Proposal

That's how most rifle grenades work I believe. The issue with that setup (which I believe OP is trying to address) is that you would need to waste precious seconds unloading your conventional ammo before launching the grenade (unless you want to be a dumbass who walks around with a mag full of blanks. Even in a sidearm that's just asking for trouble). Also, I don't believe grenade-launching rounds cycle the action properly, so you couldn't "fire 15 of these as fast as he can reload" the way OP suggests because you'd have to be racking the slide each time as well.

I suppose that mostly depends on the design of the catch.

The momentum of the bullet minus the energy converted to heat/noise will wind up being the same as the momentum of the grenade+catch+bullet. It depends on a lot of design elements, and I'm interested to see if it's feasible.

This is trivially solved by using explosives that are not sensitive to impact. It's not really an issue.

There are systems that do that, but that defeats the purpose of OP's design. At that point you might as well not even bother to design it.

Did the physics calcs, it works. See

It would be interesting to see how much energy gets turned into heat. Trivially simple enough, just fire the bullet at a pressure plate.

I don't think it would be enough to cause any problems, but it's true that this would be one of the product testing issues.

You would not get the same level of accuracy out of a spherical munition rather than a conical munition.

This is why everything from Bullets out a handgun to Mortar rounds to Naval Artillery is all shaped relatively similarly, because it's the most efficient for accuracy, which matters more than being autistic about cubic centimeters of killing power.

And that's not to mention that I don't think there'd be enough energy in a pistol round to propel a grenade at distances you'd actually find useful. Might as well just toss the grenade by hand because the round simply does not have the energy to do what you're asking of it.

He's talking about the chamber of the sidearm being able to handle the extra pressure. It's akin to plugging the barrel like looney toones. It's the reason why rifle grenades used blank rounds rather than the retarded amount of pressure a real bullet causes in the chamber/barrel of the gun.

Living up to that Canadian shitposting meme.

Grenade launching blanks are fucking nasty to shoulder and god forbid you actually use one in a M1 Carbine, nothing like CRACK to ruin your lawn golf.

Why not just use the M79 again? Or the China Lake?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x640 579.57 KB, 590.94K)

[DRUMMING OF HOOVES AND FAINT THROAT SINGING ECHOS ACROSS THE STEPPE]

I did the calc over here you could double check if you like.

Dude what? Look at 4th image, there are vents, only the momentum of the round is transferred. Gas contact might not even be enough to counteract the energy lost to heat on bullet trap impact.

40mm Diameter = 33.5103 cm3 volume
Composition B = 1.65 g/cm3
HE = 55.29 grams

Time to calculate the grenades velocity based on the muzzle energy of .45 ACP.
K = 1/2mv2
K = 800 J (being generous with +P energy)
m = 55.29 g

v = 170.113 m/s

I'm impressed, I thought the idea would be DOA at this point.
Now lets encase the HE and add an impact fuse. For fusing lets use the 40×46mm M386 as a baseline, total weight 230 grams.
The good news is we don't need the case, propellant or primer (~30 g) the bad news is we need a bullet trap (~50g) for a total weight of 250g.

Now lets see what speed we can launch this at:
K = 800 J
m = 250 g

v = 80 m/s

Using shooterscalculator.com it recons we should have only 6" over or under our aimpoint out to 30 meters when zeroed to 20 meters.

This is way better than I would have expected, now lets account for the fact that a lot of energy isn't going into the projectile and is instead being converted into heat by the bullet trap.

Assuming half the energy is lost to the trap we get:
K = 400
m = 250 h

v = 56.57 m/s

Now we are within our 6" arch out to 25 meters when sighted to 20 meters.

I did all this math expecting it to be be a totally retarded idea that would barely drop the grenade at your feet, instead I found it to be plausible if you have the balls to fire .45 +P with a quarter kg on the end of the barrel.

