XM8 is dead! EDIT: as promised, here is the link! XM8 D-E-A-D! - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - XM8 is dead! EDIT: as promised, here is the link! XM8 D-E-A-D! (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 11/3/2005 6:57:52 AM EDT

[#1]

i say make the 16/m4 a piston upper"prefect the design if it needs it"

then go blended metal bullets or 6.8bmb and be done with it.....

cheaper than a new system

then start working on the next gen wepon system

Posted: 11/3/2005 6:59:29 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

And adds a cases-jamming-in-the-ejection-chute problem. No thanks.

How much actual evidence is there of this supposed case jamming problem, and how much is hear-say and rumor.

I'm NOT trying to start a fight, I'm just curious if anyone is saying this based on actual tests, experience, etc. I don't know if the F2000 has ever been entered into any trials or anything, and if there even is hard data.

UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

tinypic.com/fasfpg.jpg
The UK's 'Tasters Choice' in the trials was the HK G36

ANdy

Interesting - thanks Andy!

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:00:14 AM EDT

[#3]

Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:01:28 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

Stop using logic. The M4/M16 is old. It "shits where it eats". Folks want something new, kewl.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:07:38 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

Stop using logic. The M4/M16 is old. It "shits where it eats". Folks want something new, kewl.

tacti-kewl.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:07:57 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

IDF new generation prefers M4/M16 and homemade M16 carbine (Recycled M16A1 with 10" and 16" barrel and collapsible stock, no three round burst, safety-semiauto-full auto fire).

They are light, and can mount a countless number of accessories.

In a few weeks I will test also SL8 (the Eu version can mount military mags of G36...) and Oberland Arms M4...

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:14:35 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

I've asked a direct question on that very issue to a senior Officer in one of the British High Speed Low Drag units… he says they have absolutely ZERO issues with the M4/M16… they liked it so much they bought new ones to replace all their assorted weaponry. Diemaco SFW8… the SAS/SBS weapon of choice.

ANdy

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:17:36 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:

ok, I'll bite wtf is that?

new fender stratocaster 2000

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:18:56 AM EDT

[#9]

Is it amidextrous ? Can the port be switched to the other side ?

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:21:00 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Hmmmmmmmm FN F2000...

Light years ahead of the AUG. It is probably the best bullpup ever designed.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:21:51 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wont support a rifle that I can not own as a civilian. Even if my current position allows me to use one at work.

I suspect that in the next generation or two, military weapons technology will move into areas where the citizenry will not be allowed to own equivalent weapons.

as opposed to now where we can own a few guns that look like the real ones?

it's not going to take a generation or two. we can't own them NOW. if we could i would have had a SAW in my safe yesterday.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:27:10 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

Do you know anyone in the IDF? (I'm not trying to accusatory, just curious as to your basis for above statement.)

Because from my (albeit limited experience) in talking with IDF officers (I don't know any enlisted personnel) all of them are crazy about the Tavor. Additionally, the guys I know are not too fond of their M16s (probably because they are extremely old).

ETA- M24 also recived very high marks.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:32:14 AM EDT

[#13]

tag

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:45:20 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Is it amidextrous ? Can the port be switched to the other side ?

This would be my problem since I'm a lefty. I've shot one AUG and paid for it with hot brass in my face/neck/etc.

The AR/M16 or any other conventional side ejection rifle like the AK and FAL are not a problem for me.

Some people are left eye dominant and right handed. It might benefit them to shoot lefty. Can't do that with most bullpups.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:46:27 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I kinda like the TAR 21. Seems like bullpups would have a major advantage in MOUT. It could still have a 16-20 in. barrell and be shorter than an M4.

The major disadvantage of a bullpup in MOUT is the inability to switch shoulders. I would give up a couple inches in OAL for the ability to fire from either shoulder.

Yep. If they can make it ergonomic and ambidextrous (i.e., controls operable either left- or right-handed and a bottom eject) then I'm all for it. Otherwise.... bah.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:52:17 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Even the IDF prefers the M4, and the Tavor is their own country's design!

Funny how militaries still want the M4, even after all these UberTactical rifles are options.
Maybe all the hype about the M4/M16 having such problems is not so correct after all?
Maybe it does just fine, and the hype comes from those looking to make money replacing it.

Stop using logic. The M4/M16 is old. It "shits where it eats". Folks want something new, kewl.

