[Caseless]

for some decent bullpup designs to appear in the U.S. market. I don't care if it's a bolt action or self-loader. There are simply so few bullpup designs being sold right now.
Your thoughts please.

[Don Gwinn]

There are some interesting ideas coming soon. Somebody just introduced a bullpup based on the M1 Carbine, and there's a FAL coming soon, too.

[Ian]

I've handled one of the K-Var AK bullpup setups, but not fired it. It felt surprisingly good (as opposed to the crappy-unless-seriously-tweaked Bushmaster M17). Has anyone used one who might have more info on 'em?

[MarineTech]

Personally, I'm waiting to see if the civilian legal version of the Tavor will hit the shores. I might just have to break down and pick one up.

I'm also trying to suppress a certain amount of interest in the Hezi conversion for the M1 Carbine.

[BDM]

Bushmaster has the M17s.

[Gordon]

When I was an adolescent in the 50's I lived in an area of 'oldtime gunsmiths'. When I was taken target shooting in eastern Penn. these oldtimers would uncase their favorie hand made "bullpup' I remember seeing every concievable combination from M-1 garands to .300 Magnums all had full length barrels. All had custom scope set ups. I always wanted one of these 'bull pup' customs. I saw some in Europe in 70's but they were not for sale. Soooo in the late 80's I started to get the makings together. I choose a Rem 600 action in .308 because of the bolt handle and their compactness and strength. I saw an ad in a gun mag for bull pup stocks from Western Gun Stocks . I tried to use XP-100 trigger mechanismn ect and I could have IF I wanted to give up the magazine. Being stubborn about a repeater I finally talked Don Golembinski of Kodiak Precision into the project. A year and $1000 later in 95 he made my dream Bullpup, somewhat short with it's 18" magnaported barrel, the trigger breaks like glass, very light. The scope is cantilevered on an elaborate machined mount and the gun has stainless pillar bedding into the maple and walnut laminated stock. It shoots 1"; the barrel is very thin.I still have not sanded the pound of wood off stock for final finish. The metal is NP3, the scope is presently a 8X56 Kahles with heavy picket post. The gun is 27" OAL. It carries like a (heavy) pistol. I'll finish it before I die. :D

[Correia]

There is a bullpup FAL coming. It is going to be a kit that allows you to use an existing barreled receiver and mostly uses existing FAL parts. Total length with a 21 inch bbl will be shorter than a 16 inch AR. It is currently in prototype form, but it looks real good. :)

[BigG]

I for one would like to see a bull pup built from the ground up without cheesy box magazines sticking out the bottom of the buttstock and ejection ports coming out the side of same. The concept is good but the execution I've seen so far AUG/Tavor/Bushmaster etc. is underwhelming.

[Caseless]

Another thought: if bullpups become widely available, the BATF will probably start enforcing separate maximum barrel length rules as opposed to the traditional 16 inch barrel limit rule.

[Chipperman]

OK Gordon,
You can't just give us a description like that with no picture.
:mad:

Let's see it, even with the unfinished stock. :cool:

[Southern Raider]

Another thought: if bullpups become widely available, the BATF will probably start enforcing separate maximum barrel length rules as opposed to the traditional 16 inch barrel limit rule.
Uhhh...No they won't. The law as passed by Congress says a rifle with a barrel less than 16" or OAL less than 26" is a short barrel rifle. The BATF doesn't get to say otherwise.

However, bullpup designs come up against the 26" length before the 16" barrel. For example, the M17S has a length 8.5" longer than it's barrel. Once it's barrel is cut down to 17.5", it reaches the minimum OAL without a tax stamp.

[4v50 Gary]

Larry, one thing we 'mericans like are gadgets. One disadvantage of bull-pups is that you can't add on all the do-dads (flashlights, laser sights, red dot) and everything else that converts a rifle into a crew served weapon. :D

[dude]

We have to wait becasue there are really no sucessful bullpup designs in the first place. The Styer AUG is the only design that has expierenced reasonable sucess in the civlilan market............. while it is not real popular with the troops who use it (like the SA-80).

[Correia]

Don't worry Gary, there will be plenty of spots to hang useless crap off of. :D

[BigG]

Instead of just taking a conventional rifle (boltgun, AKM, M1 Carbine, etc.) out of the stock and putting a bullpup stock on it and moving the trigger forward, they should design a gun where the feeding and ejection is tailored to the design, where it could be fired from either side - shoulder, hip, prone, etc. Then you would have something that surpasses the norm.

I could see the old guys taking a milsurp boltgun and making a bullpup as a fun project but the utility of a mass produced military bullpup so far eludes me.

[Andrew Wyatt]

I'm currently working on making my turk mauser into a bullpup.

