Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?


PDA






streetstang67
October 1, 2006, 09:33 PM
Bullpup stocks seem to make a lot more sense to me than other 'long' stocks. It seems like a simple concept, design the rifle with the firing action at the base, and the trigger farther forward; it dramatically reduces the size of the rifle, and theres no wasted space as there is with a long butt stock.

So why aren't they more popular, not just in military usage, but also civilian weapons, hunting rifles and such.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tony Williams
October 1, 2006, 09:36 PM
Tradition (aka people stick to what they're used to) plays a large part in it.

There's also often a degree of nervousness that the chamber's right by your face - just in case...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Bigfoot
October 1, 2006, 09:42 PM
Shooters are a traditional bunch, they'll make up an arguement against anything new.

Build a lightweight, well made bullpup stock with a LOP under 14" and a nice trigger pull for an OA-93 AR-15 and change things. Offer it in .204, 5.56, 6.5 Grendel, 243WSSM, 25WSSM, 30WSSM and 458 SOCOM.

hksw
October 1, 2006, 09:43 PM
Not including the more recent F/FS2000, have you ever tried shotting a right side ejecting bull pull left handed?

IMO, the farther the sear is from the trigger, particularly the distance a bull pup must span, the less precise the feel.

rustymaggot
October 1, 2006, 09:50 PM
for me bullpups are ballanced like poo. ive only ever fired ruger 10/22's in bullpup and the weight is all rearward and it sucks.

maybe if one comes along i like ill change my mind about em. id really like to try one for a m1 carbine. i think they call em heszi stocks. last i heard they were not available yet.

Spencer
October 1, 2006, 09:53 PM
Bullpup stocks seem to make a lot more sense to me than other 'long' stocks. It seems like a simple concept, design the rifle with the firing action at the base, and the trigger farther forward; it dramatically reduces the size of the rifle, and theres no wasted space as there is with a long butt stock.

So why aren't they more popular, not just in military usage, but also civilian weapons, hunting rifles and such.

The barrels are shorter and muzzle velocities are lower than a conventional assault rifle. This is why I don't like them.

Deer Hunter
October 1, 2006, 09:58 PM
Actually, spencer, from what I have seen many bullpup rifles have longer barrels than conventional rifles. This applies to both military and civilian use. The Bushmaster M17S has a 23" barrel, if memory serves, and is a little shorter than an AR-15 shorty with a 16" barrel. The design of the rifle allows for a much longer barrel in a smaller space.

AFhack
October 1, 2006, 10:02 PM
some good points made above - but one of the main reasons is sight radius. You don't get as much sight radius with the average bullpup as you do with a more conventional design.

Of course, this particular preference might be changing as reliable electronic sights become more and more common, but as long as the need for a 300 yd plus mechanical sight exists, many folks will prefer a non-bullpup arrangement.

Dave R
October 1, 2006, 10:15 PM
I read on the internet somewhere :rolleyes: that many bullpups have lousy triggers, because the trigger is at the other end of the gun from the action (and the sear.) So its by definition a long remote control operation.

Can anybody verify?

Tony Williams
October 1, 2006, 10:34 PM
The main advantage of a bullpup is compactness, and that is far more important in a military weapon than a civilian one. If I wanted a hunting rifle, then I'd get a traditional one. If I were choosing a rifle for an army, I'd prefer a bullpup. Much better for urban combat, and getting in and out of vehicles.

A crisp target trigger really isn't an issue in a military rifle, unless you're a sniper. The left-handed issue depends on the gun - the F2000 is ambidextrous, and some others can be switched from right to left-hand use.

The bottom line is that compactness is seen as very valuable in today's combat scenarios, accounting for the popularity of the M4 in the US Army. And a Tavor with a 15" barrel is eight inches shorter than an M4 with a 14.5 inch barrel, ready to fire...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Spencer
October 1, 2006, 10:41 PM
The FN F2000 was the one I was thinking of and it has a 15.6 inch barrel which is shorter than my 18-20 inch preferance. I wouldn't really like the muzzle velocities.

I have read the bullpup is supposed to be about a longer barrel in a more compact design, so for the most part I stand corrected.

But as someone already said, it's not that I have contempt for the bullpup appearance, I just prefer a rifle that looks a little more traditional i.e. magazine in front of the trigger.

.38 Special
October 1, 2006, 10:43 PM
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?
Because they're ugly.

But thanks for asking! :neener:

Spencer
October 1, 2006, 10:45 PM
Because they're ugly.

But thanks for asking!


Hahaha. :D

Deer Hunter
October 1, 2006, 10:47 PM
To a soldier, I doubt the appearence of his rifle would mean much. :)

Spencer
October 1, 2006, 10:57 PM
To a soldier, I doubt the appearence of his rifle would mean much.

What if it looked like a plunger?

noresttill
October 1, 2006, 11:17 PM
Plunger? Sounds like a good SHTF rifle.

Jesse

mp510
October 1, 2006, 11:32 PM
There is also jurisdictions where bull pups are illegal.
Also, remember, even if you get a longer barrel with less OAL, you are giving up an important reason for the longer bbl- a longer sight radius. IE: A .22 LR gets max velocity out of a 16" tube. However, iron sight 3P rifles have barrels about 26" or 16" with a sight extension for better sight radius and accuracy. Same reason why there is a sight extension attached to the top of the slide giving even more radius on some .45 bullseye pistols.

rangerruck
October 1, 2006, 11:32 PM
they are good for city work , but they are hard to hump, hard to one hand carry, have crap balance, you cant use the buttstock for breakin, hammerin, and killin, and have a short site radius, harder to clean, over heat easier, these are a few good reasons. Oh, and imagine cost to a military.

MisterPX
October 1, 2006, 11:52 PM
Side ejection is a PITA if you switch up shooting sides, a kaboom is right next to your face, stocks are usually non adjustable, plus mag swaps are a little more consuming.

However, that being said, I'd love an AUG with an adjustable length buttplate.

'Card
October 2, 2006, 12:02 AM
I've always wondered about that myself, because the basic bullpup concept seems so simple and obvious that is amazes me they aren't more common.

I don't think a bullpup will ever be popular to people interested in military-style rifles unless they see a lot of military people using them. As for the civilian market, I'm sure traditional appearance has something to do with it... (1911's are still popular, after all) but I think the real reason is that no one (as far as I know) has ever produced a good, reliable, cost-effective bullpup rifle targeted at the civilian market in a hunting caliber.

Gun makers are risk-averse folks, and marketing a mass-produced (and therefore cost-effective) bullpup for hunting would be a pretty risky proposition.

Coronach
October 2, 2006, 01:01 AM
Generally:

1. Poor triggers

2. Ejection issues if you switch shoulders, or came from your Maker in non-milspec left-handed format.

3. firing out of battery could be very interesting indeed.

4. Poor sight radius for irons.

5. Bad balance.

6. Awkward magazine changes.

7. Limited stock adjustments (though, to be fair, the main reason for that is OAL, which is shorter on a bullpup)

There are others, and not all bullpups have these limitations. Also, none of these are really dealbreakers- you can live with and work around all of them. In general, though, the single advantage of the bullpup (shorter OAL for a given barrel length) just doesn't seem to make up for the many minor shortcomings.

Oh, #8. They're ugly.

Mike

Prince Yamato
October 2, 2006, 01:59 AM
I know that cosmetics shouldn't matter, but I honestly believe that having something that 'looks' cool, can improve self-image. In the case of ARs, they are functional and look cool to boot. Say what you will, but humans are programmed to recognize natural beauty. Don't believe me? Would you rather go to bed with a 'sexy' woman or a 'functional' one?

ARs. Sexy AND functional.

Eightball
October 2, 2006, 02:09 AM
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?Because a bolt-action bullpup would suck.

50caliber123
October 2, 2006, 02:30 AM
"Would you rather go to bed with a 'sexy' woman or a 'functional' woman?"

Depends, really. As far as looks go, this applies to everything, what good are looks if they're not functional? An AK is very functional, some of us like their look (like me), some find them ugly. But they work, and are simple.

Civilian Armory
October 2, 2006, 02:34 AM
The bolt action bullpups from Barrett don't bother me in the least.

I'd be interested in knowing in what jurisdictions a bullpup rifle is banned - not that I don't believe it - just never heard of such a thing before.

Rather than write a long-winded opinion I'll just say that I think the bullpup hasn't been adopted by all militaries because there haven't been enough examples of a great bullpup that performed better than conventional rifles. I say that while being a fan of the AUG and FS2000.

selector67
October 2, 2006, 03:35 AM
I think the Austrian Steyr AUG started other militaries to take a look at there conventional rifle designs. I personally dont care for them, to hard to change out the magazine, not made for left handed shooters and there downright ugly, with the French FAMAS leading the bunch.:D Besides if you run out of bullets a bullpup rifle does'nt make a very good club.:cuss:

Tony Williams
October 2, 2006, 04:10 AM
rangerruck said:
they are good for city work , but they are hard to hump, hard to one hand carry, have crap balance,
Not necessarily.

I have held (but not shot) an FN F2000 and it balanced nicely on the pistol grip - probably quite feasible to shoot single-handed, if you really had to.

And when you strap a 40mm GL etc to the gun you get a nice forward balance with a bullpup, but a massive overbalance with a trad, which makes it hard to hold in the aim for long.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Metapotent
October 2, 2006, 04:21 AM
The barrels are shorter and muzzle velocities are lower than a conventional assault rifle. This is why I don't like them.

That is entirely untrue. Actually the truth is the exact opposite.

Bullpups move the action to the rear, meaning that a rifle can have a longer barrel (generating more velocity) while keeping the rifle's overall length shorter.

P.S. The only assault rifle bullpup I can think of that has a lesser velocity compared to a conventional assault rifle of the same overall length is the British SA80. But that is just because the British use rounds with less powder to allow the gun to cycle and feed correctly.

KD5NRH
October 2, 2006, 05:33 AM
Would you rather go to bed with a 'sexy' woman or a 'functional' one?

Do I have to leave the lights on?

Tony Williams
October 2, 2006, 08:14 AM
Metapotent said:

The only assault rifle bullpup I can think of that has a lesser velocity compared to a conventional assault rifle of the same overall length is the British SA80. But that is just because the British use rounds with less powder to allow the gun to cycle and feed correctly.

That may have been true of early models, I don't know, but if anything it seems to be the other way round with the L85A2. This is a quote from the article on the SA80 on my website:

"One interesting comment from a soldier involved in the trials [of the L85A2], is that not all NATO 5.56 mm ammunition performs in the same way. The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Nightcrawler
October 2, 2006, 08:25 AM
you cant use the buttstock for breakin, hammerin, and killin

I doubt you can do that with a plastic M4 telestock, either. That's why my FAL has a steel buttplate.

The military likes adjustable stocks because it's easier to fit soldiers of different sizes. I think a short fixed stock would work just as well, with maybe a system of thicker and thinner buttpads to tailor it. After all, soldiers generally ALWAYS wear their body armor afield now, and rightly so.

Most bullpups have an overlong length of pull, something that'd be made only worse with body armor. The FN2000 is a notable exception to this; I found its LOP quite comfy, and shorter than my FAL (before I had the stock shortened).

Generally, though, Americans just don't like bullpups. Europe and much of the rest of the world, Germany and Russia being notable exceptions, have gone to bullpup designs, but Americans are a prickly bunch when it comes to their weapons. :D

Personally, I'm holding out for FN to release a .308 version of its FS2000. Then I can die happy. :cool:

crunker
October 2, 2006, 11:50 AM
Bullpup's aren't quite as ergonomical to reload, but I don't really have experience with them so I can't definitevily say. Still, it does save space.

But remember if you build a bullpup with a bbl over 16" but the weapons still under 26" long, then it's an AOW.... thank you NFA.

Don't Tread On Me
October 2, 2006, 11:54 AM
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?


Because they are awful. Personally, I perfer the magazine forward of my shooting hand, it makes for quicker changes. Also, I don't like my face that close to the muzzle blast.

Art Eatman
October 2, 2006, 12:41 PM
From a civilian use standpoint, the balance is very poor for offhand shooting. Too "muzzle light".

