User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:26:40 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see where they said it was ambi but didn't show a video of a lefty shooting it. I'm sure it's a well built product but it just doesn't offer anything innovative at a price point that the average person would care about. The ejection system looks like an afterthought that does nothing but complicate the gun. It is one platform that can be a micro 5.56 or a 16" barreled 308 that only measures around 26" OAL. It is a bullpup with a forward mag release, a real hand guard, it doesn't need reconfigured for switching to left handed shots and it is even supposed to have a good trigger. If those things don't paint a picture of not only a next gen bullpup but a rifle that could be a next gen .mil general issue then you are lacking perspective on combat arms. This is not a rifle that is trying to compete in the market for budget barrel ar15 parts guns. Yeah he kinda lost me there on that part. It does represent quite a few improvements over the standard bullpup configuration, but next mil issue would be quite the reach. 
At any rate this is the only version that interests me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:28:57 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see where they said it was ambi but didn't show a video of a lefty shooting it. I'm sure it's a well built product but it just doesn't offer anything innovative at a price point that the average person would care about. The ejection system looks like an afterthought that does nothing but complicate the gun. It is one platform that can be a micro 5.56 or a 16" barreled 308 that only measures around 26" OAL. It is a bullpup with a forward mag release, a real hand guard, it doesn't need reconfigured for switching to left handed shots and it is even supposed to have a good trigger. If those things don't paint a picture of not only a next gen bullpup but a rifle that could be a next gen .mil general issue then you are lacking perspective on combat arms. This is not a rifle that is trying to compete in the market for budget barrel ar15 parts guns. The bullpup design is clearly not suitable for a general issue infantry weapon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:29:46 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah he kinda lost me there on that part. It does represent quite a few improvements over the standard bullpup configuration, but next mil issue would be quite the reach. At any rate this is the only version that interests me. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KcoN0r7rU3k/UtW-l4MBEkI/AAAAAAAAWM8/3tvWzunMXTI/s1600/2014-01-14+15.49.05.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see where they said it was ambi but didn't show a video of a lefty shooting it. I'm sure it's a well built product but it just doesn't offer anything innovative at a price point that the average person would care about. The ejection system looks like an afterthought that does nothing but complicate the gun. It is one platform that can be a micro 5.56 or a 16" barreled 308 that only measures around 26" OAL. It is a bullpup with a forward mag release, a real hand guard, it doesn't need reconfigured for switching to left handed shots and it is even supposed to have a good trigger. If those things don't paint a picture of not only a next gen bullpup but a rifle that could be a next gen .mil general issue then you are lacking perspective on combat arms. This is not a rifle that is trying to compete in the market for budget barrel ar15 parts guns. Yeah he kinda lost me there on that part. It does represent quite a few improvements over the standard bullpup configuration, but next mil issue would be quite the reach. At any rate this is the only version that interests me. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KcoN0r7rU3k/UtW-l4MBEkI/AAAAAAAAWM8/3tvWzunMXTI/s1600/2014-01-14+15.49.05.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:32:12 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can the charging handle be moved to the other side and where is the ejection port in relation to your face if you shoot it weak side for normal people and strong side for wrong handers? 
