Why did bullpups fall out of fashion again...

>rear heavy
>nose flip
>very fucking smelly to shoot
>unless you have a deflector cases ejection sucks for left shooters
>trigger is much worse from factory than others
I like my bullpup, but it's for sure not for everyone.

theyre stupid and anyone who disagrees is retarded

You've never taken a rifle training course and it shows. The closer your support hand is, the less your rifle seems to weigh. That weight gets painful to hold up after a couple to several hours. Soldiers would appreciate less weight up front. Shit I run my support hand up against the magwell and I've got long spider arms. You also get hella quick target transitions that way.

It's because they adopted them in the 70s-80s and never improved on them. They ended up hating them because the first bullpups were shit. The modern ones are g2g.

youve never shot long distance and it shows. you think quick transitions are important. youve got a gamer or cqb mindset. its true people will start holding a m16 or something far out then their hand will get closer to the magwell as they get tired. they still have the option to put their hand where they want and adjust based on the current situation. on a bullpup its always cramped.

gunpowder smells wonderful

On paper it’s a great idea. You get a full sized rifle while cutting a lot of wasted space and weight.

People logically thought it was the next step in firearms design and everyone jumped on it.

Turns out the overall size of the rifle doesn’t matter much unless you’re going full CQC. And a regular rifle with a folding stock stores just as well. Going prone can be awkward with it, reloading can be awkward with it, firing left handed can be awkward, triggers have to go through a linkage which naturally makes them a bit shit.

I still love the idea, and I think they make a perfectly good service rifle. But standard config works just fine too and doesn’t have the little annoyances.

>There's even a video floating around in which an Aussie training with US forces tries out an M4 or M27 and says "wow, that's way fucking better."
Australia's motivation for adopting the AUG wasn't even because they liked bullpups that much. They wanted a 5.56. They first tried adopting the M16, but Colt refused to sell them a manufacturing license, instead Colt wanted them to just buy the rifles. Steyr was more cooperative.

Attached: img_9227.jpg (640x853, 398K)

This, the conventional rifle evolved around human ergonomics and the bullpup arrived later as a solution looking for a problem. In some specific scenarios it can offer advantages but they rarely outweigh the negatives of added weight, complexity, lesser triggers, and lesser ergonomics. They're cool in that they're fitting a square peg into a circle hole but when you're actually shooting your gun, there are very few situations where you wouldn't want to have a conventional rifle, ESPECIALLY as a civilian where the scope of use is limited as well as full auto/suppressors being restricted

A handguard isn't a couch. Pick a spot and stay consistent. Closer is typically better unless you're stabilizing a long shot. With a bullpup you don't need to reach out further taking an all new grip to stabilize a shot, your support hand is already towards the end of the barrel fully stabilizing it.

Longer barrels also help with long distance shooting. Checkmate atheist.

Nah, this shits like pure ammonia, and it goes right into your nose and main shooting eye at indoor ranges. Outdoors is completely different smelling experience.

>a solution looking for a problem
Keep claiming that when all you ARfags are running around with 10" barrels.

Pretty sure most civi ARs are 16" but okay

As an AR day myself the shortest I have is 16. I prefer my 20 or 18 incher

When they should be 20" so that their caliber actually gets to a high enough velocity to fragment. You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.

>Pick a spot and stay consistent.
wrong just wrong
you hold where you can comfortably hold at that moment in time.
positions change you cant tell me you hold a gun standing exactly the same way you do prone. if you are competing for speed then yeah you want everything to be constant but in the field/reality things move you move your target moves distances change. its not all static targets that dont shoot back where you have the time to take your perfect practiced stance.
being able to adapt is important. having options is preferable. ideally you want to be able to place your hand wherever and still make good enough hits.

meme and gimmick with sloppy ergos
the "new coke" of assault rifles

I'm assuming you're not retarded, and you've just failed to research modern 5.56 loadings but that's because I'm hopeful

Attached: 1551579347392.jpg (408x439, 40K)

Croatian army still uses a bullpup, the VHS-2

>Aside from creating ambidexterous case ejection
A FAMAS shoots the casings forward so fucking much you can shoot it left-handed without any issue. For real. And Keltec solved the issue marvelously well, with both downward and (the completely nuts) forward tube ejection system.

