Future soldier technology (modified thread)

bobbymike said:
www.militarytimes.com

These are General Dynamics’ NGSW contenders — and it’s a bunch of bullpup!

Instead of the M16-style layout the Army has been accustomed to since the 1960s, GDOTS took their prototypes in a different direction with the bullpup configuration — the action and magazine located behind the fire control unit of the rifle.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com
Click to expand...

'bout time the US Army caught up with the advantages that a bullpup configuration confers on a rifle. It has better weight distribution and greater accuracy because of its longer barrel.
 
Kadija_Man said:
'bout time the US Army caught up with the advantages that a bullpup configuration confers on a rifle. It has better weight distribution and greater accuracy because of its longer barrel.
Click to expand...
But the magazine is in the wrong place for rapid mag changes.
 
Forest Green said:
Kadija_Man said:
'bout time the US Army caught up with the advantages that a bullpup configuration confers on a rifle. It has better weight distribution and greater accuracy because of its longer barrel.
Click to expand...
But the magazine is in the wrong place for rapid mag changes.
Click to expand...

All depends on what you want - accuracy at longer ranges or getting in there, down and close. They need to identify what they want the soldier to do as his primary role.
 
Kadija_Man said:
All depends on what you want - accuracy at longer ranges or getting in there, down and close. They need to identify what they want the soldier to do as his primary role.
Click to expand...
But if you watch the video advertisement itself, whilst the mag change is quick, he has to move the rifle away from the aiming position to do it. With an M4 style configuration, you can continue aiming down the sight while you switch mags because the mag is in from of the trigger guard. That is definitely beneficial in tactical situations but then so is a shorter barrel, so it's swings and roundabouts.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Kadija_Man said:
All depends on what you want - accuracy at longer ranges or getting in there, down and close. They need to identify what they want the soldier to do as his primary role.
Click to expand...
But if you watch the video advertisement himself, whilst the mag change is quick, he has to move the rifle away from the aiming position to do it. With an M4 style configuration, you can continue aiming down the sight while you switch mags because the mag is in from of the trigger guard. That is definitely beneficial in tactical situations but then so is a shorter barrel, so it's swings and roundabouts.
Click to expand...

Never had a problem changing magazines on the Steyr F88 rifle I used in the Australian Army. It is all about training and of course confidence. I'd suggest that, that digger needs some more training. There is absolutely no reason why you have to remove the rifle from your shoulder when you're changing magazines.

Then there is the improved weight distribution of a bullpup over a conventional weapon, particularly when you're hanging all the Gucci stuff off the muzzle. The bullpup has most of it's weight to the rear, so what happens is that you actually end up balancing it better than a conventional weapon.

The biggest problem with the M16/M4 style of weapon is that you need to remove the weapon master hand from the pistol grip in order to cock the weapon or use the forward assist to force a round to be chambered. The other problem is the Llungman gas system.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Never had a problem changing magazines on the Steyr F88 rifle I used in the Australian Army. It is all about training and of course confidence. I'd suggest that, that digger needs some more training. There is absolutely no reason why you have to remove the rifle from your shoulder when you're changing magazines.

Then there is the improved weight distribution of a bullpup over a conventional weapon, particularly when you're hanging all the Gucci stuff off the muzzle. The bullpup has most of it's weight to the rear, so what happens is that you actually end up balancing it better than a conventional weapon.

The biggest problem with the M16/M4 style of weapon is that you need to remove the weapon master hand from the pistol grip in order to cock the weapon or use the forward assist to force a round to be chambered. The other problem is the Llungman gas system.
Click to expand...
When the magazine is that close to your shoulder and you have tactical gear on with pouches to reach around, well, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you.
 
Forest Green said:
Kadija_Man said:
Never had a problem changing magazines on the Steyr F88 rifle I used in the Australian Army. It is all about training and of course confidence. I'd suggest that, that digger needs some more training. There is absolutely no reason why you have to remove the rifle from your shoulder when you're changing magazines.

Then there is the improved weight distribution of a bullpup over a conventional weapon, particularly when you're hanging all the Gucci stuff off the muzzle. The bullpup has most of it's weight to the rear, so what happens is that you actually end up balancing it better than a conventional weapon.

