Why bullpups?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by stanc View Post
Last edited by SHORT-N-SASSY; 09-03-2014, 06:17 AM.
Comment
-
-
Tony has recently updated his article.
===========================================
Some final thoughts: the current interest in the possibility of a new general-purpose long-range cartridge to replace both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 enhances the case for the bullpup solution. It could be argued that a 7.62mm rifle, being intended primarily for long-range fire, need not be compact, while a 5.56mm carbine, being optimised for relatively short ranges, is not greatly disadvantaged by a short barrel. However, a general-purpose rifle in a general-purpose calibre would need to be short for urban fighting but have a long barrel for optimum long-range ballistics. This can only be achieved in one gun by using the bullpup layout, unless soldiers are to be expected to carry two barrels of different lengths and keep swapping them as the range changes.
Furthermore, the design of a new general-purpose calibre could be influenced by which layout is chosen, if the bullpup's compactness is used to provide a longer barrel rather than a shorter gun. This is because there is an inverse relationship between the barrel length and the size and power of the cartridge required to achieve any given ballistics: other things being equal, the shorter the barrel, the more powerful the cartridge needs to be. This is illustrated by the two notional 6.5mm cartridges shown below (courtesy of Joe Smith). Both of them are designed to develop a muzzle energy of 2,500 J (1,850 ft lbs): the shorter cartridge (basically the 6.5mm Grendel) will achieve this from a 24" (c.600mm) barrel; the larger cartridge, around 9mm longer, is required to accommodate enough propellant to achieve the same muzzle energy from a 16 inch (c.400mm) barrel.
To put it another way, there is a choice between two rifles of the same overall length and ballistic performance: a bullpup using the short cartridge, or a traditional carbine using the long cartridge. The bullpup solution allows the selection of lighter ammunition, developing less recoil, and with a much smaller firing signature in terms of muzzle flash and blast, thereby needing a significantly smaller and lighter suppressor to achieve any given decibel level.
===========================================
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View PostTony has recently updated his article.
===========================================
Some final thoughts: the current interest in the possibility of a new general-purpose long-range cartridge to replace both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 enhances the case for the bullpup solution. It could be argued that a 7.62mm rifle, being intended primarily for long-range fire, need not be compact, while a 5.56mm carbine, being optimised for relatively short ranges, is not greatly disadvantaged by a short barrel. However, a general-purpose rifle in a general-purpose calibre would need to be short for urban fighting but have a long barrel for optimum long-range ballistics. This can only be achieved in one gun by using the bullpup layout, unless soldiers are to be expected to carry two barrels of different lengths and keep swapping them as the range changes.
Furthermore, the design of a new general-purpose calibre could be influenced by which layout is chosen, if the bullpup's compactness is used to provide a longer barrel rather than a shorter gun. This is because there is an inverse relationship between the barrel length and the size and power of the cartridge required to achieve any given ballistics: other things being equal, the shorter the barrel, the more powerful the cartridge needs to be. This is illustrated by the two notional 6.5mm cartridges shown below (courtesy of Joe Smith). Both of them are designed to develop a muzzle energy of 2,500 J (1,850 ft lbs): the shorter cartridge (basically the 6.5mm Grendel) will achieve this from a 24" (c.600mm) barrel; the larger cartridge, around 9mm longer, is required to accommodate enough propellant to achieve the same muzzle energy from a 16 inch (c.400mm) barrel.
To put it another way, there is a choice between two rifles of the same overall length and ballistic performance: a bullpup using the short cartridge, or a traditional carbine using the long cartridge. The bullpup solution allows the selection of lighter ammunition, developing less recoil, and with a much smaller firing signature in terms of muzzle flash and blast, thereby needing a significantly smaller and lighter suppressor to achieve any given decibel level.
===========================================
Comment
-
-
Last edited by stanc; 01-30-2016, 03:43 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by VASCAR2 View PostI bought a Tavor in January and so far I really like it. I'm using the standard trigger pack and for CQB/off hand shooting it is fine. I really like the ergo's and the compact size. The Tavor is easily shot from the week side and it is easy to use one handed. The design makes it very easy to use your weak hand to open doors or similar task.
My Tavor has been totally reliable with factory ammo and reloads. The Tavor is not as easy to shoot off the bench as an AR-15 but it can be done. I put a bi-pod on my Tavor along with a 2.5 X 10 scope and shot some reloaded 69 grain SMK at 150 yards. Most groups were 1.5" - 2" but the bolt catch/release can be deactivated if using a rear sand bag.
I wish I had the option of carrying my Tavor on patrol as it is easy to use in and around vehicles. I'm currently using an EO Tech on mine and I feel it is capable out to 300 yards. The only gun I felt handled as well in CQB was a select fire MP5. Everybody gripes about the Tavor trigger but to me it feels like a Glock pistol with NY trigger. The trigger reset is the same as a Glock and I have no trouble getting quick hits with the factory trigger. The new trigger packs will only add to the Tavor popularity.
With modern militaries operating more out of vehicles and in urban areas I can see the rationale of the Bullpup. The AR-15 is a better rifle for precision shooting (DMR) but for LE I could see the Tavor capturing a share of the market. IWI had a press release stating they had sold 20,000 Tavor's in 11 or 12 months.
Comment
-
-
Anything electrical can fail and the military and LE are reluctant to stray away from what works and is cheap. Look at a WW I bolt action rifle like SMLE, 03 Springfield or Mauser, still very formidable weapon with good ammunition. Will an electrically primed ammunition and rifle be just as effective in 100 years? If 30 06 ammunition was stored properly since manufacture in 1939 I bet it would still be safe to shoot today. Just my opinion.
Since I posted about my Tavor I added a Geissele trigger pack. The Super Sabra trigger pack gives the Tavor as good a two stage trigger as my Geissele G2S trigger in my AR-15.
I'm not getting rid of my AR-15's or my Tavor as each have their own unique characteristics and advantages.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by VASCAR2 View PostAnything electrical can fail and the military and LE are reluctant to stray away from what works and is cheap. Look at a WW I bolt action rifle like SMLE, 03 Springfield or Mauser, still very formidable weapon with good ammunition. Will an electrically primed ammunition and rifle be just as effective in 100 years? If 30 06 ammunition was stored properly since manufacture in 1939 I bet it would still be safe to shoot today.
Here's a test of 1942 manufacture .30 M2 AP.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by VASCAR2 View PostAnything electrical can fail and the military and LE are reluctant to stray away from what works and is cheap. . . .
I remember a day: July 11, 1979, the day the SKYLAB space station re-entered the Earth's atmosphere. That's the day all the components of my experimental Bullpup, with electronically-actuated trigger-to-sear arrangement, came together ---
Not surprisingly, I named it, "SKY-PUP" ---
Last edited by SHORT-N-SASSY; 08-11-2019, 01:44 PM.
Comment
-
Comment