Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/5/2006 5:07:35 PM EDT
heya all,
Went by a local shop today and they have a new int he box Bushmaster m17s. I thought it was pretty neat and the wife really liked it. She liked that is was rather rear end heavy and pointed well(she doesn't like my ar's or previous ak). For a hair under 700 bucks are these a solid rifle? ANything in particualr they are known for doing badly? breaking etc? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, especially if you have actually owned one.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:08:57 PM EDT
THey are being discontinued by Bushmaster as of a few months ago.

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:10:22 PM EDT
A great rifle.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:32:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 5:34:15 PM EDT by DK-Prof]
The Busmaster M17S is a POTENTIALLY great rifle that was never properly developed by Bushmaster. They kind of gave up half-way, and just kept selling the occasional one. Unfortunately, it needs some work to make it a great rifle. So, to get a great rifle, you should expect to spend anywhere from $200 - $400 on modifications and optics. I really like the M17S, but I would NOT spend $700 for one. At most, I'd pay about $500, knowing how much I'd need to spend on mods.

In short, the pros and cons of the M17S are:

Pros:
1. Very long barrel in very short package
2. Very good ergonomics (extremely well-balanced and easy to shoot)
3. Very solid receiver
4. Very reliable - with a piston gas system that requires little cleaning

Cons:
1: The stock rail (and base) suck, and should be replaced
2. Needs optics of some kind
3. Trigger is not great (although is not really worse than most military triggers)
4. Some people need to get used to unfamiliar mag changes (not really a problem with the rifle, per se - just with peoples' habits and preferences)

Some people incorrectly claim that the M17S is "heavy" - but it is no heavier than a comparable AR. Since the barrel is 21.5" the correct comparison is an AR with a similar-length barrel, and an AR with a 20" barrel weighs about the same as an M17S. Since the rifle is shorter than a 14.5" AR, people often make the mistake of incorrectly comparing it's weight to the shorter rifles. So technically, the M17S is actually slightly lighter than comparable ARs, even with its piston gas system.

Fortunately, Kurt Wala at KKF can do extensive mods if you have the time and money to spend. He has a variety of rail options for the top, better charging handle, and can tweak the trigger. He can also do more extensive custom modifications.

For the price, it is still the best deal in bullpups - and the only american factory-made bullpup I am aware of. With a few mods, it really is a great rifle (but, in its stock configuration it deserves the hate).

But, like I said, I wouldn't pay $700 for one - and I'm one of the people that like it best.

Hopefully chapperjoe will post in this thread. He has an awesomely pimped-out M17S.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:58:00 PM EDT
The positives I see and remarked on were

magazines, same as my ar
compact
good pointability
21.5 inch barrel, good velocity from that
rail for adding an eotech(wife liked it)
backup irons under the rail
felt good when shouldered for both of us

negatives
new to me, so maintenance and cleaning have to be relearned
odd magazine changes
lack of adjustable stock or changing the stock
those backup sights under the rail have about a 5 inch sighting radius
lack of options overal, no rail for a vertical grip or light or anything of the sort
trigger wasn't great, I am used to my RRA match trigger


hmmm, still going to have to think hard on this one!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 6:00:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
The Busmaster M17S is a POTENTIALLY great rifle that was never properly developed by Bushmaster. They kind of gave up half-way, and just kept selling the occasional one. Unfortunately, it needs some work to make it a great rifle. So, to get a great rifle, you should expect to spend anywhere from $200 - $400 on modifications and optics. I really like the M17S, but I would NOT spend $700 for one. At most, I'd pay about $500, knowing how much I'd need to spend on mods.

In short, the pros and cons of the M17S are:

Pros:
1. Very long barrel in very short package
2. Very good ergonomics (extremely well-balanced and easy to shoot)
3. Very solid receiver
4. Very reliable - with a piston gas system that requires little cleaning

Cons:
1: The stock rail (and base) suck, and should be replaced
2. Needs optics of some kind
3. Trigger is not great (although is not really worse than most military triggers)
4. Some people need to get used to unfamiliar mag changes (not really a problem with the rifle, per se - just with peoples' habits and preferences)

Some people incorrectly claim that the M17S is "heavy" - but it is no heavier than a comparable AR. Since the barrel is 21.5" the correct comparison is an AR with a similar-length barrel, and an AR with a 20" barrel weighs about the same as an M17S. Since the rifle is shorter than a 14.5" AR, people often make the mistake of incorrectly comparing it's weight to the shorter rifles. So technically, the M17S is actually slightly lighter than comparable ARs, even with its piston gas system.

