caliber guns are that dissimilar than the ones decades past. France and China have those extra-long 120's if I'm not mistaken, but they're nothing but concepts. France is looking at the 140mm, Germany/S. Korea/etc. are looking at 130's. What are their lengths? Compare them to all the concepts of decades prior and tell me how they're so much longer.
And, if we're talking about prototypes/experiments, ETC guns can be more compact and have similar performance, as we discussed before.
I told you, 6.63 and 7m are longer than 6.60m. I can't believe I have to tell you this.
105mm L7: 5.46m
Rh-120 L44: 5.28m
Rh-120 L55: 6.60m
CN120-26 (Leclerc's gun): 6.24m
140mm ASCALON (new French gun in development): 7.14-7.28m
100mm D-10T2S (T-54): 5.35m
115mm U-5TS (T-62): 6.05m
125mm 2A42: 6.0m
125mm 2A82 (T-14): some sources say up to 7m
So there, historically, tank cannons have gotten longer, with some exceptions. Newer cannons (Rh-130, ASCALON, 2A82) are all longer than the ones in service right now.
So there, guns are getting longer.
Source that, I'm not pulling anything for the ASCALON, and also compare it to the older prototypes like Royal Ordances' 140mm, the Swiss 140, hell, even Ukraine had a 140. Not to mention the 130-135mm prototypes. Also, I'm not sure you really wanna tell me about the Rh-130 being an inch longer than the 120 L55 despite being 7.5% bigger diameter as some sort of argument.
Are we talking tank cannons or rifles still?
Where are you getting the RM277 weight from? I don't see it ANYWHERE, and "similar" is such a bullshit term. If it were truly lightweight, TV would've plastered it all over their marketing material.
To get inferior performance. Lighter bullet at a similar velocity while needing a longer barrel. Bump the barrel up by an inch and a half and/or increase pressure on the XM7 like SIG says they can, and it's already left in the dust. And that's if TV is to be believed about the pressures and velocity. Strange how the .277 Fury needs 24" to get the 3kfps mark in it's brass-cased version, but the TV round can do it in 4" less barrel, despite allegedly being the same form factor, same pressure, and all without excessive heat flux or other factors?
No, you have not. You pretend to acknowledge it's important but keep trying to push the barrel length meme as a "save" to yourself so you can keep jacking off about bullpups. I've said it PLAYS A FACTOR, but it is so small in the grand scheme, it might as well not be important at all.
>I never said they were
You absolutely did. You KEPT bringing up Israel. And SF using a weapon does NOT count as adoption. I'm specifically avoiding that to try and HELP your argument, or else all the AR's in SF use with bullpup-using countries really hampers any attempted "argument" you could try and even remotely make there.
You can find the barrel lengths here. For the wikipedia articles, just look at the Barrel Length section.
My earlier 6.63m is only for L/51. Now it's been revised to L/52, so it should be 6.76m instead.
"and breech to muzzle it will be 7.3 meters long, with a 51-52 calibres long barrel" Hence, 140 x 51-52 = 7.14-7.28m.
This pic also shows relative sizes of 2A46 and 2A82: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t-14-armata-tank-cannon.jpg
I can't find data for other 140mm guns. Had they entered service, they'd likely be longer than the Rh-120, from looks.
>I can't find data for other 140mm guns. Had they entered service, they'd likely be longer than the Rh-120, from looks.
Thanks for the info, that's what I'm trying to find out mostly. I'll happily admit I was wrong about the tank guns if the old ones are shorter, but it seems info on them is more scarce than I was expecting. But they definitely do look similar to existing/more modern designs, hence my apprehension in saying one way or the other.
The only exception I can think of is the XM291, as, IIRC, that was a relatively short gun in 140mm, with the 120, and 135mm barrels being longer.
>Where are you getting the RM277 weight from? I don't see it ANYWHERE
Some people were saying roughly 3.5kg without accessories when NGSW was still running.
>19'' barrel to get inferior performance
The performances of all 3 NGSW rifles should've been similar.
>Strange how the .277 Fury needs 24" to get the 3kfps mark in it's brass-cased version
No, it needs 16'' barrel for 135gr ammo to reach 3000fps with 80-kpsi.
The 6.8TVC can do 3000fps using 135gr ammo using 65-kpsi, I'm assuming shot from the RM277 (19'' barrel)
>I've said it PLAYS A FACTOR, but it is so small in the grand scheme
Apparently big enough that armor piercing cannons have to increase barrel length as well as caliber and pressure. I've said this many times yet you refuse to listen.
>You absolutely did. You KEPT bringing up Israel
I said many times that Israel has recently PURCHASED new bullpups, not recently ADOPTED them. Go back and see.
SF using is a form of adoption. I already recognise that many bullpup countries also use conventional, and vice-versa. It's not mutually exclusive.
>The "rear balance myth is just that, a myth
No, it's not. A lot of people who've shot both bullpup and conventional say it helps.
>Some people say
I'll need something more than that. That's lighter than an MDR 16", let alone their (DT's) NGSAR entrant, the nearest I can think of, let alone about the weight of a 20" AUG. Not knocking, I'd actually LOVE if it was that light, but that doesn't seem in line with what I'd expect, even though it's possible (SFAR being lighter than an SR25, why not other guns, etc. etc.)
It doesn't seem so based on TV's own data, or how the Fury round does in it's brass-cased variant.
No, I mean the brass-cased, non-high-pressure version you can find on SIG's store.
The hybrid-case can do ~3kfps out of the 13", as shown by Alabama Arsenal's video on it, as well as SIG's own site.
It strikes me as odd that a round with less pressure is sending a round as fast as another comparable round, from a 4" shorter barrel, without having something else to it. It's either higher pressure, higher propellant charge/mass, or something.
Yeah, I wish we had more sources. But with NGSW being this opaque we can't find any for now.
>It doesn't seem so based on TV's own data, or how the Fury round does in it's brass-cased variant
That data is based on the civilian TVC, not the mil TVCM that supposedly (from a 19'' barrel) can match mil grade .277 Fury from 13'' barrel.
>No, I mean the brass-cased, non-high-pressure version you can find on SIG's store.
It strikes me as odd that a round with less pressure is sending a round as fast as another comparable round, from a 4" shorter barrel
Oh, that one. There are likely other factors at play, like propellant burn rate (Fury is optimised for shorter barrels), or shape/composition of the cartridge chamber allowing more efficient energy transfer on the TVC. I never denied other factors matter.
No worries, anon. Fun conversation. It's 4AM now though, so I'm gonna turn in for tonight. NN!
If this is still up later, I'll be sure to come back and give you a hard time some more then!
You've yet to show the old cannons and how they compare now to indicate any sort of "trend" you keep going on about, still handwaiving ETC, and still ignoring no 20" rifles being currently favored over literally everything 16" and under, but please continue bashing your head against the wall on this line of non-argument. Where's the L/60 120mm? The L/55-L/60 130mm? That's right, nowhere. Instead, you wanna say a barrel ONE INCH LONGER is some sort of benefit in your favor instead of how cannon measurements work. Them taking one inch off would not materially impact the performance of the gun, yet due to the way they're measured/ordered, it ended up that way. It takes such a back seat to caliber and pressure, I don't even know what you're trying to argue. If it was more of a factor, the barrel would be longer, but it's not. It's within AN INCH of the smaller cannons, yet bigger and higher pressure. Same as the XM7. The 13" barrel is literally within AN INCH of the M4, yet the pressure and caliber make more of the difference. Why couldn't they just do the tank cannon thing and go for a .30cal next, instead of adding more barrel? Retard, get this through your head.
You used it in the context of bullpups being more widely sought/adopted/used, which adding inventory does not mean anything towards, as I keep saying. You're trying to fluff the numbers to make it seem more and being disingenuous. For however many Tavors Israel acquired, the US acquired more URGI's, yet you don't see me touting that as a win for conventional patterns, because it literally does not matter.
>You've yet to show the old cannons and how they compare now to indicate any sort of "trend"
I listed the lengths before,
. They show a general trend towards longer barrels in NATO and Russia.
>Still handwaiving ETC
I said, ETC will be used in concert with newer larger, longer guns. Even if it boosts 120mm performance, MBTs will still move to 130-140mm anyway.
Even in the barrel increase is small, it's still there. To apply that to firearms, the barrel on the XM7 will have to get longer in future, even if it's a small amount. The XM7 is already very heavy, how much are you willing to tolerate a move to 16'' + suppressor? A move to a bullpup would make sense, even for a modest barrel increase.
>Why couldn't they just do the tank cannon thing and go for a .30cal next, instead of adding more barrel?
It's not either or. The 130-140mm guns are longer than the Rh-120. So if we move up calibers, it's likely the rifle barrel will be longer than on the XM7, even if modestly. And again, the weight increase may make going bullpup worthwhile.
>You used it in the context of bullpups being more widely sought/adopted/used, which adding inventory does not mean anything towards
I said that some countries have recently adopted new bullpups, and others have recently purchased new bullpups. Both are true for different countries.
>SF procurement doesn't matter
A lot of people say otherwise. What SF uses, has merit.
>In the end, no matter how much the bullpups were talked up about how it SHOULD do this or that, EVERY SINGLE RESPONDANT chose the conventional in the end
Please link the study you mentioned.
It might be this one - bullpups increased accuracy and shooter stability, but participants say they preferred the conventional rifle: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720813509107
So people say they prefer conventional rifles, but bullpups actually increase performance.
One more since it refresh just as I sent mine:
One set of lengths that stayed the same for 30+ years doesn't have me convinced. The M103's gun was 60 calibers, but one data point doesn't a set make, so I'm not going to say we're only just now catching back up to where we were at in WW2/Korea.
I don't know if they will move to 130mm if the smaller, lighter gun can give comparable performance, and even then, they can make the 130mm gun smaller and lighter in ETC than not, and there'd be very little reason to go straight from an L/55 130mm, to an L/60 130mm ETC gun. Again, more at play than just velocity. Look at what France is claiming with their new 120mm round. Fired from the same cannons, but quite a bit better performance supposedly. Same with US and it's M829 series.
>Have to get longer
Who's to say it HAS to get longer? What would a 16" XM7 do the standard 13" wouldn't? It's special purpose round can supposedly already defeat future armors, just how short of a time frame do you think it'll be before any near-peer could hope to field even more advanced armors than they already struggle to do now with LESS advanced armors?
Plus, hopefully they'd go with a Delta P-type suppressor that doesn't take up as much length. The RM277 got that aspect right, SIG's can is too long for my tastes.
That doesn't make sense. If energy is what we're after, an increase in mass would have exponential affects at similar velocities. Going from a ~140gr .277 to a ~168 or even ~175gr .308, at ~3kfps is substantial, and I see no reason why it couldn't still be done from the XM7's 13" barrel in both cases.
