Wierd carbines

[Uncle Bob]

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/000166/166377.jpg
This is a picture of a couple of Russian experimental carbines. I know nothing about them, except it is called the Afanaziev TKB 011M bullpup. But it looks neat.

 

[samuelvss]

Bullpups make a lot of sense, except troops tend to think they feel more like toothbrushes than weapons. Thew French had better things to say about the FA-MAS than the Brits did about the SA-80.

The angled stock will cause nasty muzzle rise. The muzzle breaks on the AK's never helped this enough. Straiter stocks would help.

 

[Diveguy]

Bullpups make a lot of sense, except troops tend to think they feel more like toothbrushes than weapons. Thew French had better things to say about the FA-MAS than the Brits did about the SA-80.

The angled stock will cause nasty muzzle rise. The muzzle breaks on the AK's never helped this enough. Straiter stocks would help.

Bullpups do have some consistent ergonomic problems, particularly with tactical reloads. However in a Traveller setting, if one had caseless ammo or some other improved system available requiring less frequent and easier use, this might be improved upon.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The FAMAS is a heavy pig; I heard stories from Desert Storm of French troops trying to swap with American units for M4s. Since HK upgraded the SA80s to the A2 model the Brits swear by them and the MoD plans to keep them until 2025. I hear from men with experience with both that with prectice tactical reloads are just as easy.

That said, the trigger on a bullpup is usualy awful, making precision shooting difficult. Also there is no way to adjust the length of the 'stock' to accomodate body armor.

 

[Diveguy]

Uncle Bob - not starting an argument on it, but I hear quite differently from my Brit friends in certain units - while the HK upgrade to the SA80 has improved it, it still faces a number of problems. Of note, everyone I know personally who has the option as it were to switch weapons carries something BESIDES the SA80 - either M4s with rails, AK's or even the FAL when possible.

And yes, with practice tactical reloads become easier with a bullpup - but they are never AS easy as a forward magazine mount - nature of the beast. I say that with trigger time on both types of weapons.

You are spot on about trigger and accuracy problems out of bullpups - part of the nature of the trigger having to work that much more mechanical stuff in order to function.

To keep in a Traveller context though - a number of these issues might be resolved with the presence of things like electrically ignited caseless rounds. In my Traveller thoughts, while I am a big advocate of the slugthrower staying around as an example of simple technology that works (for the same reasons knives stay around - sharp pointy things work without batteries), I like keeping up to date on the tech potentials that might be in place.

Also, going back to the original thread, these are actually some early models of some of the more current PRC PDW type carbines coming out - a good Google run will get more info on the way they have evolved. There are some interesting designs there which I could certainly see making their way into the locker.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Come to think about, I don't recall seeing L95A2 and sand-colored berets in the same picture.

 

[Diveguy]

Not to diminish the tactical discussion from above - check out Magpul's PDW offering - that to me is a perfect example of a ship's locker type of weapon for a merchant vessel. Something to boost the firepower beyond a handgun, but not overwhelmingly huge or difficult.

As I go through my notes I'm thinking of that being the basic SMG design for MTU.

and Uncle Bob we obviously have similar knowledge & background sources is all I'm sayin!

 

[samuelvss]

The love of the M4 is from those not considering ballistics.

The bullpup allows you to shorten the weapon without shortening the barrel. In the M4, that barrel shortening cost 500 fps. The forward mag well is better ergonomically, but proper training can overcome ergonomic issues. The basic M16 setup is screwed ergonomically anyway: look at the charging handle vis-a-vis the G3 setup. Is there possibly a worse place to put the charging handle? Of course, use the bitch for a few hundred rounds, perform SPORTS a few score times, and you can overcome the ergonomic issues through training. That does not make it a good design.

Training will overcome ergonomics, but not ballistics. Close quarters demands a shorter weapon; pushing ballistics v weight demands the most from your round. This is where the bullpups pull ahead.

I would not hazard that the FA-MAS or SA-80 are particularly good bullpups, any more than the M4 is a good contrary example. Troops like the M4 because it's light and comfortable; the vast majority of them have no clue why its design features shave percentage points (only a few) off their chances in a firefight, because they have not been exposed to the alternatives.

The variables involved, though, demand that there is not one best design, but there are designs that are better for certain applications.

The AK is a good, solid bullet hose for troops who cannot shoot accurately and will not likely clean it, and may be only 9 years old.

The M16A2 firing the 77 grain bullet was probably the apex of a design that was optimized for grain-fed, well-trained troops in a temperate theatre like Western Europe or the U.S.. Not that it was the best design, but that was the design at its best; in other climes and applications, with other ammo and care, not so good.

Arming Soviets with M16's and U.S. troops of the Reagan era with AK's would have brought out the worst in both designs.:rofl:

 

[aramis]

Modern weapons are compromises... short (for close quarters), simple (maintenance), stable, and wounding; preferably also handedness neutral.

The 300+m ranges of WW II battle rifles are not needed most of the time; the average WW II engagement was under half that, and the same for Korea; Nam was typicaly under 100m as well. Given the typical firefight breaks out at 100m, you only need to be accurate to 100m... and then, assuming a 3-5cm deflection is allowable. (Aim for the heart and still damage the heart.)

The lost power on the round is not a big issue, either... if the weapon will significantly wound the average opponent, the round is good enough. Only snipers are expected to routinely make 1-shot kills, and they have a different set of weapon needs. (based upon a TV interview of Robert McNamara.) The M4's lost power is only an issue if it prevents wounding the average enemy troop.

A handedness neutral weapon maximizes the number of troops who can use it effectively without a supply chain issue. the M16 is mediocre on that; the SKS is better, due to the ejection angles... I've not gotten to fire any caseless weapons, but several are handedness neutral. Worst one? a friend of mine had a .45 cal pistol that ejected back at 140° from barrel. Fired left handed, it bounced rounds into my face... right handed, nowhere near me. M60 also...

Stability is a complex issue... not too much recoil, recoil not at odd angles, everything secured enough to aim true... it's also not entirely the same as accuracy (which is both ballistics and stability combined). An unstable weapon is inaccurate in use, but not every stable weapon is accurate. Given a choice between a weapon with a 5mm group but unstable design, and a 5cm group that is very stable, I'll take stability... since I love the double tap.

Most of the bullpup designs appear fairly stable. The shorter ones may not be overly accurate, but if they are accurate enough at engagement ranges (typically 50m in urban or woodland), and do enough damage, the light weight isn't an issue.

It al boils down to how the compromises go.

 

[Easterner9504]

Pups

Afanaziev TKB 011M = Piece of crap.

Wood stocks went out with the Korean War. The weapon will be too heavy for easy carry. Weight is the soldier's bane and he always tries to dump it when possible. I always found the M-14 too heavy to carry but the new polymer stocks make them much easier to carry.

My Steyr AUG is pinpoint accurate out to 200 yds and the barrel keeps the shots 'quiet' compared to M-4 guy next to me from which the crack is so sharp it causes involuntary flinching.

Full caliber rifles are indeed useless unless big game hunting. They do make excellent sniper weapons with scopes. They tend to be heavy and when lightened loose accuracy. Also unlike bullpups cumbersome. They do however have stopping power that small-bore rifles and handguns can not match. They also are extermely difficult to use in battle as targets are spread out and mansized moving targets difficult to hit over 100 yds.

In a spaceship small is an advantage that different tactical systems just seem unable to factor in. PDW's tend to be dangerous to users. The short barrel and high muzzle climb can and have led even SAS experts to shoot their own left hands off when it slipped from the grip under recoil propelling it in front of the short barrel. TRAV body armor also dictates that the perfect ship weapon the shotgun can be ineffective.

 

[Diveguy]

Samuelvss - the M4 is actually not bad ergonomically, although the ballistics do have issues - and yes, the 77gr solves a bit of that. The 6.8 is an even better solution, but don't hold your breath. However - in terms of grip, magazine release, etc - it's one of the better choices.

I'll actually take an FAL over a G3 ergonomically, but that's just my two cents - and it's all "tools in the tool box" anyway... with proper training they all have good and bad points. Heck, my AK sucks ergonomically and doesn't have near the accuracy of my M4, but it will run forever on anything... and I've used a number of these things real world like several others of you here, so I understand the differences and the points.

I think that we have to keep in mind that there is no perfect weapon or design - I'm sure the first three cavemen sitting together griped about how those flint-headed spears just weren't as user-friendly as the old burnt-wood tip models; and IMTU there will be plenty of space grunts saying that sure that PGMP is nice, but the magnetic chamber on the new Kalishnikitty model just holds the charge in that fraction of a second too long in this gravity and could be designed better...

 

[samuelvss]

Diveguy, I'll buy "not bad," for the M4.

I would say everything is "very good" to "excellent" on it, except the charging handle, which "sucks." The HK solution of being able to cycle the bolt without removing your hands from their firing position will save lives. The placement of the charging handle on the M16 series is just a bad design which, like the carrying handle, came from some white-coat Mike Foxtrot in a jacked up acquisition process.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fond of them; put about 1000 rounds through M16A1's, A2's, mostly on the military but also on the civilian side. I've had stoppages that I earned, and those that I didn't. I have had my guys fire on man-sized targets at 800 m [special case; long story; essentially teaching them area fire]. I had had my AR-15 worked on, and did some interesting things with that. I have become very comfortable with the highly disruptive action of the second stage of SPORTS. That doesn't make it right.

