Bullpup rifles????
- Thread starter soren57
- Start date
- Status
Microgunner
New member
I own a FN FS2000 and although very cool and very compact I find it clumsy to handle and over complicated, WAY over complicated.
I much prefer my AR-15s.
I much prefer my AR-15s.
Technosavant
New member
zfk55 said:
He went on and on about this some months back. He was informed that unlike in a tube magazine, there is no spring keeping tension on any unfired rounds in the ejection tube of bullpups of that design. Therefore, it would require a cascade of failure in order to set things off (a person continually ejecting live rounds, an obstruction in the ejection tube, and probably even soft primers). He was pressed for specifics as to whether anybody has actually managed to detonate a round in such a manner. Such specifics were not provided.
For some reason this theoretical issue that is a practical nonissue is of supreme importance to him.
I like the P90, if a rifle had its style magazine, in 7.62x39 and was bullpup I would kill for it. Screw ARs, bullpups are the way of the future. Downward ejection solves many issues, gravity aids extraction, both sided firing is easy, and its fairly simple to adapt a design.
Technosavant
New member
loose_holster_dan
New member
my thread on my new piece
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=455854
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=455854
While it's always cool to have something different, I fail to see a real purpose for them for recreational shooters, other than a SD weapon.
If I could afford a DTA, maybe...it's .5 MOA and better accuracy give it value to recreational shooters as well. Otherwise they don't have the accuracy I demand. No desire to own one.
If I could afford a DTA, maybe...it's .5 MOA and better accuracy give it value to recreational shooters as well. Otherwise they don't have the accuracy I demand. No desire to own one.
Last edited:
I guess I don't get a lot of the responses.
All guns are a some and some. None are perfect for all uses and situations.
The Bullpup allows full use of the 5.56 velocity (range and effect) out to its intended distances which the M4 gave up to be "handy".
The Brits use the Bullpup which no one has mentioned. It seems to have been effective for them (post HK fix).
Their BAR version has proven to be quite effective in Afghanistan with its 24 inch barrel.
The Bullpup does give up rail space and the rail mount flexibility of all 4 sides and limited on the top (though rails were not standard when it was first made).
I would buy one if I could afford it. Its a most intriguing gun that the users adjust to quite well from the reports.
All guns are a some and some. None are perfect for all uses and situations.
The Bullpup allows full use of the 5.56 velocity (range and effect) out to its intended distances which the M4 gave up to be "handy".
The Brits use the Bullpup which no one has mentioned. It seems to have been effective for them (post HK fix).
Their BAR version has proven to be quite effective in Afghanistan with its 24 inch barrel.
The Bullpup does give up rail space and the rail mount flexibility of all 4 sides and limited on the top (though rails were not standard when it was first made).
I would buy one if I could afford it. Its a most intriguing gun that the users adjust to quite well from the reports.
I was in the Australian Army not that long ago and used the Steyr AUG or Austeyr F88 (as it's called in Australia) extensively. I definately agree with the quick mag changes being an issue. They are difficult to reload quickly and keep the barrel on target. The quickest method when on the move is IMO to lift the rifle vertical and do the mag change or when stationary by tilting it 90 degrees and bringing it slightly forward in order to undertake the mag change. like someone has already mentioned if it's something you practice and train with then it isn't really a huge problem but as far as mag changes go the m4/m16 platform is far quicker and can be done without eyes being taken off targer which in my experience is a massive plus.
I don't know about other bullpups but I've shot and seen many others shoot groups of about an inch and a half from the prone unsupported position so the Austeyr is a very accurate rifle that is with the standard 1.5X scope. Shots on man size target from a supported position at 300m is a norm and part of a regular shoot that is done by most units. The standard Australian army 556 round shoots a 62 gr projectileout at over 3000fps from a 20" barrel
It's pointability is excellent it comes up nice and quick and i found it great in room clearances and other close quater situations due to it's short length.
