>M16 firepower in a Mk18 package?

Until battle rifles were needed, then they started digging around to refurbish ancient M14s for use as battle rifles, footing the high cost of forcing them to be passably accurate (until disassembled for cleaning).

Varmintriflegays are crazy.

Battle rifles have never been needed.

Yeah, they're really good at being converted into DMRs when you realize that battle rifles are a terrible choice for normal infantry engagements.

because older name imply a full auto capable, 4 moa tier, scopeless, bayonet mounting, grenade lobbing rifle.

>battle rifles are a terrible choice for an infantry engagement

Lmao ok.

What point are you trying to make?
Most other nations don't use bullpups, and even the ones that do use non-bullpups in certain capacities quite a lot, so either way...???
On top of that, how about this phrasing:
>What has killed more [people of your choosing]? Memepups, or not-memepups?
I'm sure decade upon decade, trial after trial, leadership after leadership ALLLLLL know less than 4chinz.
Y'all almost make me not want to keep muh fishgun just because of your stupidity and unhealthy obsession with 'puppers. (Pic related)

>Sell that gun to someone who actually knows the lore.
Hell nah. I get to post it whenever moron memepuppers try and act as if I've never even held a bullpup and am clueless when I know for a fact I've held and shot more bullpups than they've ever even seen in person and STILL call them inferior.
When my bullpup kit for my Scorpion gets here, I'll be posting that too for extra seethe.

Nice strawmanning.
>Range and Power
Important, but M193 isn't the only projectile in .223.
>Trigger
I didn't once mention triggers, your seethe is showing.
>Muh compactness muh flatness
See above
>Gnomes
TF are you even talking about?

That’s not his point, their uses are completely different, let’s not pretend that the development of short barreled rifles aren’t a series of compromises stemming from armies that continue to press every soldier into taking on more and more roles and responsibilities.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.
If they're for different roles, why do nigpuppers try and compare them incessantly? What "short barrels" are widely issued to general troops? If they're for specific roles, how are the short barrels "compromises"?

Except, as I keep saying, the length and barrel don't make as big of a benefit as you think it does. That's why modern (non-M193/M855) ammunition exists, it's why even shorter bullpups were looked into, why higher-pressure ammunition is considered, it's why the use of bullpups is dwindling, etc.
I don't consider an M4 a "short barrel" in the context of this thread, since most people seem to be talking about the Mk18. Between your MDR (in 5.56, 16", I assume?) and a 14.5" M4, the 1.5" of extra barrel makes very little difference, EVEN with M193, and if we're talking military arms, what's the LOP you're at with your 416 while wearing armor/other kit? People seem to be under this impression that 26" somehow turns a rifle into a magic wand that is effortless to use, but if you hit 30" it somehow becomes unusable, or, my favorite, is not realizing that saying "well, my [favorite bullpup] is the same length as an M4 WHILE having a can on too!" implies that it's perfectly adequate maneuverability-wise at that length anyways.
This weird fascination with paper stats and comparing numbers confuses me. "X is less than Y, therefore better!".
If we're talking about training/sacrifices/logistics/etc., then again, let's talk about nations that use non-bullpups to great affect and don't seem too bothered by the supposedly "inferior length" of their weapons.
I'd be very interested to read any reports of actual soldiers saying "My M4 is too long" or "I miss my AUG/FAMAS, this LMT/HK is trash", etc.

While I agree with this assessment the army apparently doesn’t, they think the infantryman needs to be able to engage targets beyond 400 meters.

The only sentiment I agree with is that there is a better way to get the infantry rifle to do more things, and that’s a bullpup configuration.

I also think there's a weird disconnect between saying "expecting soldiers to do more jobs" and "they need to be able to clear a building and ALSO shoot 600+ yards outside of it" instead of what things like Hue or Fallujah or Mosul or... (so on etc.) showed.
Light the house up with a .50 or level it. Need long-range fires? Use more effective weapons, not your AUG or M4.
Up close, either is fine, far away, either is fine, in the grand scheme, neither makes so much of a difference in their differences that it greatly impacts warfare in any possible asspul memepuppers can say about whatever umpteenth percentage point their raifus allegedly could ever make and none can ever get around the fact that their only two supposed advantages are obviously not enough for literally ANYONE other than a HANDFUL of places to hang onto and keep.

