Model 45A bullpup rifle

World War II American Military
#1

Has anyone seen the Jan '10 Small Arms review? In it they show a US soldier with a bullpup rifle that was made in the Philippines during 1945. It is around 42 inches in length. Its a .30-06 semi automatic that uses BAR magazines and has a optic integrated as a carry handle. Hardly anything is known about this rifle, but its designated as the U.S. Mod 45A

It somewhat resembles the HK CAWS in appearence except that it has a long barrel possible 30 inches or longer, and the optic sits higher.

Quote from wiki:

The Model 45A was an experimental bullpup rifle developed by the United States Army in the Philippines in 1945. The weapon existed in prototype or mockup form, but never entered production. The rifle was sparsely documented until Tom Laemlein encountered a number of annotated photographs of the rifle in the archives of the United States Army Signal Corps.

The rifle was constructed in bullpup configuration, utilising the magazine from the Browning Automatic Rifle. Rather than iron sights, it featured an integral scope. Its purpose is unclear, but it is alternately described as a “experimental .30 caliber LMG” or a “field expedient .30 cal.”

#2

I would think that the US 30.06 round is kind of powerful for a bullpup configuration, but I no expert on small arms. And what about manufacturing facilities in the Phillippines at this time?

#3

The rifle model 45A was an experimental bullpup design, developed by US Army in the Philippines Islands in 1945. According with “WIKI” the two designers were Melvin Johnson and Roman Korsak. But other sources state that Korsak had nothing to do with the 45A, 'cause he was the designer of another bullpup rifle, the EM-1 (Korsak Rifle). Bullpups are firearms configurations in which the action is located behind the trigger group and alongside the shooter’s face, so there is no additional space for the buttstock as in conventional design. This permits a shorter firearms lenght for the same barrel lenght in order to improve maneuverability, and reduce weight.
Here’s a picture of the bullpup rifle 45A, that never entered in production but only existed in prototype form.

T45Rifle0001.jpg
T45Rifle0001.jpg1023×658 296 KB

#4

Since the mag was behind the center of gravity I’m sure it had poor handling qualities (muzzle light.) Especially with a 20 round 30-06 mag!

Deaf

#5

I agree… I’ve never been a fan of bullpup rifles…

#6

Bullpup rifles are the way forward gents. Having had a play with a few I’m quite pro. By having the magazine housing further back you cut down the overall size of the rifle without decreasing barrell length. This is extremely beneficial when operating in urban environments when long rifles are a bit disadvantageous when you’re clearing rooms. The Israelis realised this and that’s why they’re using Tavors now.

I couldn’t tell you the variant (I think the M4 carbine) of the M-16/M4 family but for the carbine variant they had to cut the barrell length down thereby affecting the performance of the rifle. As for having the magazine behind the centre of gravity affecting the handling that isn’t an issue with the Steyer Aug or the L85A2, although I imagine it was with very early forms of bullpup rifles. Simply put chaps, bullpup is the future.

#7

The EM2 in the 50’s had no problems with balance, having used the Steyr AUG and the SA80 A1/A2 they were much easier to use in urban areas and had good balances.
The difference with all these weapons and the Model 45A are that they use lower powered rounds than the 30-06 so the recoil may have counted more but I doubt any more than any other traditional rifle.

#8

Hi Iron Yeoman,
are you going any better with your phisycal troubles? What about the nurse that i adviced to you? :wink:
I’m not so sure that the bullpups “are the way forward”. I don’t want to say that they are better or worst of traditional systems, but giving a look at the main future projects about assault rifle, i realize that many weapons industries are still steering toward the traditional systems, with some good exceptions (like the Israelian IMI Tar-21, that you mentioned).
Here’s the example of the XM8 made by German Heckler & Koch. This rifle is currently in testing to determine if it will replace the COLT M-16 as the main riflr of the US Armed Forces. There are three variants of the XM8 : a compact version with collapsible stock and a 9,5-inch barrel, a baseline version with a 12,5-inch barrel and a designated marksman version with a 20-inch barrel. In initial US Army testing the XM8 tested, fired 15.000 (!!!) rounds without cleaning or lubrification, without jam or misfire.

xm8.jpg

The SCAR-L is the weapons that’s gradually replaced the most of the current rifles (M-14, M-16, M-4 and MH-11) in service with US SOCOM Forces. The SCAR-L differs from the SCAR-H (7,62x51 mm NATO) in that it uses the 5,56x45 mm NATO caliber, has a larger magazine capacity and a shorter barrel. (picture SCAR-L upper and SCAR-H lower)

SCAR-L & SCAR-H.jpg

The troubles with the Model 45A came from the nature of the caliber 30-06. A magazine with twenty rounds made the rifle heavy and the recoil was for sure something hard to control.

Last thing, Iron… What do you mean, exactly, when you say “Simply put chaps…”?
Are those “chaps” related with those skin leggings, that the cow-boys still wear in the Rodeo? It isn’t an ironic question, but on the dictionary i didn’t find anything else… :oops:
Cheers!

#9

Thank you as always skorzeny for the well written reply, however, you may not be aware that the US Army turned down the XM8 and it was cancelled. See the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8

I do agree with you though that the SCAR is defintely a promising weapon, especially the 7.62mm version from what I gather it is the spiritual descendent of the old FN-FAL.

‘Chaps’ by the way is an English expression for men, the Australian variant would be ‘blokes’, not sure About the America version ‘fellas’ perhaps?

