Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • http://www.raisedfaith.com Noah

    I likey!:) If you are a civilian, how hard is it to get a short barrel ok from the ATF? I am wondering if my chief law enforcement officer in Springfield, Tx would sign the doc? Is it a shall issue or can he say no even if your record is clean?

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    I am puzzled by this current fetish for ultra-short-barrelled 5.56mm weapons. As is well known, this cartridge needs a long barrel to work effectively, so what you get with these shorties is horrendous muzzle blast and flash – well, I suppose that might frighten the enemy to death! However, since PDWs will, by definition, be used by soldiers other than riflemen, who probably get little training or practice with their PDWs, this flash and blast is not what you want.

    It seems that 5.56mm is losing part of its role because it can’t cope with the longer-range actions in Afghanistan and it’s being replaced in part by 7.62mm weapons. It now seems to be seen as a short-range cartridge for urban fighting, but it really isn’t very good at that either; something like the 6×35 KAC would be better.

  • http://www.raisedfaith.com Noah

    I have read articles that some of the Navy Seals would prefer shorter barrels than the current issued m4. Ammo technology has come along way and there is ammo that delivers stopping power at close range distances with 5.56. The bullet fragments and displaces energy on target. You must remember, that a lot of Spec Op guys used to use 9mm sub machines guns for CQC and clearing.

    Speed times mass= power. Some of you “bigger the better” guys need to take some ballistic classes and do the math and crunch the numbers. I also would advise to look up the data on new ammunition. I might have asked a question on the comments, but I am far from not knowing about weapons.

    Take two to the chest with a 5.56 going @3200 fps and then tell me how the flash is?

  • http://www.raisedfaith.com Noah

    Btw SB would imply close quarters combat.

  • jdun1911

    Tony Williams,

    You need to realize what the purpose of these type of SBR are for. The Mk18 Mod 0 was design for close combat inside ships, buildings, etc. It’s for close quarter combat where the targets are a few feet away. It is still capable of hitting targets over 200 yards but that’s not what it do best. It’s scope is very limited.

    Muzzle flash are taken care by flash hider. The A2 flash hider does a great job. Any military version will have a flash hider and the ability to mount suppressor onto the flash hider will eliminate 100% of the flash or very close to it.

    SBR like the Mk.18 mod 0 are very popular within Special Operation and private contractor. There is an Arfcom pictures thread to prove it.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=408319

    Noah,

    If you can buy a firearms with normal firearm background check you won’t have any trouble getting NFA.

    It doesn’t take much to get an NFA SBR stamp. The thing you must be aware of is once you converted your receiver to NFA, there are travel restrictions and arcane laws.

    I do not know if Texas allows NFA but I pretty sure the state does. There are two ways to get NFA, Trust or CLEO sign off. Having a Trust does provide advantages and disadvantages. Trust are currently the most popular way to go tho. It’s the fastest way and in the comfort of your home.

    All you need is a WILL program. I use WillMaker and took me 15 or so to make one up. It took me another 15 minutes are so to fill out the NFA forums downloaded from the ATF websited (PDF). I triple checked all my NFA forums before I sign off on it.

    Send a $200 check and wait for four to six months. Your $200 tax stamp (cost the ATF 1 cent to make) will arrive at your mail box like regular junk mails. No signature are require to receive the mail. Make sure the kids don’t throw it the trash can with the other junk mails.

    I posted up detail instruction on this blog before. I won’t do it again because it was a very long write up. However I direct you to Arfcom. Make sure everything is correct and the copies use both front and back of the paper just like a normal ATF form (like when you fill out for a firearm). This is VERY IMPORTANT. They will send it back without looking at it if you do not do this.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=257740

    Be advise the FN civilian support is very limited. If you’re going the SCAR route you might not be able to get a short barrel from FN for some time.

    My personal advice, if your state allows NFA do it. Do at least once a year. Get a SBR, SBS (Shotgun), suppressor, etc.. It worth the money and effort.

