• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bullpups

Enzo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Aside from the Stery and the L85, any thoughts on the French FAMAS F1/G2? And here‘s another one for thought, the FN 2000 / IMI Tavor TAR-21 / OC-14 Groza / Bushmaster M-17. Who wouldn‘t like to play with any of these? Looks good on paper, anyone have experience?
 

onecat

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
NO experience, but from what I‘ve read the French FAMAS works really well. The design is simple and easy to handle, and has none of problems that British L85 has.
 

btk_joker

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I got most of the following information off another site...

The SA-80 or L85 assault rifle was adopted for British army service in 1985, but in fact the design is much older than this. The 5.56mm SA80 was originally the 4.85mm IW which was first produced in 1973 as a prototype weapon for the NATO calibre trials.
When it was due for adoption many British Gun writers voiced concerns about the design, but these seem to have been politely ignored.

It was during the Gulf War in 1991 that the mainstream press became aware of the malfunctions, jamming and reliability problems that the SA80 was prone to, including, apparently, a tendency to fire if dropped or struck on the muzzle.
In 1997 the SA80 was dropped from NATO‘s list of approved weapons because it was having difficulty firing NATO approved ammunition reliably.
Eventually the MOD admitted that something might be wrong. It is reported that the weapon has undergone 83 modifications over 18 years, but despite this in 2000 a contract of £80 million was paid to Hecker and Koch to put the army‘s SA80s right. Apparently the reworked L85A2 weapons are "ten times more reliable than the L85A1"

Im not sure if they are using the A2 now or the A1 still but there‘s some info anyway.

J .Lightfoot
 

Danjanou

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Hulk,
I do remember seeing a magazine article (Janes?) waay back in the early to mid 1970‘s showing the predecessor to the SA80 being field tested, alongside FN L1A1s. Not sure but I also believe that it wasn‘t in 5.56mm either. Wasn‘t there some other small calibre being considered as a possible replacement for 7.6mm back then?

On a related note it appears that the Brits are finally going to bin the LSW the heavy barrel section support version of the SA80. I came across this post GW2 article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/29/ngun29.xml&sSheet=/news/2003
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
The first bullpup rifle was developped by RSAF under the name EM2. The development took place in the late 40s and the rifle was ready in 1952. It was in cal .280in (7mm). Shortly after, NATO chose the 7.62mm cartridge as it‘s standard ammunition, putting an end to the EM2. Attempts to revive it met with no success.
 

btk_joker

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Danjanou,

That article made me gain a whole new respect for the British Army. lol

J. Lightfoot
 

AZA-02

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
north america and especialy canada should stay with the traditional classic models. :mg:
 

Enzo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Why‘s that Al-X? While I personally have no problems with traditionally designed rifles, I‘d think that a bullpup would offer many benefits over a traditional rifle. Ideally, balance and size would be gained, but with an efficient design, room for extra‘s (sights, launchers, lights, etc...) would still be accomodated. I don‘t have any personal experience with a bullpup rifle, but I‘d like to evaluate a few. The FAMAS seems to be a well rounded rifle.

Reason I posted this, the US OICW although a prototype, utilizes a bullpup grenade launcher in it‘s design. I‘m just assuming that at some point, bullpup designs will become more common as they do offer many advantages.

One mans traditions are anothers dreams and yet another‘s history.

Take submachine guns for example. We‘ve seen many varieties around the world, and yet the "traditional" standard is for a magazine in front of the pistol grip. Material and design advances have offered new models such as those offered by Calico and FN. Opinions differ, but it‘s still out there. Why then is H&K the standard?

Thoughts?
 

Danjanou

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Hulk,

Yeah I was surprised when the Brits went to the SA-80 that they initially adopted a heavy barrel version for the section support wpn.

I read the after action report from 2PARA in the Falklands where they went to 2xGPMGs (FN-MAG 58) per section instead of the standard 1. They changed their section tactics from the old "gun group & rifle group" standard (ask your CSM he‘ll explain it)to the two 1/2 section fire groups each with a LMG that we and they more or less use as the norm now.

To me it seemed a step back when they equipped their sections with thwe LSW instead of a belt fed wpn like the minimi. The LSW is basically a 5.56mm version of our old FN-C2. A heavy barrel, bipod equipped version of the standard infantry rifle and really unable to deliver the volume of fire that a real belt fed LMG can.

Nice to see they‘ve rectified it. Sorry it took so long.

BTW you should always respect our British cousins. Overall good troops, fun to work with and socialize with too. Just don‘t respect their rations especially breakfast. :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Originally posted by Al-X:
[qb] north america and especialy canada should stay with the traditional classic models. :mg: [/qb]
Well there you have it folks the expert has spoken, we should heed his advice immediately as he knows what he is talking about having handled countless weapons of both types.
:blotto:
 
F

fusilier955

Guest
Ex-Dragoon there is always one in every crowd... BTW what militia unit did you belong too? I was just wondering if it was while you were in Halifax.
 

