New member to say Hi

Welcome Longziz! You are definitely a talented designer. I wonder, though, what advantage this design has over say an FN 2000 or Keltec RFD?? The ability to eject on either side is fine but how would that be an advantage over forward ejecting rifles like these??
 
Assuming a "snapshot" of Mr. Longziz's video is OK, I took a couple to show two views of his reversible ejection, long-stroke gas piston design

Original link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmOFTc8omd4&context=C30d9c37ADOEgsToPDskIepDFNMJT7KofTMsI9fhgf

attachment.php


attachment.php



The stills don't do the design justice.

There is a "cheekpiece" that pivots above the bullpup stock, with a lock mechanism near the back of the rail. Looks like you unlock it and smack the cheekpiece to select L or R ejection. It locks into place until it is released again.

The video also shows the relocated charging handle, which appears to be forward, above the barrel and under the rail.

Looks like a good design. I'd like to see the action open for cleaning and other details.
 

Attachments

  • Bullpup AR15 2.jpg
    Bullpup AR15 2.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 100
  • Bullpup AR15 1.jpg
    Bullpup AR15 1.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 99
Welcome to the forum.

The rifle has a nice design. If you can build it and keep the cost down, there will be a nice market for it. I think the next thing people would like to see is performance. Does it function reliably? How accurate is it?
 
Thanks for the kind word, and thank you dmazur for helping me posting some stills. I will post a few more later, but I honestly don't have many.

brmfan, you are right. In terms of switching ejecting direction, my design do not have any advantage over FN 2000 or Keltec RFB. Mechanically they do not need to change anything when you change shooting hands.

My advantage, however, lies on that my switching mechanism is separated from firing mechanism. That means, when the switching mechanism is locked, the gun will fire just as an AR does. The bolt action mechanism is the same as AR. No ejection tube for the brass to go through, no brass tilt up inside of the receiver for ejection, which, in my point of view, will lower the chance of jaming. And the cheek piece, when made with correct material, will help limit injuries to the operation when KB happens, which is one of the major concern of the bullpup rifles.

I think the switching ejection mechanism is necessary only when the preference of shooting hand is changed. This could be the case of when a lefty soldier picked up a righty's rifle during a battle, or shooting from corners. In normal combat situation, the mechanism should be out of the way whenever possible. So in that sense, the front ejection still need time to prove itself. However, that being said, I by no means playing down their ingenuity of those design. I think in the end, there will be people refer their designs as well as mine.
 
Also a few facts about the rifle.

I am still short of firing this rifle, due to the first usable bolt I made have excessive head space. Another bolt is half done, but before I can find another chance to come back to the States to finish that, a firing test is out of reach, for now.

The rifle is designed to carry out my concept with my limited capability of manufacturing, so many feature functions, such as trigger group, charging handle, are designed in a way which just allow me to us it for the demo video. Time is always against me, so I only focused on the main function parts. In the future, the charging handle, trigger, or even the switching mechanism will be totally or partially redesigned to meet field operator's demand. I know some of the the demand already, but this is also the main reason I post here cause I want to know what's your preference, and how can I change to design to meet the majority's preference.

So don't hesitate your concern, please fire away and I will try my best to change the design to satisfy you as much as possible. Thanks! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top