Although, ONE THING I'll say in M193's defense is that a lot of the commercial stuff is loaded too weak and still marked "M193".
If anything, I think it should be loaded EVEN HOTTER, like Independence XM193I that still does 3200+fps out of 16" barrels, easy.
Out of 20" barrels? Probably close to ~3450 or so.
It's all-around better M193 as far as I'm concerned, and I HATE M193.
>t. the "Bubba" in "Bubba's Pissin' Hot Handloads"

It's not a binary though. Not all ammunition just gets better the faster it goes. That applies for pistols and rifles. Push a round too fast and it won't penetrate as deeply or it'll fragment instead of expand, etc. (Of course, designs can account for this, but you get my meaning) and if new ammo can let's even just say "match" old ammo, then what's the use case for bullpups? You can retain your longer barrel and MAYBE be similar or slightly better but we're just moving the bar up arbitrarily, and whereas if you go too short on a bullpup, now you have a neat PDW sure, but you lose out and so many other things.
An MDR Micro with a long-ish can covered by a handguard that doesn't lose zero MIGHT be SOMEWHAT acceptable (have fun melting your lights/lasers/hands tho), but a standalone Micron-length bullpup is just too short IMO. Look at how cumbersome those Micro Tavors are (or whatever adjective I'm trying to think of), or heaven forbid their "Marksman" version (why?). The MDR on it's own is about the damn-near "perfect" length IMO anyways for a bullpup.
Also, due to more compact suppressors like the Delta P Brevis II or similar, adding these frickhueg cans to rifles (bullpups or otherwise) doesn't seem to be as much an issue to me as before.
If .308 was as "developed" as .223 (maybe it is, I dunno), then I might even be saying the same for shorter .308's (a 12.5" POF, for example), but IMO, the MDR, in .308, with something like a Brevis, is just about the most versatile rifle you can get right now (barring lackluster aftermarket it seems), and that's coming from a bullpup hater.
Still rather have an AR10 or Six8, but I'm not going to be so mean and say I don't SOMEWHAT ... "appreciate" their... "novelty", I guess.

>Not necessarily the same loading
I get it, but I think at that point it's just stubbornness to admit SBR's have loading available to them that close the cap to an acceptable level and just saying "MORE" is a childish mindset. If new load X from, say, an M4, can perform "as good as" Y load did from, say, an M16, then it's a good load, right? "Well it COULD be better!" isn't an argument. Striving for bigger and better is admirable, sure, but no-one leads with that, they plant their feet, say "lel, SBRcels don't muh 20" M193", then move the goalposts until "W-Well sure there's loads that are good for SBRs b-but MUH STILL BETTER!!!" and it's real asinine. And I wonder if there's a point where it's diminishing? There's a reason no-one (really) shoots 20" .300BLK, for example.

I'm not gonna say one scenario CAN'T happen where that extra nth-degree would be helpful, but I think the minutiae can get misleading from the real world.

For example, I live in Michigan, in the UP. The area I live in is heavily forested, some marshy areas, and loooong county roads, compared to your wide-open state, I have different use cases and concerns, so for all I understand, you'd like that longer barrel, even if I wonder how often the compactness of an AUG, say, would come in useful in those spaces, or so on, but again, that's not my call or experience, so I'm not going to say you HAVE to abandon bullpups, that we can agree I think.
My one immediate thought though, is, compared to AR's/AK's/etc., in a boogaloo, where are you going to get parts and such for an MDR or whatnot, compared to literally anything else?

Also:
>The ONE aftermarket MDR barrel maker
Link? I plan on getting an MDR at some point and I've always thought a .338 Federal or something could be neat, for some reason.