The biggest problem with the M16/M4 style of weapon is that you need to remove the weapon master hand from the pistol grip in order to cock the weapon or use the forward assist to force a round to be chambered. The other problem is the Llungman gas system.
Click to expand...
When the magazine is that close to your shoulder and you have tactical gear on with pouches to reach around, well, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

They may. I would suggest they need to rethink their webbing in that case and reposition the pouches so they are no longer in the way. What is required is for people to think that, "now I have a bullpup weapon," rather than "well, I normally use an M4 so I won't change my webbing to use a bullpup once."
 
drejr said:
Kadija_Man said:
The biggest problem with the M16/M4 style of weapon is that you need to remove the weapon master hand from the pistol grip in order to cock the weapon
Click to expand...

No you don't.
Click to expand...

I won't bother getting into an argument. According the Training Pamphlet, you are meant to cock the weapon with your master hand, taken off the pistol grip. There are other ways to cock the weapon but they are "not approved" - they invariably mean that you must remove the weapon from your shoulder.
 
You should tell the Marines they're doing it wrong, then.

Please send a copy of the Training Pamphlet to:

United States Marine Corps
Marksmanship Training Branch
Box 555021
Camp Pendleton, California 92055-5021
 
Kadija_Man said:
They may. I would suggest they need to rethink their webbing in that case and reposition the pouches so they are no longer in the way. What is required is for people to think that, "now I have a bullpup weapon," rather than "well, I normally use an M4 so I won't change my webbing to use a bullpup once."
Click to expand...
True but after many years getting used to what they have, they are unlikely to want to change. But you also have the fact that the trigger hand is holding down the weapon to stabilise it during a mag change with a non-bullpup, with a bullpup, not so much because the trigger hand and grip are further away from the magazine. And there were probably reasons the webbing was laid out that way in the first place.
 
Well, having not used a bullpup design, (My primary personal weapon was the Sterling SMG) using the mast hand to cock the weapon will move the weapon from the shoulder anyway. We were always told to use the opposite hand to cock the weapon. I would like to see a training pamphlet that suggests using the master hand to cock the weapon.
 
According to the manuals (which are written with a heavy emphasis on range safety) you're supposed to hold the rifle at an awkward angle while you reload.

However, the military has taught combat speed-loading for years, and it's easy enough to charge an M16/M4 with your supporting hand without removing it from your shoulder. You do have to move your chin a bit.

There's almost no reason to touch the forward assist so this isn't a big problem.

The magazine release system has a bigger impact on magazine changes than the rifle's layout.

The main weakness I see in the RM277 besides unproven plastic ammunition is that the bullpup layout makes that soda bottle suppressor practically mandatory.
 
Forest Green said:
Kadija_Man said:
They may. I would suggest they need to rethink their webbing in that case and reposition the pouches so they are no longer in the way. What is required is for people to think that, "now I have a bullpup weapon," rather than "well, I normally use an M4 so I won't change my webbing to use a bullpup once."
Click to expand...
True but after many years getting used to what they have, they are unlikely to want to change. But you also have the fact that the trigger hand is holding down the weapon to stabilise it during a mag change with a non-bullpup, with a bullpup, not so much because the trigger hand and grip are further away from the magazine. And there were probably reasons the webbing was laid out that way in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Australian Army changed from the "traditional" L1a1 SLR to the F88 Steyr. They did not have a problem with the change over. The weapon was adopted with out a complaint about the location of the magazine, except from a few diehards who would have preferred to still be using, I expect, Martini-Henri action weapons.

For me, I trained on .303 SMLE Mk.III* weapons initially, moved to L1a1 SLRs and then to F88. It was in each case a different weapon, with differing handling drills for each. You learnt as you went along. I remember reading arguments in US firearms magazines from the early 1960s about the supposed "superiority" of the M14 over the L1a1 with it's pistol grip compared to the M14 butt grip. Didn't stop the US Army from adopting the M16 with a pistol grip a few years later.

I found the F88 easier to handle and use than the L1a1 in many ways. It was definitely lighter and it had better sights. So much so that the Army had to redesignate the score required to qualify for "marksmanship" badges. It's only problem was learning to keep the sight well forward of the eye to prevent injuries.
 
drejr said:
According to the manuals (which are written with a heavy emphasis on range safety) you're supposed to hold the rifle at an awkward angle while you reload.

However, the military has taught combat speed-loading for years, and it's easy enough to charge an M16/M4 with your supporting hand without removing it from your shoulder. You do have to move your chin a bit.

There's almost no reason to touch the forward assist so this isn't a big problem.

The magazine release system has a bigger impact on magazine changes than the rifle's layout.