Yep. Something with bling, and lots of space design looking plastic furniture, and an abundance of rails and kewl looking protuberances.

Yeah, we should also base our SAW off the same design, and make it magazine-fed only so we lose the convenience and outright firepower of a belt-fed weapon. After all, a SAW is a just a rifle with a long heavy barrel and a bipod, right?

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:54:38 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

And adds a cases-jamming-in-the-ejection-chute problem. No thanks.

Sorry, but I'm going to say unless you can back up your claim, I'm going to assume you're full of shit and just spouting off nonsense and conjecture. How familiar are you with the F2000's ejection system and any problems it may have? Where have you learned of this problem of cases jamming in the ejection tube/chute? I'd really like to know because all I ever hear people talk about is the potential problems it may have.. People like to talk about it like it could be a potential problem, but now I think people have transitioned to it BEING a problem when no problem may even exist in the first place. So how about it?

I doubt FN, a superb and reputable company, who’s also our primarily small arms manufacturer for the US Military, is going to market their next generation rifle when it has a serious ejection issue.

Quoted:
I'm also curious as to how easy it is to clear the ejection chute... What if it gets filled with dirt/mud or other debris? Battlefields have been known to have such conditions......

What if the open ejection port lets in dirt/mud or other debris into the action of another rifle, thus jamming it? Seems like it'd be a lot easier to get dirt and mud into a normal rifle's action with a regular ejection port than into the ejection shoot of an F2000. Hell the FN could be self clearing depending on how much force it pushes out spent cases with.

Quoted:
UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

Using logic here it if you could dive to the deck and get mud into the ejection port of the F2000, you are also gonna get mud in the barrel of any rifle which correct me if I'm wrong could cause a catastrophic failure. Not to mention mud in the action of the weapon.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:06:05 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

Using logic here it if you could dive to the deck and get mud into the ejection port of the F2000, you are also gonna get mud in the barrel of any rifle which correct me if I'm wrong could cause a catastrophic failure. Not to mention mud in the action of the weapon.

Vito works for the UK MOD. He has more info on this topic than either of us. I will defer to him, as should you.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:10:49 AM EDT

[#19]

Do bullpups offer adjustable stocks?

That's a pretty important component for the CQB role.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:13:43 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

And adds a cases-jamming-in-the-ejection-chute problem. No thanks.

How much actual evidence is there of this supposed case jamming problem, and how much is hear-say and rumor.

I'm NOT trying to start a fight, I'm just curious if anyone is saying this based on actual tests, experience, etc. I don't know if the F2000 has ever been entered into any trials or anything, and if there even is hard data.

UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

Smells like bullshit.

Anything that would cause the ejection port to get blocked would mean the bore is blocked aswell (such as a nose dive).

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:16:39 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

Using logic here it if you could dive to the deck and get mud into the ejection port of the F2000, you are also gonna get mud in the barrel of any rifle which correct me if I'm wrong could cause a catastrophic failure. Not to mention mud in the action of the weapon.

Vito works for the UK MOD. He has more info on this topic than either of us. I will defer to him, as should you.

And there are people in the DoD and US Military that think the M4 is a piece of shit that craps where it eats, there for having the potential to jam (sound familiar?) and needs to be replaced ASAP. Should I defer to them too? Cuz I haven't had any problems with my Bushmaster AR15 despite not cleaning it in the past 4 times I've shot it and bumpfired it in the AZ desert with 200ish rounds each time.

I understand that Andy works for the Ministry of Defense, and I mean no disrespect intended towards him.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:21:04 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

Using logic here it if you could dive to the deck and get mud into the ejection port of the F2000, you are also gonna get mud in the barrel of any rifle which correct me if I'm wrong could cause a catastrophic failure. Not to mention mud in the action of the weapon.

Vito works for the UK MOD. He has more info on this topic than either of us. I will defer to him, as should you.

And there are people in the DoD and US Military that think the M4 is a piece of shit that craps where it eats, there for having the potential to jam (sound familiar?) and needs to be replaced ASAP. Should I defer to them too? Cuz I haven't had any problems with my Bushmaster AR15 despite not cleaning it in the past 4 times I've shot it and bumpfired it in the AZ desert with 200ish rounds each time.

But those people in the DoD have not gotten tests done that led to the rejection of the M4. MoD performed such tests, and rejected the FN2000.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:21:23 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it amidextrous ? Can the port be switched to the other side ?

