Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?

[Metapotent]

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]

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 and discussion forum

 

[44AMP]

SWAG

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]

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]

You can keep your bull pup designs. I'll never buy one. Rarely even pick one up to look at. UGLY