why are we not bullpup anon?

why are we not bullpup anon?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all of these options were fricking dogshit tbh
    nobody has ever said
    >oh boy give me that 14 pound battle rifle with 20 round mags!
    when everyone else has 30+ round intermidiate carbines

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the bullpup one has magic plastic bullets that weigh less and do the same thing

      just chewing it over that would be the objective best option

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i dont give a single frick if they weigh less, this entire program was stupid as frick from the start.
        have you ever even shot a battle rifle before? within 100m you are objectively at a massive disadvantage to someone with an ak.
        you get 30% less ammo to put down range (at minimum) and to make things worse you cannot make hits as quickly. go shoot a course of fire with an ar10, and let me know how you feel when your sight picture is vibrating after each shot and the recoil is fighting you tooth and nail to bring the muzzle off target.

        and then of course, to add insult to injury, we get 3 of the worst designed battle rifles ever seen on this planet submitted as the only viable choices to the program in question

        there is no way anybodt shilling for ngsw actually shoots guns seriously, the inanity on display here is just too blatant

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The LSAT/CTSAS programs spent over a decade developing new, lightweight test rifles and LMGs based around existing 5.56 and 7.62 bullets with new lightweight cartridges. Then at the last second, the "muh overmatch" generals destroyed all of that progress by demanding a heavy bullet with absurd amounts of powder behind it, all so that a rifleman could supposedly hit targets at 1400m, at the same time when cheap guided munitions were becoming available and massed forces of quadcopters were on the horizon, both of which provided far superior options for dealing with enemy forces at longer ranges. The result is little different than FCS, LCS, or the dozen-plus other procurement mistakes that have been made since the end of the Cold War.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm starting to believe they actually made this decision to have everyone with a rifle that can beat common rifle plates (with tungsten core ammo) tbh
            it definitely started as a moronic afghan era 500m gunfight solution, but it has evolved into something very different.

            i cannot believe that they really think the chinks won't just crank out plates which have a slightly thicker strike face to defeat the ap tungsten ammo. tungsten core .30ish projectiles are not hard to beat at all. 1 extra pounds worth of ceramic on each plate and these rounds will be stopped cold just as easily as 556 would be. but apparently they don't care about this, they think nobody would ever issue slightly stroner plates (even though all of socom has this exact type of armour right fricking now)

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It isn't. It's literally from morons cherry picking examples from Afghanistan where troops were plinked on from the max effective range of a tripod mounted PKM. Their moron solution was make the basic issue rifle effective out to 800m, ignoring the fact that engagements at 800m basically never fricking happen. It's also where the .338NM machineguns came from in the LWMMG program came from.

              Fullbore tards should be put against a wall and shot with an intermediate cartridge.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's also where the .338NM machineguns came from in the LWMMG program came from.
                No that came from .50BMG being an obsolete POS. Norma mag actually has a use case unlike .277 Fury.

                https://i.imgur.com/WFrO9Tf.jpeg

                >All they had to do was make a good bullpup shooting a plastic case 6.5 bullet.
                Can I interest you in an improved SCAR in 6.7mm?

                >Built for Canadian SOF and a counter terror think tank
                Oof. It's going nowhere

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                338NM and 50BMG arent interchangeable in the slightest

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, that's the problem. The job that needs to be done requires a .338, what they currently have is either .308 or .50.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                tards should be put against a wall and shot with an intermediate cartridge
                >has to empty the entire mag on each individual tard to insure they're dead
                heh

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Meanwhile, cheap guided weapons, ranging from PGK/PGMM down to Pike, Switchblade, and quadcopters, would have made the whole overmatch issue moot without the need for a magnum cartridge.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                FPV drones are ideal solution for long range (fro small arms) low intensity conflicts firefights. Just look at Ukrainian war FPV drones videos and imagine Taliban is starring. (Also that FPV tech existed 20 years ago, and was already consumers cheap).
                But no boomers can't think beyond "big rifle big, grug grug!"

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's not designed for shooting Chinese, it's designed for shooting Americans.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even a high-pressure 6.8 is not getting through the amount of fat on an American.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Meanwhile, cheap guided weapons, ranging from PGK/PGMM down to Pike, Switchblade, and quadcopters, would have made the whole overmatch issue moot without the need for a magnum cartridge.

            >quadcopters
            This is a minor point but quadcopter makes no sense. Helicopter is a combination of 2 words: helico meaning spiral or helix because each blade is a thin segment of a helix, and pter meaning wing. Copter is not a thing, call them quadrotorcraft or quadrotors.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              As a fellow English pedant, I sympathize with you, but much like "plane" and "car", I think it's too late to correct the vernacular. Quadrotor would be my choice, however.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why not call them helixwings instead of helicopters if you want to be annoying and autistic.

              Etymology of already made-up compound loanwords hardly matters. Helis and copters are how the syllables split in English and many other languages for that matter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I prefer whirlybirds.
                >Helis and copters are how the syllables split in English
                Wait until you find out that the DoD calls them "helos."

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I don't know how to preface this but I think the full anglicization to "Spirowing" sounds cool and I kind of wish we used that one instead. You could also try to call quads "Quadopters", though the literal meaning of "four wings" doesn't make much sense and instead sounds more like another way to describe a biplane.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >AK74M w/ ACOG
          The VDV uses fricking AS VAL with iron sights tho, it's lighter than decadent wectern rifle. What now*~~ xaxaxa

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Skill issue

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Have you tried not being a lanklet?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >LICC IW in 6.5x48
          Wait, so the round that the new FN IWS uses is actually old af? I like it even more now that I see its carrying superior LSAT genetics in its blood.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The bullpup staying with the traditional rim design necessitating a steel base is pretty cringe.
        Someone needs to come up with a case design that is rear ejecting but a completely plastic molding.
        For example you could have a nolt face that supports the whole case rear circularly and has a circular lip that grabs the whole case back circularly.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Jews already have a patent for that so you can’t use it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just chewing it over that would be the objective best option
        If you ignore risk which is one of the single largest factors in gov procurement.

