What has anyone posted to cause you to believe this was not understood?

You ever try to quickly reload one?

All of the foreign soldiers who I have talked to about them say they are decent but those same Soldiers dont know anything about guns.  They don't have a gun culture and there for don't have any idea what is good or bad in firearms design.  

ALL of the Aussie SF types I have talked to use M4's.  ALL of them.  That really tells me all I need to know, those guys can get whatever they want and they choose the M4. The rest of the Aussies carry their AUG copy but it seems that those that make a living using their rifles use M4's.

Hell the American SF types that love to stage infront of my building *I need to stop offering them water and sports drinks or they will never go away* on the flightline for the most part carry M4A1's and they get whatever they want.  Ive seen one dude who carrys a SCAR-L and one other with a SCAR-H but thats it.   No bullpups, no crazy new designs, just plain jane what works.  Mind you they could be carrying HK piston M4's "416's?" because I cannot tell from visual observation due to all of the weapons being spray painted.  

Ive owned two MSAR STG 556's "Aug copy" and they sucked when wearing body armor or in the prone.  For shooting standing or kneeling they felt awesome but they were about as accurate as my Arsenal AK's and no where near as accurate as my AR's.

I love the concept of a bullpup but in reality they suck.  I keep wanting to buy a FS2000 to try out, but I dont really wanna spend the coin on one.

The tactical tuna is nothing to shout about.
 

the mag change issue is overstated.  thats purely a training issue and in countries where soldiers start out on a bullpup, they dont have the muscle memory of using a conventional layout rifle to work against.



this Steyr promo video shows both fast mag changes and left shoulder shooting:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbhTLpeY0q8

Because Americans like being able to hit stuff.



Bull pups have the most horrid triggers of any style firearm ever conceived of to date. Good luck hitting anything beyond 200 yards with that.

The advantages (mobility without sacrificing velocity) barely, if at all, outweigh the disadvantages (trigger issues, ambi issues, reload issues).  The bullpup offers nowhere near enough of an advantage to justify adopting a new system.

If someone says a gun is "boring", one can only assume you're not talking about function at that point.

I guess I'm one of those foreign soldiers.



Based on my experience, bullpups aren't any worst than a conventional rifle. I carried both layouts, and I preferred the compact size of the bullpup (SAR21) for operating in vehicles, jungles and urban areas.

Would I want to be issued the M4 carbine? Sure, since that is what all the cool guys are carrying.

But seriously I've not encountered a situation where my bullpup rifle gave me any disadvantage when compared to a rifle with a conventional layout.

I curious though, why are folks comparing a rifle to a carbine?

Shouldn't a bullpup rifle be compared to a conventional rifle (M16A2, G36 etc.). When you do that you'll start to see more advantages of the bullpup design.



We train on ranges up to 300 meters (328.084 yards). And I sure don't have any issue hitting targets at that range. Heck I got my marksmenship badge with the SAR21.

How would this type of design preform with something like 45 long colt or .44 mag?  I always thought it would be neat to see how the ballistics on that turned out, but more for police than military. They seem really comfortable but I have never fired one, just held one like a precious baby.

ballisticsbytheinch.com



 

If you're blaming the trigger on your inability to hit anything beyond 200 yards, then you're not practicing enough.  I ran an Appleseed with my M17s, which isn't exactly known for its match grade trigger, and had no problems shooting Rifleman.  I've found that almost every gun I've ever shot is about as accurate as I'm capable of shooting it (except for mini-14s, the really do suck).

Because I am left handed. Duh

Huge difference between civilian marksmanship training, and combat where a funky trigger can through you off even at close range in a rush.
 

everyone has flaws



 

All I know is I want to get a Tavor

Because the hearing of American troops has value.  It would make every vet a disabled vet.

Some of us are destined to be mediocre.

Fair enough, but I'm sure the problem can be fixed if the US government threw a few hundred million bucks at it.  I'm sure if the military were to adopt a bullpup, most of the criticisms of the original platform would be addressed, just like the problems with the original M16 were addressed.

ETA: Not that I think they ever will.

I'd do the PPSH as well, just so i could walk around saying "burp gun".

those are rimmed cartridges.
rimmed cases usually aren't what you go with in a semiauto, Deagles notwithstanding.

We captured a couple in Iraq, they are freaking crazy little guns.
My buddy almost had his head taken off by and Iraqi policeman with one.  Guy went to charge it, short stroked it, lost the bolt handle and had a runaway gun, lucky there was only a handful of rounds in it and not a full drum!
 

I am not a fan of the function or style of bull pups.

We want to perform mag changes in less than two weeks and we want a better trigger.

Bullpup is great for a PDW or home defense weapon. Less practical for a general issue fighting rifle.

Notice most of the countries that design and issue bullpups, don't go to war all that often, if ever with them?
 

Yes.



 

I kinda like the Steyr AUG, but it's far from perfect and I'm glad that Sweden didn't hop on the bullpup bandwagon in the 80s.

my 80's vintage Steyr AUGA1 has an excellent, crisp trigger with zero slack.  2" groups off a sandbag at 100 yds are easy and take little effort



i know that Australia has issues with their version initially because they decided to use a cheaper polymer than the Austrians.  if they used the cheaper polymer in the trigger pack as well, i can see it affecting the trigger pull

There are trade off with a bullpup. It is not the end-all-be-all.



Like when you have to cover a street corner on your opposite side, you cannot merely just switch the rifle to other other firing soldier because your face will cover the ejection port and flying brass with hit your in the face or the brass will hit you.



With a conventional design, you can switch sides and not worry about any of that. In CQB it does make a difference.



 

Yup.  Haters gonna hate.  I want a Tavor.

This post fails.

