The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Compost]

Only difference between SF and infantry in the matter of assault rifles I see in caliber and barrel lenght (SF should have the infantry standard issue rifle, plus the same with shorter barrel and/or different caliber, due to the fact that they have some similar, but some different tasks than infantry, like hostage rescue, VIP protection etc., where .308 caliber, which I suppose to be the best for infantry, would not be the best for the task). Also SF rifle needs details like ability to carry a supressor. But SCAR rifles have all these options, that´s the reason I see SCAR rifle as the best choice for whole army, even if it was developed for SOF purpose. I see every day in job that everybody and his dog wants to call himself SF (cooks, staff officers, logistic guys are experts on this), but that´s another story. Reliability, simplicity, accuracy, easy maintenance are the same principles for everybody.
PS: I agree that M4 is not the best rifle, but it´s not bad either. It´s light and accurate, and if you choose right manufacturer, it is also reasonably reliable. SA80 is heavy, and usable only for right shoulder - or at least it used to be, I am not sure about the newest version. On the other hand, I like the safety selector, and cocking handle is definately better designed than in AR15 family.

Currently shoulder arms for Australian forces are procured on two distinct paths: one primarily for infantry that flows on to most of the armed forces, and a second for special forces.

Most infantry are issued with the 5.56mm F88 AUG bullpup as a carbine (405mm barrel in 690mm overall) or rifle (505 in 790mm), but some have 5.56mm M16A2 forward-mag rifles (505 in 1000mm). Infantry marksmen and the 2nd member of sniper teams are armed with either a heavily telescoped AUG or a 7.62mm SR25 fwd-mag semi-automatic rifle. The SR25 is to be largely succeeded by a recently ordered batch of 7.62mm HK417 fwd-mag semi-auto rifles.

Australian special forces commonly employ the 5.56mm M4 fwd-mag carbine and the 7.62mm SR25 fwd-mag semi-auto rifle, complemented by the close-range 9mm MP5 SMG and 12 gauge Rem870 shotgun. The M4 was/is reportedly favoured - over the sometimes issued AUG - because of its lower weight, ready availability of a SOPMOD kit, and better reliability after immersion due to larger bore gas cylinder. Low weapon weight and ease of portability are highly valued by special forces where personnel often carry a second long barrel weapon and usually an auxiliary sidearm. Hence direct gas action in the M4 and SR25 (and also the sometimes issued M16A2) is accepted despite the affect on serviceability.

The standard flash suppressor on the M4 carbine (370mm barrel in 840mm overall) cannot handle the problem of flash from 5.56mm ammunition developed for common use in carbines and longer barreled weapons. To suppress muzzle flash - especially at night - the long and bulky M4 noise suppressor can be used although it increases length by about 15cm out toward that of a fwd-mag rifle. That is apparently acceptable, and anyway muzzle flash can for some SPECFOR operations be useful to increase shock and intimidation.

Infantry operations are likely to be of much longer duration with a corresponding need for weapon ruggedness and reliability. Also suppression of muzzle flash that otherwise serves as a bullet magnet is a vital and ever-present concern for infantry.

In place of SMGs and shotguns Australian infantry rely on the AUG bullpup carbine plus 40mm single shot attachments. Addtionally, several types of bolt-action and semi-automatic sniper rifles are on issue including the SR98 (AI AW-F), Blaser Tactical 2 and AI AW-50F mostly in 7.62mm, 8.59mm and 12.7mm resp. Typically, each of those sniper rifles has been procured in small quantities and each of the current types have progressed by way of various pathways into common use.

Shifting to the general case, special forces in Australian and all other armed forces have special needs including rapid delivery of small batches of new types of equipment. They may finish up using common equipment but that should never become an objective.

It is necessary that procurement for special forces is - and continues to be - under SPECFOR control and that it be kept separate from (but known to) procurement for infantry and other. There is an ancillary benefit in that rapid procurement for special forces can enable early assessment and trial use by infantry. That applies to armies everywhere and can be especially useful for large armies that have tortuous procurement procedures.

[JMA]

That's part of the reason why I'll never be a good trainer at anything, I guess.
I take too much for self-evident and not in need of a demonstration.

Well I hope you realised that back when you were serving

My experience is that the average 18 year old infantry trainee is generally not rocket scientist material and if he has the smarts at 18 his mind is on other things

So that is why a regime of demonstration, explanation, imitation where the seemingly obvious is stated and thereafter repetition, repetition, repetition... until it becomes second nature is an absolute necessity. The right people to carry out this training are hard to find and once found should be looked after like the crown jewels.