I might not be a scenario larper, but an autist gun tweaker ranter, I'm all about, so, respect my man.

>then what's the use case for bullpups
By realizing that the above statement:
>if new ammo can let's even just say "match" old ammo,
Is not true in reality. It's only ever going to be a cope level of parity with fudged results. And hot ammo takes its toll on internal components so that "solution" may introduce new logistical problems.

The use case for bullpups is that it does both jobs at the same time. It is a long barreled rifle in the package of a short barrel. Therefore it is the absolute ideal general issue infantry rifle as you don't need to think at all about who gets what "specialist" weapons; they're all equally adequate in virtually all situations. The one-size-fits-all concept is kind of core to the concept of a service rifle as well; all attempts to separate the concepts is due to institutional inertia from picking a service rifle (carbine) that wasn't OSFA in the first place and being stuck coping with it.

And there is no such thing as going too short. The design of optional suppressors mean that the ultra compact bullpups like the MDR Micron config you are still restrained by the base rifle's hand space, but there's nothing preventing the creation of a compact bullpup with integral suppressor and a handguard that extends over it. That will solve the issue of it being "too small to hold". It's in a size that no conventional rifle can ever hope to achieve.

>an optic bigger than an ACOG
You do realize that's in the context of a compact bullpup right? The kind which is equivalent to a 5" normal rifle? You're thinking of putting an LPVO on the latter?

(Continue)
You get the point, NOT USE bullpups?

You sound mad. All your "arguments" can be boiled down to "nuh-uh!". Cope harder homosexual.
Also;
>It’s literally impossible to shoot supported with a bullpup
Is this sarcasm, or are you literally moronic?
>Rearward weight meme
>Well balanced
>Tavor
Stopped right there.

>Every argument about a gun or any other equipment doesn’t hinge on whether or not a military uses it or more militaries use it. Is the AK objectively superior because it has more users? Hand waving THIS point isn’t fair and completely ignores the reality of military procurement. You call my concessions about soft values of weapons that don’t appear on the tech sheet “hand waving” but then use the exact same argument by claiming no one professionally uses bullpups.
Nice projecting and deflection.
More militaries and police use conventional rifles than bullpups and it's a fact. More civilians use conventional rifles than bullpups, that's a fact. Just because you don't want to admit to it and cling to your meme gun, doesn't change the facts.
The AK is objectively better than bullpups, first, by way of not being a bullpup, but if you want to deflect and try and compare the AR and AK, we can do that too, since you're obviously running out of ways to cope.
Militaries have procured bullpups, had the opportunity to keep them, buy new ones, or switch to conventional, and look where they've all gone.
It's not handwaiving to say people don't use bullpups because muh length isn't the only factor in deciding on what's best in a service rifle, a point you morons cant' seem to get around.
You wanna talk about muh grand scope and muh other factors, but then you want to only talk about length and balance, as if it fricking matters in a vacuum.

Comparing what others are doing and looking at a problem holistically instead of clinging to memes is a whole hell of a lot more objective than screeching
>BUT MUH LEEEEEEENGTH!!!!!!

The chinks are still using them though

They still are since the QBZ-191 is being issued to the units that had adopted the QBZ-03 (those who didn't adopt the bullpups in the first place). It's only the DMR variant that's actually replacing the QBU-88 across the board (because It fricking sucks).