Next is the tirgger: It's difficult to make monkey-motion linkage be crisp and clean.

Back around 1950, a friend of my uncle decided to build a bullpup. This was back when jackrabbit and varmint hunting was just getting popular during the big drouth of the 1950s in Texas. We drove the pastures and back-country dirt roads. The bullpup is a lot handier to manipulate from within a car.

The barrelled action was a Model 70 in .220 Swift; 26" barrel. Mounting a scope was a PITA, but he got it done. Shot tight groups okay, but we had to listen to his gripes about the trigger. It wasn't all that good for a walking-hunting rifle because of the balance.

Art

yoshmyster
October 2, 2006, 07:31 PM
I have a Sommer Und Ockenfuss "Shorty" in .308Win and I think she's a little heavy but that's my fault for adding extras. If I could locate a few spare magazines she'd be perfect. Trigger pull is crisp and pretty good (for how it's rigged) and puts some of my other triggers to shame. Since I have monkey arms the grip feels a bit cockeyed since I have to depress the "Grip Safety". She's not "Muzzle Light" to say the least. Even if I were to remove the Parker Hale Bi-Pod the adapter rail (block of aluminum with Sling adapter) makes her a bit muzzle heavy but this helps with the recoil. Reloading is tricky with the magazine and it's locking mechanism but shucking a round in is a smooth motion. This was not illegal in California and they have them thar whacky laws. All in all I like my Shorty.

Zach S
October 2, 2006, 07:42 PM
I dont get along with bullpups very well. Might be since I'm left haded, and the ejection port is right next to my face.

taliv
October 2, 2006, 08:04 PM
art, help me understand this

From a civilian use standpoint, the balance is very poor for offhand shooting. Too "muzzle light".

i've got a few bullpups (3 actually) and love all of them. if one end is stuck in your shoulder and the other end is supported under both your hands, why would ANY weight forward of your hands be a good thing?

ArmedBear
October 2, 2006, 08:07 PM
i've got a few bullpups (3 actually) and love all of them. if one end is stuck in your shoulder and the other end is supported under both your hands, why would ANY weight forward of your hands be a good thing?

Do you shoot at small targets at 200+ yards?

Metapotent
October 2, 2006, 08:24 PM
Quote:
i've got a few bullpups (3 actually) and love all of them. if one end is stuck in your shoulder and the other end is supported under both your hands, why would ANY weight forward of your hands be a good thing?


Do you shoot at small targets at 200+ yards?

Your question wasn't directed at me but I agree with Taliv.

I have only shot 2 bullpups, the Bushmaster m17s and a Tavor-21 (believe it or not). I think that offhand shooting is EASIER with a bullpup. It is much easier to keep the point of aim steady when you don't have to use your muscles to keep the barrel level due to its weight. The balance of bullpups makes it so that the weight is closer to your body and your arms don't need to support much of the weight. You don't even need your forward hand for support, you could put one hand behind your back and fire very accurately.

So I think off-hand shots at small targets at 200+yds would be easier with a bullpup, in my experience I KNOW this is true for me atleast.

rudolf
October 2, 2006, 08:26 PM
Nightcrawler said:

"Generally, though, Americans just don't like bullpups. Europe and much of the rest of the world, Germany and Russia being notable exceptions, have gone to bullpup designs, but Americans are a prickly bunch when it comes to their weapons."

The German army never used a Bullpup, neither did Russia.

taliv
October 2, 2006, 08:30 PM
only with one of them (barrett m95 50bmg), but it's not muzzle-light :)

so you're saying they're not ideal for offhand precision shooting or rested precision shooting?

http://www.amp-ts.com/download/DSR_engl.pdf#search=%22amp%20technical%20bullpup%22

Spencer
October 2, 2006, 08:31 PM
The German army never used a Bullpup, neither did Russia

WTH, he said with the exception of Germany and Russia.

Metapotent
October 2, 2006, 08:31 PM
Nightcrawler said:

"Generally, though, Americans just don't like bullpups. Europe and much of the rest of the world, Germany and Russia being notable exceptions, have gone to bullpup designs, but Americans are a prickly bunch when it comes to their weapons."

The German army never used a Bullpup, neither did Russia.

Um that is what he said. Maybe you should reread it slowly.

hillbilly
October 2, 2006, 09:06 PM
I've handled and fired a bullpup or two.

+1 all the reasons why bullpup configured rifles haven't caught. Typically awful trigger and shorter sight radius than more conventional rifles.

Just another observation.

Typically those who are all hot for bullpups have been, at least in my own personal experience, a lot more interested in how their rifles look than in how their rifles actually shoot.

Those who are more into how their rifles shoot than how their rifles look tend to trend away from bullpups, again just in my own personal experience.

I mean c'mon, can sights get any more ridiculous than the little plastic "circle of death" thingy on an AUG? Talk about a sin against marksmanship.

hillbilly

taliv
October 2, 2006, 09:39 PM
I mean c'mon, can sights get any more ridiculous than the little plastic "circle of death" thingy on an AUG? Talk about a sin against marksmanship.

heh, yeah, if steyr had only given it a cool acronym like ACOG, they could sell millions of them at $1000 per instead of reaping derision.


Typically those who are all hot for bullpups have been, at least in my own personal experience, a lot more interested in how their rifles look than in how their rifles actually shoot.

that hasn't been my experience.

+1 all the reasons why bullpup configured rifles haven't caught. Typically awful trigger and shorter sight radius than more conventional rifles.

i'll grant you that poor triggers are inherent to the design. but one of my bullpups has a swarovski scope and the other two have dots (red or otherwise), so the sight radius doesn't seem to be a legitimate issue.

walking arsenal
October 2, 2006, 09:42 PM
"Would you rather go to bed with a 'sexy' woman or a 'functional' woman?"


I'm wondering how many of our female posters crossed their eyes at that one.

Makes a great point though.

MechAg94
October 2, 2006, 10:02 PM
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?
The world of guns would be incredibly boring if that were the case.


IMHO, if most of Europe is doing it, I am doubly happy that the US is not.
Is China included in that "much of the rest of the world"?

rockstar.esq
October 2, 2006, 10:21 PM
I really take exception to the entirely military/ left handed debate here. The silliness about sight radius is a lost point given that ninety out of ninety one model 700's don't have sights on them anymore. The chamber in your face is a lost cause as well given that the most cherished pre 64 winchesters sent powder gasses straight into the shooters eyes! With the weight in the rear and the rear against your shoulder, it's easier to shoot offhand and it's easier to hold for a longer period of time. The trigger thing could be fixed if the rifle public paid attention, gunsmiths would figure it out. The length of pull commentary has no more bearing here than any other rifle as eventually you can't make them shorter and expect them to work. One advantage no one has mentioned is that the recoil impulse is straight back without the twisting, canting, and other associated mechanics. With a reasonable cartridge, the follow up is fast and accurate. While I'm at it, the scope is mounted a fair distance from the ejection port which avoids it getting battered and struck during the frenzy of shooting/ reloading. Finally, there's no reason that with the enhanced modularity of current design a given rifle couldn't be constructed to be entirely reversable for a lefty, without using tools or special parts.

Bigfoot
October 2, 2006, 10:22 PM
IMHO, if most of Europe is doing it, I am doubly happy that the US is not.
Is China included in that "much of the rest of the world"?

Chinas bullpup, ulgy like most bullpups. But I like them anyway because they make sense.

Evil Monkey
October 2, 2006, 10:37 PM
Bullpups are SWEET! Especially the Russian prototypes. Remember when the US was playing around with Project SALVO in the 50-60's? So were the Russians.:evil:

Let me give you a taste.:evil:

Notice the foward ejection. The F2000 wasn't the first to use that.
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/8008/weirdgun3tj7.jpg

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3434/weirdgun1zt9.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8969/wierdgun2dm3.jpg

I hear this is called the Ripper Gun for some reason. Sure looks bad-ass.:evil:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1994/rippergun2cs2.jpg

Seeing these images has increased my love for guns.:D

Metapotent
October 3, 2006, 02:47 AM
I hear this is called the Ripper Gun for some reason. Sure looks bad-ass.

I don't know what you're smoking but I thought all those guns that you showed are DAMN ugly.

With that said, there are some good-looking bullpups: Israeli Tavor-21, Bushmaster M17s, and the Singaporean Sar-21.

Dr.Rob
October 3, 2006, 03:52 AM
Glourous ... Russian... Planet of The Apes... rifles!


Love 'em. What happens when Russian gunsmiths get too close to the Bakelite.

As for bullpups the idea of a 30-06 chambered right by my ear = scary.

Witha FNP90 or whatever I can see the appeal, but NOT with a big cartridge. Ever feel the concussion off the breechface of a high powered rifle? Like in a Ruger #1 with a .300 Winchester? Damn thing clears my sinuses... add a rotating breech ala HK or FN.. that's concussion/noise and possible blowback, hence the lower powder charge cartridges.

It can be a little scary. That's probably one of the big drawbacks, next to the crappy trigger linkage.

AFhack
October 3, 2006, 08:09 PM
rockstar said:

"The silliness about sight radius is a lost point given that ninety out of ninety one model 700's don't have sights on them anymore."



That's comparing apples and oranges rockstar. All 700s (with the small exception of those sold as sniper rifles) are for hunting. The reason they come without sights is because the manufacturer figures that the customer is going to chose an optic based on what game they're going after and what ranges they expect to encounter.

Most bullpups have been marketed as military weapons. While they usually include some sort of optic, iron sights are still going to be of interest to most countries. Even if they are only as an emergency back up to the primary sight.

JohnBT
October 3, 2006, 08:36 PM
"Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?"

Well, the obvious answer is that it's not a smart idea. Not smart, or practical, at all.

Sure, go ahead an make a big game bull pup. Now there's a real bright idea. :)

How about a .577 Tyrannosaur in a little puppy of a gun? Let's see, 11,000 pounds of kick in a little gun equals PAIN.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/weapons_fireams/577tyrannearactsize_1.jpg

Nightcrawler
October 3, 2006, 08:54 PM
Who cares if your backup iron sights have a short sight radius? Isn't the current mantra that most combat takes place inside a hundred yards?

taliv
October 3, 2006, 09:48 PM
How about a .577 Tyrannosaur in a little puppy of a gun? Let's see, 11,000 pounds of kick in a little gun equals PAIN.

i'll see your 11,000 lbs and raise you 2,000 lbs (http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/)

both the m95 and m107 have 29" barrels. but one is 57" long and the other 45" long. one weighs 32 lbs, the other 22 lbs.

Sure, go ahead an make a big game bull pup. Now there's a real bright idea. :)

it is a bright idea, now that you mention it

Nightcrawler
October 3, 2006, 10:27 PM
Okay...

Why can't you make a bullpup big game rifle, exactly? It seems to me there's a certain crowd that just disapproves of bullpups, and will come up with all sorts of things to reinforce their notion.

Bullpups will always have bad triggers, for one. Making a bullpup have what is considered a good trigger might be a bit more involved, but I doubt it's an engineering impossibility. I'll bet THIS (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn15-e.htm) had a pretty decent trigger, and THIS (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn38-e.htm) probably does too.

There's no reason you can't make a bullpup firing any cartridge from .22LR to .50BMG. A bullpup won't necessarily be any lighter than a conventional rifle, just shorter for a given barrel length. Hell, you can even put a wooden stock on it if you want.

As for the "not being able to make powerful rifles" argument, I'll see Taliv's .50 Browning and raise HIM a 15.2mm Steyr APFSDS (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm).

That's a three hundred and eight grain tungsten flechette at four thousand, seven hundred and fifty feet per second. Not QUITE a bullpup, but the action IS by your face, not in front of it.

And HERE (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn72-e.htm) is a pretty cool Russian design firing a special subsonic 12.7mm round. It's a 910 grain bullet at just under a thousand feet per second. (And the bullet is solid bronze, oddly enough.)

And if you're not convinced, HERE (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm) is a 20mm Bullpup anti-materiel rifle.