        Of course the option that is the least technically interesting is the more attractive, given that the risk of the other options is balanced only by small incremental improvements.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The sig ammunition is way riskier lol. Polymer Ammo was the least risky but would threaten the existing brass casing industry (jerbs in muh district!)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The one on the right actually has slightly lighter weight ammo than the bullpup. They were all too powerful for what the Army actually needs, though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Boomers have been screeching about it for decades Anon. That’s what we’re dealing with here. Boomer politicians and senior military brass.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BullCHADS forever dab on tradcels.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bull designated street shitters

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is that in the trials for the new main combat rifle of the US Army there are only 3 serious contenders???

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      TV should've won simply due to those plastic cases since those are actually rare progress in firearms development. adopting the sig seems to defeat the whole point, especially since most of the time they will just use regular nerfed loads

      there were several more, these 3 were down selected.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There were like 8 participants, 3 were selected for final trials.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Desert Tech, MARS, FN, and VK Systems all tried a rifle but were cut at downselection.
      SIG and Photonis tried to bid for an optic but were cut at downselection.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M110A1 bid
    You fricking ILLITERATE MONGREL those are all NGSW bids you fricking moron you

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, he's onto something. The last GT video with the 9 inch 277 Furry Blaster, that SIG guy with the mustache came on and talked about the SPEAR being in the running for the new sniper program but had a 14 or 16 inch barrel instead then they threw it into the NGSW program when that came along. At least I think so. I'll have to listen to the guy's statement again because it gets mentioned pretty quickly then they move on.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's probably to make them all counter sniper beasts or something

        I would have chose the bullpup, imagine that with a sick forward grip, literal dream gun.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well with the bullpup you're also avoiding dual ammo streams (+AP lol) and you don't have to over pressure fairly common rounds to get required performance (6mm cartridge fitting an SR25/AR10 mag form factor).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To add to this, reading the OG spec of some short ass OAL length including suppressor really makes me think someone wanted a bullpup or at least wanted to see what cool stuff private firms could come up with if not going the bullpup route (telescoping ammo revolver rifle) Knowing that the SIG was not originated from the NGSW kind of reinforces this though I wouldn't die on that hill.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The mcx spear was developed for the CSAS trials, the only change for NGSW was caliber and maybe barrel length options.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the sig entry was so laughably bad compared to those two on every metric, from cost to recoil to ballistic performance to safety, that the only explanation is unironically just plain corruption

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it was because they already had a sig pistol, that might actually be the case. But I do not have an objective awnser.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't forget how the full power barrel burner rounds are as common as SU-57 combat footage lol

      I love battle rifles but holy frick. All they had to do was make a good bullpup shooting a plastic case 6.5 bullet. That's as far as you can reasonably push effective infantry capability(I was USMC GWOT infantry, trust me) . If they wanted to stick with the training and general purpose rounds versus high power rounds, they could make the 6.5 plastic case larger than it needed to be and just use a weaker or smaller powder charge, and then have the full power stuff be brass or hybrid case. Would also help to easily distinguish between the two. But what a Cohencidence, Sig won another govt contract. It'll probably be a decent rifle someday because US military budget is still stronger than the dumb fricks making the decisions, see: F35 development.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >All they had to do was make a good bullpup shooting a plastic case 6.5 bullet
        they didn't even need a bullpup. seriously, you do not need a barrel longer than 13-14" if you design a catridge and rifle around modern projectiles/powder. see 6.8 spc, 6mm arc, 6.5 grendel

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can reduce concussion etc. by lengthening the barrel.
          Also, suppressors bring the barrel length up a lot.
          Bullpup is an incredibly obvious answer to high velocity need + suppressor

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can also reduce concussion by using a suppressor. Period.
            The hybrid ammo already has high velocity.
            Both without needed to be hamstrung by being a shitpup.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              your rifle is outdated and outclassed by bullpups

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                False.
                Post list of newly-adopted bullpups vs. newly-adopted traditional rifles.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Common =/= good
                Bullpups would still reduce size in a suppressed gun compared to conventionals, dumbass

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                According to /k/, the military can never be right and any anon can never be wrong.
                Stop coping.

                >the bullpup just needed a longer barrel to do so
                Which means the round doesn't need to be pissing hot and kick like a mule, like SIG's .277 Fury
                The penalty for your hubristic rejection of bullpups is the Sig M7.

                We should just have stayed with black powder loading pressures of .45-70 then and increased the barrel length with a bullpup then, right? moron.

                https://i.imgur.com/fKDIU4W.jpeg

                >instead of making the boys carry slightly heavier bullshit let’s make em carry even more, REALLY heavy bullshit!
                >t. Has never carried a Carl G mortar tube+baseplate/their ammunition

                Hey great idea anon

                It's EXACTLY what they're doing, anon.
                https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/11/26/deadlier-machine-guns-rifles-pistols-and-more-how-the-army-is-revolutionizing-squad-firepower/
                https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/16/us-army-wants-more-firepower-across-formations-general-says.html
                https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/08/02/this-is-how-the-corps-is-overhauling-its-boomsticks/

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can reduce concussion etc. by lengthening the barrel.
            lmao. you watch a youtube video that told you that buddy? whens the last time you shot with teamates firing off rounds beside your head? i already know the answer, never.
            the only way to make close teamwork bearable is with suppresors, which is their second most important benefit besides flash reduction, followed in a distant 3rd by sound reduction.
            >suppressors bring up length
            no, they don't. modern designs for carbines add 2.5-3" of overall length compared to the average flash hider. its fricking nothing. the only concern is balance, which is the real reason 10-12" barrels are such a golden length. balance. if you'd ever shot a suppressed rifle seriously before you'd know this
            >Bullpup is an incredibly obvious answer to high velocity need + suppressor
            wowza! you're a genius anon. crazy they went through this exact thought process in most of the world throughout the 70s and 80s, and have come rifle back around to using conventional rifles with short barrels + modern bullet designs.
            >"high velocity needs
            this is just a whole other fricking can of worms. your entire view of ballistics is built on bad memes and 2000s fuddlore of m855's poor performance during the war on terror. a bullet design from the 1980s, which was specifically designed by FN to cause less severe wounds than m193 (this is not a joke btw) muh heckin velocity is purely an issue with this type of old ass fmj 556 ammo, this is not how it works for any bullet designed to actually kill people.
            do you actually think units like delta would've continued to use 556 throughout the gwot if it were a uselss peashooter? those guys were killing tens of people each night at room distance for years on end, and never once did they feel the need to swap calibers. and yes, they could've if they really wanted to.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Frag range and whatnot isn't even the meta now. It's all about muh armor piercing. If the bullet is going to be stopped by armor, it doesn't really matter that much what the terminal effects WOULD be, as even mediocre performance would damn near blow an arm off compared to an unarmored center mass hit. ESPECIALLY if we're talking chink or turdie-sized combatants.
              At that rate, just throw more HE at the problem. Add more Carl Gustavs, Milkors, Mortars, Drones, etc. at the squad level even, and just salt the earth or something, I dunno.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >instead of making the boys carry slightly heavier bullshit let’s make em carry even more, REALLY heavy bullshit!
                >t. Has never carried a Carl G mortar tube+baseplate/their ammunition

