Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Sevvania]

12-round bolt-action sounds handy. M1895 is also hot, but i'm not sure if that could be made to work with en bloc.

[Purpelia]

12-round bolt-action sounds handy. M1895 is also hot, but i'm not sure if that could be made to work with en bloc.

Well I will admit not to have looked into it. But it is a magazine fed gun so I see no big reason why I couldn't make the thing accept clips from the top.

[Gallia-]

If you had to go to war in WW1 and could pick a rifle for your army which of these would you prefer and why?

1. A bolt action + lever action rifle thing. The gun is overall accurate and reliable and mostly a good bolt action rifle. But it was designed around an obsolete doctrine and thus weighed down by a pointless pump action style tumor that technically provides faster firing but at the cost of added weight up in the front of the gun for basically zero practical benifit. Feeds 7.5 Swiss from 12 round mags with stripper clips though. So you have a good cartridge good capacity and a fast reload.

2. Basically a Label. Complete with the god awful magazine and cartridge. But on the bright side it has a kings pattern style loading gate so you can top it up more easily. And the bayonet is neat.

3. A lever action in the style of the Winchester Model 1895 firing 7mm Mauser. Feeds from a 5 round magazine using en block clips that pop out the top Garand style because cool.

4. A revolver rifle using an odd Nagant style gas seal system and a metal cover for the cylinder to let you shoot without blowing your front hand off. Cartridge is also 7mm Mauser and it comes with 6 of them. The cylinder swings out for reloading. The trigger predictably sucks.

Generic Mauser or Krag clone bolt action for mass issue.

Small numbers of lever action short barrel carbines for horse cavalry because YEE HAW.

Same here. My progression of rounds is something like this:

dumbla's:

12th to early-17th centuries: A menagerie of 20-30mm calibers of lead balls fired by a stable of unregulated snaphances, wheel locks, matchlocks, and actual handgonnes.
1725: The Royal Ordnance .722" Flintlock is commissioned. It serves for a little over a century as standard.
1815: Percussion cap mechanism Ordnance .72" is produced, thousands of rifles are converted for line troops. This is designated the Model 1725/65/15.
1840: Small quantities of Chamber Loading Rifles, in .68" rifled caliber, are produced for Rangers units and other skirmishers. It is never seen by line troops.
1848: Minie ball rifled musket in .68" caliber, is adopted as the Alvik Model 1848 Rifled Musket. Thus, the end of the Model 1725.
1867: A .495" breech loading rolling block rifle, chosen for its robustness and simplicity, is adopted for all line troops. This replaces all Chamber Loading Rifles and rifled muskets.
1890: After an embarrassing series of failures and experiments over the next two decades, the Army chooses the .265" Smokeless as its new cartridge. The Model 1891 Cavalry Carbine is adopted, which is a lever action repeater with a integral 5-round box magazine and no magazine cut-off, and the 1890 Infantry Rifle, a bolt-action with a side-loading magazine and cut-off, is used for line troops. In the meantime, the Model 1867 Rolling Block is found to be suitable to be converted to .265" Smokeless, and this is done. At the same time, the Model 1895 machine gun is adopted in the same caliber, using a modified form of the Cavalry Carbine action.
1914: The first issued .265" automatic rifle, the Bofors Machine Rifle, is developed, ostensibly for general use. It is considered too expensive for general issue but finds use as a primitive form of squad automatic weapon in the 3rd Northern War (1913-1918).
1938: Artillerists are tired of shooting beefy boi .265" and buy a .30" Short (7.62x33mm) automatic carbine (M1 Carbine but it isn't a gas trap because I don't like gas trap).
1940: The second issued .265" automatic rifle, the Alvik Auto-Rifle, is presented to the Army. It uses a direct gas impingement operating system derived from a series of automatic rifles 30 years old, but works alright. The Army orders a bunch. It displaces the bolt-action 1890/21 and 1891/38 carbines over the next few years. The older weapons are placed into Home Guard hands until the 1980s, where they're sold off to collectors/hunters/shooting groups or destroyed.
1955: The Army wants a magazine fed rifle. It goes to Bofors and asks for one. They give it a rifle called the Bofors Automatic Rifle. It is chambered in .265". It has bakelite. It's AR-10 but crustier and more communist. The Army buys a few and decides they're OK, but it's still not sold on the 20-round magazines or whatever.
1958: Bofors shows the Army a fiberglass aluminum rifle it calls the Bofors Automatic Carbine. It is chambered in .223" caliber. The Army buys it and calls it Ak58. It's M16A1. End of .265" as a general issue cartridge. The Ak55 is converted into sniper's rifles or light machine guns, while the older Alvik Auto-Rifles are issued to the Home Guards.
1990: The Marines are tired of getting the Army's rejects, and they don't want another brass clad M16, so they decide to make a plastic gun. It's chambered in 6.5x30mm Caseless. It's G11 with a fatter bullet and cartridge. It works fine. The Army buys some for its paratroopers.
2018: Artillerists are tired of shooty beefy boi .223" and buy a .265" Short (6.5x30mm) automatic carbine (KAC PDW but it's a shrink wrapped M16A1 like UDP-9 because rails are dumb).
2020: The Army needs a new general rifle to yeet body armor. It makes a fat bullet it calls .265" Automatic Carbine (Ak) to fit inside the M16. It's a fat 6.8mm SPC case with a 6.5mm bullet. .265" is renamed .265" Long, and there is a corresponding cartridge named .265" Automatic Pistol (6.5mm CBJ). Done entirely so the Army can standardize on barrel blanks. [Cartridges are now .265" Long, .265" Automatic Carbine, .265" Short, .265" Automatic Pistol, and .265" Caseless used in the Ksp60 (M60), Ak21/Ksp21 (M16), Ak21L (M4), Ap20 (re-barreled VP70), and Ak95/Ksp95 (G11).]
20XX: Neo-Maoist Revolutionary World State and the Singularity Cults replace pneumatic crossbows, pikes, and blunderbusses with slug firing shotguns propelling a menagerie of 10-20mm lead cones and spitzers, fired by a stable of unregulated pipe shotguns, Luty carbines, and beer can/bicycle recycled cast aluminum recoil operated auto-shotguns similar to Sten Auto Rifle to fight the Celestial Crown, which is armed with Sterling Auto Rifles (Rifle, Austere, Wartime Emergency, .265" Long), imported millet congee, and the few non-radioactive M60 machine guns and 84mm recoilless rifles left. Thus the 800-year cycle comes full circle.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

