No, I'm being practical, which is what people should be when it comes to military weapons
Printable View
No, I'm being practical, which is what people should be when it comes to military weapons
In terms of modularity, for basic infantry the ability to change pistol grips, magazine types, foregrips, handguards, stocks, iron sights, generic part mods so easily and the fact that there are soooo many companies/designs/options to chose from make it a nice system. There are better rifles out there, but there are certainly worse issued rifles out there :p
The pistol grip isn't the draw for those weapons, it's the ability for somewhat controllable automatic fire. Automatic fire, by your own admission, is pretty much a gimmick. Therefore, we have to work on the premise that aimed, single-shot or semi-automatic fire is what we are after and there the advantages of the pistol grip disappear almost entirely. In fact, pistol grips jut out and can snag. They have a taller profile and are harder to use in the prone position, the infantry fighting man's shooting position of choice. The use of strangely-shaped "ergonomic" grips is a recent development of the last 10 or so years. Sniper's weapons have usually been traditional. Read the thread. You should have put two-and-two together and see that I've been referring to marksman weapons when comparing traditional grip vs. pistol grip. Oh, and aimed fire = marksmanship.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
Your argument has just imploded. I mean, sure, if a pistol grip feels right to you then by all means, use it. For a semi-automatic arm or a bolt-action one, I don't feel any less comfortable with a traditional stock than with a pistol grip, and I find that shooting while lying down or sitting is a superior experience with the former. There is no real argument you can make for practicality that can't be countered by a boon that only traditional stocks have.
Don't tell me that a practical HUD displaying where your rifle is aiming wouldn't be helpful. Because it would be, a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
Though you're still right about it not being needed for absolutely every soldier right now, however it will be eventually, so why not now?
i called burst fire a gimmick, which it is (except in the an-94's case). automatic fire is not as important in the west but it is still something that should not be paid off because of that. if i am in a room full of angry mans i want a fucking panic button. i can only fire so fast in semi, and some rifles have pretty long resets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
we are discussing military rifles, not range queens. everything is secondary to actually being functional in close quarters, in choking dust or smoke, in either extreme heat or extreme cold, after anything up to and including three or four days without more than a few hours' disturbed sleep, while under fire. if you cannot use your rifle with at least some vague effect with all those boxes ticked, your rifle is bad and should be left for civilians because that is all it is good for. traditional stocked rifles are awkward to move with at the best of times, they are terrible to try and conduct fire and movement with in actual battlefield conditions. i really don't get how you can argue against that, have you actually ever attempted no-shit fire and movement drills before? they are difficult enough in training ex conditions with a modern rifle, let alone something with a traditional stock on it. let's see you leopard crawl while simultaneously keeping your weapon pointed at the enemy and able to fire in a pinch with ANYTHING that lacks a pistol grip, i guarantee you it is fucking impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
prone is good in open country but most fighting these days takes place in urban areas or prepared positions, not in fields or rolling hills. even then when it does, it's increasingly as dismounts from vehicles or from prepared pits. in any case, modern rifles have more issues with the magazine lifting them off the ground than the pistol grip. in fact, that is the case in pretty much every example i can think of, so there you go. marksman rifles are still going through the same shit as infantry rifles, so there is no reason for them to be different. sniper weapons are the only exception here and even a lot of them are moving to pistol grips or thumbholes with no negative impact on accuracy, in fact both the current and previous longest sniper kills were made with rifles which do not have traditional stocks. your argument might make sense for a civilian shooting competition but as a solider i am struggling to grasp what manner of weird logic is telling you traditional stocks on military weapons are anything other than obsolete and highly disadvantageous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
ask any soldier. literally any soldier. see how many think traditional stocks are even on par with pistol grips, let alone better than them. i can give you a spoiler: none, because we don't give a shit which has better accuracy on a calm, controlled range, we give a shit which is easier to carry, easier to manoevure, easier to shoot and easier to correct stoppages with when the environment is anything but controlled and we are tired from several days without proper sleep. even being the clueless reservist i am, i have enough experience running around the bush with steyrs to tell you that doing the shit we do with traditional stocks would just be impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
first heavy downpour, mud gets in and bricks it. shrapnel strikes it, bricks it. batteries run out and resupp is impossible. it gets lost. it malfunctions and feeds you the wrong information. there are a million reasons it is and always will be a stupid fucking idea. a rifleman's best friends are his rifle and bayonet because it would take serious neglect or a seriously bad design flaw for either of those to let him down, let's leave the silly glasses to sci fi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
and all that doesn't even account for the fact that bullpup designs are incompatible with traditional stocks, and bullpups are pretty clearly a good thing. more barrel for less length. and no, they are not awkward at all. they are easy to reload in any position, easy to clear stoppages with, the only bad thing is they tend to have awful triggers. any other criticism of bullpup rifles beyond that tends to be some manner of ignorant civilian/"never used anything but my m16 but..." armchair general bullshit
Completely weatherproofing electronics has been done well for years now. The only thing that would fuck it up in that regard would fuck up a rifle or any other piece of equipment just the same; that being it getting smashed to the point of something breaking (in this case, weathering breaking). Shrapnel striking a gun can "brick" the gun just as much as anything else depending on the shrapnel. Ammunition runs out and resupply is sometimes impossible. Guns get lost. Guns malfunction and put you into shitty situations where you need to take time to clear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
Literally every negative you pointed out already exists for literally every other piece of equipment in existence today. If something goes wrong with your electronic equipment there's nothing stopping you from reverting to the basics.
Yes there is, which is that over-reliance on electronics is already a problem. A lot of guys can't nav without GPS and training them to rely on a piece of electronics to shoot accurately or be situationally aware is asking for trouble. At any rate, if something DOES render your rifle inoperable, it is still useful; you can still beat the cunts over the head with it. Can't do that with no fancy-pants techno-goggles.
On the other hand, by the time they're everything-proofed enough to survive even light use out field, they are going to weigh a goddamn ton.
Oh for sure. The bullpup is an amazing idea. The whole idea is genius. If the US ever does get around to upgrading its small arms, I hope they pick a bullpup. Especially in one of the cool new intermediate calibers. Having a 24 inch barrel for the same length as an M4 is simply awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
I don't think thats the point. I think what Lancer is saying is that it would be a nice feature, but you'd train soldiers with their sights and for basic shooting skills first. They aren't just going to give them cool goggles and toss them out there into the front.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum