M-14 bullpup; FBI project?? - Page 2

Anarx · February 11, 2005, 12:52 AM

thats sad to hear he sounds like he was a great man.

Bullpupper · February 27, 2005, 03:12 PM

Handy,

The M1A/M14 was probably chosen for several reasons:

1) Since they were trying to market to the US military, the M14 would appeal since the US military knows it well and it would be accepted easier.

2) There is a plethora of knowledge and tech out there geared towards making the M1A/M14 a very precise shooting rifle. The idea was that this would not be a general infantry rifle, but weighing in at 12 pounds it would be a compact sniper rifle for 800 meter shots.

I saw on a firearms forum a thread about a visit to the SHOT show, and several posts were about a stock company which is working on a bullpup adaptation to the FN-FAL. That is something I would really like. IMO the FN-FAL is one of the best all around Battle Rifles.

gray · April 18, 2005, 11:41 PM

A bit more info on the AWC Bullpup;
I took it to a weapons course many years ago;
I ran about 400 rounds though it, without cleaning.

It ran fine until the last 50 rounds, then it started to jam;
I think that was due to the tight chamber(heavy Krieger barrel)
getting gummed-up.

I could never get it to shoot any better than around 2 moa, but
I should mention, I never used the wrench to adjust the barrel tension
and all the shooting was without the use of a bench or bags; just
me holding it as steady as I could from various positions.
I forget what AWC called the system for adjusting barrel tension.

It also came with a suppressor; very quiet; less noise than a 22 short.
Just a pop and a crack; I was not using subsonic ammo.

I think it was a good try, and definitely unique. It could be used now
in Iraq; everybody is looking for short weapons for carrying in vehicles;
just look at the SAGE folding stock and the SOCOM 16.
Everyone also is looking for weapons with more punch than the 5.56;
those little bullets just break up and cannot penetrate the vehicles
the bad guys are riding in.

The only negative I could find was that it was a bit tail heavy
and the trigger was a bit sloppy; that could be improved upon
I think. It did come to the cheek quickly.

I would not hesitate to take it to a combat zone once a good gunsmith
gave it a going over.

G

Stiletto · April 19, 2005, 12:01 AM

On the tail-heavy bit, I don't get why nobody hasn't made a thumbhole style grip with the magazine well in the section behind the grip; this would put the magazine closer by an inch or two to the grip, also shortening the length of the trigger mechanism, and move the center of gravity closer to the grip hand. It would also make the shoulder-to-grip distance a bit closer to what people are used to from conventional designs.

gray · April 19, 2005, 09:57 AM

Not sure why others have not tried to fiddle with the design;
The Israeli's copied AWC's design; in fact, AWC made 100 for them,
then they just copied the design and made their own.

With the suppressor, it is a very compact system, and not tail-heavy
with the suppressor attached.
Apparently, it is technically very challenging to get a gas operated gun
to function properly with and without the suppressor; ie) for both conditions.

The AWC bullpup has a gas valve to adjust the amount of gas going through the port in order that it will cycle with and without the suppressor.

Overall, it's weight is not more than a standard M1A, just that it
is concentrated further back; takes a little getting used to is all.

My goal is to take it to a M14/M1A expert gunsmith, if I can find one,
to have him go over it to see if he can improve on the reliability and
accuracy.
I would consider fluting the Kreiger heavy barrel; that would lighten it up
some and help with cooling a tad, maybe open up the chamber a tiny bit,
or even flute it like on H&K's in order to ease extraction. More important
on the battlefield where you are more likely to run into cases of varying dimentions.

One thing I forgot; the scope is mounted relatively high which makes
the cheek weld a bit higher than normal; that could also affect accuracy
as one would have to relearn the natural cheek weld we all have learned
from shooting most other weapons. Again, something that can be learned.

