Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: So... Whats next?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Koshinn View Post
    The cons of a bullpup are inherent to the definition of a bullpup.
    Well I know that.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Feedback Score
    0

    Re: So... Whats next?

    Quote Originally Posted by tog View Post
    Do any of you think the so called "bullpup" configuration will ever catch on in America? I have a hard time accepting that style of rifle. Of course I had a tough time accepting the M4.
    I was thinking the same thing yesterday.

    I think it could, but I also think it will have to match the AR's modularity, dependability and it might need some Armed Forces adoption before it really catches.

    On paper, the Tavor looks like a bullpup that will be better received in the US than the others thus far. I think there's some room to play with bullpup platform a little bit. But I agree that there's only so much that can be done with brass case.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    4,079
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    I do like the idea of a viable (ergonomic, ambidextrous, proper trigger) bullpup, though you would almost have to call the format something else entirely these days in order to get anyone to seriously consider it, given that the word itself has become a near-synonym for "compromise." A cool compromise, in many cases, but still not the first thing you will reach for when a long arm is called-for.

    Fanciful dreams aside, the Magpul PDR concept seemed to offer something useful and innovative. Small form factor, fast-handling, ease-of-operation (theoretically) and a full-power cartridge. Would have been nice to see the KAC PDW go mainstream as well, but in the present environment, the associated ammo issues would be limiting, to say the least.

    Have focused largely on smaller packages here, but to my mind this remains an underdeveloped area; especially for the kinds of defensive applications that seem most relevant to most current and would-be carbine users.

    We've already learned how to make very capable rifles that can handle the distance work in the larger chamberings. New platforms there would seem to be redundant. What we don't seem to have are the PDW/Honey Badger/PDR class guns that might provide more than a handgun has to offer when less than a full-on carbine is really what's needed. Then again, I have an admittedly-strong penchant for small guns that fire big rounds, and that may be coloring my views.

    AC
    Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. -- Captain John Parker, Lexington, 1775.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,121
    Feedback Score
    112 (100%)
    If they could get the price reasonable on them, this barrel making technology might be an advancement for some applications.

    http://www.lothar-walther.com/396.php
    Last edited by Biggy; 08-02-13 at 14:13.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,728
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    i wish there were a way for ambidextrous lowers to be massively adapted.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,149
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    For me, the next big step would be a fully modular rifle that has a common receiver that not only can serve as a infantry rifle/carbine, but as a PDW, LMG (to potentially include belt feeding), DMR and into the sniper rifle realm. And be compatible across the board with current and future standard ammo selections up to and including 5.56, 9mm, .45 and 7.62.

    And all this could be done with basic parts interchanged by the lowest Private, Airman or Sailor. No armorers or depot level stuff. Basic upper receiver swaps with return to zero guaranteed.

    I look at the Colt 901 not as much as a neat rifle that has potential to interchange calibers, but more of a proof of concept and a base to expand on. It could be continually developed to become a contender to replace the M4 if it was worked right.
    Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    All nice things, but in the end they are still not revolutionary and none are leaps and bounds better than the current system. We have still hit a wall in terms of small arms development outside of ergonomics.

    Until a new round comes along, or we find a way to make a portable super strong power source the only changes we will see in small arms will be in ergos.
    I fundamentally agree with you.
    I cede that my points are not revolutionary, as I was more pointing out that we really haven't hit that optimal blend yet with what we have.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    I fundamentally agree with you.
    I cede that my points are not revolutionary, as I was more pointing out that we really haven't hit that optimal blend yet with what we have.
    I agree. I have some designs of weapons that fully encase the operating parts inside the upper, retain the stoner operating system, and have alot of those feel good features, but outside of autoscad they will never go anywhere sadly.

    But the designs still only offer better ergonomics and nothing truly better, but seeing them come to fruition woukd be cool. Maybe ill get a 3d pronter one day
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 08-02-13 at 16:44.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Orion Arm of the Milky Way
    Posts
    426
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    All nice things, but in the end they are still not revolutionary and none are leaps and bounds better than the current system. We have still hit a wall in terms of small arms development outside of ergonomics.

    Until a new round comes along, or we find a way to make a portable super strong power source the only changes we will see in small arms will be in ergos.
    IIRC there was plenty of research back in the 70's, 80's on new rounds. One in particular was the caseless round. Seems H&K had a bullpup designed for this round (G11?). It was the greatest thing since sliced bread at the time and then, nothing. The project seemed to have died a fast death. There were probably many bugs to work out with this kind of tech-heat for one, as nitrocellulose can be formed into shapes, but likes to burn when heated. I too think any new firearms developements will have to consider propellent chemistry or like others have pointed out, the rail gun tech.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    171
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    As has been said. As long as ammunition is what it is, I don't think we will see major inovations. Lighter weight materials, and improved accessories, will most likely be the big ones. It works, and when something works and has been tested as much as the AR. It makes it somewhat hard, to come up with both something that works better, and is cost effective.

    Things like LSAT are a step in the right direction. But with lsat I personally do not see it going anywhere beyond testing. Right idea, wrong execution. Heck, they are still trying to improve on current 5.56 (m855a1) and that has been many years in the making.
    Last edited by themighty9mm; 08-02-13 at 17:15.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •