Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4957813-20140510034158/@comment-24042984-20140612154907

The casket magazine is extremely long and would make rifles quite unwieldy due to their shape. Also, it limits your ability to carry specific numbers of ammunition. Furthermore, the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" philosophy. If it were basically a enlarged version of the current aluminum STANAG magazine used by the U.S. military, then it would only worsen the issues of ammunition loss through damage while also increasing the likelihood of damage to the magazine due to its increased mass. It's not a question of whether it's "too much" for a grunt, as it simply holds the same amount of ammunition in a different form. You also cannot make the generalization that operators do not need to shoot very much simply due to the diverse nature of each of these units. As a standard issue magazine, this would be a poor choice compared to the current STANAG magazine in use, and thus, it would not be considered cutting corners. I also do not see the connection you are trying to make with cheap costs (since you did say in a previous post that magazines aren't supposed to be expendable).

This statement is incorrect. "Assault rifle" means a rifle that posseses selective fire capability. Accuracy is wholly determined by the design of the gun (most notably the rifling in the barrel). The caliber of the bullet does not impact the accuracy whatsoever.

No, this comparison cannot be made. You are comparing the iron sights of a conventional rifle setup with a detachable scope; a comparison that is very unfair. Furthermore, the scope is definately not a integral part of the rifle, as it can be detached without affecting the gun's ability to fire projectiles, and thus cannot be considered to be a serious flaw of any sort. Your hypothetical "untrained man will learn the AR faster" is irrelevant. We are not talking about guns in the hands of a civilian; we are talking about guns in the hands of a professional, else no legitimate comparison can be made between the two. The charging handle is probably stiff because you have not "broken" I was not referring to the gun's ability to change the side where the bullet ejects, I was referring to shooting on the wrong side of the weapon (ex. bullet ejects to the right and you are shooting with your left hand). While it definately won't be very comfortable by any means, it is definately possible to adaquetely shoot the gun like that without having to eat brass. As mentioned earlier, the AUG is pretty evenly balanced. While bullpups may be more complicated, "over-complicated" is pretty subjective, and whether it should be used in this context is debatable. It is also incorrect to state that bullpups have "shorter barrel lengths", as they actually use full-length barrels. Shorter barrels impair, not improve, performance of the weapon.

I would also like to add that the bullpup system has proven its ability to function effectively as a rifle, as evidenced by the adoption of the system by the IDF, PLA, French Army, Bundesheer, ADF, and the NZDF just to name a few. This definately goes on to show that bullpup designs actually have been widely used by militaries with good results.