29 inch barrel, 33 inch OAL

[Hkmp5sd]

I'd settle for an AUG that didn't cost more than a used car. Anyone making a US clone yet?

[BadWolf]

Howdy, Just joined in here at the High Road.

Surprised no one has mentioned the FN F2000. That would be my bullpup of choice if the laws of the land changed!

-BadWolf:D

[Art Eatman]

Welcome, BadWolf! This ol' hot tub always has room for one more!

:), Art

[BigG]

Not to mention that little French trumpet lookin thing.

[Mark Tyson]

I always thought that bullpup rifles were a lot harder to fire prone than conventional rifles. Also harder to change mags. Maybe that's just me.

[Cthulhu]

The three main problems with conventional bullpups as a one size fits all rifle.

1. Mag changes are slow and awkward. None of them are as fast to recharge as an AR-15/M16 series rifle, which is, for better or worse, the standard by which all others are judged.

2. Sub-par trigger pull. Result of having a long trigger linkage from the fore mounted trigger/grip assembly to the hammer/striker assembly in the rear.

3. Non- ambidextrous. Even those models that allow you to configure the rifle with the ejection port to either side still require field stripping at the minimum and even specialized side specific parts assemblies on certain models.
Why is this such a big issue? Shooting from the weak side shoulder allows shooters to shoot around strong side barriers while still keeping the majority of their body behind cover. This is something that must be immediately available without tearing the weapon down. It is also one of the reasons that most foreign countries that general issue bullpup rifles usually issue their special operations troops a conventionally setup rifle so they don't sacrifice this ability.

The new FN2000 solves problem #3 by ejecting spent casings forward of the weapon, but it still suffers from 1 and 2. The bullpup concept is sound and promises great reward if technology advances beyond these shortcomings.

[Snaps]

You could always get a bullpup for a 10/22:D

[Justin]

Not to mention that little French trumpet lookin thing.
LOL. That'd be the FAMAS.
I think that the ideal bullpup would be either bottom or forward ejecting. While it's not a bullpup design, I believe that the Calico arms pistols and carbines are bottom ejecting. So there might be something to learn from there.

[k31]

My daughter likes her FAMAS, but she prefers shooting her Valmet M82 bullpup.



k31

[Kharn]

The FN2000 pushes the empties into a tube which empties at the front of the handguards (so they spill out forward of your support hand). Even though I doubt they've solved the slow reload time, I'd still love to have one.

Kharn

[Correia]

Slow reload time? Only if you aren't used to it. Once you are used to a particular weapon system and you know to work it you can do really fast reloads.

I get mocked because I use an AK or a FAL in 3 gun because they aren't as "ergonomic" as the AR. However I can do sub 2 second reloads with the AK every time, piece of cake, and I've pushed around 1 second with the FAL. (provided this is not with the bolt locked back empty, but rather with a round in the chamber).

You can do sub 2 second reloads with a bullpup, you just need to be very familiar with the system. Now it will never be as fast as an AR, but for 99% of the shooters out there there won't be much difference. With top competitive shooters the AR will win, but only by fractions of a second.

Bullpups can be creatively shot off your left shoulder. However it is a short range technique that will not allow you to get a proper cheek weld. Once again it is knowing your particular weapon system. The vast majority of folks out there can't shoot worth a damn off their left shoulder anyway. Even in CQB situations, (from what I understand) they usually train to just angle their body to shoot around corners, rather than trying to switch their gun from one hand to another. (not to mention that many kinds of tac slings prevent you from switching shoulders).

The bullpup has shortcomings, but often times I think they get a bad rap because there aren't a whole lot of good ones available to us American shooters. Short is good. Look at everybody clamoring for an M4 sized gun vs. the 16. Easier to move with, easier in and out of vehicles. But a bullpup allows you a 20 inch barrel in the same overall size as a short carbine, but with no velocity loss. A suppressed bullpup's overall size is the same as a non suppresed rifle.

A good trigger design can overcome a crappy trigger pull. The Tavor I tried actually had a pretty good trigger pull, comparable to most standard military rifles. (it ain't no Tikka, but it is as good as most of the M16s I've seen, and a whole lot better than a standard FAL).

As for the receiver blowing up under your cheek, good thing that doesn't happen every day! :) But if you look at some of the BP guns coming down the pipe now, the receivers are shielded in such a way as to protect the shooter's face.

The FN is really an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one. The Russians did something similar about 10 years ago as part of the Abakan trials.

I think Bullpups are the wave of the future.

[Jaywalker]

I recall a review in "International Defense Review" 15 or so years ago testing the AUG that highlighted a pretty serious disadvantage. Since the chamber was right under the tester's cheek, cartridge fumes leaked up into his face. It caused his eyes to water and made accurate shooting more difficult. I'd certaily never have thought of that.

Jaywalker