Why no pistol caliber bullpups ?

[leadcounsel]

Wow, a lot of rhetoric and insults being thrown around. I'll weigh in an remind people to be civil. I'll also remind that the .45 cartridge has been around for over a century and used in significant military, police, and civilian platforms - handguns, smgs, and long guns. It's served in many wars.

It's been used and had several platforms developed for it. Let's see, in .45 ACP, off the cuff there was the Thompson smg, the 1911, the HK smgs, Uzi in .45, a handful of modern polymer guns like Glock and S&W and Springfield, HiPoint, Ruger and a few others.

Let's look at the facts and it's performance, not opinion. The .45 ACP is a premier PISTOL cartridge. In spite of that, the bean-counters and experts at the proving grounds have determined that the .45 ACP doesn't perform as well as others on balance. Hench, I'm unaware of any major military or law enforcement that en masse issues or uses the .45 in any platform for any regular tasks. It is selected from time to time for specific purposes but it typically loses out. Why? One reason. Effectiveness. Plain and simple.

Again, you can argue "opinion" all day long. But when the experts are selecting the best available platform and weapon and caliber, it simply generally isn't the .45. Nor is it any pistol caliber. It's rifle calibers. RIFLE calibers.

That's the primary reason that PISTOL caliber bullpups aren't made. They won't sell. The only crowd that has a NEED for a bullpup can use short barreled rifles, and would chose these over any pistol calibers anyway. Civilians don't want to pay high prices (which they would be) for a pointless pistol caliber bullpup, given the soft sales of pistol caliber rifles.

Innovation occurs when there is a demand or otherwise need, generally speaking. There simply is little/no need from consumers for a pistol caliber bullpup. Simple law of economics. Pistol calibers in both rifles and bullpups suffer very soft sales or simply no sales. Economy of scale is another principle, which drives/keeps these products priced high, working against their popularity. Look at the KRISS for example. It's innovative and cool. http://www.tombstonetactical.com/ca...03801-vector-crb-rifle-45acp-16in-13rd-black/ But it's $1600!!! What reasonable average gun owner is going to pay TWICE the cost of a proven, off the shelf AR in 556 for a pistol caliber rifle? Not many...

These are facts, not opinions. Draw your own conclusions why it was determined that rifle calibers are more effective or desirable than pistol calibers.

Now, if you just want to go plink with a cheap pistol round, then buy a Hi Point PCR and have at it. They're around $300. http://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/hi-point/4595tsrd-4595-ts-carbine-45acp-17.5in-9rd-red-dot/ and fill every roll you want, except perhaps being a few inches longer. For home defense this difference is again trivial when you factor in overall length/reach of pistol stance versus rifle stance.

 

[mokin]

Not that I would not like someone to give me something along the lines of a P90 but in .44 Auto mag with a dot type scope with back up irons and the name "Thumper" tastefully scripted on the off side and all papered up for a 10 inch barrel......

THAT sounds like fun!

 

[C0untZer0]

Umm, did anyone mention the 9mm Tavor?

 

[Theohazard]

Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that's you.

More insults. The funny thing is, I'm actually well aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's something everyone should be aware of. And I find it amusing that you assume that I think of myself as an expert. In fact, I don't. I'm part of the Dunning-Kruger curve where I know enough about guns to know that I'm not an expert on most things firearms related. Working at a gun shop/range/training facility only shows me how much I have to learn about various subjects.

But I do know enough to identify when someone doesn't really know what they're talking about. And I also know enough to identify when someone makes extreme blanket statements that are proven to be inaccurate, and then refuses to back off from those statements.

Now we get to the real gist. You're carrying baggage from one thread to another.

In that other thread you showed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and an amazingly skewed sense of logic. And I'm seeing some of that in this thread too.

 

[CraigC]

In that other thread you showed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and an amazingly skewed sense of logic. And I'm seeing some of that in this thread too.

More insults. Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. I see that you cannot argue with someone who disagrees with you without insults and condescension. Logic? I can see there's not much point arguing "logic" with the AR-faithful. Even if you happen to be one. I would suggest you relegate rhetoric about closed threads to PM's.

But I do know enough to identify when someone doesn't really know what they're talking about.

If I'm so dumb and you're so smart, then please tell me exactly in what way my logic and experience are failing me and how yours is superior?


One more time, I never argued that rifle cartridges weren't more effective. I simply stated that the results don't justify the negatives, for me, in this application. I could have easily said that the .308 is more effective but it's not worth the added muzzle blast and recoil. Same for the .450BM or .50Beowulf. No doubt, they are more effective but at what cost???

On the flipside, if all you care about is the effectiveness of the cartridge, why not go bigger yourself? Why stop at the .223? Why not an AR10?

There simply is little/no need from consumers for a pistol caliber bullpup. Simple law of economics.

Again, is that why HK developed the MP7, FN developed the P90, SIG developed the MPX and CZ completely redesigned the Scorpion??? I'm sorry but it's intellectual laziness to deduce that "they don't make it, therefore it must be a bad idea". I hate to burst your bubble but apparently enough people and four major manufacturers think it has enough merit to market new designs.

I'm unaware of any major military or law enforcement that en masse issues or uses the .45 in any platform for any regular tasks. It is selected from time to time for specific purposes but it typically loses out. Why? One reason. Effectiveness. Plain and simple.

You think that's "why" and your argument depends on it but you'd have to be a fool to believe that's the only criteria. I see the points I make on this issue go ignored so I won't bother again. More intellectual laziness.

