Right, i was just thinking that itd take a tad bit longer before other countries would be willing to try out a bullpup, not that theyd never use them. And perhaps with Britain adopting one so early that first generation of bullpups will have speedier development times and nations like the US and USSR will tinker with the concept to shake out all the kinks in their own bullpup designs.
Doing some more research, it does seem like a
couple ideas for bullpups poped up in late/post ww2 US and even a few Soviet
ideas was floated before they went with what was a better option at that time.
Idk, bullpups are fine enough for what they are, but they have tradeoffs (like any weapon design) in manual-of-arms procedures that, at least from a U.S. perspective, aren't counteracted by their benefits. And regardless of whether those tradeoffs are worth considering, the whole barrel-length issue I feel is somewhat moot. I'm of the thought that, regardless of the rifle in question, nobody should be firing individual weapons beyond 300m at all*; that's machine gun, grenade launcher, and crew-served weapon/ordnance/vehicle armament/light artillery territory, not shoulder weapon territory in any configuration**. As long as the rifle can be shortened, then its normal overall length isn't critical. That being said, I do like bullpup designs for marksman/sniper rifles where that barrel length is more critical for performance reasons than an infantry fighting rifle.
Regarding the OP I like 6-7mm cartridges as an idea, provided that nobody tries shoehorning them into roles they're not meant for. I've heard the machine gun performance rationale for countries abandoning 6.5mm for heavier .30-cal style rounds, which IMO makes sense but only up to the point where heavy-caliber machine guns can be adopted and widely issued (i.e. mount them on every vehicle down to Jeep-level, assuming a modern mechanized army). Regarding the 6.8x51mm, I think that caliber adoption is a horrible, horrible mistake by the Army. Less ammo, more weight for the ammo, a rifle that's too heavy itself due to being engineered for insane chamber pressures, still-too-much recoil that's only mitigated somewhat by 'smuzzle' attachments (which will invariably be lost or damaged in the field by the soldier), etc.*** A
6.5x39mm-esque round, on the other hand, is a much better idea, since it's still in intermediate-power territory (incidentally ISTR that the Grendel round can be loaded and fed from unmodified AK magazines...make of that what you will).
I think that having the EM-2 and FAL/G3 in a 6.5mm intermediate is also more than doable, which does for British and European/Continental purposes. For the U.S. I could see an M-14 style offshoot of a Garand design getting the nod, if not a Stoner build. My personal druthers, which is no more likely than the aforementioned ones to be clear, is an AR-18 variant since it has many of the same benefits as an AR-15 but is also less sensitive to shorter barrel performance, can handle longer sustained fire rates, can be shortened further than an AR-15 since its stock actually folds (no need for a buffer spring assembly rearwards), and (for SOF) is more optimal for suppressor mounting since it's a short-stroke piston design...that's all with 20/20 hindsight though.
*By which I mean a standard combat rifle, not LMGs or marksman rifles, though in the latter's case I still have doubts since getting that 'one-shot/one-kill' requires the target not taking cover or moving around; sniping is different since the element of surprise/stealth is inherently understood, not so much for a stand-up infantry engagement. I'll also caveat that harassing fire beyond 300m is fine and not a bad idea, long as nobody gets the idea that they're likely to hit anything vice suppressing enemy troops.
**Sure, being effective at that range for the average rifleman is nice, but even with optics at 300+ meters that's like trying to stab a flea with a safety pin, being able to see the enemy you're shooting at doesn't help since they won't just be standing still and open. In other words, not a capability worth the time to address, when a 40mm grenade fusillade or machine gun burst will work well enough.
***"But body armor penetration!"....like the armor we've seen a certain country use in real-life combat lately
made of phonebooks? I'm neither impressed nor convinced. IMO that necessity has been Overtaken By Events in terms of relevance. I've given my thoughts on range issues already.