Attached: 1431057249376.png (207x200, 53.12K)

Because like those tiny breaching shotguns they're dead weight when not being used. Yes they're awesome in situations like being on a gun truck or river boat and yes they're a gorillion times better than mounting a tube under your rifle but some dude humping it for miles is going to be more tired than just carrying rifle grenades. Imagine carrying five or more grenades with little tubes/sticks attached that mount on your rifle barrel (or in the canucklefucks proposal a pistol) and as you fire them off you get rid of the launching device too. Meanwhile the GL guy has to carry a bunch of grenades along with what is essentially another rifles worth of weight/bulk and as you launch off your grenades you may lose the weight but you're still left with the rifle.

Attached: 1429903872399-1.png (780x863, 81.42K)

Zig Forumsommandos, using math to prove you can use a pistol to launch an explosive charge a proper distance.
Ive been proud of Zig Forums before but damn I thank you for your work.

They do make bullet trap grenades already. For example the French APAV40
F2 is a 40mm anti-personnel rifle grenade launched from the muzzle of the FAMAS. The VB grenade of WWI was also operated using live ammunition but was a "shoot through" rather than bullet trap design.

The Germans already kind of did this during WWII sort of, they adapted flare guns to launch grenades. See: weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/09/22/kampfsturmpistole/

The designs had issues with accuracy, range, and payload but they ended up with some semi-workable designs for anti-infantry use. Useless in an anti-armor role, however.

Any rounds with more energy that could be used?

Attached: 69ae8c56024ac383fca17a0bd9d611818821e5403fec3666f9c44bc53f1325c6.jpeg (1027x731, 52.44K)

Thanks for checking my work, I guessed the grenade would be 50g total and bullet would be 9mm, but the result was similar. I got about 75m effective range with

Attached: 1436112957852.gif (243x199, 1.29M)

Oh the humanity!

Question, anyone know of any thermobaric charges in this weight class?

am i reading your post wrong? it seems like you're saying that the grenade will only travel 25 meters… That's almost a third less than the military standard for thrown grenades with less than a third of the HE. i'll stick to rifle grenades i think.

You sure are.

A 40mm grenade's warhead already is a 40mm sphere, try to jam the whole fuze assembly in there and you'll lose about 3/4 of your payload. As the other leaf mentioned, spheres also have terrible aerodynamics and would be extremely unstable in flight.
Why would you do this? Even if it was roughly the same size as an M67, you'd still have a much smaller payload due to the impact fuze alone taking up about a quarter of the grenade's volume, not to mention the added volume/mass of the bullet-trap. The operator would also need to swap out fuzes in the middle of a firefight, which is retarded and would get you killed.
Of course, this whole concept is flawed for reasons detailed below.

Energy equations are no use here. To determine actual velocity you need to use the perfectly inelastic collision equation.
Assuming a standard 9mm FMJ round, a 200g grenade, and otherwise perfect efficiency:

v = ((m1*u1)+(m2*u2))/(m1+m2)

m1 = 8g
u1 = 350m/s
m2 = 200g
u2 = 0m/s

v = ~13.46m/s

10mm is somewhat better (25m/s at best) but it still doesn't beat just throwing the damn thing.

Attached: 40mm_M381_01[1].gif (410x400, 25.79K)

It can become the modern knee mortar for light explosive support.

Remember because this thing is cheap and easy to carry, everyone in a squad can have one. So there are a dozen guys all lobbing grenades.

Quantity has a quality all its own!

Yes, I do. There are several Russian ones as small as 20mm, but the pertinent American version is the XM1060. It can demolish a single room shack, or kill everyone in a concrete room. Not sure about effects in the open, but it should have a similar kill radius.

You're reading it wrong. He's saying at 25m it won't even need much in sight adjustments really.

Kind of making my point for me, the 40mm requires a lot more complex fuse than a rifle grenade, and it a hell of a lot larger and heavier for the same effect.

Also way to fuck up your own equation. M2*U2 is nothing so it's just v=m1*u1/(m1+m2).

Using a 9mm it's 0.008*370=2.96 and then 2.96/0.058=51m/s as I previously said here
Using a .45 it is: 0.015*350=5.25 and then 5.25/0.065=80m/s.

Both are standard in US military, both launch it fast enough to make it easily viable in the ~75m range without major sight improvements. However theoretically with better sighting systems, a 45 degree ballistic path takes it over 200 meters with 9mm.