Fortunately, Kurt Wala at KKF can do extensive mods if you have the time and money to spend. He has a variety of rail options for the top, better charging handle, and can tweak the trigger. He can also do more extensive custom modifications.

For the price, it is still the best deal in bullpups - and the only american factory-made bullpup I am aware of. With a few mods, it really is a great rifle (but, in its stock configuration it deserves the hate).

But, like I said, I wouldn't pay $700 for one - and I'm one of the people that like it best.

Hopefully chapperjoe will post in this thread. He has an awesomely pimped-out M17S.



+10
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 6:21:52 PM EDT
I love my M17-KKF!

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 6:40:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By skebe:
I love my M17-KKF!

64.81.110.163/~skebe/bang/17-21.gif



that's a good looking rifle you have there...
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 6:42:06 PM EDT
I wanted one and got one at a good deal. Works on any mags it seems, was kinda fun to shoot.

When you shoot it the gas would some up and made my eyes sting.

Also the trigger linkage would keep coming loose and messing up, either wouldnt fire of go Fullauto.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 7:02:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I wanted one and got one at a good deal. Works on any mags it seems, was kinda fun to shoot.

When you shoot it the gas would some up and made my eyes sting.

Also the trigger linkage would keep coming loose and messing up, either wouldnt fire of go Fullauto.



I've never had a problem with my trigger bar or linkage but the gas in the face was an experiance to be had (at an indoor range). My 17 likes my old ar mags without any issues.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 8:44:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 8:53:23 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]


I paid about $500 for my one, if I recall correctly.

It is a good plinker, and decent range rifle, but as mentioned before, needs extra work to make it right. I'm a little short-funded right now, so haven't yet sent it to Kurt, but it by and large is a mandatory deal. If I do nothing else to it, and have to do a DIY job, I'll replace the carrying-handle with a flush-mounted rail. It's just far too high up to reasonably mount an optic: No chance of a cheek weld. This will also necessitate replacing the cocking handle.

If you're playing around with rapid reloading, I must unfortunately admit that it has one of the worst magazine changes on a bullpup I've encountered. It is double-sided, which is a good point, but the release catch really isn't in the right place. The magazine well on mine is also very tight, indeed some magazines I own will physically not fit into it. Kurt has on his catalogue an option for modifying the well for 'drop-free' operation (I presume drilling it out a bit), which indicates to me that a 'tight' well is pretty common. It's weird, some mags on my rifle will drop-free, some will need pulling, and some won't fit in the first place. Fortunately, I have a lot of mags to choose from.

The rifle has a lot of potential, it just fell a little short. Still well worth a look though, it's the only rifle I own so I put my money where my mouth is. Chose it over an FAL, which wasn't an easy decision.

Addressing some of the points specifically:

rail for adding an eotech(wife liked it)
As I mentioned, it's so high up, it's next to useless. You're almost hip-shooting when aiming with the optic!

backup irons under the rail
You also mention the downside with this: The backup sights are literally last-ditch things. They're pistol-type blade-and-notch with a similar sight radius. Far better to get rid of the lot, get the flush rail, and foldable backup iron sights.

new to me, so maintenance and cleaning have to be relearned
Believe me, it's about as simple a rifle to clean as you will ever encounter. If the M-16 was made to this piston/bolt design, it would be fantastic! Even the AR-18 based L85 isn't as simple as this is.

lack of adjustable stock or changing the stock
A Kurt option, I believe.

lack of options overal, no rail for a vertical grip or light or anything of the sort
Easy fix. Kurtable, or just drill a couple of holes yourself. The upper body is a great solid wedge, plenty of space for that sort of thing.

trigger wasn't great, I am used to my RRA match trigger
It is a bit sketchy, all right, but compared to standard military rifles, it is acceptable.


Skebe, is that a Hakko on yours as well? Great little sight, mine broke within a month in the field, replaced it with an Eotech.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:00:14 PM EDT
Any chance in Hades they can be had in Left handed?


-K
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:03:33 PM EDT
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:11:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Any chance in Hades they can be had in Left handed?