Also due to the materials that are used they are quite heavy (7.9lbs as standard) compared to an M4 but once you put a pec2, torch and scope on an M4 there isn't a huge different and with the same attatched to a Steyer it doesn't become very front heavy like i've found m4's with that setup to be. They point very naturally and balance quite well with accessories up front due to the magazine being a bit of a counter weight.
Another interesting thing about the Steyer (some of you may already know this) is that semi and fully automatic are done on the one trigger the first stage is single shot and if squeezed a bit more then it fires fully auto no switches or anything else.
I'd go with the bullpup even if it's just for something a little different.
That's my take on bullpups anyway, hope it helps.
I don't know about other bullpups but I've shot and seen many others shoot groups of about an inch and a half from the prone unsupported position so the Austeyr is a very accurate rifle that is with the standard 1.5X scope. Shots on man size target from a supported position at 300m is a norm and part of a regular shoot that is done by most units. The standard Australian army 556 round shoots a 62 gr projectileout at over 3000fps from a 20" barrel
It's pointability is excellent it comes up nice and quick and i found it great in room clearances and other close quater situations due to it's short length.
Also due to the materials that are used they are quite heavy (7.9lbs as standard) compared to an M4 but once you put a pec2, torch and scope on an M4 there isn't a huge different and with the same attatched to a Steyer it doesn't become very front heavy like i've found m4's with that setup to be. They point very naturally and balance quite well with accessories up front due to the magazine being a bit of a counter weight.
Another interesting thing about the Steyer (some of you may already know this) is that semi and fully automatic are done on the one trigger the first stage is single shot and if squeezed a bit more then it fires fully auto no switches or anything else.
I'd go with the bullpup even if it's just for something a little different.
That's my take on bullpups anyway, hope it helps.
Last edited:
SurplusShooter
New member
Not a fan of bullpups overly expensive and they really do nothing for me.
The orginal poster did not mention that the rifle was a military rifle, although most of them are. But I was going to mention custom bullpups and someone already has. The 1950s were (I thought) the peak of true custom rifles and I didn't know they had been made before the war.
Obviously they weren't for everyone but the biggest drawback everyone seems to mention is the trigger, seeing as how it has to have a longish linkage. The biggest advantage, if not the only one, is the handy size for a given barrel length. I suspect, however, that for a sportsman, the biggest appeal may simply have been it's novelty. I don't see how having the action (of a bolt action) just behind your face would be any worse than having it right in front of your face but manipulating the bolt would be a lot more difficult and the balance would be quite different, which is also true of the semi-automatic military rifles. I've only handled the A.U.G. but I don't recall my impressions of it at the time.
Obviously they weren't for everyone but the biggest drawback everyone seems to mention is the trigger, seeing as how it has to have a longish linkage. The biggest advantage, if not the only one, is the handy size for a given barrel length. I suspect, however, that for a sportsman, the biggest appeal may simply have been it's novelty. I don't see how having the action (of a bolt action) just behind your face would be any worse than having it right in front of your face but manipulating the bolt would be a lot more difficult and the balance would be quite different, which is also true of the semi-automatic military rifles. I've only handled the A.U.G. but I don't recall my impressions of it at the time.
For another take from an experienced user group: http://soldiersystems.net/2011/07/22/sasr-wo-criticizes-the-austeyr-f88/
Note VERY CAREFULLY that troops under fire in combat went to the M4 specifically because of design deficiencies in the issue bullpup.
Not only the mag change, the length of pull issue with armor is mentioned, along with others. Again, it's not me, it's their own professional user base. It's not just one persons opinion, it's a command level dump of the weapon in a combat zone for something that they say works better. Senior decision makers had to mull over real combat use and spend money to back up their choice.
The one Army in the world that could prove the bullpup's combat usefulness is very clearly saying that when their life is on the line, they don't want it. They aren't sucked in by all the hype, and they would know. When you're under fire, an unwieldy gun with obtuse mag changes suddenly becomes much more critical than a sunny Saturday afternoon at the range.