In any case, the argument that you can't make a bullpup safe to use with powerful cartridges is nonsense. If you're really worried about it, all you need to do is add a layer of steel to the underside of the cheekpad. It would be enough to deflect the blast out the weaker side of the action in the event of a kaboom. Frankly, I don't think it'd be necessary.

I don't think the shoulder-switching thing is an issue anymore, either. FN proved you can make an ambidextrious bullpup. And if you get into the possibility of using caseless ammunition, the ejection point is moot anyway.

All I'm saying is, you don't have to like bullpups. They're certainly not common in the US, so if you can't stand being around them this is a good place to be. But saying that they won't work is a fallacy, because they can function as well as any other firearm.

Chris Rhines
October 3, 2006, 11:12 PM
Two things are inherent to the bullpup design - slow and awkward magazine changes, and poor triggers. These drawbacks outweigh the basically nonexistent advantages of the design.

- Chris

Metapotent
October 4, 2006, 12:02 AM
Quote:
How about a .577 Tyrannosaur in a little puppy of a gun? Let's see, 11,000 pounds of kick in a little gun equals PAIN.


i'll see your 11,000 lbs and raise you 2,000 lbs

both the m95 and m107 have 29" barrels. but one is 57" long and the other 45" long. one weighs 32 lbs, the other 22 lbs.


Quote:
Sure, go ahead an make a big game bull pup. Now there's a real bright idea.


it is a bright idea, now that you mention it

I'd like to see ANYONE (other than Superman) carry around an m95 or m107 in the safari while hunting for/running from big and dangerous game.

Also, I'd like to see how well someone reloads a bullpup big-game rifle when there is a pissed off bull elephant charging them and their silly bullpup rifle weighs 30lbs!

For the sane people and people who don't have superhuman strength and speed, a good bolt action or break-away rifle does the trick much better for big and dangerous game and is more practical by all means.

Spencer
October 4, 2006, 12:38 AM
Even though I'm not a fan of bullpups...


I'd like to see ANYONE (other than Superman) carry around an m95 or m107 in the safari while hunting for/running from big and dangerous game.

Also, I'd like to see how well someone reloads a bullpup big-game rifle when there is a pissed off bull elephant charging them and their silly bullpup rifle weighs 30lbs!

For the sane people and people who don't have superhuman strength and speed, a good bolt action or break-away rifle does the trick much better for big and dangerous game and is more practical by all means.

Actually most of the bore rifles African hunters use for big game weigh 20-30 pounds.

Google the 4 bore rifle and you will see it's good for big, dangerous game hunts.

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 12:49 AM
Chris Rhines said:
Two things are inherent to the bullpup design - slow and awkward magazine changes, and poor triggers. These drawbacks outweigh the basically nonexistent advantages of the design.
Triggers: I recently fired a number of current military rifles, both trad and bullpup, one after the other. There was no discernable difference in the triggers. None of them was to target standard, but you don't want that in a military rifle anyway.

Magazine changes: I'm not a soldier, but I've watched British soldiers changing mags on the SA80 and they looked very fast to me. One of them, with recent experience in Iraq, said that not only was this not an issue, but when riding in a vehicle it was a positive advantage to have the magazine inboard as it made mag changes a lot easier.

Non-existent advantages: if compactness is not an advantage, why do you see so many US troops with the M4 rather than the M16? Why was the standard version of the XM8 going to be the carbine with a 12.5 inch barrel? Why is SOCOM's SCAR available only with 14" or 10" barrels? When everyone knows that the little 5.56mm round needs all the help it can get, and is best from a 20 inch barrel?

It is clear that compactness is a major issue to armies today. That's why modern trad rifles have folding stocks. However, there are two reasons for wanting compactness: convenience in getting in and out of vehicles, helos etc, and for urban fighting. A folding stock answers the first issue (although if you have to bail out in a hurry you have to extend/unfold the stock before you can fire accurately, while a bullpup is instantly ready) but it doesn't address the second.

When you add in the other major advantage of a bullpup - much better balance when a grenade-launcher is attached - a bullpup is clearly the most logical approach to a modern military rifle. I can't think of any significant reason not to select one - the arguments against seem to be mainly about prejudice and conservatism.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

rockstar.esq
October 4, 2006, 01:00 AM
So at least my post got the ball rolling about considering the bullpup design for something other than military use. I am however not getting why so many continue to carry on about weight given that most if not all bullpups heretofore mentioned are either aluminum or plastic. The trigger complaints also seem terribly out of line considering how few posters here actually have experience shooting one. The interesting thing about the trigger complaining is that it gets mindlessly repeated along with affirmations that the triggers will always be bad. I'd wager similar whining accompanied SA/DA auto's when revolvers were in their heyday. Now I'd say that many SA/DA auto's have triggers that compare favorably with revolvers. Magazine changes on a hunting rifle again smacks of limited thinking. Seriously, when was the last time a model 700 was speed loaded via it's detachable magazine in order to slay a running game animal? The Kaboom thing is again much ado about nothing, break actions and falling blocks both have chambers VERY close to the face and they've served quite well for a century. There was a time when American hunters wouldn't consider any hunting rifle that wasn't a lever action. They ignored the advantages and continued to praise their cherished lever action's speedy reloading, and traditional looks. When bolt actions did thier job without needing a second shot the results began to speak for themselves. Please don't take this as an opportunity to point out that lever actions still have relevance today because I believe they do. I'm just trying to make the point that continued improvement and innovation brought us tons of cool new guns and it's a better world for it.

Metapotent
October 4, 2006, 01:08 AM
Actually most of the bore rifles African hunters use for big game weigh 20-30 pounds.

Um I don't think so. In fact I just got back from Namibia two days ago (believe it or not) and the rifle I used was my 9lb Remington 700 in .375H&H. So me being sort of an African hunter ( my first time and all i shot was a Gazelle though) I did witness first hand what the guides and other hunters were using.

The biggest rifle I saw at the camp was a double rifle in .416 rigby that a British hunter brought and it seemed to weigh only about 10-12 lbs when he let me hold it to look at the engraving work on it. Also, the natives that were our guides for my party all had bolt action rifles that I'm sure weren't much heavier than the double rifle.

Even the Cape Buffalo hunters were using bolt actions that I can only assume were similar in weight to my rifle due to their size.

So I don't know what you're talking about.

Dr.Rob
October 4, 2006, 01:13 AM
Ok I'll stand corrected... I had forgotten the impeccable Walther WA2000. I still don't like the idea of a centerfire going off under my ear on either side.

There is a BIG difference between a made from the ground up bull pup like the FN P90 and a 'conversion kit' like you see on a mini 14 or ak.

Third_Rail
October 4, 2006, 01:15 AM
Notice the foward ejection. The F2000 wasn't the first to use that.

Could've sworn that was older than these Russian prototypes, too.

44AMP
October 4, 2006, 01:24 AM
I know a lot of newer shooters don't know a lot of history (and some don't bother to learn), so consider this.

Early bullpup designs were bolt actions, or single shots, and in those days cartridge case failure was not uncommon. Today it is a rare. Prior to metallic cartridges, there was actual fire involved at the action, so it was good to keep it away from your face.

Most early action designs included features to deflect gas from ruptured cases. With a bullpup, there is no place to vent gas to that is safe, and you head is right next to the chamber! Poor trigger pulls, muzzle closer to your face, awkward balance, all contributed to make the bullpup less than attractive to the sport shooter.

Military wasn't interested, they wanted something long, with a long knife stuck on the end! Also, what does every soldier do with their rifle when they don't have to hold or carry it? They put the butt on the ground. With your action that much closer to the ground, more crap is likely to get in. And, in hand to hand combat, the bullpup design is alot more awkward.

So, historically, the bullpup didn't get very far. Move up in time a bit, and after WWII, with the acceptance of autoloading actions, the bullpup starts to overcome come of its disadvantages, but only some. Other disadvantages show up. Ejection, heat, noise, etc. And the bullpup design still doesn't offer significant advantages to justify replacing conventional designs.

Move up to today, and now there are bullpup designs that minimize the disadvantages, but do not eliminate them. You still have the problem with less than optimal trigger arangements. Optical sights overcome the sight radius thing. But that still leaves you with the action against your face (and in a firefight I would think it could get pretty HOT), plus the muzzle closer, and the whold balance thing. Mag changes are more awkward, and their design makes them a little more complicated mechanically.

Bottom line is, while some people like them for plinkers, they are not even remotely popular as hunting rifles. And they do not (at this time) offer any significant advantages over conventional designs for most militaries to be interested. Look at how many countries could field a bullpup for their troops, and how few actually do. This may change over time, but for the near future, isn't likely to.

They look cool (to some people), but that is not enough.

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 01:46 AM
Look at how many countries could field a bullpup for their troops, and how few actually do. This may change over time, but for the near future, isn't likely to.
Once armies pick a gun, they usually stick with it for decades. So you need to look at recent acquisitions rather than what they have at present. The Israelis, a major user of the M16 family and with lots of combat experience, recently took a long hard look at rifle requirements and designed their future rifle: it's the Tavor, which is (drum roll) a bullpup! :eek: India has also adopted this weapon for special forces. Another major army which has started re-equipping with a new purpose-designed rifle is the Chinese army, with the 5.8mm QBZ95 - yep, it's another bullpup.

I've already dealt with the issues of trigger quality and magazine changes in my last post. And you still haven't answered the question about why the US is so keen on short-barrelled carbines if compactness "doesn't offer significant advantages".

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Metapotent
October 4, 2006, 02:23 AM
The Israelis, a major user of the M16 family and with lots of combat experience, recently took a long hard look at rifle requirements and designed their future rifle: it's the Tavor, which is (drum roll) a bullpup!

Only a small percentage of the Israel units are issued the Tavor, mostly just small special forces groups. The vast majority of Israeli soldiers pack Galils and M16/M4 rifles still. The Israeli Military hasn't even announced any plan to completely replace the M16/M4 or Galil with the Tavor any time soon.

Another major army which has started re-equipping with a new purpose-designed rifle is the Chinese army, with the 5.8mm QBZ95 - yep, it's another bullpup.

Unfortunately, the communist Chinese don't openly and honestly report the performance of the new rifle and the new cartridge. BUT, just like the Israelis they have only fielded their new rifles in very small quantities.

Besides, the Tavor and the QBZ have undergone multiple changes in the small amount of time they have been fielded. It seems they are still technically in the developmental and testing stages. Either that or the Chinese and Israelis are reevaluating their designs or second guessing their decisions..

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 02:53 AM
Only a small percentage of the Israel units are issued the Tavor, mostly just small special forces groups. The vast majority of Israeli soldiers pack Galils and M16/M4 rifles still.
About 1,500 issued so far, with orders for 40,000 placed, AIUI. The fact that they've gone to special forces first I regard as a recommendation - they get the best kit.

In any case, that doesn't affect the main point, which is that the Israelis studied the requirements for an ideal rifle starting with a clean sheet (apart from the calibre) and came up with a bullpup.

Unfortunately, the communist Chinese don't openly and honestly report the performance of the new rifle and the new cartridge. BUT, just like the Israelis they have only fielded their new rifles in very small quantities.

Very sensible, in the case of an entirely new design. Give it a really good workout in the hands of elite troops to check if anything needs modifying before it's mass produced. As far as the Chinese are concerned, their army is so enormous that it's going to take quite a while for the new gun to reach everybody anyway.

Besides, the Tavor and the QBZ have undergone multiple changes in the small amount of time they have been fielded. It seems they are still technically in the developmental and testing stages.
Name me a military rifle which has proved to be absolutely perfect as first issued.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Metapotent
October 4, 2006, 04:45 AM
About 1,500 issued so far, with orders for 40,000 placed, AIUI. The fact that they've gone to special forces first I regard as a recommendation - they get the best kit.

Only 40,000 ordered? Hmm... Israel may be small but their infantry unites in active duty and reserve have alot more than that.

In any case, that doesn't affect the main point, which is that the Israelis studied the requirements for an ideal rifle starting with a clean sheet (apart from the calibre) and came up with a bullpup.