I think bullpups suffer from two self-defeating issues:
>the myth that bullpups are all terrible
>the fact the most widely available bullpups are terrible

No one wants to buy them because they're shit, no company wants to make them because they're unpopular, only few companies try it and make some passable guns in small batches which could be great with enough iterations but considering they're commercial failures they don't insist, they fuel the myth that bullpups are terrible, less people want to buy them, less companies make them, etc. I think it just needs some "luck", some model that'll just click.

Being French, and having extensively shot FAMASses, I can attest it's a fine rifle, for real. Most I used were fucking old and damaged models, yet they still fucking worked flawlessly, and brand new ones were the tits. It used to have some issues: 1:12 barrels, unpractical large handle thing (though great sights), proprietary mags and rails... not to mention a whole lot of myths owed to shitty ammo bought by the French army, myths which are still everywhere, even Wikipedia, but all of this has been fixed over several iterations, recent ones have 1:9 barrels, picatiny rails, take STANAG mags, and with proper, common ammo, and not the shit French army uses, they are just perfectly fucking fine.

Actually I'll let you in on a little tidbit of info: in the wake of recent protests, with the rebirth of nationalism and patriotism, even royalism, the fact people stockpile guns, not to mention the replacement of the FAMAS by the HK416, many French people want a FAMAS, and word is not only companies are looking into it, two of them may partner up.

Maybe new FAMASses soon.

Attached: français.jpg (600x600, 69K)

>The Chinese and the French, notably, are replacing their bullpups with traditional rifles
What are the Chinks replacing it with?

>the French, notably, are replacing their bullpups with traditional rifles. I imagine a big part of this change is that bullpups present a lot of design and useage problems for something that is only really a major advantage in limited circumstances
>only really a major advantage in limited circumstances
No.

There's one thing you have to know about the French army: vehicles.

Vehicles.

VEHICLES.

It may just be the most mechanized army on the planet. The FAMAS was designed to be small, short, easy to carry, and use, especially from inside a vehicle, allowing the French army to retaliate in any situation, and always present a threat.

Good thing the HK 416 is not too much of a long gun, but don't think it's because the FAMAS was bad, it simply went out of production, as the defense industry is dying, and there is no military-grade small arms manufacturers left in France.

Attached: tof0002er9tz3.jpg (591x866, 122K)

>barrel length isnt critically important.
>neither is being small. to a certain extent you want a gun to be small but an ak with a sidefolder or standard m4 is small enough for all practical use
This. Those saved centimeters don't outweigh ease of use. And performance advantage waffles between the 2.

This also no one ever solved the eject-into-your-face-around-a-right-hand-corner thing

WAIT : is that a fucking FAMAS???

Why did bullpups have such a glacially slow development cycle for good triggers? We have a decent amount of them now even in stock production guns; I hear the RDB has a reputation for having a pretty good trigger. Yet it shouldn't have taken this many decades for those kinds of problems to be figured out, what gives?

>"wow, that's way fucking better."
Proof that they haven't actually been shooting at real people all that much and don't understand what's important in their rifle. To be easier on retard brains to use or to actually have the necessary barrel length to not start causing the 5.56 to fall below its intended performance specifications, which is more important?

Get a load of the armchair warlord everyone.

>5.56 to fall below its intended performance specifications
let us know when you've finally fired a rifle.

Attached: stimpysmug.jpg (200x200, 9K)

>most civi ARs are 16"
That has nothing to do with ballistics, physics, effectiveness, or market forces. It’s government niggerdry pure and simple.

user, that last part is making my peepee hard

>unless you’re going full CQC
but this has been the trend for infantry warfare for some time

I hate to sound morbid here but as far as I'm concerned, the NZ shooting has ended both the 5.56 lethality and 5.56 vs barrel length debates once and for all.

>no one ever
front ejection has happened for a while now

I agree with everything you just said. Also I hope the last part happens and I hope new Famases find there way to the US cuz I want one if I can shoot it lefty

Tavor a cute

But the famas was full auto. A lot of bullpups were

The reason why the French changed is because their weapons manufacturing is almost completely dead

Last I heard this was the running contender: NAR-556.

Largely because soldiers have been bitching about the QBZ being unable to mount optics comfily.

Attached: norinco-nar-556.jpg (900x600, 71K)

Shitty triggers, awkward slow reloads, solves fewer problems than it creates.

After a while most sane people just go back

>famas’s fire rate is similar to a mg42 and mg3
>no lmg version of the famas

I think its pretty funny that countries that once had large arms manufacturing companies have those die out because they end up heavily restricting guns. The UK, France, and Spain all had it happen.

