A practical take on the Bullpup vs. Conventional argument.

[Maverick223]

I love bullpups, I wouldn't trade my short, mushy trigger, righty only M17S for anything else. IT is based upon the tried and true AR18 and has proven to be quite accurate, extremely reliable (with good AR mags), and it has superior handling characteristics. It is much, much easier to clear a room with. Also the 21.5" bbl develops pretty good velocity, it definitely trumps the m16 and the AUG by a good margin. YMMV

 

[d2wing]

Perhaps with the extinction of the skilled rifleman, and the reliance of the couch potato generations on technology rather than finely honed skills, a good rifle is no longer important. No one seems to know about quick kill anymore. I understand recruits are no expected to be able to shoot an dime, tossed in the air, with a bb gun as we were.

 

[Landor]

I love my bullpup. It is fun as hell to shoot. The trigger is a bit to be desired compared to a non bullpup. The noise is not that much louder in the grand scheme of things. The reloading is a big difference. You do not speed reload a bullpup. They are not made for that. Well mine is not anyways. All in all at the range you can not beat them. It is my first choice for a SHTF scenario over my AR.

7.62x.39 Century Arms

 

[servantofinari]

Perhaps with the extinction of the skilled rifleman, and the reliance of the couch potato generations on technology rather than finely honed skills

Excuse me but you can drop the "I don’t trust these new fangled things" attitude, this is a fact discussion, not opinions other than perhaps how it feels in you hands. Bullpups are an "alternate" design, nothing more. They hold advantages and disadvantages, I touched on both. A gun is a gun, you still need good men. You make it sound like we are working on target tracking bullets.

 

[Maverick223]

You make it sound like we are working on target tracking bullets.

That will be a sad day...but I would buy some to put in my bullpup.

 

[Domino]

D2WING, you make some valid points but we need to remember what we are talking about here. Bullpups in an assault rifle form are just that, they are not competition or sharp shooting weapons. Your points about marksmanship and natural shooting don't really apply here. If you train an army to use a bullpup from the start, the soldiers will be able to use them just as effectively provided it is a servicable design.

In my experiences shooting the M16 in the military and my own bullpup I have found that accuracy to be basically the same when shooting from most field positions. I have also found that portability and speed on target are increased with a bullpup. Reloads and malfuntion drills are also basically the same with training. The ability to hop out of vehicles and get on target a little faster could be useful in combat and clearing buildings. Its certainly a better choice than ultra short m4's that many GI's are using now IMO.

Obviously, the U.S. military remains quite conservative with their small arms and the leadership cannot justify such a change. Even though I like my bullpup I don't see them changing the world or even the nature of combat. But, they certainly can be useful in certain situations.

 

[everallm]

D2Wing,

A few points....

1. Competition has NOTHING to do with combat or combat doctrine. Competition may partake of some elements of combat but not vice-versa.

If this was true, every rifle would be 7.62x51 or larger with a La Palma 32" barrel and every grunt would be armed with a pistol, rifle and shotgun a-la 3 gun IPSC.

2. Competition shooting by it's very nature is the antithesis of the actuality of real combat.

Competition shooting is about Me, Me, Me beating You, You, You.

Combat is about the synthesis of individual competence and quality merged in a team.

In a combat team you worry about your oppo, your brick and your section and ensuring everyone gets home with the same number of orifices as they started with.

Yes, each individual needs to be self sufficient but except for very specialized skill sets such as a sniper, effectiveness is inherently a grouped activity.

3. Short sight radius......the same short sight radius as exists with the M4....?
The M4 is an attempt, whilst maintaining a "standard" rifle format, to provide the compact form and associated inherent movement advantages of a bullpup format. By it's mechanical structure, to do this it has to reduce the barrel size with the well documented knock on effects of reduced muzzle velocity, reduced tumble etc.

4. 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

I have already pointed out the L85 format INCREASED accuracy to the extent that doctrine and training had be upped. A weapon with a longer barrel and associated higher velocity, with greater accuracy with no less a reliability is arguably a superior weapon, it's not a discussion point it's a statement of fact. And as for optics.......which are the platform of choice?

5. My training and combat experience was not with a bullpup. I also am a certified instructor.

You are happy to state that you have no experience with the platform yet denigrate it with no background of comparison.

6.The amount of height over the bore of the sights. All these are detriments of quick shooting

As opposed to the high raised carry handle and high post sight of the Mnn platform which is arguably higher?

D2Wimg, I'm sorry, walk the necessary miles in the shoes then discuss.

 

[Maverick223]

What he said ^...