I'm hoping the bubbas out there somehow get their hands on the civvie SPEAR's and can experiment.
While trying to pass it off as an indication that bullpups are coming back, which it is not. Neither the XM7 or URGI means anything for the M4's longevity, for example.
>One set of lengths that stayed the same for 30+ years doesn't have me convinced
Because tank guns have barely changed for the past 30 years. But when they have changed, they've usually gotten longer. That is a clear trend
Was a heavy tank. Not an MBT. And even among heavy tanks, barrels have gotten longer.
The M6 heavy from WWII had the 3'' gun M1918 (3.8m) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Tank_M6
The T29 heavy had the 105mm T5 (6.83m) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105_mm_gun_T5
M103 had the 120mm M58 (7.2m based on 120 x 60 calibers) https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M103_Heavy_Tank.php
So yes, caliber and barrel length have been increasing for heavy tanks too.
>I don't know if they will move to 130mm if the smaller, lighter gun can give comparable performance
But they are still researching larger cannons, and were researching larger cannons when ETC was being seriously pursued. So it's very likely the larger, longer cannons will still be adopted, even with ETC.
>Look at what France is claiming with their new 120mm round. Fired from the same cannons, but quite a bit better performance supposedly.
And yet, they're still pursuing the ASCALON. Round design won't stop the march towards the larger and longer cannons.
>Who's to say it HAS to get longer? What would a 16" XM7 do the standard 13" wouldn't
Offer better penetration and ballistics, of course.
>> just how short of a time frame do you think it'll be before any near-peer could hope to field even more advanced armors
A lot can happen in a few decades if great powers are competing.
>Going from a ~140gr .277 to a ~168 or even ~175gr .308, at ~3kfps is substantial, and I see no reason why it couldn't still be done from the XM7's 13" barrel in both cases
Armor piercing cannons have done the same, increase projectile mass, yet their barrels still got longer as well.
(I lied, I got distracted, so I'm still here)
>Because tank guns have barely changed for the past 30 years. But when they have changed, they've usually gotten longer. That is a clear trend
Eggsplain the MPF
Don't give me that shit man, it was the precursor to MBT's along with the Pattons. How long did they keep the L7? The L30 and L44 were both shorter, how long did they keep them? It's not a trend at all. More at play by far than pure length.
You always look into possibilities, to maintain an edge should you need to invest seriously into them, yet you don't see near even a fifth of them being adopted, and if they are, it's decades later, and rarely in the same form.
None of the 130 or 140mm's are even being seriously pursued as straight replacements, moreso "upgrades" that COULD be installed later down the line. Such as why you don't see the US really making any overt effort into them, rather looking to go lighter for similar capability. Mobility being such a huge thing nowadays, those aspects will likely supersede any supposed performance increases for the large part.
>March towards larger an longer
No-one's marching, there's no orders, they're only tentative. You're "argument" has no basis, especially considering it has no end point. Will they just keep progressing larger and larger ad infinitum? 130 then 140 then 150 then 160 then...? No, not how it works. After the move to 120, for example, the US thought "Damn, these bitches heavy", and started working on lighter projects. It eats up stowage as well going super large, but thankfully autoloaders tend to mean there's a bit more room due to less crew or something, it seems?
Is a light tank. Dude, we're talking about within the roles the vehicles are intended. Within MBTs, within HTs, and such. Heck, since the dawn of Light tanks, barrels have gotten longer too. The MPF has a far longer barrel than the M24 chaffee.
> it was the precursor to MBT's along with the Pattons
Patently false. The M26 Pershing and M46 Patton were the precursors to US MBTs. M103 was a Heavy tank through and through, and never led to anywhere.
>More at play by far than pure length.
I never said otherwise. Length isn't the only factor, but it has increased among guns from all vehicle categories that have armor piercing roles.
>None of the 130 or 140mm's are even being seriously pursued as straight replacements
The French, Germans and Russians are very serious about adopting new tanks with bigger, longer cannons.
>No-one's marching, there's no orders, they're only tentative.
It's a figure of speech, mate. The French, Germans, Polish, S.Koreans and Russians are all pursuing bigger cannons.
>If .277 somehow won't go through as it is now, making it 100fps faster isn't going to help any, so step up to .30 or .33 caliber
And that .30 cal will likely have a longer barrel than the XM7 right now. Even if just by a little bit. And again, the increase in barrel mass will likely drive the adoption of bullpups anyway.
>Yet they haven't as I've kept showing you.
I've showed you they have. MBT barrels have gotten longer. HT barrels did get longer. IFV barrels are about to get longer. Within the defined roles of the weapon systems, they have certainly gotten longer.
>Why doesn't the US just switch to the L/55 for it's Abrams for example?
The US is an exception. Many other countries have switched.
>It doesn't though, and shouldn't. It's a poor point either way you slice it
Tell that to the folks who say that bullpups are over because SF units from bullpup countries are using ARs.
Actually the MPF isn't a light tank per se, it's got a different role altogether. My mistake.
I don't think anyone'd be remiss in you calling it that though, it's a light tank for all intents and purposes. Let's not turn this into a "IS THIS A TANK!?" thread.
>Is a light tank. Dude, we're talking about within the roles the vehicles are intended. Within MBTs, within HTs, and such. Heck, since the dawn of Light tanks, barrels have gotten longer too. The MPF has a far longer barrel than the M24 chaffee.
Since when did we agree on that? We were only talking about tank cannons, period. It hasn't gotten much longer since the M8, for example. If the TREND is for longer/larger cannons, such as on IFV's and MBT's, why wouldn't the light tank have a larger cannon? Both the Griffin and the M8 could use a 120mm, but they stuck with the 105 for the MPF winner in the end. Strange.
My man, you can't have one without the other. They realized the Heavy Tank wasn't doing much the Medium couldn't already, and took features from both to end up with the MBT, hence the layout of the M60's, specifically the later models.
They haven't increased across the board for the millionth time, unless you want to start discounting the MPF as well now too, to add to the list? It's not even a tertiary figure at this point. Diameter, pressure, and construction are the three determining factors in tank gun design currently. We can keep going round and round, but you aren't proving anything. Answer this question directly: If length is such a big factor, why is the 130mm only ONE INCH longer than the L/55? Why not 10? Why not 20? Then, answer this: Why did tank guns shrink from the L7 to the L44? Then, answer this: Why has the US been focused on developing lighter tank guns rather than bigger ones these past few decades? THEN, answer this: Why has the US gone with a 13" barrel for their NGSW program rather than a 26"?
>Since when did we agree on that?
I had assumed we were talking about weapon systems in their defined roles eg. Assault rifles, MBTs, HTs, IFVs etc.
>It hasn't gotten much longer since the M8
But it has gotten larger and longer throughout the history of light tanks.
>My man, you can't have one without the other
Even if HTs helped lead to MBTs, they are still different vehicles.
>They haven't increased across the board for the millionth time
For the millionth time, they have within the defined roles of each weapon system. Within MBTs, within HTs, even within LTs. So it stands to reason it could happen within assault rifles as well.
>Answer this question directly: If length is such a big factor, why is the 130mm only ONE INCH longer than the L/55?
But it still is longer isn't it? I never said length was a big factor, just that it was a factor, enough to make future barrels longer, even if just a little bit.
>Why did tank guns shrink from the L7 to the L44?
That was an exception. All the other times barrel length has changed among European MBTs, it has gotten longer.
>Why has the US been focused on developing lighter tank guns rather than bigger ones these past few decades?
Again, US is an exception. Many other countries are pursuing larger cannons.
> THEN, answer this: Why has the US gone with a 13" barrel for their NGSW program rather than a 26"?
Are you really gonna determine the future of rifles based on that program? Even you think the XM7 is garbage. And NGSW is only the first program addressing near-peer body armor. More programs from more countries are sure to come in the next decades. And they will most likely pick longer barrels than the XM7 has.
>I had assumed we were talking about weapon systems in their defined roles eg. Assault rifles, MBTs, HTs, IFVs etc.
You kept speaking in generic terms, so I figured we were just talking cannons in general. Disregarding IFV's though, as, like I said, I believe the 50mm is mostly for enhancing counter-drone stuff, which I personally feel 30mm does just fine at.
>History of light tanks
How far back are we going, and what countries? Because I have some news for you... Besides, are we doing this "all of history" shit? Because the first firearms were pistol-sized, if you wanna get retarded.
Sure, but the design choices of the new vehicles draw from the old. Bigger gun, more mobility.
They have not.
>Stands to reason
More well wishing?
So you're desperate and reaching now? Stay on point.
It wasn't/isn't. Where are the longer light tank guns? MPF? Chink AAVs? etc.
Handwaiving? There's that "pursuing" word again too.
Are you gonna really try and guess at the future based on your biases? Picked from non-data that goes contrary to the overwhelming majority of firearms technology in the past 60+ years? Do you think the US' influence isn't immense? Do you think NATO is keen on repeating the various small arms debacles it's had prior?
>history of light tanks
From the first LTs to modern ones. They seem to have stopped at 105mm, but before that their barrels were also lengthening.
>Stay on point.
I am. My whole point is that MBT cannons have gotten longer, regardless how much.
>It wasn't/isn't. Where are the longer light tank guns? MPF? Chink AAVs? etc.
I assume this is a reply to:
>That was an exception. All the other times barrel length has changed among European MBTs, it has gotten longer.
Well, you can clearly see I'm talking about MBTs in that sentence.
>Are you gonna really try and guess at the future based on your biases?
My biases? Didn't you also say the XM7 was terrible?
>Do you think the US' influence isn't immense?
Immense, but not absolute. A multipolar world is where we're heading. Don't get me wrong, I like the US, and it'll remain the most powerful country, but it won't be a unipolar world like the past 30 years.
>Shorter barrels have been picked time and again lately, most recently the 11.5" 416F's that I can think of off the top of my head, with no new rifle I can think of in the past 10 years that's been adopted with a barrel longer than 16"
You keep talking about 5.56 rifles adopted without near-peer armor consideration. 11.5'' barrels aren't gonna cut it against that kind of armor. I've made predictions based on other weapon systems that have to deal with armor. And they've shown, that barrel length cannot be ignored, even if it's just a small factor.
So we're counting the Renault? Forgive me if I say you're reaching a little too hard.
>Cannons have gotten longer.
Like the 20pdr and L7, right?
No, the light tanks, I thought we were differentiating them now?
Yes, it is terrible, because I don't like the gun's layout/features, the reduction of ammo, etc. Not because I think it's not a powerful round or anything.