The Brits did the same thing and ended up with the L80 which was (and some say still is) a complete disaster. Speaking of which, don't the SAS (and the majority of NATO special forces) still uses the M4 carbine??? But according to your theory, the Special forces always get the 'best kit' so whats the deal with that? But I thought Bullpups were superior...

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 05:08 AM
Only 40,000 ordered? Hmm... Israel may be small but their infantry unites in active duty and reserve have alot more than that.
It would be unusual for an entire planned purchase of any major weapon to be ordered in one go, for budgetary reasons if nothing else. They'd go to the active duty units first, the reserves would have to wait.

The Brits did the same thing and ended up with the L80 which was (and some say still is) a complete disaster. Speaking of which, don't the SAS (and the majority of NATO special forces) still uses the M4 carbine??? But according to your theory, the Special forces always get the 'best kit' so whats the deal with that? But I thought Bullpups were superior...
Don't confuse the pros and cons of the principle of the bullpup design with the pros and cons of any particular weapon. The SA80 was an excellent example of how not to produce a piece of equipment...but having said that, the modified L85A2 is much liked by its users, so they got there in the end (see THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm))

The SAS originally adopted the M16 family before the SA80 was even available. They hung on to it partly because the L85A1 was a POS, and partly because it couldn't take an underbarrel grenade launcher (much favoured by the special forces). The L85A2 now can take a GL, but it's still a very heavy piece of kit, which is not what the high-speed low-drag boys want. And of course, they wouldn't want to be seen using the same weapon as the big army - they're special!:rolleyes:

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Fosbery
October 4, 2006, 05:16 AM
The L85 is a fantastic rifle. Accurate, fast, reliable and ergonomic. I can change the mag on an L85 just as quick as I can on an AR. With training I could do it quicker on an AR but the difference would be in hundredths of a second.

It's as short as an M4 with the barrel length of an M16. You only get the sight radius of an M4, but to be honest you'll either be using optics or shooting at targets that are too close to worry about sight radius.

Having the chamber beneath my head never bothered me. If you can't handle a little noise then you shouldn't be going to war in my opinion.

It's a very heavy rifle but again, if you can't carry a heavy load you shouldn't be a soldier. Not only that but the weight makes the rifle very repeatable.

The trigger is admittedly not up to AR standards but the A2 has much improved on the old one and I see no reason why an A3 or some other bullpup cannot improve on this further.

Basically I don't beleive weight, trigger pull, magazine change speed, reliabilty or sight radius are serious problems inherent with the bullpup design. The only inherent problem I can see is that they are not ambidextrous but even this problem has been solved by the P90 and F2000.

The SAS (and some other UK special forces) use ARs but that's apples and oranges. I'm sure Navy SEALs use MP5s but that dosn't mean an MP5 is a better infantry rifle than the M16.

Silent Sam
October 4, 2006, 08:31 AM
Why aren't all women lesbians?:neener:

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 08:54 AM
Why aren't all women lesbians?
Because some of them haven't met you yet? :rolleyes:

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

possum
October 4, 2006, 08:56 AM
cause there are people like me that don't care for them, and there are alot that share my dislike for em". i know a few people that have them, but they really just don't float my boat, and i really don't think there is enough intreset in them to make them a great success, especially to those who are able to choose there weapons.

MechAg94
October 4, 2006, 09:10 AM
It seems like every new rifle is supposed to solve all the perceived problems with all the previous weapons and improve on everything. Sometimes they do improve a little, but many times they don't.

I have never fired a bullpup. Never had an opportunity. Since I can't get one without shelling out a fortune, I probably won't any time soon.

dfaugh
October 4, 2006, 09:32 AM
Well, I LIKE 'em.

There I said it.

I kinda like the rearward balance, not afraid of a kaboom to the face, and I shoot right handed.

I think the problem, in the past has been that they've tried to meld conventional designs with the newer bullpups, with less than stellar results. But, as many have mentioned here, some of the new designs, designed pretty much from scratch, are faining favor. There are pluses and minuses to everything, you just have to figure out how to get more pluses and less minuses, and I think the newer bullpup designs are starting to do that.

Heck, at one time the venerable Mauser bolt action was considered "state of the art"...But you won't see the modern soldier using on by choice.

JohnBT
October 4, 2006, 10:13 AM
"Actually most of the bore rifles African hunters use for big game weigh 20-30 pounds."

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but doesn't anybody do any research anymore?

For example look at these www.searcyent.com/classic.html His double rifles run 9.5 to 11.5 pounds. A quick review of other makers, British and Continental, show similar weights.

I've looked at the recommended links in the posts in this thread and seen a lot of heavy bullpups. The one that weighs 6.95 KG works out to 15.29 pounds - and that's just too heavy for a day's walk by the average hunter. I suppose they could hire a few bearers to haul one around for them, but I just don't see it as a practical solution...assuming anybody would want the typical autoloading bullpup for dangerous game.

John

JohnBT
October 4, 2006, 10:20 AM
Caliber(s): 15.2mm Steyr APFSDS
Operation: long recoil, semi-automatic
Barrel: 1200 mm
Weight: 18 kg
Length: 1800 mm
____________________

39.6 pounds.
70.86 inches long. That's nearly SIX FEET!!!

What's this, a prairie dog gun you can haul around in a truck? ;)

John

taliv
October 4, 2006, 10:24 AM
john, yeah, someone else mentioned that a while ago. it's true that MOST african hunters use 9-13 lb guns. however, it also depends on what you mean by big bore. those searcys you linked to are no 4-bores.

even so, the point is still valid that many guns specifically designed for whacking things in africa are north of 20 lbs. and most of us would love to hunt africa with a double 4 or 8-bore. besides, for $12,000 or whatever it costs to hunt africa these days, don't you get a porter to haul your crap until you're almost ready to shoot?

Nightcrawler
October 4, 2006, 10:25 AM
I mentioned the anti-materiel rifles because of the odd comments people made to the effect that you can't make bullpups out of of powerful cartridges.

The only mechanical difference between a bullpup and a conventional rifle is the location of the trigger. That's it.

If you wanted to make a bullpup bolt action hunting rifle in .375 H&H, you could. I needn't weigh any more than a conventional design, but it would have a shorter overall length for a given barrel length. The balance would be different as well.

So what's the problem? It doesn't mean anyone would buy it, but there's no reason it couldn't be made.

You want a bullpup varmint gun? How about an FS2000 in .223? :D

Frankly, a lot of the advantages of bullpups don't really apply in terms of sporting arms, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be produced.

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 10:29 AM
As those of you following this thread have probably gathered by now, I am a firm supporter of bullpups for military assault rifles. While any weapon is a compromise resulting in a balance sheet of pros and cons, IMO the pros of bullpups greatly outweigh the cons - for the military that is, I'm not interested in the civilian use of such guns.

However, these advantages are more or less irrelevant when it comes to hunting rifles. I would stick to the trad design for that.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

JohnBT
October 4, 2006, 01:34 PM
"many guns specifically designed for whacking things in africa are north of 20 lbs."

No, they're not. Go back and look at the Searcy link or take a trip on Google.

Let's look at the Holland and Holland site:

Weights depend upon the calibre and specification but the following may be helpful as a guide:
.300 H&H 8lb 10oz (3.90kg)
.375 H&H 9lb 6oz (4.30kg)
.500/465 H&H 10lb 2oz (4.60kg)
.577 14lb 10oz (6.35kg)

Or look at the Chapuis Armes site.

4,700 Kg. for the 416 Rigby & 470 NE. That converts to 10.34 pounds.

Even the .600 and .700 guns don't weigh that much more.
___________________________________


Summary: The 4 bore was rare, and seldom used as the primary hunting rifle, and a follow-up shot was difficult due to the big cloud of thick smoke from up to an ounce of blackpowder. That, and almost 4x the recoil of a Winchester .458 and 10x the recoil of a .30-06.

From Rifle Magazine:

"Four-gauge rifles stood and still stand in a league all their own. It takes a powerful man just to shoulder and sight one, let alone manage it. The 4 bores are very rare - surely less than 100 exist. Most are doubles weighing from 20 to 24 pounds. Singles are incredibly rare, perhaps less than 10 on earth. They are, in their own way, delightful because they are lighter and more manageable than the huge doubles, weighing in around 18 pounds. These, the greatest of all rifles, are monumental in every way. They have a chunky appearance because the barrels are usually short, between 20 and 26 inches. The short barrels, combined with the thick (often nearly 4-inch) receivers, make the 4s look a lot like a Sumo wrestler.

They are heavy for a reason; they are powerful! The metal must contain the tremendous strain of the charge and breech thrust, and they must have enough mass to keep the recoil from crushing the shooter. As it is, they generate well over 200 foot-pounds, something special when you realize that a .458 Winchester only backs up with a gentle 56-pound shove.

While we are on the subject of recoil, the unknowing will tell you that the big rifle’s recoil is “only a big push.” Those soothsayers have not fired a heavy. Note that the 4 bore has at least 10 times the recoil of a .30-06 moving at twice the velocity! Perhaps they push, but they push a lot like a freight train.

Most 4-bore rifles use a 4 inch long case, and the “light” load was 12 drams of strong powder. The heavy load was 14 drams and occasionally rifles were regulated for a full ounce, or 16 drams, of black gunpowder. When that charge is behind bullets of 1,500 to 2,000 grains, we begin to grasp the meaning of real power.

It is difficult to correctly describe firing a 4-bore rifle. My best description is monumental, almost frightening. The blast from the powder charge is noticeable as is the jarring heave of the recoil. The recoil cycle is long and heavy, forcing almost every shooter I know to take a step backward. You do not try to overpower a 4, doing so would almost certainly cause something to break. Instead, you must roll with the punch. Firing one is - a lot of fun!

In its working days, the 4 bore was usually a “reserve” rifle, used to do the backup work behind a double 8 bore. Also, when especially valuable, tough and dangerous game, like the gigantic Indian gaur (a bison of more than a ton, 6 feet at the shoulders and double mean) was the prize, hunters saluted them with the 4 bore right away."

taliv
October 4, 2006, 01:50 PM
i didn't say "most". i said "many". 100 is "many"
here's another: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178655

Master Blaster
October 4, 2006, 02:18 PM
Actually ther are several problems with the bullpup design : slow and awkward magazine changes, horrible triggers, and your face sitting on the chamber. I thought I wanted a Bushmaster M17 till I fired one.

The fact that your face is on the chamber and the ejection port is right next to your aiming eye and your nose you use to breathe, is a serious problem.

I found the M17 to be extremely unpleasant to shoot, small particles of crap getting right in my eye as the thing got dirtier, and the unpleasant smoke being blown in my nose and mouth making it hard to breathe. I can't imagine firing one full auto. If you had a case head blow you are in deep trouble (possibly dead).
Then if you had one jam, you know like an out of spec round, you would clear the jam how???? Iron sights as a backup, not on a bullpup.

As far as the trigger goes I have never been able to shoot any fiream with a really crappy trigger well. Glocks have a match grade trigger by comparison. These drawbacks outweigh the basically nonexistent advantages of the design.

Nightcrawler
October 4, 2006, 02:25 PM
The fact that your face is on the chamber and the ejection port is right next to your aiming eye and your nose you use to breath, is a serious problem.

You ever try shooting an M16 left handed? Add hot brass in your face in addition to all of the above.

Slow and awkward magazine changes? Why? Because the magwell is a little closer to your body? Most rifles require to you grab the magazine while hitting the magazine release and remove the mag. This is true of M16s too if you're left handed.

Now, if you're not USED to it, sure, it's going to seem horrible. But differences in familiarity should not be confused with technical problems.

Then if you had one jam, you know like an out of spec round, you would clear the jam how????

I imagine you'd remove the magazine and operate the charging handle, for starters. Just like with a conventional rifle (assuming you fire right handed) you'd have to rotate it to observe the chamber. The exception to this is the FN 2000, which has a handy little flip-hatch at the top of the stock, giving you full access to the chamber for inspection and clearance.

Stiletto Null
October 4, 2006, 02:30 PM
My biggest gripe in handling/dealing with the FS2000 was that the barrel was so damned short.