                Hey great idea anon

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              We wouldn't even be having this NGSW shitfest if the army still fielded 20'' rifles.
              The 5.56 has achieved a reputation of little better than 22lr in the army due to inadequate 14.5'' barrels which is why they're going back to fricking battle rifles.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the only way to make close teamwork bearable is with suppresors, which is their second most important benefit besides flash reduction, followed in a distant 3rd by sound reduction
              finally someone that understands the point of suppressors for fighting weapons

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Bullpups we're widespread in the wrong time period. They are at their absolute best when used with a silencer.

              >The bullpup layout would actually help squeeze better ballistics out of the round.
              "Better"? I don't think so. Both rounds met the requirements, the bullpup just needed a longer barrel to do so. It wasn't any faster/heavier/etc. AFAIK.
              >While the use of polymer casings will provide a better heat sink and reduce ammunition weight significantly versus brass.
              I swear I heard mention somewhere that SIG's ammo could eventually be "upgraded" to polymer. They could also always just "rechamber" the XM7 to True Velocity's cartridge if they felt like it, and the program actually matures and doesn't die like all the other M4 "replacements". (inb4 muh not a "replacement" pedantry)
              .
              .
              .
              >(Bullpups) are* bad, so they must ALL be bad.
              Yes.

              >bullpup is a waste. you can get same power and velocity from Sig
              >yes, it is using explosively high pressured ammunition to achieve this
              >yes, the soldiers will spend 99% of their training using low pressure, weak training ammo because the normal ammunition would destroy the barrels in 2,000 rounds
              Mission accomplished. But imagine the power you could get from the bullpup with an extra 8" of barrel using moronicly high pressured ammo like the Sig is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It isn't 1940 anymore, Grandpa.
                The gun industry was just decades behind the rest of the industrial world.
                The barrel isn't going to be 'burn out' that fast.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The dude you're replying to was using perfectly reasonable common sense, and you're well of text reads like homosexual cope

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >All they had to do was make a good bullpup shooting a plastic case 6.5 bullet.
        Can I interest you in an improved SCAR in 6.7mm?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what ever happened to this thing? it's so cool and probably even useful

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Like most useful things developed for the Canadian military after CADPAT, it was underfunded, too scary for the government, and likely had all the project leads poached by US companies willing to pay them a good wage in a country that wont take 50% of your pay so a doctor can tell you to have a nice day.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But what a Cohencidence

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That and also the fact that American soldiers break out in hives if they touch a gun that doesn't have direct lineage to the AR-15.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The textron gun should honestly have been bullpup. That's where they stole the design from and it would have moved the ejection away from the support hand.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >/r/mildly evangelion
      kek

      what a good design it's all in the stock
      it is literally compact

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What dumbass thought an open bolt design with a fixed firing pin was a good idea for a program trying to improve hit probability over a regular old M16?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >posts a gun that utterly failed
      Yeah, lets copy that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Their earlier 5.56mm carbines fed and ejected backwards with the port above the trigger. From what I gather that arrangement no longer worked when the program suddenly demanded a short magnum round and they had to redesign the internals.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Textron had moved to the forward ejection port before the NGSW trials kicked off.
        Feeding backwards was probably not great in the original design.
        They were already chasing a 120-125gr projectile being fired at 3000FPS.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Textron had removed themselves from any trial before the NGSW trials kicked off.
          Yeah great, now my question is why couldn't a well paid engineer team not put the ejection port right next to the exact spot anyone ever instinctively would put their support hand? It's right there! Firing a single mag through this dead end would tell you it's fricked! What is wrong with you?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a very well paid engineer team came up with the L85 and it took germany and 30 years for it to become a good rifle

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah all those complaints over an iron sight... wait

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >DOOD this is our SA80
              What the frick even is this argument? Give us 30 years and we'll give you a serviceable rifle?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I liked the middle one the best just because it was so unique

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I fricking hate bullpupgays more than the shit they adore. And all the LSAT needs really is just a rim to extract with.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, the push through feed system only makes sense in the head of some engineer and not anyone with commonn sense.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is literally nothing wrong with push feed.

        LSAT with rim is True Velocity plastic ammo.

        [...]
        It made sense for caseless ammunition. It's difficult to make rim in the propellent block (especially if you copy G11).
        And LSAT started as G11 copy. Textron bought G11 design and aused it as base. Plastic cases were back up solution if caseless fails (what is idiotic itself). As result LSAT got quirky design features (moving chamber, push through feeding and pseudotelescopic round layout) that are not needed at all. iIf you want plastic ammo just make it from plastic

        What the frick am I even reading?
        >It made sense for caseless ammunition. It's difficult to make rim in the propellent block
        You don't need a rim for caseless ammo, the whole point of caseless is that there's nothing to extract.
        >And LSAT started as G11 copy
        No it didn't. They did start by replicating the G11's ammo but quickly determined that Dynamit Nobel's production process was completely fricked, unsafe, and unscalable, and that the care and feeding of finnicky caseless ammo was more than enough to outweigh any potential logistical benefits of the marginally lighter weight than CT ammo.
        >Plastic cases were back up solution if caseless fails (what is idiotic itself).
        CT ammo is clearly superior to caseless. Caseless ammo is roughly 10-15% lighter than cased telescopic (which is in turn 40-50% lighter than traditional brass cased ammo), but has strict requirements about how it can be handled. Caseless removes the potential for failures to eject, but excessive humidity in storage or the operating environment, physical damage from being dropped or mishandled, or even too much time spent loaded into a magazine (the ammo comes in sealed plastic cases that act sort of like a stripper clip for the magazine; the ammo is only good for a couple of days after the seal is broken) introduces all sorts of opportunities for failures to feed or fire. CT also makes weapon design easier since provisioning for ejection makes clearing jams much easier.
        >As result LSAT got quirky design features (moving chamber, push through feeding and pseudotelescopic round layout) that are not needed at all
        None of these features have anything to do with the G11. They're all passed along from the Steyr ACR, which is a completely different weapon. And none of them are baggage from an earlier design; they're all advancements made possible by a rimless cylindrical cartridge which greatly simplify the action and save weight & cost