They didn't do what Krauts do: pay attention to the export market.

shit trigger pull?

The success and prevalence of the AR15 and its aftermarket. It's hard to argue with having more options available for a equivalent or even cheaper price, especially in the days of fewer and fewer nations having domestic arms industries.

The fact that several major small arms contracts in the US all belong to Germany companies is a testament to that fact.

>One word: Triggers
Lol no.

>solves fewer problems than it creates
Exactly, thank you. What a retarded thread.

>solution looking for a problem

When your mechanised infantry were all deploying with 14.5 inch barrels and losing a shitton of power off early 5.56, which was already trash, you want to make sure you have barrels that are as long as possible while not negatively affecting IFV/APC ergonomics.

For example on the barrel length:
The M4 Carbine had a 14.5 inch barrel when issued and were 29-33 inches.
SA80s, for all their faults, had a 20.5 inch barrel and were 30.9 inches.
FAMAS had 19.5 inch and were 29.5 inches in length.
AUGs were 20 inch barrel and overall 31.1 inches in length.
For mech infantry, I'm sure you'll agree having a much more accurate rifle with a longer range as a result of the barrel and relevant ammo for the period is better than having a more generic and cheaper rifle that comes with a barrel nearly 1/3rd smaller and resulted in vastly lower range and stopping power. For a small increase in weight (1kg in the worst case and .6 kg in the best), you get a statistically better rifle for mech units. Now whether the bullpups were worth buying for EVERY unit is up for debate but at the time of adoption, the options were basically a 14.5 inch barrel on a rifle thats longer than the competing bullpups which are slightly heavier but can provide superior accuracy and stopping power using the rounds tested at the time. Now it's not the case because modern 5.56 burns faster so the benefits of a longer barrel are less important for a service rifle in the hands of an infantryman but in the mid 80s - early 90s, there wasn't really much competition between the choices.

>Proof that they haven't actually been shooting at real people
When a person goes through a full retard adrenalin dump the result is tunnel vision aural shut-down. and lose of fine motor skills, hence the need for endless training sessions to instill muscle memory, Having the controls on a firearm out front where one can see them, even when suffering tunnel vision is a vast improvement over having a platform that must be dropped from the shoulder to change mags. Thus endith the lesson

Because what takes off isn't necessarily dependent on how good it is, but on infrastructure, support, and demand. US doesn't use them, and US basically controls the gun industry, so if they want to keep things forced to their own, they can force that.

You mean all the experiences from the two wars in the Middle East are all null and void because it's convenient for you? Wonderful.

Lethality at point blank range is not exactly a selling point. Might as well chamber service rifles in .22, would have accomplished the exact same result.

Your lesson is scatterbrained. On one hand you need to have endless training sessions to be able to manipulate your weapon without looking, but then you need them all in eyesight as a somehow critical feature. Not that this is argument valid since the controls on most modern bullpups are in the same fucking place, around the main firing hand, dumbshit.

Perhaps the reason why you have to drop the weapon from your shoulder is because your American stomach is so wide that it prevents the magazine from exiting? That's not quite the weapon's fault.

>shit ergos
>barrel length is overrated
>overcomplicated

>14.5 vs 19-20 = 1/3
>not comparing L86 to the saw
Bullpups were always a fad

Bad triggers, less intuitive reloading, marginal benefits.

The vast majority of engagements happen at a maximum of 25 yards.

It could have been an absolute non issue if designers could actually play with electric triggers, but alas, ATF

Sure for civilians who are trying to shoot people legally. Not for militaries. If theres a house 25 yards away with hostiles you dont breach it. You throw grenades in it cause fuck em.

God, the AussieAUG is so fucking ugly

This looks like a ripoff a czech or swiss design.
>right folding stock
But then it will cover the ejector....

>must be dropped from the shoulder to change mags
This is how I know that you've only shot video game bullpups. You can absolutely preform a mag change on a bullpup from the ready stance.

No, that statistic is literally from the Department of Defense. Most engagements happen at a max of 25 yards and most of them are indoors. Most civilian engagements are far more intimate than that.

>switch shoulder
>hot_brass.jpg

I arent think that

sources?

>You don't breach you throw grenades
Yes you do breach. The US military's entire combat doctrine revolves around suppressing targets in a house so you can get a squad close enough to breach. At which point you frag rooms individually as needed.

