Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Naked Snake

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Naked Snake

  • Rank
    Why don't I have a custom title by now?!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Single Status Update

See all updates by Naked Snake

  1. The count on that ammo can is correct and those magazines hold 30 rounds.

    1. Show previous comments  24 more
    2. Dr. Zin

      Dr. Zin

      Snarboo said:

      Supposedly the Kel-Tec RFB is a modified FAL in a pullpup configuration with a forward ejection system.

      The RFB shares basically no design characteristics with the FAL besides the fact that it is designed to feed from "Metric" style FAL mags. It does, however, "borrow" the tubular ejection system from the FS2000.

      Snarboo said:

      Bullpup has some major advantages, though:
      -Shorter overall length, making the weapon more compact.
      -Most bullpup weapons are designed to be ambidextrous, so both left and right handed people can fire more comfortably.
      -Most bullpups have the stock and barrel as one continous line, like the M16, which some consider superior to having the stock offset from the barrel, like the AK-47.

      There are some disadvantages, such as longer trigger pull, but I'd say taking a fully functional weapon and making it more compact is win-win.

      1. Bullpups are shorter, but they suffer from more awkward controls. For example, magazine changes on bullpups are slower because the shooter must reach back and under the rifle to insert a new mag. Also, because they are shorter they lose some practical accuracy (i.e. the ability of the rifle-shooter combination to deliver accurate fire). Namely, they have an extremely short sight radius using iron sights (which is why most bullpups are issued with optics) and the fact that the majority of the weight of the rifle is behind the shooters hands means they are harder to hold steady in unsupported positions.

      2. Now this is just plain wrong. Rifles with a conventional layout are FAR more ambidextrous than most bullpup designs. You will note with the exception of the FN FS2000 and the Kel-Tec RFB (and maybe one or two other designs I am forgetting) most bullpups eject spent cases out the side of the rifle. Some designs (such as the Steyr AUG and FAMAS) can be retrofitted to left-side ejection by an armorer, while other designs such as the British L85 and Chinese QBZ95 cannot. Furthermore, the side-ejection bullpups prevent switching shoulders while using the rifle, such as when shooting around cover. The controls are also often poorly place for use by people who are left handed, particularly the safeties on many rifles.

      Even the tube ejection system used in the RFB and FS2000 is reported to have issues. And if there is a malfunction in that system it can be difficult to clear.

      3. Actually, from the AKM onward the Kalashnikov series of rifles has had a stock in line with the bore. You are probably being thrown off by the gas system above the barrel. Most rifles produced from the sixties onwards have a "straight line" arrangement.

      4. It isn't just that the trigger pull is long, it is that it tends to be gritty and usually doesn't have a clean "break."

      I would say that bullpup rifles have a use, but they definitely are not the "next stage of rifle development" or the other bullshit that some people peddle about them. Like everything else they are a compromise. If they areas that they are lacking are of secondary importance to the user, then they are a good choice. But they are far from dominating conventional weapons.

      If you are planning on clearing buildings and to a lesser extent operating from vehicles* short rifles can be very useful, but ergonomics, ambidextrous use (in most models) and long range capability are degraded.

      *Due to the fact that they are easier to stow. Actually fighting from vehicles is well known to be suicide.

      Of course, that is what makes the RFB seem, in my opinion, something of a white elephant. You have a cartridge well suited for ranged engagements on open terrain, and combine it with a compact rifle that is light (greater recovery time between shots) and short (less practical accuracy and greater muzzle blast). Not a terribly practical weapon.

    3. Snarboo


      Dr. Zin said:

      short (less practical accuracy and greater muzzle blast)

      This is something I was curious about: isn't the whole point of a bullpup weapon to have the same barrel length as a traditional weapon but be shorter in total length? I always thought barrel length was more important for determining accuracy. The Romanian AK you posted seems to have a longer barrel than a traditional AK while still being about the same length overall. That's why I pointed out how compact bullpups are. Otherwise your points are completely accurate.

      Honestly, the RFB seems to be designed to be nothing more than a range toy. :P Fun to look at and shoot, but not something made for combat. I posted it because it had an interesting ejection system that appears to be truly ambidextrous, if not practical.

    4. Dr. Zin

      Dr. Zin

      Barrel length actually has almost nothing to do with intrinsic accuracy (i.e. the accuracy potential of a rifle without the human element). Rather increased barrel length provides benefits to the practical accuracy of the rifle and its ballistics.

      The greatest boon to accuracy from a longer barrel is the increased sight radius when using iron sites. As said before, this is negated through the use of optics on most bullpups. The other benefit is that the rifle has a balance point where the front hand grips it when shooting offhand. This allows the shooter to "lock in" the supporting arm and reduce the drifting of the sights over the target, especially when using a shooting sling.

      However, the real reason that longer barrels in compact packages are touted is the improved ballistics when bullpups are compared with similar sized conventional rifles. Obviously because there is more length of barrel for the burning powder to act upon the projectile, it achieves a higher muzzle velocity. One bonus is that the round has less drop at long range, but the real benefit is that higher velocities tend to result in the fragmentation of FMJ projectiles at close ranges.

      If you are familiar with the Hague Accords you know that it is a war crime for a military to issue expanding ammunition. As a way of weaseling their way around this requirement many militaries have developed fully jacketed rounds that will lose their structural integrity when striking targets at high velocity. When you compare a Steyr AUG with an ultra-compact AR carbine you find that the AUG has a 16" barrel while the AR has a 11.5" in similarly sized guns. The 16" barrel is much more likely to produce fragmentation in its projectiles.

      Snarboo said:

      Honestly, the RFB seems to be designed to be nothing more than a range toy. :P Fun to look at and shoot, but not something made for combat. I posted it because it had an interesting ejection system that appears to be truly ambidextrous, if not practical.

      Yeah, like I said Kel-Tec ripped that system from FN. The F2000 has actually been issued to some forces, but I note that all of them have a very low probability of seeing actual combat. Like you said, great idea for the range - terrible idea for the battlefield.