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A moving chamber is a bad thing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A moving chamber was a bad thing in 1873, (great great great) gramps.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The issues with alignment, sealing, and accuracy are still very important here.
              All are unnecessary if you just use an extractor.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn't have issues with alignment, sealing, or accuracy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Have you shot it?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Have you?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is cope. It met the Army's requirements and made it past downselection. That means it's better than 4 MOA for at least 10,000 rounds. Meanwhile, the Sig is 2.5 MOA brand new with match ammo, which means it's about as bad as it could possibly be and still meet the requirements. Therefore, the Textron's falling chamber design is as good or better than the Sig's rotating bolt design for accuracy. Chamber alignment is a nonissue, if there was a problem with it then there would be a problem with accuracy. Sealing is obviously not an issue because the Army specified limits for fumes, which was a primary concern with procuring a suppressed weapon. If it had sealing issues then it would have failed the fumes requirement and not made it past the first stage.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The LSAT was a system baby, and it was likely pushed through for that, if nothing else.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Less of a baby than Sigshekels, evidently.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >but has strict requirements about how it can be handled.
          Ship it loaded in sealed mags... problem solved

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            With the G11 you were supposed to load up 4 or 5 magazines from the sealed ammo storage clips at the start of the day and then throw out everything you didn't fire at the end of the day.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't need a rim for caseless ammo, the whole point of caseless is that there's nothing to extract.
          Unloading and misfires. Baka.

          >No it didn't. They did start by replicating the G11's ammo
          Direct Contradiction in 2 sentences.

          >(which is in turn 40-50% lighter than traditional brass cased ammo),
          Fun fact: TV 6.8x51 is lighter then Textron dumb 6.8mm ammo...

          >They're all passed along from the Steyr ACR,
          Fun fact: Steyr ACR was worst rifle in ACR fire trials performance wise and only rifle that kaboomed and injured soldier during these trials...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Unloading and misfires. Baka.
            The G11 does both of these without a rim.

            >Direct Contradiction in 2 sentences.
            Copying the G11's ammo is not the same as copying the G11. They considered using caseless ammo, but they never considered using kraut autism.

            >Fun fact: TV 6.8x51 is lighter then Textron dumb 6.8mm ammo...
            This is untrue and not too difficult to look up. Next time spend 30 seconds fact checking yourself before you say something dumb.

            >Steyr ACR was worst rifle in ACR fire trials performance wise
            That's not true, the AAI was the worst by a large margin. Both the Steyr and the AAI had poor performance because flechettes are a bad idea.

            >only rifle that kaboomed
            [citation needed]

            >and injured soldier
            There was concern that discarded sabots could bounce back and injure a soldier when firing prone or near a barrier, but I don't know that anyone was actually injured during testing. This is a problem specific to subcaliber projectiles though, and has nothing to do with the falling chamber action or with cased telescopic ammo.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They're straight up lying and referencing twelfth-hand fuddlore. This kind of braindeath is inoperable.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The G11 does both of these without a rim.
              With push through extraction and moving chambe. Textron coppied this desing with all it disadvantages.

              >but they never considered using kraut autism.
              They literally bought TDP packages on G11 and ammo and rights to use it and their primary caseloammo was copy of G11. It failed first.

              >This is untrue and not too difficult to look up.
              It is true. TV ammo is about 0.5 grams lighter. Textron ammo has no advantages only problems.

              >That's not true, the AAI was the worst by a large margin.
              ACR was worse accuracy wise.

              >but I don't know that anyone was actually injured during testing
              It is int ACR trials report. Fouled rifle kaboomed and injured shooter. Temporal solution was "to clean Steyr rifles especially clean and often". There is no report on NGSW but there are rumors that one Textron rifle kaboomed too with no casualties. Hello, moving chamber.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're just making shit up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >With push through extraction and moving chambe.
                Compare the G11 action to the Steyr ACR action and all yourself which the Textron more closely resembles.

                >They literally bought TDP packages on G11 and ammo and rights to use it and their primary caseloammo was copy of G11. It failed first.
                No, that isn't how it worked. LSAT started in 2004, long after the ACR program was cold. They approached Dynamit Nobel for help replicating the HITP propellant they designed for the G11, but found that the documentation was very poor and there weren't many engineers still there from the 80s. They basically had to reinvent a propellant that did the same thing.

                >It is true. TV ammo is about 0.5 grams lighter.
                It's not. 6.8 CT is 16.5g and 6.8 TVC is 16.9g. On top of that, 6.8 CT is a more powerful cartridge in that it achieves the same ballistic performance from a shorter barrel.

                >ACR was worse accuracy wise.
                Are you moronic? The G11 was an ACR. There were four competitors in the program: HK, Steyr, AAI, and Colt. The Colt was the best performing and the AAI was the worst. None of them matched the M16.

                >It is int ACR trials report. Fouled rifle kaboomed and injured shooter.
                I doubt you've actually read the report since you were wrong about the AAI outperforming the Steyr, but if you're not full of shit, go ahead and post a scan of this page.

                >there are rumors that one Textron rifle kaboomed too
                You've gotten everything wrong even when you tried to cite the ACR report. I think I'll just assume the opposite of whatever you claim is true.

                >The program parameters actually specified something like "it can be belt fed or mag fed either's fine".
                Yeah maybe they were thinking Ultimax.
                But GD were like
                >BAR in the year 2024! Greatest idea ever, imma right, uwu?