If you had to go to war in WW1 and could pick a rifle for your army which of these would you prefer and why?

1. A bolt action + lever action rifle thing. The gun is overall accurate and reliable and mostly a good bolt action rifle. But it was designed around an obsolete doctrine and thus weighed down by a pointless pump action style tumor that technically provides faster firing but at the cost of added weight up in the front of the gun for basically zero practical benifit. Feeds 7.5 Swiss from 12 round mags with stripper clips though. So you have a good cartridge good capacity and a fast reload.

2. Basically a Label. Complete with the god awful magazine and cartridge. But on the bright side it has a kings pattern style loading gate so you can top it up more easily. And the bayonet is neat.

3. A lever action in the style of the Winchester Model 1895 firing 7mm Mauser. Feeds from a 5 round magazine using en block clips that pop out the top Garand style because cool.

4. A revolver rifle using an odd Nagant style gas seal system and a metal cover for the cylinder to let you shoot without blowing your front hand off. Cartridge is also 7mm Mauser and it comes with 6 of them. The cylinder swings out for reloading. The trigger predictably sucks.

Generic Mauser or Krag clone bolt action for mass issue.

Small numbers of lever action short barrel carbines for horse cavalry because YEE HAW.

dumbla's:

12th to early-17th centuries: A menagerie of 20-30mm calibers of lead balls fired by a stable of unregulated snaphances, wheel locks, matchlocks, and actual handgonnes.
1725: The Royal Ordnance .722" Flintlock is commissioned. It serves for a little over a century as standard.
1815: Percussion cap mechanism Ordnance .72" is produced, thousands of rifles are converted for line troops. This is designated the Model 1725/65/15.
1840: Small quantities of Chamber Loading Rifles, in .68" rifled caliber, are produced for Rangers units and other skirmishers. It is never seen by line troops.
1848: Minie ball rifled musket in .68" caliber, is adopted as the Alvik Model 1848 Rifled Musket. Thus, the end of the Model 1725.
1867: A .495" breech loading rolling block rifle, chosen for its robustness and simplicity, is adopted for all line troops. This replaces all Chamber Loading Rifles and rifled muskets.
1890: After an embarrassing series of failures and experiments over the next two decades, the Army chooses the .265" Smokeless as its new cartridge. The Model 1891 Cavalry Carbine is adopted, which is a lever action repeater with a integral 5-round box magazine and no magazine cut-off, and the 1890 Infantry Rifle, a bolt-action with a side-loading magazine and cut-off, is used for line troops. In the meantime, the Model 1867 Rolling Block is found to be suitable to be converted to .265" Smokeless, and this is done. At the same time, the Model 1895 machine gun is adopted in the same caliber, using a modified form of the Cavalry Carbine action.
1914: The first issued .265" automatic rifle, the Bofors Machine Rifle, is developed, ostensibly for general use. It is considered too expensive for general issue but finds use as a primitive form of squad automatic weapon in the 3rd Northern War (1913-1918).
1938: Artillerists are tired of shooting beefy boi .265" and buy a .30" Short (7.62x33mm) automatic carbine (M1 Carbine but it isn't a gas trap because I don't like gas trap).