I was OK with the receiver being where it was (recoil was a little odd, on account of balance, but then again I'm used to rifles which are at least a meter long), but having a 16" barrel's muzzle that close to my head made it a lot louder than it needed to be.

HorseSoldier
October 4, 2006, 02:55 PM
Slow and awkward magazine changes? Why? Because the magwell is a little closer to your body? Most rifles require to you grab the magazine while hitting the magazine release and remove the mag. This is true of M16s too if you're left handed.


I suspect, and will test it if I ever get a chance to play with a bullpup rifle, that mag changes will never be as fast as with a conventional layout rifle.

First, where's the mag release? Probably near the mag well. Which hand hits it? With an AR and most other modern conventional layout rifles, you can hit the mag release with a finger on your firing hand while retaining a grip on the pistol grip. This lets you clear the mag with your non-firing hand. With the bullpup, I'd think your non-firing hand has to do two jobs -- hit mag release, then clear magazine from mag well -- before getting on to it's most important job of putting the next mag into the weapon.

I'm thinking that phase of the reloading process is probably a PITA as well. Finding the magwell on a conventional layout weapon with your non-firing hand is pretty instinctive -- it's immediately in front of your other hand and your body knows where that is, at least in terms of gross motor movements. If instinct fails you, if you have the weapon up in the shooters box you can glance at the well as you bring the mag up without major head movement, without losing situational awareness, and keeping your eyes on the threat except for a fraction of a second when you shift to the magwell. To visually find the magwell on a bullpup, it seems to me you have to look straight down or nearly so, completely losing sight of the threat, or bring the weapon completely off the threat to get it out in front of you where you can get eyes on the mag well.

There are things to be said for bullpups -- I agree that they are the most compact format available, and allow full length rifle barrels in carbine length weapons. But, I don't see them being able to be as quick handling as a conventional layout weapon running AR-type NATO STANAG magazines (i.e. no rocking motion required) when it comes to mag changes, nor do I see them being well suited to current combat marksmanship techniques as regards that particular action (i.e. like I said above, where's your head if you're looking at the mag well?).

Stiletto Null
October 4, 2006, 03:00 PM
I suspect, and will test it if I ever get a chance to play with a bullpup rifle, that mag changes will never be as fast as with a conventional layout rifle. Kinda depends on how you run your rifle.

On the F(S)2000, it's a button of sorts behind the magazine. If you're controlling the magazine as you remove it, it's actually pretty natural (or could be; the movement's not awkward, but I didn't quite get it smoothly the first couple of go-arounds) to simply shove your thumb upward while getting a solid grip on the magazine. Pull magazine down, slide your hand over, shove next magazine in. Probably a very similar movement to swapping magazines when the magazines are clamped together horizontally.

As for actually getting the magazine, aside from having a nice big beveled magazine port, if you can rub your face with your hand without looking in a mirror, you can blindly insert a magazine. I mean, really, it's not any more or less "natural" than putting a magazine into a receiver-forward rifle. Design-specific ergonomic considerations matter, obviously, but a moronic designer can make anything awkward.

If you want a drop-free magazine release, well, you're screwed on the FN.

...

I think. I didn't actually try it. The mag release button wouldn't be very conducive to the kind of smooth "drop and slap fresh one in" movement that you would have on an AR.

Nightcrawler
October 4, 2006, 04:01 PM
Some of us don't shoot AR-15s. Heh.

And I'd say that plenty of modern rifle types use flipper magazine releases instead of push-buttons. All of the bullpups do, I think, but so do the Sig 550 series, the G36 series, etc.

I've yet to find a rifle where I can drop the magazine out with my firing hand. I could, I suppose, install an ambi mag release on an AR-15 (after purchasing one), but I'm so used to hitting the magazine release and then pulling the magazine out that I don't think it'd be worth the trouble.

It is, of course, a touch slower to reload than the other way, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find an instance where it actually made a difference.

As for awkard motor skills...I can reload a revolver from an HKS speedloader without taking my eyes off of the target. It takes practice, but you can do it.

I don't expect any problem with the magazine position on a bullpup.

For all of you guys that are not comfortable with having the ejection port right next to your face, fire your weapon left-handed. There it is, right in front of your eyes, belching gas and hot brass. You get used to it.

Here's a thought. If they can design a trigger that's well away from the actual hammer/striker assembly, why can't they design a magazine release that's the same? Wonder if anyone's tried?

JohnBT
October 4, 2006, 07:39 PM
" didn't say "most". i said "many". 100 is "many"

Pfui. Deal with the facts or don't play. One hundred guns, many of the same design, made one hundred years ago aren't 'many' in anybody's book anywhere in the world. Give it up.

John

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 07:50 PM
An off-the-wall thought to resolve a couple of complaints about bullpups: use an electronic trigger.

Before you all start yelling about batteries running out at a critical moment, you could use the operating cycle to generate power to keep the battery charged, in much the same way as you get wind-up torches and radios (in fact, as an emergency fall-back you could even fit the stock with such a winding handle to charge the battery).

This could bring several benefits:

- with no mechanical linkage between the trigger and the sear, the trigger pull can be as crisp and light as you like

- the pistol grip/trigger unit doesn't have to be in a fixed position; you could fit something like a Picatinny rail under the gun so that the unit can slide to and fro over several inches and be locked where you want it; that gives you a variable length of pull without affecting the length of the gun

- you could easily switch the auto firing mode for bursts (of varying lengths) or continuous, without any mechanical complication, just rotate a switch

- you could vary the rate of fire on auto in the same way - just turn a switch to get anything from 200 rpm to 2,000 rpm to suit. No need to mess about with heavy bolts to slow down the RoF, just set the system to whatever you want and, for anything below full-rate, it will in effect fire 'continuous semi-auto' but with variable timing between the firing impulses.

The military is gradually depending more and more on electronics, so it shouldn't be too big an issue for them, as long as it's proved to be reliable.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Nightcrawler
October 4, 2006, 08:03 PM
I'm confused about the part of the argument about big game rifles.

First someone said that you can't make big game rifles bullpups because they'd be too light or unable to handle powerful cartridges.

When several heavy-caliber bullpups were mentioned, it was then said that they're too heavy. Well, yes, a fifty-caliber anti-materiel rifle is going to be a heavy beast.

There's no reason for a bullpup to weigh more than a conventional rifle. As I said, the only difference, mechanically, is the position of the trigger. Everything else is the same.

Like I said, all because nobody makes a big game hunting rifle in bullpup format, and all because nobody would probably buy one, doesn't mean that it's not possible to make a perfectly servicable one. There's a lot of arguing going on for arguing's sake, I think.

Stiletto Null
October 4, 2006, 08:07 PM
There's a lot of arguing going on for arguing's sake, I think.The logic is impeccable.

:neener:

More seriously, if we all let it go at "well we don't know, because nobody bothers to build the things", then we wouldn't have much to talk about here, would we?

Bigfoot
October 4, 2006, 08:12 PM
Nightcrawler I was just about to say the same thing.:D I said earlier that some people will make up arguements against bullpups. Someone here needs to find that arguement and stick to it. BTW weight is what lessens recoil, not rifle length.

Folks, there are hurricains and mouse farts. The downsides to the bullpup design are mouse farts, don't let anybody tell you they can blow down entire cities. :rolleyes:

Stiletto Null
October 4, 2006, 08:15 PM
Someone here needs to find that arguement and stick to it. BTW weight is what lessens recoil, not rifle length.Well...moment of inertia and bore-CG offset determine flip. I suspect most people deal much better with linear recoil than flip.

Bigfoot
October 4, 2006, 08:20 PM
Yes and bullpups by design will give you a straight line stock. IE: less muzzle flip and percieved recoil than a normal bolt action stock.

Metapotent
October 4, 2006, 08:24 PM
Quote:
Why aren't all women lesbians?

Because some of them haven't met you yet?

Hahaha that was excellent.

But anyway...

An off-the-wall thought to resolve a couple of complaints about bullpups: use an electronic trigger.

People would have a whole lot of fun trying to teach the average highschool-educated grunt how to service an electronic trigger system.

And beside that, I really think that infantry weapons shouldn't be enhanced with electronics, because the US military (and other NATO militaries) rely so heavily on electronics that the entire force is basically vulernable to EMP electromagnetic pulse weapons that have become alot more practical to use these days by potentional enemies.

Most high-end systems are protected from EMP, but it would add alot of weight to small-arms if they had built-in EMP protection.

The military relies on its mechanical weapons to survive and still trains in primitive warfare in case of an EMP attack. That is why mechanical small-arms need to NOT become electronic. How lame would that be if an entire infantry force can't fire their weapons because their electronic triggers shorted out due to EMP?

My class group discussed this issue in my Military Science course and we learned that the idea of an electronic trigger system on infantry small arms has already been dismissed by weapons designers as impractical subject to alot of potentional problems.

Tony Williams
October 4, 2006, 08:39 PM
My class group discussed this issue in my Military Science course and we learned that the idea of an electronic trigger system on infantry small arms has already been dismissed by weapons designers as impractical subject to alot of potentional problems.
Oh well, it seemed like a good idea at the time :)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Stiletto Null
October 4, 2006, 08:43 PM
I can think of ways to implement an electric trigger without actually needing any electronics. A pump-handle flashlight isn't vulnerable to EMP effects, as far as I know.

AFhack
October 4, 2006, 09:21 PM
If you're really serious about an electronic ignition, don't stop at an electronically actuated firing pin. Use an electrically sensitive primer and use a small current flow to set off the firing sequence. Firing pin movement would be reduced ( and possibly eliminated ) and springs would only be required for trigger movement reset.

It's not an unheard of concept... most tank main guns use electronic primers these days.

Avizpls
October 4, 2006, 09:29 PM
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?


Not everyone wants an explosion at their cheek.

LexusNexus
October 4, 2006, 11:09 PM
If you start to use more and more electrical components, then more design will have to be considered for waterproofing and shockproofing the weapon.

Bigfoot
October 5, 2006, 01:09 AM
Remingtons EtronX and thier standard sized electrically fired primers had it all figured out years ago, only thier safeguarding system was for lightning etc. not EMPs. Those components were way overbuilt according to what I've read.

The possibility of a standard ARs kaboom inches in front of your face makes some sleep well huh? (insert mice flatuence sound here) It's almost impossible to kaboom an ARs reciever. It's designed to blow down into the mag well instead. These features plus a thick layer of kevlar molded into the reciever cover should provide ample protection.

rockstar.esq
October 5, 2006, 01:41 AM
Stilleto Nun made a point I considered making earlier but opted not to because it seems that at least 60% of the posters are such mechanical masters that they have determined a bullpup's trigger must suck because they can't think of a way to improve it. Most of us have a piezo electric igniter on our propane grills, this sort of technology is neither new nor prone to failure. Teaching a "grunt" to service it wouldn't entail anything more intense than current doctrine however that same 60% here would make it out to be the discovery of a new world. The Remington Etronix system mentioned earlier isn't much of a sucess because it embodies more electronics than is really needed. That alone causes industrial revolution minded folks to quiver because of the mysteries surounding electric devices.:neener: So when you folks log off you COMPUTER, and turn off your LIGHT, you can rest peaceably in your beds knowing that your rifle won't shoot without something pulling the trigger...

Bigfoot
October 5, 2006, 03:50 AM
The trigger isn't enough of a problem to go to exotic systems. Here's two more foreward mounted triggers, they are mounted on standard actions and they are TARGET pistols. Gentlemen I bring you the Remington XP-100 and the Savage Striker.

Lots of other firearms use trigger bars too, like the 1911 Colt, you may of heard about that one.

Ugly trigger pull phony issue solved, next.:banghead:

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 04:18 AM
Stiletto Null posted:
I can think of ways to implement an electric trigger without actually needing any electronics. A pump-handle flashlight isn't vulnerable to EMP effects, as far as I know.
Good point. I actually thought of an electrical one first, until I got seduced by the advanced firing control possibilities of electronics :rolleyes:

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Metapotent
October 5, 2006, 04:50 AM
Tony Williams said:
Stiletto Null posted:

Quote:
I can think of ways to implement an electric trigger without actually needing any electronics. A pump-handle flashlight isn't vulnerable to EMP effects, as far as I know.