                GD went with a box magazine because a belt fed bullpup has serious ergonomic issues.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Broken stocks =/= kaboomed, if they kaboomed the report would say that instead of broken stocks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm curious if these other reports are available anywhere. Right after that excerpt it refers to the full safety and engineering report. It's the one at the top of this page.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Notice how all anti-LSAT/Textron comments are Moon landing denier-tier in their sources, tactics, and quality of information. Anti-GDs aren't much better.
                Referring to the Steyr ACR as 'the ACR' is just the cherry on top of the manure pile.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>No it didn't. They did start by replicating the G11's ammo
            >Direct Contradiction in 2 sentences.
            So all guns shooting brass cased ammo are copies of French early 1800s black powder single shots?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't need a rim for caseless ammo, the whole point of caseless is that there's nothing to extract.
          The G11 literally has an ejection port to eject the plastic cover around the bullet and perhaps the primer cup.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the whole point of caseless is that there's nothing to extract.
            The G11 had an extraction cycle to flush the bits of primer & plastic front after each shot and to remove any malfunctioning or cracked rounds.

            >Ejection
            >Extraction
            Learn the difference.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why don't you explain it for us zigger. The gun poops out leftovers else it doesn't work. Cope about higher ROF or hairsplitting over the operations cycle doesn't change that fundamental fact.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You know how the bolt of your AR has both an ejector and an extractor on it? Oh wait, you don't, because you don't own guns. Anyway, you can look it up on google and see how the two parts work and what they do.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You kind of remind me of those Discovery Channel master debaters, though unlike them you don't seem to be very familiar with the dictionary.

                IC circuits solve a job more simply that analog mechanisms were used for before.
                Push feeds add complexity where there wasn't far less.

                Have you even disassembled a gun before?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Discovery Channel
                Discovery Institute*

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There's shit in the chamber left over after firing.
              You you need to extract it and eject it out of the gun.
              This is still the case with most caseless designs.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It falls out the bottom on its own, and if it has trouble then the next round will push it out. The G11 has no extraction system apart from an empty hole underneath the action.

                >conventional feed
                >cartridge goes in, extractor pulls it out
                >complexity comes in cartridge design, balancing taper with bolt thrust, as well as maintaining case strength to avoid blow outs that seize the action or block the chamber

                >push feed
                >chamber moves into path of cartridge, cartridge is fed into it, chamber moves back into place, next cartridge moves the previous out
                >complications come from chamber being moved potentially significant distances, a lack of chamber-barrel attachment, blown cases seizing in the chamber or expanding and causing enough friction that moving the chamber is impossible

                Its just not good. It solves literally zero problems.
                [...]
                I have, have you actually ever handled a firearm before, or just fricked around with in Call of Duty?

                >potentially significant distances
                How far is significant, and even if it was 20 feet, why would it matter if chamber alignment and cycling speed could be maintained?

                >lack of chamber-barrel attachment
                They're sealed together by the front of the case. It's basically the same method as the nagant revolver, but because it's a plastic case it returns to its original shape and the chamber doesn't need to move back to unlock it.

                >conventional feed
                >cartridge goes in, extractor pulls it out
                >complexity comes in cartridge design, balancing taper with bolt thrust, as well as maintaining case strength to avoid blow outs that seize the action or block the chamber

                >push feed
                >chamber moves into path of cartridge, cartridge is fed into it, chamber moves back into place, next cartridge moves the previous out
                >complications come from chamber being moved potentially significant distances, a lack of chamber-barrel attachment, blown cases seizing in the chamber or expanding and causing enough friction that moving the chamber is impossible

                Its just not good. It solves literally zero problems.
                [...]
                I have, have you actually ever handled a firearm before, or just fricked around with in Call of Duty?

                >blown cases seizing in the chamber or expanding and causing enough friction that moving the chamber is impossible
                This is only a problem in your head. With a perfectly cylindrical cartridge there's nothing trying to expand the cartridge in length, and support from the chamber keeps it from expanding in diameter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >basically the same as potentially the worst and most gimmicky revolver ever
                As well, the same plastic that stretches to create your hoped for gas seal, also can stretch when a blow out happens and seize the action with friction.
                Shotguns can have this happen when a case blows out, for example. Because plastic gets very ductile.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It falls out the bottom on its own, and if it has trouble then the next round will push it out. The G11 has no extraction system apart from an empty hole underneath the action.
                My point is if extraction truly wasn't necessary you could make the caseless action significantly simples by using a fixed chamber.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The G11 has no extraction system apart from an empty hole underneath the action.
                I.e. it has gravity fed extraction instead of a positive mechanical action. That's arguably a downgrade.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA
                >gravity fed
                Then it's ejection
                >instead of a positive mechanical action
                the next cartridge could push it out

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, no one here is claiming that the G11 is a good design.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The G11 literally has an ejection port to eject the plastic cover around the bullet and perhaps the primer cup.
            G11 non combustible round parts flew out of the barrel during shot.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the whole point of caseless is that there's nothing to extract.
          The G11 had an extraction cycle to flush the bits of primer & plastic front after each shot and to remove any malfunctioning or cracked rounds.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wait till you hear about jet engines. Or integrated circuits.

        LSAT with rim is True Velocity plastic ammo.

        [...]
        It made sense for caseless ammunition. It's difficult to make rim in the propellent block (especially if you copy G11).
        And LSAT started as G11 copy. Textron bought G11 design and aused it as base. Plastic cases were back up solution if caseless fails (what is idiotic itself). As result LSAT got quirky design features (moving chamber, push through feeding and pseudotelescopic round layout) that are not needed at all. iIf you want plastic ammo just make it from plastic

        >pseudotelescopegay again
        I can't believe you're still trying to force this bullshit. Do you get off of misinforming people?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I can't believe you're still trying to force this bullshit. Do you get off of misinforming people?
          Telescopic ammo: there is propellant ahead on the bullet shoulder. Examples: G11.
          Pseudotelescopic cope ammo: there is no propellant ahead of the bullet shoulder. Examples: failed Textron boondoggle.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your definition is useless as for a cased cartridge, the neck of the case must be behind the ogive. A more practical definition would define pseudotelescoped ammo as cartridges like the Pieper and 7.62×38mmR Nagant where the bullet is not embedded in the propellant whatsoever, as opposed to true (perhaps marignally) cased telescoped cartridges where the entire body* of the projectile is embedded in the propellant.
            moron.

            *section of the bullet that's behind the ogive

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >neck of the case must be behind the ogive
              This is not necessarily the case as you could have a small amount of powder around the bullet (1. in the picture) though this is not all that practical

              On the other hand I think that the push through ejection is creating a significant compromise in the partridge design as all of the stuff in the 2. in the picture is not necessary if the cartridge were just a rear loaded one.

