Why have several large militaries recently STOPPED issuing bullpups after decades of service and reverted to conventional-layout rifles?
Why have several large militaries recently STOPPED issuing bullpups after decades of service and reverted to conventional-layout rifles?
Because we fricked our own small arms industry and are unable to produce replacement parts and develop a domestic improvement for the FAMAS, also switching to the HK 416 F was an openly political choice
Pulling the plug on a poor design
>awkward reloading
>marginal velocity gain
>ergonomically worse than AKs
I remember reading that the 3 finalists were the HK416, Beretta ARX160 A3, and the HS Produkt VHS-2. I remember a trade show in 2015 where Beretta was so confident about being selected that they had a bunch of posters of future french soldiers carrying the ARX. In reality the VHS-2 was probably going to be the winner but the whole hegemony over the EU that France and Germany enjoy caused the political move to choose the HK 416, even if it was the worst most expensive of the finalists.
I'm fricking fed up with the "couple franco-allemand" the government is pushing so badly. The germs are taking advantage of it to steal the patents of our military industry.
that seems to be the truth
speaking of Beretta ARX160, I still don't understand why is it so bulky. It looks comical.
>I remember reading that the 3 finalists were the HK416, Beretta ARX160 A3, and the HS Produkt VHS-2.
The finalists were the HK416 and FN SCAR.
FN fricked up, their offer was basically all the money was for the extras (training, maintenace...) and the guns for free. Which is illegal. So they lost.
hk won because Hollande wanted to push the "Franco-german" union.
Proof?
Thalès could upgrade the FAMAS, that's what they did for Australian's army main rifle.
Can't understand why they didn't asks them.
Because Hollande, Macron, Merkel and Von der Leyen.
I think it has to do with training more than anything else. Traditional firearm layout is just easier to train people on. Many bullpup designs have rather strange controls by comparison. That and small arms have a very small impact on modern war such that the nuances of their design don't mean much. The vast majority of casualties are due to ordnance.
Training isn't an issue since most countries don't have widespread civilian gun ownership. There's nothing natural about conventional layout either, the only reason people in the US have issue with reloading bullpups is because they're accustomed to M4s and AKs. Pierre and Chang aren't and will learn just as well regardless of the platform.
The real reason is that conventional layout is cheaper, faster and easier to manufacture, and that today we rely on optics rather than barrel lenght and harmonics to achieve accuracy, so we prefer having regular carbines with a palantir on top.
b***h you high?
Reloading is extremely comfy with a bullpup since they're not front heavy.
Velocity... I assume you're talking about ballistics. Being a bullpup has no bearing on them.
And controls on the famas are great. I dunno why this kind of trigger safety isn't used more, and mag release is as good as it can be. Only thing it lacks is a bolt hold open.
>Many bullpup designs have rather strange controls by comparison.
Safety is exactly the same as a conventional rifle. Most bullpups use lever mag releases like plenty of conventional rifles. Bolt release is a little weird, but guns like the Tavor are fairly intuitive; possibly more so than the M4, since it's directly next to your hand where you just inserted the mag.
bullpup is actually better
people using bullpups perform better even if they are longtime conventional users
an actual study was conducted on this. as usual amerifats are just babies who think what they don't like is also bad when it's the other way around
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720813509107
And yet, militaries are still switching, and also;
>subjects showed considerable preference toward the conventional weapons.
lol, lmao even.
Your other thread failed. Your bullpups will never be relevant and you will never be a woman.
The bullpups were produced domestically and the domestic production of these weapons doesn't exit anymore. Just purchasing the common nato platform is less expensive than rolling your own.
China was smart by copying the ar15's buffer system, just by doing that it just became significantly superior to any bullpup or non buffer systems they had ever used. The QBZ 191 even has an identical bolt release/catch paddle lol. Mag release is cancer though, they need to make it a button or something, it has the same issue the XM5 has with the side/rear charging handle.
>t.murican chink who has friends in the chink military
>t.murican chink who has friends in the chink military
I hope you die with the rest of the bugs in atomic fire, filth.
Damn I'm going to start larping as a Chinese with CCP connections if this is how much seethe you can get from just mentioning it.
He’s just salty that the Chinese e-girl on weibo stopped responding once she got the PIN numbers to his debit card.
because bullpups suck
The real reason is that they just don't offer any practical advantage over just issuing a shorter barrel rifle with a conventional layout. The velocity of 5.56 isn't significantly affected by barrel length contrary to fuddlore. Going from a 20" barrel to a 16" barrel results in like a 3.4% reduction in velocity compared to say 7.62x39 (a caliber that people claim is amazing out of short barrels) which gets a 2.5% reduction in velocity going from 20" to 16".
Even if you only reload like a second faster or have a bit more rail space or slightly easier time shooting prone with a conventional rifle, it's still well worth the trade to use the conventional layout.
diminishing returns, cheaper alternatives, previous designs didn't modernize well. The new chinese rifle is interesting in design I can't remember the video's title but if you look for the Task and Purpose vid he links to the actually good vid (dont watch that goofball he doesn't know what he's talking about half the time)
Ejection port is just too close to your face
Because of the AR15 flood, it's like androidlinux among weapons, nobody wants to pay for R&D
because bullpups dont really offer an advantage, in fact i think there are more cons than not
bullpups usually have shit triggers, a bit more complicated, pretty much dedicated to right handed shooters, cannot observe the chamber or many of the functional bits without pulling the gun away from your face, etc.
i dont see the point really, plus all of them except the AUG were unbalanced and i hated having the bolt next to my god damned face
>bullpups usually have shit triggers, a bit more complicated, pretty much dedicated to right handed shooters, cannot observe the chamber or many of the functional bits without pulling the gun away from your face, etc.
These
With modern optics and ammp legitimately the biggest thing affecting accuracy is shooting technique and triggers. Technique can be trained for but you cant train away a spongy, mushy trigger. Besides, a gun with all its working parts in front means quicker inspection, easier access to internals, easier take down, easier cleaning, etc. Most bullpups have their chambers very shielded and hidden since the users' face needs to be kept safe, extracting bad ammo can be a problem, force chambering can be a problem, etc etc.
Conscript's IQ fall from the 90s, so bullpup doomed
The surplus rifles are being mounted on robots though
they haven't?
israel still uses bullpups for example, only changed the special forces iirc
china is the only one that changed their bp
what "large militaries" are you referring to?
because ever less rifles are produced domestically. if you build your own rifle you can be unconventional. if you seek to export it, it pays off to be as conventional as can be, because your product fits the most requirements.