# Bullpups



## Enzo (10 Nov 2003)

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 (10 Nov 2003)

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 (18 Nov 2003)

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 Â£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 (18 Nov 2003)

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 (18 Nov 2003)

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 (19 Nov 2003)

Danjanou,

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

J. Lightfoot


----------



## AZA-02 (20 Nov 2003)

north america and especialy canada should stay with the traditional classic models.  :mg:


----------



## Enzo (20 Nov 2003)

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 (20 Nov 2003)

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.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Nov 2003)

> 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:


----------



## fusilier955 (21 Nov 2003)

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 (21 Nov 2003)

> 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 (2 Jan 2004)

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 (3 Jan 2004)

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 (3 Jan 2004)

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 (3 Jan 2004)

There must be something to those Stirlings. If they‘re good enough for Imperial Storm Troopers eh


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Enzo:
> [qb] There must be something to those Stirlings. If they‘re good enough for Imperial Storm Troopers eh     [/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.


----------



## Brock (3 Jan 2004)

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 (3 Jan 2004)

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 (3 Jan 2004)

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.


----------



## Brock (4 Jan 2004)

I just read an article on Heckler and Koch‘s new XM8 purpose designed modular assault rifle system being developed to complement the OICW and/or replace the M16/M4 family of assault rifles...very nice indeed.  The weapon is basically designed to correct all the flaws of M16/M4 family.  It is completely ambidextrious.  It has a G36 style sight system with an integral eye-safe laser/red dot/infrared pointer with a quick-removable carrying handle.  It is a very light weapon at only 6.4 pounds for the carbine variant.  Furthermore the big feature is that it is designed to fire the new 5.56 X 45mm kinetic energy round (KE) that essentially improves range, accuracy, penetration, and stopping power via a heavier bullet and more powerful powder.  One feature I particularly like for medium to small soldiers is the multi-position butt stock.  This is a great feature that really helps improve one‘s shooting when wearing a flack jacket and all the other combat kit that decreases one‘s arm reach.  Check out a very informative article on the XM8 in the February issue of Soldier of Fortune.

If the US Army procures this weapon system, I think Canada should jump on the band wagen very soon, because even if the Objective Individual Combat Weapon does not become a reality, it is very likely the XM8 will.  The XM8 is a very well designed weapon system.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (4 Jan 2004)

East Side Saprano, the current model of the FAMAS uses a 30 round M16 style magazine.  Don‘t base your opinion of a weapon off of Metal Gear: Solid.


----------



## East Side Soprano (4 Jan 2004)

L/MCpl,
I didn‘t base my opinion off Metal Gear Solid, I can honestly say I‘ve never even played the game. However, all the FAMAS rifles I have see have had straight 25-rnd magazines, not the "banana" M16 30-rnd type, I not going to say if they can or cannot accept the M16 type magazines but I do know that initially (maybe it‘s different now) soldiers were issued 25-rnd straight magazines for their FAMAS rifles.


----------



## East Side Soprano (4 Jan 2004)

Turns out we were both right. There are two types of the FAMAS the F1 (25-rnd mag) and the G2(30-rnd mag). See for yourself here:   http://world.guns.ru/assault/as21-e.htm


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (4 Jan 2004)

I knew that already.  That‘s why I said the current model, being the current model in service has a 30 rnd mag.


----------



## East Side Soprano (4 Jan 2004)

In that case, thank you for assuming I got my information from a video game.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (6 Jan 2004)

No prob.  I get all my info from video games.  I know the Sonic the Hedgehog is faster then Super Mario.  Red Mushrooms make you big.  Green Mushrooms give you an extra life.  Stars Make you invincible and so on.


----------



## jonsey (8 Jan 2004)

feathers make you fly.


----------



## cpl forrester (18 Jul 2004)

as a point of ref boys the mag for this weapon and most NATO 5.56mm mags are interchangeable with each other ! the reason for this is that u can pick a mag of casualty's on the field ................the same reason as the 5.56mm round so that supply's to the front line can come from any NATO force!


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2004)

I remember British 5.56 magazines being a bit better then ours.  As well, doesn't the French FAMAS use a slightly different 5.56 round then the rest of NATO?


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2004)

Old brit mags = Bad
New (HK SA80A2) Mags = Good
 I am currently trying to negotiate a few Brit Hk mags out at Connaught with the Brit Shooting team...


 I often wonder if France is still in NATO...
  but IIRC they use the SS109 same as the rest of us


----------



## pappy (1 Oct 2004)

Bushmaster M17, been there done that, luckily I wasn't the one that paid for it.  Stay away from those.  
Bushmaster makes nice rifles, but that model isn't one of them, in my opinion.

In general I dislike Bullpups cause I'm a lefty and few are interchangeable.... and the ones that are don't do it fast.  But I shoot both side as much as possible.

Some times finding cover dictakes you have to have to be able to shoot from either hand rather then exposeing more of your body.  

In todays urban warfare a solider that can shoot from either hand is an asset to him/her self and others.  A skill in my opinion that should be taught to everyone.

worse case.... your wounded in your right shoulder....  you can guess the rest.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Oct 2004)

I have one of those new HK L85A2 30rd mags, and they are built the best ever. The most robust M16 mag ever made with fine German engineering to boot.

However they are designed for a weapon with a steel magazine housing, and the steel mag will indeed cause unnecessary wear and tear with repeated use on a M16/M4/C7 weapon, as the housings on these types of weapons are made alloy material, and are softer than the magazine.

The locally made F88SA1 Austeyr can be converted to LH operation my swaping EPCs and the fitting of a LH bolt. A few minutes is all it takes. However ever its a RAEME tasking, and a HS gauge (37.41mm is used). Although Ii have carried this type of wpn for almost 10 yrs, I am not a fan of it (I prefer the M16 FOW), but from the FAMAS, the L85A2 ( I have fired and used these two) and the F88, the Austeyr in my opinion is superior to them all. 

As I said I am not a lover of the Austeyr, but I feel it has the other two beat hands down. The FAMAS LH/RH conversion is done by the soldier, as he/she just swaps the extractor from one side of the bolt to the other. Very simple and no head spacing. 

The SA1 is fitted with a Picatinny rail for choice of optics etc, and as for mags the generic AUG 30rd plastic mag is used. I did scrounge a Malaysian 20rd mag, and its great for compactability (getting in and out of Land Rover 110s and AFVs etc.

ADI-L has got about 10 prototype F88 'Gen IIIs' (some are calling them V-IIIs) out too, but its much heavier, and I don't know how the troops will take to it. Its on or about to go on trials. I seen 6 of them a few months back, and I had a close look. Its got the standard RAS, picatinny rail, and can take a newly designed mount for the M203PI, and Rem M-870 SG, and it has a detachable trigger guard too.

Meanwhile all SF (SASR and Cdo) units use the Colt M4, and they have turned in all but a few of their Austeyrs.

Cheers,

Wes


----------