1940: The second issued .265" automatic rifle, the Alvik Auto-Rifle, is presented to the Army. It uses a direct gas impingement operating system derived from a series of automatic rifles 30 years old, but works alright. The Army orders a bunch. It displaces the bolt-action 1890/21 and 1891/38 carbines over the next few years. The older weapons are placed into Home Guard hands until the 1980s, where they're sold off to collectors/hunters/shooting groups or destroyed.
1955: The Army wants a magazine fed rifle. It goes to Bofors and asks for one. They give it a rifle called the Bofors Automatic Rifle. It is chambered in .265". It has bakelite. It's AR-10 but crustier and more communist. The Army buys a few and decides they're OK, but it's still not sold on the 20-round magazines or whatever.
1958: Bofors shows the Army a fiberglass aluminum rifle it calls the Bofors Automatic Carbine. It is chambered in .223" caliber. The Army buys it and calls it Ak58. It's M16A1. End of .265" as a general issue cartridge. The Ak55 is converted into sniper's rifles or light machine guns, while the older Alvik Auto-Rifles are issued to the Home Guards.
1990: The Marines are tired of getting the Army's rejects, and they don't want another brass clad M16, so they decide to make a plastic gun. It's chambered in 6.5x30mm Caseless. It's G11 with a fatter bullet and cartridge. It works fine. The Army buys some for its paratroopers.
2018: Artillerists are tired of shooty beefy boi .223" and buy a .265" Short (6.5x30mm) automatic carbine (KAC PDW but it's a shrink wrapped M16A1 like UDP-9 because rails are dumb).
2020: The Army needs a new general rifle to yeet body armor. It makes a fat bullet it calls .265" Automatic Carbine (Ak) to fit inside the M16. It's a fat 6.8mm SPC case with a 6.5mm bullet. .265" is renamed .265" Long, and there is a corresponding cartridge named .265" Automatic Pistol (6.5mm CBJ). Done entirely so the Army can standardize on barrel blanks. [Cartridges are now .265" Long, .265" Automatic Carbine, .265" Short, .265" Automatic Pistol, and .265" Caseless used in the Ksp60 (M60), Ak21/Ksp21 (M16), Ak21L (M4), Ap20 (re-barreled VP70), and Ak95/Ksp95 (G11).]
20XX: Neo-Maoist Revolutionary World State and the Singularity Cults replace pneumatic crossbows, pikes, and blunderbusses with slug firing shotguns propelling a menagerie of 10-20mm lead cones and spitzers, fired by a stable of unregulated pipe shotguns, Luty carbines, and beer can/bicycle recycled cast aluminum recoil operated auto-shotguns similar to Sten Auto Rifle to fight the Celestial Crown, which is armed with Sterling Auto Rifles (Rifle, Austere, Wartime Emergency, .265" Long), imported millet congee, and the few non-radioactive M60 machine guns and 84mm recoilless rifles left. Thus the 800-year cycle comes full circle.

Bigger is usually better tbh.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I got bored.

[Reznoviya]

I am wanting to add a AK-B Bull-pup rifle in 2045 for my armed forces. that bullpup converted AK

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I am wanting to add a AK-B Bull-pup rifle in 2045 for my armed forces. that bullpup converted AK

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/98/d6 ... b4a6a7.jpg

[Sevvania]

I am wanting to add a AK-B Bull-pup rifle in 2045 for my armed forces. that bullpup converted AK

Syria seems to be cranking out several patterns, may be something to look at.
https://www.calibreobscura.com/idlibi-i ... -of-syria/

[Reznoviya]

I am wanting to add a AK-B Bull-pup rifle in 2045 for my armed forces. that bullpup converted AK

Syria seems to be cranking out several patterns, may be something to look at.
https://www.calibreobscura.com/idlibi-i ... -of-syria/

I see, I'll consider those and these prototypes this guy on deviantart did.