There are several things that can be done to try to buy back that terminal ballistics of that 500 fps we lost with M4. The main line Army will never buy the 6.8, though, and we are stuck with the M4 with the 62 grain bullet for the most part. USSOCOM's already dumped it, and the Assymetrical Warfare Group tried, but were spanked for it. BIG political issue.

If you're going to use your training to compensate for something, don't spend it on a design feature that buys you nothing. A bullpup will (when the technology matures) buy you a shortened overall length, with no decrease in barrel length, at an ergonomic cost; happier to pay that bill.

 

[epicenter00]

The love of the M4 is from those not considering ballistics

To be totally honest, one of the biggest factors, or IMO the biggest factor why troops love the M4 so much hasn't been mentioned yet.

There's a perception that the M4 is the weapon used by the cool "elite" troops. Ergo, if you use an M4, you're one of the cool, elite troops and not some schmoe from an NG unit still stuck with a M-16A2.

Once only the Special Forces in the US military wore berets. Now everyone and their dog does with unconfirmed reports claiming cats are now getting them too.

Thus even what might be a mediocre, stop-gap weapon can become the weapon everyone wants - look at the reputation the Luger has as well. It was a pistol was pretty much outdated even in WW2, yet amongst certain groups it's still the weapon to carry. Or in many Central American and Middle Eastern armies, troops love to carry the cut down versions of the AKs, despite the fact wire stocks and short barrels lead to even worse kick, poor accuracy, and dazzling muzzle flash - but such weapons are seen as being carried by elite troops, so all the rank-and-file guys want them so they can feel elite too.

You can add factors like that into Traveller games - I gave an inferior weapon in one of my games as being the favored weapon of Imperial Marine first-boarder units. Nevermind that in the game there was a slightly superior weapon that did the same job, the Imperial Marines carried the older one out of stubborn conservatism. Likewise, all the roleplayer Marine vets in my game carried the weapon and roleplayed out extensive conversations arguing the ostensible merits of the older rifle; the gearhead statjudgers all carried the slightly superior newer rifle after seeing the game stats of the two weapons.

 

[Diveguy]

Ahhhh you hit on another long history thing.

I recall in the 80's when the buzz in certain units was that we "had" to go to an issued 9mm pistol for our mission profiles - we needed the higher round capacity, compatibility with the MP5, or easier to get ammo overseas were all varying reasons given depending on where in the community & which service you were in....

Fast forward 20 years and the gripe & buzz in the same community is that we "need" to go back to an issued .45ACP handgun (and NOT the Mk23), because the 9mm just wasn't doing enough damage...

Certain units will always want to have their own toys to play with & again I don't see that changing in the future.


And - just to close off on the M4 - I've run both a 16A2 in the "real" world and an M4 and variants - I'll take that 500fps loss for what I usually dealt with, thanks just the same. Handier weapon that worked better. Mind you, I wasn't looking to do things beyond 300-500m at most anyways - so the trade off didn't kill me.

 

[Patron Zero]

Lock'n'Load

TRAV body armor also dictates that the perfect ship weapon the shotgun can be ineffective.

I would tend to believe with the various TLs available in the Traveller universe(s), that being the availability of exotic-special purpose ammunition, would guarantee the trusty Model 870 pump gun still earns it's place in a ship's locker.

I post the links below to various loads available in our primitive pre-jump drive world, take such and make the leap to what TL 11 or 12 might produce.



http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/12gaugeammo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Breath

 

[Libris]

That said, the trigger on a bullpup is usualy awful, making precision shooting difficult. Also there is no way to adjust the length of the 'stock' to accomodate body armor.

Really? Guns & Ammo seemed to think an L85A2 was as accurate as an ACOG sighted M16A4.

 

[Icosahedron]

You can add factors like that into Traveller games - I gave an inferior weapon in one of my games as being the favored weapon of Imperial Marine first-boarder units.

Aha! So that's why the Imperial Stormtroopers can never hit anything.

 

[G. Fieendish]

The love of the M4 is from those not considering ballistics.

The bullpup allows you to shorten the weapon without shortening the barrel. In the M4, that barrel shortening cost 500 fps. The forward mag well is better ergonomically, but proper training can overcome ergonomic issues. The basic M16 setup is screwed ergonomically anyway: look at the charging handle vis-a-vis the G3 setup. Is there possibly a worse place to put the charging handle? Of course, use the bitch for a few hundred rounds, perform SPORTS a few score times, and you can overcome the ergonomic issues through training. That does not make it a good design.

Training will overcome ergonomics, but not ballistics. Close quarters demands a shorter weapon; pushing ballistics v weight demands the most from your round. This is where the bullpups pull ahead.