[JMA]

Currently shoulder arms for Australian forces are procured on two distinct paths: one primarily for infantry that flows on to most of the armed forces, and a second for special forces.

[snip]

Infantry operations are likely to be of much longer duration with a corresponding need for weapon ruggedness and reliability. Also suppression of muzzle flash that otherwise serves as a bullet magnet is a vital and ever-present concern for infantry.

Yes there is certainly a need to differentiate between the golf-bag type selection ability of weapons for different special forces operations and the more standard requirements of the line infantry.

[Demon Fox]

The standard flash suppressor on the M4 carbine (370mm barrel in 840mm overall) cannot handle the problem of flash from 5.56mm ammunition developed for common use in carbines and longer barreled weapons. To suppress muzzle flash - especially at night - the long and bulky M4 noise suppressor can be used although it increases length by about 15cm out toward that of a fwd-mag rifle. That is apparently acceptable, and anyway muzzle flash can for some SPECFOR operations be useful to increase shock and intimidation.

In my experience, the choice to use suppressors for a mission weren't so much the reduction of muzzle flash as the reduction of noise and increase of stealth. Even with suppressors, the M4 still makes a fairly loud POP, but it is suppressed enough to minimize drawing attention to your presence. So, a team could assault and clear an enemy headquarters and kill the commanding officer and his staff while the 100 soldiers in the barracks next door are completely unaware of their presence.

v/r

DF

[Compost]

The British and French armies each have a 5.56mm bullpup as their standard carbine and rifle. Each also has a 7.62mm fwd-mag rifle on issue to marksmen. But neither army provides a complete variety of bullpup and fwd-mag alternatives for the 5.56 carbine and rifle, 7.62mm carbine and rifle and 7.62mm marksman rifle.

Other large NATO armies such as the Canadian, German and US armies each have a one configuration suits-all inventory of fwd-mag 5.56mm and 7.62mm carbines and rifles. Of course a fwd-mag shoulder arm with adjustable butt can be used by either a large or a small person. But aiming and firing are the last part of a sequence that involves tactical movement in open terrain, through vegetation and narrow urban passageways and also in and on/off many types of vehicle and aircraft/helicopter.

Nowadays any army that relies exclusively on fwd-mag shoulder arms is stuck in the past and is probably - without any form of test - just assuming that tradition, standardized training and commonality of spares outweigh every tactical consideration.

The main advantage of the bullpup configuration is reduction in overall length. For example the AUG 5.56mmm bullpup carbine with 405mm barrel is 690mm overall whereas the widely used M4 5.56mm fwd-mag carbine with 370mm barrel is 840mm overall.

Commonly supposed disadvantages of the bullpup configuration can be briefly discussed. Lack of a foldable butt is unnecessary on a bullpup which hence can be kept ready for use. Minimum adjustable pull length can be too large for a short-armed user but if choice were available then that user could choose a fwd-mag alternative. Cheekweld is high but many fwd-mag weapons also have a straightline stock. Ejection is close to user's face but close-by ejection is distracting to only some users. Butt-heavy weight distribution can reduce off-the-shoulder accuracy but does assist with carriage of forward-mounted items such as ranging and sighting devices and/or a grenade launcher. Overall the bullpup configuration has only one intrinsic disadvantage: magazine replacement is generally slower than that achievable with a fwd-mag shoulder arm.

Tradition may suggest that initially only a minority of personnel in any armed force would choose to be issued with a bullpup in preference to a fwd-mag shoulder arm. But over time the proportion would change as suitability to task and/or user was demonstrated or disproven. Change upward or downward is certain but the bullpup/fwd-mag split and confidence limits for any kind of equilibrium cannot be estimated without some form of trial.

So the concept is that the tactical and individual needs of infantry (and other arms) can be better satisfied by providing choice of a limited variety of bullpup and fwd-mag shoulder arms, rather than by the usual mandate of one configuration fits all - which applies almost as much to the British and French armies as it does to the others ! It means also ongoing scope for choice which has in other areas proven to be productive and good for morale.

It should be fairly easy to conduct a trial to determine bullpup/fwd-mag preference. First, select a batch of home-based light infantry platoons and cav/armoured infantry platoons that have recent combat experience. Enough platoons to provide say at least 50 marksmen and somewhat larger numbers of rifle and carbine users. Second, withdraw all current carbines, rifles and marksman rifles and let each member of those units select an equivalent bullpup or fwd-mag carbine/rifle/marksman rifle in the same caliber (with/without 40mm GL as per current). Third, after a period of say 4 months of base and field training and exercise, replace all bullpups in the three categories by the fwd-mag alternative, and all fwd-mags by the bullpup alternative. After another 4 months of applied base and field training and exercise, poll all personnel to determine bullpup/fwd-mag preference in the three categories.