Looks like it can be swapped to the other side. I would guess you'd be resting your cheek on the ejection port cover(tooooobe). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:32:55 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bullpup design is clearly not suitable for a general issue infantry weapon. http://www.steyr-aug.com/AUG%20Austria%2009.jpg http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523191304/military/images/d/d5/Famas.jpg http://www.army-technology.com/uploads/feature/feature1163/3-sa80.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The bullpup design is clearly not suitable for a general issue infantry weapon. http://www.steyr-aug.com/AUG%20Austria%2009.jpg http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523191304/military/images/d/d5/Famas.jpg http://www.army-technology.com/uploads/feature/feature1163/3-sa80.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:34:14 AM EST
[#6]
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:38:49 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a gun that doesn't like water and can get parts melty, a gun that can't shoot brass cased ammo without breaking, and a gun that HK had to unfuck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bullpup design is clearly not suitable for a general issue infantry weapon. http://www.steyr-aug.com/AUG%20Austria%2009.jpg http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523191304/military/images/d/d5/Famas.jpg http://www.army-technology.com/uploads/feature/feature1163/3-sa80.jpg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:40:56 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
- and a gun that HK had to unfuck. But, but - I didn't post a pic of the HK 416? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:42:44 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS. Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:45:08 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The bullpup design is clearly not suitable for a general issue infantry weapon. http://www.steyr-aug.com/AUG%20Austria%2009.jpg http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100523191304/military/images/d/d5/Famas.jpg http://www.army-technology.com/uploads/feature/feature1163/3-sa80.jpg http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss83/ladder_19/TavorM203.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:48:38 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS. Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. -not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:58:40 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
-not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS. Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. -not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. I think you're right. Many arfcommers might lust after a finicky, Cold War-era rifle, but most shooters just want a good rifle. ARs are cheap, they work, and they have a huge aftermarket; there's simply not enough demand to justify a FAMAS or SA80. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 10:59:52 AM EST
[#13]
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 11:05:16 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
-not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS. Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. -not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. If I were an engineer worth my salt and I wanted to build a firearm for sale to the US public my options would be build something completely new, fix something that already exists which has no market presence or build more ARs in an already super-saturated market. Granted I'm glad we have SCARs, FS2000s, ACRs, RFBs, Tavors, etc but that seems like the most money and time invested to get a workable product to market. Then the market might be a bunch of arfcommers who hate on it without trying it and I'm assed out of years of research and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. I know there was talk of a US made Daewoo pending the left does not exhaust it's collective buttpipes all over the second amendment, I'm just surprised we don't see more people hitting the market with existing designs like PTR. I'd buy a new manufacture FAMAS and SA80 assuming it wasn't supported like the Microtech/Ratworx shit that went down. Granted Ratworx seems to be going above and beyond to make sure people get support in some cases. We may see civilian G36s here soon. If HK is already bringing those in why not also produce or import a fixed SA80? They did that with their line of SBS. Fabarms built them and HK imported and stamped HK on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 11:09:00 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 11:21:58 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bolt release is in a potentially awkward spot. The gun has to have parts swapped around to eject to the left instead of a bottom or true forward ejection system. The charging handle at least is non-reciprocating. If build quality was the same I'd rather have a Kel Tec RFB. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns. The design is supposed to reduce the need to have ejection on the left and it is intended to allow easier chamber access and quicker malfunction clearance than other forward or downward ejection systems. Those are both functional advantages over current bullpup systems. I don't think that you actually watched their full presentation that I linked to earlier because they explain most of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 11:26:41 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bolt release is in a potentially awkward spot. The gun has to have parts swapped around to eject to the left instead of a bottom or true forward ejection system. The charging handle at least is non-reciprocating. If build quality was the same I'd rather have a Kel Tec RFB. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns. The bolt release is the tab behind the magazine, it should be fine. That's one of the few things I like about the Tavor design. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 11:30:21 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something no doubt overpriced and bought by the truckload by the boutique gun crowd. Something like 2K msrp. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 11:31:33 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The design is supposed to reduce the need to have ejection on the left and it is intended to allow easier chamber access and quicker malfunction clearance than other forward or downward ejection systems. Those are both functional advantages over current bullpup systems. I don't think that you actually watched their full presentation that I linked to earlier because they explain most of this. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns. The design is supposed to reduce the need to have ejection on the left and it is intended to allow easier chamber access and quicker malfunction clearance than other forward or downward ejection systems. Those are both functional advantages over current bullpup systems. I don't think that you actually watched their full presentation that I linked to earlier because they explain most of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 12:01:28 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. I think what you are missing is that this bullpup DOES NOT contribute anything new or innovative to weapons design. A bullpup that is TRULY ambidextrous and has ACTUAL forward ejection (not side ejection with a forward trajectory), has already been developed by FN, and this"new" design is a step back from that, not forward. This design in fact appears to be little other than a traditional bullpup (little different from current offerings by Steyr, Tavor, etc.) that tries to claim to be fully ambidextrous with what seems to be little more than a fancy shell deflector.  As such, it doesn't appear to be a step forward in any way. My personal opinion is that it's simply a company that has seen the recent increase in popularity of bullpups in the U.S. market, and wants to get in on the action. That's excellent, and I commend them for adding one more product to the market. 
