poliorcetes said:

The more I watch this new render batch, the more I wonder WHY textron's pivoting chamber design is not offered as a bullpup. I mean, the ejection port is forward compared with the magazine well, and the ejection is not violent at all. Therefore, pistol grip could be positioned under the ejection port...

Put the pistol grip under the AR's ejection port, and you create two of the major problems of bullpups.

I estimate LoP would be about 15 in / 33 cm.  Plus, as a bullpup, the weapon would be very ass heavy.

Also, the pivoting bolt makes the weapon significantly fatter, which may adversely affect ergonomics.

poliorcetes said:

But with Textron's design, it would seem that all bullpup-related problems would be solved...

Not hardly.  See my post above.

Nor would it solve the problem of institutional bias against bullpup rifles.

I think the only way a bullpup rifle would ever be adopted by the US Army is if someone like Tony were to become the Chief of Infantry, or perhaps Chief of Staff.

For over half a century after World War II, the Army refused to consider having wheeled AFVs.  Then Shinseki became Chief of Staff.  Now we have the Stryker 8x8.

QuintusO said...

Pick the barrel that's an appropriate length for handling and then get the performance you need by properly engineering the cartridge. That's all.

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?  I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?  At some point, the only thing that will work is HE, autocannon rounds or shaped-charge warheads.

It's very possible to defeat even really good plates with an infantry rifle, you don't even need a 4000 joule monster to do it.

You just have to design better projectiles.

As it is though if the 6.8 Textron gets adopted there's no question that a better projectile could be engineered and dropped in which will give them all the body armor pen they could possibly ask for.

This is why people are starting to be ok with the ngsw thing, even the sig could be worked with if you made it use TV cases 

nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?  I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?

Using full-auto fire to chew up ceramic armor so that "eventually" one or more bullets penetrate will work, but only at extremely close range.

It would also require that the target cooperate by remaining stationary and exposed long enough for the bullet hose to saturate the ceramic.  

     https://youtu.be/YE4E4ISv6EA?t=12

     https://youtu.be/HFm9uoYyzh8?t=57

     https://youtu.be/18kXkuoA014?t=45

stancrist said...

Using full-auto fire to chew up ceramic armor so that "eventually" one or more bullets penetrate will work, but only at extremely close range.

 

I was thinking more along the lines that some rounds would penetrate a less protected area, like the arms, legs, neck or face.  The mental image that I have is from the television series "StarGate", where the good guys used P90's on full auto against various alien badguys. 

nincomp said:

I was thinking more along the lines that some rounds would penetrate a less protected area, like the arms, legs, neck or face.

Ah.  When you said that "eventually one will penetrate a weak area" it sounded like you meant an area of the armor that had been weakened by multiple hits.

Yes, the "bullet hose" method could be used to hit extremities and other parts of the body not protected by armor, but that approach has its own drawbacks.

For one, it would necessitate a revolutionary change in training and doctrine, to switch from the current SOP of semi-auto fire, to using long bursts of full-auto.

Also, in my opinion, the great increase in ammo expenditure would pretty much require that the squad's mag-fed rifles be replaced by belt-fed machine guns.

I think a very high cyclic rate would be needed to get as many hits as possible, as quickly as possible.  Like this, but faster:  https://youtu.be/R1zQuWpsYZY?t=56

FYI:

     https://youtu.be/1HlAUsWaahU?t=215  (3:35-4:00)

     https://youtu.be/MtxG4DkBizE?t=5

     https://youtu.be/0Vp9IGsaFmw?t=5

nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?

Depends what your exact requirements are. NGSW has a whole host of requirements that are very ambitious and directly resulted in the configuration they have now.
 

nincomp said:

I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?  At some point, the only thing that will work is HE, autocannon rounds or shaped-charge warheads.

What I suggest is that everyone calm down, let NGSW play out, and, if you have any stake in this industry, get ready for the "second go 'round" when people inevitably decide that NGSW actually created some pretty significant capability gaps that need to be filled.

The change to doctrine would still use semi-automatic fire; "Aim for the other head".

After all, plates tend to be mounted on the upper, not lower, torso. A low body aim point could hit the lower torso or upper thighs.