You have just inherited a large sum of money after discovering

An M2 that takes PMAGs.

>>32941231
Pistols have reached their peak
Have been for a while

Rifles though
Bullpup is the future
Fund a perfect bullpup
The design is objectively better

Man portable railgun.

>>32941268
http://anarchangel.blogspot.ca/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html?m=1

File: RSbenelli_071712A-1.jpg (37KB, 615x295px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 615x295px

I think the future would be in recoil absorbtion systems that could make larger/more powerful caliberas more suitable for hand held small arms. Imagine if a squad had a guy that could fire a 20mm cannon the way one fires a SAW or an M240.

For the Civillian Market, I'd design a crossbreed between a scout rifle and a battle rifle that was a lightweight rifle that can fire .308 in semi auto for both long and short range engagements. It would have the aesthetic of the Benelli MR1, cyberpunk/fudd mashup, but with less retarded internals.

Put a quad rail, bayonet mounting and telescoping buttstock on the m2

>>32941231
Freaking laser beams man!

>>32941302
Most of these are "Not regular rifle"
Some are legit, like a failure exploding near your face
But shit like "It's gonna be pounds heavier to have a narrow rod extend before the trigger"
A bullpup is not heavier because the trigger is above the firing mechanism.

I've forgotten most of it now
But it's all "Not muh"

Shit like "It's not intuitive"
Nigger, having the round fire closer to your shoulder is even more intuitive

It's all "Change is scary because I have autism"

>>32941268
do a reload while retaining old mag without taking kill hand off kill switch

>>32941302
>tired arguments the blog

>>32941367

recoil is not the issue, weight is

>>32941402
I hold the old mag with my pinky and ring, so what?

File: AK-107.jpg (32KB, 880x283px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 880x283px

>>32941231
I'd make an American AK that isn't shit.

File: trevor-moore-washington.webm (133KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1280x720px

>>32941302
>caseless ammmo loaded in 1000 round blocks

>>32941395
Have bullpups developed to the point where you would say they're better as service rifles than their competition?

>>32941601
Of course not.

File: Lord and savior.jpg (132KB, 470x311px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 470x311px

>>32941231
you can't improve perfection

Caseless is a shit meme that many people way smarter than any of us have said isn't feasible. Rifle technology isn't going anywhere, gas piston rifles are as good as it gets. Pistols are still shit though. In every way a rifle or carbine is more effective in combat, and until we reach the point where this isn't the case there are developments to be made. My vote is for grip technologies that better absorb recoil, ammunition indicator holes/slots cut into the grip, safety systems that aren't unsafe like Glocks or slow and clumsy like everything else, anything besides a tilting barrel to lower the bore axis, better out of the box sight arrangement than 3 dot, and improvements to automatic/gas sealing revolvers.

File: SamuelColt[1].jpg (11KB, 250x361px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x361px

>>32941231
>become the second greatest gun designer to ever live
But why would Mr. Browning want me to dethrone him?

>>32941865
>Caseless is a shit meme that many people way smarter than any of us have said isn't feasible.

>1935
>Space exploration is a shit meme that many people way smarter than any of us have said isn't feasible

>>32941395
the question is 'is it any better?'

No, it's kind of shorter with kind of better ballistics but better bullets solves that and ease of fixing catastrophic malfunction pretty much seals the deal.

Bullpups aren't the future, they're a side note.

>>32943136
>the space race is the same as physical limitations of propellants
Telescopic ammo is the closest we're getting and that's maybe 30 years off.

>>32943194
Holy fuck you LITERALLY could not have picked a worse analogy.

>>32941231

create the hcar

o w8

>>32943200
Chemistry isn't magic, if it will burn cleanly, seal, not degrade over time, be as strong as brass and not require a mountain of garbage to be carried to reload they would have made it by now.

Or if they did it is not profitable and not enough of an improvement to warrant switching over everything to make autists like you happy.

>>32943136

m8 the big issue with caseless is overheating, alot of the heat is retained in the brass case

if they can make a caseless round that can propel a 55-155 grain bullet using lower temperatures thatd be pretty cool. pun intended

>>32943248
>they would have made it by now.
Great, so you have no understanding of chemistry.