The only substantial innovation here seems to be the ability to swap barrels easily (which is very nice) - but that's not really something that most militaries want or have expressed a need for. Nor is the concept of swapping barrels/calibers anything new. I have an automatic rifle in my safe that can do that, which was designed in the late 1800s. 
Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns. Alternatively, ARFCOM have also have people who have been interested in bullpups for decades, and have followed the development of them - and just do not see anything really ground-breaking about this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 1:21:59 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think what you are missing is that this bullpup DOES NOT contribute anything new or innovative to weapons design. A bullpup that is TRULY ambidextrous and has ACTUAL forward ejection (not side ejection with a forward trajectory), has already been developed by FN, and this"new" design is a step back from that, not forward. This design in fact appears to be little other than a traditional bullpup (little different from current offerings by Steyr, Tavor, etc.) that tries to claim to be fully ambidextrous with what seems to be little more than a fancy shell deflector. As such, it doesn't appear to be a step forward in any way. My personal opinion is that it's simply a company that has seen the recent increase in popularity of bullpups in the U.S. market, and wants to get in on the action. That's excellent, and I commend them for adding one more product to the market.
The only substantial innovation here seems to be the ability to swap barrels easily (which is very nice) - but that's not really something that most militaries want or have expressed a need for. Nor is the concept of swapping barrels/calibers anything new. I have an automatic rifle in my safe that can do that, which was designed in the late 1800s.
. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. I think what you are missing is that this bullpup DOES NOT contribute anything new or innovative to weapons design. A bullpup that is TRULY ambidextrous and has ACTUAL forward ejection (not side ejection with a forward trajectory), has already been developed by FN, and this"new" design is a step back from that, not forward. This design in fact appears to be little other than a traditional bullpup (little different from current offerings by Steyr, Tavor, etc.) that tries to claim to be fully ambidextrous with what seems to be little more than a fancy shell deflector. As such, it doesn't appear to be a step forward in any way. My personal opinion is that it's simply a company that has seen the recent increase in popularity of bullpups in the U.S. market, and wants to get in on the action. That's excellent, and I commend them for adding one more product to the market.
The only substantial innovation here seems to be the ability to swap barrels easily (which is very nice) - but that's not really something that most militaries want or have expressed a need for. Nor is the concept of swapping barrels/calibers anything new. I have an automatic rifle in my safe that can do that, which was designed in the late 1800s.
. The DTA is a IWI X-95 Tavor. The only thing new is the plate that forces the empties more forward. All the controls except the CH are in the X-95's positions. That's not a bad thing since IWI's timetable for bringing the X-95 here is " maybe someday ". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 1:25:59 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alternatively, ARFCOM have also have people who have been interested in bullpups for decades, and have followed the development of them - and just do not see anything really ground-breaking about this one. I would disagree with you on one point. It is the most compact bullpup 5.56 to date with the SBR option. It's roughly the size of a P90 which is why it has my interest. The only other example I can think of is the mythical Magpul PDR. All the other existing bullpups are limited by their gas systems/stock design from being made smaller. Even the X95 has a 13" barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 1:36:18 PM EST
[#23]
A company could display a phased plasma rifle in the 40kw range and arfcom would be talking about how it isn't an improvement over the musket. I would explain it again for the third or fourth time but seeing as the company themselves put on a very good presentation I think that the whole 'lead a horse to water' adage applies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 2:40:57 PM EST
[#24]
2450 for the .308 model
Would really like to see some perforamance at that price. THat puts it in the Larue Predator or Gap 10 territory. Which is fine . . . so long as it can put up similar groups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 4:45:04 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A company could display a phased plasma rifle in the 40kw range and arfcom would be talking about how it isn't an improvement over the musket. I would explain it again for the third or fourth time but seeing as the company themselves put on a very good presentation I think that the whole 'lead a horse to water' adage applies. Except this isn't an improvement. Its a tube. In anything but perfect head position that tube is going to put brass into your face, then the rifle will jam, then you have to do a complex series of tube pushes to get to the ejection part. Thats doesn't make it a laser gun, it makes it a Rube Goldberg machine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 5:08:28 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A company could display a phased plasma rifle in the 40kw range and arfcom would be talking about how it isn't an improvement over the musket. I would explain it again for the third or fourth time but seeing as the company themselves put on a very good presentation I think that the whole 'lead a horse to water' adage applies. 
