Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/10/2006 5:28:55 PM EDT
I am having fun building a 10.5 inch Mk18. I told my friend.

He said "10.5 inch barrels are gay because they are not a Steyr AUG" and there is no reason to have a short barrel with marginal ballistics on a poodle-shooting caliber when you can have a 20 inch bullpup the same length with decent ballistics.

How can anyone argue with that? I see the downside of the AUG as slower magazine changes since they are behind you, and a crummy trigger (which they could probably fix by using aluminum and steel instead of plastic).

Come home modern rifle projects like the XM8 and SCAR did not require a bullpup?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:34:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 5:41:12 PM EDT by ALPHAGHOST]
bullpups:
-action VERY close to the cranium
-left handed unfriendly (unless you got the FN 2000)
-firing around corners and above cover seems a tad uncomfortable
-mag changes are a little slower, but only b/c its a little more unatural
-its UN-American! (i guess it just does not fit us traditional USofAers--mostly EU and some Asian countries have expierimented w/ em)--in short: America is not ready for bullpups

AUG is old news (but still cool)--there are better bullpup configs out there that improve on it imo

h/w, i got to agree on the bullpup being very useful for CQB, when compactness is needed with longer bbls

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=431628--other bullpup topic
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:52:32 PM EDT
The inability to shoot with the off hand and poor trigger are what drove me away. AUGs feel nice though. I would have to say the 20" being the same length as the 10.5" barreled AR is BS.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:07:52 PM EDT

Most people that hate bullpups do so for completely irrational reasons.

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:11:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Most people that hate bullpups do so for completely irrational reasons.





I hate them becfause they are ghey. Whats so irrational about that?

seriously, I like the mag being infront of me.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:18:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
The inability to shoot with the off hand and poor trigger are what drove me away. AUGs feel nice though. I would have to say the 20" being the same length as the 10.5" barreled AR is BS.



While they are not the 'same' length, I feel that BS is too strong a term since they are within 1/4 inch.



Click for larger image.


Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:23:19 PM EDT
Only with the stock way out. Put that SOPMOD in the first position, the way I use them, and try that again
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:26:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 6:28:26 PM EDT by rsilvers]
When you are walking through a building (where short length matters), the stock position has nothing to do with the muzzle hitting walls. The muzzle will always be the same distance from the grip, no matter what the stock position.

It is funny how you say "With the stock way put" as if it is abnormal to have the stock out. The stock is out for shooting. It is in for storage or for smaller people or when using thick body armor.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:29:53 PM EDT
It just comes down to preference.

The Bullpup design is a great solution for OAL when ballistics is a problem in a compact weapon.

But the Bullpup design is considered cumbersome to use by most people when compared to an AR15 with the same OAL.

If you want a compact weapon because you're in an urban setting where you'll most likely be shooting no more than 50 meters, then the Bullpup design will lose out because at those ranges the ballistics won't have a bigger advantage than overall manueverability of the weapon.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:33:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rsilvers:
When you are walking through a building (where short length matters), the stock position has nothing to do with the muzzle hitting walls. The muzzle will always be the same distance from the grip, no matter what the stock position.

It is funny how you say "With the stock way put" as if it is abnormal to have the stock out. The stock is out for shooting. It is in for storage or for smaller people or when using thick body armor.



Sure, but I shoot with a VERY short length of pull. The AUG LOP is very, very long for me. So, while they both have their triggers in the same place, the one on the shorty is much closer to my body, and so is the muzzle.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:34:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rsilvers:
When you are walking through a building (where short length matters), the stock position has nothing to do with the muzzle hitting walls. The muzzle will always be the same distance from the grip, no matter what the stock position.

When you go through a building you should be using wall body weapon, so which bullpup can you use left handed besides FN2000?

It is funny how you say "With the stock way put" as if it is abnormal to have the stock out. The stock is out for shooting. It is in for storage or for smaller people or when using thick body armor.

I shoot with my stock collapsed.



Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:37:57 PM EDT
As has been already said, the FN2000 is the only bullpup that is ambidextrous without changing parts. All the rest have problems with interchanging rifles between right and left handed individuals, and switching shoulders to engage around "other" corner.