Several manufacturers are currently offering 5.56 and 7.62mm carbines and rifle families in which various uppers can be combined with a common fwd-mag gripstock. One or more of those families may in time be modified and extended to include a bullpup gripstock. However, in the near term a user trial should be structured to avoid ingoing bias and also bias toward successor planning, such as a new type of fwd-mag shoulder arm to succeed an obsolescing type of fwd-mag.

One possible set for a user trial is:

5.56 bullpup carbine and rifle - AUG,
5.56 fwd-mag carbine and rifle - FN Mk16

7.62 bullpup carbine and rifle - Kel-Tec RFB
7.62 fwd-mag carbine and rifle - HK417

7.62 bullpup marksman - Kel-Tec RFB-T
7.62 fwd-mag marksman - HK417-S

An alternative set would be:

5.56 bullpup carbine and rifle - Tavor,
5.56 fwd-mag carbine and rifle - HK416

7.62 bullpup carbine and rifle - Bulldog 762
7.62 fwd-mag carbine and rifle - FN Mk17

7.62 bullpup marksman - Bulldog 762-S
7.62 fwd-mag marksman - FN Mk17-S

There will be some (few ?) who are already converted. Others should be convertible and others will be resolutely opposed. But it is best to start early and might not be any harder than persuading armies to demand common magwells and interchangeable magazines across all shoulder arms of a particular calibre. And look where that has got to.

[Fuchs]

The disadvantage of a bullpup (ambidextrous operation, for example when firing around corners) can be neutralised mechanically, but its advantages are still mostly diminished by

* forward mag weapons getting folding buttstocks (can be even shorter than bullpup if folded)
* overall moderate required barrel lengths in comparison to the early rifles
* shorter sight line for (backup) iron sights
* greater difficulty of reloading under stress

The difference is simply not large enough to require a general conversion to bullpups.

[Demon Fox]

In regards to the SA-80, all I've ever heard from Brit soldiers is complaints. I was sharing a range with some Brits in AF a couple of months ago and they were ogling over my M4. They mentioned they were supposed to be transitioning to the M4 sometime in the future. I don't know the truth of that - maybe just soldier rumor mill.

The bullpup design certainly has its advantages. In regards to some such as the Steyr AUG, the manufacturer needs to modify it a bit with standard rail systems to allow for attachments and a choice of optics.

For those who really need to shorten the M4 length, there is always the option of the "shorty" barrels a lot of SOF guys like to use. Good for MOUT, but obvious a little less on the max effective range in long engagements. But, if you know the ballistics of your rifle you can always engage effectively with your weapon - whatever it is. An M4 can hit man-sized targets consistently 500 - 600 meters if you know how to judge the winds. It just takes practice.

v/r

DF

[Compost]

The disadvantage of a bullpup (ambidextrous operation, for example when firing around corners) can be neutralised mechanically, but its advantages are still mostly diminished by

* forward mag weapons getting folding buttstocks (can be even shorter than bullpup if folded)
* overall moderate required barrel lengths in comparison to the early rifles
* shorter sight line for (backup) iron sights
* greater difficulty of reloading under stress

The difference is simply not large enough to require a general conversion to bullpups.

1. disadvantage of a bullpup (ambidextrous operation . Often exaggerated and less important than average speed of changing magazine. Reversed hand firing of a shouldered side-ejecting bullpup is very awkward unless ejection can be quickly flipped to the other side. However, away-from-shoulder a 5.56 bullpup can be readily aimed around-the-corner with or without hands reversed. A multi-adjustable elbow sight for that and also over-the-top aiming has been developed for the AUG. Weapon control is possibly more troublesome than ejection for around-the-corner fire of a 7.62 bullpup and similarly for a 7.62 fwd-mag.

2. length of folded buttstock fwd-mag. can be close to and in some instances is marginally less than overall length of a bullpup, for example M4 and AUG. However, it is more difficult to aim and control a fwd-mag with folded buttstock than a bullpup that is always ready for use. Partly for those reasons folding butts on carbines and rifles (as distinct from SMGs) are being succeeded by telescoping ones.

3. moderate barrel length. If this is applicable, then it applies to a bullpup just as much as to a fwd-mag.