[Ormata]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

[Reznoviya]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

Tbh I prefer both of them. This is me merely adding bullpups to the conventional armaments. Note that the AK-B is actually supposed to be Kalashnikov Concern's first crack at the Bullpup line in my view.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

Before I go into my own preferences, I'll first go over the pros and cons of conventional and bullpup firearms. The primary pro to a bullpup weapon over a conventional one is the lower overall length without losing barrel length. A pro that is related to the shorter overall length is a potentially lower weight.
The cons to bullpup firearms primarily relate to the fact that the action is much closer to the operators face, causing increased noise issues and, in the case of left handed shooters like myself, potential for spent brass to fly into your face. Bullpup triggers also seem to be less precise than conventional triggers.

Now with that out of the way, I primarily use conventional firearms for my military. Lower length and weight isn't really worth the noise issues and brass flying into the face of 1 in 10 of my soldiers. My primary service rifle is the XM8 weapon system.

[Taihei Tengoku]

TKB-022 you were too good for this world

[Kazarogkai]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

Before I go into my own preferences, I'll first go over the pros and cons of conventional and bullpup firearms. The primary pro to a bullpup weapon over a conventional one is the lower overall length without losing barrel length. A pro that is related to the shorter overall length is a potentially lower weight.
The cons to bullpup firearms primarily relate to the fact that the action is much closer to the operators face, causing increased noise issues and, in the case of left handed shooters like myself, potential for spent brass to fly into your face. Bullpup triggers also seem to be less precise than conventional triggers.

Now with that out of the way, I primarily use conventional firearms for my military. Lower length and weight isn't really worth the noise issues and brass flying into the face of 1 in 10 of my soldiers. My primary service rifle is the XM8 weapon system.

Three other disadvantages vis a vis conventional layouts: First manufacturing, the factories needed to make conventional layouts are already there and quite common compared to bull pup rifles hence theoretically this potentially could result in higher cost. A minor Issue but something to consider. Seconding that relates towards training. In a nation with a long established gun culture in which civilian ownership of firearms is widespread, ala USA or Switzerland, the awkward and unfamiliar layout of a bullpup could partially complicate and lead to the need to retrain incoming recruits to familiarize them to said platform again increasing costs. Third and final, their ugly as hell. Nambo had it right. An essential characteristic of a weapon is how handsome the weapon question is in addition to other important factors. If the weapon is ugly the soldier will feel ashamed with the weapon in question and won't properly treat it right. It's like a wife. If it looks like shit they'll treat it like shit so to speak. If it looks nice they'll treat it accordingly. More or less anyways.

Personally I consider something externally like an FG-42, to be ideal albeit chambered in a high velocity 6mm to be my weapon of choice for what will probably replace their current main service rifle which is more or less based on a cross between a British jungle carbine with the aesthetics of a Lebel.

[Purpelia]

Before I go into my own preferences, I'll first go over the pros and cons of conventional and bullpup firearms. The primary pro to a bullpup weapon over a conventional one is the lower overall length without losing barrel length. A pro that is related to the shorter overall length is a potentially lower weight.
The cons to bullpup firearms primarily relate to the fact that the action is much closer to the operators face, causing increased noise issues and, in the case of left handed shooters like myself, potential for spent brass to fly into your face. Bullpup triggers also seem to be less precise than conventional triggers.

Now with that out of the way, I primarily use conventional firearms for my military. Lower length and weight isn't really worth the noise issues and brass flying into the face of 1 in 10 of my soldiers. My primary service rifle is the XM8 weapon system.

Three other disadvantages vis a vis conventional layouts: First manufacturing, the factories needed to make conventional layouts are already there and quite common compared to bull pup rifles hence theoretically this potentially could result in higher cost. A minor Issue but something to consider. Seconding that relates towards training. In a nation with a long established gun culture in which civilian ownership of firearms is widespread, ala USA or Switzerland, the awkward and unfamiliar layout of a bullpup could partially complicate and lead to the need to retrain incoming recruits to familiarize them to said platform again increasing costs. Third and final, their ugly as hell. Nambo had it right. An essential characteristic of a weapon is how handsome the weapon question is in addition to other important factors. If the weapon is ugly the soldier will feel ashamed with the weapon in question and won't properly treat it right. It's like a wife. If it looks like shit they'll treat it like shit so to speak. If it looks nice they'll treat it accordingly. More or less anyways.

