You are right in everything you say. But in his defense, let me point out that we should view such attacks as opportunities -- opportunities to kill the attackers.
People who attack our troops should always be killed,
pour encourager les autres.
Shooting rock throwers can quickly become an overreaction to an incident and prosecutable under UCMJ. Being "attacked" happens often enough to cops on the street, I don't see much leeway in the law to gun down the perps. It's bad enough punching a drunken female in the face to subdue her.
Bullpups aren't the cure many seem to think. Long barrel? No, the barrel is too short - the front handguard must be designed to retain the users hand so he doesn't shoot himself. The lack of barrel in front doesn't allow a bayonet to mount, and it reduces the effective stand off in CQB. The trigger mechanisms so far are lengthy and as a general class are rated mushy and unresponsive. Loading a magazine is awkward as it has to be inserted under the stock near the armpit, difficult to perform whether prone or standing.
Because of the abbreviated overall length, optics are practically required, BUIS are well forward of the chamber on a very short radius and impractical for distance shooting. The overall length is fixed, no folding stock allowed, you can't hinge the barrel in front of the chamber, and overall balance is a joke. Adjustable length stocks are difficult at best, which makes the bullpup impossible to reduce in size to a 10" barrel PDW as already in use by many armies. That alone restricts the design and prevents commonality of parts as a universal platform. The straight line design requires high mounted optics and close range offset will continue to be a problem,, along with a complete inability to design the stock with any drop for ergonomics that conventional piston guns enjoy.
KABOOM's do happen, a burst chamber will occur directly adjacent to the neck and arteries, as opposed to out in front of the face. Most current injuries affect the off hand and cosmetic facial injuries as many shooter's wear safety eyeshields. With a bullpup, the escaping gases and high velocity parts will eject within six inches of major blood vessels and the central nervous system. Oh, it's not very likely, certainly within military standards of acceptable combat loss. I can see Ruger's version with a flip down notice that disables the action until pushed aside. "Overloads/unprojected bullets may cause significant injury and even death to the user! Caution! check the barrel after every shot for unprojected bullets and use certified ammunition from authorized sources only!" But I digress.
There are some simple, concrete reasons most (98%) of the world's armies don't use bullpups, and it's because they bring problems to the table without significantly improving the overall use. Complaint about vehicular dismounts didn't occur until the HMMV was implemented, and it was never intended as a combat vehicle. Urban warfare is adequately served with the M4 type weapon; grenades, rocket launchers, breaching charges, and tactics as a team count far more than a short barrel in close confines.
It was politely noted that a lot of big caliber and bullpup proponents aren't familiar with miltary tactics and resources as a working team in the field and look at the situation as a single individual. From the perspective of a retired Reservist and non combat vet who qualified Infantry, Ordnance, and MP, I add it's because those opinions are basically clueless and reveal a major lack of awareness or experience to have any substance. Less than one in one hundred are have served in the military, one in one thousand in a combat arm. It's no wonder the prior service community closes ranks when these suggestions are offered.
Beside, y'all know we just toss our M4's on the ground and grab the nearest AK at the first opportunity, right? Who needs bullpups?