4. shorter sight line for (backup) iron sights. Valid under limited conditions. A short sight radius is adequate for close range snap-shooting using the iron sights on a carbine/rifle. Hence the ultra short radius expedient V and blade included on top of some optical sights. Reflex sight is often preferred for snap-shooting. Iron sights used only if/when expedient, reflex and the usual variable magnification sight are inoperable or not installed

5. greater difficulty of reloading under stress. Conceded early-on in original post that changing mags on a bullpup is slower than on a fwd-mag. The approx average time difference is not known to me. However your comment implies that stress would increase average unstressed reload time of bullpup, by more than it would the average unstressed reload time of a fwd-mag. Doubt there is much difference or any research on that.

6. general conversion to bullpups. A general conversion was not proposed. It was instead supposed that user trial would confirm appreciable number of would-be users for bullpup and for fwd-mag. Also that such would apply across carbine, rifle and marksman rifle. So ultimately inventory will have to be changed in order that each infantryman can be issued an individual shoulder arm in bullpup or fwd-mag configuration as determined by his experience and preference. If preference changes then a reissue would be necessary, or configuration could be changed by an armourer. It was not intended that each infantryman have ready access to a golfbag of uppers and lowers to assemble own shoulder arms in bullpup and/or fwd-mag configuration. My mistake for not spelling things out clearly.

[Compost]

Change
2. Change length of folded buttstock fwd-mag. can be close to and in some instances
to become
2. length of folded buttstock fwd-mag. For a given barrel length, the length of a folded buttstock fwd-mag can be close to and in some instances

[Compost]

In regards to the SA-80, all I've ever heard from Brit soldiers is complaints. I was sharing a range with some Brits in AF a couple of months ago and they were ogling over my M4. They mentioned they were supposed to be transitioning to the M4 sometime in the future. I don't know the truth of that - maybe just soldier rumor mill.

The bullpup design certainly has its advantages. In regards to some such as the Steyr AUG, the manufacturer needs to modify it a bit with standard rail systems to allow for attachments and a choice of optics.

For those who really need to shorten the M4 length, there is always the option of the "shorty" barrels a lot of SOF guys like to use. Good for MOUT, but obvious a little less on the max effective range in long engagements. But, if you know the ballistics of your rifle you can always engage effectively with your weapon - whatever it is. An M4 can hit man-sized targets consistently 500 - 600 meters if you know how to judge the winds. It just takes practice.

About ten years ago the Brits wanted to improve the reliability of the SA-80 5.56mm standard issue shoulder arm. The German arms design and manufacturing company Heckler and Koch was employed and reportedly did a good job. It is likely that Brit soldiers in Afghanistan have been issued the upgraded SA-80. So their complaints could be instance of poor reputation following like a bad smell regardless of improvement, or the improvement was inadequate. SA-80 has been in service for several decades and perception - even if misguided - counts for a lot, so Brit Army may have decided to succeed the SA-80 with a weapon that is clearly better. That weapon could be the M4. But the M4 operates with direct gas which also smells. Successor for the SA-80 is more likely to be the FN Mk16 or the HK416 as both have gas piston operation. Externally the HK416 resembles the M4 so that is a possible source of confusion.

The F88 AUG currently produced by ADI has Picatinny sight rail plus forward lower assembly with handgrip or 40mm grenade launcher plus side rails for laser designator/pointer, taclight, etc. For operation in Afghanistan and elsewhere the F88 carries many different combinations of reflex, and variable magnification day and night sights. The particular combination can be partly a user choice.

For rifle shooting at 500m and beyond it would be preferable to use a 7.62mm big brother such as the fwd-mag FN Mk17 or HK417. FN and H&K each seem to have plenty of corporate energy, so hopefully and before long it will be possible to use a bullpup relative of the Mk17 or HK417.

[Fuchs]

The British have budget troubles, I doubt there's any new standard rifle program that eluded my sight. They spent quite a lot on the upgrades a few years ago and the more special arms such as sniper rifles as well as the other infantry modernisation programs are already quite pricey.


Btw, a few years ago many SA-80 problems were officially explained as being the result of too long intervals between cleaning. You can even have jams in an AK if you don't clean it.

[Pete]

These are questions for Ken White: which rifle or carbine did you like the best? Why did you like it, and what could have been better about it? What did you like or dislike about the other ones that weren't your favorite ones? Memory lane and nostalgia, as it were.