Good point. I actually thought of an electrical one first, until I got seduced by the advanced firing control possibilities of electronics

Pump-handle flashlights are very simple. I don't think someone could design and field an electronic trigger that is nearly as simple as one.

Stiletto Null, you believe you can "think of ways to implement an electric trigger" without any "electronics". Why don't you share these idea then? I'd like a good laugh :D

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 07:11 AM
Electrical triggers are nothing new. They were used in synchronised aircraft guns from the end of WW1, long before electronics were invented. All you need is a solenoid linked to the sear, some wiring to connect the solenoid to the trigger, and a battery. You press the trigger to complete the circuit and the solenoid releases the sear - QED. It's just as simple as a light switch. Reasonably EMP-proof, I would have thought.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Nightcrawler
October 5, 2006, 10:09 AM
The only practical way to make a significant electromagnetic pulse, that I'm aware of, is to detonate a large thermonuclear weapon. If I'm wrong on this, please point me in the right direction. I'm interested in this kind of stuff.

I'm sure they're playing around with other devices, but it takes a LOT of energy to create the kind of pulse that can damage electronics at range.

Perhaps the EMP threat is being overstated slightly?

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 10:20 AM
They are developing artillery shells which will deliver a short-range EMP, and presumably aircraft bombs can be designed to do the job over a bigger area, but you are right that for really large-scale coverage you need a nuclear weapon.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

buzz_knox
October 5, 2006, 10:26 AM
They are developing artillery shells which will deliver a short-range EMP, and presumably aircraft bombs can be designed to do the job over a bigger area, but you are right that for really large-scale coverage you need a nuclear weapon.

The USAF reportedly has discussed having such warheads, including for the Tomahawk.

They are also working on man-portable (i.e. somewhat larger than grenade sized) EMP devices, as well as EMP projectors.

EMPs are like any other warhead. To get a large area of effect, you need large devices. If you are only concerned with a limited area (such as taking out an opposing force's gear in a future CQB setting), you use a smaller device.

Master Blaster
October 5, 2006, 10:37 AM
For all of you guys that are not comfortable with having the ejection port right next to your face, fire your weapon left-handed. There it is, right in front of your eyes, belching gas and hot brass. You get used to it.

I am also not comfortable with my head in my Tush, but I dont practice putting it there to overcome my discomfort. There is absolutely no need for my head to be there, just like there is no need for me to own a Bullpup rifle.

Why should I have to get used to it, I already have an AR it solves the problem, and I am right handed whay would I want to shoot left handed??

The only problem that the bullpup solves is weapon length. It has several problems of its own to trade in exchange. The length thing for CQB can be solved by any number of carbines out there.

BTW they make left handed Ar-15s for you south paws.

strambo
October 5, 2006, 10:54 AM
All this discussion has prompted me to think about...where does the term "Bullpup" come from? What does the word mean and how was it chosen to describe a rifle with the action in the rear?

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 10:56 AM
The only problem that the bullpup solves is weapon length.
That is important - as demonstrated by the US preference for short-barrelled carbines.

It isn't the only problem, anyway. Once you add a 40mm UGL to a trad gun (as is increasingly common) plus optical sights and other kit, it becomes increasingly front heavy to the point where it's a strain on the left arm to hold the gun in the aim for long. A bullpup kitted out in that way is far better balanced, by anyone's standards.

It has several problems of its own to trade in exchange.
All fairly minor, as users have been testifying.

It's noticeable that the vast majority of critics of bullpups are people who don't regularly use them - their military users seem very happy with them, and they're in the best position to know.

The length thing for CQB can be solved by any number of carbines out there.
And as is well known, short barrels in 5.56mm guns cause problems with terminal effectiveness.

With a bullpup, you get a choice: a gun as compact as a trad carbine with a full-length rifle barrel, or a carbine which is much shorter (6-8 inches) than a trad carbine with the same length barrel.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 10:59 AM
All this discussion has prompted me to think about...where does the term "Bullpup" come from? What does the word mean and how was it chosen to describe a rifle with the action in the rear?
That's one of the Great Mysteries of Life :)

It seems to have been coined in the USA in the early part of the last century, to describe a layout which had been around for much longer, but no-one's entirely certain.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Nightcrawler
October 5, 2006, 11:29 AM
Why should I have to get used to it, I already have an AR it solves the problem, and I am right handed whay would I want to shoot left handed??

'Cause every time the bullpup debate begins, there are a bunch of people who talk about how they're no good for urban warfare because you can't readily switch shoulders. It is a bit difficult to make good use of weak-side cover if you can't fire your weapon from the off-shoulder.

Weak handed shooting skills can come in handy.

As for the lefty ARs, they can have 'em. The first centerfire rifle I ever used was an M16A1. I like having the chamber right there where I can see it without flipping the gun over.

Fosbery
October 5, 2006, 11:35 AM
Droping a magazine is very, very rare. I've never done it personally. Every magazine I take out goes down my smock (British army speak for 'jacket') where it is held in place by my belt and comes out again when all my full magazines are used up. Some others chose to put partially empty or depleted magazine on one side of their webbing or vest but this takes too long in my opinion. Dropping them down your smock is quick and easy. You would only drop a magazine on the floor if an enemy is running straight at you or something like that. In a 'normal' firefight it's far more advantagous to keep the magazine (and keep it undamaged).

But if you really want a dropping mag release, you can get them on bullpups:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hjaJGY-4-cg

Stiletto Null
October 5, 2006, 11:42 AM
Stiletto Null, you believe you can "think of ways to implement an electric trigger" without any "electronics". Why don't you share these idea then? I'd like a good laughHmm.

OK, I can see how that sounded dumb as hell. :uhoh: I meant no computers; obviously you need something to store charge. (Come on, you know what I meant. I hope.)

Regarding decent bullpup triggers, reportedly the Singaporeans did a pretty good job with the SAR-21. The magic ingredient? A rigid, METAL linkage. No elbows, no cams, no cables, just a solid metal trigger linkage. Just like a conventional one, I imagine, just longer.

Master Blaster
October 5, 2006, 11:48 AM
AFAIK the Brits are the only ones issueing a bullpup in QUANTITY (over 300,000 issued and used in Battle)

Here is what they Think about it:

Criticisms

The initial versions of the L85 and LSW gained a well-deserved reputation as being unreliable[1] and somewhat fragile[2]. The problems began during evaluation trials. The main points of contention was the fact that the L85 lacked a magazine release guard, which meant that the release had a bad habit of catching on a soldier’s webbing/belt kit and ejecting the magazine. The other major flaw was the fact that the walls of the receiver were so thin that the bolt could be stopped from moving by squeezing too hard or denting the chassis. Though that was not the only problem with the framework, the various plastic parts on the weapon were of an overall poor quality and were known to break or fall apart if not handled with care. The gas mechanism was also notorious for occasionally popping open the top cover and needed to be taped down with gaffer tape.

The shortcomings of the rifle were not limited solely to the weapon. Problems also lay with the magazine design and the materials sourced for its construction. The spring used in the magazine of the L85/SA80 were of poor quality, and while the magazine had a maximum capacity of 30 rounds, this was not recommended as it was known to put too much pressure on the spring, inevitably causing jams or a broken spring. The soldier’s work-round was to fill the magazine with 25 or so rounds as the reduction in pressure made the magazines more reliable. This problem was not fully corrected until Heckler & Koch redesigned the magazine in 2000.

Though not a fault of the rifle itself, an early batch of L85 rifles had incompatibility problem with the then standard-issue mosquito repellent resulting in the butt of the rifle melting. This problem was later rectified when the standard-issue mosquito repellent was changed to an L85-friendly variant.

Some of the rifle's problems were corrected with the A1 version which became the main production model, but complaints over reliability in service continued[1]. The weapons was criticised for ejection jams, often attributed to a cocking handle that sometimes deflected empty cartridges back into the ejector port and also due to a sensitivity to dirt. Reports by H&K have also suggested that over-zealous cleaning had a detrimental effect on the rifle. This includes both using abrasives on parts not suited to them, as well as simple over-cleaning. However, during service in Kuwait and Afghanistan, the weapon would frequently malfunction when not cleaned thoroughly and often.

The SA80 family of infantry arms have been severely criticised for their weight[2]; approximately 1 kg heavier than other 5.56 mm weapons, a substantial penalty, and heavier than most 7.62 mm selective-fire infantry rifles of prior years. While additional weight can, in general, reduce recoil and increase accuracy of an infantry arm, it is highly questionable whether the additional marginal gains in accuracy is of any benefit in a 5.56 mm infantry rifle or light support weapon. Moreover, much of the weight is in the butt of the weapon, requiring yet more weight in the front handguard to retain sufficient balance and pointing qualities.

Other criticisms have been that during extreme climates, the weapons lock up, or demonstrate a slower rate of fire. Although this has not explicitly been confirmed by the British government, many soldiers complained that whilst in terrains such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia, the weapons would malfunction due to heat or cold alternately expanding or contracting metal parts inside the weapon, causing jams[3][1].

The L85/L85A1's right-handed ejection port and reciprocating bolt handle make the rifle impossible to fire from the left shoulder, as in a normal firing position these parts would rest against the side of the firer's left cheek.

There are several other criticisms made of the rifle also stemming from poor design. Unlike the M16, the weapon lacks any effective internal means of storing a cleaning kit. The safety catch on the weapon is the source of one major criticism, as it requires either that the left hand is removed from the foregrip in order to be engaged, or that the right hand is removed from the firing position on the pistol grip. This makes quick engagement of the safety difficult in the prone position whilst maintaining aim with the finger on the trigger - however the safety can be disengaged easily without needing to move the hands. The SA80 has been criticised for numerous malfunctions (such as failure to properly feed cartridges), frequently causing stoppages. For many years, the SA80 was not avaiable in a grenadier version with underslung grenade launcher, though the American M16 series of rifles (in the form of the M203) had possessed this type of capability for decades.

The bayonet, whilst less important on today's battlefield, is also the source of some criticism. A comparably minor flaw is that that bayonet's handle is metal and directly on the metal of the barrel, and it can thus heat very rapidly when firing. A further set of problems arises from the metal used to make the blade, many users have complained about it bending and in some cases the blade breaking or shattering. There is, however, limited official documentation on this.

This poor reputation lead to regular criticism by British soldiers and marines, a fact picked up by the UK media[1], for example the Bremner, Bird and Fortune satirical comedy documentary Between Iraq and a Hard Place included the line: "The SA80 is a lethal weapon, especially for the person trying to fire it". The writer Andy McNab stated in his book Bravo Two Zero, that the British Army procured a "Rolls-Royce in the SA80, albeit a prototype Rolls-Royce." Because of the poor performance of the L85A1, the rifle's export sales were largely a failure. To date, the only other nations to use the SA80 are Jamaica, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, all of whom received quantities of the SA80 as foreign aid[2][1].

L85A2

In 1997 the SA80 was dropped from NATO's list of approved weapons, following which an upgrade programme was started. In 2000 Heckler & Koch, at that time owned by Royal Ordnance, were contracted to fix the problems. Two hundred thousand SA80s were remanufactured at a cost of £400 each producing the A2 variant of the weapon. By 2002 the upgraded versions were deployed in first line formations; however, the A1 version remains in use for familiarisation purposes during basic training. The upgrade involved replacement of many internal parts and has vastly increased reliability, to the point of making it one of the most reliable of bullpup configuration weapons.