Personally I consider something externally like an FG-42, to be ideal albeit chambered in a high velocity 6mm to be my weapon of choice for what will probably replace their current main service rifle which is more or less based on a cross between a British jungle carbine with the aesthetics of a Lebel.

1. The difference in production lines between any two rifles won't be significantly impacted by their layout. If you are adopting a new weapon you simply have to make a new one either way unless your new weapon includes a significant parts overlap with the old one. So if you are going all new already what that new is hardly matters. Especially in this day and age when you'd be using largely injection molded polymers for which you'd need a new mold anyway.

2. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I find any rifle that looks like it's made of plastic and sheet metal to be inferior looking than wooden ones. Does that mean morale dictates we abandon things as the M4, AKM or FAL and return to all wood designs such as the SKS and M1? Of course not. It just means you need to use a fake wood paint job on your polymer stocks.

[Gallia-]

TKB-022 you were too good for this world

beautiful cinnamon roll

[Kazarogkai]

STANDARD A INFANTRY COMMAND(20,736)
Headquarters Block 288
Discipline Block 288
Recon Pack 288
Engineer Column 864
Signal Column 864
Military Hospital 864
Supply Column 864
Division Artillery Column 864
A Service Line 144
B H Howitzer Line 144
C M Howitzer Line 2x144
D AH Gun Line 2x144
Infantry Regiment 3x5184
A Service Column 864
B Artillery Column 864
a Service Line
b Infantry Gun Line 144
c Mortar Line 4x144 48
C Infantry Column 4x864
a Service Block 144
b Machine Gun Line 144
c Armour Hunter Block 144
d Foot Rifle Block 3x144
WEAPONS LOADOUT
504 LMG(.25 Cal)
144 HMG(.50 Cal)
300 AT Rifle(.75 Cal)
144 Recoiless Rifle(3in)
288 L Mortar(2in)
144 H Mortar(4in)
24 AT Gun(2in)
24 Infantry Gun(3in)
12 Medium Howitzer(4in)
04 H Howitzer(6in)

Decided to fix up my divisions added a greater diversity of artillery via the creation of an Artillery Battalion at the division level. The number of guns hasn't increased greatly but their types has. Prior to this I had been pretty extreme only delegating Heavy Howitzers to designated Artillery Divisions. Last I checked Japanese Divisions had something like 84 Artillery Pieces(not counting Mortars), in contrast I have about 64. While fewer in numbers I again have a greater diversity of pieces fielded while the largest pieces fielded by their divisions were various different 75mm guns my guys would be packing a few 100 mm and 150 mm guns respectively which I consider a reasonable compromise. For terminology:

Command = Division
Column = Battalion
Block = Infantry Company
Pack = Cavalry Company
Line = Artillery Company
Group = Platoon
Section = Squad
Armour Hunter/AH = Anti Tank/AT

[Dothrakia]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

Mine are with covejtioal because my nation favors hardiness and durability above all else (uses modernized Galil) and while bullpens are nice from what I've read they tend to be less durable

[The united American-Isreali empire]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

i use both. HOWEVER forces vary at all levels. so forces do use bullpups and standard sizes. i prefer standard sizes, but bullpups and carbines have their roles too. in the uaie armed forces short weapons do hold much value!

[Purpelia]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

Depends on the role. For an infantry rifle I say bullpup all the way. You can have a bottom eject system as I do (if I ever publish my half finished design here) that gets rid of all the major issues without introducing any problems other than handling which you can train around. And they are overall smaller and LIGHTER which is a huge thing with something that you need to lug around all day. And of course you get to add gadgets like suppressors or big stabby knifes on the front and still not be overly long. Same thing for PDW's. For machineguns and other support weapons though you'll want a conventional layout to ease reloading. Like I can't imagine loading a belt into a bullpup would be in any way convenient.

Can't comment on other uses though as I have newer handled firearms.

[Arkandros]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

I am a lefty, and have (on at least one occasion) had my lip busted by a reciprocating charging handle on a bullpup, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. that said:
In my casual shooting experience, bullpups likely provide little advantage outside of some specialist roles where size is paramount. In terms of construction and design, they are, almost as a rule, more complex and have more mechanical slop as a result of the linkages required, resulting in an overall worse operator experience for what should be roughly equivalent firearms. Compounding this, they often use mechanically more complex systems to attempt ambidextrous compatibility, which is occasionally mechanically problematic or operationally inconvenient, such as the inability to visually inspect the chamber without partial disassembly. In my mind, while bullpups have some advantages and can be genuinely good guns, their failings (while individually relatively minor or tolerable) add up too quickly for me to really accept them personally, which means I have stayed away from them for my nation.