-K



Iam left handed and set mine up with a makeshift deflector. Works great but on still days the gasses can get to you.


Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:59:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 10:03:51 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It was never intended to be a "subsitute" for the AR. It is based on the AR-18 gas piston design, and is essentially an unfinished rifle (I think originally developed by an Australian company) that was never completed. As such it has never been heavily marketed, nor has anyone ever (in their right mind) suggested that it would be a contender for any kind of military/LEO contract (or even significant civilian market).

Ironically, IF it is improved with Kurt's modifications - it can easily give an AR a bit of run for its money. The gas system is inherently more reliable and simpler. Its longer barrel, shorter length and better balance are certainly advantages - weighed against its worse trigger, lack of ambidextrous use, less modular design and unfamiliar mag change. I'd still pick an AR over it, but one that is modified like the one that skebe posted a picture of is certainly a pretty good rifle in its own right.

But, the advantages of the AR certainly make it the one to pick as a military or SHTF arm (something the M17S was never designed for).
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:02:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:32:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Ironically, IF it is improved with Kurt's modifications - it can easily give an AR a bit of run for its money.



Good post, DK.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:56:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 11:04:25 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?





Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:56:38 PM EDT
As stated above, when properly "finished" by KKF, they are a NICE rifle.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:33:33 AM EDT
thanks for all the replies, looks like 700 is too much to pay for it, so I will pass.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:36:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 7:44:35 AM EDT by remedy]
Damn I love Bullpups.

I wish there were more Bullpup designs out there. I miss shooting the 'Aug.


ETA: Bullpups are getting more popular now though, all of China's new infantry weapons are bullpup designs from the sniper platform to the light machinegun, etc. Beretta has a new bullpup, Steyr has new bullpup designs, even the FN F2000 is a bullpup. Man, I love it!

You gotta love the design, giving you a longer barrel without sacrificing weapon length. That's what I hate about the AR15, a 20" barrel is really long, and there is a lot of wasted space. Hell just rearranging the receiver, stock and barrel could give you a good bullpup... in essence.


- rem
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:39:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?




Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:54:32 AM EDT
I can certainly concur with the lack of options. But, in and of itself, it's a well built, reliable bullpup. No magazine issues, period. Try 10 different brands or types in your favorite AR. Gas system is great and utterly reliable. Think: FAL. Sight situation is, I think, where the M17s really has limitations. But, nothing any arfcommer with an 8th grade edumaction and dremelability can't handle. You may think of it as an undeveloped project rifle. I see it as something that just begs to be improved or enhanced by the imagination of its owner. I mean, really....everyone on the board spends thousands of hours fiddling and diddling with ARs, to make it do this and do that, bolting, nailing, gluing on every new gewgaw that shows up on the EE. But, wander by with a 100% reiable 223 in a different configuration and, whoa, daddy, "that POS needs work!". Well, just apply the ingenuity and resourcefulness we are known for as Americans and arfers. Shazaam, yew gotcherself a rahfle, dewd!
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 9:44:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?







Double + +



Spit my coffee up!
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 12:53:33 PM EDT
I will look around and see if I can find a used one.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:07:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?







Double + +



Spit my coffee up!



Very nice

However, more pics would be nice of this rifle!
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:04:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:

Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?







Double + +



Spit my coffee up!



Very nice

However, more pics would be nice of this rifle!



OK.....









Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:15:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



It's a bullpup, based off the AR180. It's not supposed to be a a substitute for an AR.

Or, looking at it another way, are you a piece of shit substitute for Brad Pitt, or just your own guy?



roflol.

Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:32:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
The Busmaster M17S is a POTENTIALLY great rifle that was never properly developed by Bushmaster. They kind of gave up half-way, and just kept selling the occasional one. Unfortunately, it needs some work to make it a great rifle. So, to get a great rifle, you should expect to spend anywhere from $200 - $400 on modifications and optics. I really like the M17S, but I would NOT spend $700 for one. At most, I'd pay about $500, knowing how much I'd need to spend on mods.