The gun should be lighter/sleeker, we should be looking at hybrid-cased SCHV-type designs, like a faster 6mm ARC or something. It doesn't take away from a 13" barreled .277 Fury can allegedly defeat current and near-term threats and do it while passing all reliability/longevity/etc. goals set for it that are at least comparable, if not better than extant requirements, and that a lower pressure and longer barreled gun is a step backwards, especially since it's hamstrung in the race towards energy that higher pressure rounds afford, especially when the round's creators say it can be pushed even further, meaning the growth potential is there, especially considering even larger diameter projectiles that still do not require any length of barrel that would be so much a hinderance as to require downgrading to a bullpup in any form.
Again, fuck the XM7 and fuck SIG, but the round supposedly meets it's goals and the goals are not so short-sighted that they need immediate correction and the round not so optimized it needs immediate replacement, especially in any way that more barrel would help with.
Okay, all your opinions are now discarded.
>No, the light tanks, I thought we were differentiating them now?
You were replying to a comment I made about MBTs. If you want to talk about LTs, then reply to comments where I talk about LTs.
A bullpup could allow a slightly smaller, less powerful round without sacrificing performance, therefore increasing ammo capacity by a bit. Useful if going the SCHV route.
>If anything, it'll be:
>.277, 13" - 15" (MAYBE)
>.308, 13" - 15" (MAYBE)
And that will result in a heavier barrel that will be less bearable in a conventional design. Can you imagine XM7 with a 15-16'' barrel, firing an even LARGER high pressure round? Bullpups will be easier to handle.
>Hybrid case, 80kpsi
>DU-cored ELD/EPR-"esque" hybrid bullet
And that'd perform better in a 16'' barrel. If velocity is too high then make the penetrator heavier, and you get more muzzle energy --> more penetration.
Literally, you have the word "Light Tanks" in what you quoted to me prior, what am I missing?
Not *really*, depending how pedantic we wanna be, though I would like to see a real-deal Interdynamics MKR brought into [current year] and resized into something more akin to a P90, that'd be really cool. Or a squeezebore like I've heard say've been experimented with in the US, IIRC.
.277 is basically a necked-down .308... The barrel wouldn't likely need to be any different. When you start getting up into the clouds like your point seems to be is when I start to doubt, even for bullpups. If it's a never-ending plane, buy the time you get past the 30's, and up into the 40's or 50's, you're talking a GM6-sized bullpup, and for what?
Better how? What objectives does it achieve the 11.5 wouldn't already? If you're stuck with the 5.56 case, you only have so much room to expand the bullet before having to step up to a new caliber. I'd prefer something like a high-pressure 6mm ARC, like I've said, but that's neither here nor there.
>Literally, you have the word "Light Tanks" in what you quoted to me prior, what am I missing?
Just so you don't sperg at me, I'm counting the acronym "LT".
You replied to my snippet:
>That was an exception. All the other times barrel length has changed among European MBTs, it has gotten longer.
Did I mention LTs in that snippet? No.
>buy the time you get past the 30's, and up into the 40's or 50's, you're talking a GM6-sized bullpup, and for what?
It won't get that large. I predict 16''-19'' barrels to be the norm eventually. Still too much for the XM7 to handle comfortably.
I'm saying a 5.56 DU core 80kpsi round would perform better out of a 16'' barrel than an 11.5'' one. If velocity is too high, make the penetrator heavier.
Where are you even getting this? It's basically an SBR'd AR10, nothing unweidly. I'd prefer if they made it small-frame like POF or Ruger, but C'est la vie. If Noreen can make a .30-06 carbine and it be handy, I'm not worried about a 13" AR10 clone being the antichrist, even though I hate SIG. (Hell, even an OSW is likely more svelt than the fucking SPEAR. The tribe wins again though I suppose.)
Let's say the following is true for the 11.5":
>No excessive wear/reliability problems
>Can penetrate VPAM12 out to 300 yards
What, pray tell, do you think a 16" barrel is going to change?
> If Noreen can make a .30-06 carbine and it be handy, I'm not worried about a 13" AR10 clone being the antichrist, even though I hate SIG.
Perhaps there's a reason why the Sig was so goddamn heavy. The higher pressure maybe? Perhaps future high pressure rifles have to be heavy. In that case bullpups would offer better weight balance.
>What, pray tell, do you think a 16" barrel is going to change?
Obviously the muzzle energy and penetrating power would increase, duh.
>Are we still counting medium tanks from WW2 before "MBT" was a concept?
Granted, I may be taking medium tanks into account. Probably because MTs played a large role in the birth of the MBT. Even so, some early MBTs did use 90mm guns. A lot of countries had their first MBT experience be the 90mm M46 or M48 Patton, after all.
But even if we only count 105-120mm guns, the 120mm L/55 is much longer than the 105 L7. And among MBTs, the L/55 is becoming more common, while the L/44 and L7 are becoming rarer. So the average barrel length of MBTs is still increasing.
It's because SIG designed it to be AR10-sized instead of going small frame, while taking out things like the recoil buffer it had in the original patent. It's heavier THAN IT NEEDS TO BE, not so heavy as to be ridiculously unwieldy. It weighs about the same as the M27, which is heavy for an AR when compared to the M16 family, but it's not outside the norm. People like me complain about it because again, it's heavier than it NEEDS to be. It weighs as much as a 20" AUG, yet no-one complains about that weight, if you want a bullpup example you can actually feel yourself. SIG could've made a SFAR-type rifle and saved a ton of weight, or just not made it so bulky like Cobalt Kinetic's/MARS rifle ended up being, but here we are.
Tell me by how much and why. You can't just handwaive. "Oh yeah, it'll be "better". No, it won't. If that round already isn't penetrating, adding even 500fps to it isn't going to change that whatever you're shooting at requires something else. Again, look at Buffman's tests. Even AP 5.56 loaded 4-600fps hotter than it typical is doesn't make it through modern armors. If the pissin' hot 11.5 isn't going through, time to step up to a different caliber. But, again, the 11.5 would likely be able to penetrate what's available NOW, what countries are dressing their troops in NOW.
So you even admit you're all over the place? You wanted to talk just about tank guns in general, now you're trying to obfuscate with minutiae. Again, tell me why it's only the MBT's (let's just go with them ALL getting longer, though they're not), and not the LT's/TD's/IFV's/etc. aren't? Why are they going with 30-year old tech instead of L/60's or 130mm's? If they're ONLY going to get longer, why would anyone adopt 90's tech in 2023? You're argument falls apart yet again. Same with the shitpup non-argument. Why would any country NOT choose a bullpup according to you?
>Not gonna cut it
Yet everyone seems to think they are. ICSR/NGSAR/NGSW/etc. aren't "new" programs. Armor isn't a new discovery. M995 isn't current technology. Infantry rifles aren't the only weapon countries go to war with. M995 will penetrate most armors within reasonable distances, to say nothing of AP4 or more advanced rounds, and anything beyond the typical distances (Afghanistan gets brought up ad nauseam) can be handled by heavier weaponry.
>Can't be ignored
It's not a black-and-white world and they don't give out participation trophies.
They're not nearly as big of an aspect as you want to believe or make them out to be. You're trying to cling to that aspect and keep it in the discussion when it doesn't belong.
The military progression went from long barrels, to short, to higher pressure, then to bore size, it's not going to go back up to extreme lengths because the designs of projectiles don't need it to.
>.277, 13" - 15" - 16" - 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26"
If anything, it'll be:
>.277, 13" - 15" (MAYBE)
>.308, 13" - 15" (MAYBE)
and very slightly possibly:
>.338, 13" - 15"
By that point, throwing shit at the wall is going to be tired, and new technologies will likely have come along that we're not going to play this game with. Different core materials and/or configurations/designs, different weapon layouts, proliferation of support weapons, handheld IR PEP laser guns, whatever.
Where does your retardation end? When we're running around with .60 cal. bullpups with 56" long barrels operating at 150kpsi? Even if Fallout-style power armor were a thing that's ridiculous. They'd just as well tote Mk.19's in that case.
I'll also add:
>Hybrid case, 80kpsi
>DU-cored ELD/EPR-"esque" hybrid bullet
It immediately outclasses or competes with everything currently available aside from if there's some DU-cored .277 I'm unaware of.
>Likely pick longer barrels
Again, based on what? You're feelings? Shorter barrels have been picked time and again lately, most recently the 11.5" 416F's that I can think of off the top of my head, with no new rifle I can think of in the past 10 years that's been adopted with a barrel longer than 16". Moving to higher pressures reduces the need for longer barrels, so there'll likely be no reason to go longer than what's currently out there, based on current adoption trends and institutional inertia/familiarity. Even bullpups have had this. 20" & 18" rifles are largely replaced by shorter 16" and below guns. Now you explain why you think otherwise based on trends and data and not your handwaiving "just trust me/I just know".
Don't try and derail the discussion either, as I said, stick to the points. We can debate the minutae, but the overarching arguments should take precedence.
No, they're not. Especially Russia. They tout how the 2A82 is the be-all, end-all and can penetrate 1m of steel at 2km and all that shit, with the option to upgrade to the 152 later if need be. Yet, they can't even produce 20 Armata's it seems, let alone put the 5 existing ones in their parade today.
Germany & France are having another "Eurotank" debacle, and haven't even decided which caliber to go with themselves, much less on a international vehicle. An advanced 120mm is the most likely candidate, especially considering the foreseeable future threat scenario with a weakened Russia and very little use for big gun tanks in the Pacific. (It's not as if Africa is rocking ZT99's or Armata's, either.)
TESTING. Nothing more. They've been saying they can put bigger cannons on tanks for decades, yet here we are.
>The .30 will have a longer barrel
Based on fucking what? Your hopes and dreams? It could very well (likely will) keep the same barrel length, just as .308 and 5.56 tend to have historically. Getting .277 and .308 to similar velocities out of similar barrels at this point is damn near trivial.
>Drive adoption of bullpups
Now I know you're joking, or at least deluded. The vast, VAST majority of nations on Earth aren't using bullpups, and likely won't in the future either, in fact, they're getting rid of them faster than they're adopting them, and not just by SF or police either, large institutions like their main land components (Army).
Except the MPF, right? Except the IFV's that aren't being equipped with the 50mm's, right? Except the tanks that continue to use L/55's, right? Except how for the past 60+ years the lengths have remained comparable, right? Like the 130mm that is functionally IDENTICAL to current lengths, RIGHT!?
They aren't getting longer, shut the fuck up and admit it, going around in circles isn't getting you anywhere. Those K2's literally everyone is ordering sure have long (L/55) cannons, amirite? Fucking seriously.
>US is an exception, many countries
Such as? Name them. I like the handwaiving. The US never matters right? Insignificant country, they've never had ANY sway ANYWHERE, amirite?