In March 2005, the L85A2 was put through its paces against the M16, M4, AK-101, FAMAS G2 and G36E modern rifles. [citation needed] It outperformed all of them in accuracy (even without the SUSATs), reload speed (physically changing magazine on the move and static) and usability in urban and close-quarters combat (because of its shorter overall length and the ability to affix a bayonet). A2 upgraded versions also have a higher muzzle velocity. The AK-101 won reliability on multiple terrain, weather and climatic scenarios. The ranks in the test were:

1. SA80
2. G36E
3. M16 family
4. AK-101
5. FAMAS G2

However, the A2's service in Afghanistan was again criticised while in active service with the Royal Marines. According to the Marines, the upgraded A2 version of the SA80 was too difficult to clean and prone to jamming in conditions of heat, cold, sand, and dust[3][1]. An official enquiry concluded that the Marines were not cleaning their rifles frequently enough or in an 'approved' manner. The Sunday Telegraph claimed the inquiry's findings infuriated senior officers in the Royal Marines who described the conclusion in the enquiry as a "whitewash".[4]

Weight remains the L85A2's most cited drawback. As with the L85A1, with most of the weight near the back, a large metal counterbalance in the fore grip was required.

The adoption of the L85A2 version of the SA80 is not universal within the British Armed Forces. Many specialist UK formations, such as the SAS, SBS, the Brigade Patrol Troop of 3 Commando Brigade and the Pathfinder Platoon use the Diemaco C7 (a Canadian-made Armalite AR-15 variant) rather than the SA80 because of their different combat requirements, chronic problems with the SA80's extreme-weather performance and reliability[3], and need for a lighter 5.56 mm combat rifle.

In a further Heckler & Koch upgrade, a number of L85A2 rifles are now being fitted with the HK AG36 40 mm grenade launcher in a configuration similar to the M203, called the UGL (Underslung Grenade Launcher). Problems were experienced with availability of these rife/grenadier adaptations and their grenade ammunition, and they have not yet been extensively distributed or used by large numbers of soldiers or marines. The addition of the (unloaded) UGL adds another 3.30 lb (1.49 kg) to the already hefty L85A2 rifle.

The SA80 family is now an old design which has not been manufactured for a number of years. Replacement is scheduled for 2020 as the existing weapons wear out[5].

References

1. ^ a b c d e f g h Don't Buy British, Guardian Article
2. ^ a b c SA80 Defined
3. ^ a b c SA80 Rifle Jams in Heat And Cold BBC Article
4. ^ Rifle Failure 'Fault of Marines', BBC article
5. ^ Parliamentary answer to Member's Question July 2006, Ministry of Defence, July 2006

Stiletto Null
October 5, 2006, 11:52 AM
Yeah...the SA80 really is a puzzle.

They took the AR-18 gas system. A perfectly good piston-driven system, also used in the G36 type rifle. And then they managed to make the action unreliable.

***, over?

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 12:00 PM
Most of that article concerns the L85A1, which is irrelevant as it has been replaced with the A2. THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm) provides more detail on the SA80's history - and what the soldiers think of it now.

Besides, the SA80 is a 30-year-old design which was recognised right from the start as Not The Way To Do It. The fact that is is so good now is a minor miracle (all credit to HK), but it still has some acknowledged problems, mainly excessive weight.

If you want to weigh up the pros and cons of actual bullpup rifles against trad designs, then the F2000 and the Tavor should be the comparators.

Incidentally, the FAMAS and the AUG have also been issued in large numbers.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Master Blaster
October 5, 2006, 01:59 PM
If you want to weigh up the pros and cons of actual bullpup rifles against trad designs, then the F2000 and the Tavor should be the comparators.

Who has issued at least 300,000 of those and used them in combat???

The F2000 has a plastic fire control group, hammer trigger sear every part.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and guess that when, NO IF, they actually issue them to an active military in quantity and ordinary grunts get their hands on them it will set a new record for problems and unrelaibility.


SINCE you didnt read the whole article I posted I will repost part of it for you:


However, the A2's service in Afghanistan was again criticised while in active service with the Royal Marines. According to the Marines, the upgraded A2 version of the SA80 was too difficult to clean and prone to jamming in conditions of heat, cold, sand, and dust[3][1]. An official enquiry concluded that the Marines were not cleaning their rifles frequently enough or in an 'approved' manner. The Sunday Telegraph claimed the inquiry's findings infuriated senior officers in the Royal Marines who described the conclusion in the enquiry as a "whitewash".[4]

Weight remains the L85A2's most cited drawback. As with the L85A1, with most of the weight near the back, a large metal counterbalance in the fore grip was required.

The adoption of the L85A2 version of the SA80 is not universal within the British Armed Forces. Many specialist UK formations, such as the SAS, SBS, the Brigade Patrol Troop of 3 Commando Brigade and the Pathfinder Platoon use the Diemaco C7 (a Canadian-made Armalite AR-15 variant) rather than the SA80 because of their different combat requirements, chronic problems with the SA80's extreme-weather performance and reliability[3], and need for a lighter 5.56 mm combat rifle.

taliv
October 5, 2006, 02:22 PM
blaster, if you redacted the SA80 name from that article and just posted it, i'd bet most people would assume the problematic rifle in question was the M16. the problems sound identical. (with the exception of squeezing the upper)

also, the P90 and Aug both have plastic trigger groups. have they set records for unreliability?

JohnBT
October 5, 2006, 03:17 PM
"There's a lot of arguing going on for arguing's sake, I think."

Just trying to answer the question in the title of the thread...as over the top as it is...

"Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?"

Why indeed. Because a bullpup doesn't meet all of the needs of all of the users.

Then there's the issue of some of the easily refuted, and easily looked up, "facts" being tossed about as gospel.

John

Tony Williams
October 5, 2006, 03:35 PM
SINCE you didnt read the whole article I posted I will repost part of it for you:
Actually I did, but since you don't seem to have read the article at the link I posted, I'll put some extracts for you here:

"It should be remembered that only a handful of cases of jams were reported from Afghanistan, and the problems were much less serious than the news media made out. Here is what happened, from the man in the centre of it: http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0211/1002111301.asp"

[conclusion of this report, by the Royal Marine Platoon Weapons Instructor who reported the initial problems to do with the cleaning regime]:

"“And we have now walked away from there, very, very happy; we’ve also got some extremely good results. There are other weapons in service, but in comparison the A2 has come out superior.

A weapon system is called a system for a reason. It is not just a weapon, it is a cleaning kit, it is a person, it is the bayonet, it is everything. The weapon system is a package, and the package needs work, and if we do that, we are going to turn the 95 per cent pass rate to 99 per cent. And there is no other weapon system in the world that can do that. For a basic infantry weapon, that the Royal Marines need, the A2 is the weaponhead.

You can use it in the desert, you can use it in the jungle, you can use it in the Arctic, you can use it for offensive operations or to blow up areas. It’s a good compromise for everything that we need. We don’t need a new weapons system. This system does it all. I have sat on the fence on this one, I have seen the results, I have fired the weapon operationally and on the ranges. I am convinced there is no problem.

If you want a weapon that looks Gucci and good, well great, look somewhere else. But I am telling you now, I don’t care what it looks like, the A2 is the better weapon.

Those people who keep writing into the Daily Telegraph are bored ex-Royal Marines who are fed up of doing the gardening and don’t know what to do today. I’m currently serving in the Royal Marines and I’ve got a message for you: this A2 is a hoofin’ weapon – write to me!"

The results from the trials of the L85A2:

"On completion, survey results:
• 95% felt A2 reliable
• 100% happy with accuracy
• 100% felt it was easy to clean in the field (operational oiling taking approx 10-15 seconds)

Results: The Individual Weapon fired 165 battlefield missions, each comprising 150 rounds over a period of 8 mins 40 secs. A total of 24,750 rounds fired and only 51 stoppages
• Out of 165 battlefield missions, A2 passed 156: of the 9 failures stoppages were easily cleared and not mission critical
• A2 achieved a 95% success rate, above operational requirement of 90%, and its nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%."

And:

"At the same time, the US troops using the Army's M4 carbine were reporting a catalogue of problems: among them, 20% reported double feeding, 15% reported feeding jams and 13% reported that the feeding jams were due to magazines. Only 89% reported confidence in the weapon (see: http://www.geocities.com/usarmyafghangearproblems/tsld017.htm ) "

And:

"So what will be the future for the SA80? Is it worth keeping, or has its past deplorable history damned it so much that the army will never gain confidence in it? Experience in the 2003 Gulf War suggests that the problems have been (almost) solved. The only reported issue concerned the safety catch: soldiers on several occasions released the safety catch only to find they still could not fire. Armed forces minister Adam Ingram said afterwards: "Work has been undertaken on the safety catch/plunger, and following successful trials of a revised safety plunger, a contract will be let shortly". Despite this glitch, reports from troops have been almost universally favourable, so the future of the SA80 seems assured for the time being."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Correia
October 5, 2006, 03:37 PM
I'm probably the only person on this thread who has actually designed and built a prototype bullpup rifle. (nothing wrong with the gun, I just ran out of money for the project) And I can tell from a lot of the postings here that many people have never actually shot one. :scrutiny:

And they can have a decent mechanical trigger. The main thing is that you design your trigger to pull a bar as opposed to push a bar. If you push, you get flex. If you pull, no flex. There is the majority of your trigger problems. right there.

And yes, the SA80 sucks. The Chauchat sucked too. However I don't think that means the BAR was a bad gun. See where I'm going with that?

HorseSoldier
October 5, 2006, 03:48 PM
AFAIK the Brits are the only ones issueing a bullpup in QUANTITY (over 300,000 issued and used in Battle)

British have the L85 series and L86 (though as someone noted, UKSF prefer the AR-15 family, and the G36 is apparently the rifle of choice for armed law enforcement). L85A1 had/has serious problems, but some British folks I know attribute this to the MoD simply writing absolutely incorrect requirements concerning reliability and then getting the rifle they requested. L85A2 had more realistic requirements set for it.

French have been issuing the FAMAS for widespread use for about a generation now. Like any other weapon, it seems to possess trade offs, but it has been less problematic for them than the L85A1 proved to be, as far as I know. It's seen combat use in the Middle East and Africa.

Most of the Australian military uses AUG. It's used by a number of other nations, as well (including the UK for the Falklands territorials, if I recall correctly), but anyway, those three are probably the major military users in terms of credible military powers (insert dig at the French here, but they have a largish and reasonably competent military).

Here in the US the G11 and a Steyr bullpup (non-AUG) gave the M16A2 a run for its money during the US ACR trials in the 1980s, but neither provided a 100% improvement over the M16, which was the threshold criteria for replacement. Since they did not, we turned around and developed the bullpup (grenade launcher portion, anyway -- there's some fun for those worried about cooking a round off under your cheek bone) OICW . . .

Bullpups aren't universally accepted, but their use is not a one-off in the UK.

HorseSoldier
October 5, 2006, 04:18 PM
The results from the trials of the L85A2:

"On completion, survey results:
• 95% felt A2 reliable
• 100% happy with accuracy
• 100% felt it was easy to clean in the field (operational oiling taking approx 10-15 seconds)

Results: The Individual Weapon fired 165 battlefield missions, each comprising 150 rounds over a period of 8 mins 40 secs. A total of 24,750 rounds fired and only 51 stoppages
• Out of 165 battlefield missions, A2 passed 156: of the 9 failures stoppages were easily cleared and not mission critical
• A2 achieved a 95% success rate, above operational requirement of 90%, and its nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%."

And:

"At the same time, the US troops using the Army's M4 carbine were reporting a catalogue of problems: among them, 20% reported double feeding, 15% reported feeding jams and 13% reported that the feeding jams were due to magazines. Only 89% reported confidence in the weapon (see: http://www.geocities.com/usarmyafgha...ms/tsld017.htm ) "


There would appear to be something of an apples and oranges dimension to this comparison.

First, allow me to point out that the cited webpage for the US equipment is run by the majestically over-stated "1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)" which is wholly the work of a certified lunatic named Mike Sparks who has the unique distinction of bungling a career in not one but two branches of US military service and being quite cross about how no one but himself and occasionally gullible internet surfers recognize his messianic wisdom concerning all things military. I've never met the man, but a number of my coworkers have when he was pushing his all-terrain-airborne-assault-mountain-bike idea to the SOF community and he is, I'm told, in person every bit the disingenous nutcase his various 1st TSG(A) websites would suggest.

That said, the L85A2 statistics cited are for a finite simulated field fire. I can't seem to find any frame of reference for the M4 statistics cited. For instance, did 20% experience double feed during a 24,000 round simulated event similar to what the L85 went through, during a six, nine, or twelve month combat deployment, or at some point during their military career?