I have a factory-new condition Inland M1 Carbine (like Dad had in the big one, a Winchester-made one IIRC) with a barrel dated December 1943. My carbine doesn't have any of the later design changes or MWOs, but I'll admit the cartridge was anemic and its accuracy and knock-down power were wanting.

[Ken White]

which rifle or carbine did you like the best? Why did you like it, and what could have been better about it? What did you like or dislike about the other ones that weren't your favorite ones? Memory lane and nostalgia, as it were.

I'm not a gun nut, weapons are, to me, tools and no more. All had strengths and weaknesses. As far as "like" goes. the '03 with a scope was fun to shoot and the M-14 was a decent compromise. The M1 was the hardest to harm, the BAR the most all round reliable and the M-16 was the easiest to handle (outside of the so-called Manual of Arms, which is sorta dumb IMO anyway...). I didn't like the weight of the M1 or BAR, did not and do not like that cartridge of the M-16. I carried both M1 and M2 Carbines briefly, bad cartridge as you say and the short stroke piston, like gas impingement is not optimum. If I had to use an issue long gun in combat today, I'd go with the M-14 as a decent compromise (and yes, that short stroke piston isn't ideal... ).

Of non-issued (US) weapons I have fired, I like the Bren, the Japanese Type 99, the M1941 Johnson LMG (not the rifle, haven't fired it) and the FN FAL. I did not like the G3 (or most of the H&K models). I do not like bullpups (compactness is vastly overrated IMO, all weapons are compromises but one gives up too much in the way of range, reliability and functioning for small envelopes). If I could pick any long gun w/o regard to issue status, I'd probably go with an updated FAL like a DSA for range and power in arctic, desert, mountains or most temperate areas; probably a Valmet Rk 95 for jungle (there are some newer types out there but these two have proven reliability records...). However, weapons, like most everything else should really be chosen with an eye on what one is to do -- METT-TC...

[Pete]

I have a Japanese Arisaka Model 99, 7.7mm, that Dad brought back from Occupation Japan. It had the Mum on top of the chamber ground off it because of some U.S. occupation policy to eradicate all of the symbols of the emperor. Its sling was of the M1907 U.S. type that used to be used on the '03 Springfield, leather with the double holes and claw hooks. Dad won the rifle at the Christmas party raffle of the Stars and Stripes-Pacific in 1945. Later I got a bayonet for it that was a bring-back souvenir from a Seabee on Okinawa. It hangs on the wall -- I've never fired it and I go years without oiling it.

[Compost]

I do not like bullpups (compactness is vastly overrated IMO, all weapons are compromises but one gives up too much in the way of range, reliability and functioning for small envelopes).

Understand 'functioning' if that refers to extraction/ejection. Do not understand 'range, reliability'.

However, weapons, like most everything else should really be chosen with an eye on what one is to do -- METT-TC...

Yes indeed and that makes me a gun-nut. It is easier to start with infantry specialists, excluding snipers many of whom already seem able to choose from a variety of weapons. Also easier to consider 5.56 and 7.62mm as the in-service calibres for carbines and rifles.

To produce deliberate semi-auto fire, a marksman needs a long barrel weapon with a fwd-folding bipod (preferable to a gripod) and commonly also a MP-suppressor. That task and the frontend weight could be well handled with a 7.62mm bullpup rifle.

Grenadiers could be using a specialised multi-shot launcher, capable of firing for example 40x46 low-vel and 40x51 medium-vel ammunition. A pistol's useful range is very short and many other PDWs use dubious types of micro ammunition. Integrating a PDW into a specialized launcher would tend to result in a bulky and/or awkward combination. So a grenadier's PDW could be a separate 5.56mm carbine in whichever configuration - fwd-mag or bullpup - is the lighter. If a grenadier were using a single shot launcher attachment, then the bullpup configuration provides good access to the attachment's breech and reduces the frontend weight which is even more useful if a bipod were also fitted. A rifle length barrel would probably be needed to support the launcher attachment, again in 5.56mm calibre as all-up weapon and ammunition weights are problematic for grenadiers. Multiple shots stacked in a single barrel would involve even more frontend weight and hence the same 5.56mm bullpup configuration.

The infantry crews of heavy weapons can be variously engaged in moving and operating the weapon, and then waiting for targets of opportunity or fire orders. The most frequently used crew-served weapons are the medium MG and the medium assault weapon (shoulder fired recoilless rifle or larger variety of rocket-propelled grenade launcher). Their crews would preferably have compact, lightweight PDWs: 5.56mm bullpup carbines. The crews of other weapons usually - and even in light infantry units - operate with access to transport resources for replenishment purposes, so 7.62mm bullpup or fwd-mag carbines.