So you're willingly using a poor argument just to try and have SOMETHING? Okay, how about this:
It's now a "valid" "argument". More SF use AR's than bullpups, more police use AR's than bullpups, even from mainline-bullpup countries. AR's are now superior, congrats.
>Except the MPF, right?
I told you, LT barrels have gotten longer thorough LT history overall.
>Except the IFV's that aren't being equipped with the 50mm's, right?
Russia has introduced 100mm coaxial cannons that are larger and longer than their 30mm ACs. And they're pursuing larger 57mm ACs. Granted, the IFV trend isn't as clear cut as the MBT one, but newer IFV cannons in development do point to it.
>Except the tanks that continue to use L/55's, right?
The last I checked, L55s were the longest MBT barrels in service for now. So it doesn't detract from my argument.
>Like the 130mm that is functionally IDENTICAL to current lengths, RIGHT!?
It's still slightly longer. That's my point.
>Those K2's literally everyone is ordering sure have long (L/55) cannons, amirite?
S. Korea has followed the same trend Europe has.
They started with Shermans with 76mm guns (3.95m)
Then they moved to M46 and M48 Pattons with the 90mm M41 gun (4.7m)
Then they moved to M60, with 105mm L7s (5.46m)
Then K1 with 120mm KM256 (5.38m)
And now K2, with 120mm CN08 L/55 (6.60m)
And they are considering moving to 130mm (likely Rh-130 derivative, so 6.76m)
So same trend of longer cannons as Europe.
>Such as? Name them
Germany, France, Russia, China, the Koreas, they have all seen the longer cannon trend. Most countries that transitioned from L/44-L/55s have seen it. Most countries that transitioned from T-54s to T-72s have seen it.
The Type 15's barrel is longer than the Type 62 & 63? The 2A45 is longer than it was in the 80's? TAM's have a longer gun than any other L7-equipped tank? What about the Sabrah?
Aren't we talking about autocannons now? I'm pretty sure those are meant for blasting fortifications and launching missiles moreso than anything else.
Kek, again. Bumerang and the like still have 30's, strangely enough. No country has made nearly as much stink about bigger autocannons as they have tank guns. Those most recent I can think is the caseless 40mm's.
...You do know how long those have been in service, right?
Being a pedant and splitting hairs isn't helping your argument. It is functionally irrelevant. Adding or subtracting an inch to the gun isn't going to significantly affect a weapon of it's power.
You mean no vehicles procured? You have to go all the way back to WW2? How long was the time between each shift? Why are the K1's guns shorter than the M60's?
You know the 20pdr guns were longer than the L7's too, right?
For the trillionth time, there's more to it, MUCH MORE, than length. It is one of the least concerns compared to literally anything else just about. What point are you even trying to make? Yep, the 130mm is an inch longer, that means we're gonna se 15 meter long tank cannons soon enough when we get to the 250mm caliber!
Again, see above.
How about this? Instead of going around and around, break down your arguments for me in what you're trying to get across and we can start fresh from there. This is getting retarded.
>The Type 15's barrel is longer than the Type 62 & 63?
Can't find any data on that, but wouldn't be surprised if it is.
>The 2A45 is longer than it was in the 80's?
It is longer than the guns on older Soviet light tanks, like the PT-76 and light versions of the T-54.
>TAM's have a longer gun than any other L7-equipped tank?
They are longer than the guns on the tanks the TAM was replacing, such as the Sherman Firefly, M41 Walker Bulldogs and AMX-13s. Although TAM wasn't really a light tank, so the comparison may be iffy, though you could argue it was a direct replacement for similar role Argentina intended.
>What about the Sabrah?
For the Philippines? Well what tanks did they have before then? They don't have a history of tank barrels of any kind AFAIK.
>Aren't we talking about autocannons now?
Well, if we're restricting to just ACs, bigger ACs are in development. Before then, the barrel length trend wasn't that clear cut, as I said.
>You do know how long L/55s have been in service, right?
But they have gradually been replacing shorter barrel cannons in many different places ever since their first introduction.
>Adding or subtracting an inch to the gun isn't going to significantly affect a weapon of it's power.
Regardless, the length has increased. Been that way for weapons that had to deal with improving armor.
>You mean no vehicles procured?
What? S. Korea definitely used all the vehicles I listed for them.
>You have to go all the way back to WW2? How long was the time between each shift?
How fast is tank cannon shifts post WW2? They take decades. We didn't go from 76mm to 105mm to 120mm overnight.
>Why are the K1's guns shorter than the M60's?
Same reason why the 120mm Rh-120 started shorter than the 105mm L7. An minor exception in a general trend. The other steps from Sherman to K2 have all involved barrel lengthening. Why do you ignore those and only point out the rare times that trend is broken?
>Can't find any data on that, but wouldn't be surprised if it is.
They're the same gun, I was being facetious, but it doesn't really come through.
It stayed the same sized for 40 years. Putting an existing gun on a new chassis doesn't mean light tank guns got longer.
Yet not any different than other light tanks in other nations. You want to split it up your way to make a point, but it's not working. Type 62/63 use a copy of the L7, it's the same gun more or less. It's actually shorter than the Sprut's gun.
Exactly. What tanks DID they have comparable? Take the categories out and just compare guns. They didn't need to shrink or grow, that's the point. I'm almost positive the Chinese had an experimental "tank destroyer" with an oversized cannon, but never pursued it, instead opting for the L7 copies, do you see what I'm saying?
So not kosher to your "argument", then? It doesn't work historically, and it doesn't work inter-classification.
>Replacing shorter barrels
Kek, like on the MPF? How long was it's 120mm option again? What about on the XM1202? On the Centauro?
>Been that way
Clearly not. And, if a gun increase in length by 4 nanometers, would you still tout it? What about from the 20pdr to the L7 to the L/44?
No, I meant the 130's.
Exactly, yet you're trying to portend it's happening any day now (like it has for the past 30+ years, right?) and is a sure thing, contrary to evidence. Not all guns dealing with armor having increased in size or caliber. Why don't we more 120mm-armed LT's/TD's? Why aren't we hearing about those being armed with 130mm's?
I've listed, what, four or more times that's happened, and you want to waive it away? Pull your head out of your ass man.
>They're the same gun
No, the Type 62/63 uses the 85mm Type 62-85TC. Which appears smaller than the 105mm L7 (which the larger Type 59-II tank uses).
>It stayed the same sized for 40 years.
Again, tank cannon shifts happen over decades. When the shifts do happen, it's usually towards bigger and longer guns. At least for most of history so far.
>Putting an existing gun on a new chassis doesn't mean light tank guns got longer.
That means the guns being used on the vehicles performing those roles have still gotten larger.
>Yet not any different than other light tanks in other nations
But it is replacing tanks with smaller guns. It means that the larger 105mm L7 has spread further, while smaller 76mm guns from older vehicles have receded. That means LT guns on average are getting bigger and longer, as more 105mm L/52 guns are being made, and replacing smaller existing guns like 76 and 85mm across the world.
>So not kosher to your "argument", then? It doesn't work historically, and it doesn't work inter-classification.
That's only for existing IFVs. The trend has definitely played out for MBTs, LTs and HTs. Stop trying to debunk trends with exceptions.
>Kek, like on the MPF? How long was it's 120mm option again? What about on the XM1202? On the Centauro?
You keep using the 105-120mm transition, when most transitions to a larger caliber within each weapon category has seen an increase in barrel length. Again with the exceptions to the rule.
>No, I meant the 130's.
Granted, that may be speculative. But the in-service examples uphold the trend.
>Exactly, yet you're trying to portend it's happening any day now
They may not happen soon, but they are likely to happen eventually.
>I've listed, what, four or more times that's happened, and you want to waive it away?
Compared to the plethora of examples I've given that support the trend? I'm working with majority examples, you're just pointing out minority exceptions.
>No, the Type 62/63 uses the 85mm Type 62-85TC. Which appears smaller than the 105mm L7 (which the larger Type 59-II tank uses).
The "G" model, not the OG's. It doesn't go from 85 to 105 to 115/125, that's my point.
>Most of history
It's too inconclusive, as I've been trying to show.
Speaking of the Type 62, one model has a 105mm howitzer that's shorter than both the 85 and 105 guns from the original Chinese version, so I wouldn't say so. Also, why didn't the Sheridan use a big dick 152 to both increase size AND length like you're saying? The M41's 76 was longer, right?
Have they receded or been split between the 105's and 30mms?
>Trends with exceptions
Awful lot of "exceptions". Feels more like you're trying to pull a trend out of something that doesn't exist. Any day now I'm expecting those IFV's armed with 130mm's...
Man, I feel like we've listed more "exceptions" than "rules" at this point...
Christ, ANYTHING *could* happen EVENTUALLY, AT SOME POINT. We could discover cold fusion tomorrow and find a way to apply it to small arms meaning we can carry death rays the size of our cellphones and use those as main armament for MBT's, but you don't see me advocating for such.
My ass. There's as many "exceptions" as there are your "examples". And I don't even have to go back to WW2 to make the case. (Dumb even considering the changes in classifications really fuck with things in my opinion, or else how are either of us supposed to explain what "light tanks" were before the Wiesels and their armament, or the AMX's going from 90/105mm cannons to the 40mm now, etc. etc.)
Am I talking to two people? We started talking about MPF, which I specifically mentioned because the 105's/120's were being used on light tanks as well and you didn't delineate, just using the generic term "tank guns".
>The "G" model, not the OG's. It doesn't go from 85 to 105 to 115/125, that's my point.
But it still went from 85-105. That's an increase.
And before that they were using Soviet T-26 and BT-5 LTs with short 37 and 40mm guns. So a clear length increase up until the 105.
>Also, why didn't the Sheridan use a big dick 152 to both increase size AND length like you're saying? The M41's 76 was longer, right?
And the Sheridan is no more. It got replaced by the MPF with its 105mm L7. If you were to graph barrel lengths of US LTs from start to now, there's a clear trend upwards, even taking outliers into account.
>Have they receded or been split between the 105's and 30mms?
LTs are not using 30mm autocannons. 105mm guns have and are phasing out smaller LT cannons.
>Man, I feel like we've listed more "exceptions" than "rules" at this point...
Every exception you've listed I've rebutted with trends that have more data points. Whenever you bring up the 105-120 transition, I point out the transitions 76-105, L/44-L/55 and so on. There are just more examples of cannons getting longer than the reverse.
>Christ, ANYTHING *could* happen EVENTUALLY, AT SOME POINT. We could discover cold fusion tomorrow
The adoption of the Rh-130 is far more likely than cold fusion.