[Purpelia]

Thing is though, does the handling of a rifle in combat really matter that much if at all? I mean, as long as both are in the same category, say small caliber select fire assault rifle, and both are in the same order of magnitude of reliability, accuracy etc. it's not like the small differences in handling are going to make much of a difference in battle. And just how often do modern weapons jam in a way that you have to manually check the chamber? To me bullpups seem like something designed deliberately to make the tradeoff between slightly less performance for a shooter in exchange for being that much more handy at all other times, like when you just want to sit in the back of a truck or march. And I imagine there is something to be said about that.

[The Hell Legions]

Here's a question for everyone.

Conventional or Bullpup? Which do you prefer / arm your militaries with and why?

Depends on what I need. Different firarms have different pros and cons.

For Hell's military, most of the weapons are conventional - length and weight are not a major issue for any troop expecting to spend literal years in reinforced trenches and bunkers. But we have handed out a bullpup weapon to our police - the Barret XM500, precisely because they are going to be much more mobile, and fighting in urban environments. A bullpup for a police sniper rifle, then makes more sense, the shooter will likely have to carry that weapon up onto a rooftop or balcony in an urban environment, a stark contrast to our military, who are out in the mud and don't have to worry about moving around as much; the sniper rifle might not fit through the door to the bunker, but it's broken down into two pieces for transport anyways, and those pieces can fit through just fine.

Then again, the combat in our 'verse is a far cry from most modern combat, so my answer would have to be viewed with an understanding of that. "Small caliber select fire assault rifles" aren't much of a thing in our 'verse, not anymore, unless .300 AAC Blackout is "small caliber" to you; that's literally the smallest "rifle" cartridge any nation in our 'verse uses; any smaller and it can't be trusted to actually work. That said, most of the fighting in our 'verse is not baseline human versus baseline human, and you wouldn't take a 5.56mm NATO rifle if you expected to be shooting at gorillas (it'll just ricochet off those thick skulls).

EDIT: Okay, 5.66x120mm Soviet is used in our 'verse too, but it's a weird underwater bullet. I don't know if that really applies here.

So my point is... it really depends on what you plan to be fighting, in what conditions you plan to be fighting in, and what exact role the weapon is serving in. This goes for any weapon, not just rifles. My understanding of bullpups is to reduce barrel length and weapon weight, making it that much more maneuverable, perfect for close quarters and especially urban conflicts, be it in a sniper rifle (now easier to carry), or an assault rifle (easier to swing around when going room to room). There's a point to be made in every case though - after all weapon weight is not inherently bad, as it often makes recoil easier to control. Any given weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is deadly, but different weapons are better in different situations. This goes for conventional and bullpups as well.

[Ormata]

Depends on the role. For an infantry rifle I say bullpup all the way. You can have a bottom eject system as I do (if I ever publish my half finished design here) that gets rid of all the major issues without introducing any problems other than handling which you can train around. And they are overall smaller and LIGHTER which is a huge thing with something that you need to lug around all day. And of course you get to add gadgets like suppressors or big stabby knifes on the front and still not be overly long. Same thing for PDW's. For machineguns and other support weapons though you'll want a conventional layout to ease reloading. Like I can't imagine loading a belt into a bullpup would be in any way convenient.

Can't comment on other uses though as I have newer handled firearms.

At this moment I'm looking through for infantry rifles. I will admit that I've partially settled on the M4 / M16A4 camp (In part, I will admit, because the pictures of Marines with em are too good to not use) but also for their relative capability and the fact that we've kept em. If you want, slow ball me their various issues I'm only human. Since apparently tank crews are issued rifles (Tall tank boi gives me guidance on that) as well as some other things I am considering a bullpup for use by vehicle crews, artillerymen, and other rear echelon personnel due to the lesser weight, shorter length, that sort of thing, much in the same vein as the M1 carbine. May have to develop my own on that front. Then again, there is some difficulty in retraining troops for such a different system, as well as not having a unified production model for all troops and weapons, so maybe not.

[Gallia-]

Thing is though, does the handling of a rifle in combat really matter that much if at all?

not as much as being overly long and cumbersome to maneuver in close quarters

stuff like "trigger pull" and other paper boomer shooter nonsense is sorta irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when youve literally shit your pants or w/e since youll be pulling hard enough on the trigger to shoot any amount lbs of pull, even nagant 1895's

which is why judea replaced the m16 and galil with tar-21

shorter is better for mechanical troops who have to wear bulky oversized battle vests