#10

The bullpup layout creates some problems and resolves others. Anyway, with progress of technology, some of the problems with bullpup rifle will be solved or are already solved, Tavor Tar-21 and Sar-21 are good example of it, they are created from real user
experience with M-16, to solve the problems with this mature and widespread assault rifle. Tar-21 proves to be more comfortable, reliable, accurate and faster to aim than M-1.
Anyway bullpu rifles are still a minority because:

  • a bullpup rifle uses a lot of composite materials and complicate mechanics, this means higher unit prices, a Tar-21 costs like 3 M-16A4;
  • a bullpup rifle is less effective in full contact combat, shorter lenght means that pierce attacks with baionetta are less effective;
  • manually check of magazine and explosion chamber takes more time;
  • if, it is a very rare event, the ammo explode before it reaches the correct position in explosion chamber, less lenght means more injuries for the operator;
  • a standard assault rifle can be converted in a light machine gun ([Ares shrike](http://world.guns.ru/machine/usa/ares-
    shrike-e.html) is an example), a bullpup rifle it’s nearly impossibile to convert into LMG;
    So the majority of armies thinks that these flaws cannot be accepted. Some gun makers, especially sniper makers, and some armies, like Israel have a different opinion. I agree with Israel.
#11

I’m not weighing in on this but this debate has been around here before I even began posting here. But it should be noted that the XM-8 was largely canceled due to the U.S. Army’s commitment to the Iraq War and the fact that there was a shortage of M-16 sourced weapons in the early 2000’s and with the understanding that development of a new weapon’s system replacement would use the combat experience gained from firefights in Iraq…

#12

Hi Iron Yeoman,
thanx for the link you posted, i knew that the XM8 program was put on hold By the US Army and it was matter of serious debate, but not that it was cancelled.
I agree with your opinion about the SCAR-H, that you consider the spiritual descendant of the good old FN-FAL.
Thanx for the last english word (chaps) that i’ll add to my personal “Iron Yeoman’s Current English Dictionary” :slight_smile:

PS - In matter of weapons i can’t agree with someone else, if i didn’t have the chance to fire with the rifle we’re talking about… For the series “My right finger is the only one i trust”. :wink:

Best regards.

#13

Very true the L85A2 was ridiculously expensive.

Not true with all models. The British Army in Iraq & Afghanistan have conducted several bayonet charges L85A2 and have reported no problems.

Personally I’ve never found that it takes longer to check the bolt, chamber or magazine.

Again not entirely true, when the L85A2’s Light Support Weapon (LSW) was brought out it came with a 100 round drum mag, yes it’s not entirely the same weapon (longer barrel and faster fire rate) but the magazine housing is the same. Considering that the L85A2 now can has a bi-pod fixed on it, it is entirely feasible that a larger magazine could be used and possibly a barrel conversion kit used.

Thank you though for a good post. I suppose it’s worth waiting to see how the Tavor plays out in the field, although it’s very interesting to consider the point you made about cost. It’s mostly western forces that field ball pup weapons because they can afford the high unit cost. Other nations will continue to use the ubiquitous AK series of weapons and M-16s because they’re cheaper and therefore can have more of them.

#14

The L85 is very long for his weapon category. The L85 is 780 mm long, the Tar-21 is 720 mm long, the FN-F200 is 697 mm long.

Again, it depends by model.

One of the key advantage of bullpup is the overall short size. The L85 is already very long, and the LSW version is longer, reaching 900 mm. It cannot use belt ammunitions. There is no surprise that Britains prefere FN-Minimi for suppression fire. The Ahres Shrike that i posted keeps about the same size of M-16, except weight, and can switch between belt-feed and magazine feed.

#15

[QUOTE=skorzeny57;176687]Hi Iron Yeoman,
are you going any better with your phisycal troubles? What about the nurse that i adviced to you? :wink:
I’m not so sure that the bullpups “are the way forward”. I don’t want to say that they are better or worst of traditional systems, but giving a look at the main future projects about assault rifle, i realize that many weapons industries are still steering toward the traditional systems, with some good exceptions (like the Israelian IMI Tar-21, that you mentioned).
Here’s the example of the XM8 made by German Heckler & Koch. This rifle is currently in testing to determine if it will replace the COLT M-16 as the main riflr of the US Armed Forces. There are three variants of the XM8 : a compact version with collapsible stock and a 9,5-inch barrel, a baseline version with a 12,5-inch barrel and a designated marksman version with a 20-inch barrel. In initial US Army testing the XM8 tested, fired 15.000 (!!!) rounds without cleaning or lubrification, without jam or misfire.

honestly, i think the xm8 is a piece of crap, i want something made of metal, not plastic. i think if you drop it, 1 you suck and 2 it would probably break. no, ill keep my m16

#16

Excuse my antiquated old world attitude…but you’re 17 and at high school, right?
What are you doing with an M-16?

#17

Did you try to shoot with the xm8? How can you tell that is a “piece of crap”? Where have you heard it? On “Call of Duty”? I just mentioned the xm8, in order to point that i don’t think that the future of assault rifle is going to be “bullpup”…
Last thing : don’t even try to give me lesson about M-16. If you give a look at the “Do you shoot? Your gun…” thread, you’ll see that i own three different M-16s. I shoot with these rifles since the time you weren’t yet born.

#18

The minimum legal age for possession of a long gun in the U.S. is 18. For an NFA firearm like the M-16, it is 21.

#19

The only thing I have ever heard bad about the bullpup design is that the trigger pull is heavy.

#20

The trigger pull on my SA80’s both A1 and A2 were no different to other weapons I have fired. Loading and firing the weapon is very similar (except most are designed for right handers only).

They can be brought into the aim position quicker than the SLR they replaced and are not as hard to hold in the aim position when un-supported due to their shorter length.

They are easier to handle in close in combat situations (FIBUA etc).

Most use smaller rounds like the 5.56mm NATO which does not have the stopping power especially at longer ranges that the old 7.62mm NATO round has (hence the reason several armies have equipped 1 or 2 men in a section with a larger calibre rifle for longer range fire)