Do you believe that the next US battle rifle will be a bull pup design?

Cpl Dennis F. — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:20:36 -0400

Given that the UK, French and Australian armies have all adopted bull pup battle rifles and we have increasingly become involved in CQC in cities, do you think that its agility in close quarters yet the accuracy of full barrel length is the rifle design of the future?

Response by SGT Eric Dziekan made Sep 6 at 2015 6:29 PM

SGT Eric Dziekan — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:29:21 -0400

It's worth testing

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 6 at 2015 6:32 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:32:25 -0400

It would be strange if we followed the lead of the French military Cpl Dennis F.. Short stock weapons which can be swung and pivoted it tight situations that pack a punch can be useful in urban combat. However I think a folding stock design for a full barreled combat weapon makes more sense because it could be used in close combat in urban areas and thick undergrowth and also sued in more open combat. Good range is crucial, easy zeroing is also useful in field situations.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 6 at 2015 6:58 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:58:11 -0400

The answer to your question is "yes" but it is a caveated yes, because we're probably 20~ years away from our next service rifle.

The Bullpup design offers a few really great advantages. First, it gives us a shorter profile, without actually sacrificing either barrel length or sight radius, which are essential for accuracy. Second, by bring the barrel "deeper" into the rifle itself, we are able to better protect it in a few ways.

As an example, take a look at the FS2000, which uses the same caliber, same mags, and same accessories we have now... Again, this is just an example.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Sep 6 at 2015 7:11 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 19:11:14 -0400

I recently had the opportunity to purchase a Sig Sauer P516, and the P556 is pretty awesome too. They shoot a NATO 223 round, and as short as a 7.5 inch barrel.....I zeroed mine at 200 meters using PMC X-TAC's....this would be a monster for close quarters use, very stable platform and very quick and easy to get used to.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2015 7:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 19:31:33 -0400

I believe the M4 design is good now. Tweet it some and we'll be good ie: better rd etc.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 6 at 2015 8:14 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 20:14:39 -0400

Response by SFC Joseph James made Sep 6 at 2015 10:03 PM

SFC Joseph James — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:03:56 -0400

I hope whatever design that is picked that it will work in combat. AR/M4 types are good, but not the most reliable when the rubber meets the road. First Hand Experience.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2015 10:04 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:04:21 -0400

From what I've read, troops that have the bullpups aren't too wild about them. I think the bullpup was a 90s fad. I do not expect that our next rifle will be a bullpup.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2015 1:58 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 01:58:16 -0400

I wanna see a show of hands...who here has fired a bull pup design? I have...they are garbage. Want to know what most of the countries in NATO have for their SOF units units? They have an M4 or M4 variant. If they don't, like Slovenia, they wish wish they had one.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 7 at 2015 2:05 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 02:05:17 -0400

Cpl Dennis F. I'll join you on the range for a few months of all day shooting until we can give the RallyPoint recommendation.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Sep 7 at 2015 8:31 AM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 08:31:07 -0400

As long as it shoots something bigger than .223 we will be good. 6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, or 7.62 x 39?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2015 9:55 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 09:55:23 -0400

Keep it simple.

The battlefield is no place for lengthy maintenance issues with your weapons.
Especially during fire fights!

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 7 at 2015 10:23 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 10:23:00 -0400

Cpl Dennis F. you make some good points. The only real downside of bullpups (reload speed) is addressable through training....

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 7 at 2015 10:24 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 10:24:10 -0400

Cute.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Sep 7 at 2015 1:44 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:44:39 -0400

Keep the same M4 design we have, put on an HK416 upper, make it piston driven an upgrade the trigger! No need for a new gun, just need to make the current on better.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 1:40 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:40:47 -0400

I think it's the best idea, but I'm not sure how likely it is. As a group, we're very resistant to changes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2015 8:13 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:13:44 -0400

I've never fired a bullpup, but from what I've seen of their designs, it looks like every time a new bullpup rifle was made, there seemed to be some sort of notion that they should also use experimental composites and "gimmicks" like built-in scopes and other add-ons at the same time. That makes an already unusual weapon even more complex from the start.

A purpose-designed bullpup, of simple, straightforward and proven principles, would probably work well, with only training needed to overcome the change in center-of-gravity and reloading. Then troops can add sights, scopes, lights, lasers, handles, etc according to their comfort.

Response by SSG James James made Jul 19 at 2018 6:18 PM

SSG James James — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:18:24 -0400

Bullpup fucking sucks