This would be my problem since I'm a lefty. I've shot one AUG and paid for it with hot brass in my face/neck/etc.

The AR/M16 or any other conventional side ejection rifle like the AK and FAL are not a problem for me.

Some people are left eye dominant and right handed. It might benefit them to shoot lefty. Can't do that with most bullpups.

\

To use the AUG left handed switch out the bolt for a left handed one and move the ejection port cover...takes about 3 minutes

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:21:42 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wont support a rifle that I can not own as a civilian. Even if my current position allows me to use one at work.

I suspect that in the next generation or two, military weapons technology will move into areas where the citizenry will not be allowed to own equivalent weapons.

as opposed to now where we can own a few guns that look like the real ones?

it's not going to take a generation or two. we can't own them NOW. if we could i would have had a SAW in my safe yesterday.

I was not referring to FA weapons, I was talking about military pattern weapons in general. In the not too distant future, I think that whatever pattern weapon is chosen will not have a civilian equivalent as we now have with the M16/AR15.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:25:02 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it amidextrous ? Can the port be switched to the other side ?

This would be my problem since I'm a lefty. I've shot one AUG and paid for it with hot brass in my face/neck/etc.

The AR/M16 or any other conventional side ejection rifle like the AK and FAL are not a problem for me.

Some people are left eye dominant and right handed. It might benefit them to shoot lefty. Can't do that with most bullpups.
\

To use the AUG left handed switch out the bolt for a left handed one and move the ejection port cover...takes about 3 minutes

3 minutes too long if you need to switch shoulders to fire around a corner.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:30:54 AM EDT

[#26]

a) I cannot for the life of me understand the FN eject idea. IT's a two second operation on most bullpups to switch ejection left or right.... Maybe its just me, but if you're in a situation where you ahve to instantly switch shoulders for some reason, I would think you'd be firing from ready or at the hip position nad not shouldered. I've been wrong before though (heck, I'm hardly ever right!)

b) tavor's a sweet piece and there's a better chance of us civvies getting it than any other '-21- (which almost all bullpups are called) rifle out there due to the IMI-barret link. If the US wasn't so caught up on BHO's and the M16 mag (hey I like em too, just saying), I'd go with the South African bullpup though. It's literally a galil with a rock solid optics package and less weight. Wouldn't be the hardest thing in the word to put a BHO on either, and a minior redesign (which will happen to ANYTHING we buy) can make it left or right compatible.

Looks liek a new rifle:

but really its the R4/Galil with a little less weight on teh receiver and a little more ergonomic selector, though still in same position, not th echunky loud lever, just a dial like HK...s . and oh yeah a RIDICULOUS optic mount machined on.

c) BUT the tavors already in a third stage of life past testing, redesign and implementation, so I think we can say its a fully battle tested and ready final design, saving us money in redesign.

d) Do you have any idea how much money barret will make if this happens. I believe they have the rights to the civvie version. Can you imagine if you had sole rights to the M9 in 1983....? wow.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:33:02 AM EDT

[#27]

Tag

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:34:17 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it amidextrous ? Can the port be switched to the other side ?

This would be my problem since I'm a lefty. I've shot one AUG and paid for it with hot brass in my face/neck/etc.

The AR/M16 or any other conventional side ejection rifle like the AK and FAL are not a problem for me.

Some people are left eye dominant and right handed. It might benefit them to shoot lefty. Can't do that with most bullpups.
\

To use the AUG left handed switch out the bolt for a left handed one and move the ejection port cover...takes about 3 minutes

3 minutes too long if you need to switch shoulders to fire around a corner.

Of all the pics I've out of Iraq where troops are firing from the left side of cover, not one has been firing from the left shoulder.

Here is a link to the USMC Rifle Marksmanship manual...

USMC Rifle Marksmanship

Take a look at page 6-5 where it states

If, however, a right-handed
Marine must fire from the
left side of cover, he fires
right-handed but adjusts his
position behind cover and
uses the rollout technique
(see para. 6003) to engage
the target. See figure 6-12.

Also, on other forums I have seen soldiers from countries that issue bullpups say that this is a non-issue and is dealt with with proper training

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:12:07 AM EDT

[#29]

.

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:21:58 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate bullpups.

+1. They're ugly as hell and we'd be just like the French.