    Again be aware of travel restrictions. It might not be a problem for 99.99% of you guys but it is for me. I live on the boarder. I can’t cross state lines with my NFA weapons without permission. It suck for me because I cross state lines to get to Blackwater. I can’t bring my NFA weapons most of the time. That’s why I have double of everything, ie non-NFA weapons.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    Noah, only the old M193 5.56mm round travelled at 3,200 fps, and that was from a 20 inch M16 barrel. The heavier M855 bullet does less than this, and velocities from the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4 are lower still.

    The new MK318 Mod 0 SOST ammo being used by the USMC and the M855A1 EPR used by the Army are both designed (in very different ways) to perform well from the M4 Carbine, but the much shorter barrels of the new PDW-type weapons are not going to get the best out of these rounds.

    I wouldn’t volunteer to take even one in the chest from a .22 Short rimfire (would you?), but that doesn’t mean it would be a good choice for military use.

  • seeker_two

    “Take two to the chest with a 5.56 going @3200 fps and then tell me how the flash is?”

    Only problem is….you’re not getting 3200fps from that short barrel…more like 1900fps or less…and that really cuts into the 5.56′s effectiveness.

    I understand why the SpecOps community likes these guns…5.56 subguns are more effective than 9mm subguns…but not by much. Plus 5.56 supressed weapons aren’t as quiet as the 9mm ones. Probably the reason that the KRISS .45ACP subguns are getting so much attention.

    I’d like to see some of these PDW-style guns in a larger caliber….maybe something like .300BLK or even .450Bushmaster. Lots of stopping power in a caliber that doesn’t need velocity to hit hard.

  • michael

    kac would be better but the best would be with the 6.8.

  • Stefan F

    Noah,
    I can send 1x 7.62 MM to someones chest and the result? Game over. I have seen 5.56 truck on through a derka derka. 7.62 drops em so there is no need for ballistic and maths computations. Oh and I’m one of those Spec Ops guys from a black fencced in area at Forrt Bragg NC. Bigger is ALWAYS better. And now for the crickets………………….

  • subase

    Those that use these short barreled carbines have hearing protection and even flash/blast protection.

    Short barreled rifles suck, but lower powered pistol carbines are even worse since they offer little penetration power at 200 meters and are underpowered for CQB. SBR’s are sort of a necessary evil, at this point due the limitations of the 5.56 and 9mm/.45 calibers. Bullpup technology has not advanced to the sufficient level to offer a feasible alternative as yet.

    The closest would be the CFB by Kel tec an RFB in the 5.56 caliber, which doesn’t exist yet. It would be a similar size and weight to the Scar, with alot more barrel. The only other choice is to get a microsized Tavor or other bullpup variant. But these are bigger and heavier : (

  • Massoud

    Noah-

    I doubt SBR’s are going to be considered “Shall issue” in the same manner that carry permits are. Call the local gun shop and ask them to refer you to a class 3 dealer. They will know. You can also find a ton of information online if you google it. I’ve heard it’s very easy, just a little scary because the ATF will pitch a tent in your butt if you do it wrong. The good news is, you can’t really do it wrong. There is only one way to do it and if you don’t do it right you don’t get the SBR. Plan on producing passport photos, fingerprints, a few forms and a $200.00ish fee for the tax stamp. I haven’t done it yet, but I’m thinking about it. If you do it, post it here.

    Two in the chest and the last thing I’ll be thinking about is how scary the flash is.

  • Falcon500

    I’d love to see that in 7.62*51. That would be insane.

  • King Hui King

    I miss the XM8 Ultra Compact so much…….

    BTW….the MP5K is the true PDW so far

  • Shootin’ Buddy

    I presume that the shooter is not firing, just sighting in? If not his ear protection is not doing much good.

  • Tahoe

    I thought the PDW had a sliding stock? That looks like the standard stock (albeit with stock rails on the side….?) Also, FN must have figured out the ball of flame and blast on a short barrel–he doesn’t even need his hearing protection!

  • Other Steve

    I have an idea, let’s take a very loud round that requires a long barrel and stuff it into a 7″ gun. It’s be weak, LOUD, and extremely unpleasant to the shooter and people around them.

    9mm subguns do actually have a place. Try and suppress this pdw then tell me how awesome the 223 round is for a pdw.

  • spudfiles

    Shouldn’t the solution be better ammunition for current pistol calibre carbines/submachineguns?