fricking chinese cant do shit original

Except it is true, why would you even deny that? There's ample proof, and even proof how more isn't even always better.
Why people think M193 is the be-all, end-all is beyond me, when even the military realized Mk262 is better for ALL weapons than M193/M855/etc. for example.
>Taking it's toll
Horseshit. I hear so much made of this but rarely see it outside of "It's just OBVIOUS" when asked to see any case for this, and, even if it WERE that big of a problem, BCG's and the like don't need to be stuck in 1960 anymore either. I can guarantee you more "modern" internals (hell, when were the "enhanced" bolts for the military first a big thing? The 90's?) would do just fine with even holyhellthatsalottapressure rounds. Logistics wouldn't be any different than adding any of the other parts for the AR the military already does, if not keeping the same amount if replacing one-for-one instead of supplementing.
>Use case
Except it doesn't. It sucks at that, gives up literally every other "advantage" and everyone that uses or has used them can't seem to drop them fast enough.
And are you saying the military DOESN'T try and "one-size-fits-all" things? How many things was the M14 supposed to replace again?
>Too small
Except for the lack of rail space for LAMs, pressure switches, lights, an optic bigger than an ACOG, or so on? OR, not frying the shit out of all your equipment/hands having what is supposed to be a higher-volume (compared to civvie, I guess?) firearm having a giant fricking heatsink basically right under your hand/equipment/against your body. Try adding a wrap to it and/or the handguard, see how that goes on your already crowded weapon.

>Hope to achieve
I guess they focus more on achieving widespread adoption, but hey, keep telling yourself you need a 15" weapon with an LOP so small you give yourself strain trying to scrunch up close enough to it or blowing your or a buddy's appendages off, or not having a folding stock to be even smaller than a bullpup could ever hope to achieve, etc. etc. etc.

>I'd be very interested to read any reports of actual soldiers saying "My M4 is too long" or "I miss my AUG/FAMAS, this LMT/HK is trash", etc.
I wouldn't be. Why should I give a shit what they think?

The universalism of the "tactical community"—the persistent idea that soldiers, policemen, and armed private citizens all have the same needs and priorities, and that accordingly the best gun for one is the best gun for the rest—and the idea that militaries and LE agencies choose weapons based on some reified "bestness" rather than on the balance of a host of specific factors, and that this "bestness" is prescriptive and that people should be argued with for preferring one perfectly functional platform over another, all need to go in the trash.
Different people and organizations have different priorities, missions, externalities, and even subjective tastes, and make different choices accordingly. This is a feature, not a bug, and browbeating people into subordinating their personal preferences to the AR/Glock meta is counterproductive.

The only insight that all of those data points can offer is "the AR platform is fine" (which everybody already knows) and "conventional rifles are conventional, so people tend to stick with them unless they feel they have a reason not to, and they usually don't" (which everybody already knew because that's what "conventional" means, and even the most die-hard memepup fanatics will eventually admit, since militaries and LEAs don't have to worry about the NFA and have first dibs on whatever special ammo their subcarbines need to perform effectively)
It's a shame that bullpup enthusiasts' enthusiasm so often spills over into shit talking normal rifles, but that's just the nature of being enthusiastic about something; you see it just as much with AK guys, battle rifle guys, retro AR guys, etc. because those rifles are suboptimal and people use them because they actually like them, not just because it's the best shooting appliance on the market right now. If you don't like having your ZOGbot carbine shit on, maybe avoid threads like this one that are specifically about how stinkin' rad bullpups are.

You seem a bit angry anon.
They’re just bantz, please try and relax.

OP Strawmans that as if it's all the reason people don't prefer bullpups, I don't know how "innocent" that all is unless I've lost my sense of what banter is anymore. (That, or I'm jaded from the incessant shilling I've been witness to over the past ~15 years. ESPECIALLY when the Tavor dropped. I've had an actual israelite come over to my bench and start just talking about how it's so superior to AR's and how the IDF are the greatest military, blahblahblah)
Also, yes, I WILL white knight for muh conventional raifus. Diversity is NOT our strength, and we must purge the inferior designs from our midst lest we weaken ourselves.
When I go to the range, I'd like a sea of smiling conventionally-laid-out actions to greet me and reassure me there's still hope for the mag-forward race.

>bad trigger
Nonissue in the current year
>bad ergos
Yeah nah bro

You don’t have to like them or agree that they’re optimal but that doesn’t mean you need to lie.

>Non-Issue
An issue
>Yeah nah
Nah, yeah.