>My ass. There's as many "exceptions" as there are your "examples".
Almost every exception you listed I've rebutted. Either they confirm my trend (eg. TAM-2IP replacing shorter guns), or are outnumbered by my data points. If you so insist on bringing up the 20 pdr, or the 105-120mm L/44, then answer me this: What about 17pdr-->20pdr? Or 90mm--->105mm (90mm guns were used on some early MBTs), or L/44--->L/55? I can bring up more data points on the trend than you can on exceptions.
>You know the 20pdr guns were longer than the L7's too, right?
You that most countries that adopted the L7 never used the 20pdr, and went straight from shorter barrels to the longer L7 for their MBTs, right?
>For the trillionth time, there's more to it, MUCH MORE, than length.
And for the trillionth time, I KNOW. I've said it over and over again. I know there are more important factors, but that barrel length is still important enough to have caused a lengthening of armor piercing barrels. How is this hard to understand?
>You that most countries that adopted the L7 never used the 20pdr, and went straight from shorter barrels to the longer L7 for their MBTs, right?
More handwaiving? Do we just get to pick and choose what countries to exclude when it suits our needs? I hope none of those L7 countries went for L/44's instead of L/55's afterwards :^)
>This cope again
Re-read each one of my posts, CAREFULLY. Again and again until you get it. Stop holding water for barrel length when it's not even a major consideration anymore. Bore, Pressure, and Design are immensely more important, and trying to "yeah but" the minutiae is pathetic. Do you really want to start a conversation about how little tungsten is mined outside China and penetrator technology should move away from it? That's more important than barrel length, but it doesn't mesh with bullpupper worldview.
>Do we just get to pick and choose what countries to exclude when it suits our needs?
Most countries that got 105s transitioned from shorter 76-90mm guns. That's a trend.
>I hope none of those L7 countries went for L/44's instead of L/55's afterwards :^)
I'll give you that. But the L/55 is in the process of replacing L/44s across many countries. Leo 2A7, K2, they are moving in on positions previously held by 2A4s 2A5s K1s etc. If you look at countries, most went from 76-90mm --->105mm--->120mm L44. That's still an overall length increase even without the L/55.
Ok caveat to that: I realised that many countries didn't have MBT before getting 105mm guns. So for some of them, going from 105-120 meant decreasing length. That's something. But again, the average MBT cannon today is longer than the average MBT cannon from the 50s, 60s or 80s.
Are we still counting medium tanks from WW2 before "MBT" was a concept? And "Most" is not all. 60mmHV Chaffees weren't inline with anyone else, the 115mm Soviet gun was longer than the L/48 125mm of the T64 and the like. The L11 was the same size as the L30 instead of longer...
>Without L/55, "most"
Again, it seems like a lot to just be "exceptions", and lots of LT/TD's/etc nowadays aren't seemingly going bigger/longer, with the only real candidates being MBT's, and even then, they're POSSIBLE "upgrades" rather than sure-fire things, so taking a look at cannon-armed vehicles holistically, I'm not seeing it. Especially depending on what 76mm you mean.
Based on what? By how much? Would it matter?
Take M193 for example. It will NOT go through level 4 from point-blank at 3300fps from a 20" barrel. How much more do you think a 26" barrel would give it? Would it make it through at 3600fps? Well, you can ask Buffman, and the answer is no, it won't. If .277 somehow won't go through as it is now, making it 100fps faster isn't going to help any, so step up to .30 or .33 caliber. And this keeps coming back to pressure. You can have the longest barrels, but they're losing out to pressure. From a 20" to a 24" barrel, 5.56 isn't gaining 500fps or anything crazy, but raising the pressure 20kpsi it sure as shit is, from SHORTER barrels. You really oughtta read up on pressure curves, burn rates, and so on. Hornady manuals are cheap.
You act as if it's a linear or even exponential, uncontrollable thing, where there'll ALWAYS be something new and better. Re-read my previous posts. .277 is purported to be able to handle future threats. The US' nearest "rivals" would have to skip an entire generation of body armor to address it, whereas the US can just rechamber their rifles for less money than the enemy can equip armor, in less time. Not to mention however more bulky the armor would become, or the myriad of other things to get around the armor. Even then, who's to say there's anything even mid-term that can get "better" than XSAPI or VPAM13 or so on? Divorce yourself from this childish concept of rock-paper-scissors/RPG mechanics or whatever.
How long did it take after firearms were invented for practical armor to come about that could reliably stop them and not immobilize the wearer?
Yet they haven't as I've kept showing you. And, talking about firearms, they also haven't, and likely won't. .277 from a 13" doesn't cut it? .30 from a 13" is the next step up. They'll both have similar velocities due to the nature of high pressure ammunition.
>Tank cannons again/cont.
Why doesn't the US just switch to the L/55 for it's Abrams for example? Surely, by your "logic", M829 would gain that much "more" because of the barrel/pressure, right? Weird how it doesn't work that way, as the paper I linked earlier discusses. M829 gets all it needs from what it was designed for, and just increasing the barrel length doesn't do anything for it. Hence why ammunition tends to be tied to certain barrel lengths. L/55's tend to use DM53 derivatives, the US sticks with M829 for it's L/44's, the Brits use CHARM for their L/30's, etc.
I can get .308 loaded to 3kfps from a 20" barrel, and I can get 5.56 loaded to 3kfps also from a 20" barrel. Tell me what is going to have more energy? Say I add ~200fps to 5.56 by going with a 24" barrel... What has more energy now? It's the fucking .308. The 5.56 can be competitive in other ways, as it is now, and not even meaning weight, but wounding through explosive fragmentation and the like due to velocity that .308 isn't exactly known for in the same way, you can engineer the materials and design of the core to behave a certain way, all of that, and it doesn't require longer and longer barrels, larger projectiles, or so on. With tank guns and shoulder guns, there's a ton of overlap in this regard, but you keep ignoring it.
>I also said
Did you read what I wrote?
>It goes both ways
It doesn't though, and shouldn't. It's a poor point either way you slice it, regardless of how it would show conventional are adopted more, tend to turn into issued weapons more, etc. SF/Police are not mainline combat units, and their "wants"/"needs" are in no way comparable.
>What SF uses, has merit.
And the folk that use bullpups (SAS, SASR, etc.) switch to AR's, so it's meaningless. Some SF even use SCAR's, which is a joke. Indians uses the INSAS, and I know you aren't going to tell me THAT has merit.
No, I don't think it was that one, but that's interesting itself, I'll have to read that tomorrow (later today), and try and track down the other one. I almost feel like it had weird Indian names or something as the authors, but I could be wrong.
>While trying to pass it off as an indication that bullpups are coming back, which it is not
I also said some countries had recently adopted new bullpups. Some nations have newly adopted, some are buying more.
>And the SF folk that use bullpups (SAS, SASR, etc.) switch to AR's
People say that SF adopting ARs matters when it comes to bullpup trends. Fair enough. So when SF adopts bullpups, that should matter too. It goes both ways.
>the folk that use bullpups (SAS, SASR, etc.) switch to AR's
The SAS were using ARs before the US Army was, and they use them for the same reasons today.
If you say the absolutely retarded
>Goshdang Talibans wouldn't know who it was! ANYONE could be using AR's!
you can fucking have a nice day post haste.
Nobody gives a rat's arse what the taliban think. SF have very different requirements to line infantry, and if you start conflating the two - or god forbid add personal defence and target shooting into the mix - you're fucking braindead.
See: all NATO small arms.
I'm not the one kvetching that bullpups are definitely, TOTALLY on the way up because a bunch of third worlder's "SF" bought some to feel unique and special, while still predominately using conventional arms.
Are you fucking retarded?
It's still not, and does not slot with your larger non-argument of bullpups making a comeback, as I've said previously. SF/Police can play around with whatever they want, just because they have the budget and discretion to do so, it is meaningless. What does Noveske and LaRue do that the URGI doesn't? Nothing, yet you still see SF types getting unit-specific models from them.
It is, lots of people also say the opposite. And if all you know is a bullpup, you're going to sing it's praises, but if you use both, you'll prefer the conventional. Even if you try your damndest to prop up the bullpup, people tend to gravitate towards the conventional. There was some paper, I think a rehash of a previous one, where a group of people, varying levels of skill, took bullpups and conventional firearms, and did various things with them. In the end, no matter how much the bullpups were talked up about how it SHOULD do this or that, EVERY SINGLE RESPONDANT chose the conventional in the end. It's the same with France/NZ/Belgium/Malaysia/etc., they've had shitpups, but once they got their hands on non-bullpups, they went with them instead. The shilling has rotted your brain and making you beleive things that simply don't exist.
Also, whoever it was that said Bosnia adopted the VHS, please link me, because all I see is them still using M4's.
You really, really don't understand. .277 Fury and .308 are very close twins, hence why 7mm-08 was brought up, since it's basically just a necked-down 308. Very close to identical in nearly every way. Despite the 7mm being loaded 20kpsi less than the .277 AND having nearly double the length of barrel, it still cannot match the Fury. The whole thing about free lunches applies here basically. It's notsomuch the case material or anything at play here, it's the powder choices and firearm design. SIG's non-hybrid, lower-pressure .277 loads, out of 16" barrels practically match 7mm-08 out of 24" barrels instead of exceeding them like the hybrid loads do, and out of a 20", likely matches the TVCM loads. You increase the pressure, and it jumps exponentially. You're not going to get away with just increasing the barrel length and it all be dandy, there's tradeoffs involved, as with most things. Hence why magnum cartridges tend to be so much bigger than non-magnum cartridges, instead of just adding longer barrels. Take .270 Winchester and 7mm RUM for example. Take a look at the differences in case capacity, COAL, etc. For a similar barrel length, to get an extra 500fps, the RUM is a SUBSTANTIALLY "bigger" round. The Fury does it by increasing pressure. There comes a point where adding barrel does almost nothing. Like I said earlier, like trying to built a 60-inch-long 5.56 to get .50BMG energies, it just doesn't really work that way.
Again, see above. You're so close. You're not really going to get comparative results "keeping everything the same". You're either going to get lower performance, more wear in a bigger cartridge, or so on. It's not just a matter of adding barrel and calling it good.
It's all modeled, tested, and verified science, not basketweaving autism obsessed with muh speed. You're even going to hit a wall, as denoted in that paper, where just increasing the velocity isn't going to do much, and you're going to have to increase either the diameter or the length, and in the context of tanks, makes sense considering the size and distances, but in the context of infantry arms, runs into another wall in considering portability, collateral liability, ballistic properties, and so on.