              I think that they should just use the space efficient straight wall design of these CT cartridges and make it work with extractors in conventional style chambers, case support around the rim would be difficult but not impossible.

              For example, the rim could be fully encircling the cartridge and instead of using a spring to slip over the rim it could use the softness and springiness of plastic to have the plastic rim compress and allow the solid rim to snap over it. (3. in the picture)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm too blasted to visualize your solution, but it's shaped that way for a reason. The capsule-like design allows for more consistent contact and pressure distribution in the chamber facilitating higher maximum pressures (up to 75ksi IIRC, and no welding), and as has been demonstrated a fully figured out push-through feed and eject system is superior to conventional feeding and ejection and could by itself be a goal to strive for.

                I don't know the exact fluid dynamics witchcraft going on, but you may have noticed that all other plastic cased cartridges use metal heads/rims (really, the lower third of the case), while CT does not at all. The only metal components are the bullet and the primer cup (they have suggested non-metallic electrically activated primers). Case splitting aside, the rim is subjected to decent force during extraction too, I don't think the little plastic groove would hold up.

                >conventional feed
                >cartridge goes in, extractor pulls it out
                >complexity comes in cartridge design, balancing taper with bolt thrust, as well as maintaining case strength to avoid blow outs that seize the action or block the chamber

                >push feed
                >chamber moves into path of cartridge, cartridge is fed into it, chamber moves back into place, next cartridge moves the previous out
                >complications come from chamber being moved potentially significant distances, a lack of chamber-barrel attachment, blown cases seizing in the chamber or expanding and causing enough friction that moving the chamber is impossible

                Its just not good. It solves literally zero problems.
                [...]
                I have, have you actually ever handled a firearm before, or just fricked around with in Call of Duty?

                >It solves literally zero problems.
                Besides the increased maximum pressure, significantly lighter and cheaper ammunition, and the fact that it makes jamming theoretically impossible?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does it prevent jamming?
                Most jams come from detritus and friction in the action, which is still a problem here. Or from case failures, which can still cause blockages or lock-ups in a moving chamber design.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, I used a weird definition of 'jam', but there isn't any malfunction that couldn't be cleared by just cycling it
                In LSAT's case everything seems to be driven by the cam and mechanism that controls the chamber elevator, so no timing issues and less severe over-gas/under-gas problems
                Also in LSAT you can take out the whole chamber with a field strip and run a baby bottle brush or something through it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The reason for steel rims is that in conventional rimless cartridges the rim area is not supported by the bolt head.
                If you had a fully encompassing bolthead with a fully circular fixed extractor that mounted the cartridge with the help of the cartridge deforming you could have a plastic case shooting gun with high pressures and still a plastic base.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Now you need to extract your case from the extractor.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He's talking about a barb that jams itself into a flange. He doesn't appear to have considered how to get it back out.

                You can have a flush ejector pin on the bolt face that gets erected by a surface in the receiver as the bolt moves backwards. Some french guns have used such a system for example.
                Alternatively a Nambu LMG side swing ejector is always a safe choise.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or you could just not use an ejector and push through instead.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Push through is not good.
                Rear extraction is a brilliant system.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Push through is good. Rear extraction causes all sorts of problems but there's no other way to extract unless your cartridge is perfectly cylindrical, which you can't do with a bullet sticking out the front.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The problem with rear extraction is the actual extraction itself, cases stick and rims are a weak point.
                Otherwise it's a simple and elegant system that leads to a simple and elegant gun.
                If you implement an annular extractor your can balance the forces evenly around the case and achieve very reliable extraction.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There are no problems that rear extraction has, that push through doesn't introduce a worse problem in place of.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What problems does push through have?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                enough to kill a rifle with 20 years of development

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Evidence that it was killed because of its extraction system?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We just don't know.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'll take "no known problems" over broken extractors and case head separation.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To be honest the only stuff that makes sense in this program are the AR versions of these rifles.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Textron AR kind of doesn't make sense. It has a completely different action with a rotating instead of falling chamber.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >fully circular fixed extractor
                Black person what

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He's talking about a barb that jams itself into a flange. He doesn't appear to have considered how to get it back out.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              we just call that uncircumcised ammo

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          IC circuits solve a job more simply that analog mechanisms were used for before.
          Push feeds add complexity where there wasn't far less.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In what way is push feed more complicated?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >conventional feed
              >cartridge goes in, extractor pulls it out
              >complexity comes in cartridge design, balancing taper with bolt thrust, as well as maintaining case strength to avoid blow outs that seize the action or block the chamber

              >push feed
              >chamber moves into path of cartridge, cartridge is fed into it, chamber moves back into place, next cartridge moves the previous out
              >complications come from chamber being moved potentially significant distances, a lack of chamber-barrel attachment, blown cases seizing in the chamber or expanding and causing enough friction that moving the chamber is impossible

              Its just not good. It solves literally zero problems.

              You kind of remind me of those Discovery Channel master debaters, though unlike them you don't seem to be very familiar with the dictionary.
              [...]
              Have you even disassembled a gun before?

              I have, have you actually ever handled a firearm before, or just fricked around with in Call of Duty?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >broken extractor claw intesifys

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      LSAT with rim is True Velocity plastic ammo.

      Yeah, the push through feed system only makes sense in the head of some engineer and not anyone with commonn sense.

      It made sense for caseless ammunition. It's difficult to make rim in the propellent block (especially if you copy G11).
      And LSAT started as G11 copy. Textron bought G11 design and aused it as base. Plastic cases were back up solution if caseless fails (what is idiotic itself). As result LSAT got quirky design features (moving chamber, push through feeding and pseudotelescopic round layout) that are not needed at all. iIf you want plastic ammo just make it from plastic

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God that thing in the middle looks like absolute shit, I'm glad the Army made the right choice.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We were so close to having a real telescoped case revolutionize small arms, its not fricking fair

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      even the conventional polycase would have been leaps and bounds for tech with the added benefit of being backwards compatible with existing systems

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because bullpups are objectively terrible in every single way and that is why no first world country uses them and only no guns who phone post and don't own a toilet like them

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this eunuch again
      Lemme guess, you're going to project onto everyone that they're dickless, too?

