Army hunts for lethal assault rifle, junks DRDO's Excalibur!!

[GURU DUTT]

Army and its love for foreign Mall
Such an awesome gun.. But they won't get any commission for this:

why cant we make a bullpup version of the same with a 18" barrel

 

[Papa Dragon]

What is the status of MCIWS? It's design and build looks pretty good and looks like it can serve the armed forces just as much as what these foreign maal do. Manohar Parikkar should also force the IA to induct indigenous systems rather than going for foreign maal. He did a pretty good job inducting the Tejas into IAF

 

[AKD]

why cant we make a bullpup version of the same with a 18" barrel

Because most bullpups have more cons than pros...conventional is better tha bullpup

 

[Grevion]

So the army won't get new rifles in this decade.
As much as we love them and what they are doing for the country there should be a proper evaluation of the decision makers in the top brass. They are just too incompetent in making decisions for the army.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Because most bullpups have more cons than pros...conventional is better tha bullpup

so please tell me the cons of bullpups ? and pros of legacy rifels over it ?

 

[Omega007]

why cant we make a bullpup version of the same with a 18" barrel

Dude,we can, I mean I can't but the guys in the ARDE certainly can!!They have already developed not one but two different bull pup designs, none of which saw the light of the day, one is this one down here, a bull pup version of the INSAS rifle

a pretty basic and rudimentary design to be honest, the generals didn't even agree to put this through user trials on the ground that it won't look good during parades!!No kidding!!
And then this one down here, the one in the below, the earliest prototype of the multi cal rifle

This one too had been rejected for unknown reasons.Now you tell me, why should the ARDE develop a bull pup rifle when the Army itself never wanted such a thing??The present incarnation of the Multi cal is designed strictly as per the GSQR that had been laid down by the Army and they wanted the rifle to be of conventional design.So now tell me my bro, how can they possibly veer off course from the instructions set forward by the Army??And why should they do it when the users do not want it in the first place??Be reasonable yara.

So the army won't get a new gun in this decade.
As much as we love them and what they are doing for the country there should be a proper evaluation of the decision makers in the top brass. They are just too incompetent for making decisions for the army.

And why wouldn't they be in such a mess when the only two criteria for promotions in the armed forces are seniority and the the proficiency of the individual to suck up to their seniors and how good they can lick their aeses!!When that's how the Generals attain their rank, what better can you expect??

 

[fsayed]

Corrupt army

 

[Omega007]

so if a few incompetent guys count design a bullpup back then does it means the new also cant ?

Dude,you drew a totally wrong conclusion from my post!!It was not what the intention of my post was or what points I was trying to make!!

 

[AKD]

so please tell me the cons of bullpups ? and pros of legacy rifels over it ?

Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).

If current munitions infrastructure and laws allowed for electronic trigger, feed, and ignition systems, this would be a non issue, and the bullpups advantage may outweigh it's several disadvantages; but for now, that's not an option (also, electronic systems have their own issues).

If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket.

Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).

Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.

A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.

More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.

Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well).

Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward.

This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck.

A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.

This isn't an issue for rifles that are generally fired off bipods, so in an SAW or LMG role, the bullpup may be an appropriate solution (though having the feed system in such tight quarters with your shoulder and cheek is its own issue).

Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over the rifle with your support hand (again, some conventional rifles do share this weakness; and this is a problem that can easily be solved with proper engineering).

Most bullpups can only be operated from the right shoulder; or if switchable, can only be operated from one shoulder without being reconfigured (this is changing, with the adoption of forward ejection mechanisms).know of, can be fired from the left shoulder.

Because of the way most bullpups eject their brass, and cycle their actions; attempting to operate the weapon from the wrong shoulder will result in hot brass being ejected directly into your face, and possibly injuring the user... or they my simply not be able to cycle at all.
Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.

This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.

The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.

The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).

This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel, by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.

A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.

Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.ae/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html?m=1

 

[GURU DUTT]

Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).

If current munitions infrastructure and laws allowed for electronic trigger, feed, and ignition systems, this would be a non issue, and the bullpups advantage may outweigh it's several disadvantages; but for now, that's not an option (also, electronic systems have their own issues).

If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket.

Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).

Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.

A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.

More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.

Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well).

Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward.

This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck.

A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.

This isn't an issue for rifles that are generally fired off bipods, so in an SAW or LMG role, the bullpup may be an appropriate solution (though having the feed system in such tight quarters with your shoulder and cheek is its own issue).

Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over the rifle with your support hand (again, some conventional rifles do share this weakness; and this is a problem that can easily be solved with proper engineering).

Most bullpups can only be operated from the right shoulder; or if switchable, can only be operated from one shoulder without being reconfigured (this is changing, with the adoption of forward ejection mechanisms).know of, can be fired from the left shoulder.