He used momentum, not energy. Momentum remains equal, while most of the kinetic energy is lost to heat.
This is middle school physics.

You underestimate pistols, mate.
Even 9x19 is enough to punch through a car door at close range and be lethal. You can easily use it's momentum (and that of the gasses exiting the barrel too) to launch a grenade. It has been done with rifle cartridges, so it should be possible with pistol rounds too.
5.56 weighs 4g, while 9mm weighs 8g.
5.56 has a muzzle velocity of 900m/s from a 50cm barrel, and 9mm has 1000m/s from an 11cm barrel.
8mm Mauser weighs 12g and has a mv of 800m/s.
The momenta of these rounds would be:
9x19: 8kgm/s
5.56x45: 3.6kgm/s
8 Mauser: 9.6kgm/s

9x19 comes closer to 8 Mauer in momentum than 5.56. If the 8 Mauser could launch a grenade a coule hundred meters so could 9mm.

If this ends up working, when does it get patented to the Zig Forums collective and who do we sell it to?

Attached: 2e061fb15b63118e24b504f29707eb7c59f092a78dae251eb92dc8883a3c7de1.jpg (222x323, 19.88K)

Wait. I took the numbers off Wikipefia and the velocity of 9mm was given in feet per second. FUCK.
That would mean 2.88kgm/s of momentum for 9x19.
Your idea is a shit, strelok.

I officially donate the idea to the BO so he can show up more often instead of being a lazy butt.

lolwut? Beside, calc is done already.

Would the use of revolver rounds be a possibility too?

Or wait, some troops already carry shotguns; how about slugs?

i think you could be onto something here strelok, if only there were some kind of long arm that all infantryman had at all times we could fire grenades from.

How the fuck did you arrive at that conclusion? I seriously can not figure out your logic here.
>magic golf ball grenade fits into half the volume and a quarter of the mass despite containing the same explosive load and a presumably similar fuze in addition to a bullet trap
I don't even know what to say to that, we're well into fantasy territory.

It would be easier to switch ammunition for the purposes of firing rifle grenades with a shotgun would it not?

=IT ALREADY EXISTS=

Well, someone already did this:
libertyreferences.com/shotgun-grenade-launcher.shtml

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (470x197, 82.16K)

That's impossible. Kinetic energy and momentum are both functions of mass and velocity, just dimensioned differently.
E_k = 1/2 * m * v^2
m = m * v
You can't keep momentum and mass constant while kinetic energy drops. Any energy lost to heat is going to affect both the kinetic energy AND the momentum.
As you said; this is middle school physics.

And where are you getting the idea that MOST of the energy will be lost to heat? You're making an awful lot of assumptions about this collision. Sounds like you're just pulling that out of your ass, and given how arrogantly you were blatantly wrong just now, I'm thinking that's the case.

Attached: 6f8[1].png (760x572, 247.23K)

meant
p = m * v

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Marine_Corps_Staff_Sgt._Michael_Rice,_a_military_police_platoon_sergeant_with_Marine_Wing_Support_Squadron_(MWSS)_471,_launches_a_dummy_grenade_from_a_Mossberg_M500_with_a_grenade_launching_cup_attachment_120410-A-QD330-011.jpg

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x531, 486.92K)

In a closed system, where no mass is removed or added, momentum and energy remains constant.
The um of Energy at thr beginning is:
kinetic energy of the bullet traveling inside the barrel.
After the impact it is:
kinteic energy of the rifle grenade and bullet + heat energy.
This means:
Ekin1=Ekin2+Etherm2 if the frame of reference is the rifle.
Thus Ekin2

There was actually a German 9mm smg designed to fire AT rifle grenades with blanks. I have a pic of it, but currently I don't have access to my images. Also, the AK had a cup launcher to propel hand grenades with blanks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalashnikov_grenade_launcher

And how the hell are people here to lazy to at least read fucking kikepedia? Here is a rundown of rifle grenade types: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Designs
And here is this classic: benandbawbsblog.blogspot.hu/2012/01/revisiting-rifle-grenade.html

How would you calculate a shoot-through type? If I understand correctly it's mosly propelled by the escaping gases.