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bullpup rifles are like the metric system, wrong and for super gay babies.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has a mushy 20 pound trigger that's the only reason why. Watch GT's video it is fricking awful

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The bullpup layout would actually help squeeze better ballistics out of the round.
    "Better"? I don't think so. Both rounds met the requirements, the bullpup just needed a longer barrel to do so. It wasn't any faster/heavier/etc. AFAIK.
    >While the use of polymer casings will provide a better heat sink and reduce ammunition weight significantly versus brass.
    I swear I heard mention somewhere that SIG's ammo could eventually be "upgraded" to polymer. They could also always just "rechamber" the XM7 to True Velocity's cartridge if they felt like it, and the program actually matures and doesn't die like all the other M4 "replacements". (inb4 muh not a "replacement" pedantry)
    .
    .
    .
    >(Bullpups) are* bad, so they must ALL be bad.
    Yes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the bullpup just needed a longer barrel to do so
      Which means the round doesn't need to be pissing hot and kick like a mule, like SIG's .277 Fury
      The penalty for your hubristic rejection of bullpups is the Sig M7.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >reciprocating barrel in a 600 yard marksman's rifle
    lol
    The RM277 was doomed.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >600 yard marksman's rifle
      It's not, the Army is just moronic. All three NGSWs (including the Sig) are 3-4 MOA. The RM277 at least has the advantage of minimal recoil so you could maybe spray enough ammo to hit a guy at that distance. With the Sig, you're just fricked.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That is some really shoddy formatting on that pic anon.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the media
    Who the frick is even covering this shit?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >yet another bullpuptard cope thread

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If a bullpupgay tells me the sky is blue im calling a scientist and then nasa to confirm it. Jesus h fricking christ the amount of cope, cherrypicking, blatant whataboutisms with a sprinkle of diarrhea in this godforsaken thread is insane. A BULLPUP WAS NOT EVER GOING TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT AND THE FRICKING FORWARD EJECTING PILE OF SHIT WAS NEVER EVER EVER GOING TO WIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU MADE AN IMAGE THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT TO A FLAT EARTHER SAYING THE WORLD IS A DINNER PLATE DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if a bullpup can't win then why didn't they state that in the contest requirements
      or something like "center of gravity must be 1.5 feet from the body"

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If they were okay with Sig reducing the pressure of their ammo after being selected for lower recoil and less terrible barrel life, why did they specify a mandatory muzzle energy in the requirements.

        The answer is that the Army brass is brain damaged and they have no idea what they actually want.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Textron was definitely the most forward thinking and innovative.

    If the US had an actual peer/near-peer it would have been chosen like how the M16 was despite it's initial issues during the USSR's reign.

    But the DoD didn't take this program seriously at all and was just another money laundering/Star-on-Chest Retirement Plan scam that's plagued the DoD since the Cold War ended.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >casings being spat out millimeters from his fingers
      What the frick were they thinking?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's supposed to be c-clamping not boomer-holding.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Recoil seems too hard to be useful for anything than calm and controlled single shots aka not a good choice for a service rifle.
      How powerful is the cartridge and how heavy is the rifle? I've fired .308 rifles that were more controllable and I'm a skinny little dude.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Textron was the de facto program-of-record, based on the LSAT/CTSAS programs that had spent the last decade-plus working on developing a lighter SAW/carbine and lighter ammo. The "lighter" objective got summarily erased from the requirements at the last minute in favor of "overmatch".

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >spend a decade wasting tax payer money while getting babied by the government making vaporware
        >still lose to a piston AR when it mattered

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          1) They changed the requirements to mandate a *heavier* bullet and far more powder than LSAT/CTSAS (which had been using off-the-shelf 5.56 and 7.62 bullets to make the cartridges used in those R&D programs).
          2) Textron "withdrew" from the NGSW competition under mysterious circumstances months before the final selection. Something happened, and the public was never told what. Did Textron step on a patent mine? Was the competition rigged to favor the least innovative design? We don't really know.

          So, to say that it *lost* to a piston AR is somewhat... incomplete.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1) They changed the requirements to mandate a *heavier* bullet and far more powder than LSAT/CTSAS (which had been using off-the-shelf 5.56 and 7.62 bullets to make the cartridges used in those R&D programs).
            LSAT's "flagship" cartridge was a 6.5mm that used the same case as the 7.62. It was lighter than the 7.62 with the same power and a longer effective range.

            >2) Textron "withdrew" from the NGSW competition under mysterious circumstances months before the final selection. Something happened, and the public was never told what.
            GD withdrew from the competition within a week of that and TV took over development from them. My guess is that the Army made it clear that they were going with the Sig, so the big contractors left to work on other things, but TV knew that without the contract their company would wither and die so they were desparate to keep it going. Their ammo is too expensive without the economy of scale the Army contract would bring.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The "lighter" objective got summarily erased from the requirements at the last minute in favor of "overmatch".
        what the frick is wrong with our military jesus christ

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This gun and its ammo were pieces of art, sasuga Textron.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >”they didnt go with the one that uses polycase ammo, they must hate the idea”
    yeah the military def wouldnt just go with the rifle they like more and eventually make polycase ammo for it later on

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >polymer heat sink

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The amount of tards spouting this "feature" is crazy.

      It isn't 1940 anymore, Grandpa.
      The gun industry was just decades behind the rest of the industrial world.
      The barrel isn't going to be 'burn out' that fast.

      So what non-gun industry manufacturer is going to make these barrels?

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The rest of America’s allies are leaving bullpups, probably to be more similar to America.
    This is a perfect time to be the Eternal Burger and issue bullpups in a non-NATO cartridge just for the frickery.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    5.56 bullpups are great though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Especially as an SBR. Never forget what they took from you.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine this thing with

        https://i.imgur.com/4XEspj8.jpeg

        Their earlier 5.56mm carbines fed and ejected backwards with the port above the trigger. From what I gather that arrangement no longer worked when the program suddenly demanded a short magnum round and they had to redesign the internals.

