why not a bullpup?

jak67429

Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
797
Had a chance to shoot a couple of bullpups this weekend, and I am wondering why wouldn't one be perfect home defense rifle? they are compact enough that they almost eliminate the advantages of a pistol, and have much more stopping power. And with the right ammo you could negate the over penetration issues. And if needed they would have the extended range a pistol wouldn't. I shot the Springfield and a tavor. they both handled well and according to their owners have no reliability issues. Accuracy was OK we only shot to 50 yards with iron sights at steel plates. Maybe I'm just trying to talk myself out of buying one, god knows I don't need another 223 rifle. But I really liked that tavor.
 
Prevalence, that’s it. They’re a little bit of a gimmick overall, and the only advantage is short format - which comes with some manipulation penalties as well as some safety concerns - so their overall appeal is extremely limited, so their prevalence is low, which means their market access to this relatively small niche is subsequently even smaller.
 
Nothing wrong with them they just handle a little differently. I always find the mag changes kind of strange. Sort of like reaching into your armpit and putting on deoderant. Just something you have to practice with a little for it to become second nature. Having my head that close to a chamber is also kind of weird.

I like bullpups for the most part though. They certainly have ballistic and size advantages. Finding good ones has always been the challenge but these days there are a lot more options. In the old days it was basically just the Aug or the Mossberg 500 pump. Today there is a bunch. I would probably still push you towards the Aug though....great rifles.
 
Only downside is ergonomics. They can be a bit awkward to run, but that can be minimized with training and familiarity.

But both the VHS and the Tavor are battle proven rifles.
 
Two reasons: Butt ugly, and 3 armed reloads. :D

I think Augs look nice in 60s streamlined art deco kind of way. Most the others are hideous. The Hellion gets my vote for ugliest rifle ever made. The Walther 22lr bullpup didnt look bad either but I am not sure why those were discontinued from production.

Reloads are weird for sure on mag fed rifle. The muzzlelite kits for the marlin 60 tube fed rifles were easy to reload but the kits themselves were kind of junky feeling. Fun rifles though.
 
The advantage is that they are much shorter than a conventional rifle. That is an important to some. They don't point naturally, the action is next to your face, triggers require linkage and the ergos are awkward, especially for reloading. Some folks just like them. If you want one get one. I am not sure about the idea of using it like a two-handed pistol. When shooting from the hip, I prefer to tuck the conventional stock under my arm. A Bullpup is not my cup of tea but it is for some.
 
Price for me is what's keeping me away from bullpups. Outside of Kel-Tec, they are prohibitively expensive for a lot of people. I am wary of using such a firearm (or AR15 or AK) for home defense, not because of the rounds potentially going through the target, but for the optics of public opinion and some DA's that will go NUTS if you use one for home/self defense.
 
I do wonder, if everyone here had grown up shooting bullpups instead of traditional rifles, would they feel differently?

If that were the case, would a traditional rifle design be looked down on and called ergonomically unfriendly because they were so long and front heavy?

On a different note, a legitimate usage question: Are mag changes with bullpups done with the support hand, or shooting hand?
 
Price for me is what's keeping me away from bullpups. Outside of Kel-Tec, they are prohibitively expensive for a lot of people. I am wary of using such a firearm (or AR15 or AK) for home defense, not because of the rounds potentially going through the target, but for the optics of public opinion and some DA's that will go NUTS if you use one for home/self defense.

This is a very interesting comment. If you ever have to defend yourself before a jury, the make and model of your firearm as well as the type and trademark of the ammunition could easily become important factors in what the jury decides. In other words, a classic revolver or lever gun loaded with basic wadcutters or Federal "Train and Protect" ammunition will leave a very different impression on the jury compared to something like the "Street Sweeper" shotgun or using "Terminator" ammunition. In other words, there is a serious reason why Smith and Wesson markets the "Shield" handgun. And I could see where defending the use of a bullpup design might be problematic...
 
Last edited:
There are two things that hamper most bullpup designs. One is the trigger and the other is lack of ambidextrous use.

