poliorcetes said:

But with Textron's design, it would seem that all bullpup-related problems would be solved: extraction is not a problem used with any hand, and chamber and extraction path is as accesible as it can be for removing stoppages.

No, it's still a bullpup. Whether you think it's valid or not, people don't like bullpups. I personally think they don't for good, but subtle reasons, like balance. And no matter how hard the bullpup lobby keeps trying to make those 5 inches matter, people still hate them.
 

poliorcetes said:

Nathaniel, you said that the organization responsible of NGSW decission was anti-bullpup on the long term or something like that, right?

"The organization" being Fort Benning, yes. I really don't understand how people can talk about US procurement without knowing, or even seemingly wanting to know, hardly anything about it.

Maybe it's been a year or two since I impressed this on this forum, but the market for bullpups isn't just shrinking, it's evaporating. The only countries still wedded to the idea are Britain, and Australia. We thought maybe, in a surprise turn, the US could adopt a bullpup in GDOTS' NGSW, but that appears to have been a huge mistake on their part (my theory is that Picatinny, who houses many bureaucrats who love bullpups, told GDOTS that they should try it. Of course they themselves did not make their carbine a bullpup, probably because they knew that Fort Benning wouldn't accept it, and this state of affairs likely suited them just fine...). New Zealand dropped the bullpup. France has dropped the bullpup. China has vociferously rejected them (not being a bullpup was a requirement of their late rifle effort that produced the QBZ-191). Israel for the time being still uses bullpups, but seems almost indifferent to them. Only Britain and Australia maintain a party line of bullpup supremacy. Britain's support for the concept streaks over the border to insane fanaticism, and the entire thing is wrapped up in this ball of the country's bizarre sense of national pride (where they fail for as long as possible to preserve the idea that they never made a mistake in the first place).

Such as it is, there is no market for bullpups. Anyone marketing a bullpup in the year 2021 without an explicit government requirement for one is an idiot.

(Please note, I'm not formatcist, some of my best friends are bullpups!)

My friends are people, mostly Spaniards and Israelis. To have a bullpup as a friend seems to be a new experience 

besides that, I tend to agree. Belgium is exiting the bullpup way as France did. Croatia is on bullpup for now, and Israel too, and Poland isn’t decided totally. Chinese bullpup execution was particularly lame, Russia never bet really for bullpups, Finland is going to abandon them…

BTW Spanish evaluators valued more the steyr rather than the G36. The later was chosen because of industrial and lobbying reasons

but here’s a thing: nobody but America is working on a new, high powered cartridge. We’re talking about 5.56 and 5.8 bullpups. The winner of NGSW program is going to be the only rifle that uses the new cartridge, either with a bullpup format or a conventional one.

and barrel length is going to be a primary issue given the alleged energy of the new cartridge. But anyways it’s clearer and clearer than textron is going to be the winner who takes all

poliorcetes said:

My friends are people, mostly Spaniards and Israelis. To have a bullpup as a friend seems to be a new experience 

i.imgflip.com

poliorcetes said:

besides that, I tend to agree. Belgium is exiting the bullpup way as France did. Croatia is on bullpup for now, and Israel too, and Poland isn’t decided totally. Chinese bullpup execution was particularly lame, Russia never bet really for bullpups, Finland is going to abandon them…

From what I've heard MSBS bullpup version is basically dead. Finland never had any bullpups. The M82 was the only one, only 2,000 were made, mostly for export, and they were rejected in Finnish trials.

poliorcetes said:

but here’s a thing: nobody but America is working on a new, high powered cartridge. We’re talking about 5.56 and 5.8 bullpups. The winner of NGSW program is going to be the only rifle that uses the new cartridge, either with a bullpup format or a conventional one.

Yes, and the only bullpup in that competition is doing so well that the contractor is scrambling to create a conventional rifle to fire their cartridge.

poliorcetes said:

and barrel length is going to be a primary issue given the alleged energy of the new cartridge. But anyways it’s clearer and clearer than textron is going to be the winner who takes all

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.

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