The main advantage to this weapon system is it's compactness; which
is the reason for the existance for all Bullpups.

g

February 11, 2005, 12:52 AM	#26
Anarx Member Join Date: January 30, 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 78	thats sad to hear he sounds like he was a great man. __________________ Just me Thoughts Jess

April 18, 2005, 11:41 PM	#28
gray Junior Member Join Date: February 9, 2005 Posts: 3	AWC bullpup A bit more info on the AWC Bullpup; I took it to a weapons course many years ago; I ran about 400 rounds though it, without cleaning. It ran fine until the last 50 rounds, then it started to jam; I think that was due to the tight chamber(heavy Krieger barrel) getting gummed-up. I could never get it to shoot any better than around 2 moa, but I should mention, I never used the wrench to adjust the barrel tension and all the shooting was without the use of a bench or bags; just me holding it as steady as I could from various positions. I forget what AWC called the system for adjusting barrel tension. It also came with a suppressor; very quiet; less noise than a 22 short. Just a pop and a crack; I was not using subsonic ammo. I think it was a good try, and definitely unique. It could be used now in Iraq; everybody is looking for short weapons for carrying in vehicles; just look at the SAGE folding stock and the SOCOM 16. Everyone also is looking for weapons with more punch than the 5.56; those little bullets just break up and cannot penetrate the vehicles the bad guys are riding in. The only negative I could find was that it was a bit tail heavy and the trigger was a bit sloppy; that could be improved upon I think. It did come to the cheek quickly. I would not hesitate to take it to a combat zone once a good gunsmith gave it a going over. G

April 19, 2005, 12:01 AM	#29
Stiletto Senior Member Join Date: March 9, 2005 Posts: 388	^^^ On the tail-heavy bit, I don't get why nobody hasn't made a thumbhole style grip with the magazine well in the section behind the grip; this would put the magazine closer by an inch or two to the grip, also shortening the length of the trigger mechanism, and move the center of gravity closer to the grip hand. It would also make the shoulder-to-grip distance a bit closer to what people are used to from conventional designs.

April 19, 2005, 09:57 AM	#30
gray Junior Member Join Date: February 9, 2005 Posts: 3	M14 Bullpup Not sure why others have not tried to fiddle with the design; The Israeli's copied AWC's design; in fact, AWC made 100 for them, then they just copied the design and made their own. With the suppressor, it is a very compact system, and not tail-heavy with the suppressor attached. Apparently, it is technically very challenging to get a gas operated gun to function properly with and without the suppressor; ie) for both conditions. The AWC bullpup has a gas valve to adjust the amount of gas going through the port in order that it will cycle with and without the suppressor. Overall, it's weight is not more than a standard M1A, just that it is concentrated further back; takes a little getting used to is all. My goal is to take it to a M14/M1A expert gunsmith, if I can find one, to have him go over it to see if he can improve on the reliability and accuracy. I would consider fluting the Kreiger heavy barrel; that would lighten it up some and help with cooling a tad, maybe open up the chamber a tiny bit, or even flute it like on H&K's in order to ease extraction. More important on the battlefield where you are more likely to run into cases of varying dimentions. One thing I forgot; the scope is mounted relatively high which makes the cheek weld a bit higher than normal; that could also affect accuracy as one would have to relearn the natural cheek weld we all have learned from shooting most other weapons. Again, something that can be learned. The main advantage to this weapon system is it's compactness; which is the reason for the existance for all Bullpups. g

February 27, 2005, 03:12 PM	#27
Bullpupper Junior Member Join Date: January 1, 2005 Posts: 6	Handy, The M1A/M14 was probably chosen for several reasons: 1) Since they were trying to market to the US military, the M14 would appeal since the US military knows it well and it would be accepted easier. 2) There is a plethora of knowledge and tech out there geared towards making the M1A/M14 a very precise shooting rifle. The idea was that this would not be a general infantry rifle, but weighing in at 12 pounds it would be a compact sniper rifle for 800 meter shots. I saw on a firearms forum a thread about a visit to the SHOT show, and several posts were about a stock company which is working on a bullpup adaptation to the FN-FAL. That is something I would really like. IMO the FN-FAL is one of the best all around Battle Rifles.