In short, the pros and cons of the M17S are:

Pros:
1. Very long barrel in very short package
2. Very good ergonomics (extremely well-balanced and easy to shoot)
3. Very solid receiver
4. Very reliable - with a piston gas system that requires little cleaning

Cons:
1: The stock rail (and base) suck, and should be replaced
2. Needs optics of some kind
3. Trigger is not great (although is not really worse than most military triggers)
4. Some people need to get used to unfamiliar mag changes (not really a problem with the rifle, per se - just with peoples' habits and preferences)

Some people incorrectly claim that the M17S is "heavy" - but it is no heavier than a comparable AR. Since the barrel is 21.5" the correct comparison is an AR with a similar-length barrel, and an AR with a 20" barrel weighs about the same as an M17S. Since the rifle is shorter than a 14.5" AR, people often make the mistake of incorrectly comparing it's weight to the shorter rifles. So technically, the M17S is actually slightly lighter than comparable ARs, even with its piston gas system.

Fortunately, Kurt Wala at KKF can do extensive mods if you have the time and money to spend. He has a variety of rail options for the top, better charging handle, and can tweak the trigger. He can also do more extensive custom modifications.

For the price, it is still the best deal in bullpups - and the only american factory-made bullpup I am aware of. With a few mods, it really is a great rifle (but, in its stock configuration it deserves the hate).

But, like I said, I wouldn't pay $700 for one - and I'm one of the people that like it best.

Hopefully chapperjoe will post in this thread. He has an awesomely pimped-out M17S.


damn, DKPROF, that is an excellent review. well said.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:48:24 PM EDT
not one person thought he might want to know that after 2 mags the thing is so freakin hot that it has to sit for 20-30 minutes before you can shoot it again? i wonder why?

this rifle should come with nomex gloves!!!!! dont say i didnt warn you!

HOT HOT HOT
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 5:03:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By h2o2gunr:
not one person thought he might want to know that after 2 mags the thing is so freakin hot that it has to sit for 20-30 minutes before you can shoot it again? i wonder why?

this rifle should come with nomex gloves!!!!! dont say i didnt warn you!

HOT HOT HOT



Forward vert grip and cooling vents takes care of that issue.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 5:42:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2006 5:44:58 PM EDT by GLOCKshooter]
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:41:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:
It's a piece of shit substitute for an AR and it always has been.



Everything has it's pro's and con's.

Since reliability is my #1 most important aspect of an assault rifle, I'd say the M17S is far better than an AR15.... Especially if you fix the heat problems and get a good trigger job (I'm half way there...
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 5:01:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:52:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twl:

Originally Posted By Lion_Dog:


OK.....


photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=37451

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=37452

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=37453





Very nice looking rifle, Thom!!!!!!!!!!!
I used to have a standard one, but it was nothing near as nice as yours.
I really like those mods you did.



Thanks - I just paid for it. The heavy lifting was done by KURT of KKF.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:59:10 AM EDT
I am going to have to look for a used m17s and send it to Kurt for some work. Damn his work looks good and the prices are no where near high. Most seem downright cheap.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:44:01 AM EDT
Yes used it GOOD. Mine was, can you tell???
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:38:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vengarr:
I am going to have to look for a used m17s and send it to Kurt for some work. Damn his work looks good and the prices are no where near high. Most seem downright cheap.



He definatley does fine work, unfortunately he's way too busy on too many projects so up to year to get the work done is not the way I would go....
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:56:20 PM EDT
Does the M17S take regular AR magazine? I like the look alot, but have never seen one or shot one in person.

Thanks
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:05:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 7:06:42 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Macumazahn:
Does the M17S take regular AR magazine? I like the look alot, but have never seen one or shot one in person.

Thanks



Yes it does use M16/AR15 mags, however a bit finicky, based on the M17S my buddy Aaron has. I gave him a bunch of SA80 mags that work fine in my ARs, but they didn't work well at all in his M17S. didn't feed properly.

I gave him a couple of Colt mags, and they worked fine. The Orlites would not lock into place because of the partial depth mag slot in the polymer of the mag vs the metal mags.

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:50:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:20:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 9:21:47 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I won't use any rifle that can not be shot strong side/weak side.

Please explain how you are going to shoot around the left side of cover without exposing your body.



I thought I read somewhere that the Army/Marine don't teach that technique in urban fighting. I could be incorrect, but the point is that not everyone uses that particular technique. If you do, and you think you cannot with a bullpup, then yeah - obviously you should stay far away.

