autogun said:

The British Army virtually ignored pistols for decades after WW2, but their attitude changed as a result of experience in Afghanistan, when locals of questionable loyalty sometimes opened fire within military bases. As a result, the army issued every soldier with a Glock, so that they always had a means of self-defence on them. They even set up training sessions in pistol use...

Which made some sense during the deployment in Afghanistan. Even though I would argue if you have to arm your soldiers so they can defend themself while inside a guarded base there is something fundamentally wrong and step one would be to remove all foreign personell, especially the ones of questionably loyality from the base and its vicinity.
I do get the argument concering Afghanistan. We need pistols to be armed in base. But this is theatre specific. I do not get the argument every soldier needs a pistol in case he runs out of ammo for his primary weapon.

Since the deployment in Afghanistan ended it makes no sense to introduce pistols for everyone now. Furthermore literally pistols for everyone. Regardless of area of deployment and function.
Which is typical for what happens if you ask a soldier. Of course he wants to prepare for the last war. This is what he knows and has some experience in. Which is why its a good idea to simply do as they ask.

DavidPawley said:

To be completely fair, there are 3 acknowledged reasons for the SOCOMD preference for M4:

1. Maritime operations - the gas piston and operating rod assembly in the F88 is difficult to drain and submersion can render the weapon inoperable for a time. The M4 is ready to use after a few seconds drainage.

2. Modularity - the M4 was adopted along with elements of SOPMOD (I) including the KAC RIS. At the time, the F88 predominantly was issued with the fixed carry handle 1.5x scope and has little ability to integrate weapon mounted ancillary devices.

3. Reliability - the initial production F88 had some reliability issues* which soured SASR & 1 CDO on the F88.

Ergonomics is not cited as a reason for SOCOMD selection of M4 rifles.

Thanks for that info, David.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: LOL. Most of the world's armies do not want to use bullpups. And special forces typically prefer a conventional configuration.

That is the poorest possible argument imaginable.

It is not an argument.  It is an observation.

stancrist said:

It is not an argument. It is an observation.

So you are saying its meaningless for the sake of discussion?

EmericD said:

Absurd, maybe, but anyone carrying a FAMAS is also carrying a large "hey, I'm related to the french government!" tag, and SF (and the guys that give them orders) generally don't like this kind of publicity.

It shouldn't matter if their rifle says, "Hey, I'm related to the French government."

Unless they are doing something they know they should not be doing, in which case they ought to behave themselves instead of buying new rifles...  

Although I guess the subject is moot with the replacement of FAMAS by the HK416.

schnuersi said:

So you are saying its meaningless for the sake of discussion?

I'm saying that your "poorest possible argument imaginable" comment was meaningless, because I did not present an argument.  I made an observation of fact. 

stancrist said:

It shouldn't matter if their rifle says, "Hey, I'm related to the French government."

The SF spend nearly the last 20 years doing counter-terrorism and low intensity conflicts, so looking just like any western country operator is a bonus when dealing with the local population and avoiding terrorists to know that the last 10 guys arrived this morning are here for them.

stancrist said:

Unless they are doing something they know they should not be doing, in which case they ought to behave themselves instead of buying new rifles...  

The world is a little more complex than that.

stancrist said:

Although I guess the subject is moot with the replacement of FAMAS by the HK416.

Yes. There is a trend to replace the 5.56x45 mm with something more "effective", but "near peer" (when you need all the available gizmos to gain a tactical advantage) and HIC (when you need interoperability and a large industrial base) are requirements not easy to fulfill at the same time!

DavidPawley said:

And to what benefit? For control of the weapon, the centre of mass should be between your hands. 

Thats bio-mechanically wrong. 

The further a weight is from the shoulder, the more fatiguing it is, and more leverage it exerts against the shoulder. 

Having the weight forward of the pistol grip also minimizes the amount of weight / stability the shoulder can offer, giving most of the burden of stabilizing the rifle to the much more wobbly and fatiguable arms. 

Having a neutral or rearward weight distribution means a good % of the rifles weight ends up being supported by the friction of the stock against the shoulder. This reduces the effort needed by the shooters arms to support the rifle, and allows the rifle to be supported one handed when needed. 

The rearward balance also helps offset the forward weight of suppressors and IR Lasers/WML, which on a conventional layout can make a rifle quite front heavy and fatiguing to aim off hand.

So, the user will spend all their time with the PDW shouldered?

PDW, not rifle. CQB, self-defence, not long-range musketry. Control of the weapon when some fucker is trying to rip it out of your hands and stab you, not leisurely aiming on the range.

At any rate, I strongly oppose the suggestion that the Q Honey Badger would be improved as a PDW by being a bullpup.

https://liveqordie.com/honey-badger-sd/

DavidPawley said:

At any rate, I strongly oppose the suggestion that the Q Honey Badger would be improved as a PDW by being a bullpup

No, for a PDW / 8" barrel etc weapon there is no need to be a bullpup. Once you reach a ~26"-28" long weapon (MP5 sized) going shorter is of limited benefit.

Those examples were provided to show how one could be done if the goal was a very short integrally suppressed .300.