 

[silicosys4]

One more time, I never argued that rifle cartridges weren't more effective.

The .223 might be slightly more effective

No. It is much more effective.

I simply stated that the results don't justify the negatives, for me, in this application. I could have easily said that the .308 is more effective but it's not worth the added muzzle blast and recoil. Same for the .450BM or .50Beowulf. No doubt, they are more effective but at what cost???

Ask the military. They have been using 5.56 in enclosed spaces without hearing protection in combat for decades. Apparently they feel it is an acceptable trade off. It is certainly not incapacitating.
One instance to save your life from a home invasion is a situation that I'd gladly pay the price of some hearing loss for a much more effective round.

On the flipside, if all you care about is the effectiveness of the cartridge, why not go bigger yourself? Why stop at the .223? Why not an AR10?

Speaking of "intellectual laziness"...this is a classic slippery slope logical fallacy. We are talking about firearms of comparable length to a pistol caliber bullpup. But yea, some people do, with things like the PTR91 pistols and the M1 Socom.

Again, is that why HK developed the MP7, FN developed the P90, SIG developed the MPX and CZ completely redesigned the Scorpion??? I'm sorry but it's intellectual laziness to deduce that "they don't make it, therefore it must be a bad idea". I hate to burst your bubble but apparently enough people and four major manufacturers think it has enough merit to market new designs.

Dude, the MP7, the MPX, and the Scorpion aren't bullpups.
The P90 was developed for the military as a drivers weapon, to be able to enter and exit vehicles with a slung weapon. How many civilians do you know that need that particular feature? The civilian version also is not taking the market by storm, if you hadn't noticed. Which is a shame, its a neat gun with an interesting cartridge.

The P90 is the only real example of a pistol caliber carbine that makes a real argument for a bullpup design, and its effectiveness is mainly due to the high velocity of the round, which is more comparable to a rifle than a pistol.

 

[CraigC]

No. It is much more effective.

Highly debatable. Unless, of course, you worship energy figures. In that case, there is no help for you. If you think a .45cal 230gr Gold Dot is ineffective, you've obviously never used it on flesh.

Ask the military. They have been using 5.56 in enclosed spaces without hearing protection in combat for decades. Apparently they feel it is an acceptable trade off. It is certainly not incapacitating.
One instance to save your life from a home invasion is a situation that I'd gladly pay the price of some hearing loss for a much more effective round.

The government again??? It is stupid beyond words to keep using government choices as supporting evidence, for all reasons mentioned.

Personally, I'd rather survive the gunfight AND keep my hearing.

Slippery slope logical fallacy. We are talking about firearms of comparable length to a pistol caliber bullpup.

In that case, we need to completely preclude the AR platform altogether. That aside, an AR10 is of comparable size and weight to an AR15. Surely the slight increase in weight is offset by the increase in effectiveness. Or is it deemed too much?

Dude, the MP7, the MPX, and the Scorpion aren't even bullpups.

Genius, pay attention to the post being quoted. Leadcounsel argues against the merits of pistol cartridge carbines of ANY type. And we are obviously discussing a hypothetical weapon as the P90 is the only pistol cartridge bullpup being offered by a major manufacturer. Did you actually read the thread or just scan through for points to argue??? You obviously have nothing to add to this discussion and are only carrying your grudge from one thread to another. You've been harassing me for two years now.

 

[silicosys4]

Highly debatable. Unless, of course, you worship energy figures. In that case, there is no help for you. If you think a .45cal 230gr Gold Dot is ineffective, you've obviously never used it on flesh.

No craig, it is not highly debatable.

The government again??? It is stupid beyond words to keep using government choices as supporting evidence, for all reasons mentioned.

No, craig, it is not.

Personally, I'd rather survive the gunfight AND keep my hearing.

So would I. I place surviving the gunfight far above keeping my hearing however, and I choose my HD gun accordingly.

In that case, we need to completely preclude the AR platform altogether. That aside, an AR10 is of comparable size and weight to an AR15. Surely the slight increase in weight is offset by the increase in effectiveness. Or is it deemed too much?

Another slippery slope fallacy. The AR15 is most a valid comparison, since it is the main competition in the market, and is easily configurable to be the same approximate length as a civilian legal P90.

Genius, pay attention to the post being quoted. Leadcounsel argues against the merits of pistol cartridge carbines of ANY type. And we are obviously discussing a hypothetical weapon as the P90 is the only pistol cartridge bullpup being offered by a major manufacturer. Did you actually read the thread or just scan through for points to argue??? You obviously have nothing to add to this discussion and are only carrying your grudge from one thread to another. You've been harassing me for two years now.

I'm flattered. I'm no genius, but lets look at the real context of the quote.

The statement you refuted is quoted as;

There simply is little/no need from consumers for a pistol caliber bullpup. Simple law of economics.

You responded with:

Again, is that why HK developed the MP7, FN developed the P90, SIG developed the MPX and CZ completely redesigned the Scorpion??? I'm sorry but it's intellectual laziness to deduce that "they don't make it, therefore it must be a bad idea". I hate to burst your bubble but apparently enough people and four major manufacturers think it has enough merit to market new designs.

I'm sorry, but the MP7, MPX, and Scorpion were not developed because there was a need from consumers for a pistol caliber bullpup.

As far as "harassment"... report my post if you feel I'm harassing you.

 

[Al Thompson]

Looks like this one is done.....