Fucking noobs, ever saw russians with GM-94? All they have is grenades for days and the launcher.
What do you need a rifle for when you have a 30/40mm thermobaric shotgun?

Sure. It might even be beneficial because extra pressure can escape in cylinder gap, meaning there's no modification needed to the mouth of the barrel.

Kind of defeats the concept of a lighter solution to M203 or taking a long-arm out of combat….

40mm has an arming distance, a metal inertia ring spins a geared detonator rotor a preset number of times before the fuse is actually activated and the thing can explode. It also has an unecessarily complex impact fuse.

The bullet trap is just aluminum, kevlar and empty space. It's actually lighter than the casing and even the explosive mix, and decreases the mass of the shell.

The fuse is continuous with the bullet trap and activates inertially when the bullet hits the trap, it is simplicity itself. It doesn't have a complex arming protocol because its not a 40mm carried in a M203 constantly, always in danger of being fired at the floor or something. A pistol has to be drawn and the grenade has to be clipped onto the barrel, that is a deliberate act which (with inertial fuse) enough to ensure safety.
Also the current most common 40mm round is a HEDP, slightly different configuration than what I have in mind or what you posted, but even the thing you posted has a fucktonne of wasted space.

Momentum is a vector, kinetic energy is a scalar, the dimensions are what make them measure different things. Energy isn't lost. Momentum isn't lost. Law of conservation of momentum means vector quantity is conserved. Law of conservation of energy means a scalar quantity is conserved, but considering it measures energy it can be converted into different forms of it, which makes it appear like its lost, but the total energy of the system is the same. Equal consideration goes to momentum, the total quantity is the same, and because it can't be converted into another kind of momentum, it's going to make the grenade go forward.

It's transferring momentum to the grenade through the rifling. Calculate initial momentum of bullet and momentum of gasses, subtract momentum of bullet and gasses after it leaves the shoot-through grenade, you have the momentum of the grenade.

Are you having a stroke? This is barely legible.

>Thus Ekin2

>What I did say was that you can't keep momentum the same while kinetic energy goes down, which is what you said happened.
Yes, you can. I just proved it. Conservation of momentum in plastic impacts. Google it, faggot. It's middle school physics over here.
How dense are you? Do you really think that you could get any kind of elasticity out of LEAD? That's about the most plastic material you can get.
Getting exact numbers is difficult, because we are talking about deformation-heat loss, which is always extremely difficult to calculate. We are talking massive simulations in computer centers here, but luckily I am saying that you don't need any of that. You can just use momentum to calculate the velocity of the grenade if you know the masses of the bullet and the grenade, as well as the muzzle velocity of the bullet.
I am going to go over it real slow once more.
Ekin1=kinetic energy of the bullet before impact.
Ekin2= kinetic energy of the bullet+grenade after impact
Ekin3=0=kinetic energy of the grenade before impact
Etherm=energy converted into thermal energy after impact.
Ekin1+Ekin3=Ekin1 because Ekin3=0
Ekin1=Ekin2+Etherm, because no further energy is added to the system.
Thus, no matter how you pull it, you can't calculate the velocity of the grenade+bullet after impact without knowing the exact amount of energy lost to thermal.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO!
p1=momentum of the bullet before impact
p2=momentum of bullet+grenade after impact
p3=0=momentum of the grenade before impact
p1+p3=p2
p1+p3=p1=p2

mb=mass of bullet
mg=mass of grenade
vb=velocity of bullet before impact
vnew=velocity of bullet+grenade after impact
p=m*v

mb*vb=p1
(mb+mg)*vnew=p2
p1=p2

m*b=(mb+mg)*vnew
m*b/(mb+mg)=vnew

You can calculate the velocity of the bullet+grenade after impact without knowing how much energy is lost to thermal upon impact.

I thought these designs don't have rifling inside the tube.

What if it's a bullet with an armour piercing steel core and a copper jacket?

It would depend on the design, maybe they have a temporary retention ring at the top, or narrow the channel to provide friction. Either way the calc works.

Yeah the takeaway from your message is that momentum calc is easier and more accurate, if anyone doesn't understand…

Actually we can make it so an armor piercing bullet would shoot through the grenade and disable the detonator.