The main weakness I see in the RM277 besides unproven plastic ammunition is that the bullpup layout makes that soda bottle suppressor practically mandatory.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. There are many bullpup weapons which don't have a fancy-arse "suppressor" on them.

As for the forward assist? I agree you shouldn't need to touch it but it is there and it was put there for a reason. I fired XM16, M16 and M16a1 weapons. The M16a1 needed the forward assist with the original 5.56mm ammunition because of fouling from the Llungmann gas system. The others needed it but didn't have it. Admittedly, they were all Australian Army weapons which had been purchased in the 1960s and had suffered over the years. They all had a bad tendancy to shed magazines loaded with blanks.
 
Exactly none of which fire a 4000-joule cartridge from a carbine barrel. At those power levels a 30" weapon will expose the shooter to about 5 decibels more than a 36" one with the same barrel.

The suppressor (not sure why you put it in quotes) is a requirement for the NSGW, but there are circumstances where one is undesirable. The Delta P on the end of the RM277 is more or less a permanent attachment.

It's spelled Ljungman, by the way. The Stoner system is mechanically quite different.
 
drejr said:
Exactly none of which fire a 4000-joule cartridge from a carbine barrel. At those power levels a 30" weapon will expose the shooter to about 5 decibels more than a 36" one with the same barrel.

The suppressor (not sure why you put it in quotes) is a requirement for the NSGW, but there are circumstances where one is undesirable. The Delta P on the end of the RM277 is more or less a permanent attachment.

It's spelled Ljungman, by the way. The Stoner system is mechanically quite different.
Click to expand...

I've always understood it was a Llungmann system of direct gas impingement. All I know is that when using the original M16 5.56x45mm rounds, it became quite befouled with carbon and used to have frequent stoppages.

As for why I put "suppressor" in quotes is 'cause I used to call 'em "silencers" in the beginning. Personally, I don't have a problem with firearms noise and believe on a battlefield their presence is for pussies. As far as the length of barrels are concerned, a 30" one is best contained well within the receiver and that is only really possible with a bullpup weapon, whereas a normal weapon becomes far too long for use in AFVs.
 
Forest Green said:
The F88 is an altogether newer and lighter weapon than the SLR.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I am still unsure why Americans are so anti-bullpup as few if any would have actually trained on one or even fired one. The F88 weighs 3.6 kilograms (unloaded) while the L1a1 weighs 4.337 kg (unloaded).
 
Kadija_Man said:
Indeed. I am still unsure why Americans are so anti-bullpup as few if any would have actually trained on one or even fired one. The F88 weighs 3.6 kilograms (unloaded) while the L1a1 weighs 4.337 kg (unloaded).
Click to expand...
Probably something to do with the fact that every man and his dog owns an AR-15-based rifle, so training people on such a rifle is far easier.
 
Forest Green said:
Kadija_Man said:
Indeed. I am still unsure why Americans are so anti-bullpup as few if any would have actually trained on one or even fired one. The F88 weighs 3.6 kilograms (unloaded) while the L1a1 weighs 4.337 kg (unloaded).
Click to expand...
Probably something to do with the fact that every man and his dog owns an AR-15-based rifle, so training people on such a rifle is far easier.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't explain the "anti" views all too often expressed. It reminds me, as I have already mentioned, of the anti-pistol grip views expressed about the M14. Didn't stop the M16 from having one...
 
Kadija_Man said:
Still doesn't explain the "anti" views all too often expressed. It reminds me, as I have already mentioned, of the anti-pistol grip views expressed about the M14. Didn't stop the M16 from having one...
Click to expand...
I still disagree on the speed reload issue.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Personally, I don't have a problem with firearms noise and believe on a battlefield their presence is for pussies.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

As far as the length of barrels are concerned, a 30" one is best contained well within the receiver and that is only really possible with a bullpup weapon, whereas a normal weapon becomes far too long for use in AFVs.
Click to expand...

?????
 
bobbymike said:

Army Has High Hopes for One World Terrain Training Tool

Army Has High Hopes for One World Terrain Training Tool
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Virtual PNG terrain? Best kind but what is the betting it doesn't include all the roots/mud pools/low hanging branches/spiders/snakes/insects/poisonous/irritant plants you get in real life. Nor does it I suspect really have the reality of what operating in a dense Tropic Rainforest environment would be like. As far as I am concerned they'd be better off saying, "right it's going to be like this," and then introduce them to the real Tropical Rainforest. It will make sure they are aware of the problems of spiders/snakes/insects/etc.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom