I have a small suggestion. And it is only a suggestion.I think the weapons should not go according to the popular style of painting. If you understand a soldier need what kind of weapons that I think you can make a very good gun.
I like it. It looks like the FAMAS and FN F2000 had babies... Just as long as it didn't get the F2000s forward ejection system (and it takes standard AR mags), I'd want one; the FES has to be one of the dumbest systems ever. That's just asking for a jam. Perhaps have the extractor pull the spent casing backwards as the bolt recoils and then drops it out the bottom?
So I did. I'm not an AR fan, so I'm not familiar with which is which, but there are a number of rifles out there that only accept non-standard magazines and only in the round count allowed by the manufacturer (such as the Ruger Mini-14, which will only take a mag with a max of 20 rounds, whereas with rifles that accept standard mags, you can get anything from 20 to 100).
Very well put and very true. That was also the same standard for the M14 however if we are talking about military grade issue rifles here chances are STANAG magzines will be the one size fits all (not counting soviet esque weaponary of course)
Then yes, I would hope it accepts STANAG mags the way the F2000 and the Kel-Tec SU-16C (my favorite lightweight carbine) do. That way, mags are everywhere, which means they're cheap and you can stock up on them if you want; to continue with my previous example of the Mini-14, mags for it are around 28$ a pop compared to STANAG MagPul AR-15 mags which can go for as little as 10$ each.
Sorry for the late reply. Anyways yes generalization is a great thing. My SL8 carbine can accept STANAG magazines just fine and as it is a VERY expensive civvie carbine im grateful at the convenience of interchangable magazines.
That's probably one of the reasons I won't buy an FN P90, despite how much I like it; sure it holds 50 rounds standard, is completely ambidextrous, and if you pay for the SBR tax-stamp, you can get that ridiculous 16" barrel shortened. The problem is it costs 1,800$ and the mags, which will fit it and nothing else, are 40$ a pop. Luckily, the SCAR takes STANAG mags; I dunno if I'd be that crazy about buying a 2,500$ rifle and then having to buy proprietary mags for it.
Eh i dont hate the SP90 fo its long barrel it helps declassify it as an assault weapon. Dude spending $2500 is little money for the return you can get on some rifles. Ive been saving said amount cause im keeping my eye on the MR5 (HK416 civie model) it all depends on the person whether or not they will appreciate the gun.
LOL the amount of bs people try to spew when they pretend to know about guns. Okay critical standpoint here, I noticed that the weapon itself has no charging handle (how am i suppose to clear a jam?) there is also a lack of a magazine release button, the MP5 drum sights in the back of the gun are too low to align with the front sight as well as the fact that the EOTECH sight is to low. Unecessary forward sheath (looks cool but unecessary weight). Also as mentioned before there is too much in front of the trigger (for what a proper bullpup rifle looks like please consult the designs for the F2000 as well as the Groza assault rifle). The gun looks cool and its obvious you put alot of work in it but there is alot of technical mistakes here.
I'll always critique weapons: Sight should be on top of the handrail, that's what the accessory rail is for and that way it isn't blocked by it. There's a crapload of useless weight in the front of the gun. In a bullpup configuration like this most of the mechanism is going to be behind the trigger block around the location of the magazine with just the barrel and minimal body coming out the front. Similar to above there's a little too much stock, there's only so much mechanism a gun needs and usually it's around where the cartridges enter the gun. The magazine should probably be further back, or the stock should be partially telescoping.
It looks a heck of a lot better than most guns people come up with: it could actually work. It's just that people seem to forget that form always follow function (more or less, I'm looking at you XM-8) with weapons of war so an understanding of why guns look the way they do always helps with a near-future weapon.
Dude look at the dust test for the M4 replacement the XM8 lead the way with the fewest jams. THe weapon was not cancelled because the it was disfunctional, its because of stupid funding and red tape bullshit.
Yes. My comment was mostly that it's form is a LOT less glued to the skeleton of its internal parts than most older weapons. Not that it's unique, a lot of the bullpup guns have similar levels of exterior design.
PS: XM8 was nice, but a fully functional OICW would have been a lot cooler.
XN8 design was based of the INCREDIBLY reliable G36 design sure the gun might have felt a little loose but its rugged reliability more then made up for it. Fully functioning OICW? You should look up the korean daewoo K11 its bulky as hell but also accurate and flexible