We can already get a VLD-style projectile doing ~3kfps from short barrels, the next step is fine-tuning the penetrator design rather than just moving up to 4kfps, like they did with the EPR round(s) after M855's inconsistencies. If/when they figure out graphene/carbon fiber body armor, speed isn't going to save you, you have to look at the materials, design, and effects.
>Barrel length will keep increasing
Contrary to reality, right? Rifles have only gotten shorter, tank guns have stabilized, naval cannons haven't even increased in 4-5 decades, etc.
Which is another reason why it's unlikely. Longer barrels are heavier, less supported, take more materials, etc., whereas short barrels suffer from none of that. Anything done to address those points could also be applied to shorter barrels too.
None of this even mentions your handwaiving "nah, it'll just be better" with nothing to back that up. "Just better cuz faster" is not an argument. Tell me exactly WHAT two identical projectiles would do better/worse than each other in, if one is 500fps slower than the other, when they're already above 3kfps WHILE IN A TYPICAL MILITARY SCENARIO. Not some niche bullshit where a guy is standing still out in an open field you have unobstructed view of 2km away and you have all the time in the world to take a shot or whatever.
>Actually, the whole reason for being of bullpups is to NOT be AR's. Shitpuppers can never stop bringing them up, it lives rent free in all their heads. That shows you just how much of a cope choice they are.
he says, as he waddles into the bullpup containment thread to bother everyone abour how great ARs are
>Every /bpg/ OP includes something about their inferiority/comparing to AR's in the post
>Sees it loud and proud on the catalogue
>B-But we're just minding our own business!
Next you'll post the AUG next to the XM177, right?
>Every /bpg/ OP includes something about their inferiority/comparing to AR's in the post
Why would you go on the Internet and tell lies like that?
Damn, okay, I've clearly been away. Last year was when I remember it. (Seething ARkiddos ok too and before)
I was the one they recommend make /bpg/ instead of making 2/3 threads about shitpups, meaning good breads die (usually the slower ones, I remember being salty about a gunsmith general, shotgun general, and one of the three M&P threads dying waiting for replies, while the shit-ass bpg was still up. At least they all collectively at least kill a Ukraine/Russia thread)
>Do you think they're an evolutionary dead end
The reality is, people figured out that longer barrel = more power and less weight = better hundreds of years ago. Yet we're supposed to believe every rifle manufacturer, inventor and military on earth didn't come up with a bullpup design until a niche Austrian weapons manufacturer started designing "futuristic" weapons to sell to politicians and hollywood prop studios? The fact is bullpups are inferior to conventional rifle designs, which is apparent to anyone who actually knows about infantry tactics and isn't a flat range mallninja.
I want to hear you out if you want to explain regard they are inferior to conventional rifle designs
NTA, but military adoption and ubiquity, esp with hundreds of nations over several decades, is a type of natural selection, and bullpups lost. If there was any merit to them that outweighed their shortcomings, we would see them fielded by more of the world’s armed forces. I do wonder what it is exactly that makes bullpups basically a non-starter for a military.
Well the cases where bullpups were replaced for standard layouts seem more politically motivated than by any merit of the rifles. For example, France replaced the FAMAS because the arsenal that produced them went under, forcing them to adopt a foreign rifle which HK is a far more reliable supplier than HS Produkt. In the case of the QBZ-03, I legitimately don't know what the motivation is. Israel doesn't use tavors more than ARs because those ARs came free and replacing a tavor costs money. EM-2 was axed because muh 308
>Well the cases where bullpups were replaced for standard layouts seem more politically motivated than by any merit of the rifles
The same can (and should, in some cases) be said for the other way around though anon. If anything, bullpups always are going to be facing headwinds for being non-standard and having a training barrier. A bullpup could be a better gun yet I'd still expect it to lose unless it was a MUCH better gun, because militaries are conservative (for good reason).
I mean, look at NGSW. Yes the LMG was the decider but particularly given what we've seen since then it's pretty had to argue that the Sig was the best service rifle there. Which doesn't mean the bullpup was the best either, there was the textron as well, but in terms of motivations a lot of procurement programs involve politics. Sometimes explicitly, the government likes to maintain multiple providers and not end up in a monopoly situation, so the DOD will very specifically try to "split stuff up". That can't make up for an infinitely inferior product but they think longer term.
There is a way to break through the politics barrier to adopting new things. When great power competition necessitates innovation even if it means to hell with familiarity. Bullpups made their big break during the Cold War, when both sides tried to outdo each other at all costs, and I expect more countries to embrace them as we're slipping into another Cold War.
>There is a way to break through the politics barrier to adopting new things. When great power competition necessitates innovation even if it means to hell with familiarity. Bullpups made their big break during the Cold War, when both sides tried to outdo each other at all costs, and I expect more countries to embrace them as we're slipping into another Cold War.
I mean, yeah, war is the classic "buckle down and cut the bs" motivator. But I wonder if the guys at the top still consider infantry an important differentiator anymore. I mean, they SHOULD, but that doesn't guarantee that's where they money goes. Particularly since I bet a lot of them are thinking "if only we could replace all those servicemen with robots" these days. I guess I find it harder to have faith in a high level leadership drive for innovation benefiting soldiers, but I hope to be wrong.
>In the case of the QBZ-03, I legitimately don't know what the motivation is.
Probably CCP infighting, considering that they went with it instead of the Duo Yingxian–designed QBZ-191. Like, imagine if the Soviet Union had abruptly decided at some point to replace the AK with a Simonov design for no publicly-disclosed reason. You'd just know.
I think looking at just the past 20 years is a mistake. For two major reasons:
1) Bullpup adoption has not been a straight line - it's gone through ups and downs of rapid advancements and failures, from the thorneycroft, to the EM-2, to the late CW bullpups. The past 20 years have been a down moment, and eventually it will pass, and bullpups will regain popularity again.
2) the past 20 years have been an era without peer conflict, so there was no need to innovate, just refine what we already have. So bullpups didn't see much development during this time, and countries adopted the AR because it's tried and true and got more refinement during this time. But remember that bullpups made their big break during the Cold War (a time of great peer competition), and as we're entering into another CW, expect bullpups to resurge in the coming decades.
I think its more simple than that
Bullpup just isnt enough of an improvement to justify the cost of requipping your whole army.
Hence they were only adopted as replacements for batte rifles, countrys that already were using assault rifles tended not to adopt them unless some other factor meant they were going to change anyway, like east european nations wanting to switch to 5.56 now theyre in nato, or china wanting to switch to 5.8 as an anti corruption measure
>china wanting to switch to 5.8 as an anti corruption measure
I think China just wanted to "keep up appearances" more or less.
>West switches to SCHV
>Gotta do that!
>West shits on bullpups nonstop since they're first introduced
>Gotta do that!
We'll probably see an chink ubermagnum rifle eventually if the XM7 sticks.
Recently bullpups have been adopted by new countries (Iraq with VHS-2) or procured in more numbers (India, Israel, Ukraine). We often focus on countries getting rid of their old ones, but new ones are being adopted and procured as well.
And Iraq/India/Ukraine show that, during times of conflict, bullpups will get adopted more, even if they had real assault rifles before.
>Recently bullpups have been adopted by new countries
Name more than that one.
>Procured in more numbers
Surely not more than the 716i's they adopted.
Already used the Tavor, still hasn't phased out M4's
Poor example. They're taking what they can get, even M14's. Are you gonna tell me M14's are making a comeback because Ukraine got sent some for "free"?
SIG mentioned their NGSW entry had a bullpup prototype they dropped, and the RM277 didn't get selected. Finland just adopted two types of AR to replace their Rk's, etc.
The (miniscule) exceptions are not the rule.
Bosnia & Herzegovina, as well as Togo have adopted VHS-2 also. There are also a whole heap of countries that have adopted the X95.
>Surely not more than the 716is they adopted
But India is still buying more X95s, and Israel recently did too (they even went as far as publicly dispel the myth they were getting rid of them)
They are converting their own AKs into bullpups. This goes beyond "take what they can get". The bullpups are simply superior.
Being at war makes you favour bullpups. Even if some countries continue to adopt conventional, bullpup adoption has still accelerated in the last 10 years, and will keep going.
>Being at war makes you favour bullpups. Even if some countries continue to adopt conventional, bullpup adoption has still accelerated in the last 10 years, and will keep going.
Contrary to reality? It's not just "some" countries, it's a majority of them. Bullpup adoption isn't nearly in the same league, and being stagnant, starting at zero, even an increase of 1 could be twisted as saying "accelerated", but is factually wrong. You have zero evidence for it to "keep going" when the majority of nations on Earth do not use bullpups, are not adopting bullpups, and don't even have bullpup designs in the works compared to traditional.
>Being at war makes you favour bullpups.
Back to this: What constitutes "war" to you? In all the "*War* on Terror" many countries have been a part of, how many have adopted bullpups? How many adopted conventional? Why do so many SF/Police units use AR's? They're constantly in conflict. What about war tourists/PMC's/etc... Why don't they use bullpups more? What about all the countries in proximity to Ukraine not start dropping conventional guns and start adopting bullpups? Poland isn't likely to buy the bullpup version of the Grot, for example, but is buying the conventional version. Finland & Sweden aren't adopting a bullpup to replace their Rk's and Ak5's, but rather two AR patterns... The list goes on.
>Yet we're supposed to believe every rifle manufacturer, inventor and military on earth didn't come up with a bullpup design until a niche Austrian weapons manufacturer started
That's because the technology needed to make a good bullpup didn't appear until the later half of the 20th century. Once it became possible, then bullpups became successful during the late Cold War.
They’re a great idea, but poorly executed IMO. Dont own any bullpups, but have shot them. The idea of reading the OAL to the bare minimum needed for the gun to fire with x barrel length is a great one. Longer barrels, higher relative capacity cartridge firing higher SD bullets at longer velocities. This is not trivial. If there were some way to decouple the positioning of the magazine from where it needs to be - just behind the chamber, that’s a step in the right direction. Fix the weight distribution problem and the weird LOP problem. I like the p90’s setup. Maybe that but with a more potent cartridge?
In the meantime, before we figure out the solution for minimal length with top tier ergos, I think MP7 style guns are an attractive middle ground with the benefits of both conventional pattern rifles and bullpups, and only taking on their shortcomings to a minimal degree. And ofc this is limited to certain classes of rifles, given cartridge OAL limits. But I think with hybrid case tech, a 5.56 analog can be created that is short enough to fit in a mag that fits in the grip, and that can duplicate 14.5”+ barrel velocities from a ~10-12” barrel. Think 221 fireball at gigapressure. And if not, well, this whole mag-in-grip species of firearms is sorely lacking in developement anyways, Surely we can do better than 9mm and 4.6x30.