Protip, people wanted to make rockets for fucking forever, but they didn't have the PROPELLANTS needed to make it happen. They were too heavy, unstable, and didn't produce enough force. That's why your analogy was hilarious.

Caseless has problems, for sure, and I doubt they're going to be overcome for awhile. If you want to be as influential as Browning though, you're going to have to innovate at that level. The issue is, as it stands now, firearms are actually really simple. It's like trying to innovate an axe, we've pretty much hit a dead end. Yeah, you could make it out of some space age alloys and shit to make the coolest fucking axe out there, but it would only cut wood marginally better, and cost a shitton more. That last part is the biggest problem. It isn't that the G11 was bad, or even ineffective, it's just that it wasn't cost effective to produce when it was essentially a sidegrade.

>tfw you're dating a girl who is a descendent of Browning, but the part of the family that didn't get any money

buy a few more glocks and several AR's

>>32943388
Is her last name Browning at least?

One of the few situations in which taking the wife's last name is okay, on this board almost mandatory.

make a decent gyrojet
>have multi-stage round
>case has gunpowder to force gyrojet projectile at a decent speed once it's out of the (rifled) barrel
>after that time, charge in the projectile kicks in
>projectile acts as normal, fast as shit boolet at that point
>make nozzle tracks attached to hollowpoints so when they strike a target it forces the projectile to whip in at an angle and fuck more shit up
or
>gun that fires a 2-part flammable chemical gas
(chlorine gas that burns) with three barrels, one that fires an inert base, one that fires an inert catalyst which make a deadly gas when mixed (barrels are simultaneously fired or fired manually) and one that fires incendiaries to light the gas off.

A lot of things seem impossible in the present day. Until it becomes a reality in the future. What that could be though I have no idea. Who knows what could change in 50 years.

>>32943325
That's pretty much what I'm saying, there are no more mechanical problems to fix and the solution to rocketry was to abandon solid propellants and go to the after the first stages because chemistry has limitations regarding weight/ thrust

Next step is probably better projectiles and propellant which they are already doing.

There is no way I can be a descendant of Browning since I have no relatives in the US.

>>32943413
this
the guy who created the first clock capable of keeping time accurately enough to allow ships to locate themselves at sea spend 32 years working on it

it just takes one man to come along and do it

>>32943444
>it just takes one man to come along and do it
No, science is a work of society. That one man built off a shitload of other things, math, materials, basic needs, etc.

>If I see farther it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants.

It's not that it is impossible to contribute, or to contribute in a way unique to yourself, but it's incorrect to say you did anything on your own.

>>32943456
oh fuck off with that self hating bullshit, if you did something alone you did it on your own

File: 1409728291132.jpg (214KB, 815x419px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 815x419px

>>32943474
It's the exact opposite of self hating. Even if you live at the absolute bottom rungs of society, pumping gas or whatever, you are helping the machine work. You might be a tiny gear in the machine, and there might be way more important mechanism that make it run, but it only runs because every little piece does its part. Everything that is accomplished by the society you are a part of, you helped with, even if it was only in some tiny insignificant way.

Its also comforting to know that the world you live in was sculpted by people who will never know you personally, people who may have lived hundreds or thousands of years ago, but worked to make the future better than the present. And, that some day, someone sometime in the future will think back to all the people that came before him, that worked to get him to where he is today, and that you will be one of those people.

File: garage gun logo.png (153KB, 545x600px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 545x600px

>Any ideas /k/?
I'd start up a publishing house to fill in the gaps of what's already out there, and come up with open-source weapons and tooling designs.

I'd produce videos like the American Gunsmithing Institute videos, try to fill in some of the gaps in the basic stuff they've done.

I'd commission a complete hobby metalwork/machinist course of books, a practical series which is pretty formulaic, and an accompanying optional theory series which goes over design choices and physics, metallurgy and other shit.

Basically, I'd make Garage Guns Greata 'Gain!

>>32941367
Larger round = more weight

File: 1375305_10151887885915279_1305996981_n.jpg (5KB, 77x152px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 77x152px

>>32941302
>it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod

Why would this be the case?

