Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the Austrian Steyr AUG started other militaries to take a look at there conventional rifle designs. I personally dont care for them, to hard to change out the magazine, not made for left handed shooters and there downright ugly, with the French FAMAS leading the bunch.:D Besides if you run out of bullets a bullpup rifle does'nt make a very good club.:cuss:
 
rangerruck said:
they are good for city work , but they are hard to hump, hard to one hand carry, have crap balance,
Not necessarily.

I have held (but not shot) an FN F2000 and it balanced nicely on the pistol grip - probably quite feasible to shoot single-handed, if you really had to.

And when you strap a 40mm GL etc to the gun you get a nice forward balance with a bullpup, but a massive overbalance with a trad, which makes it hard to hold in the aim for long.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
The barrels are shorter and muzzle velocities are lower than a conventional assault rifle. This is why I don't like them.

That is entirely untrue. Actually the truth is the exact opposite.

Bullpups move the action to the rear, meaning that a rifle can have a longer barrel (generating more velocity) while keeping the rifle's overall length shorter.

P.S. The only assault rifle bullpup I can think of that has a lesser velocity compared to a conventional assault rifle of the same overall length is the British SA80. But that is just because the British use rounds with less powder to allow the gun to cycle and feed correctly.
 
Metapotent said:

The only assault rifle bullpup I can think of that has a lesser velocity compared to a conventional assault rifle of the same overall length is the British SA80. But that is just because the British use rounds with less powder to allow the gun to cycle and feed correctly.
That may have been true of early models, I don't know, but if anything it seems to be the other way round with the L85A2. This is a quote from the article on the SA80 on my website:

"One interesting comment from a soldier involved in the trials [of the L85A2], is that not all NATO 5.56 mm ammunition performs in the same way. The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
you cant use the buttstock for breakin, hammerin, and killin

I doubt you can do that with a plastic M4 telestock, either. That's why my FAL has a steel buttplate.

The military likes adjustable stocks because it's easier to fit soldiers of different sizes. I think a short fixed stock would work just as well, with maybe a system of thicker and thinner buttpads to tailor it. After all, soldiers generally ALWAYS wear their body armor afield now, and rightly so.

Most bullpups have an overlong length of pull, something that'd be made only worse with body armor. The FN2000 is a notable exception to this; I found its LOP quite comfy, and shorter than my FAL (before I had the stock shortened).

Generally, though, Americans just don't like bullpups. Europe and much of the rest of the world, Germany and Russia being notable exceptions, have gone to bullpup designs, but Americans are a prickly bunch when it comes to their weapons. :D

Personally, I'm holding out for FN to release a .308 version of its FS2000. Then I can die happy. :cool:
 
Bullpup's aren't quite as ergonomical to reload, but I don't really have experience with them so I can't definitevily say. Still, it does save space.

But remember if you build a bullpup with a bbl over 16" but the weapons still under 26" long, then it's an AOW.... thank you NFA.
 
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?


Because they are awful. Personally, I perfer the magazine forward of my shooting hand, it makes for quicker changes. Also, I don't like my face that close to the muzzle blast.
 
From a civilian use standpoint, the balance is very poor for offhand shooting. Too "muzzle light".

Next is the tirgger: It's difficult to make monkey-motion linkage be crisp and clean.

Back around 1950, a friend of my uncle decided to build a bullpup. This was back when jackrabbit and varmint hunting was just getting popular during the big drouth of the 1950s in Texas. We drove the pastures and back-country dirt roads. The bullpup is a lot handier to manipulate from within a car.

The barrelled action was a Model 70 in .220 Swift; 26" barrel. Mounting a scope was a PITA, but he got it done. Shot tight groups okay, but we had to listen to his gripes about the trigger. It wasn't all that good for a walking-hunting rifle because of the balance.

Art
 
I have a Sommer Und Ockenfuss "Shorty" in .308Win and I think she's a little heavy but that's my fault for adding extras. If I could locate a few spare magazines she'd be perfect. Trigger pull is crisp and pretty good (for how it's rigged) and puts some of my other triggers to shame. Since I have monkey arms the grip feels a bit cockeyed since I have to depress the "Grip Safety". She's not "Muzzle Light" to say the least. Even if I were to remove the Parker Hale Bi-Pod the adapter rail (block of aluminum with Sling adapter) makes her a bit muzzle heavy but this helps with the recoil. Reloading is tricky with the magazine and it's locking mechanism but shucking a round in is a smooth motion. This was not illegal in California and they have them thar whacky laws. All in all I like my Shorty.
 

Attachments

  • IMAG0015.JPG
    IMAG0015.JPG
    265.5 KB · Views: 101
I dont get along with bullpups very well. Might be since I'm left haded, and the ejection port is right next to my face.
 
art, help me understand this

From a civilian use standpoint, the balance is very poor for offhand shooting. Too "muzzle light".

i've got a few bullpups (3 actually) and love all of them. if one end is stuck in your shoulder and the other end is supported under both your hands, why would ANY weight forward of your hands be a good thing?
 
i've got a few bullpups (3 actually) and love all of them. if one end is stuck in your shoulder and the other end is supported under both your hands, why would ANY weight forward of your hands be a good thing?

