A practical take on the Bullpup vs. Conventional argument.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as accuracy goes, the M-16/M-4 are more accurate, ask the SAS, in fact why does the SAS prefer the M-4 over their own countries rifle?
Ive been told over the years that the L85 is not so reliable as its sometimes given credit for (magazine issues commonly), its louder, the flash is closer to your face and eyes, and the M-4 is easier to use regardless of familiarity and background.
The M-4 is lighter, feels much lighter in your hands compared, and feels more balanced. The rate of fire is higher, easier to reload, more adaptable to all situations. The M-4 has sights to back up any optics you add (not if but WHEN they fail).
In the case of MOUT the bullpup design has inherant advantages, but only for those who train with them. For those who train with both it seems the full length design has more advantages.
There arent as many situations when a bayonet is used in modern combat, but there are still situations when a bayonet is needed, so why lose the option? If your life depends on the bayonet, and you decided it was useless(left it behind), wouldnt you see the need for it? Now, since combat is a activity that doesnt happen step by step as you plan it (unless your in a hollywood movie), you need options, and you need to be flexible, you also need backups for every tactic you train in, if not you become DEAD.
With the M-16 a buttstroke was effective, but the M-4 not so effective, and not an option.
Grenade launchers such as the M-203 makes the rifle easier to shoot once you get used to them, holds the front down better, and adds a very effective destructive wepon to your arsenal.
Id prefer the M-4 or depending on situation M-16. Im sure with enough time training with each design more advantages or disadvantages become appearant to the individual. I dont see bullpups taking over for most combat rifles.
 
Last edited:
Shvar,

I take it you've used both?

As far as accuracy goes, the M-16/M-4 are more accurate, ask the SAS, in fact why does the SAS prefer the M-4 over their own countries rifle?

Nothing to do with accuracy and a lot more to do with anonymizing, L85 screams Brit, M16 says.....maybe Western.

I've been told over the years that the L85 is not so reliable as its sometimes given credit for (magazine issues commonly), its louder, the flash is closer to your face and eyes, and the M-4 is easier to use regardless of familiarity and background

L85A1 yes, magwell in particular had a nasty habit of getting dented, not an issue with the A2. Ditto with some of the furniture
M4, as I said, practice and familiarity, not inherent superiorityof equipment

The M-4 is lighter, feels much lighter in your hands compared, and feels more balanced

The M4 is lighter, and as for balance, once again, not in my use.

The rate of fire is higher, easier to reload, more adaptable to all situations. The M-4 has sights to back up any optics you add (not if but WHEN they fail).

Rate of fire
L85 650rpm
M4 700-850 rpm

11 rounds a secomd or 13 rounds a second....no combat effective difference except in eating up unaimed ammo more quickly.

Not harder to reload, different and marginally slower, see write up.

Maybe the M4 optics fail, the SUSAT is built like 2 tanks and has the necessary rudimentary iron sights built as part of the body.

In the case of MOUT the bullpup design has inherant advantages, but only for those who train with them. For those who train with both it seems the full length design has more advantages.

Which soldier doen't train with their weapon? Which advantages, I've already listed the points?

With the M-16 a buttstroke was effective, but the M-4 not so effective, and not an option

A buttstroke that renders the weapon unusable is suicidal, not ineffective
 
everallm: "I have combat and trigger time with the L85A1 and A2, trigger time with both the FAMAS and AUG and transitioned from the L1A1 to the L85A1. I have combat and trigger time with M16 and M4 and trigger time with the C7 and C8. Ergonomically I personally found the hands closer to the body stance of the bullpup less of a strain over time than the more extended arms stance of the M16."

You've seen combat with four different military rifle designs, yet you find Standing Position a strain? Were you wounded to the arms?
 
Hold a 5 pound weight at arms length for 10 minutes, now do the same held close to the body, rinse and repeat for 4-6 hours, which stance applies greater strain?

I compared my personal take on how they felt to me, simple mechanics, nothing to do with a weapon or abilities.

In the words of my first sergeant...."Any idiot can be uncomfortable"

Combat with 2 weapon designs, trigger time with the others, as written.
 
Last edited:
seeing as they are quite expensive compared to conventional designs, I havent had much trigger time on 'pups.
but what I have found is they are very well balanced for shooting on the move.
 