Metapotent
October 5, 2006, 04:38 PM
Electrical triggers are nothing new. They were used in synchronised aircraft guns from the end of WW1, long before electronics were invented. All you need is a solenoid linked to the sear, some wiring to connect the solenoid to the trigger, and a battery.

Those electrical triggers relied on the use of a battery. Batteries are very vulnerable to EMP.

Correia
October 5, 2006, 04:48 PM
Once again, there are mechanical, decent bullpup triggers. :scrutiny:

Fosbery
October 5, 2006, 05:34 PM
How many people here have used an L85 extensively?

Correia
October 5, 2006, 05:37 PM
I'm willing to bet about .01%. If that.

The actual number of posters that has shot a bullpup rifle and not just read about them is probably around 2%.

Of those, figure 3/4 of that number have only shot the poorly executed Bushmaster bullpup.

But that is the power of teh intraweb. :)

boonie
October 5, 2006, 07:07 PM
Correia,

The "pull bar" type trigger is a good description of what I've drawn up for that design I posted about a month or two ago. That said, do you have any advice on building and/or prototyping rifles? I'm not going to build my .408 design in the near future, but I am working on a much more practical .308 design that I should be able to build.
Would you mind posting a photo of your rifle?



Evil Monkey,
Do you have any more information on those Russian bullpup rifles?
Model names, or anything that could help my googling?

I'm sure some of you have noticed, but that one rifle has the magazine at the absolute rear of the receiver. That means they can't use a conventional bolt carrier setup. I'm hoping there's a diagram or photos of the inside of that rifle somewhere online...
ETA:I found the OC-14 and A-91 on the world.guns.ru site, but still haven't fonud anything on that one rifle.

taliv
October 5, 2006, 07:10 PM
i agree corria. and am definitely a bullpup apologist and proponent. but all three i own have stinky triggers. i'm not saying it's impossible to make or find a bullpup with a good trigger, but i do think it's the SINGLE disadvantage inherent in the design.

by stinky triggers, i mean, substantially worse than a stock AR15 trigger. The three i have are the barrett m95, fn ps90, and walther g22. none are the poorly executed bushmaster.

Bigfoot
October 5, 2006, 09:01 PM
Boonie, http://www.dixieconsolidated.com/ uses a trigger pull-bar. They used to have internal pics and diagrams on thier site but I see they have changed it. According to some reviews on RimfireCentral the trigger pull is nice.

Here's a tip for carving a buck, MDF (medium density fiberboard like speaker enclosers use) you can cut it out and sand in into shape in under an hour yet it's stiff enough for thin sections like the trigger gaurd. I just use a Dremel tool.

Cut out your pattern on two pieces, screw them together and do the finish sanding.

Unscrew the buck halves to lay up both molds in thick fiberglass.

Use those molds to lay up the stock halves.

Install fasteners, bedding, trigger mounts and linkage, etc. in the stock halves.

All I can show you are some of my bucks. The project is on hold due to time, oh and I hate working with fiberglass.:barf:

Mini-14, 10-22, BAR, 12 GA, Savage bolt action in pic.
Hi-Point carbine and AR-15 coming.

TestPilot
October 5, 2006, 09:51 PM
Triggers can be made well if there is enough investment,and the FN's 2000 cleared the ejection port problem issue. I personally would not prefer an AUG or an L85 over an SG551 or an M4 because of the ejection issue.

The reason why I would prefer a non-bullpup design is with ergonomics.
Magazine change is the first thing that comes into mind. I cannot comment much on other issues since I have not used a bullpup before.
Unless a non-bullpup rifle's length is too long for the application I am trying to use it for,I see no reason to change what I am used to.

The problems with 5.56mm in shorter barrels is a legitimate concern,but since I am not using weapons issued by military anymore,I can avoid the problems by switching to larger caliber or using lighter weight 5.56mm or 77gr 5.56mm if I can get a one in 7in twist rifled barrel.

rockstar.esq
October 6, 2006, 12:35 AM
So far the trigger thing has been addressed...

So too has the rifle's ability to chamber a diverse array of calibers...

Let's not forget that the magazine thing has been hammered as well...

The Kaboom next to yer mug thing has been beaten positively to death...

So I guess the most original question I could pose would be..

If you got a chance to shoot one and all the above complaints were addressed, would you give it a fair shake?


I ask because I have an affection for double rifles however I can't afford one. I also think it'd be neat if there were a scope made with a duplex reticle allowing for more accurate use on the aforementioned double rifle. Nobody agrees with me so until I win the lotto, I won't get my wish which I'm ok with. That being said, I still wonder if you were holding it in your hand if you'd agree that it isn't too bad of an idea. Heck you might even buy one if it cost the same amount as some more common rifle.

Stiletto Null
October 6, 2006, 12:39 AM
I suspect the PS90's crappy trigger comes more from absentminded implementation (reportedly, the standard pull on the PS90 is as long as the AUTO pull on the P90, which uses a two-step trigger setup instead of a selector) than from being a bullpup.

Tony Williams
October 6, 2006, 04:42 AM
Correia said:

Once again, there are mechanical, decent bullpup triggers.

No doubt. But getting one which allows you to slide the pistol grip to and fro to vary the length of pull (my reason for suggesting an electronic/electrical one in the first place) might be a bit of a challenge...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Tony Williams
October 6, 2006, 04:45 AM
Metapotent said:

Those electrical triggers relied on the use of a battery. Batteries are very vulnerable to EMP.
In that case, rely more on the method I suggested first, i.e. couple a generator like the 'shake to charge' torches already mentioned to the action, so the rifle generates its own power as it is fired. If your battery is completely dead: remove magazine, quickly work the cocking lever a few times, and you've got the charge for the first shot.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

harvester of sorrow
October 6, 2006, 04:59 AM
Every rifle isn't a bullpup design because the market doesn't demand it. Simple enough.

Metapotent
October 6, 2006, 05:30 AM
Tony Williams, I checked out your link and you seem to be quite an accomplished author if you are, in fact, Anthony G. Williams.. :scrutiny:

But anyway, even though I believe that an electronic trigger, if functional, would be quite a nifty little gadget on an actual firearm (I have an electronic trigger on my paintball gun) in the civilian market, but I don't think such a thing would ever be adopted by a military, atleast certainly not to average grunts.

Metapotent
October 6, 2006, 05:31 AM
Tony Williams, I checked out your link and you seem to be quite an accomplished author if you are, in fact, Anthony G. Williams.. :scrutiny:

But anyway, even though I believe that an electronic trigger, if functional, would be quite a nifty little gadget on an actual firearm (I have an electronic trigger on my paintball gun) in the civilian market, but I don't think such a thing would ever be adopted by a military, atleast certainly not to average grunts.

max popenker
October 6, 2006, 09:05 AM
But anyway, even though I believe that an electronic trigger, if functional, would be quite a nifty little gadget on an actual firearm (I have an electronic trigger on my paintball gun) in the civilian market, but I don't think such a thing would ever be adopted by a military, atleast certainly not to average grunts.
well, electric triggers are adopted for at least few rocket-propelled grenade launchers, such as Russian RPG-16 (http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl03-e.htm). And if Soviet / russian army has adopted it, it is as soldierproof as theoretically possible. And it uses no batteries but a trigger-operated magnetic impulse generator.

HorseSoldier
October 6, 2006, 10:04 AM
But anyway, even though I believe that an electronic trigger, if functional, would be quite a nifty little gadget on an actual firearm (I have an electronic trigger on my paintball gun) in the civilian market, but I don't think such a thing would ever be adopted by a military, atleast certainly not to average grunts.


One thing that is worth noting is that a lot of the existing bells and whistles that make current military rifles (and other kit) much more effective, like AimPoints and ACOGs and what not are not exclusively the result of improving technology. They're also made possible by the fact that the average grunt today is quite a bit sharper than the average grunt of a generation or two ago, especially compared to conscript/draft based armies where motivation and enthusiasm (as well as education) could vary rather wildly from person to person. I'd actually venture to guess that the average education level for a modern day US enlisted solder exceeds the average education level for an offcer during World War 2, for instance.

Besides various social implications (like really depriving the officer class of one of its historic reasons for distinction from enlisted and NCO classes -- namely superior education or, far enough back, simple literacy) it means you can give Joe gadgets like, say, night vision goggles, and tell him not to use them as a hammer, pry bar, or can opener. And, by and large, he does what he has to do to keep his NODs and his GPS and his AimPoint and his radio all up and running.

Evil Monkey
October 6, 2006, 10:22 AM
Evil Monkey,
Do you have any more information on those Russian bullpup rifles?
Model names, or anything that could help my googling?

I found them on this site.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=91878

I would like to learn more about these rifles too. I never knew the Soviets had a SALVO project.

Tony Williams
October 6, 2006, 02:28 PM
Tony Williams, I checked out your link and you seem to be quite an accomplished author if you are, in fact, Anthony G. Williams..
Yep, that's my Sunday Best name :)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

TimboKhan
October 6, 2006, 04:23 PM
Every rifle isn't a bullpup design because the market doesn't demand it. Simple enough.

I agree with this statement.

Carl N. Brown
October 6, 2006, 05:30 PM
I have a Mossberg Bullpup shotgun. The advantage is
short overall length; the disadvantage is it is basically
a right handed gun. A conventional long gun can be
fired either left or right handed.

If one could develop a rifle that ejected downward
and was designed ambidextrous(safety, controls etc)
that might be more useful.

In fact, a bullpup shotgun based on the Ithaca shotgun
would make more sense than one based on the Mossberg.

Metapotent
October 6, 2006, 09:27 PM
One thing that is worth noting is that a lot of the existing bells and whistles that make current military rifles (and other kit) much more effective, like AimPoints and ACOGs and what not are not exclusively the result of improving technology.

Yes but when an ACOG or an Aimpoint cease to function, the rifle will still fire.

The military relies heavily on technology but they also employ failsafe doctrine and tactics so that if they lose their electronics, if they are destroyed or can't be used the unit can still function. That is why even though most units these days have advanced computers for mapping and communication with push-screen technology and such, they still teach people to use a simply paper map with a pencil and they teach simple orienteering in addition to teaching men how to use GPS. This same idea applies for many other areas of the military.

Tony Williams
October 6, 2006, 10:42 PM
If one could develop a rifle that ejected downward
and was designed ambidextrous(safety, controls etc)
that might be more useful.
There is one - the FN F2000. There is also its little brother, the P90.

I have a couple of design concepts of my own for ambidextrous military bullpup rifles. The more conventional has upward ejection, with the cases hitting the rubber-covered underside of the cheekpiece and being deflected away from the firer. The cheekpiece would be designed to pivot from right to left-handed use (automatically changing the direction of ejection), a change which take no more than a second.

My other design has a top-mounted drum magazine with downward eject; the drum acts as a cheekpiece.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

44AMP
October 6, 2006, 10:48 PM
Just a guess, but perhaps "bullpup" might have come from "pit bull pup", as in a nasty customer in a small package.

All the drawback found in existing bullpup designs might someday be overcome by new designs. When that day comes, the compactness of the bullpup would be a definate plus in competition against conventional rifles. Someday we may get to the point where military rifles ARE all bullpup rifles, but we are a long way from there today.

As to the individual who said it is difficult to blow out the upper reciever of an M16, difficult is not impossible. In 1977 I performed and ECOD (Estimated Cost Of Damages) on an M16A1 thast had the left side of the upper reciever peeled back like the sealing strip on a spam can. It HAS happened, it Can be done. If something like this were to happen to a bullpup design, it would be really, well, bad.

taliv
October 7, 2006, 12:05 AM
true, but conventional guns also go kaboom and result in injuries. having your face 5" from the chamber on a bolt-action vs 3" from the chamber on a PS90 doesn't seem like all that much more risk.

22-rimfire
October 7, 2006, 12:10 AM
You can keep your bull pup designs. I'll never buy one. Rarely even pick one up to look at. UGLY

If you enjoyed reading about "Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!