    I had made a similar comment in the CBJ-MS article: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/07/08/the-amazing-6-5x25mm-cbj/

    Why not develop a discarding sabot round that will work in 9mm or similar platforms without modification, which be optimised to fire a spitzer style lower calibre bullet at high velocity capable of penetrating armour when the circumsatnces require it, as well as expanding full bore ammunition when dealing with softer targets?

    A saboted round might not be as accurate, but no one speaks of MOA when you’re clearing rooms so it’s unlikely to be significant, especially with modern manufacture techniques. Heck you could scale up the CBJ round to a 9mm sabot with a 6mm solid steel (no need to worry about barrel wear with a synthetic sabot) penetrator.

    Pistol barrels might not have the twist rate to stabilise an elongated penetrator, but one could also develop finned rounds fitting in the length of the cartidge along the lines of the flechette rounds developed for the SPIW project to compensate for this.

    Another problem could be sabots interfering with suppressor baffles, but at the end of the day if you want to be quiet you should be using a heavier full bore subsonic slug anyway, and in any case shotgun suppressors exist so such desigs could be adapted for smaller calibres.

  • Vitor

    This gun begs for the KAC 6×35 or the ACC 7.62×35.

  • dmurray

    Why didn’t that FN FiveseveN PDW with the 50 round mag corner the market? Too proprietary? Appeared in Stargate too often?

  • Riceball

    @Noah

    It’s Navy SEALs (all caps because it’s an acronym for Sea Air & Land) not Seals, I don’t think that SEALs like to be confused with pinipeds very much.

  • subase

    Putting a suppressor on a barrel that short makes it ‘not short’ and thus takes away it’s advantage for CQB. The spec ops prefer the short barreled rifle with suppressor setup because it eliminates flash and greatly reduces recoil, while still remaining quick to maneuver and not too long.

    It’s basically the poor mans bullpup setup. Which is understandable bullpups have yet to mature for such hardy use. Maybe the CFB by Kel tec in the future but other than that, everyone has to make do with what they have. At least if they are using the 5.56 caliber.

  • Avery

    All this subcarbine shenannigans is pretty moot when you can pack 14 inches of barrel in the same twenty-some odd inches of gun in a bullpup as opposed to then 9 to 10 inches of a subcarbine. But, bullpups still have a huge hurdle to jump to be accepted by the U.S. military.

    Many have a lack of true ambidexterity because of shell ejection. I think that the F2000′s forward ejection is a way forward, but I think it may have come out too late to affect any real change. The difficulty Magazine changes I think are only evident in STANAG 4179 magwell bullpups. The FA-MAS and the Steyr and their magazines were designed for ease of magazine ejection (there’s a promo video of a guy speedloading a Steyr AUGA3 Commando by tapping the ejection paddle with the spare, dropping the empty then canting the magazine into the gun and tapping the forward assist).

    I think the Steyr platform, especially the changes made post-auf. 3 with the forward assist and accessory rails, would benefit from forward ejection, but that would likely require a complete redesign of the lower receiver.

  • http://www.raisedfaith.com Noah

    Anyone that knows what they are talking about knows clearing is about control and placement. I am so sick of these .45 freaks out here that say everything else is not good enough. The bottom line is 9mm (Hitler) almost took over the world. We have been using 5.56 for many of years and we have dominated the world over. Yes, there can be a better bullet for long range, but even then you have to hit the target. There is also weight considerations one must think about (etc…). Carrying 200+rounds of 50cal (using this for example) has its down falls. Against popular belief there is no magic bullet, just a well placed shot.

    If you do not believe me, ask some of the top tactical instructors of our time. They would rather have individuals hit the targets and get the bullets down range over caliber size any day(Period)

    With that said, shoot what you want but do not to say your way is a must for everyone else. Pride comes before the fall…Just my two cents:)

  • Lance

    Noah the SEALs use both the MP-5 and the Mk18 Mod 0 which is a M-4A1 with a commando length 10inch barrel.

    As per ammo used in SBRs the older M-193 has been proven to work far better in short barreled rifles than current M-855 ball ammo. Most Cops use M-193 style ammo IE TAP and TRU in 55gr ammo.