I would not hazard that the FA-MAS or SA-80 are particularly good bullpups, any more than the M4 is a good contrary example. Troops like the M4 because it's light and comfortable; the vast majority of them have no clue why its design features shave percentage points (only a few) off their chances in a firefight, because they have not been exposed to the alternatives.

The variables involved, though, demand that there is not one best design, but there are designs that are better for certain applications.

The AK is a good, solid bullet hose for troops who cannot shoot accurately and will not likely clean it, and may be only 9 years old.

The M16A2 firing the 77 grain bullet was probably the apex of a design that was optimized for grain-fed, well-trained troops in a temperate theatre like Western Europe or the U.S.. Not that it was the best design, but that was the design at its best; in other climes and applications, with other ammo and care, not so good.

Arming Soviets with M16's and U.S. troops of the Reagan era with AK's would have brought out the worst in both designs.:rofl:

The SA-80 rifle designwise was originally based on the Enfield EM-2 design of the late 1940's, & was originally, in the then Individual Weapon (I.W for short) concept of the early 1980's, based on the AR-18 design & chambered for a proposed 4.85mm round, intended at the time, to replace the 7.62 mm round in Nato service.
Needless to say, the U.S won this contest at the time, with the 5.56mm round, used in the M-16, & as such the 4.85mm round dissappeared, with the result that the I.W had to be rechambered & rebarrelled to take the new round.
Unfortunately for the British Army, due to the priviatisation of Royal Ordanance at the time (mid 1980's) both build quality & quality control suffered, with the result said guns were "lemons", in that for example, the M-16 magazines used, kept dropping out of said gun's magazine well, due to metric/imperial conversion errors, & if you dropped it onto any surface, it broke...
(There was a feeling in the British Army, at the time, that the SUSAT sight fitted to the SA-80, in terms of cost, was worth more than the rifle it was fitted to...
Also, shortly after it was introduced, some troops relaxing at Bisley, wore a T-shirt with the legend "Designed by the Incompetent; Issued by the Uncaring; Carried by the Unfortunate" under the profile of a SA-80 ).
In addition it had to be rebarrelled again, due to NATO adopting the Belgian SS109 5.56 mm round, to replace the existing U.S 5.56mm round then used.

 

[zonk]

Actually the Belgian SS109 round was the one that won the NATO contest, not the American round.

The SA80 was designed with this result in mind, the 4.85 mm case was the standard 5.56 case necked down to 4.85.

I have to admit that the SA80 looks great. I like the barrel length. It just seems to have problems. The LSW originally had dispersion problems (I can't recall what it's new name/number is) but that has been fixed.

Nevertheless even the rebuild by H&K doesn't seem to fixed it. It's almost hard to know, now, if the problems are fixed or if the gun is jinxed. I don't think the troops trust the government when it says it's been fixed.

The SA-80 rifle designwise was originally based on the Enfield EM-2 design of the late 1940's, & was originally, in the then Individual Weapon (I.W for short) concept of the early 1980's, based on the AR-18 design & chambered for a proposed 4.85mm round, intended at the time, to replace the 7.62 mm round in Nato service.
Needless to say, the U.S won this contest at the time, with the 5.56mm round, used in the M-16, & as such the 4.85mm round dissappeared, with the result that the I.W had to be rechambered & rebarrelled to take the new round.
Unfortunately for the British Army, due to the priviatisation of Royal Ordanance at the time (mid 1980's) both build quality & quality control suffered, with the result said guns were "lemons", in that for example, the M-16 magazines used, kept dropping out of said gun's magazine well, due to metric/imperial conversion errors, & if you dropped it onto any surface, it broke...
(There was a feeling in the British Army, at the time, that the SUSAT sight fitted to the SA-80, in terms of cost, was worth more than the rifle it was fitted to...
Also, shortly after it was introduced, some troops relaxing at Bisley, wore a T-shirt with the legend "Designed by the Incompetent; Issued by the Uncaring; Carried by the Unfortunate" under the profile of a SA-80 ).
In addition it had to be rebarrelled again, due to NATO adopting the Belgian SS109 5.56 mm round, to replace the existing U.S 5.56mm round then used.

 

[Diveguy]

Minor correction - the earliest designs of what became the SA-80 and the British cartridge used date back to the late 40's, with at the time a 7mm cartridge - the chosen NATO adoptation of the 7.62x51mm cartridge caused this to die on the vine - the British then ended up adopting and using the FAL for a great number of years with great success.

The SA-80 resurfaced in the late 60's and early 70's with the 4.85mm cartridge discussed being explored. In the mid 70's and early 80's a nice NATO cage match occurred addressing ammo commonality - the end result of that fight being the adoptation of the 5.56x45mm round, with the U.S. switching from a .45 handgun to 9x19mm. Of course, there were a number of factors on all sides which led further into things but that is a brief summary.