Bullpup disadvantages

[Tony Williams]

In what numbers has the Israeli/Croatian Tavor been built and fielded? Have seen only a few reports of special forces and security troops using the gun. Seems difficult to build the Tavor when they get M16 variants for next to nothing.

Well, it's only just been selected so it isn't around in large numbers yet. And you're right, the 'dumping' of M16s is a real handicap to the domestic small arms industry.

I should have mentioned the Chinese 5.8mm bullpup family as well - and of course Singapore's SAR-21.

I like the idea and, since I'm a correct-handed person, I don't mind bullpups at all. I'd like to see a good one built. Where is it? All are compromises in several areas. None are as superb ergonomically as the M16 Family nor as intuitive.

Have you tried the FN F2000 yet? I have handled (but not fired) it, and thought it felt great. I couldn't spot any compromises.

Tony Williams

 

[shoobe01]

I wouldn't bet on the Tavor. The israelis are buying ARs officially now.

 

[MaterDei]

For the military increased noise is an issue. In a combat situation you won't be wearing ear plugs.

While on exercise in Australia in the late 90s I had the opportunity to fire their issue Aug. I liked it well enough (I was wearing hearing protection). Can't speak to how the trigger effected accuracy however because we were shooting at floating trash and balloons off the back of an LST.

 

[MrAcheson]

For the military increased noise is an issue. In a combat situation you won't be wearing ear plugs.

True but if you compare two rifles of the same over-all-length, the bullpup would have the longer barrel. I would think this would make it quieter than the other since more powder is burned and less is turned into flash, etc.

 

[BigG]

Wow, I mean Bullpups are just the coolest thing ever. They say so in Doom 3. I wanna cool gun! (Apologies to El Tejon)

 

[Black Snowman]

For my home defense gun I went with the M17S. The trigger is long but smooth and fairly light, just like my 1st pistol, a Glock 24P. There is an airspace inside the gun that allows escaping gasses from a catastrophic failure to divert away from the shooter so that is less of an issue. However it creates it's own problems.

Such as having a space large enough for a round to disapear into. As long as you slam the mag home with the action closed I haven't had a problem. Just took changing a habit. For my use, specificly home defense and plinking, the advantages outweighted the disadvantages.

For CQB the high sight position is an advantage because you can sight down the gun but still have an almost unobstructed field of view. This allows a much higher "high ready" position and quicker time on target for the same barrel length. Also in CQB the weight balence further tward the rear reduces the fatuge of holding the gun up and allows you to swing the gun more quickly for the same barrel length and weight.

Slower mag changes aren't a signifigant problem in home defense because if I need more than 30 rounds I doubt I've lived through the first 10 of them anyway. But with practice that can be done quickly.

Some of these features are a wash or minor disadvantage at longer range shooting but primarily in precision shooting, and then only when rested. I actually find it easier to hold on target from standing and kneeling compared to some of my other rifles of similar weight and I can get onto target at closer ranges MUCH quicker.

That's my experiances and thoughts on my M17S. Not selling it any time soon

 

[roo_ster]

An increasing number of armies disagree with you...

Not sure that I would consider this a compelling argument; having been stuck with military-issue equipment that, on many occasions, was inferior to the civilian analog.

The choice of the 5.56mm cartridge, the AR15 gas-impingement platform, and the 9mm pistol are, in some minds, evidence that sometimes military acquisitions processes do not result in the best equipment for a given expenditure.

As to bullpups, I like them for their advantages., but I think folks are deluding themselves, to some extent. You either have:
A. A more compact package due to the bullpup config with barrel length remaining constant
-OR-
B. A weapon of the same length, but with a longer barrell. BTW, I doubt that bad triggers are a result of bullpup configuration, just poor execution of it.

However, having seen an M4 chamber give way & eject gases perpendicular to the centerline of the carbine, I do not want the chamber closer to my face than it is already.

 

[Jaywalker]

jfruser:

I doubt that bad triggers are a result of bullpup configuration, just poor execution of it.

In this particular instance, I suspect the design's at fault. The distance between the trigger lever and the cartridge face is greater in the bullput design. This distance leads to workarounds such as long actuating rods, and these lead to increased slop, which leads to mushy triggers.

Jaywalker

 

[N3rday]

Well, whether or not you are a fan of the bullpups, better get used to seeing more of them. Bullpups are on the uprise, as far as I can tell.

In fact, the Israelis are developing the Tavor assault rifle. I believe this can be viewed on world.guns.ru . Looks quite 'pimp' and '1337', if you will.

What is the P90? It isn't really either, is it, since the clip cannot be said to load forward or behind the grip. I like the looks of the P90, very innovative and cool. Any chance we'll see more of those types of rifles?

Only problem with the P90: Since the bullets in the top-loading clip are horizontally loaded, it would be cumbersome to design one for a larger round (theoretically, of course), right?