Bullpups - the Concept

[sturmgewehr]

I believe the trigger issue is WAY over blown.

The AUG and the FS2000 have triggers no worse (and in some cases better) than most AK's I've owned, all the HK 90 series rifles I've owned and even better than many FAL triggers (which can tip the scales at 11lbs+).

The AR15 is unique in the world of military rifles much like the 1911 is unique in the world of semi-automatic pistols. Not every handgun has a trigger as nice as the 1911 and not every military rifle has a trigger as nice as an AR15.

Keep in mind these rifles aren't match rifles, they're fighting rifles. Most military triggers are purposely heavy to prevent unintentional discharges.

I don't find the triggers on my bullpups to be "spongy" or "creepy". They're a little heavy and there is some take-up in the trigger, but that's hardly unique.

If you want to build a match rifle, you won't want to use an AUG or FS2000 for the basis. But then they're not intended for that purpose either.

 

[gunnutery]

I think part of the diversity of opinions on bullpups is the diversity of usages one can do with firearms. I'm coming from a rural LE point of view and want to match accuracy and velocity with manuverability in a very wide range of potential deployments. Whereas someone else that focuses primarily on rangework or hunting may not see a need for a bullpup.

I personally love the concept of bullpups. In my line of work, ARs dominate the rifle market. I can understand why due to the lower entry costs, plentiful parts and modularity. However, just because "everyone else is doing it" or "the military uses it" doesn't make it the best rifle. If you want to shorten an AR, you sacrifice velocity and range. I understand that for LE needs, the effective range isn't going to be so grossly reduced for the ranges we'll engage targets at, but when there's something available that can offer greater manuverability without sacrificing anything, why not take a look. My department allows for personally owned weapons to be carried on duty. When I can gather enough funds I'm planning on purchasing an FN FS2000. With the variety of calls we could receive, one could get two armed suspect calls in a day, in two different extremes. Such as an armed suspect shooting at cars from the middle of a field, or an active shooter in a school. I would like a rifle that can handle both situations well.

The military has the same problem with battle fields ranging from wide open terrain to dense forrests to urban settings. Issuing a rifle in masses to be able to cover multiple terrains for the cheapest amount of money based on guidelines set by suits in the (any) capital has got to be a nightmare come acquisition time. I see the bullpup as eliminating the concept of trying to arm armies by predicting where your next conflict will be in the forseeable future.

Even though the bullpup is not a new concept, considering the difficulties it's had establishing itself, I think the bullpup is ahead of it's time. Even though we can rattle off a handfull of countries such as the UK, France, Austrailia, Belgium, Israel etc. as First World as they may be, it's still only a handful and the rest of the world is still dependant on old traditional concepts.

/my rambling

 

[HDCamel]

Even though we can rattle off a handfull of countries such as the UK, France, Austrailia, Belgium, Israel etc...

I don't mean to nitpick, but Belgium uses the FN FNC as their standard service rifle. Only Slovenia has adopted the FN F2000 as a standard.

 

[gunnutery]

No problem, I stand corrected. According to Wikipedia it's only the special forces of Belgium that issue it.

 

[Zoogster]

Bullpups need to be designed with added safety that many are not to deal with venting of gas in the case of a kaboom or ruptured brass.

Most bullpups put an action dealing with tens of thousands of PSI almost in contact with your face.
A traditional firearm can vent gas and debris in all directions and rarely result in injury, and when it does typically injury to the hand or minor debris in the face.
A bullpup can only safely vent explosive forces in a fraction of the directions without causing serious injuries. You are wrapping your body halfway around the explosion.


I do like bullpups myself, they meet legal requirements much easier and allow barrel performance of a typically larger firearm.
But if the market was saturated with competetively priced bullpups competing by trying to outsell eachother by manufacturing at minimum cost the minimum desirable features to the widest consumer base, as is typically the case, you would have a lot of products that would be very dangerous when things went bad. Because that added safety would not be a feature the typical consumer would think of or demand, and as a result the added weight and/or expense of providing it would be avoided.

 

[barnbwt]

^^^^Doesn't the RFB have an extra layer of steel sheet over the chamber for exactly that reason? Just like the old Corvairs, if the danger is enough to impact company profits via lawsuits, they'll be sure to include a reinforcement in the design

Good point though; it is an issue that is less of a burden on "traditional" designs (are we really calling an M4 "traditional" now? )

TCB

 

[W L Johnson]

Considering the fact that many bullpups have been in service for decades now (AUG, FAMAS, L85 etc) I've never heard of one actually blowing being more of a problem compared to, lets say, an AR-15 blowing other than forum speculation . Doesn't mean it isn't but it seems like something would be reported after all this time.
Does anyone have examples of it being more of a problem?

Good point though; it is an issue that is less of a burden on "traditional" designs (are we really calling an M4 "traditional" now?

I guess you could say a 50+ year old design could be called traditional by now.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One point we might consider is the M16 family has far more combat experience than any of the bullpup designs. Probably the closest to it is the L85, which had serious teething problems. So it's difficult to make actual combat-based comparisons.

 

[W L Johnson]

I believe the trigger issue is WAY over blown.

The AUG and the FS2000 have triggers no worse (and in some cases better) than most AK's I've owned, all the HK 90 series rifles I've owned and even better than many FAL triggers (which can tip the scales at 11lbs+).

The AR15 is unique in the world of military rifles much like the 1911 is unique in the world of semi-automatic pistols. Not every handgun has a trigger as nice as the 1911 and not every military rifle has a trigger as nice as an AR15.

Keep in mind these rifles aren't match rifles, they're fighting rifles. Most military triggers are purposely heavy to prevent unintentional discharges.

I don't find the triggers on my bullpups to be "spongy" or "creepy". They're a little heavy and there is some take-up in the trigger, but that's hardly unique.

If you want to build a match rifle, you won't want to use an AUG or FS2000 for the basis. But then they're not intended for that purpose either.

Out of the Bullpups I have the AK is by far the worst but it's a conversion where they used a wire that flexes for the linkage. One of these days I'm going to fix it with something stiffer. Next was the FS2000 but this went a long way in improving it.
Neu-Trigger for FN FS2000
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=313277951

He also makes one for the MSAR/AUG but I haven't tried it as I find the trigger to be okay on mine.