Second Post wins.

you would think that with all the urban ops the Israelis do, that that would have come up when they were going to the Tavor.  how do they get around that?



 

Yet few people will adopt it and several who did had second thought in very short order.

But can you run 6.8 SPCII, 6.5 Grendel, .450 SOCOM, etc., etc., etc. uppers on a P90?



 

Th P90  was basically designed for non combat arms type troops ie FOBBITS that is why it has the ambi controls is easy to use, any PX ranger can do it, and fires a round that is easy to manage and can take the 50 round mag. It was not designed for forward operating troops, though I have seen Polish PSD guys with them and I am sure other cools guys use them. Reloading in a "few seconds" ? ...I hope the blue helmets will using them in that case, because most shooters can do mag changes in an M4 faster than a few seconds...don't get me wrong I want one, the P90 or a TAVOR but more as a range gun paper slayer, never something I would want to rely on.

When the change blossoms into full blown collective retard I will be rolling with my PWS M4, I know it well enough to operate it half asleep.

This.....maybe for 500 bucks....maybe

That same 500 would buy a RIA 1911 10mm instead.
But, seriously, the Fs-2000 is big, clunky, and unless you remove the dust skirt, the mags don't drop free, which, really, it's kind of akward to have "mags pass in flight" with one anyways the way the release works, so might as well strip them.
 

Me too.  I'm wish I would have checked the bullpup forum and got in on the pre-order.

Some can. The Tavor is supposed to be fine fired from either shoulder.

The L85 is not. Brass does not go where you want and the side-mounted reciprocating charging handle can do double duty as a DIY dentist.

Everytime I've read a WTF post in the last few days I look at the user name and it's you.

Everytime.

And the KelTec RFB

iirc, the British have always trained soldiers to fire right-handed anyway; even when they used the L1A1, lefties had to learn to shot it right-handed



 

Thats the first time I have ever heard that.  You can say what you want about the cartridge but even people who hate the PS90 agree that its insanely reliable.

Maybe they weren't using factory mags, idk.

They apparently place their chin on top of the stock instead of to the side, but again, then you lose your ability to look down the sights if you need to fire.



and still doesn't stop the brass from hitting you or going down your shirt.





 

What I haven't seen mentioned in this thread so far is weight.



I have both a Steyr AUGa3 and a FNH FS2000. They are both significantly heavier than an m4.



I believe the Steyrs advertised weight is something like 8.15 pounds versus 6.9 for a Colt 6940P or 7.25 for a SCAR 16 (comparing piston rifle to piston rifles)



Add in an optic, light, and a full magazine and you can be pushing an 11 pound 5.56 rifle.

What's going on in here?

Opening this thread is like Sarah Brady accidentally walking into SHOT Show.

Don't they have a big steel sheet where your face goes to avoid disfigurement?  Might be where the weight comes from.





(I know some bullpup does, cant remember which)



 

Bullpups are a solution in search of a problem, in my opinion.

Take an AR-15 and a typical bullpup design of the last forty years or so. Do a side by side comparison, and examine the placement of controls. Most bullpups have the mag release back by the magazine well. AR-15-series have it right under the right hand forefinger, which is the dominant hand if you are right-handed. Then, look at the fire controls--Many bullpups have the full-auto switch back by the trigger/hammer group. Another thing that takes two hands to operate. Contrast with the AR-15, which for whatever flaws it may have, managed to get most things absolutely ergonomically right.

Now that you've compared the controls, look at the way the weapons are laid out: The AR-15 is almost perfectly put together for a rifle, in that everything going on is in front of you. The magazine well is easily indexed so that you can take advantage of your body's natural ability to sense where its bits and pieces are, so putting a magazine in is a simple matter of indexing on where your hands and fingers are. The bullpup? Fuck me. Simple experiment: Close your eyes, and try touching your forefingers together out at arms length, and then anywhere else back to your chest. Childishly easy, no? Now, take your left forefinger (if you're a righty), and try to touch a specific spot about where the mag well is on a typical bullpup. Note how hard that is to do, with your eyes closed, and how many times you miss the damn spot.

The conventional layout takes advantage of a lot of natural abilities and tendencies we have. The bullpup, on the other hand, is a triumph of unnatural acts. I've been able to practice shucking through an entire LBV load of M16 magazines, and finished before a well-practiced British squaddie was able to perform two magazine changes. Granted, reload speed is not always a critical issue, but it's been my observation that when you need a fresh magazine, you NEED a fresh magazine. Given that, I'm always going to opt for an AR-15 type of interface.

About the only thing I'd honestly change on the AR-15 is to make it truly and fully ambidextrous, and to add on a Robinson Arms-style bolt release there at the bottom of the trigger guard. That interface would be perfect for me, and I'd happily sacrifice all the theoretical and mechanical advantages granted by a rock-in magazine or a bullpup-style stock to get them. If you've never done any IDPA or IPSC-style shooting, where reloading and clearance drills are important, you'd likely never appreciate the benefits you gain with a conventional layout. Most countries that issue bullpups don't train their troops that way, so they never grasp the flaws with those weapons. Most nation's Special Forces units train that way, and as a result, they choose the conventional layout, every time.

A bullpup may be a good choice, when you're fighting from a vehicle in a team where you don't have to worry about finding yourself out on your own, facing an enemy at close range. So long as your buddy is always there to provide covering fire for you while you reload, life is good. There's a Marine who's written up how and why he got wounded, and the whole thing came down to his lack of training on speed reloading drills, and finding himself alone during building clearing. It's an excellent write-up, and I wish I had time to go dig it up.

Bottom-line up front: The biggest disadvantage of the bullpup-style design is in keeping it in operation, and returning it to operation when you need to clear a misfire or reload. In those situation, the conventional layout is superior.