Calculating the velocity by using the momentum is the ONLY accurate method for anyone who doesn't have access to advanced computer clusters.

Still won't matter. It's metal, which does possess come elasticity, but not if you ram it against another block of metal at more than 300 meters per second.

And you still haven't explained how you plan to pack the same amount of ordinance into a space that's now half occupied by a bullet trap.

Just start making VB grenades. Shoot through so the bullet trap isn't even a factor. This has all been done before learn from the past.

You have to shoot it with a gun for it to work. What fucking situation are a bunch of these grenades going to be shot at with a gun, directly into the bullet trap, and then depress the fuse, accidentally.

All I know is M381 40mm has only 32 grams of comp B and the entire thing weighs 230g, which is a hell of a lot more than I've got budgeted. I can fit in 35g of comp B and 2g of precut steel frag strip with 250 fragments each 0.13 grains weight, a plastic case 3g of plastic case, and 10g captive fuse.

That means for a M203 (1.36kg) and a quad set of 40mm grenades (0.92g), the same grenadier can carry forty five of my grenades. And he doesn't have to carry the weight of a M203 on the end of his goddamn weapon all of the time, all forty five of those grenades can be in his rucksack or wherever else they're comfortable.

That's slightly superior, sorry.

You seem to have somehow gotten this strange idea in your head that arming delays are somehow a feature unique to 40mm grenades, or that it exists solely to prevent that one extremely specific scenario that almost never happens outside of greentext stories. Mortar shells have an arming delay. Recoilless rifles have an arming delay. Fucking Stingers, a weapon that should be impossible to ND, have an arming delay. Even other rifle grenades have an arming delay.
Why? Because there's about a million other, more likely, ways that a soldier can kill himself with a rifle grenade.
Sometimes troops panic, forget their training, and fire without properly ranging the target.
Sometimes the enemy advances past the minimum safe range in the time that it takes to load, aim and fire.
Sometimes troops get forced into close combat while loading, and end up shooting a rifle grenade at close range because they either didn't have time to clear their muzzle or were panicked enough to forget that the grenade is there.
Sometimes troops fire at a target a hundred yards away, only to end up missing and hitting some obstacle ten yards downrange (or aiming too high/low and hitting the edge of the window they were firing through).
Sometimes the grenadier is a woman.
Sometimes the grenade or launcher has a defect, and you end up with a live grenade falling off the end of the gun.
And every once in a while, someone actually does manage to ND a rifle grenade in the five seconds between loading a round and firing.

Truly, this is the pinnacle of Canadian culture.

What about RPG safety cap for brainlets?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x531, 879.66K)

RPG-7 has arming safety too. Fuse electrical circuit is disconnected in non fired grenade.

Attached: 2017-08-30-230402_1366x768_scrot.png (553x478, 304.08K)

THIS IS 100 YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY

Nice essay post, but what rifle grenades have an arming delay? Because I can name ten off the top of my head without one. Arming delays present in cased grenades which may be carried around loaded all of the time if the soldier so chooses, this isn't equivalent to rifle grenades which are only put on when fired and are otherwise safe to escrima stick fight with.

I want actual smart people to challenge my idea not this fake-smart shit.
The people pointing out a sphere is not optimal have a far better point than you do, best I've seen so far, it would be cheaper to make and pack much better as a rectangle.

On a pistol it's not, that's the point.
Rifle grenades take longer to set up because of the length of the arm, they're more difficult to use, they require disabling your primary weapon… a pistol it makes more sense. It's secondary, easier to angle and aim from cover, and the primary is right there on a sling loaded with live rounds not blanks. It also has the benefit of being cheaper and lighter than either rifle grenades, thrown grenades, or underbarrels… 45:4 isn't even a competition.
Sure they have less of a blast zone than a good sized rifle grenade or a thrown grenade, but they can be fired from cover and are as powerful as underslung launchers. Also their lightness can make up for any lack of damage potential in numbers.