Quelle regiment?

t. 2REG

>thinks magwell grips are good
It's you, user, that doesn't know shit about rifles.

Having your support hand further out helps with recoil control, reducing muzzle sway, and helps prevent excessive motion when moving the rifle onto target.
Generally speaking, your support hand should be as far out as is reasonably comfortable.

>Now it's not the case because modern 5.56 burns faster
No it doesn't. The initial M855A1 loads beat rifles too badly so they gave it the S&W treatment and it ended up barely faster than past loads. They still have yet to succeed in cheating physics so for the time being 5.56 still needs a relatively long barrel for optimum performance.

Mostly because infantry are only really useful for CQB and building-clearing and 5.56 that's only intended to travel 10 yards to hit its target doesn't really care how short your barrel is. And a shortened barrel on a standard configuration gun generally tends to be more ergonomic.

>to be honest, you have to have a pretty high IQ to understand bullpups

Attached: 1552077858356.jpg (684x684, 268K)

Generally speaking, you have no clue about the difference between what is ideal and what is practical. Magwell grips are used because the vast majority of infantry work is standing around pointing your rifle at nothing while waiting for things to happen, and then when things do start happening they will sometimes be scrunched up against cover where there is simply no space to extend one's arm. After a while of doing this all day it becomes a question of being able to hold up your rifle at all and the easiest spot for the offhand will be as close as possible, everything else is "fuck off POG" tier.

This might seem like a wild concept to you, but in the time you bring your rifle up from a resting/low ready/observation position to putting your sights on target, you can also move your support hand forward to a more ideal position for shooting.

In regards to shooting from barricades and around/under cover, this absolutely can affect hand placement on your rifle, but rarely will necessitate a mag well grip. Seriously one of the most important things you can learn about using cover is not to crowd it. If you work angles well, cover works just as good if you're a few feet off of it and you're far less likely to get hit by fragements, ricochets, etc. And this has an added benefit of not forcing you to take a compromised shooting position.

I'd heard they were going with a QBZ-03. The guns you posted are more for export; they're chambered in 5.56, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51. They're billed as being modular, so I think they're kind of like China's take on the ACR.

Attached: QBZ 03.jpg (1200x800, 142K)

poor accuracy, bad triggers.

>famas
>poor accuracy

Yeah go through a 2-4 hour rifle course and see what your shoulders feel like. Hold perimeter on the corner of a house with an armed suspect inside for 5+ hours. You'll permanently fuck up your shoulders.

>Actually I'll let you in on a little tidbit of info: in the wake of recent protests, with the rebirth of nationalism and patriotism, even royalism, the fact people stockpile guns, not to mention the replacement of the FAMAS by the HK416, many French people want a FAMAS, and word is not only companies are looking into it, two of them may partner up.

You've got some great imagination here.

>I'd heard they were going with a QBZ-03. T

The QBZ-03 came out over a decade ago and are still only in limited use with police forces, while the QBZ-95 has had numerous uprgrades since then. It's not being replaced with anything.

What the QBZ is NOT is a good export. Only a handful of shithole countries want them. The Israelis are selling the ACE as a modern AK solution to 3rd world countries and so the Chinese have to bring something attractive to market.

The CS/LR-17 is showing up more and more in trade shows, it looks slicker with every new appearance.

Attached: CSLR17.png (760x514, 706K)

No, I'm making shit up

Is it going to be like the ACR/XCR/MSBS/HK 433 where it has interchangeable barrels?

'strayan guns are ugly.
Remember the Owen?
But they work, and work well.

Less aftermarket compared to what? There wasn't much of an aftermarket for anything back then.

>Closer is typically better unless you’re stabilizing a long shot
>Longer barrels also help with long distance shooting
So a traditional rifle with a long barrel is better by your logic. Not only that, but the main advantage of bullpups (smaller profile) is unnessecary at longer ranges, not to mention the disadvantage of a mediocre trigger bullpups always have. It’s almost as if bullpups are a solution looking for a problem. That, or they’re really only good for CQC. But then again, that area is where their lack of ambidexerity shines (like clearing corners). Also, traditional rifles in a short config can be just as good nowadays with the right ammo (ex: mk262). I think I’ll go with the first answer.

He said "nearly 1/3 smaller", which is true. Do you have trouble with reading, or with math?