None of that is true anon

>Aren't
Are*
>Non-Issue
Still an issue

I can, and I'll even take a queue from the "banter" above:

>Trigger
They MIGHT be "better" than they were, but are they AS GOOD as a good AR trigger?
>Ergos, "Comparable", 2009
So we're comparing to 2009 ergos? What about 2020 ergos? You can teach a child how to operate an AK in a day well enough, less so an AUG/MDR/X95. People will be faster on an AR in less training than an AUG/MDR/X95. Prone is always less of a problem with conventionals than bullpups. Clearing malfunctions is more intuitive and easier. Rested (as in, putting the handguard on a wall or something) shooting, what most combat shooting is likely, is better with conventionals. You cannot compare an ADM or similar, or the tricked-out raceguns to any bullpup (the closest I can think of is the MDR).
My favorite was that guy shilling the X95 so hard, sitting there on the range squared up, stiff as a board with a table full of mags, constantly reloading the X95 until he got a few mag changes that were comparable to an AR then just stopped at that.

>Stale memes
Bullpups in the year of our lord, 2022? Remind me how many militaries and police organizations use bullpups compared to those that don't, again?

>That, or I'm jaded from the incessant shilling I've been witness to over the past ~15 years. ESPECIALLY when the Tavor dropped.
Yeah, it's probably that.
>I've had an actual israelite come over to my bench and start just talking about how it's so superior to AR's and how the IDF are the greatest military, blahblahblah
oh my fricking God
the world will never be free until the last israelite is strangled with the entrails of the last Black person

The reason those folk tend to be looked to for inspiration or such is because, by and large, just about any conceivable scenario you'd be in, they've already been in, and can offer insight through their experiences.
Contrary to what you may think or agree with, military weapons do go through trials, and not all units are bound to them either.
If corruption all there were to it, the Army could've gone with the RM277 just as easy, or the Textron one, but they didn't. France could've went with the VHS, but they didn't. New Zealand could've went with the F90/Atrax, but didn't. China could've just made another bullpup, but didn't....
SOCOM has all sorts of niche weapons and basically get carte blanche to do as they please, yet, where are all the bullpups? What about the SCW or other "compact" requirements? Or the various .300 MemeOut carbines/PDWs?
They've all done things that by and large, can influence our own decision making, and have chosen their gear for specific reasons. Tell me what is so much different from whatever you or I might end up having to do, that the ENTIRETY of the military and LEO community haven't already done, thought of, practiced, or so on?
It's not to be taken as gospel, I'm not saying that, but you'd be a fool to disregard it, ESPECIALLY to myopically cling to bullpups out of all things compared to just about anything else for what most American civilians would be doing.
I'm all for individuality though. If you think you HAVE to have a bullpup, go for it, but for memepuppers to tell ME I'm shit for not having them as a go-to, that's not it.
If I can look at just about every .mil or LEO organization on Earth and see most are using conventional rifles/carbines, I think I stand a pretty good chance in saying there's a good reason for it, not that there's some grand conspiracy to stifle anything else.

The AR wasn't even as prevalent before as it was now and any number of weapons could've become "America's Rifle" or stayed with a strong following, but memepups aren't that.

Wall of cope.

All of them. 556 any round preforms better in a longer barrel, that is factual.
>XCR
>Still better than any memepup.
Nope pic related

>Except it's literally not.
Yes it is.
No refutation, no proof at all, etc posted. Just admit you lost.

Nah I don't waste my time with anything from boomer15.com

>side charge is way better than T handle

Yep, xcr doesn't even have a chf barrel lol.

maybe he suggest using shtf non rechargeable multidecade shelf life batteries instead of rechargeable 18650 that spoil in few years

I'm not gonna do that mainly bc I don't trust a plastic receiver

>https://cad.grabcad.com/library/msar-aug-receiver-2#!
Not sure how accurate to factory specs this is but you could send this over to a fabrication shop and see if they could make it. Just call around and get quotes. They might not do it tho if they know it's a gun part but I'm sure some dude would do it for cash under the table. Idk how legal that is.

I just think it'd be cool to "build" one. Brining a surplus kit back from the dead would bring some wonderful satisfaction.