Attached: f3659d42e04232451363998924d24937e923c2ae0ea819ed29beeee20bf1ef3c.jpg (1212x1348, 137.41K)

ftfy

Attached: dub launcher.jpg (800x531, 78.67K)

Do it faggot

Attached: 1405778868911.gif (214x200, 182.86K)

Sounds good user. Inform the army and ask them to fund your project.

o shit i took the bait

Attached: 1332756471610.jpg (630x800, 384.4K)

Yeah user, we should just give every infantryman LMG as standard issue, if they complain about the weight they're just being pussies.

tbh all infantry should be issued gpmgs (M240B) and light anti tank rockets (AT4), with a pistol (Glock 20) for close engagement. anti tank soldiers would of course have heavier anti tank rockets (FGM-148 Javelin) and anti tank grenades (idk something like the rkg but american) and a pistol (still the glock 20)

HEAT and FRAG? OK the German K98k 30mm grenades (GSG 30/46/61), M17 american, M61 spanish, P40, Strim 32, Telgren, Type 91 Japanese, Mecar, Energa, Yugo M60 and M93, Type 90 from china and I think Luchaire made one.

Insta-end yourself.

Eh, half right. It's been done on flare guns. weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/09/22/kampfsturmpistole/

Not sure how comparable the match is between a flare gun and 9mm handgun, but it's something to take this argument into a more realistic realm.

The momentum and the kinetic energy are both functions of the same two factors; mass and velocity. You are saying that in a given system, the output of the one function can remain the same while the output of the other function, taking the same parameters, can fall dramatically.
Kinetic energy is a function of mass and velocity and nothing else.
Momentum is a function of mass and velocity and nothing else.
For a given system, if one changes, the other necessarily has to change. The total mass of the system isn't changing, so you're claiming that a change of velocity can lower the value of the one function but not the other. The math on that absolutely does not check out.

I should have known the Germs would do it first, although their grenades are much bigger. Looks like the size of a VP40.

specialistauctions.net/1478096,auction_id,auction_print

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-264-1623-20,_Frankreich,_Soldaten_in_Schutzstellung_mit_Kampfpistole.jpg (534x800 37.92 KB, 39.1K)

I just reviewed my notes. I'm wrong; you're right. Momentum is conserved.
You're still an ass about it, and you're absolutely terrible at explaining it, which is why it wasn't you who convinced me.

Schiessbecher, ENERGA, M31, AT52 (I think, info is pretty scarce on that one), L75, RGGS and Type 06 all have some form of delayed arming system. French grenades are the only modern designs that don't have a delay, and those have pretty well-documented safety issues.

I've provided the dimensions, payload and mass of an actual real-world grenade that closely matches your proposed grenade's capabilities. You've chosen to totally ignore those in favor of a fictional wunderwaffe that does not exist outside of your imagination and has parts orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than any real-world design.

now this is just getting silly

Also no grunt is going to willingly carry both a handgun and a rifle into combat, so that's about 2-3 pounds of unnecessary weight.

capped

Attached: Kommando does the math for a pistol grenade.png (1283x586, 98.48K)

Kampfpistole launched grenades by gunpowder gases not by bullet momentum transfer.

Use bullpups.
I don't see how switching to an other weapon is more complicated than sliding a grenade to the end of the rifle.
You yourself want to put a bullet trap to this grenade, yet you bring up blanks?

Kudos on being a big enough man to admit it. Not something we see on the net often.

Not an issue.

Bullet traps are superior to blank or shoot through though, especially when talking about pistols. A shoot through pistol grenade wouldn't make much sense, and a blank fired pistol grenade would also be very unwieldy. Whereas it doesn't take much to trap a 9mm or a .45. A bit of aluminum and kevlar, that's it. Super light, super easy to use.

Bullpups are a bandaid solution, the French did it and it worked for awhile. The problem is bullpups come with a whole slew of negative tradeoffs like trigger, chamber location, and so on that make it not worth it.

When talking about rifles shot through are lighter and can use any ammo including AP.

True. The only real downside to shoot through is that it can't use HEAT, but that's not an issue here.

The only advantage of bullpups is OAL. Every other thing that a bullpup changes is for the worse: balance, trigger weight, malfunction clearing, control operation and general ergos are all worse. There is a theoretical logistics advantage of bullpups for poorfag countries that want one gun to fill two roles, but that's negated by almost every country that adopts a bullpup (I think France and their FAMAS are the one exception) ends up adopting a shorter/longer version of the same gun for different roles anyways.

