Negatives about Bullpups?
- Thread starter cannonfire
- Start date
aarondhgraham
New member
I don't care what anyone says,,,
That's funny as all heck!
Aarond
That's funny as all heck!
Aarond
The only situation i see a Bullpup coming in handy is as a crew weapon for a tank, helicopter, or APC. Something that would give you the lethality of a full fledge 16" rifle in a short package for crammed space. Other than that for every day use it is indeed impractical. And france uses one lol. The famas might as well be a bolt action rifle as heavy as it is.
HorseSoldier
New member
I would tend to wonder how apolitical and valid those conclusions are. I think there is something significant in the fact that in the UK the SAS and in Australia the SASR and their commando role infantry battalion don't use bullpups kind of suggests that units that are serious about gunfighting and have the clout to do something about it, don't care for the L85 or F88, respectively.
Not sure but while the Australians not using the Steyr have since upgraded to M4s and such, the SASR and commando guys initially found Vietnam vintage M16A1s to be more reliable, especially in wet/tropical settings.
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Argue all you want over the experiences with TRAINED forces using bullpups, but for the casual mall ninja, they universally suffer from crap trigger pulls and complex extraction/safety issues.
I can rip virtually any misfeed out of an AR with a benchmade if necessary, I have never even had an M1A jam. Try clearing a double feed off an FN or AUG
WildtoysforsecondratearmiesAlaska ™©2002-2011
I can rip virtually any misfeed out of an AR with a benchmade if necessary, I have never even had an M1A jam. Try clearing a double feed off an FN or AUG
WildtoysforsecondratearmiesAlaska ™©2002-2011
Katophract
New member
Bullpups; quicker target acquisition, easier to maneuver in and out of vehicles. easy to use in CQB,
With the RFB, the trigger is good. Shorter than an M4. Full battle rifle power in a compact package. Fully ambidextrous. Great weight and balance. Reciever is extra reinforced in case of one in a million catastrophic failure. (the blast will be angled downward.)
I'm not really seeing a down side here. If you haven't shot one, you don't know what you're missing. Also, the FS2000 is one of the sweetest shooting guns I've ever fired. Very handy, ergonomic and fun. (now the clearing a jam is a bit of a problem, but all other problems are exaggerated greatly.)
With the RFB, the trigger is good. Shorter than an M4. Full battle rifle power in a compact package. Fully ambidextrous. Great weight and balance. Reciever is extra reinforced in case of one in a million catastrophic failure. (the blast will be angled downward.)
I'm not really seeing a down side here. If you haven't shot one, you don't know what you're missing. Also, the FS2000 is one of the sweetest shooting guns I've ever fired. Very handy, ergonomic and fun. (now the clearing a jam is a bit of a problem, but all other problems are exaggerated greatly.)
Double Naught Spy
New member
I've shot the FS2000 in 5.56 (not 5.7). It was taller, wider, and heavier than my AR15. If you add a top rail scope, you end up with the scope bore being something like 4-5" above the barrel bore. That is pretty high.
The one I shot ran very well, it seemed. It had one malfunction in 300 rounds and took the RO (gun owner) only about 3 minutes to clear it....sort of what Wildalaska indicated.
The trigger felt like stepping on a plumb.
The one I shot ran very well, it seemed. It had one malfunction in 300 rounds and took the RO (gun owner) only about 3 minutes to clear it....sort of what Wildalaska indicated.
The trigger felt like stepping on a plumb.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
The New Zealand army also uses the AUG, but the NZ SAS which is very highly regarded around the world uses M4s, what does that tell you.
My friends uncle was a Sargent in the army when they were testing for a new gun to replace the old L1A1 SLR (FAL same thing), he told us how they tested the AUG G36 and M16a2, he said that the G36 tested the best best and the AUG the worst but the government brought the AUG beacaude the Australias had adopted it.
Its amazing how people who have know idea about anything eventually have the final say.
Just like how NZs police comissioner is some useless woman whos never been a cop, how on earth would she know what to do.
My friends uncle was a Sargent in the army when they were testing for a new gun to replace the old L1A1 SLR (FAL same thing), he told us how they tested the AUG G36 and M16a2, he said that the G36 tested the best best and the AUG the worst but the government brought the AUG beacaude the Australias had adopted it.
Its amazing how people who have know idea about anything eventually have the final say.
Just like how NZs police comissioner is some useless woman whos never been a cop, how on earth would she know what to do.
HorseSoldier
New member
Hmmm -- the HK was maybe the HK33 or G41? If Wikipedia is to be believed NZ adopted the AUG in '88, well before the G36 was on the scene.
I, for one, avoided buying one when they were first offered.
The entire point of the bullpup is to have a longer barrel in a short package. That's because at the time when they were first considered viable, ammunition and powder technology offered no other solution. It was carry a 20" barrel and get speeds over 3,000 fps, or do without.
These days, that's available from the 6.8SPC in tactical loads from a 16" barrel
The action being set further back means dropping a magazine that's trapped under the elbow, and then inserting one by reaching under the stock with the off hand exerting upward pressure, all while not being able to see. That is, if you still need to continue to track the target - which in combat is preferred. Otherwise, you not only break cheek weld to reload, you have to pull the stock off the shoulder to watch what you do. New soldiers are slower and acquire targets less rapidly doing that. Experienced soldiers can do it with whatever weapon they prefer - but we don't keep an Army of trained 35 year old national level competitors. The average soldier in combat arms is less than twenty four, and marksmanship still isn't the primary task they get promoted, trained, or even a dime in incentive pay. The APFT gets more attention.
Since the barrel is so short in front, there is a requirement for an optical sight, which is preferred. One million Aimpoints have been issued - and when they break, having one integrated on the first AUG's meant the weapon was down. No BUIS.