That leaves the individual weapon for a 'rifleman'. For CQB a fwd-mag carbine is a useful configuration for absolute speed of reloading. If light infantry and if regular drill is prophylactic fire then a fwd-mag carbine in 5.56mm seems preferable, otherwise 7.62mm. If however, the CQB 'rifleman' is routinely expected to carry - in addition to hand grenades - other disposable weapons such as one or even two light assault weapons (eg: M72) or directional mines (eg: M18), then that individuals weapon should be a 5.56mm fwd-mag carbine. At longer range the rifleman would preferably have a 7.62mm rifle. In any conflict against a peer adversary that rifle would have to be issued together with a QA/D MP-suppressor and the suitable weapon (excluding long range tele-sight) would tend towards that of a sharpshooter.

My bias toward 7.62mm is clearly indicated above. But many other arrangements would be practicable. Infantry need scope to obtain shoulder arms that cater for user aptitude and experience/preference for either a fwd-mag or a bullpup, and also to some extent that weapon's calibre: 5.56 or 7.62mm. A future that insists on the bullpup configuration would be as backward as a present that insists upon the fwd-mag. Hence my previous posts.

[Ken White]

I just do not like bullpups...

The action cycling under my cheek is a minor distraction on occasion, mag replacement is awkward. It's a familiarity thing as much as anything...

Understand 'functioning' if that refers to extraction/ejection. Do not understand 'range, reliability'.

That fact, the dislike, has little relationship to the statement that any drive for compactness (or light weight not mentioned and not necessarily involved in attaining small size) in a weapon is likely to affect those factors I cited. As an example, a compact 7.62x51 is going to have a shorter barrel even as a bullpup that almost certainly reduces optimum range. The driver for compactness as you note can affect extraction and ejection which in tune can affect reliability. I simply think the desire for compactness is not a terrible thing, it's just not as important as many seem to think.

Couple of minor comments:

To produce deliberate semi-auto fire, a marksman needs a long barrel weapon with a fwd-folding bipod (preferable to a gripod) and commonly also a MP-suppressor. That task and the frontend weight could be well handled with a 7.62mm bullpup rifle.

My combat use of bipods and / or front hand grips or combinations thereof leads me to believe that both / one is or are an assist device as you note but that there are also disadvantages in terms of handiness and weight that I believe best avoided. Suppressors are a mixed bag, add muzzle weight and a cost and logistic burden that is not needed in most cases. In the case of both, I think they are unnecessary for most riflemen. YMMV.

... many other PDWs use dubious types of micro ammunition.

Agree.

So a grenadier's PDW could be a separate 5.56mm carbine in whichever configuration...

I'd go with a good pistol and multi-purpose 40mm rounds. Again, YMMV.

That leaves the individual weapon for a 'rifleman'. For CQB

CQB is an exception in most combat, therefor it should not drive design IMO.

In any conflict against a peer adversary that rifle would have to be issued together with a QA/D MP-suppressor and the suitable weapon (excluding long range tele-sight) would tend towards that of a sharpshooter.

I think you may be complicating the logisitics of riflemen a bit. Suppressors have uses but they're specialized and not necessary or even desirable for most combat purposes.

... A future that insists on the bullpup configuration would be as backward as a present that insists upon the fwd-mag. Hence my previous posts.

True. All weapons will be compromises. However, in the end, they're simply tools, no more.

[reed11b]

I'm curious Ken, how tall are you? I'm a short guy, and my limited experience with bullpups has been mostly positive, and most short guys I have served with prefer them when they get the chance to shoot them. I don't think they are the next step in battle rifle design, but I wouldn't rule it out either.
Reed

[Ken White]

I'm curious Ken, how tall are you? I'm a short guy, and my limited experience with bullpups has been mostly positive, and most short guys I have served with prefer them when they get the chance to shoot them. I don't think they are the next step in battle rifle design, but I wouldn't rule it out either. Reed

from 6'2" to 6' -- good catch. As I said, it's a personal preference thing. Both my 5"5" and 5'9" sons like Bullpups (both are AUG fans), the 6'3" guy does not. Rifles are like everything else, METT-TC rules...

Agree they have a place. Most Infantrymen in a bigger war will do little CQB but some folks do a lot -- Bullpups are good for that.

How you been?

[Pete]

I think the primary considerations should be reliability, accuracy, range and stopping power. That is of course in reference to small arms, not to guys who have shrunk.

[carl]

Does anyone know how the XM-25 is working out?