Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8
File: famas3.jpg (31KB, 585x334px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 585x334px
Is there anything inherently wrong with the bullpup design? Nofuns here, as a military weapon, it seems that the bullpup design as failing, with the FAMAS and the SA80 both being replaced. Is it the fault of those designs individually or is there a general flaw in the bullpup design? The only successful one i can think of is the AUG.
>>
The trigger. I bought an Aug and loved it, but in comparison to a sbr'd ar, it just didn't hold up. I ended up selling it because I'm in commiefornia and I made 800$ profit off selling the gun due to the upcoming salt waffile laws.
>>
>>31533290
>Inherently wrong
No. Individual designs have their own unique limitations, but every firearm has a compromise of some sort in the design. The only thing "wrong" with bullpups is their relative lack of modularity and aftermarket, especially when compared to the AR. But when making such a comparison, we would do well to remember that the AR we know today wasn't a thing 15 years ago. You had little in the way of aftermarket options and prices were about 3x what they are now for decent ARs (1200ish for something not garbage).
>>
File: famas11.jpg (699KB, 1024x681px) Image search:
[Google]
699KB, 1024x681px
>>31533318
Whats wrong with the trigger? Im asking more along the lines of bullpups as service rifles, few armies seem interested in the bullpup design.
>>
File: L85A3 with UGL.jpg (84KB, 750x500px) Image search:
[Google]
84KB, 750x500px
>>31533290
>with the FAMAS and the SA80 both being replaced.
SA80 system isn't up for replacement for almost another decade. What will replace it is a complete unknown. So no, it's not fair to say that it's "bullpups being replaced".
Hell, they're still modifying them into A3.
>>
>>31533449
I could have sworn i read somewhere that the SA80 is getting the boot, anyway isn't the SA shite?
>>
>>31533603
No and no.
>>
File: SA80 A2 L85a2IW L86A2 LSW Reliability.jpg (34KB, 610x144px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 610x144px
>>31533449
>Hell, they're still modifying them into A3
Wrong.
Its marking the difference between upgraded A1s and Newly fabricated receivers.
A2 is obviously upgraded a1.
A3 Is new fabrication from HK
Its a New RAS thats not even liked by the people testing it.
>>31533603
Even more wrong.
See chart. Rifles get a full service every 10,000 rounds, meaning they may never malfunction.
they're also accurate out to 600m. 800 with the LSW
>>
>>31533669
>>31533691
Well, thanks for clearing that up. So they are accurate and reliable?
>>
>>31533802
Very. Only heard of a malfunction. Never seen one in 8 years service.
>>
File: FS2000 Trigger.webm (2MB, 960x540px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 960x540px
BULLPUP BEST PUP
>>
>>31533691
>A3 Is new fabrication from HK
I thought the A3 bodies were still refurbs (from LSWs judging by the holes where the heatshield can be bolted on)
And the main difference was that they strengthened the area where the breach-block is welded to the outer metalwork (the additional C-shaped welds in front of the ejection port)
Pic related is clearly not an entirely new body, but is stamped A3
>>
>>31534123
That looks to be an L98. In which case they're stamped a3 because they're A3 TMH but A2 reciever.
Its because they needed an entirely new gas system from being an A1.
L98 indicator are the mall cicular rings from where the old single shot straight pull mechanism used to be.
>>
>>31534177
Cadet GPs were drilled in a different spot m8
LSW has those circular holes for bolting the bipod outrigger to the body
The A3 pic I posted before has L85A2 marked on the TMH anyway, rather than L98A1/2. So is select fire whatever it is.
>>
File: 98vs86.jpg (581KB, 1024x768px) Image search:
[Google]
581KB, 1024x768px
>>31534290
Forgot my pic after spending 9000 hrs in MS Paint
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8