How they got there is important - they cut down M16's and saw they were better, they were just too old to rely on. So, they bought new M4's and moved out.
The experts in bullpup use are saying, when your life is on the line, buddy, dump it and get an M4.
If that sticks in some craws, well, they can't accept professionally qualified and experienced combat veterans' opinion on what they prefer to use in war - soldiers who got to try them back to back.
Bullpups are a curio and relic, a sideshow in the progress of firearms.
Note VERY CAREFULLY that troops under fire in combat went to the M4 specifically because of design deficiencies in the issue bullpup.
Not only the mag change, the length of pull issue with armor is mentioned, along with others. Again, it's not me, it's their own professional user base. It's not just one persons opinion, it's a command level dump of the weapon in a combat zone for something that they say works better. Senior decision makers had to mull over real combat use and spend money to back up their choice.
The one Army in the world that could prove the bullpup's combat usefulness is very clearly saying that when their life is on the line, they don't want it. They aren't sucked in by all the hype, and they would know. When you're under fire, an unwieldy gun with obtuse mag changes suddenly becomes much more critical than a sunny Saturday afternoon at the range.
How they got there is important - they cut down M16's and saw they were better, they were just too old to rely on. So, they bought new M4's and moved out.
The experts in bullpup use are saying, when your life is on the line, buddy, dump it and get an M4.
If that sticks in some craws, well, they can't accept professionally qualified and experienced combat veterans' opinion on what they prefer to use in war - soldiers who got to try them back to back.
Bullpups are a curio and relic, a sideshow in the progress of firearms.
I will continue to disagree.
French, Australians, Brits and Chinese are all users. Thats 3 of the larger military organizations in the world. With China, that makes it the single largest type (grin). Numbers don't lie (they can mislead).
I have shot an AR and the trigger is an atrocity. Only worse one I shot was an AK.
Mag loads seem to be the only issue.
Offset by the fact you actually have the muzzle velocity the 5.56 was deigned around to be effective.
The AR has the worse ergonomics for controls I can imagine. You could not have set out to make them any worse.
Like I said, its a some and some.
Like striker fired, I don't think its for me, but I would convert if I needed to.
French, Australians, Brits and Chinese are all users. Thats 3 of the larger military organizations in the world. With China, that makes it the single largest type (grin). Numbers don't lie (they can mislead).
I have shot an AR and the trigger is an atrocity. Only worse one I shot was an AK.
Mag loads seem to be the only issue.
Offset by the fact you actually have the muzzle velocity the 5.56 was deigned around to be effective.
The AR has the worse ergonomics for controls I can imagine. You could not have set out to make them any worse.
Like I said, its a some and some.
Like striker fired, I don't think its for me, but I would convert if I needed to.
RC2O you're right not a single army uses the bullpup design there are several.
Tirod that's total crap I've used a bullpup in combat and my life is just as valuable to me as anyone. And trust me we weren't disadvantaged in anyway by using bullpups in combat we kicked some serious ass along with our British and tench allies.
You say it like the troops have a choice in the rifle they carry I'm not having a go at you but I take offense to your comments about soldiers using a bullpup not valuing their life very ignorant and insensitive.
Tirod that's total crap I've used a bullpup in combat and my life is just as valuable to me as anyone. And trust me we weren't disadvantaged in anyway by using bullpups in combat we kicked some serious ass along with our British and tench allies.
You say it like the troops have a choice in the rifle they carry I'm not having a go at you but I take offense to your comments about soldiers using a bullpup not valuing their life very ignorant and insensitive.
Fact is, very few of us will ever have to fire a rifle in anger (god willing)
Fact is, very few of us will be in a combat situation
Fact is, even fewer of us will be able to compare rifles in real world combat situations.
micksis86 is one of the few opinions that matter on the subject of bullpups being effective in the field, as he has been in the fray with one.
So chairborne rangers aside......
If you like bullpups buy one, if not get something else.