Plus, that seems to be more of a generic bullpup issue, and suggest that armies that have adopted bullpups (like Britain, Australia, France, etc.) and those that are considering them (like Israel) ALL are ignorant of some basic fact of combat. I find it hard to believe that the Israelis would be developing a firearm like the Tavor if this was such a critical and insurmountable problem.

Plus, the M17S CAN be shot left-side in an emergency without some huge problem or injury ocurring - it's not ideal, but it's not like the brass is going to eject into your eye or anything.

Either way - NOBODY is claiming that the M17S is some combat arm that could or should replace the AR system. But for right-handed shooters, with a few modifications, it can still be a good and fun rifle.



I'm certainly not trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, to buy one. I just think it's a neat rifle, and I personally like it. (I also think a 10" SBR is a neat rifle, even though there are plenty of people who will shake their heads and dispariage it as "pointless" )

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:01:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I wanted one and got one at a good deal. Works on any mags it seems, was kinda fun to shoot.

When you shoot it the gas would some up and made my eyes sting.

Also the trigger linkage would keep coming loose and messing up, either wouldnt fire of go Fullauto.



A buddy of mine owned a bushy bullpup and had the same exact problems about a year ago. It did it to me once when he let me shoot it. He called BM and they put him on the phone with one of their gunsmiths who talked him through the fix. No more unintended three to five round bursts after that...
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:20:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 10:25:14 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I won't use any rifle that can not be shot strong side/weak side.

Please explain how you are going to shoot around the left side of cover without exposing your body.



I thought I read somewhere that the Army/Marine don't teach that technique in urban fighting. I could be incorrect, but the point is that not everyone uses that particular technique. If you do, and you think you cannot with a bullpup, then yeah - obviously you should stay far away.

Plus, that seems to be more of a generic bullpup issue, and suggest that armies that have adopted bullpups (like Britain, Australia, France, etc.) and those that are considering them (like Israel) ALL are ignorant of some basic fact of combat. I find it hard to believe that the Israelis would be developing a firearm like the Tavor if this was such a critical and insurmountable problem.

Plus, the M17S CAN be shot left-side in an emergency without some huge problem or injury ocurring - it's not ideal, but it's not like the brass is going to eject into your eye or anything.

Either way - NOBODY is claiming that the M17S is some combat arm that could or should replace the AR system. But for right-handed shooters, with a few modifications, it can still be a good and fun rifle.



I'm certainly not trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, to buy one. I just think it's a neat rifle, and I personally like it. (I also think a 10" SBR is a neat rifle, even though there are plenty of people who will shake their heads and dispariage it as "pointless" )




Well there is one truly ambidextrous bullpup - the F2000 spits it's brass directly forward, so handedness is not an issue. Unfortunately it looks like a pregnant boat paddle and probably handles like one. But the design got it right. Seems to work very well.

The P90 is a bullpup and eject directly down, so it is also truly ambidextrous, but it cannot be considered an assault rifle because of it's small specialized cartridge. More of an SMG.

I think FN got the message with the ambidextrous issue.

The FN F2000 can be fired ambidextrously with no modifications.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:37:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:

Please explain how you are going to shoot around the left side of cover without exposing your body.



I can't. But as has been mentioned before whenever this argument comes up, the US Marine Corps manual for rifle marksmanship states specifically that a Marine should shoot strong-handed at all times, including around weak-side cover using the rollout technique.

If you don't like it, fine, don't do it. Doesn't seem to stop most other armies in the world picking bullpups these days.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 5:30:37 AM EDT
as powerful as an argument for a ambidextrous rifle is that I cannot shoot a bullpup left handed doesn't really matter to me. I don't plan on clearing any houses with it or shooting from cover that requires me to shoot it left handed.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:46:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 1:44:20 PM EDT by GLOCKshooter]
Rotate the M17s a quarter turn, AKA Gangsta' stile, and fire around your cover. Since optics are pretty much mandatory, the red dot will help.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:12:06 AM EDT
i had one and really tried to make it work for me to shoot 3gun with, it was so solid and reliable. the offset for optics was way too much and the carry handle was plastic and let the zero wander, but that could have been fixed with a new mount- maybe one offset to the side for less neck strain. the real killer for me was the gas in the face and that there was so little weight forward of the trigger hand it was really hard to hold steady offhand (as compared to a conventional rifle). even after i mounted a forearm grip.
Top Top