File: 1475833741422.jpg (90KB, 1000x784px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1000x784px

>>32941302
Bullpups have a weight advantage as well as length advantage though, i mean think about it, going from a conventional weapon to a bullpup you remove the stock completely and only add a trigger linkage system therefore saving in weight.

>>32943194
>30 years
yeah nah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun

>>32945242
And the disadvantages still outweigh the advantages.

File: a thinking bat.jpg (12KB, 270x186px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 270x186px

>>32945264
Your post is not in any way related to my post, why did you reply to my post with a post such as that one?

>>32941231
Develop a better dielectric medium for capacitors, so that we can maybe have handheld railguns

>>32941402
The X95 and I'm pretty sure the AUG both say Hi

Better materials and steel manufacturing would result in a stronger, lighter, more corrosion resistant gun.


Perhaps I could work on a recoilless hunting rifle of some sort. That seems doable.

File: 640px-Figure418_Sliding-wedge_breechblock_operation.png (18KB, 640x196px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 640x196px

Okay, okay, hear me out, semi-automatic sliding breechblock rifles, you heard it here first folks, it's the future.

>>32945264
Care to explain the disadvantages?

>>32943250
Just stick a heatsink on the gun.

>>32946048
But heatsink=more weight on the gun. Do you want to have a heavier gun?

>>32945242
So why have literally all bullpups ever invented weighed more than a comparable traditional rifle?
>Colt M4 weight: 6.36lbs
Versus
>FN F2000 weight: 7.5lbs
>AUG A3 weight: 7.9lbs
>IWI Tavor Tar21 weight: 7.21lbs
>IWI Tavor X95 weight: 7.3lbs
>Norinco QBU-88 weight: 9.0lbs
>Norinco QBZ-95 weight: 7.2lbs
Inb4 "but all of those are offered with shorter barrels that would reduce weight!"
So is an AR15, the Colt M4 specifically, or the M4A1 CQBR.

>>32946210
because those are all chunky, steel-bodied guns that are still larger than an M4

>>32941601
Not even remotely.

The criteria of a service rifle are handily met with traditional carbines. The extra barrel length compared to OAL of a bullpup isn't necessary, and they weigh (usually significantly) more. With weight being the #2 priority after "does it fire bullets?", that is 100% a deal breaker.

>>32946210
Could you add barrel length to that comparison please? And maybe give us the weight and barrel length of an M16A4 while you're at it.

>>32946228
>because those are all chunky, steel-bodied guns
Literally none of them have a steel receiver, they're all polymer and aluminum.

All but the QBU-88 has a shorter OAL in its "rifle" configuration than an M4.

Find me a bullpup that isn't chunky. They literally have never existed.

>>32946264
No, because all of those have a bajillion different variants and it'd be a wall of text nobody would read. I will however compare the shortest-barreled variant to the 14.5" Colt M4 though. Gimme a minute.

>>32945771
Automatic falling block? Could be very strong and cheap, but wouldn't you need a magazine within the buttstock to feed rounds in?

When comparing bullpups with the shortest barrels you end up with:
>Colt M4 weight: 6.36lbs
14.5" barrel, 29.75" OAL collapsed

Vs.
>QBZ-95 carbine, 6.4lb
14.5" barrel, 24.0" OAL
>FN F2000 Tactical, 7.5lb
16" barrel, 27.1" OAL (yes this is the shortest barrel made for it)
>Steyr AUG subcarbine, 7.1lb
13.8" barrel, OAL 24.8"
>IWI Tavor MTAR-21, 6.5lb
13.0" barrel, OAL 23.2"
>IWI Tavor X95 (micro Tavor) SMG, 7.1lb
13.0" barrel, OAL 22.8"
>Norinco QBU-88, only 1 variant made, 9.0lb
25.2" barrel, 36.2" OAL (it's a DMR)
>Sterling L22A1, 9.7lb
17.4" barrel, OAL 27.9" (yes this is the most compact rifle in the SA80/L85 family)
>MAS FAMAS G2 SMG, 8.4lb
12.6" barrel, unlisted OAL
>HS Produkt VHS-K, 7.3lb
16.1" barrel, OAL 26.2"
>Tula OTS-14 Groza-4, 7.93lb (3.6kg)
9.45" (240mm) barrel, 19.7"(500mm) OAL (this is a phattt bitch)

Literally none of them are lighter than a standard M4, although a couple (QBZ95, the discontinued MTAR) come close.

