/k/ - Weapons

>What rifle makes for the best carbine?

Anything that doesn't suck.

>What cartridge is best suited for a carbine?

Anything that doesn't suck.

>How do bullpups compare to traditional carbines?

They suck.

/thread

>>580005

>What rifle makes for the best carbine?

The one you're good with.

>What cartridge is best suited for a carbine?

Something that doesn't recoil like a cunt

>How do bullpups compare to traditional carbines?

They're short with a full barrel, abyssal trigger pull.

An old Swedish M38 might be up your alley or a lever gun of some sort.

>>580005

<What rifle makes for the best carbine?

Depends whom you are arming and for what purpose. 94% of the time the answer will be either barbiedoll AR-15 or AK-74 The Rifle Dynamics AK-74 is technically a carbine because with a 14.5" barrel, it has a shortened barrel compared the 16.1" original AK-74.

<What cartridge is best suited for a carbine?

Again, depends on what you're using it for. For a general purpose gun 5.45x39 is the best practical round, and 5.56x45 is imperfect but more than good enough if it's abundant in your area. .224 Valkyrie is objectively better than both ballistically speaking, especially when you factor in weight, but its position as an expensive, relatively uncommon meme round makes it impractical to adopt in most cases. It's also new and relatively unproven in adverse conditions.

<How do bullpups compare to traditional carbines?

At this moment, with the current lineup, they're mostly shit for general purpose but have some limited use in certain niches. That niche could be made a lot bigger and a fair bit firmer if some company went out of their way to design a bullpup rifle from the ground up instead of taking a conventional rifle, ramming the FCG forward, and lopping off the stock.

>What rifle makes for the best carbine?

AR15

>What cartridge is best suited for a carbine?

5.56

>How do bullpups compare to traditional carbines?

Poorly.

>bullpups

suck. the few inches you save in length really fucks up the trigger feel. also its unnerving having the ejection port under your cheek. can't imagine how shitty it would be if you're a lefty.

>>580073

>can't imagine how shitty it would be if you're a lefty.

Most bullpups have the ability to swap what side it poops brass from.

>the few inches you save in length really fucks up the trigger feel

The other main issue with bullpups is that they all feel surprisingly bulky despite being shorter.

>>580087

>The other main issue with bullpups is that they all feel surprisingly bulky despite being shorter.

It's because of the weight balance. CoM for the bullpup is further back, which means your shooting hand is taking almost all of the weight when you hold it This ends up wearing you out quicker than conventional rifles, in which CoM is approximately between the grip points and both arms take equal strain.

>>580098

>preferring rifles to be front-heavy

>not preferring more of the weight to be in your shoulder rather than in your hands

Have you ever held a bullpup, anon?

>>580127

>I prefer the CoM to be closer to the middle

But that's what most bullpups have

>but standing around holding the rifle across the chest, which is what infantry spend most of their time doing.

>not issuing a sling

Also, OP is wondering about carrying while doing other tasks, which means he'll probably have a sling.

>>580028

>if some company went out of their way to design a bullpup rifle from the ground up instead of taking a conventional rifle, ramming the FCG forward, and lopping off the stock.

It's quite sad that a Polish man who emigrated to the UK solved the main problem of bullpups simply by redesinging a German rifle, and nobody took any ideas from him. It's stiker fired, so you really can't complain about muh trigger pull. I think an ideal bullpup should have these features:

>striker fired

>downward/forward ejection

>has an adjustable stock

>barrel is free floated

>instead of random rails at random places it has a nice long rail at the top and the whole handguard is full of M-LOK cutouts

It really doesn't sound that fucking hard to me.

>>580128

>>580125

Froganon, something bullpups lack is proper weight distribution. They have a fat ass and you've got no counterbalance towards the front of the rifle.

>>580128

>Also, OP is wondering about carrying while doing other tasks, which means he'll probably have a sling.

Slings are a mandatory part on every rifle I own. What are you anons doing if you aren't using slings? Even the rifles I have that never leave the house have slings on them just because they're cheap and I never know when I might want to grab it and go for a walk.

>>580124

I'll look into these anons thanks. I keep seeing .300BLK shilled everywhere but I'm not sure if it's for me since I don't own any suppressors. I can see the use in a PDW/shooting it suppressed in the home but at that point I wouldn't really consider it a carbine anymore. I'm thinking my best option might be building an AR in 6.5 grendel since I don't have anything in that yet. How is that cartridge out of shorter barrels? I'm probably going for 16" but I'm considering dropping down to 12.5"

>>580143

>6.5 grendel

Meant to say 6.5mm Creedmoor, too many cartridges to keep up with. I'm trying to decide between 6.5CM, .300BLK, or good old .308 right now. I'll probably be going with the first if I stick to the AR platform. I like the idea of .300BLK but range > suppression for uses and mags are cheap so I don't mind having multiple incompatible ones around.

>>580133

>I keep seeing .300BLK shilled everywhere but I'm not sure if it's for me since I don't own any suppressors

It's good for shorter barrels that might be found on carbines since it uses fast burning power and shit like that, so it functions really well and reaches high velocities in SBR-length barrels.

>>580144

>carbine

>6.5CM or .308

y tho? A carbine is meant to be light, handy and mostly for close to intermediate ranges.

(((Tavor))) owner here. Don't get a bullpup. You have been warned.

>>580151

>y tho? A carbine is meant to be light, handy and mostly for close to intermediate ranges.

I have two already and I want something short-mid length with more range. I don't want to step up to a full size for my daily carry but I'd like some more range out of it. It'd be nice to take larger game on a whim. I can drop a deer with what I have but sometimes I let them pass because they're several fields over.

I tend a large farm so I have to deal with a rifle while doing stuff like operating tractors and climbing over/under/around various things throughout the day. Sometimes I'll see a varmint too far off to shoot reliability with a clear LOS. By the time I get close they spot me and I have to wait for a later time. I keep cattle so I rest better knowing they're safe when I'm not around to watch after them.

>>580151

.300blk is good if you want something that smacks like x39 but fits into any standard AR magazine.

>>580218

I'm reconsidering it for sure after giving it a closer look. If I end up building an AR-15 it'll probably be the way I'll go.

>>580220

Or you could just change the barrel. Not even joking, its just a barrel swap going from 5.56 to .300.

>>580218

So, 7.62x39? I have an AR in that caliber. Shoots fine, no need to buy 300memeout.

>>580055

Everybody on earth can draw a passing resemblance to the basic AR15 shape from memory but they do it wrong intentionally to not give it power over them. Like calling someone the wrong name on purpose.

>>580141

Yeah, it's been done in the past. EM-2 and also the EM-1 (the trigger group specifically) are pretty nice examples of bullpups being done well. If only people had tried to improve on the designs further.

>>580227

7.62x39 needs new mags, new bolt, and new barrel. .300 memeout just needs a new barrel.

>>580230

>but they do it wrong intentionally to not give it power over them

Knowledge and experience are the antithesis to fear and superstition. If they knew the first thing about firearms then they wouldn't be anti-gun.

>>580215

Well, if you want a. 308 bullpup, there aren't too many on the market. There's the kel-tec RFB which is 8.1lbs, the K&M M17s 308, which is 8.2lbs, the desert tech MemeDR-C, which is 8.7lbs and costs something like 3 grand and the brand new tavor 7, which is 9lbs. I think they all have 16" barrels.

>>580238

If you don't have any investment in anything AR, then the expense is non-existent.

I have enough parts for about six or seven ARs, and absolutely nothing suitable for .223

>>580124

>5.56x45

It -usually- doesn't perform too well out of short barrels. If you go bullpup, you can compensate with longer barrel while staying within "Carbine overall length".

Some cartridges do better than others, but -overall- it is not a good round to go below 16 inches which limits how short and maneuverable you can go without limiting yourself to only 100 yard of effective engagements (as in, you will kill shit when you hit).

>>580262

The new Tavor is bound to be yet-another 3 MOA rifle at best. The jews can't design shit.

>>580142

That's beyond stupid. In a combat situation, being able to be shouldering the rifle for longer periods of time with the support arm applying leverage toward the front end of the rifle is more important than having a bit of counterweight for follow up shots (specially when firing fucking 5.56).

With a regular rifle, you will be hugging that magwell after clearing the first building or doing the first patrol.

>>580327

>That's beyond stupid

You ordinarily need to have held and fired a rifle to understand how crucial the weight distribution of a rifle is.

That kind of design philosophy has gone back to swords, even.

>>580327

>the new Tavor is bound to be yet-another 3 MOA rifle at best

Yeah, I remember when the X95 first came out and IV8888 did a video on it, after one mag the group opened up to 10 MOA or some shite.

>>580262

>kel-tec RFB

>8.1lbs

>K&M M17s 308

>8.2lbs

>desert tech MemeDR-C

>8.7lbs

>tavor

>9lbs

Thats fucking disgusting, 16" barrels and 50% plastic and they can only just match the weight of my 21" barrel AR10.

>>580397

I don't know what your AR-10 is made of because most ones I look at with 16" barrels are 8-9 lbs depending on the furniture.

>>580417

Actual AR-10's are featherweight guns. Modern AR-10's are fucking bricks.

>>580417

>3" of steel must weigh a ton!

So, maybe he's running with no muzzle device and titanium innards. Doesn't seem unreasnoable; a friend has an AR-15 with as many titanium pieces as he could accrue, plus lightweight plastic where available like stock and handguard. Can't remember if it's under 4 lbs or not but it has twice the kick of my rifle, I can say that.

>>580417

He's a kiwi, he has a legitimate AR-10. Not the modern crap.

>>580417

I have a Guatemalan contract Dutch made AR-10.

>>580418

>>580422

Oh right, it's that anon, I've seen his AR-10.

>>580424

Ah, I know you. When I see "AR-10", I assume shit like the S&W M&P10 or the LMT LM308, not the sleek, smooth, lightweight AR-10

>>580005

Carcano troop special carbines or cavalry carbines aren't too expensive and not a bad option if you can find one in good shape. 6.5 carcano is a powerful round that doesn't buck too much. It would be sufficient to take down anything from varmints to deer, even bigger if you have good shot placement.