Bullpup design

Status
Not open for further replies.
My only experience with bullpups are from using the Muzzelite kits on my Marlin Camp 9 and a Mini-14. It's a strange feeling at first, but you get used to them very quickly. To me it's a great way to make a short, easy to handle and well balanced rifle without shortening the barrel. People always seem to want short carbines, as shown by all the shorty AR-15's being sold. To me, that just reduces velocity and sight radius and gains nothing in return.

The drawback to the bullpup kits, and from what I've heard, the factory models also, is the trigger linkage. It's pretty hard to get a smooth, precise trigger when everything is connected by linkage. Until they solve that problem, I don't think they'll ever be popular.

I can totally see a bullpup for hunting. The shortness and balance would be a bonus in heavy brush. Just cuz it looks tacti-cool doesn't mean you have to hang all the tacti-cool stuff on it and turn it into a rooney gun. My Muzzelites only have optics and that's just because the sights that come on the kits aren't all that precise.
 
Bull-pups offer no advantage in sight radius.

True, but neither does the M4 carbines. Maybe that is one of the reasons they issue red dots to our soldiers now.
 
I can see definite advantages to the bullpup design in hunting, especially when climbing up into a tree stand. I scratched the hell out of the barrel of my Tikka T3 a few years ago doing this. The woods gets pretty thick up north where I hunt and generally speaking, the shorter the gun, the better. I'm thinking about getting one of the Kel-Tecs when they come out.
 
True, but neither does the M4 carbines. Maybe that is one of the reasons they issue red dots to our soldiers now.

I know. I was responding to this:
People always seem to want short carbines, as shown by all the shorty AR-15's being sold. To me, that just reduces velocity and sight radius and gains nothing in return.

Just pointing out that sight radius has to be sacrificed either way. I'm very much annoyed that the M4 has become so common in our military. Like the scopes, though.
 
Bull-pups offer no advantage in sight radius.

No, they don't, unfortunately, but at least there's no sacrifice in barrel length to get a shorter overall length. I use optics on mine for that very reason. Well, that and tired eyes that ain't gettin' any younger.
 
I'm very much annoyed that the M4 has become so common in our military
I'm not sure why. 11Mikes, in particular, should be thankful for a more compact weapon when dismounting their vehicle.
 
My cousin is pretty damned grateful that he uses an M4 instead of an A2, but then he's not frequenting any Internet forums. He's jumping in and out of Bradleys in Fallujah and kicking down doors, so he probably has a different set of criteria for judging a gun's effectiveness.
 
Heh. As a guy with short arms and who wears body armor, I know I'm damn thankful. :)
 
Most of my dismount time was spent with a SAW, with a solid buttstock thank you very much, so I really can't see how the M16 is too long. Even if it were, is it worth cutting the barrel down that short? Sure, shorten the buttstock a little bit or lop a couple of inches off the barrel, but don't the M4s have a 14" barrel? And this in the middle of desert flatland, meaning long ranges? I thought the military was having trouble with the reduced velocity, aren't they? Or am I misinformed?

John, I see what you're saying about the M4 being easier with body armor. I guess in some situations it's the best we have. We should have something better, though. Maybe an 18 or 16 inch barrel, with a shorter buttstock or a better collapsible stock.

Besides, when I was in, EVERYBODY wanted an M4. I'm sure there are guys in Iraq with M16A4's, who never leave the wire, and still want an M4. I think for most guys it's just for the looks of it.
 
Well, hell with looks- I like the handiness of it. :)

It's my understanding that we actually have more city fighting than US troops (with their European tank battle orientation) have trained for during Cold War years. If you're in open terrain, you're going to be using support weapons.

We also have more "little troops"- women- in combat than ever before, especially in branches other than the Army. I had an Air Force officer complaining because his troops had A2's, and it was very difficult for his females to use them in body armor.

(The last time I used an A2 in body armor, I had to prop the buttstock attop my shoulder or put it out on my bicep. Neither worked well.)
 
My cousin has been doing almost nothing but city fighting in Fallujah for almost a year. He hasn't had any ballistic-related problems, but perhaps he might if he spent more time studying ballistic charts on the Internet and less time in the **** in Iraq. Then it might become a more-important issue.
 
And this in the middle of desert flatland, meaning long ranges?

Not many Iraqis are dumb enough to attack Americans in the open desert.

Unlike in past guerilla wars, where the guerillas held the rural areas, it's now far safer for them to stick to the cities. If you're out in the desert, and shoot at a convoy from Hill X, US forces will happily withdraw out of rifle range and use airpower (or arty, if near a battery) to turn the hill into a sinkhole.

A smart insurgent shoots at a convoy from the 15th floor of a 1000-unit apartment building in downtown Ramadi. The Americans either take hits and don't shoot back (+1 for insurgent), or fire back and get dead children from the neighboring apartment showing up on CNN (+50 for insurgent).


I'm pretty intrigued by the bullpup concept, just waiting for Dixie Consolidated to work through their backlog of 10/22 stock orders. I tried the Muzzelite and was totally underwhelmed, but have heard great things about Dixie.

-MV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top