All weights listed are unloaded with no optics or accessories.

Let me know if I missed any bullpups that made it out of experimental stage.

>>32945771
Im inclined to agree honestly. Something like that with a p90 style mag could be powerful, lightweight and compact.

>>32946406
Also, just to rustle some more jimmies here,
>M4A1 CQBR, 6.00lb
10.3" barrel, 26.75" OAL collapsed

>>32945771
>>32946408
The only real problem I can see with that would be extraction, since you'd need an extractor to jump the rim every shot.

Traditionally, falling-block rifles were extracted by hand on a rimmed round. Obviously, rimmed rounds would be counterintuitive in a semi or fully automatic rifle. It could certainly be done but it wouldn't be as reliable as an extractor that doesn't have to jump the rim, and would wear extremely rapidly.

>>32941865
>safety systems that aren't unsafe like Glocks
It shoots only when you pull the trigger, it's as safe as it gets.

Glock safety is not supposed to prevent you from using the gun, what's even the point in that? It's supposed to prevent any object that isn't shaped like a finger from accidently pulling it, mainly from catching on clothing or dropping it.

You can't protect people from their own stupidity.

>>32943248
>not degrade over time
Sounds like magic to me.

>>32946264
See
>>32946406
because I'm an idiot that forgot to link anyone.

And,
>M16A4, 7.5lb in issued configuration with KAC 600m micro BUIS and M5 RAS, 7.18lb with optional A2 ribbed handguards and A2 carry handle
20" barrel, OAL 39.5"

>>32946452
Except there are literally thousands of verified times something other than a finger (specifically holster edges and clothing) have successfully fired a Glock.

>>32943474
> if you did something alone you did it on your own
You are always using the knowledge and inventions of previous generations.

>>32946210
My argument was that keeping everything else the same by chopping off the stock and adding trigger linkage you reduce weight.

Now here you go off saying the obvious, of fucking course a carbine is lighter than a rifle.

>>32946487
Never said it's flawless, if the clothing/edge gets deep enough to depress the safety lever it's obviously going to shoot. My point is it will not fire in situations other handguns would.

Also, if there are "literally thousands of verified times" could you provide like a 100? Maybe at least 10?

>>32946518
See
>>32946406
and stfu

>>32946518
If that worked, why has literally nobody done it other than that one experimental Springfield that weighed 3x as much as a regular Springfield because they made the (solid walnut) stock like 2 feet wide?

>>32946527
Name one other quality pistol (yes this specifically excludes kel tec and the Nambu) that will fire without the trigger being pulled.

>>32946443
Create a track along the front face of the breech block that the rim of the cartridge can ride in. When the breech block is falling, there could be some way to extract it.

>>32946573
That's similar to how rolling blocks work, which would be a viable option. I really don't see how something moving perpendicular to the bore could extract something from the bore.

>>32946585
Idk I'm really high right now. Add more springs and magnets.

>>32946568
>Name one other quality pistol (yes this specifically excludes kel tec and the Nambu) that will fire without the trigger being pulled.
This is not what I meant.

I meant that glock will not fire if the clothing/holster edge/etc. gets deep enough to pull the trigger but not deep enough to depress the safety lever. Meanwhile, any other handgun would fire in this situations.

Now, where are my 100/10 examples?

>>32946568
scroll up a bit and you find this
>>32945242

>>32946554
That list has the m4 carbine weight without the magazine and many of the bullpup designs with either wrong weights or ones which include the magazine.

File: Capture.png (159KB, 959x932px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 959x932px

>>32946603
So basically what you're saying is
>of course the Glock will fire if the trigger is pulled
Which make sense, seeing as how all pistols are *supposed* to do this regardless of make, but
>yeah they totally won't fire if by some miracle whatever's attempting to pull the trigger misses the vast majority of the trigger and only catches this tiny, 3/64" wide ledge on the very edge of it
which is kinda disingenuous.

