Bullpups config vs. standard rifle config...

[SteelCore]

Patria Povo mentioned bullpups in anothr thread, and I'm windring why the US military and others have never really taken them up like the Aussies and Brits.

Any ideas?

As a lefty (nod to other thread) I think only FN makes a forward eject that wouldn't send a shell into my face.

Also, I think I'd rather have the chamber in front of me than under my face it it failed. I think bullpups look cool, and have some advantages, but I actually think I prefer the standard rifle config.

What about you?

Would you rahter have a normal AK, or this?
http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/bullpup2/bullpup-85.jpg

Or a normal SKS or this?
http://www.simonov.net/images/custom/DCEngBullpup.jpg

[Otis61]

I think I like the normal ones better. And another thing. How would that bipod work? It dos'nt even look like it would be every functional. Plus I'm with you, I'd rather the shells eject in front. Not under or behind.

[Patria Povo]

bullpups seem great for specialised uits that need a compact package. But they are loud to shoot. Of course, even a long-barelled AUG is a small package which you could parachute with or manoever in and out of vehicles with.

And marching and the manual of arms with a bullpup looks kinda gay!

For us lefties though, the bullpups are pretty cool.

[SteelCore]

and I think the AK and CETME are very left-friendly rifles. I'll have to shoot a lefty bullpup to appreciate it, I guess...

[nalioth]

And marching and the manual of arms with a bullpup looks kinda gay!
I always like the 'function' of a weapon, not how it looks. If the brass hats want you doing the manual of arms with a objet d'art, that is their problem when the 'gay' pictures hit the press. . .


And another thing. How would that bipod work? The bullpups designed for the light machine gun role, have long heavy barrels, the bipod works just fine.

[Geilt]

Two opinions here. First bullpups are cool looking on the right frame. Look at a 10/22 with a bullpup stock and you more or less cringe. They just don't look right. On the other hand the new Enfield bullpups in service with the Brits and others are dang fine lookin'.

Second, I don't see the point of having a bullpup short of using it as a CQB weapon and wanting to maintain the punch of a full length barrel. I would think there is more chance of failure with all them fancy schmancy new fangled parts.

[turbothis]

the ultimate bubba................

[cetme]

one problem I've not seen any bullpup design solve is having a creepy,crappy trigger.
Another thing I've seen in print but would like to know more about is that Assie SAS uses M4's for the most part and so does Brit SAS, not sure on french spec-ops.

[jfowl31]

Only bull-pup I own/ have shot is a Walther G22... I had always been a 10/22 guy, but I'd take my Walther over 2 10/22's any day of the week after owning this one. The thing is shorter OAL than any of my other STOCKS, and has a 20 or 22" barrel (cant remember which). The trigger is something that needs to be solved on bullpups... its definitely creepy on all the PS-90's and such that Ive handled.

I think they are the ultimate CQB type rifle, but for a Main Battle Rifle, I think a regular "action forward" style rifle is a better choice. Bullpups are a pain to clean compared to something like an M16 package, and would be loud as all hell in a centerfire cartridge. My right ear rings like crazy after shooting 22 lr with the ejection port just under my earlobe, so I dont even want to think what a 223 would sound like.

Pretty much all the new bullpups are convertible to LH config, so righties and lefties alike would like them.

They handle like no other. You pick the rifle up and it feels heavy, until you shoulder it, and since all the weight is in the action at the back, the weight gets transferred to your shoulder, and it feels virtually weightless. Kinda like your arms are just there to balance the weight on your shoulder... its much more comfortable for off-hand shooting.

Im torn really... If we could develop a break over bullpup that would be as easy to do maintenance and clean as an AR type rifle, I think we might have something. Otherwise, I think piston driven AR's will be the next generation of American battle rifles.

p.s. shameless plug again for the G22... I can set up 10 2" plates and knock em all down in 10 shots at 100 yards with Federal cheapo $8 for 500 rounds... I have a cheap holographic sight on it, no magnification... what more could I ask out of a semi-auto 22? perhaps some high-cap mags, but thats my only complaint.

[robocop10mm]

I had a Bushmaster M-17S that was a good rifle. Accurate, reliable and compact. 20" barrel but shorter than a collapsed AR 16". The only problem was the smoke out of the ejection port in the right eye. Partially corrected by using dry lube, but still a pain. I kinda wish I had that rifle back. Bushmaster is no longer cataloging it.