Because of the way most bullpups eject their brass, and cycle their actions; attempting to operate the weapon from the wrong shoulder will result in hot brass being ejected directly into your face, and possibly injuring the user... or they my simply not be able to cycle at all.
Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.

This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.

The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.

The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).

This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel, by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.

A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.

Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.ae/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html?m=1

well my counter argument is we can design robust and light trigger mackenism linkages for bullpup rifle as for legacy rifles bieng more easy to handle is just a frace even human body was never made to handle gunds its just a little time getting used to while pros of bullpup are anoromus the best bieng a bullpup even with same length as a legacy rifle can hold twice as longer barrel for better accuracy and easy to use in both long range and CCB type combat zones

take example of tavor it so trouble free so easy to handle and mantain its mag re;lease is so natular and easy why cant we just mass produce tavor under license in india and thats it

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Fake news. Very hard to control a 7.62x51mm cartridge in full automatic mode. The climb will be very much.

 

[Perpendicular]

Dude,we can, I mean I can't but the guys in the ARDE certainly can!!They have already developed not one but two different bull pup designs, none of which saw the light of the day, one is this one down here, a bull pup version of the INSAS rifle
View attachment 315461
a pretty basic and rudimentary design to be honest, the generals didn't even agree to put this through user trials on the ground that it won't look good during parades!!No kidding!!
And then this one down here, the one in the below, the earliest prototype of the multi cal rifle
View attachment 315462
This one too had been rejected for unknown reasons.Now you tell me, why should the ARDE develop a bull pup rifle when the Army itself never wanted such a thing??The present incarnation of the Multi cal is designed strictly as per the GSQR that had been laid down by the Army and they wanted the rifle to be of conventional design.So now tell me my bro, how can they possibly veer off course from the instructions set forward by the Army??And why should they do it when the users do not want it in the first place??Be reasonable yara.



And why wouldn't they be in such a mess when the only two criteria for promotions in the armed forces are seniority and the the proficiency of the individual to suck up to their seniors and how good they can lick their aeses!!When that's how the Generals attain their rank, what better can you expect??

But on the other hand, it seems bullpup is widely used across. This new idea of high calibre seems idiotic.
This RFI saga is turning to be an embarrassment seriously.
OFB already making Tavors, just get the X95 and be done with it.

 

[Arsalan]

@GURU DUTT I am not sure how many time i will have to tell you the same thing about "reporting" the post. Should i make this my signature if that will help you?

@GURU DUTT That rating was by mistake. Removed it already.
Still had to delete that post with complain. Have told you more then enough times how to deal with posts you think are not as per forum rules. Try to learn that so someone don't have to spoon feed you everything

 

[Omega007]

so please tell me the cons of bullpups ? and pros of legacy rifels over it ?

i can give you quite a few right of my mind
1. The triggers are not as responsive, a widely acknowledged fact among the gun enthusiasts.
2. Higher barrel rise in some of the designs.
3.

But on the other hand, it seems bullpup is widely used across.

Not that widely to be honest, it's used exclusively by the Paras only!!

This new idea of high calibre seems idiotic.

Well, even the muricans, who happened to be the biggest proponent of adopting smaller and faster caliber cartridges and virtually forced the NATO to do the same are now frantically pulling out their old M 14s from their reserves and refurbishing them to be distributed among the troops in Afghanistan.So about the idea being stupid..............
But all said and done, I would still say that 7.62 NATO is not really an ideal round for modern combat.Instead a higher powered (than 5.56 M 885/SS 109 Green Tip) intermediate cartridge like the 6 mm PPC or 6.5 Grendel should be standardised for both Assault rifles and GPMGs.

This RFI saga is turning to be an embarrassment seriously.

That I absolutely agree with, but then again, it ain't gonna be the first time and neither the lst one at that.

OFB already making Tavors, just get the X95 and be done with it.

OFB only produced a few thousand 9mm variants of the micro Tavor , which by the way are simply rusting in the storage!!The CAPF guys absolutely hate this thing.

I do not see any bull pup rifle in this picture, and besides, it's the Army we are talking about, don't bring the Navy in here.

 

[GURU DUTT]

i can give you quite a few right of my mind
1. The triggers are not as responsive, a widely acknowledged fact among the gun enthusiasts.
2. Higher barrel rise in some of the designs.
.

so is an assult rifle for just feel good for gun enthusiasts of to stop enemy at ranges where he cant touch you

as for high barrel rise its not something that cant be tackelled as it just needs a little time getting used to as its most weight is at the back and in full auto barrel rises but that can be controlled with a front handle grip below the barrel .