So, you'll just stubbornly ignore all the facts that have been presented? Okay then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 5:18:34 PM EST
[#27]
Looks cool. I'm slightly worried about ejection issues and how crisp a trigger they can get on a bulpup though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 5:25:20 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks cool. I'm slightly worried about ejection issues and how crisp a trigger they can get on a bulpup though. Their bolt action seems to have a decent trigger. As a toy, this could be fun. It's resolved a lot of the concerns I had with my FS2000 and other bullpups (impossible to clear malfunctions in reasonable time, awkward mag release, bad trigger). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 5:34:57 PM EST
[#29]
I'd like to play with one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 5:43:10 PM EST
[#30]
looks strangely similar to the polish MSBS.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_MSBS-556-II_01.jpg https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5vGbz1piGhh58AkEYKEMMy3AOn5_XUga3GqZnqnhqJcaeFe-Hr0jmpBtw |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 5:46:04 PM EST
[#31]
Looks like something out of HALO. Itll be a big seller if Call of Duty picks it up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 6:03:09 PM EST
[#32]
I'm somewhat of a bullpup aficionado.
If Steyr would figure out a way to lop a pound off the AUG, put a bolt release on an AUG NATO stock, and kidnap Bill Geissele for a month or so, other companies could stop bothering to design new bullpups. Perfection would already exist. The biggest thing this design does for me is the weight. Looks to be squarely in SCARish range. If these guys actually deliver on the caliber kits, then you might color me interested. As it stands, I'm a bit miffed about IWI canceling the 5.45 kits for the Tavor, so my vaporware filter is currently active. You may now return to your browsing; I'm going to the gym to do some curls so I can lug my AUG around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 8:19:59 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you're right. Many arfcommers might lust after a finicky, Cold War-era rifle, but most shooters just want a good rifle. ARs are cheap, they work, and they have a huge aftermarket; there's simply not enough demand to justify a FAMAS or SA80. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS. Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. -not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. I think you're right. Many arfcommers might lust after a finicky, Cold War-era rifle, but most shooters just want a good rifle. ARs are cheap, they work, and they have a huge aftermarket; there's simply not enough demand to justify a FAMAS or SA80. No, there's just no demand for those types of rifles at $2000+ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 8:25:04 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think what you are missing is that this bullpup DOES NOT contribute anything new or innovative to weapons design. A bullpup that is TRULY ambidextrous and has ACTUAL forward ejection (not side ejection with a forward trajectory), has already been developed by FN, and this"new" design is a step back from that, not forward. This design in fact appears to be little other than a traditional bullpup (little different from current offerings by Steyr, Tavor, etc.) that tries to claim to be fully ambidextrous with what seems to be little more than a fancy shell deflector. As such, it doesn't appear to be a step forward in any way. My personal opinion is that it's simply a company that has seen the recent increase in popularity of bullpups in the U.S. market, and wants to get in on the action. That's excellent, and I commend them for adding one more product to the market.