How?
The trigger will probably be worse, but it doesn't necessarily mean heavier
How? Having to move your hand back a few extra inches compared to standard rifles is really that much effort? And it's not really a matter of effort, it's just training and not being used to it.

Depends on the gun, not really something inherent with the bullpup design, especially not any more now that companies are figuring out all these meme linkages to allow stuff like mag releases and fire selectors to be by the pistol grip like the AR-15. There are standard rifles with shit controls and ergos and bullpups with great controls and ergos.

Right. Fuck off Ian, stop it with this meme, seriously. While some countries that adopt bullpups do also adopt carbine versions or SMGs, these are limited to very, very specific roles, unlike the previous mixture of guns that pretty much every pre-bullpup country had before. Take Britain for example, we used to issue SLRs and Sterlings, with NCOs getting Sterlings and non-machine gunner troops getting SLRs. The SA80 replaced both the Sterling and the SLR, not only simplifying the logistics of having two different weapons, but also the ammo logistics and making the ammo in the squad interchangeable, and no matter how many times Ian McCuckold screeches "ROOOOOOOO, LOOK AT THIS ESOTERIC L22 CARBINE VARIANT THAT IS ONLY USED BY AIRCRAFT CREWS!" will change that.
Ian is a complete fucking retard in this regard, the L22 is not a failure of the SA80 to replace the SMG, since the L22 is not issued in the place of the SMG, it is issued to helicopter crews, artillerymen and that sort of stuff, who would have previously been issued Browning 9mm PISTOLS. An SA80 variant replacing the Browning simplifies logistics of weapons and ammo as mentioned before, without having to give helicopter crewmen 20" barrel rifles in place of their handguns. Ian reeeing about this is almost as autistic if he said "The FAMAS failed because it didn't replace the Mle 1950 pistol".
So the SA80 single-handedly fully replaced both the SLR, the Sterling and additionally, in some roles, even the Browning HP. I don't see how that is a failure, sure the Browning's replacement is a shorter variant, but what do you expect? It's replacing a fucking pistol, and changing a weapon that has 0% parts and ammo interchangeability with the standard rifle to one that has 90+% parts interchangeability AND uses 5.56 is a massive positive, something that could not be done with a standard rifle of the same barrel length.
A bullpup being made into different variants to replace even more weapons that it previously would have been able to is NOT A BAD THING and I don't know why Ian McCommie and his fans think it is. The options are either: Have only a 20" variant, which replaces both battle rifles and SMGs and fits Ian McComrade's esoteric definition of "a successful design" and be stuck with inferior weapon and ammo logistics OR produce a shorter variant as well that further replaces EVEN MORE weapons in different roles that the original design was ever even intended to replace, further simplifying logistics by having much more (but not 100%) compatible parts than before and 100% compatible ammo/mags, but you don't get the approval of some ponytailed faggot youtuber.
tl;dr Bullpups like the SA80 actually successfully do complete their goal of replacing the two battle rifle and SMG roles, the shorter variants are usually replacements for pistols for artillery and helicopter crews, much like the M1 carbine, not failures of the bullpups to replace SMGs.
Only used by SAS/spec ops. 5.56 doesn't suppress too well compared to 9mm, so it's a failure of rifles in general, not bullpups.

Also, like the horsebacked barbarian was explaining, bullpups improve the use of rifle grenades, so OAL is not "the only advantage" like you stated. And even if OAL was "the only advantage", that's a massive deal for 5.56 rifles. OAL was such an issue for you guys that you adopted the M4 to replace the M16, and are now having massive issues with keeping 5.56 above it's velocity threshold for terminal ballistics at range, whereas the marines kept the M16, and are not having any such issues due to having 20" barrels. Bullpups like the AUG, FAMAS and SA80 solved the OAL issue the army was having, while still keeping 20" barrels and effective velocities like the marines.
That's to do with accuracy and armour penetration, not velocity, the L129A1 has a shorter barrel than the SA80, but because it doesn't use .poopoopee, it doesn't matter that it's velocity is lower.