+2, they don't look very comfortable to fire and most don't allow us southpaws (

) to use them

Besides, the mag change on one of those has to be worse than the change on a stock AK. Not to mention manipulating the charging handle. Also, how the hell can you use a bullpup in hand to hand combat ? They're not shaped or sized ideally for bayonet combat. IMHO, the infantry rifle we need would be something like a cross between a M16/M4 and Galil (possibly a heavily modified AR18 ?) with optics similar to a G36, yet retaining the familliar gov't pattern iron sights (or perhaps folding backup-type sights) and preferably with more use of titanium and less use of polymers (plastic...

it's fine on a Glock, but not on a infantry rifle

). In short, not a whole lot different than we already have, just simpler, more reliable and more durable. If we're going to buy a foreign rifle, let it be something like the SIG 550/552 or FN FNC and like I said, I would still be happy with a Americanized version of the Galil. Oh, and I'd say make it straight semi-auto from day one, auto and burst fire really is a waste on a rifle (I know I'm going to get flamed for that

).

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:25:12 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

The question is, do we want something that requires the soldier to lug around a fire-control computer ? Think of all the logistical nightmares involved with that. Not to mention having to spend more time just to teach people how to play with the electronics as opposed to teaching marksmanship.

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:25:49 AM EDT

[#32]

I call BS on the TAVOR talk.

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:53:07 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

The question is, do we want something that requires the soldier to lug around a fire-control computer ? Think of all the logistical nightmares involved with that. Not to mention having to spend more time just to teach people how to play with the electronics as opposed to teaching marksmanship.

The fire control module is optional. Aimpoints and Eotechs are perfectly usable on the F2000.

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:57:34 AM EDT

[#34]

To me its really all academic as long as 5.56 is the caliber. Window dressing, because the M16/M4 works.

Personally, I think bullpups suck ass and I wouldnt want to be issued one, but I dont really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Posted: 11/3/2005 10:24:04 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
i say make the 16/m4 a piston upper"prefect the design if it needs it"

then go blended metal bullets or 6.8bmb and be done with it.....

cheaper than a new system

then start working on the next gen wepon system

The AR does not need a piston. It has gone 40+ years without one. We might as well make a direct impingment system for the AK, it makes about as much sense.

Blended metal is crock/lie/bullshit, Bulmer was outed and thrashed as a scam artist.

And what the hell do we need a new system for? Like Lumpy said, as long as the caliber is the same, WTF is the point of changing platforms?

The least expensive route would be to make loadings for the AR that are better suited for ~~ragheads~~insurgents, instead of shooting AP at them.

Posted: 11/3/2005 10:44:58 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

And adds a cases-jamming-in-the-ejection-chute problem. No thanks.

How much actual evidence is there of this supposed case jamming problem, and how much is hear-say and rumor.

I'm NOT trying to start a fight, I'm just curious if anyone is saying this based on actual tests, experience, etc. I don't know if the F2000 has ever been entered into any trials or anything, and if there even is hard data.

UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

tinypic.com/fasfpg.jpg
The UK's 'Tasters Choice' in the trials was the HK G36

ANdy

I've personaly witnessed an FN2000 jamming on the rifle line when brass became stuck in the chute.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:02:34 PM EDT

[#37]

I may have missed something but, What does Barrett have to do with the Tavor (TAR-21) and how does it effect us peons?

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:15:04 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I may have missed something but, What does Barrett have to do with the Tavor (TAR-21) and how does it effect us peons?

Barret has the rights to manufacture it in the US. They had prototypes (?) at the 2002 or 2003 SHOT show.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:18:39 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FN F2000 fixes the case ejection into southpaw face problem.

And adds a cases-jamming-in-the-ejection-chute problem. No thanks.

How much actual evidence is there of this supposed case jamming problem, and how much is hear-say and rumor.

I'm NOT trying to start a fight, I'm just curious if anyone is saying this based on actual tests, experience, etc. I don't know if the F2000 has ever been entered into any trials or anything, and if there even is hard data.

UK trailed it and rejected it for that reason… if you dive for the deck you can get shit pushed into the ejection port… not good.

tinypic.com/fasfpg.jpg
The UK's 'Tasters Choice' in the trials was the HK G36

ANdy

I've personaly witnessed an FN2000 jamming on the rifle line when brass became stuck in the chute.

Interesting - thanks!!