Reducing* not reading
Higher velocities* not longer velocities
There is no weight distribution problem, of all the things you could pick you choose something that is an unambiguous massive strength? Weight closer to center of gravity is superior in every respect. If you don't own any and have merely picked them up and shot them but are very familiar shooting regular guns then it's your muscle memory talking anon.
LOP etc is arguably also muscle memory and can be trained with/around but at least for plate wearers sure, reasonable debate to be had there. COG though? Nah. Weight near the back is good anyway, and with a can/accessories that plus the shorter OAL is even more so, nothing new about the physics of levers.
It's incredible watching AR users argue about 10.8", 11.5", 12.5", 13.8", and 14.5". How about using an 18" X95 and being shorter than all of them? If you're trying to save size it's a waste of time to even think about using an AR, but if you don't care about being shorter than it doesn't matter. And reloading an X95 is not more difficult than an AR. You click the bolt release when you insert the magazine which is quicker than an AR. Any lost time is saved by not having to slap a bolt release
>How about using an 18" X95
Because then they'd be using a bullpup, which is worse in every way.
>Not having to slap a bolt release
Holy shitpup cope. You put the mag in at hit the bolt release with your thumb in one motion, if you don't also have something like a PDQ or other ambi bolt release. Let's see anyone load a shitpup as fast as tactitards like Lucas Botkin or such.
There's a reason why militaries, police, and competition shooters don't use bullpups. Even the militaries that DO use bullpups have their SF and other "specialty" or such units using shorty AR's.
>Well the cases where bullpups were replaced for standard layouts seem more politically motivated than by any merit of the rifles
Huge shitpup cope. The AUG, FAMAS, and L85 had all the time in the world to be adopted for "muh politics", but they didn't, ESPECIALLY the AUG, since you can't handwaive New Zealand or other AUG users that dropped them like the FAMAS you tried coping about.
If we ONLY boil things down to "better" and "worse", it is a FACT that shitpups are WORSE politically then, which is still a factor, no matter how hard your kind tries to disregard it.
>since you can't handwaive New Zealand
I can easily handwave NZ unilaterally deciding to replace their A1s with an AR and then holding trials comparing 40+ y. o. AUGs with vintage 1.5× optics and milspec triggers against brand new LMTs with 4× ACOGs and match triggers to justify their decision.
Literally cope. If the compactness and ballistics were so important, they'd outweigh anything else, and I doubt they were so stupid as to not think of AUG upgrades. As a matter of fact, they had experience with them as you can look up if you Google "EF88 New Zealand" (or try F90 instead of EF88).
So that's the point. The improved variants had the chance to compete, and lost.
>Adopted recently, in other places
Not nearly as much as conventional, and you can't use Israel (already in service) or Ukraine (limited scale, not adopted mainline)
>Most bullpups have barely changed
You moved the goalposts from "they haven't been updated" to "they've BARELY been changed". It would be a no-brainer for New Zealand or whoever to just grab the EF88/F90 upgrade since they're already using the "base" AUG, as an example, but they didn't, and they likely had good reason not to.
Or the VHS for France. If it being a bullpup was SO important and SO well-regarded, it wouldn't have lost to the 416, and the VHS is one of the "better"/more "modern" shitpups available right now.
Again, starting from zero, going 2mph is "acceleration", but it's not indicative of anything and lags far behind anything else.
That lists places like police departments in the US, as I said before, that's not a good indication, or else we can have a look at all the countries that use bullpups, but have AR's in use with their SF/police.
Again, it's limited-use, not widespread, they're not wholesale adopting them, they're not taking every AK they have and trying to convert them to this, it's only an option, and not even a widespread one at that.
>Going out of their way
Your own video doesn't even show that. Again, if they liked bullpups so much, where are the M14 Juggernaut chassis?
>The improved variants had the chance to compete, and lost
In some trials. In others, they won and were adopted (I've mentioned adoptions already)
>Not nearly as much as conventional
But still adopted nonetheless. Also, on Israel, I said
>Recently bullpups have been adopted by new countries (Iraq with VHS-2) or PROCURED IN MORE NUMBERS (India, Israel, Ukraine)
>But India is still BUYING more X95s, and Israel recently did too
I said Israel was buying more, not recently adopted it.
>You moved the goalposts from "they haven't been updated" to "they've BARELY been changed"
I used "haven't been upgraded" as hyperbole, not to say they haven't changed AT ALL. But any changes to the AUG and FAMAS were peanuts compared to the AR. That's why old, barely changed rifles have gotten replaced by ARs. They've been updated far more than AUGs or FAMAS, and are far more common and battle proven than newer rifles like the VHS. But as newer bullpups get developed and prove themselves, this will change.
Also lists plenty of military adoptions, like Angola, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, and Mongolia.
>they're not wholesale adopting them, they're not taking every AK they have and trying to convert them
You don't need to give one to every rifleman to say it's adopted. The HK 416 and Sig MCX aren't in every US rifleman's hands, and they're still adopted by US military.
>where are the M14 Juggernaut chassis
Probably because the M14 has seen much less use than AKs, so it makes sense to focus on AK conversions instead of M14 ones?
>Your own video doesn't even show that
The video literally talks about a company making bullpup conversion kits for existing AK rifles, and them appearing on the battlefield.
>In some trials. In others, they won and were adopted (I've mentioned adoptions already)
No, you haven't. You keep mentioning Israel and Ukraine for some reason, and I've already explained to you why that's retarded.
No, again, see above. Also, see below
Then clearly it's not applicable, like with URGI and the US as I said. India also has AUG's and it means nothing. It's super niche same as using AR's for their SF/Police, which they'd honestly be better off with anyways.
Bad through text, say what you mean. And it's still a handwaive. You're putting some known-only-to-you/you-get-to-decide "ceiling" on what constitutes "major" upgrades or not.
The "newer" VHS still didn't get adopted by France.
Army AND Special Forces, army still has non.
POLICE Special Forces, kek
You really need to let this one go.
Gee, it's like you're not even reading. I find it interesting those countries also have non-bullpups in their inventory, SF too. Almost as if your supposed "point" makes no sense and SF/Police inventories have less rigidity to them than the larger institutions and can have leeway to try things and don't matter as much. They could use whatever they want, they can replace these next month if they haven't already (I'm not going to Google it right now), and so on.
Terrible, terrible take.
Yes, you do. Niche applications are not adoption. Unless the main branches are using them, it's not anything outside specialty roles that are alongside non-bullpups and could be replaced with non-bullpups and do nothing to show the supposed "superiority" you keep trying to posit, when even these incredibly niche applications are few and far between, let alone really practical. SF goes through guns like crazy, there's entire web pages dedicated to all the shit American SF uses, from the LaRue's, to Geissele's to SIG, to Noveske, to whatever. None of it matters, they have the budget and discretion to do whatever they want, so if they just wanna test something or even play around with it on an individual basis, they can. Nothing to do with the supposed qualities of the gun or not compared to anything else, or we wouldn't STILL see AR's in the hands of every "high-speed" Dick & Harry, let alone how the SCAR exemplifies why your interpretation of "adoption" is meaningless. SF using it doesn't mean good. Hell, Delta still has MAC-10's in inventory, doesn't mean machine pistols are on their way back up and highly sought after.
But, if going by your "logic", how people in combat SOOO appreciate bullpups, why wouldn't they convert them? How is it any different than the AK bullpup?
He says it's not an exhaustive survey, there's no hard numbers, the product has existed since the 2010's, and so on.
Like I said, the airsoft-tier red dots some Uki's are putting on them doesn't mean airsoft gear is a good or popular choice for soldiers. Personal preference does not mean institutionally good or relevant.
You tried to imply, still are, it's some large huge thing that definitely means bullpups are on the up and up, but all it is is an aftermarket OPTION that SOME soldiers buy into, or the niche units in SF are using, same as it is with fucktard civilians like on this general, just niche edgelord hipsters trying to scream from the rooftop that their identity object is super totally valid and not actually shat on by the majority of people and institutions on Earth. You literally cannot prove otherwise, and have not so far.
I just like it
Why isn't your WML's dummy cord attached to anything?
Why the Fuck is your AR the ruger takedown model?
I heard the safety position is the only problem with the control ergonomics. A better trigger though and you'll have one of the nicest bullpup options with the least aftermarket work.
No, yes, maybe.
1) No. There are large number of issues inherent to bullpups compared to conventional rifles, which chip away at their advantage. There has also been a ton of development and work done in the past few years to solve these issues, and I'm genuinely excited to see what'll be out in the next few years.
No matter what happens, you're back to square one: A bullpup will have more barrel length for the same OAL compared to a conventional rifle. Regardless of what solutions are implimented for bullpup ergonomic issues, or if they're even considered at all, as well as whether the extra barrel length even matters, you're always back at square one.
2) Yes. Different users have different requirements, depending on who they are and what they're doing.For some users/uses, ambidexterity is a non-issues, but for others it's a deal-breaker.
3) Maybe. There-'s been a lot of progress towards fixing the issues inherent with bullpups, but IMO there aren't any that are perfect in every way. The RDB is ambi and has a good trigger, but I wouldn't trust its' ejection method for "serious" use. I've only shot one once and from what I've heard they're generally reliabile, but jams that could be solved with immediate action on a conventional rifle would require remedial action on an RDB. I might be wrong since my experience with them is limited though, please feel free to correct me. If cased telescopic ever become a thing, then bullpups will definitely see a resurgence - CT ammo naturally ejects forwards, which solves the biggest bullpup problem. Another possibility is that improvements in body armor will necessecite ultra high velocity rounds, in which case longer barrels become en vogue again. Conversely, improvements in chemistry/materials might allow for decent performance out up CQB-length barrels. Of course, no then you're back at square one, and the same chemistry that would allow for such performance would do the same for a long-barreled rifle.
>all this talk about military adoption
Question for you all, why do you care? We're not soldiers, we have different needs and considerations than the department of defense. We can use things like V-max and other hunting loads of 5.56 instead of being limted by M855. We can have ARs with barrels that aren't government profile. Why is it when rifles are discussed all the sudden its the most relevant factor?
Because it's the only context they have to try and tout the supposed "benefits" of bullpups.
Military ammo selection doesn't matter to civilians, jumping out of your APC to clear a house then fire at someone the next 6 blocks over doesn't apply to civilians, having an unlimited budget doesn't apply to civilians, and so on and so on.
It's just funny that it goes further to counter their claims of supposed bullpup superiority.
That, and AR's live rent free in their heads so all they can do is try and compare instead of just enjoying their own firearms, having to constantly shit on others to justify their whole existence/personality archetype.
