Metapotent
Member
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.
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?
- Thread starter streetstang67
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
Member
"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.
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.
Nightcrawler
Member
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?
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.
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
Member
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 had a pretty decent trigger, and THIS 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.
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 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 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.
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 had a pretty decent trigger, and THIS 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.
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 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 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
Member
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
- Chris
Metapotent
Member
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.
Tony Williams
Member
Chris Rhines said:
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 and discussion forum
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 and discussion forum
rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
Could've sworn that was older than these Russian prototypes, too.
Overlooking history
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.
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
Member
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!
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 and discussion forum
Metapotent
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Name me a military rifle which has proved to be absolutely perfect as first issued.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Metapotent
Member
Only 40,000 ordered? Hmm... Israel may be small but their infantry unites in active duty and reserve have alot more than that.
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
Member
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.
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)
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!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Fosbery
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 232
Why aren't all women lesbians?
possum
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