    I thought the HK style stock made the this weapon less bulky and better looking but the current pic has the same crappy SCAR stock on it. Bummer!

  • http://americanmohist.blogspot.com Jimmy

    It sounds like the 5.7 FN round is perfect for SBRs [vs 5.56/9mm]. Oh wait, don’t want to start that argument again :D

  • jdun1911

    Special Operation does not use sub gun anymore. Not SEAL as far as I know from my area. The sub guns are replaced by 5.56 SBR like the mk.18.

    For those people that are wondering why is his RDS so far up. It give him better and faster sight picture. Most military don’t do it because their carbine is already front heavy from laser, flashlights, VG, bi-pod, etc.

  • jdun1911

    If you can pass the ATF background check when you buya firearm you will have no trouble getting your NFA approve as long as you fill the form right. Let me stress FILL THE FORM RIGHT.

    Make sure your state allows NFA otherwise you’re wasting your time.

    Example of Form 1
    http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/5320-1.sample.pdf

    Form 5330.20
    http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/certification.html

  • Bert

    SBRs are POINTLESS! The only reason why I’d suggest one is to make logistics easier, which is probably why we (US Military) don’t have one. That, and a lot of red tape and preconceived (wrong) notions.

    If you click jdun1911′s link and scroll down you’ll see a picture comparing a 20″ AUG with a 10.5″ Mk18 (or clone? It’s unclear) and they appear to be the same length with the Mk18′s stock extended. See here: http://www.silencertests.com/albums/Steyr/IMG_0800.jpg

    That, my friends, is why bullpup designs exist in the first place. Full length 20″ barrel in an overall length of a PDW.

    @subase: I disagree that bullpups are not “mature” enough for military use. The FAMAS, AUG and L85A2 have seen combat in the Middle East and the idea of a bullpup rifle itself goes back to 1901 with the Thorneycroft rifle. Many of the growing pains of the design have been cited as reasons not to adopt bullpup rifles in the military. Tell me, was the M16A1 a flawless weapon?

  • Lance

    The MP-5 and the M3 are still in use in SOCOM not very many left in service thought.

  • KP

    Yup!

    Flawless gun, flawed powder, flawed ammo.

    And after a handful of uses, flawed magazines as well.

    With correct ammo and good cleaning, the M16 mopped the floor with VC and NVA before official involvement of the major US military.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    To reject the bullpup layout just because you don’t like the first-generation models is short-sighted. They give you an 8 inch advantage, in terms of extra barrel length for the same overall length (or an 8 inch shorter gun for the same barrel length). That’s a big difference. They also help the balance when you’ve got a UGL and other gadgets fixed to your P-rails, when traditional guns become massively front-heavy.

    The IWI Tavor is probably the best of the current breed of bullpups. It was developed by the Israelis specifically to replace the M4 and M16 guns they have had for years, and it handles in much the same way with all the controls in the same places.

    I look at the arguments against and in favour of bullpups in an article here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm , and also suggest various ways of addressing the issues of ambidexterity and stock length.

  • seeker_two

    “@subase: I disagree that bullpups are not “mature” enough for military use. The FAMAS, AUG and L85A2 have seen combat in the Middle East and the idea of a bullpup rifle itself goes back to 1901 with the Thorneycroft rifle.”

    I agree with Bert….and will add that the FN2000 with its forward eject seems to solve a lot of the arguements that have been made against bullpups.

  • subase

    Major problems with bullpups are not being ambidextrous and not being rail friendly. The Tavor/AugA3 solve the later. Fully ambidextrous bullpups like like the FNS2000 have only been adopted by one military (tiny Slovenia) and has never seen any real use in any conflict.

    Until ambidextrous bullpups are just as light and small as your traditional rifle, then there are not enough advantages to over weigh the disadvantages at this point in time.

    Hopefully Kel tecs CFB may change that, but in the meantime underpowered cut down SBR’s with suppressors is the only viable option. A poor mans CQB weapon but better than a pistol caliber carbine.

  • TCBA_Joe

    What’s the bbl length on this thing? To me it looks 8″, but I could be wrong.

    8″, while short would not be ideal use for civilian suppressor use, as most silencer companies will only support a 10.5″ bbl or greater. Rechamber it for .300 BLK, put a 9″ bbl on it, and it may see better use with a suppressor.