Do you shoot at small targets at 200+ yards?
 
Quote:
i've got a few bullpups (3 actually) and love all of them. if one end is stuck in your shoulder and the other end is supported under both your hands, why would ANY weight forward of your hands be a good thing?


Do you shoot at small targets at 200+ yards?

Your question wasn't directed at me but I agree with Taliv.

I have only shot 2 bullpups, the Bushmaster m17s and a Tavor-21 (believe it or not). I think that offhand shooting is EASIER with a bullpup. It is much easier to keep the point of aim steady when you don't have to use your muscles to keep the barrel level due to its weight. The balance of bullpups makes it so that the weight is closer to your body and your arms don't need to support much of the weight. You don't even need your forward hand for support, you could put one hand behind your back and fire very accurately.

So I think off-hand shots at small targets at 200+yds would be easier with a bullpup, in my experience I KNOW this is true for me atleast.
 
Nightcrawler said:

"Generally, though, Americans just don't like bullpups. Europe and much of the rest of the world, Germany and Russia being notable exceptions, have gone to bullpup designs, but Americans are a prickly bunch when it comes to their weapons."

The German army never used a Bullpup, neither did Russia.
 
Nightcrawler said:

"Generally, though, Americans just don't like bullpups. Europe and much of the rest of the world, Germany and Russia being notable exceptions, have gone to bullpup designs, but Americans are a prickly bunch when it comes to their weapons."

The German army never used a Bullpup, neither did Russia.

Um that is what he said. Maybe you should reread it slowly.
 
I've handled and fired a bullpup or two.

+1 all the reasons why bullpup configured rifles haven't caught. Typically awful trigger and shorter sight radius than more conventional rifles.

Just another observation.

Typically those who are all hot for bullpups have been, at least in my own personal experience, a lot more interested in how their rifles look than in how their rifles actually shoot.

Those who are more into how their rifles shoot than how their rifles look tend to trend away from bullpups, again just in my own personal experience.

I mean c'mon, can sights get any more ridiculous than the little plastic "circle of death" thingy on an AUG? Talk about a sin against marksmanship.

hillbilly
 
I mean c'mon, can sights get any more ridiculous than the little plastic "circle of death" thingy on an AUG? Talk about a sin against marksmanship.

heh, yeah, if steyr had only given it a cool acronym like ACOG, they could sell millions of them at $1000 per instead of reaping derision.

Typically those who are all hot for bullpups have been, at least in my own personal experience, a lot more interested in how their rifles look than in how their rifles actually shoot.

that hasn't been my experience.

+1 all the reasons why bullpup configured rifles haven't caught. Typically awful trigger and shorter sight radius than more conventional rifles.

i'll grant you that poor triggers are inherent to the design. but one of my bullpups has a swarovski scope and the other two have dots (red or otherwise), so the sight radius doesn't seem to be a legitimate issue.
 
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?
The world of guns would be incredibly boring if that were the case.


IMHO, if most of Europe is doing it, I am doubly happy that the US is not.
Is China included in that "much of the rest of the world"?
 
I really take exception to the entirely military/ left handed debate here. The silliness about sight radius is a lost point given that ninety out of ninety one model 700's don't have sights on them anymore. The chamber in your face is a lost cause as well given that the most cherished pre 64 winchesters sent powder gasses straight into the shooters eyes! With the weight in the rear and the rear against your shoulder, it's easier to shoot offhand and it's easier to hold for a longer period of time. The trigger thing could be fixed if the rifle public paid attention, gunsmiths would figure it out. The length of pull commentary has no more bearing here than any other rifle as eventually you can't make them shorter and expect them to work. One advantage no one has mentioned is that the recoil impulse is straight back without the twisting, canting, and other associated mechanics. With a reasonable cartridge, the follow up is fast and accurate. While I'm at it, the scope is mounted a fair distance from the ejection port which avoids it getting battered and struck during the frenzy of shooting/ reloading. Finally, there's no reason that with the enhanced modularity of current design a given rifle couldn't be constructed to be entirely reversable for a lefty, without using tools or special parts.
 
IMHO, if most of Europe is doing it, I am doubly happy that the US is not.
Is China included in that "much of the rest of the world"?

Chinas bullpup, ulgy like most bullpups. But I like them anyway because they make sense.
 

Attachments

  • type95-2.jpg
    type95-2.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 24
  • type95-1.jpg
    type95-1.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 30
Bullpups are SWEET! Especially the Russian prototypes. Remember when the US was playing around with Project SALVO in the 50-60's? So were the Russians.:evil:

Let me give you a taste.:evil:

Notice the foward ejection. The F2000 wasn't the first to use that.
weirdgun3tj7.jpg


weirdgun1zt9.jpg


wierdgun2dm3.jpg


I hear this is called the Ripper Gun for some reason. Sure looks bad-ass.:evil:
rippergun2cs2.jpg


Seeing these images has increased my love for guns.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top