The short barrel also means the support hand must be restrained from getting in front of the muzzle. It's no wonder they were equipped with VFG's, but that still doesn't shield the hand from a hot barrel. Neither does the typical M4, note the quadrails are now much longer, and competition shooters reaching forward to control the muzzle for more accurate shooting. It's debatable the short bullpup is any better in that regard. It can't be shot that way at all. we'll never know.
As for the rare kaboom, the typical issue is a popped primer, so gas is vented where the designer makes it go as best they can. With a separated case head during extraction, which can release 50,000 pounds of pressure in the receiver, it's been noted AR's will split the upper, eject the magazine in pieces, and release gas in jets that will cut and burn. That all happens in close proximity to the neck with a bullpup. Some of it can be engineered, but being largely ambidextrous, it limits what can be done, too. Not only the direct affect of the receiver impacting the side of the jaw, but the magazine being propelled against the ribs is possible. A lot of that work may have been done and is why we see bullpups weighing a pound more.
One thing very much overlooked is using the rifle as a weapon itself, with our without bayonet. The principle in combat is to have more reach than the enemy, in riot control or CQB, a shorter weapon has less advantage. Bullpups don't excel when opposed in physical drlll.
Designing the length out of it may offer the advantage of shortness, but it's a disadvantage in other respects. With the bullpup, it's all you get - the action is now in the stock. It can't and won't get shorter. With both hands in front of the center of balance, it's butt heavy. The center of balance is behind the grip. The stock naturally slips out of the shoulder pocket and the muzzle goes in the air. It isn't handling better, just different. In recoil, having the hand under the barrel isn't any different than the AR, to tame the upward impulse, a muzzle brake should be fitted - which still doesn't fix the rearward weight bias.
Let's add the Chinese to the bullpup user group. They are fielding the third generation to first line troops, it's been out since 1995. The QBZ is a Stoner AR 18 short stroke gas piston designed to make a cheaper action for third world nations. Nothing special and imported to Canada. I would like it to be sold here, it would certainly be as good as Century AK's for providing an example of why the concept isn't optimum.
If anything, having Steyr make the AUG is why it ran so well. A Noveske or BCM AR is, too. You get what you pay for - would this conversation be as positive with $350 QBZ import bullpups in the mix, too?
The entire point of the bullpup is to have a longer barrel in a short package. That's because at the time when they were first considered viable, ammunition and powder technology offered no other solution. It was carry a 20" barrel and get speeds over 3,000 fps, or do without.
These days, that's available from the 6.8SPC in tactical loads from a 16" barrel
The action being set further back means dropping a magazine that's trapped under the elbow, and then inserting one by reaching under the stock with the off hand exerting upward pressure, all while not being able to see. That is, if you still need to continue to track the target - which in combat is preferred. Otherwise, you not only break cheek weld to reload, you have to pull the stock off the shoulder to watch what you do. New soldiers are slower and acquire targets less rapidly doing that. Experienced soldiers can do it with whatever weapon they prefer - but we don't keep an Army of trained 35 year old national level competitors. The average soldier in combat arms is less than twenty four, and marksmanship still isn't the primary task they get promoted, trained, or even a dime in incentive pay. The APFT gets more attention.
Since the barrel is so short in front, there is a requirement for an optical sight, which is preferred. One million Aimpoints have been issued - and when they break, having one integrated on the first AUG's meant the weapon was down. No BUIS.
The short barrel also means the support hand must be restrained from getting in front of the muzzle. It's no wonder they were equipped with VFG's, but that still doesn't shield the hand from a hot barrel. Neither does the typical M4, note the quadrails are now much longer, and competition shooters reaching forward to control the muzzle for more accurate shooting. It's debatable the short bullpup is any better in that regard. It can't be shot that way at all. we'll never know.
As for the rare kaboom, the typical issue is a popped primer, so gas is vented where the designer makes it go as best they can. With a separated case head during extraction, which can release 50,000 pounds of pressure in the receiver, it's been noted AR's will split the upper, eject the magazine in pieces, and release gas in jets that will cut and burn. That all happens in close proximity to the neck with a bullpup. Some of it can be engineered, but being largely ambidextrous, it limits what can be done, too. Not only the direct affect of the receiver impacting the side of the jaw, but the magazine being propelled against the ribs is possible. A lot of that work may have been done and is why we see bullpups weighing a pound more.
One thing very much overlooked is using the rifle as a weapon itself, with our without bayonet. The principle in combat is to have more reach than the enemy, in riot control or CQB, a shorter weapon has less advantage. Bullpups don't excel when opposed in physical drlll.
Designing the length out of it may offer the advantage of shortness, but it's a disadvantage in other respects. With the bullpup, it's all you get - the action is now in the stock. It can't and won't get shorter. With both hands in front of the center of balance, it's butt heavy. The center of balance is behind the grip. The stock naturally slips out of the shoulder pocket and the muzzle goes in the air. It isn't handling better, just different. In recoil, having the hand under the barrel isn't any different than the AR, to tame the upward impulse, a muzzle brake should be fitted - which still doesn't fix the rearward weight bias.
Let's add the Chinese to the bullpup user group. They are fielding the third generation to first line troops, it's been out since 1995. The QBZ is a Stoner AR 18 short stroke gas piston designed to make a cheaper action for third world nations. Nothing special and imported to Canada. I would like it to be sold here, it would certainly be as good as Century AK's for providing an example of why the concept isn't optimum.
If anything, having Steyr make the AUG is why it ran so well. A Noveske or BCM AR is, too. You get what you pay for - would this conversation be as positive with $350 QBZ import bullpups in the mix, too?