The only substantial innovation here seems to be the ability to swap barrels easily (which is very nice) - but that's not really something that most militaries want or have expressed a need for. Nor is the concept of swapping barrels/calibers anything new. I have an automatic rifle in my safe that can do that, which was designed in the late 1800s.
Alternatively, ARFCOM have also have people who have been interested in bullpups for decades, and have followed the development of them - and just do not see anything really ground-breaking about this one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't say that it would be our next .mil issue but if it is able to achieve its goals and the call arises then it could be. To write this rifle off at this point is very foolish and I am sure that most rifle companies have been paying attention to this design. I think what you are missing is that this bullpup DOES NOT contribute anything new or innovative to weapons design. A bullpup that is TRULY ambidextrous and has ACTUAL forward ejection (not side ejection with a forward trajectory), has already been developed by FN, and this"new" design is a step back from that, not forward. This design in fact appears to be little other than a traditional bullpup (little different from current offerings by Steyr, Tavor, etc.) that tries to claim to be fully ambidextrous with what seems to be little more than a fancy shell deflector. As such, it doesn't appear to be a step forward in any way. My personal opinion is that it's simply a company that has seen the recent increase in popularity of bullpups in the U.S. market, and wants to get in on the action. That's excellent, and I commend them for adding one more product to the market.
The only substantial innovation here seems to be the ability to swap barrels easily (which is very nice) - but that's not really something that most militaries want or have expressed a need for. Nor is the concept of swapping barrels/calibers anything new. I have an automatic rifle in my safe that can do that, which was designed in the late 1800s.
Arfcom GD is ironically comprised of many people who have the same mentality as those who tried to sabotage the M16 during testing because they couldn't see the possibilities through their bias, fears, and concerns. Alternatively, ARFCOM have also have people who have been interested in bullpups for decades, and have followed the development of them - and just do not see anything really ground-breaking about this one. Which other bullpups have the magazine release up front where you can hit it with your trigger finger without removing your strong hand from the pistol grip? (and are available in the US civilian market) Sure, this new bullpup is not some new whizbang tech that doesn't do anything some other rifle does... but it does a lot of things that other rifles do individually (ACR does barrel swaps, FS2000 does forward ejection, RFB does forward ejection, soem other rifle does ambidexterous charging, etc) all in ONE package. Semi-forward eject (good for us Righties that may need to shoot lefty in a pinch) Easy to use magazine release and safety that are near identical in location to a common platform Easy conversion to other calibers and/or barrel lengths Is it perfect? No. Is it pretty damn good? Yes. Too many let the perfect be the enemy of the good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 8:43:57 PM EST
[#35]
this thread is fucking gross
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 3:32:32 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, there's just no demand for those types of rifles at $2000+ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damnit, bullpup companies... Make me a goddamn FAMAS. Wikipedia says that they were designed in the late 60s and early 70s. Any patent should be expired but I wonder if France or nexter has some sort of legal ownership over the design preventing a copy. Considering how nutty the laws are in France surrounding guns, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed some sort of super patent that never expired. God knows if they could enforce it here but I wouldn't want to be the one that tested the waters. -not sure patents are the issue. Rather, there might be little demand for a U.S. copy of either the FAMAS or the SA80 since the FAMAS and the pre-update SA80 were known to break if used with the 5.56 NATO ammo we issue for the M4 and M16. Instead, both guns were once issue with reduced-power loadings to account for this weakness. The Tavor, the Aug & its copies, and our M4 (not a bullpup of course) never experienced this problem. I think you're right. Many arfcommers might lust after a finicky, Cold War-era rifle, but most shooters just want a good rifle. ARs are cheap, they work, and they have a huge aftermarket; there's simply not enough demand to justify a FAMAS or SA80. No, there's just no demand for those types of rifles at $2000+ Which is precisely what they would cost once someone has opened a US production line for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 7:28:03 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Is it perfect? No. Is it pretty damn good? Yes. Too many let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Tell that to their price tag.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
