I just like any gun that doesn't look like an AR, AK (with the exception of the SVD and VSS), or other common firearm.
Imo, space guns and experimental-looking weapons are proven to have superior penetration, lower spread and bullet drop, higher fire rate and magazine capacity, and radically improved durability and repairability over their mentally stunted, dime-a-dozen, snoozefest cousins. Weapons like the H&K G11, FAMAS, FN F2000, and Mateba Model-6 Unica are objectively superior to weapons like the M16, AK-19, and M17/M18. The reason why most modern militaries choose AR or AK platforms for their weapons is a result of successful lobbying by global military contractors. They're objectively worse than cool-looking guns, but there's too much money involved and so small companies like H&K can't compete.
The XM29 OICW and XM25 should have never been cancelled. Alas, H&K was obviously, once again, out-lobbied by Big AR.
I love this grade A bullpup copium.
Brain dead trolling
Check your community
You do know that AR references the singular company Armalite, right?
Also it makes no sense to say in my opinion x is objectively better than y. If it was objectively better then it's not just your opinion...
And you've completely ignored the history of the advanced combat rifle program which showed that advanced "space weapons" like the G11 had little improvement over the m16 and culminated in a 300 million dollar cost to figure out that putting a scope on any rifle was the best way to improve that rifles accuracy leading to development of the acog scope?
Sorry, but I don't listen to pro-AR propaganda.
The 45~50 round magazine, caseless ammunition and delayed-recoil 3-round burst of the G11 are just objectively better than some piddly M16.
The magazine for a standard issue M16 can only hold 30 rounds max, and US troops don't even usually load the full 30 rounds as a result of Vietnam-era superstition. That means the G11 has at least 66% more bullet per magazine than the inferior M16.
Furthermore, the fact that the G11's recoil is delayed on 3-round bursts means it has the pinpoint accuracy needed to efficiently dispatch hostile forces with extreme prejudice. Meanwhile, the M16 is gonna recoil for each one of those shots, throwing off your aim and making the burst-fire mode useless. Using a G11? Show those terrorists who's boss. Using an M16? You might as well get on your knees and suck their dicks.
Finally, the 4.73x33mm caseless munitions used by the G11 are better in every way. They don't tumble upon impact with a target, making your kills cleaner and more compliant with internation conventions, resulting in them being more humane than the brutal 5.56x45mm NATO rounds employed by M16s. Additionally, the caseless nature of the rounds makes them more environmentally friendly than traditional munitions as you won't leave spent brass everywhere when using them. Less trash = more good for the environment. To top things off, while the tendency for the G11's caseless ammunition to cook-off under heavy usage might seem like a design flaw, it is actually a work of genius engineering as it allows troops to readily turn their rifles into improvised explosives while under heavy fire. This allows them to throw the rifle in the direction of surpressing fire and take advantage of the full 45-50 round magazine without ever leaving defensive cover. I bet your weak-ass M16 can't do that, can it?
As you can see, the G11 is highly superior to the standard M16 and should have been fielded. However, Big AR got in the way by reunifying East and West Germany, thereby causing Germany's political climate to change and the G11 to become unnecessary; while also spreading rumors about how the tendency for the G11's superior caseless ammo to cook off under heavy use was a design flaw and not, in fact, an obviously intentional design feature.
Edit: improved some phrasing.
I think you can put any current bullpup service rifle on this list. You can tell because almost always, the militaries that adopt bullpup rifles switch to a traditional layout for their next one.
Also, I'm always down to shit on the L85.
What's wrong with bullpups?
The actual, serious complaint I have by far heard the most often by actual shooters and reviewers is that the trigger pull is clunky and much more significant on bullpups than on non bullpups.
While I have not shot a bullpup... I find it odd that nearly all of the reviewers I have seen complain about this to the point of it being a widespread meme and point of mockery... it doesnt seem to actually affect their accuracy or drill times much, and they will all tell you they don't use bullpups anywhere near as often as non bullpups... so its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy in that... im sure if they practiced more, even that small discrepancy would lessen.
Other sort of silly complaints I've seen are that they bruise and cut their hands when trying tonuse it like a longer weapon that can set up against a rock or other object to establish a firing position, because they are used to having more weapon length after where their hand grips on the barrel shroud.
The most legitimate concerns IMO are ease of field stripping and maintenance, though this seems to be improving with more modern designs, and the ejection port position making the gun very unfun for a lefty with brass and gas flying into your face... but there are bullpups with ambidextrous configurable ejection ports, or a few oddballs with downward or forward facing ejection ports that solve this problem.
Many will also complain about awkwardness of reloading and length of pull, but given that multiple world militaries seems to not have a problem using bullpups as service rifles, seems to me that sufficient practice would negate these issues. There also exist bullpups with adjustable stocks.
I have actually seen a study that shows that inexperienced shooters have better performance in terms of drill time and accuracy with bullpups over standard rifles, and experienced shooters with lots of standard rifle experience, while they do perform better with standard rifles, significantly overestimate how much better they were with the standard rifle in comparison to the bullpup.
If youre interested, the american youtube gun community seems to begrudgingly like the VHS 2 / Hellion, and the IWI 95/Tavor. Its pretty difficult to get your hands on many other bullpups that are known from movies or video games in the US as there aren't civillianized semi-auto variants of them manufactured.
Shit fucking triggers, the explosion is literally right next to your face, shit ergonomics because of it
But hey, the gun is a tiny bit shorter with a tiny bit longer barrel!! Gtfo
As much as I wish I could try an F2000 or AUG, I have no credible first-hand experience and can only parrot complaints that I have read on the Internet:
Ambidextrous use is more difficult when the ejection port is next to the shooter's face. It's not ideal for all your left-handed soldiers to have their weapons setup differently from all your right-handed soldiers. A workaround like the forward ejection on the F2000 is technically impressive, but complex.
All the controls - trigger, safety, bolt release, magazine release - are either operated by longer/more complex mechanisms or are tucked under the shooter's chin, farther away from the normal hand positions.
Putting the chamber close to the shooter's ear is nobody's idea of fun.
Ummmm ahkctually the Chinese have been issuing the QBZ 191 instead of the QBZ 95 for some years now.
Oh, I like the look. Does it work tho?
Edit: ugh, 5.8x42mm
More like QB-ez