Attached: 6a25dba23b0572440c0d0d9e91a0c6aa04596a91f42541bd1225d2ee7fc31929.jpg (1065x859, 74.33K)

Sorry for the autism, but Ian's retardation surrounding the L22 pisses me off to no end, the 20" SA80 DID fully replace the SLR and SMG and was completely successful in that (other than the rifle itself being shit, but hey), the L22 is an ADDITIONAL SA80 replacement for pistols, the SA80 was never intended to replace pistols. I don't see how Ian is blind to this. Or maybe it's just Komrade Kasarda filling his head with anti-bullpup propaganda.

Also forgot to mention:
The whole "replace muh battle rifle and SMG" argument regarding bullpups is a moot point anyway, because the whole philosophy of replacing both SMGs and BRs is part of the design philosophy behind fucking ASSAULT RIFLES in general, not fucking bullpups. Hell, you yanks tried doing it with the fucking M14 and the Russians successfully did it with the AK, which replaced both the PPS-43 and the SVT/AVT-40/SKS. Just because the Russians adopted the AKS-74u (which was also intended to replace pistols in the hands of helicopter crews, exactly the same as the L22), doesn't mean that the entire concept of assault rifles is retarded and we should just go back to BRs and SMGs.
God I fucking hate Ian
Sage for fucking tripleposting, Jesus Christ

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1010x837 275.11 KB, 961.66K)

Seems pointless, you might as well make the so-called "pirate pistol" used by the SEALS standard issue. No complicated engineering needed for a whole new thing, cheap as hell, standard with 40mm grenades.

Attached: pirate-gun.jpg (508x196, 22.88K)

Holy shit you are actually right.

Attached: WHAT.png (428x420, 217.02K)

Now add to this that intermediate cartridges have to be supported by full-powered ones, especially if they are fired from glorified submachineguns. And now the US Army wants to give every squad leader a Sig Sauer P320 for reasons.
All of these could be replaced by a single bullpup and rifle grenades, even without adopting a new cartridge.

Wouldn't be an issue if Churchill let us fucking adopt .280 instead of sucking Yankee cock and adopting .30-06 short
But the Russian/British system of having 5.45/5.56 for AR/SMG/BR roles and 7.62x54R/7.62x51 for GPMG and DMR roles is pretty good too, but it only works if you adopt a non-meme round like 5.45 or a rifle with a 20" barrel to take advantage of 5.56

I have a counter-proposal.
Instead of scaling rifle nades down for pistols, let's scale them up for HMGs and give every toyota technical and sandbag emplacement anti-armor capabilities. Plus big hefrags that fly far and throw shrapnel far, big thermobarics that kill a lot in garrisoned buildings or caves or trenches or whatever, big smoke or teargas cans for big riot pacification, and big white phosphorus flares for illumination only my dude haha.

Cheap and shitty, but portable and compatible with existing hardware. Maybe even have dummy nades with warheads you can slot in. A can that shits propaganda leaflets as it flies overhead. A parachute-retarded illumination flare. Something rocket boosted or even guided that just needs that little bit of push to get off the ground.

And you can fit these onto anti-material rifles too.

Imagine.

Attached: 43f3b55df4de7050c3a7407c3317ad37ea91900873dce73fb59eec24f184133d.png (468x550, 152.37K)

...

Even a full scale rifle grenade can be launched from a pistol.

It would just be effective 100 feet instead of 500 feet.

I remember you saying that and after I did the calc I found a .50 BMG rifle or MG can launch a modified 60mm mortars to their full range.

>Replace Davy Crocket nukes with tank cannon grenades Yes it works I did the calc… just heavy to mount.
Zig Forums - Gunnades

I really feel that we've had enough advancement in nuclear sciences and ballistics that the Davy Crockett could be revitalized as a viable platform.

lol is that a joke? We can make suitcase nukes that are directional now, we just don't do it because then the Russians would too, and god knows who they would give them to.

Yeah those evil russian hackers would download those nukes to ISIS laptops and they'd attack Israel with them! We can't let that happen

What do you have against Jewish people? Are you a nazi?

Is that an ISISrael flag your hiding?