Meanwhile you have:
>literally thousands of unique designs with manual safeties that would require significant user error to fire unintentionally (yes having the safety off when not on target is significant user error), and about a dozen unique designs that have a grip safety that requires the pistol to be held a certain way.

Also, pic related
>half a million results for "holster firing a Glock"
Pretty sure there's at least 100 separate verified incidents in there.

>>32946629
That pic is the QBZ-95. Which I included in my workup. Guess what? It's still heavier in its shortest/lightest configuration than a run of the mill M4 and almost a pound heavier than an M4 CQBR.

All of those weights were taken off Wikipedia and are supposed to be without magazine or non-integrated optic. Also literally no magazine weighs over a full pound empty.

Start refuting fuckwad, provide sources. You are literally wrong on all accounts.

>>32946406
>>32946477
Thanks for the data, you beat me in my furious search. Now, I agree with you that bullpups are heavier than a conventionnal assault rifle, but, for the rifles of similar barrel length to the M4 you sometime get really close results, where the delta of weight is maybe forgiveable, if you take account of the delta of OAL. Except for the Groza-4, but this one fires a fatter cartridge that needs a fatter barrel and gun to handle.

>>32946663
>That pic is of the QBZ-95
Fuck me, not it's not, it's an AK in a bullpup kit.

And how much does it weigh then? Cuz AK's aren't exactly known for being light.

>>32946663
That pic is not the QBZ-95 it is the NORINCO Type 86s.

>no magazine weighs over a full pound empty

I was talking about loaded magazines.

http://modernfirearms.net/assault/ch/type-6s-e.html

3.56kg

http://modernfirearms.net/assault/ch/type-56-e.html

3.80kg

>>32946644
>which is kinda disingenuous.
It's not disingenuous at all. The safety lever takes about 1/3rd of the whole trigger, so any part of clothing/holster edge/etc. that accidentally gets into the trigger guard wil lhave to be at least sligthly longer than 1/3rd of the trigger, which is not necessarily the case.

>half a million results for "holster firing a Glock"
Most of the cases of user shooting himself while drawing/holstering is due to him putting his finger on the trigger either too soon, while drawing but before pointing the firearm in the safe direction, or for no reason at all while holstering.

In any of those cases pistols with a manual/grip safety would shoot as well.

>>32946711
>Except for the Groza-4, but this one fires a fatter cartridge that needs a fatter barrel and gun to handle.
I think that has more to do with being Russian and thus being made out of the cheapest stamped steel they could find instead of having any consideration towards weight.

I personally see bullpups being situationally very good due to the potentially miniscule OAL but ultimately a poor choice for a standard issue infantry rifle, and a worse choice for a civilian sporting/defensive rifle. This will remain true until they fix the 2 biggest complaints with them, being weight and shit-tier triggers (the Super Sabra trigger for the Tavor gets close though, there may be breakthroughs with rifles like the RDB and MDR if they ever make it to market in quantities significant enough to warrant an aftermarket).

And as I said earlier, priority #2 for an infantry rifle is weight. It falls closely and solidly behind "does it shoot bullets?".

I don't particularly consider an average of a pound additional weight being a valid tradeoff for an average of 3.5" shorter OAL, especially when you consider all the not-AR traditional carbines that can be fired with a folding stock folded.

Just as a thought experiment:
>Sig MCX, 6.0lb with 16" barrel (or 5.8lb with 9" barrel), OAL 29.0" unfolded+collapsed or 20.75" folded for 16" barrel model.

>>32946801
>I was talking about loaded magazines
Which is completely irrelevant as all weights I gave are empty guns with no magazine.

>norinco type 86s
>3.53kg empty
>3.53kg equals 7.782318 pounds
You're not helping your argument of "bullpups have a weight advantage"

>>32946406
>Tula OTS-14 Groza-4, 7.93lb (3.6kg)
>9.45" (240mm) barrel, 19.7"(500mm) OAL (this is a phattt bitch)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTs-14_Groza

OTs-14-4A-01 and OTs-14-4A-02 weigh 2,7kg
OTs-14-4A and OTs-14-4A-03 weigh 3,6kg

500mm OAL version is the OTs-14-4A-02 therefore its weight is not 3,6kg like your post claimed but 2,7kg.