I've fired a few (P90, FS200, an that mossberg bullpup 500 shotgun)
Some I liked some I didn't.
Fact is, very few of us will be in a combat situation
Fact is, even fewer of us will be able to compare rifles in real world combat situations.
micksis86 is one of the few opinions that matter on the subject of bullpups being effective in the field, as he has been in the fray with one.
So chairborne rangers aside......
If you like bullpups buy one, if not get something else.
I've fired a few (P90, FS200, an that mossberg bullpup 500 shotgun)
Some I liked some I didn't.
Father Time
New member
I guess you haven't spent much time shooting AK's then have you? And just so I know, what don't you like about the AR's ergo's?
All the controls are easy to reach without adjusting your shooting grip. You can't ask for any better than that.
Strange my AK has a trigger thats 10X's better than any bullpup I have shot. The location of the trigger makes it very difficult for a good trigger on a bullpup rifle.
Bullpup rifles are good and the advantages are undeniable. However I prefer the superior ergo's of AR's to any of the bullpups (not to mention the longer sight radius). Even if I have to trade off 4-6 inches of barrel its worth it to me.
?
This has me a bit confused. I have always found the AR controls to be their most ergonomic feature. The safety and mag release are within reach with little or no shifting of the shooters hand (for the average person), and the bolt catch can be hit with the off hand as it replaces the magazine.
I'm not a big fan of the charging handle though.
Other rifles (and I will admit to not having used all of them), don't have all the controls as well grouped for the average hand.
The simple fact is that while some nations field bullpup combat rifles, those that do are a significant minority. And while economics may be a big part of the reason, its not the only part. We have not yet come up with a bullpup design that is clearly superior in all major aspects to conventional rifles. Its possible, we never will.
I am not saying that bullpups are junk, or not usable, or anything like that, just that they have their own advantages and drawbacks, different from conventional designs, and to date, not clearly superior enough to replace regular designs.
This has me a bit confused. I have always found the AR controls to be their most ergonomic feature. The safety and mag release are within reach with little or no shifting of the shooters hand (for the average person), and the bolt catch can be hit with the off hand as it replaces the magazine.
I'm not a big fan of the charging handle though.
Other rifles (and I will admit to not having used all of them), don't have all the controls as well grouped for the average hand.
The simple fact is that while some nations field bullpup combat rifles, those that do are a significant minority. And while economics may be a big part of the reason, its not the only part. We have not yet come up with a bullpup design that is clearly superior in all major aspects to conventional rifles. Its possible, we never will.
I am not saying that bullpups are junk, or not usable, or anything like that, just that they have their own advantages and drawbacks, different from conventional designs, and to date, not clearly superior enough to replace regular designs.
@44 AMP
I like controls on the right side of the gun, near the trigger, because, as I previously said, I can reach those controls easier, and I prefer using controls with my dominant hand, thats why I dont like the bolt release, selector (thumbs can't easily reach it).
AK ergonomics, with the selector above the trigger, and right hand side reciprocating handle is more well suited for me.
With the G3, I have less of an issue because of the position of the handle above the handguard.
Never used an FN FAL.
The AK bullpups, P90, AUG and FS2000 are all better than any AR in my experience.
I like controls on the right side of the gun, near the trigger, because, as I previously said, I can reach those controls easier, and I prefer using controls with my dominant hand, thats why I dont like the bolt release, selector (thumbs can't easily reach it).
AK ergonomics, with the selector above the trigger, and right hand side reciprocating handle is more well suited for me.
With the G3, I have less of an issue because of the position of the handle above the handguard.
Never used an FN FAL.
The AK bullpups, P90, AUG and FS2000 are all better than any AR in my experience.
Technosavant
New member
I've gotta say, then, you're in the vast majority. There's not too many people who dislike the AR ergonomics in favor of the AK and G3. But that's the good thing. Nobody's forcing you to buy an AR, you can go get whatever rifle you like, and those who like bullpups can go get those too.
- Status