        this action

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think you understand how risk averse the US Army is, new things are scary and they were already adopting a new cartridge. Changes have to result in significant improvement in capabilities for Army types to seriously consider the inherent risk in changing things. Uncle Sam very much as a "if it ain't broke" mentality. Case in point, I know of a US attorneys office which to this day only has 20 GB of storage on their mailserver, because that was the biggest available in 2004, and the hard drive hasn't died yet, and Uncle Sam won't replace it until it dies.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >how risk averse the US Army is
      It isn't.
      Look at the space ships the Airforce is adopting and calling fighter jets.
      Or the US adopting the first mass issue practical battle rifle, in the Garand, and then the first SCHV rifle in the AR15.
      As well as trail blazing in the world of mass issue optical sights and night vision.
      The US Army likes to take gambles.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US Army
        >Airforce
        What year is this?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        First, the Air Force is not the Army, it's an entirely different branch with an entirely different culture - the Air Force readily adopted the M16 while the Army clung to the M14 and had to be dragged kicking and screaming by DoD into adopting the M16. As for the M1 Garand, it's the exception that proves the rule: the Army determined after WWI that a bolt-action rifle was inadequate, and spent literally over a decade fine-tuning and refining the M1s design until they were happy with it. The requirement was identified in 1918, and it wasn't until 1937 that a rifle that met the Army's requirement was actually adopted.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Garand
        The Garand was adopted in the fricking 1930s
        >the AR-15
        Big Army had to have the AR-15 shoved down their throat and told to take it because they would not adopt it otherwise.
        >As well as trail blazing in the world of mass issue optical sights
        Black person the average US Army issue rifle didn't have an optic outside of irons until the 2000s, meanwhile you had the Brits mass issuing SUSATS in the eighties, AUGs coming standard with 1.5x Swarovski scopes since the late seventies and German G36 rifles having optics as standard in the late nineties.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the bull pup was setup more as a machine gun than an infantry rifle, as a result the trigger system sucked ass more than normal bullpups since it was more like an m240 than an m16. and the idea that full auto would be used more would mean more ammo consumption from those already smaller 20 round mags. if it was a belt fed it would have made sense as an lmg.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Did the bullpup have a MG version? I thought it didn't and that's why it lost. Though part of it was corruption SIG was the only one with readily available gun as both a battle rifle and a MG. Probably because the army told them even before the competition started because of said corruption.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Technically, they're automatic rifles, not machine guns. The RM277 had an AR (it was a requirement of the program) but it wasn't belt fed (a belt fed AR was not a requirement of the program). The RM277-AR had a longer and heavier than the RM277-R.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >had a longer and heavier
          longer and heavier barrel

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Okay. Thanks for clearing that up in my head. I personally think the bullpup AR version was the only thing worth anything out of this silly program but the Army went with SIG again.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's a .338 Norma Magnum version of it that might have a chance. That contract will probably go to Sig as well though, judging by the way things have been going.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the SIG pistol adoption over the M9 was anything to go by this program was probably a travesty behind the closed doors. It really is unfortunate how these trials can't really be public.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >If the SIG pistol adoption over the M9 was anything to go by this program was probably a travesty behind the closed doors.
              Sig offered the M17 for $250 apiece at a time when many of the existing M9s were scheduled for new frames at $400 apiece. They didn't win because their gun was the best, they won because it was the cheapest and pistols don't matter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Is there any proof for that price? They're clearly making a loss on that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can see what the value of the contract is and how many systems were included. A lot of the value of the contract was in spare magazines and parts, holsters, etc. Sig is selling at cost and hoping to make it up in service contracts and future sales to third world dictators that want to buy whatever the US uses.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They're clearly making a loss on that.
                What makes you say that? No taxes, no cuts to distributors. Even if they are losing out on the pistols the money is usually in the service contract. I think sig won the ammo contract too.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Winchester is making the ammo, dunno if Sig gets a cut.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because I (vaguely) know how much it costs to manufacture things in the USA and I also know what parts there are in the M17.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'd like to add that TV wasn't using a loophole saying "well you didn't say it HAD to be belt-fed". The program parameters actually specified something like "it can be belt fed or mag fed either's fine".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The program parameters actually specified something like "it can be belt fed or mag fed either's fine".
            Yeah maybe they were thinking Ultimax.
            But GD were like
            >BAR in the year 2024! Greatest idea ever, imma right, uwu?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              How is that any worse than
              >M14 in the year 2024! Greatest idea ever, imma right, uwu? t. US Army

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lsat has been around for decades tho

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the bullpup was the mg version they decided to go with 20 rnd mags m27 iar style. i think they were hoping to weasel in the way the 416 did by pretending to be a SAW until everyone ended up carrying one, but they focused to much on making it an mg instead of a good rifle and hoping no one noticed the lack of capacity

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is the t2 justified over a holosun?

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >still shilling telescope ammo
    pathetic

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because bullpups suck ass.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bullpup gays can't admit the fact that even though the bullpup is okay, they're simply not good enough to be replaced by anything related to the AR. Triggers are eh (minus the hellion that thing is doodoo), ergos are just bad and you're overall dealing with less space.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the only way bullpups become viable is after electronic ignition comes about. There's no need for a gross heavy trigger pull when it's basically no different than a light switch, you can have the trigger anywhere you like if all you need is a few wires running back to the ignition point. The space savings advantage could be justified by having an actual computer system built in that would calibrate different settings into the gun's functions, like setting an exact rate of fire (same system could be used for rangefinding, making sight adjustments easier or entirely unnecessary). Depends how big that computer needs to be though, if it's small enough that it could fit in a conventional layout then there's no reason for reducing the size of the gun, and if it's too big then it's heavy, bulky, and ultimately not worth having no matter what you do.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The year is 1902, your army is adopting new equipment and training for extremely long range shooting because of niche experiences in a colonial war mostly caused by incompetence
    >The year is 2024, your army is adopting new equipment and training for extremely long range shooting because of niche experiences in a colonial war mostly caused by incompetence

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Truth be told pre WWI long range shooting was norm. According to previous experience most infantry shooting was done at 1000+ meters.
      Just recently ended Second Boer War where Mauser armed Boers suppressed British artillery batteries. WWI was great surprise.
      It's during preparation to WWII militaries had no exscuses, WWI? All military experienced emphasized importance of long range rifle.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the trend in british military training and shooting was towards shorter ranged work as a general trend through the later 1900s into the 1910s

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Boer War was the British version of Afghanistan 2.0 (after their original version).
        Otherwise shooting was almost always done fairly close, even with rifled muskets.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?si=GOHyp1DJF9dkpvGU
    every single person should watch this video before talking about ngsw, you will never understand the true stupidity of the program without this guys explanation of the circumstances that led to its birth

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because bullpups are gay and moronic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *