About Bullpup vs. classic rifle designs? Page 4
|July 30th, 2008||#32|
| || |
Armed forces of all nationalities undertake changes in equipment regularly and it is never viewed as a problem, unless of course you consider improving your equipment is a problem. Not to mention a weapon that was far better suited to the style of warfare being conducted at the time.
During the Vietnam era the US changed over from the M-14 to the M-16, and even taking into account the excessive fouling problems experienced in the early stages, the average bloke in the field was more than pleased to change over to a lighter weapon and lighter ammo.
The problem was later found to be a problem caused more by ammunition and poor cleaning practices rather than a weapon fault. Never the less in the end the introduction of the new weapon was viewed as a great improvement by the grunt in the field. This weapon of course is the great grand daddy of your present M-4 series & etc., which if we adopted your view, you would not have. In fact you might well still have the Springfield 06 or something even older.
If your technology is not advancing, you are effectively going backward, as the rest of the world will not wait for you.
|July 31st, 2008||#34|
| || |
Your point about the M1903 Springfield is also invalid. Bolt action to semiautomatic is a big change. Semiautomatic to automatic is a big change. The 7.62 to 5.56 change, however, is still controversial, because the benefits that it provided during the Vietnam era are disappearing in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts - there are many calls for changes to intermediate caliber rounds. I'm not suggesting that the bullpup is a bad idea; I just don't think we should charge in immediately just because it's the "latest and greatest". Tried and true might not be the best strategy for a more technologically advanced unit such as an air force, but it seems to work quite well for grunts.
Last edited by c/Commander; July 31st, 2008 at 00:39..
|July 31st, 2008||#35|
| || |
Unfortunately I know nothing of the Galil other than it was regarded by all who knew it as a fine weapon. You might find the answer to your question to be more of political expediency than for real practical reasons.
|July 31st, 2008||#38|
| || |
M-16's not very lefty-friendly either - no side-ejecting rifle is going to be very friendly to left-handed shooters, even with a case deflector. Which bullpup rifles eject downward?
|July 31st, 2008||#40|
| || |
Every now and again we fall on our bum, but if we feel that the occasional risk of failure outweighs the end result we will go nowhere. There will always be a excuse from someone as to why "now" is not the time to do things.
In actual fact most changes of this kind are done in time of war, when it would normally be considered inappropriate, as this is when shortcomings in our equipment become most apparent. (Plus in peacetime forces don't have the "money" allocated to allow it)
|Barrett Arms (Maker of the .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle) Told California to screw off.|
|DPMS Panther Lite 20 Rifle & DPMS Panther Lite 16 Carbine Review|
|Take a Look at the Army's New Sniper Rifle|
|Bullpup or classic rifle design?|
|Help with a SA80A1 review|