Maybe I'll wait a year after they come out before buying one - just to see if it really is a problem (especially just for semi)

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:27:21 PM EDT

[#40]

Oh God; anything but a bull-pup.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:27:30 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

and btw, i dont believe there has ever been anything negative said about the French FAMAS (unlike the earlier British SA80s).

+1...the FAMAS is the best thing about the French "army"...

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:32:33 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
I call BS on the TAVOR talk.

I think that's the only thing we've evr agreed on.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:35:08 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I may have missed something but, What does Barrett have to do with the Tavor (TAR-21) and how does it effect us peons?

Barret has the rights to manufacture it in the US. They had prototypes (?) at the 2002 or 2003 SHOT show.

www.gunblast.com/images/SHOT_Show_2002/Day2/Dsc00522.jpg

As a TA11 owner - I would think that scope would be very unpleasant to use mounted that far forward. Unless that is a modified model with x-treme eye relief it doesn’t look very practical.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:38:50 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
i say make the 16/m4 a piston upper"prefect the design if it needs it"

then go blended metal bullets or 6.8bmb and be done with it.....

cheaper than a new system

then start working on the next gen wepon system

The AR does not need a piston. It has gone 40+ years without one. We might as well make a direct impingment system for the AK, it makes about as much sense.

Blended metal is crock/lie/bullshit, Bulmer was outed and thrashed as a scam artist.

And what the hell do we need a new system for? Like Lumpy said, as long as the caliber is the same, WTF is the point of changing platforms?

The least expensive route would be to make loadings for the AR that are better suited for ~~ragheads~~insurgents, instead of shooting AP at them.

i never said new system just inprove the one we have now..........

which imho would be going to a piston system not replacing it just improving it...

the ak system is good why not use it??????????

then if they want dev a new one...................

blended metal bullets iam only going off of one recent article ive read

and it sounded very good but it WAS only one article.................

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:39:41 PM EDT

[#45]

I have held, but never fired a bull pup (joint training exercise with the French, it was the FAMAS. What an ugly fucking gun)

It appeared that one GREAT thing about bull pups is the ability to comfortably and (relatively) accuratly fire one-handed. With all the weight between the firing hand and shoulder, you can really do two things at once. The short over-all length would really help the terminal ballistics with the 62 grain 5.56 since we could easily go to a 20" barrel.
I like the M16 platform, but there are advantages to be had with a bull pup design.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:40:39 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Also, how the hell can you use a bullpup in hand to hand combat ? They're not shaped or sized ideally for bayonet combat.

A gun like the Famas just has a long bayonet. I'd post a pic, but I'd hate to violate the BOTD rules since the pics are of French chics...

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:46:25 PM EDT

[#47]

Bulpup + lefty = scar facehinking.gif

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:47:54 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may have missed something but, What does Barrett have to do with the Tavor (TAR-21) and how does it effect us peons?

Barret has the rights to manufacture it in the US. They had prototypes (?) at the 2002 or 2003 SHOT show.

www.gunblast.com/images/SHOT_Show_2002/Day2/Dsc00522.jpg

As a TA11 owner - I would think that scope would be very unpleasant to use mounted that far forward. Unless that is a modified model with x-treme eye relief it doesn’t look very practical.

Dude, hello?

That scope is mounted properly. Your face goes right behind it. The action is in the stock behind your head rather than under the scope.

Seen a bullpup much? Ever?

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:57:25 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
I call BS on the TAVOR talk.

+1

The military isn't going to be spending money on anything new, besides ammo, for a while.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:59:52 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may have missed something but, What does Barrett have to do with the Tavor (TAR-21) and how does it effect us peons?

Barret has the rights to manufacture it in the US. They had prototypes (?) at the 2002 or 2003 SHOT show.

www.gunblast.com/images/SHOT_Show_2002/Day2/Dsc00522.jpg

As a TA11 owner - I would think that scope would be very unpleasant to use mounted that far forward. Unless that is a modified model with x-treme eye relief it doesn’t look very practical.

Dude, hello?

That scope is mounted properly. Your face goes right behind it. The action is in the stock behind your head rather than under the scope.

Seen a bullpup much? Ever?

I think what he's talking about is the ACOG needs to be mounted further to the rear for proper eye relief.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - XM8 is dead! EDIT: as promised, here is the link! XM8 D-E-A-D! (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us