    As for Spec-Ops and subguns, my buddy was a ranger who got out 2 years ago. He had been talking about seeing all the shooter SEALS they supported in Afghanistan. He said they were carrying these tiny little guns that hes never seen before. We finally IDed it as an MP7. Said they worked great clearing muddy houses out in Afghanistan.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @subase, as I put in my previous post there are various ways of providing full ambidexterity (and even variable LoP) described in the article on bullpups I linked to.

    The curious thing about the insistence on full ambidexterity is that a very experienced US infantryman commented on another forum that throughout his military career he was never once trained, nor encouraged to practice, weak-hand shooting, nor did he hear of anyone else doing so. So just how often is it really used, or is it just a theoretical issue?

  • Bert

    @KP: Point taken. Though we aren’t using the A1 anymore, it was a working system with it’s own pros and cons, as all rifles have. Keep in mind, though, that there are many people, including many Vietnam vets, who would rather replace the current M16/M4 rifles with Kalashnikov rifles due to experiences in Vietnam.

    What I should have said was that designs get refined over time. Many of the problems with bullpups are being worked out or have been worked out in previous generations. The RFB improved trigger pull and the SAR-21 (Singapore Assault Rifle – 21st Cent.) uses a Kevlar cheek plate and “overpressure vent” to protect the shooter in case of catastrophic failure. Both the RFB and F2000 utilize forward ejection.

    Also, I just remembered this post: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/12/18/this-is-my-rifle-there-are-not-many-like-it/. If that isn’t durability, I don’t know what is!

  • drewogatory

    @Tony: Don’t forget, not only do you need to account for left handed operators, you also need to account for strongly left eye dominant shooters as well. My drop off in performance from strong to weak hand is far less than my drop in performance from dominant eye to weak eye.

  • Avery

    The SAR-21 tactical rail variant has more than enough rail for anything currently in use.

    IIRC, the AUG stock was durable enough to be run over by a tank and could be expected to continue to function.

    (I’ll admit, that could’ve been the plastic magazine I heard about)

    @Tony: I’ve figured the same thing. The complaints about weak-hand firing is a pretty weak argument considering that pretty much every major military conducts and trains aimed weapons fire from typically from the right shoulder.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @drewogatory, I am also right-handed with a left master eye, and aim a pistol with my left eye (although I hold it in my right hand). When I was a target shooter using rifles with iron sights I fired left-handed (my right eye is short-sighted), but now I wear glasses and fire right-handed.

    However, this is not an issue with most bullpups (SA80 being one of the exceptions) in that they can be switched from right-hand to left-hand use quite quickly. The Tavor can be switched around (including the minor controls) in a couple of minutes. So lefties can use theirs left-handed. The only question is over whether instant weak-hand shooting (whether your weak hand is your left or your right) is really a significant matter.

  • drewogatory

    Tony; It seems Israel has said their standard infantry weapon is going to be the Micro variant of the Tavor which has a 13″ barrel instead of the standard which has an 18.5 incher. Doesn’t this seem to negate the advantages of a bullpup iyo?

  • Lance

    Only units in or near Gaza and West bank will use Tavors All other units will use M-16s in IDF service.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @drewogatory, IMO the Israeli choice of a very short barrel shows two things: first, that their main concern is with urban fighting and second, that they want the shortest possible gun for handiness in room clearing etc.

    After all, to get an M4 as short as the Micro Tavor you’d have to chop the barrel down to five inches…

  • jdun1911

    Lance,

    Yes there are sub guns in Special Operation but they are rarely used now a day. They are replaced by AR SBR.

    I won’t get into the bullpup discussion but I can tell you the trade off is not good. You get a lot of disadvantages for one advantage in the bullpup design. That’s why Special Forces around the world don’t use it. That’s why private contractors don’t use it.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @jdun1911, would you care to specify the disadvantages of bullpups?

  • jdun1911

    On the subject of KelTec RFB. A member of Arfcom posted detail pictures of the bullpup. It looks complicated. Four pins to hold the upper and lower together.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=330268

    I seriously doubt that the AUG stock can survive a 60 tons tank rolling over it. Put the AUG on concrete or any firearms for that matter. It won’t survive.