I'd have to think about the hands close to the body. I'm not any sort of bullpup expert, but the length of pull seems to be the same as a standard rifle. Maybe the off hand is a bit closer, but not much closer. I'm having a hard time buying the comment.

I didn't see anyone mentioning carrying (or firing) right and left handed alternately as cover allows. Or as required by your position in a fire team or patrol file. That always seemed the biggest drawback to a bullpup in my estimation. You are sooo limited if you cannot employ your weapon ambidextrously at a moment's whim.

Every one has different experiences. Those who have had to pull duty in civil disturbances, riots, or guard duty in a public place with tight rules of engagment would appreciate a conventional rifle layout and a bayonet. This is much more typical duty for a soldier over a career than active mechanized warfare. In an environment where people have been cut before, but shootings are rare, a sharp edge brings a more visceral fear, especially when locals beleive you might stick them but are pretty sure you will get in big trouble if you shoot them. Ask a city cop about pulling their sidearm vs their baton and they will likely agree to a similar relationship. Sorry if this is offensive, but when I hear someone talk down to bayonets I kinda figure this is one of those things where life experience is hard to bridge in an internet forum.

I concur that AR type weapons are limited by robustness in the face of a last minute empty mag beat down scenario. Oh well. You gotta do what you gotta do in the moment. A bullpup might be harder for some BG to grab from you, but that smacks of assuming you suck and the other guy is better. Not a winning mindset.

I will make a solemn promise to all of you to buy a bullpup as soon as possible and take it to a training class at a real training school. Or maybe to an appleseed. Who is with me?
 
For lefties, how about letting gays into the military, and banning lefties instead (unless they're willing to stay "in the closet," and pretend they're right-handed)? Both are 10% of the population, so the number of recruits shouldn't change drastically.

:p

(and yes, I know, shooting left-handed can be tactically important no matter which hand you'd rather use; the above was facetious)

I actually have thought about that a bit, though. Ambidexterous controls add cost and complexity, and it would save a lot of money to issue a righty-only weapon and force lefties to just deal with it, like they have to deal with the M4 now.
 
My two cents:

1. I think bayos on any fighting rifle, bullpup or not, can potentially be quite useful in an urban firefight. I'd sure want one if I ran out of ammo.

2. Bullpups: I think one *touted disadvantage* of the mag changes being less instinctive and ergo is bunk: With PRACTICE, mag changes are gonna be the same as with conventional rifles.

3. Bullpups: I think ANOTHER *touted disadvantage* of them pointing "less naturally" or "like a chainsaw" is also bunk, or not really bunk, but just not a *disadvantage*. In fact, I think the rear-heavy feel is a good thing, and given equal training, there is no advantage nor disadvantage here. Although I concede that I don't know for sure whether the bullpup is disadvantaged or not in full-auto, with more muzzle climb. ??

4. Bullpups: Main disadvantages are: (a) High line of sight - but this has a corresponding advantage of "straight-back" recoil and therefore less muzzle climb, like ARs; (b) Explosion near face, so must have a strong/reinforced receiver to protect against catastrophic failure which makes the gun heavier, (c) Non-ambidextrous - BUT, now this disadvantage has been nullified by the FS2000 and RFB. The Steyr and Tavor are NOT not truly amidextrous - the ejection can be changed to the other side, but what if you need to shoot from the *original* side from before you changed it? ; and (d) [related to (b)], explosion near face means that you get a lot of smoke & particles ingested into the lungs, espec. on non-windy days, as well as noise/blast. This is the single largest practical disadvantage that rears its head.

5. Obviously, advantage is short, short, short! Is it worth the tradeoff? Kinda depends on the application. I for one like bullpups.

RyanM, "don't ask, don't tell" for lefties, eh? Well, that would be a good idea, but why not just adopt the FS2000 or RFB and then it won't matter, and recruit numbers will be boosted? :)
 
I'm waiting on the first beastings and range reports from the RFB.

It appears that George at Kel-Tec really has taken a lot of care in addressing the limitations/"features" particularly ejection, leftie'ness and trigger pain.

IF, it is as advertised I feel this may help to get the bullpup format more accepted to the US civilian shooter.

