Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4957813-20140510034158/@comment-24042984-20140613175922

The difference in length may not be great, but it is sufficient enough to make a difference in a combat situation. The most critical difference is the increased mass of the magazine. Assuming the magazine is manufactured the same way as the current standard-issue STANAG magazine, the difference in mass will make it easier to damage the magazine, an issue that will only be excabated by the fact that losing a magazine will have greater consequences, as they each have a greater of number bullets. Could you define "large-scale conflict"? Is it referring to the usefulness of infantry? I very highly doubt that the U.S. military is making magazines cheap to produce in order to save on costs, as that simply isn't a smart thing to do. Also, most do regard magazines as disposable and replaceable even though it would be ideal to reuse them.

I was simply correcting an error while defining the term as simply as possible. Accuracy is determined by the firearm itself. If you have two bolt-action rifles fixed to a stationary mount and one uses 7.62 NATO while the other uses 5.56 NATO, you will find that you will get similar clusters. The main reason why people percieve the 5.56 has better accuracy is because 7.62 creates more recoil, often resulting in less accurate fire in comparsion to a 5.56 when firing more than a single shot at a time. There is a reason why so many snipers use the 7.62 NATO (beside the round's ability to travel further than a 5.56).

How can you compare the scope of a AUG to "similar sights" mounted on other assault rifles when there aren't any? The AK and the AR both do not come with scopes, and thus, no comparison can be made. The only other assault rifle you listed that comes with a integrated sight are certain models of the G36. Of these, only the export versions that use the integrated sight can be compared with the AUG's sights (as both use the 1.5x magnification). I don't see how the G36's sights are particularly superior than that of the AUG's... Also, I don't really see how any iron sight (that has been properly aligned and calibrated) is "better" or "worse" in terms of accuracy... Training has no factor in determining whether a weapon system is good or not, and frankly, bullpups are very easy to figure out and not very difficult to get used to. Maintenance of the weapon is also quite similar to that of other rifles, so I don't really see any problems with training anyways. Regardless, a properly-trained soldier should be familiar with most weapons anyways, so being familiar with a bullpup-styled weapon shouldn't really be anything new. The AR-15 weight and the AUG weight that I referenced put the AR above the AUG by roughly 1.4 kilos. I would also like to point out that the AUG is largely easier to wield than an AR because of its good balance and weight. Bullpups may be different and more complex, but unlike conventional rifles, you are able to use the same rifle for a greater variety of situations instead of switching to a carbine or PDW, making it more versatile in terms of combat roles.

Well it's expected that those models are still in use. Change always happens slowly, especially with good designs that already exist for conventional systems. Also, I would like to know where you heard that  the IDF's special forces rejected the Tavor, seeing as 1) Special forces is extremely vague, as the IDF has more than one special forces unit, and 2) Special forces units usually allow their operators great degrees of freedom in regards to their weapons systems. Your usage of the word "standard" is very unclear and ambiguous, which ultimately makes that statement not very meaningful...

Well I haven't seen any new ideas on this thread, so I don't see very much harm in continuing as of yet. However, if you wish to stop/move the discussion, I am fine with it.