Most bullpup rifles have never been known for having good triggers. This is due to the linkages needed to make them work. Yes some are better than others but none of the will be as nice as a traditional design.

The majority of bullpup rifles will only eject rounds from the ride side of the rifle. This makes them 100% useless for shooting left hand. Newer bullpup designs include an ejection port on both sides and you can with them which helps. The problem there is trying to swap everything over from right hand to left hand ejection in the field.

The best ambidextrous design is the bullpup rifles that eject out the bottom. There is no need to swap parts that way. But you are still dealing with the mediocre to bad trigger pull inherent to the bullpup design.
 
There are two things that hamper most bullpup designs. One is the trigger and the other is lack of ambidextrous use.

Most bullpup rifles have never been known for having good triggers. This is due to the linkages needed to make them work. Yes some are better than others but none of the will be as nice as a traditional design.

The majority of bullpup rifles will only eject rounds from the ride side of the rifle. This makes them 100% useless for shooting left hand. Newer bullpup designs include an ejection port on both sides and you can with them which helps. The problem there is trying to swap everything over from right hand to left hand ejection in the field.

The best ambidextrous design is the bullpup rifles that eject out the bottom. There is no need to swap parts that way. But you are still dealing with the mediocre to bad trigger pull inherent to the bullpup design.

I have to claim complete ignorance on the trigger linkage design. It seems like a striker system such as Glock might be preferable, probably with a solid rod between trigger and the sear system. Do they tend to be hammer fired, or are striker systems available?
 
Here is a generic photo of a bullpup. Inside the red area is the trigger and linkage. Now a bullpup that was designed from the ground up will have a slightly better trigger when compared to a bullpup conversion kit. On a conversion kit, the linkage connects the new trigger to the original trigger. Either way, t bullpens are notorious for having horrible triggers.

bullpup.jpeg

It seems like a striker system such as Glock might be preferable, probably with a solid rod between trigger and the sear system. Do they tend to be hammer fired, or are striker systems available?

To answer your question. It will depend on the manufacturer and how each is designed. This goes for true bullpens only. On the bullpup conversion kits, the original trigger and fire control group are retained and used.
 
I lusted for an AUG as it could be made to eject left handed.
What slowed me down was the price and the fact it's heavier than it looks.
I've fired a Tavor and found it to be butt heavy. The Kel TeK RDB seems to be my cup of tea,price is cheaper than the AUG and Tavor and ejects downwards so good for both left and right handed shooters.
 
If I could get my hands on one, I would like to try a Vektor CR21, just because it is so weird.

View attachment 1107274

Deffinitly a looker on that Vektor. South Africa makes some good stuff. I would take a guess that it performs pretty well. South Africa has put out very high grade copies of nice designs. Would not suprise me if that was basically a Steyr with a new stock.
 
I've only had time with the FN 2000 and the FN PS90.

The 2000 is a chunky, unbalanced beast. It just doesn't feel natural to me at all.

The PS90 felt much better ergonomically to hold and to fire.

I'd like some time with other designs, but I do wonder if other 5.56 chambered designs feel as off putting as the FN 2000.
 
I like the CONCEPT of the bullpup rifle. It's economical with it's use of internal volume, and the idea of a full length rifle in a carbine footprint or a carbine in a PDW length is certainly appealing.

I kinda started to drool over the Desert Tech MDRX in 6.5CM. A 20" intermediate caliber with great long range exterior ballistics in a gun roughly the same length as a 14.5" M4gery sounds like it would be a fantastic "across the course" gun. A decent trigger (for a bullpup) and a novel ejection system made it look even more appealing.

Unfortunately more research led me to understand their QC is a little hit-and-miss and their customer service sounds a bit indifferent. Enough reports of inaccuracy and feeding/ejection issues came up to cool my enthusiasm. The fact that my state is charging hard to be more like California with each passing election cycle eventually brought me to the conclusion that, in my case, the gamble wasn't worth the hassle...
 
Back
Top