And all in .308 loveliness.......drooolllllll..........
 
show me a full length rifle that without modification (big muzzle brake) can be fired full auto or burst and be kept on target , Ive shot the SA 80 and you can pull the trigger and keep all rounds on target ,mag changes are no problem you just reach under your chest instead of out in front , the main advantage to the squad weapon is that it has a built in bipod and is slightly easier to shoot accurately , overall size of that one is similar to an AR/M16 due to the longer barrel . True lefties get showered with hot brass but just how many people are left handed anyway ? only 2 in my unit and they got taught to shoot right handed with no loss of accuracy .
I love the BP design easy to carry , easy to shoot just need a bigger caliber in my oppinion . (-:
 
Just dropping in to check on the post. I’m glad to see a lot of different opinions. I hate being wrong but I would rather be wrong and learn than wrong and make a mistake because of it. But this is an opinion post after all.
 
Gotta go along with evarallm about the support arm. It's not about strength, it's about long-term endurance--and everybody becomes fatigued at some point.

I messed around with a buddy's AUG, back when they first came out. Not bad. But, not particularly my deal, so I didn't buy one. I can see where they'd be really good for combat in relatively close quarters, and probably okay in the more usual arena.

But I don't plan on combat, and conventional critters do just fine for hunting. :)
 
The bullpup has been around awhile. You can tell how good a design it is by all the competitions it's won and how popular it is with people who use it under duress. Not. Yes people can be trained to use it. You can also use a short handled hammer. I fail to understand why some people are determined to promote this design. It's been tried and pretty much failed. It's to big to be used as a pistol and to small to be used as a rifle. But then some people loved the Pacer and Edsel too. I love my P38 and 30-30 lever action but I do understand they're outdated. I could see the small advantage in some situations but not worth replacing am effective arm with them. People still do use bayonets and rifles as clubs. And have to actually point and shoot at the enemy. Having trigger time is no substitute for actual combat experience.
The reason rifles have evolved the way they have is because they best fit
humans and they way we use objects. Take a good course on shooting and you will see what I mean. To make use of our natural pointing abilities we need to see and extend our limbs in a natural way that conforms to what we do instinctively. If you had good training and combat experience you may understand it.
 
No one has stated that the bullpup design is the pinnacle of small arms design, it is intended to address issues of non bullpup designs and like anything made of man has compromises.

However,

None of the squaddies under my command every had a popularity issue with the L85 under stress.

The IDF think its such a bad and stressful idea that they are rolling out the TAVOR.

The AK hasn't won any competitons except for the "kill what moves" type of one.

Extending your arms for shooting is not a natural evolved position, it's one you train to along with stance, breath control, use of a sling, differentiation between cover and concealment etc.

Combat experience and military training is rather better than a "course" someone may have been on

As for, If you had good training and combat experience you may understand it

I have, have you actually actively used and trained with a bullpup design to support your thesis?
 
The reason rifles have evolved the way they have is because they best fit
humans and they way we use objects. Take a good course on shooting and you will see what I mean.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't see this as a two-pronged attack, but I also take issue with that statement.

Actually, the primary design consideration is usually making the rifle work by itself, and having it "play nice" with the human operating it is a secondary consideration at best. And sometimes, these design concessions will linger even when they're no longer necessary. Like AK-47s could gain several inches of sight radius if they had some other way of opening 'em, and the rear sight positioned closer to the eye. But right above the chamber is the traditional spot to put 'em, for old-fashioned guns with an ejection and/or loading port on top. I'm obviously not Mikhail Kalashnikov, so I can't say if that's the definite reason why the rear sight is positioned there, and the dust cover opens the way it does, of course. But it is funny how the rear sight and charging handle are in almost precisely the same location they would be for a bolt-action. And the original AK prototypes actually had a non-reciprocating CH on the left side, so apparently someone (maybe Kalashnikov, maybe not) wanted something more like an old bolt-action instead.

And even ergonomic considerations can be compromises, like Uziel Gal put the magazine of the Uzi in the grip, because "hand finds hand" if you're reloading without looking (which probably is easier to train for, than bullpup or "conventional" magazine placement). But as a result, it can only use pistol cartridges, and the Uzi points incredibly low.
 
RyanM: "And even ergonomic considerations can be compromises, like Uziel Gal put the magazine of the Uzi in the grip, because "hand finds hand" if you're reloading without looking (which probably is easier to train for, than bullpup or "conventional" magazine placement)."