Gunnar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
194
Points
530
BTW you should always respect our British cousins. Overall good troops, fun to work with and socialize with too. Just don‘t respect their rations especially breakfast.
Maybe that‘s what makes them mean in combat....Listen here, chum: Do you know what I had to have for breakfast? So, I‘m sorry, you‘re gonna have to die...! It‘s all part of the British Army‘s special training plan... :dontpanic:
 

East Side Soprano

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
The main advantage of the bullpup design is accuracy, due to the fact that the pistol grip is located nearer to the muzzle any slight movements of the hand are not magnified as much at the muzzle as with conventional rifles. This allows for greater control of the rifle and stability during aiming. Although I have no experience with such weapons I know my physics and thats the result of the design. As for the SA-80 the opinion of it is that it‘s crap, accurate but plagued by reliability problems. The FAMAS is much more reliable but has a very high rate of fire and only carries a 25 round mag. Can‘t comment on the rest, not very fimiliar with them.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Having fired the AUG and the L85A1 I have never noticed any advantage in accuracy over traditional weapons. You are lucky East Side Soprano cause when I was in cadets I did not get to handle any foreign weapons or exercise with various special operations forces.
 

Spr.Earl

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Ever seen a Sa 80 stripped?
What a nightmare!!!!
To many part‘s!!!!

While in Bosnia in Chorilice we had Brit‘s there as all soldier‘s do we learn each other‘s weapon‘s,I showed the C7 they loved it for simplicity‘s sake then they striped the Sa80.I gave up and said stick it up your hooter!
They agreed it‘s a piece of crap!!
To vulnaruble to jam‘s,it can‘t take dust or wet muddy condition‘s.To many part‘s.

After I came home I ended up in Wainright and had the same talk‘s with Squadies about the Sa80 and even there they had the same trouble with it in Canada!

I don‘t know if it has been improved but it‘s a piece of kack!

If they whanted a weapon like that they should have stayed with the S.M.G. (Sterling) 9 M.M. and reworked it to 5.56 m.m. with a longer barrel for range!
Great weapon the S.M.G. so simple but effective in close quarter battle and trench war fare!!
Would make a good weapon if reworked to 5.56 m.m. as it could still work full of mud and crap!

Weapon‘s should remain simple and Soldier proof but effective!
 

Enzo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
There must be something to those Stirlings. If they‘re good enough for Imperial Storm Troopers eh :D
 

Spr.Earl

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Originally posted by Enzo:
[qb] There must be something to those Stirlings. If they‘re good enough for Imperial Storm Troopers eh :D [/qb]
Enzo the S.M.G. was a good weapon but due to the design was only good for vehicle crew‘s and was issued to Snr.NCO‘s only in the Old day‘s but if looked at and re rifled it could be a new weapon as it so simple to use and maintain!

Hey they were fun to fire and use,but you had have to the old machine gunner‘s thing, SOB! 2-3 round burst or you lose a whole 30 round mag!!
Thier rate of fire was good!!
I never had a cook off with them my self.
 
B

Brock

Guest
The FN 2000 appears to be a great option if a bullpup choice is preferred. FN Herstal is a great company, it is the designer of the Minimi (C-9), Mag 58 (C-6), the old "FN rifle", etc...which probably means the FN 2000 will be a very good weapon system. The one really neat feature of the FN 2000 is that spent casing are ejected forward, a very good feature for FIBUA. I have had more than a few casing bounce off a wall or something solid and hit me in the face; I know someone who took one in the eye, ouch! A real plus for left-handed firers too. With that said, the real selling point of the weapon is it very compact and is purpose designed integrated weapon system versus the C-7 family‘s awkwardness and significantly increased weight when adding different sight systems and/or grenade launchers. check out http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm and look under small arms to find company info on the FN 2000. The only thing I think that would enhance the FN 2000 is barrel about 2 inches longer for added long range accuracy and penetration. If you look on the website you can see this addition would still only make the weapon under 30 inches--9 inches shorter than a C-7 with the same barrel length. The only real disadvantage is in magazine changing, but I suspect this is more of familiarity with the traditional magazine location. I guess there is the problem of drill too, but come on.
 

brin11

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
I‘m not really crazy about weapons that fire from the open bolt. I‘m sure we can find something better than the old SMG. Not my favourite weapon!
 

Enzo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Earl - I liked the Stirling, only came into brief contact with it in the past and never on the range. I was teasing about them re: Star Wars (since they filmed in the UK, Lucas had surplus WW2 weapons converted for use in the movies, hence Han Solo‘s "Mauser", the Storm Troopers "Stirlings" and "MG42‘s". trivia).

I am interested in the bullpups, but the C7 is simple to care for. They have to avoid the problems of the SA-80 (great on the range, a pain in the field). I don‘t mind the FN 2000 for similar reasons. FN has a strong track record and the PD 90 is definitely an influence.
 
Top