M16 Converted to Bullpup?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ylapirrynag

Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
54
Location
California
Some questions on the topic:
1) Would it be practical? Are there any problems with going bullpup (other than having to re-issue the rifle to everyone).
2)Is it possible? I would assume so after redesigning but then again I don't design firearms. >_<
3) Would the reduced overral length make the M4 obsolete? After all, I read in another thread the 5.56 round fires poorly (i.e. to a poor effect) with it.
 
Well, a bullpup is prett far from what an M16 platform was designed to be.

1. Buffer tube goes through the whole length of the stock.
2. Magazine well is about half way up the length of the firearm.
3. All of the controls (fire selector, mag release) are behind the mag well.

Look at the SA80 or Steyr AUG on Wiki to see some of the biggest production model bullpups.

An AK47, in theory, is probably a lot easier to convert. As the stock is easily removable and not neccesary for the operation of the weapon.

Another problem is the trigger. With conventional rifles the trigger sits directly below the Fire Control Group (FCG), so you would have to make a trigger bar to extend forward to meet with the trigger. This is a complaint (first hand knowledge) with bullpups in general, as they have a "mushy" trigger.

Also, how would YOU feel having the chamber right next to your cheek? Have a kaBoom and your FACE is right THERE. Kevlar padding is added, I believe, to help with this. The muzzle blast being closer to you couldn't help either I'd imagine.

The complaint that our M4's (14.5" barrel) don't have the same effect as a full length barrel (M16) is valid, and a bullpup would, in theory, help remedy this problem by providing longer barrel with less OverAll Length (OAL).

Its really a matter of design meeting the theory. I believe its the next logical step for Military rifles in general, it just hasn't been perfected. I think Singapore has developed a pretty good (from what I hear) bullpup as well. Do a little searching on Wiki and you'll find most of the production model bullpups in existence.

Carry on.
 
It wouldn't be very nice for lefties. Spent casings flying right into their faces.
Yeah, I guess you could do it. Wait, buffer tube. You'd have to do something about the buffer tube. Uhhh... I dunno if you can just cut it off. Otherwise... with an electronic trigger pack, it seems like it'd be no problem. Of course, you'd have to develop the trigger pack.
Beat me to it, Killermonkey.
 
Some questions on the topic:
1) Would it be practical? Are there any problems with going bullpup (other than having to re-issue the rifle to everyone).

Define "practical". The bolt lockup could remain the same, but the bolt carrier would have to be completely redesigned as the existing extends into the buffer tube, as would the lower, which for legal purposes is considered the rifle. You could keep the original charging handle, I suppose, but it would be crazy awkward.

So, legally speaking you would be making a new rifle, and in practical terms, there wouldn't be a lot of the original rifle left once you were done. I suppose a ZM weapons upper would be a decent place to start.

2)Is it possible? I would assume so after redesigning but then again I don't design firearms. >_<

It's possible... although it might be easier to melt down the stupid thing and forge an entirely new rifle out of the slag. ACE rifle stocks was trotting out a prototype bullpup:

http://riflestocks.com/images06/ARBP/ARBP-ss.jpg

But there's not a whole lot of AR-15 left underneath it all since it's piston operated and has a new carrier, charging handle, etc. It's about an AR-15 as much as the L85 or bushmaster M17s is.

3) Would the reduced overral length make the M4 obsolete? After all, I read in another thread the 5.56 round fires poorly (i.e. to a poor effect) with it.

Until someone makes a bullpup with a length of pull similar to a completely collapsed M4 carbine so that it works well with body armor, has all the controls up front where the strong hand can manipulate them (excepting the magazine well, which is pretty much unavoidable), I doubt that they will completely supersede existing designs.

The Kel-Tec RFB and Steyr AUG are the best thought out bullpups, from a pure design standpoint, in my opinion. The RFB doesn't just tackle trigger pull and ambidexterity issues, it takes a running leap and pitches their lifeless bodies over the edge of a cliff. Note that it has only 8 inches behind the barrel, while most .223 bullpups need 10!

Alas, it's a touch heavy, there's no way to check the chamber without removing the magazine, the barrel is difficult to replace, and the magazine release is still in the rearward position. It remains to be seen whether the tilting bolt will compromise accuracy and primary extraction the way it's sometimes reckoned to in other designs.

The AUG has an acceptable degree of ambidexterity, and the fastest change barrel of any assault rifle, not just any bullpup. Length of pull and trigger pull are not so good, however, magazine release is still completely rearwards, and I hate crossbolt safeties with a passion (and you should too!).

So, if someone could just figure out how to crossbreed those two, we'd have something pretty nice on our hands. A pity that they don't appear particularly cross-breedable.
 
A bullpup variant of the AR18/SAR 80 is the SA80

A bullpup variant of the M16 is either the Bushmaster M17 or the Khybar 2002
 
Yes, the M17S is a gas-piston gun.

For that matter, so is the whole SA80 - L85 family.

Neither design have anything at all in common with the M-16.

As already noted, the M-16 buffer tube and bolt carrier are not compatible with a bull-pup stock.

rcmodel
 
Why would you go through all the trouble when there are already bullpup 5.56 rifles, like the FS2000?
 
Well, unles the US can rights to maufacture it, I don't think they would buy it (especially since I hear that were are in debt in the trillions already :|).
 
Well, unles the US can rights to maufacture it, I don't think they would buy it (especially since I hear that were are in debt in the trillions already
I don't understand that sentence. I've re-read it repeatedly. THe FS2000 has been readily available for sale for years now. IIRC it's manufactured here in the states...I'll have to go look at mine.

As noted, the M17s is the closest thing to an AR15 bullpup. THe FS2000 takes standard M16 magazines. One of the new AUG clones does as well. If you want "M16 bullpup," and all most of the faults that that entails, I'd go for the M17 for price. THe FS2000, IMHO is overpriced, but its a great novelty gun. THe AUG is neat, but again pricy. THey have drop in Mini14 bullpup stocks...it's .223, but doesn't take M16 mags. I want to say this is more than merely opinion, but converting an AR15 to be a bullpup is not worth it considering there are already other .223 bullpups that take M16 mags out there for purchase.

NOne are available for CA...but, barring technicalities, neither are regular AR15s. (I'm a native Californian, BTW...from the 80s to through the 90s, CA was the capitol of AR15/AK/semi-auto military rifles...they're still around, but from the sound of things, you missed the party by about a decade)
 
Oh, I wasn't doing my research. >_<

Anyways, I don't want one (my Lee-Einfield is good enough for me), but I was thinking military could have bullpup rifle as standard since it is smaller and M16 (since part of the reason of switching to the "Mattel gun" was that it was lighter than the M14).
 
Yes, the M17S is a gas-piston gun.

For that matter, so is the whole SA80 - L85 family.

Neither design have anything at all in common with the M-16.


Au contraire! The bolt lockup is quite similar in both cases.

Edit:

And come to think of it the AUG and F2000 also use multi-lug rotating bolts to lock into a barrel extension.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top