The Uzi has the mag in the grip because the Czechs had recently hit on the idea with the VZ-23/24/25/26, other SMGs like the Thompson and the Schmeisser had proven to have certain limitations, and the Israelis decided to go new wave.
 
My training and combat experience was not with a bullpup. I also am a certified instructor. If you look at an object and point at it with the hand opposite your dominate eye, you will also point right at the object with you arm extended, your brain calculates this for you, it's instinctive. This is the basis for the quick kill technique used when you have to react quickly.
Also important is the contact with the rear grip hand and cheek weld, another issue is the position of the head over the bore. and the amount of height over the bore of the sights. All these are detriments of quick shooting.
Then you have thempact and noise of the of the action under your cheek transmitting through your skull. Then there is the issue of a complex trigger
extention, then need to support the weapon and mount the sights near the end of the barrel. Also the grips are far forward of the center of gravity instead between the hands. The idea of a bullpup being more compact is appealing. I studied it myself many years ago. My experience in the military,
training, as an instructor, hunting and competition made the bullpup counter intuitive. I could acheve better results by collalsing the stock of a AR15. By then I was out of the military.
However if you do not have training and experience in convention weapons technique you may adapt to the bullpup much better than experienced shooters. I am not saying the bullpup is bad or not useful. But if it was better than current weapons it would have been adopted by competition shooters
and replaced other weapons.
That some counties are using it speaks well for it. Evidently a well trained person can use it effectively. In my opinion which I am sure the pentagon cares about, is that the bullpup had not proved itself superior. The drawbacks from a riflemans point of view is that it is not a rifle. Normal proven
shooting skills do not apply. It is shorter but taller, it adds complexity weight and is not as intuitive or comfortable to shoot. If you think otherwise so be it. I'm sure we will have the arguement again. Note to self, don't open these threads. I did not use it in the military or have formal training with it, our army is a little smarter that way.
 
Both are 10% of the population
Click to expand...
Actually, think gays are only 1 or 2 pecent of the population, and although I'm less sure of this, I think lefties are about 5%.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question: Why can't you put a bayonet on a bullpup?
 
Bullpups have trigger linkages that are poor, but the EM-2 put a Garand type trigger under the barrel. This gave a conventional trigger pull. See Also Kel-Tec's new RFB

Bullpups have a tactical disadvantage for shooting from the left shoulder, but a H&K type of telescopic stock could eliminate that objection.

Bullpups may not be best for crowd control or hand to hand fighting with bayonets, but try them in any motorized troop carriers, and you will see why Gen. Patton liked the idea.:D
 
Ryan, that depend on who decides what weapon to use and thier war doctrines. The idea of an AK is different from an M14 or AR or bullpup depend on what the leaders think best meets their needs and the way they fight, what resources the country want to expend and how. Clearly some countries
have different answers or try different approaches. So far every weapon has merit and some last longer than others. War is a test of men and technology,
the will, the way and the means. So far our men and technology have won. I am more concerned about the collapsing from moral decay and greed, cynical and misguided voters than any other enemy. Internal weakness is turning our nation in to a corrupt declining nation. The weapons are an extention of our strength as a people. So far we have the lead in technology
but we are in constant danger of being surpassed. Where was I am am I off topic? I think my point is that choice of weapons and how they fit the soldier
is a consideration more American in concept and practice. Our tradition is as rifleman and the value of the citizen soldier and that is a big consideration in choice of weapons. Reliable cheap simple easy for unskilled and untrained to use in mass are what you see in people who view the soldier as no more than a means to self interest. Accuracy and good handling are part of our doctrine for rifles. The bullpup with it's issues and short sight radius doesn't fit well with the concept of a fighting rifle or marksman doctrine. Also to make a seperate weapon for just tankers, etc, is not part of the US logistical plan.
Different versions of an existing platform is more practical as a whole.
This is not new or original thought but just basic info about weapons and shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Is transitioning between a bullpup and a conventional rifle problematic?
Replies
4
Views
653
scaatylobo
S
N
  • Locked
Ambidextrious Bullpup
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Cthulhu
C
U
  • Locked
Why are bullpup rifles so expensive?
2
Replies
29
Views
9K
woodweasel58
W
V
  • Locked
TAR 21 (and bulllpups in general), and 5.56mm
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Maverick223
Maverick223
cluttonfred
  • Locked
Would you buy a bullpup 9mm carbine?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
8K
Bigfoot
B
Back
Top