    My Mk18 clone balance very well. You compare it with an bullpup, it’s like day and night.

    drewogatory,

    The Tavor is a national pride for the Israeli. They will learn sooner or later why bullpup aren’t good.

    If what you said is true than the only advantage the micro has over a SBR is minor at best. So much disadvantage in the bullpup design and the only advantage it has, they’re not taking full use of it.

  • subase

    @ Tony Williams – Well that’s the military for you. I think bullpups are a superior option too but I see their perspective on things. If they are going to upgrade their main rifle and accessories and training (50 years specialty now?) they’ll demand ambidextrous use (even though they don’t train for it, it’s an everyday occurrence in battle, and spec ops do train for both shoulders) and for the rifle to be just as light as their AR design. So far no bullpups have measured up to these requirements. The FS FN2000 is quite heavy and bulky for example. The CFB by Kel tec stands a chance in the weight and size departments but it doesn’t exist commercially yet.

    Many say and I don’t think it’s unlikely that the military is waiting for caseless ammunition to mature before getting a bullpup. (no shell ejection problem with caseless) Who knows when or if that tech will mature, but not within the next ten years that’s for sure. (NATO also won’t be happy)

    Smaller military’s who see little action, can switch to bullpups without issues. Or countries like Israel who’s existence depends on seizing every infantry advantage it can due to it’s military peril. But the U.S military is super huge and they aren’t in any danger of being beaten in infantry battles anytime soon. Bullpup tech hasn’t matured as yet.

    @drewogatory – Israel engages in almost exclusive CQB and urban terrain, where distances are short, a 13 inch barrel is sufficient. In addition they may also be anticipating further advances in bullet technology. Not much of a difference from the U.S’s M4 (14.5 inch barrel)

  • pro

    1. It is very doable , to make a cartridge , that will be designed around a very small barrel (like the 300AAC) . This cartridge could be 5,56X45 .
    All the guns (in the alleged army) could fire it but only the PDWs would be issued “normally” with that cartridge . The PDWs could fire the general issue infantry cartridges if the need aroused .
    2. The TAVOR is as light weight and even lighter than the m16/m4 .
    3. All the bullpub problems are solved in the new designs except one . That of the adjustable stock . In my opinion , this problem is an inherit design flaw and cannot be addressed . Even if you make a weapon with this ability , it could never be as short as an m4 with the stock retracted . For me that is the biggest problem .
    4. Although in the new designs , the ambidexterity and instant weak/strong side change problem , is solved (F-2000/RFB/A-91) , it is highly unlikely that this would not increase the weight 10-20% more than what we have now in the TAVOR .

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @pro, an adjustable stock can be provided in a bullpup, with various approaches described in my web article (as well as some different ways of achieving ambixterity: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm

    The problems of the first generation bullpups have largely been solved in the latest models, and the remaining issues can be dealt with easily enough, if there’s a will to do so.

  • subase

    The Israeli’s are a conscript army in a urban environment. The Tavor offers a shorter than a SBR or MP5 CQB combat weapon, higher reliability and ease of maintenance than an AR, superior balance and shooting ergonomics, AR designs are very muzzle heavy. Accuracy is less than the AR but not much a big deal in urban combat distances and with a conscript army. As for being ambidextrous, a conscript army like the Israeli’s barely practice shooting let alone shooting both shoulders. It’s spec ops work around such issues or just use AR’s.

    Although in the larger scheme of things, the advantages of the Tavor over the Galil or AR in a war is minor. The difference is still significant. And for Israel who is very likely to get into mass infantry firefights against other mass infantry, (it’s enemies vastly outnumber them) that difference can be readily exploited. Although an advantage, the Tavors futuristic looks acting as a morale booster for Israel and scare tactic for their enemies is hardly the sole reason they adopted it.

    In contrast the U.S has zero issues of being beaten in firefights, or with the ARs reliability or ergonomics. The AR in 5.56 IS underpowered for CQB and especially against skinny afghans, but they are releasing new bullets to remedy that problem somewhat.