>>32946880
Wow you are so fucking stupid it hurts

>>32941402
Just develop a magazine catch with a backwards version of the AK catch so the rock-tilt can be performed towards the body.

>>32946880
Ah, whoops. That was a clusterfuck of info though, I really hate Russian naming conventions.

>2.7kg=5.95lb
better, and more in line with what I'd expect from a 9" barreled "rifle".

>>32946876
My argument is that by removing the stock and adding trigger linkage you reduce weight, my argument is nothing more and nothing less.

>>32946892
???

>>32946880
All the Grosa -4's have the 9.45" barrel, including the -4A and -4A-03. He wasn't wrong but he did miss a lighter model.

And I agree with >>32946930
in that the wikipedia page has all the info in a dumb format.

>>32943248
All of this would also need to be less expensive than Brass to be logostically possible.

Modularity like what we're seeing out of the P320 (though to a much larger degree) is the future of service weapons. Electrochemical propellants are way off and telescoping ammo doesn't give the average squad much use.
Also developments in exoskeletal rigs to provide extra mobility and upper weight limits, though it's largely tertiary to weapons development; I expect to see a lot of use of these for EOD/Rescue usage mainly, but there are concepts floating around for the next generation of 'man'-portable weaponry attachments using these rigs.

>>32946975
And my argument is that literally no bullpup made (with the potential exception of the Groza, which I might have missed a super-lightweight sub-model, doing further research on this) is lighter than the one rifle used by half of all the military and paramilitary forces on the planet (and which is certainly not the lightest of its archetype). While the few that even come remotely close to it in weight have significantly shorter barrels and thus significantly worse terminal performance with military ammo.

>>32941231
Rails on everything, including the bullets

>>32941231
more long-recoil actions

All "muh finger is da safety" Glock fags need to git out of the thread. You will eventually fuck up no matter how pro you are, and if this wasn't the case then no Special Forces groups would still be using pistols with safeties. That being said, manual safeties are shit, and the best safety solutions are the HK LEM and grip safeties.

>>32947153
>and if this wasn't the case then no Special Forces groups would still be using pistols with safeties
They aren't though. The Glock 19 has been adopted by all US special operations groups as well as most other NATO countries.

>>32946996
>wikipedia page has all the info in a dumb format
I completely agree with this.

>>32947049
Pretty much the whole point of the ar-15 platform is its weight, that was not the case with the bullpups mentioned. So while a bullpup design is intrinsically a lighter design than the traditional one an ar-15 can still be lighter than many of them.

Both of our arguments are true.

File: sLe13h3.jpg (195KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1224x1445px

>>32947153
>if this wasn't the case then no Special Forces groups would still be using pistols with safeties
Have you ever thought that just because the gun has a manual safety doesn't mean there is an invisible magical force compelling you to use it and as such it is usually a non-factor?

>>32947192
As the German SF is replacing Glocks with the USP, Socom have HKs, Russians know better, so do the SAS and Aussie SF.

>>32947297
>glocks suck because special forces don't use them!

>they do though

>t-those special forces are stupid, g-glocks suck!
k

>>32946831
Yep that's true.

Yes, of course, giving bullpups to conscript is a shit idea. But for oper8tors oper8ting oper8tingly some sort of bullpup DMR might be a good idea. but without a professional army that needs some longer range 556 firepower that isn't awful in CQB (looking at you M16A4) it's not a good idea. And let civilians owner out of this, they spend their money what ever way they want?

I personally think you're wrong saying that weight is priority #2 for an infantry rifle. You forgot price and political arrangement. And yes I'm mad that the French army went for M4 but cost more money instead of true oper8tor rifle with folding stock (and that is lighter)

It is true that a rifle with folding stock is god tier in our era of mechanised infantry.
As a thought experiment to answer yours, if one day we can make a bullpup 556 that weighs the same as the M4 of it's time, doesn't have a shitty trigger and ain't too costy, do you think it would maybe replace conventional assault rifles in professional armies?

>>32941231
10mm on crack. i want 44 mag in 10mm size. also would make it for a mark23 type pistol overbuilt like a motherfucker.

>>32950232
So 460 Rowland? If you could fit 44 power in a .40 case it wouldn't be a .44.