I have the solution to the biggest problem with these things
But you're gonna argue with me about it
Let me just tell you before hand, you are wrong, and I am right
BATTERY OPERATED TRIGGERS
No more "creepy" trigger
No more metal rod extending all the way back to the real trigger
Just an electric contact switch that activates the trigger mechanism
Trigger so light a strong wind could activate the trigger
THANK ME LATER
>B-BUT BATTERIES DIE
No, you're wrong, the gunman will die long before his trigger battery dies, kys chud
Just give up, you know I am right
The AUG already has a trigger that works the same way as a 1911's and is even adjustable for takeup, it just feels heavy and plastic-y because it's made almost entirely of plastic and is weighted to be drop-safe.
Also, I don't need to argue with you about it because the ATF will do it for me.
Fuck the GayTF, RC car gat crank triggers now
This but unironically.
You just know electric triggers would work super well combined with those "auto aim stabilisation" scopes too.
>tfw ATF just approved the Form 1 SBR on the PS90 ten minutes ago
Already have the 10" barrel, thread adapter, etc. ready to go!
Nice; are you planning on swapping the barrel yourself or having a professional handle it?
I'll be doing it myself. I have the tools to do it and I've watched a few Youtube vids and read some forums posts on how to do so its pretty straight forward. As long as I don't fuck up and let a spring fly out I should be alright lol.
Conversion complete. Sadly, my B&T 3 lug flash hider does not fit the Liberty Suppressor 3 lug mount. Oh well.
solves "hurr durr, muh rifle is awkward to get out of a car with" by making a gun more awkward in the 99% of the time you actually use the fucking thing
Anyone have a Desert Tech MDR?
>rainbow flags on everything
Get your eyes checked moron.
This is my board.
Your KAG is backwards, HKfags get the rope, get the longer MDR handguard and shroud your suppressor, based with the VFG and brased tho, but still take this L, cope, seethe, dilate, and mald even. W gang here, no L's allowed.
Nope, ur poor, shrouded silencers are gay, I know im based.
Ur a faget.
explain your dust cover gay
You must be 18 to post here.
>posting tired NewGrounds memes from 2007 on your gun
holy shit reddit-tier cringe
>muh muh leddit
Jej, lets see your poorfag rifles, you do have guns right anon?
how did you btfo anyone, you were accused of having a pride cover and instead showed it's something 10x worse
you btfo yourself cumchugger
>liking le epic maymay is worse than being a bugchaser
You lost chudchaser?
you keep calling other people what you are like somehow all that projection will stop you from being the kind of cringe reddit gay who puts washed up memes on his guns
you make me want to puke. i hope there's an accident at that range one day and you're the victim.
>nvm gay is cool
Please at least get your story straight ffs.
Imagine seething about what another man puts on his guns.
I bet youd never do that to guns these nice, but I can because I have more money than you.
Hahahhahah ur poor lmao
no one said gay is cool you walking cumsicle
Jej. Post some guns so I can laugh at then.
I bet you have a t-shirt with a trollface on it too
I dont buy graphic t-shirts because im not a gay, like you.
if you're going to be cringe IRL at least go all out
Screencapping this for the next school/mall/fast food shooter groomed by the glowies thread.
No, i don't think i will
Kneepads, on the shins, or, shinguards that look like kneepads?
kneepads that have walked down to the shins because they don't know to cross the straps
kneepads they've slid down to their shins because anyone who has worn these kinds of kneepads for hours on end knows how badly they cut into the calf and thigh musles, it's fuckin infuriating after about 4 hours
They don't siphon enough US goybux to afford pants with integrated kneepads for their troops?
Goated bullpup, smart controls, dope modularity, has the fuckin HK slap, accurate shooter.
Take the bullpup pill, it comes with a free thicc ass IDF thot to slobber your balls while you practice combat reloads.
Installed this recently. Nicer than the manticore arms deflector.
How does it install? There's no explanation on the manufacturer's website.
Being nicer than the MA deflector doesn't take much, but seeing it installed (also not present on ARID's webzone) it looks slicker than the Corvus Defensio hulsenabweiser.
Yeah, there aren't any instructional videos so it took a minute to figure out. It's just the main portion you see and a piece of a cheese slice shaped aluminum with a threaded hole in the middle and has a thinner edge presumably to save weight. First, thread the two together just enough so that you can slip it over the inside edge of the ejection port. Then torque it down with the key.
Straightforward. If their extendo rail ever drops I'll probably pick one up.
Where do you get the rail in picrel? I need FULL GRIP.
You don't; it's something they did once for some customer who asked for it and it's a collector's item that costs as much or more than the gun now.
Stopped production so you'll have to find someone else who is willing to part with theirs. It does fuck with the barrel's heat dissipation and has rattling problems though so you're not missing out on much. Also lose the ability to swap off the barrel.
Bullpup sounds like a retarded British term so the first order of business is giving them a cooler name, something with a three letter acronym
AUG is only good bullpup
FAMAS is allegedly good, too, but you can't buy one so it's a moot point.
The LSAT rifle could've been an electronic p90-style bullpup that weighed only 4-5 pounds.
Talking about supermagnums; What are the cheapest currently available .308 bullpups? Would any of them withstand being rebarreled for .277 Fury or similar?
>RFB, not on my life, literally
>K&M M17S, aren't they expensive? Probably easiest to mod though maybe
>Tavor 7, considering the X95's gas problems, I rather not flame cut my eyeballs out of my head
>MDR, too expensive?
... What others are there?
RM277 never ever of course, I'd even settle for SIG's prototype SPEAR bullpup.
Black Rain's meme is probably vaporware too.
When the westinghouse M-25 is finally released to the general public, bullpups will reign supreme
take dat clip out yo bullpup playa
I scrolled all the way through and not one ODG AUG?
I'm nervous now... What color are these? Am I colorblind?
I dunno anon, what color ARE they?
anon I... they're FDE. I hope ypu weren't planning on becoming a fighter pilot...
Seriously, wtf. They're actually FDE? I've never been told I'm colorblind before! I'm legitimately nervous right now.
I looked up "ODG AUG" and found this picture, and it looks the EXACT same.
pc/phone screen color settings maybe? But you should prob go get a colorblindness test
Their guns look like the same color as their helmets and uniforms. I'm going to play with my monitor settings because this is freaking me out.
Their helmets are a dull green. Guns and almost all of their gear are brown. The guy in the back/furthest left in the picture has a dull green velcro patch area on his right shoulder.
Steyr "Mud" is a RAL 8000–adjacent green-brown color that can look very close to OD Green in the right (wrong) lighting and with the right (wrong) monitor calibration.
Colorblind anon, can you tell the difference between these guys augs and their helmets? Can you tell which parts of their uniforms and gear are green vs brown?
Bullpups are neat sidegrades that might suit your needs for certain applications. Their strengths and weaknesses are both really overblown. You probably don't really need one vs a conventional layout rifle. If you do have a use case that favors them or you just really like it, they have their own manual of arms and muscle memory you need to develop. I fear a guy that legit trains with his AUG much more than the guy that takes instagram posts of his pristine LMT.
If you really need a long barrel in a reduced length package, or you need to smallest possible overall length, it’s worth considering. But you have to want those features to the detriment of potentially everything else.
Ghey. XM193I does 3200fps out of a 16", likely not exceeding 3300-3400 out of a 24". For an extra 1-200fps, I'll just walk forward 25 yards. It's not as if the round is magically going to disappear because it lost 100fps.
Folding stock > Bullpup
There's diminishing returns. I wouldn't personally go smaller than a P90 for example, but an MP7 can get smaller once collapsed. Or an MCX PDW that I forget the name of right now.
Exception: KSG. Shorter package, more ammo. Shame it's harder to load faster and/or top up, even if you don't have to load as much.
Possible exception: HTI. Bigger caliber with extra long barrel, but, what does it really do a Barrett won't? I almost feel like, at that point, you're already committed to an oversized gun regardless, and you could at least maybe break down or fold a conventional gun to be more manageable than the HTI.
Bullpup hate. All my bros hate bullpups.
Bullpups are bad because I can't larp as a navy seal with a tavor
they're better but they aren't as well understood, are more difficult to operate, maintain, modify etc. they aren't better enough to force a change a perfectly excellent rifle which, in the US at least, has been in use for 60 years now.
tiny improvements in bullets have already proven to be a more likely cause of changes than massive changes to layouts
and before anyone replies "muh manual of arms, muh ease of use" the OP was talking about combat rifles. as in designed for ease of use and training by the most braindead jarhead zogbot Johnsons and Garcias. to say nothing of logistics and existing inventories, retraining armorers etc.
whats easy and practical for the average PrepHole browsing firearms enthusiast is not necessarily easy and practical for an entire military
All the tank talk is making me miss treadhead general.
Why is it that the mere mention of a bullpup causes incomprehensible seethe from AR chuds?
Because the idea that all weapon systems represent a set of compromises you're willing to make in service of your subjective priorities, and that there's no one best gun that's perfect for everyone, is antithetical to the entire worldview they've built up around their default option rifle.
>Bullpuppers can't stop comparing to ARs
>It's the AR people's fault!
>But it still went from 85-105. That's an increase.
Not compared to other 105-armed tanks. It's the L7 that so many others have. Why didn't it go for a longer 105, or the bigger 115's or 125's?
So handwaiving? It went bigger and shorter instead of straighter bigger and longer.
Tell that to what replaced the AMX's and Scorpions.
You have not. You handwaive anything that you don't want to hear. You say it's ALWAYS longer, but when I mention the L44's you stomp your feet and say "W-Well, they went to L55's afterwards anyways!", clearly indicating that it's counter to your narrative and you have no argument. Exemplified by the Sheridan. Went from a long 76 to a short 152, so you handwaive it "not existing anymore", even though you insist on EVERYONE only going 76-105-120. Where's the Centauro's 120mm? Where's Japan's 120mm MCV? Where's the Chink 120mm LT? Why does the MPF have 105 when it was presented with 120 as an option? Why does the MPF have an option to be fitted with a 50mm yet no 130mm? Why does France and Britain not have 105/120mm LT's or RV's?
Is it? Do you have some arcane knowledge of the future the rest of us don't you can so accurately predict the future? All you're doing is pointing at something that exists and saying IT COULD HAPPEN THO!?!? and shutting out any information to the contrary. The XM360 could be introduced and shift tank design to lighter vehicles with shorter guns, but you'll dismiss that too because muh tech level, like we're playing fucking Civ or something.
You have to go to WW2 to try and make your case and it STILL doesn't work, as listed numerously above. How about we go to the Civil War where muskets were typically 30" barrels? Barrels have only gotten shorter since then, so I win, right? Fucking retard.
Bullpups are like the metric system in the US, clearly the superior choice but people are to set in their ways to adapt.
oh my God, tank people are insufferable