  • subase

    The Tavor is not lighter than the M4, it’s slightly heavier, just check their wiki pages.
    - Introducing or designing a new cartridge by the u.s military is out of the question for numerous reasons. They are instead refining and optimizing the bullet and propellant of their current calibers, the 5.56mm MK318 MOD 0 is an example.
    - The RFBs stock can be extended with spacers and has the shortest LOP of all bullpups at 11 inches, the M4 with adjustable stock fully retracted has a LOP of 10.5 inches. So not too shabby.
    - The RFB already exists and it’s weight is almost identical to an AR-10, the AR-15′s big brother. So with some optimizations, Kel tecs future CFB in 5.56 should come out at around the same weight as the AR-15.

  • Colin

    The SCAR PDW strikes me as a little pointless, there isnt going to be much difference in length compared to the cqb, and that difference goes away with the extra rear overhang of the collapsible stock (in the original photos).

    With regard to the story of the AUG being run over, I believe it was a 4-ton truck – not a tank of any kind.

    As for the whole bullpup/conventional debate, what your first trained on will usually taint your future views. Those who have equal time on both types usually dont have a problem with either (as long as it shoots and hits what he/she is aiming at, they’re happy).

  • William C.

    I too have my doubts over this concept. When for example a SCAR-L with the 10 inch “QCB” barrel is still too long, you might as well just go to a submachine gun or one of the new generation PDWs using specialized ammunition.

    And what happened to the stock and different rail configuration shown on the earlier black colored FN SCAR PDW?

  • pro

    Subase and Tony Williams I STAND CORRECTED .

    Telling me that the RFB has almost identical LOP with an M4 , almost immediately came to my mind the image of the MAGPUL PDR and the first generation TAVOR PDW . I guess you are right . A full polymer forward ejecting with adjustable stock Bullpub could be created with the same weight as an M4 -RIGHT NOW- . The technology is mature . With all the plus that you have described .

    Its funny but being a bullpub proponent for many years , i changed my mind after the experience i had with AUG A1 and F2000 , with body armor.

    Thank you very much .

    ps . “OFF TOPIC” The best existing PDW this day as far as i know , is the Keltec SU-16D9 . Same weight as an MP-7 , good dimensions , fires the same cartridge as the legacy rifles and carbines with a very low price of acquisition . Perfect for a Personal Defence Weapon . Not a spec-ops Sbr or a Smg . But good enough for PDW .

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    pro, I raise a glass to your post – it is rare for people to admit to changing their minds on this issue!

  • Rohan Wilson

    I remember the hate mail for the M16. A plastic toy BB gun for “pussies”, not a man’s gun of steel and walnut.

    For all the negative comments, I really wonder how many can truly say they have fired both bull-pup and conventional weapons.

    Folks, I started shooting with bolt actions. When I joined the army I fired both conventional rifles (L1A1 and M16) and the F1 SMG. The F1 had its balance over the pistol grip like bull-pup weapons. Unlike “normal” rifles you can carry a 5.56 bull-pup with one hand much easier. Opening doors, etc with you free had is heaps easier. After the F1 moving to a bull-pup wasn’t an issue.

    Israel adopted the bull-pup Tavor for Gavati Brigade in 2006 in the south and Golan Brigade in the north in 2008. The IDF is changing to Mini-Tavor.

    The LSAT carbine is semi-bull-pup. Magazine in front, rounds feed backwards into a falling chamber. Cases are ejected sideways level with the pistol grip. That arrangement will give you a 6″ barrel advantage, almost the same as a full bull-pup (8″). A 30″ SCAR (with 10″ barrel) would become a 30″ LSAT carbine with a 16″ barrel. A 27″ LSAT carbine the same size a MP-5 would have a 13′ barrel.

    An American invention from the start this carbine won’t get the “NIH” complex and rejected as a “foreign” ie bull-pup.

    PS. @Pro.
    The new EF-88 will be 15mm shorter (but not adjustable) than the F-88 to make it easier to use with body armour.

  • pro

    Good to know about the Ausie AUG . Thanx man .

  • Mudpie

    What CLEOs fail to realize when signing an ATF form is that they are not the approvers of SBR weapon ownership. Their role is to simply verify that NFA weapons are legal in their jurisdiction…and not their opinion of who should own one…background checks aside.