The collapsible stock has become extremely popular not because you can reduce the length for storage, but because the LOP can be adjusted for different shooters, body armor, etc. None of the bullpups have an adjustable length of pull. Comparatively, that puts it behind the curve. That said, I'm happy with all of my rifles that don't have collapsible stocks, but then again, they fit me.

Crappy triggers, but people have lived with crap triggers before.

Because of the length, iron sights have a short sight radius. Since optics are virtually the standard now, irons are generally backup sights, so it isn't as much of a problem.

Bullpups don't have a lot of real estate in the foreend. Until we get better at miniaturizing all of the electronic toys that seem to be necessary, they don't have a lot of room for a flashlight, laser, grenade launcher, etc.

There are things to like about bullpups. I don't dislike them, but they have one advantage over a conventional rifle and one only. The conventional rifle has several more in its plus column.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:39:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Sure, but I shoot with a VERY short length of pull. The AUG LOP is very, very long for me. So, while they both have their triggers in the same place, the one on the shorty is much closer to my body, and so is the muzzle.



Ok, so you are saying the Aug stock, or a M16A1 fixed stock, is too long for you. That makes sense. I think the solution is a new bullpup with an adjustible stock. That is why I was curious as to new bullpup projects. I do feel like length of pull needs to be adjustible.

I will say I took a defensive rifle course and used the AUG, and I felt like I was at a major disadvantage to the other students because we had to do mag-change exercises and I could not do them as fast. This was a course, not the real world, so ballistics did not matter.

But a new bottom-ejecting bullpup with an adjustible length of pull would seem nice. The FN2000 seems too bulky to me. So much plastic.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:48:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dorsai:

There are things to like about bullpups. I don't dislike them, but they have one advantage over a conventional rifle and one only. The conventional rifle has several more in its plus column.



I would grab the 10.5 LMT myself -- but I am just wondering if that is rational. I mean, sure they only have one advantage, but that advantage is a 'free' 9 inches of much-needed barrel length on a marginal caliber which was designed for varmint hunting. A 10.5 inch barrel only stays above fragmentation velocity out to about 30-40 meters with M855 ammo. I would think a compact rifle with a 20 inch barrel is (or should be) a huge deal.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 6:53:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:46:33 PM EDT
looks like the chinese beat us to it
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:50:15 PM EDT
I also feel the AUG, and perhaps most bullpups, are tail heavy and don't 'swing' as well.

A bullpup precision bolt rifle would have NO downsides, right?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:13:42 PM EDT
You can always get an bullpup ar15.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:39:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 11:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crestgel:
You can always get an bullpup ar15.





...or not.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:35:53 AM EDT
I'm anti-bullpup for a very subjective reason: the only bullpup I've fired (Steyr AUG) seemed very stock-heavy to me. I'm much more comfortable with more of the weight out towards the muzzle. Much easier to control during rapid fire.

Gratis $0.02,

/TCP
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:52:33 AM EDT
as far as the action being really close to the face, why has no one thought of up-armoring that area? like a plate of titanium,etc..
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:54:33 AM EDT
Not only is the AUG poorly balanced, but it weight 8.5 pounds, IIRC. An M16 (original) weighed something like 6.5, IIRC. Furthermore, a 11.5 Colt would be about the same size, but could be slimmed down to a mere 5 pounds.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 4:50:47 AM EDT
I had an AUG that became one of those 1/100 A2 AUGs legally in this country. I bought it during my collecting days in the 1980s, but years of constant threats from the anti-gunners have moved me to get away from collecting and just concentrating on the AR platform for 5.56 as I feel it is extremely versatile, ergonomics are much more better than other 5.56 weapons I've owned, parts are available everywhere, and its made in the USA.

The AUG was the last of my "exotic" weapons and I was keeping it as an example of a well made bullpup. The reasons I decided to ditch the AUG is it is heavy to a comparable size AR, parts are hard to get (though I had the foresight to stock up), spare barrels can't be imported from Austria, and it is not right hand friendly (I am lefty and used a LH bolt). Sold it off to a guy who could appreciate it more than I. Strangely, I do miss it sometimes.........

See my online album on the A2 AUG I owned photobucket.com/albums/v508/FALbert/AUGA2/





Link Posted: 3/11/2006 10:53:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Not only is the AUG poorly balanced, but it weight 8.5 pounds, IIRC. An M16 (original) weighed something like 6.5, IIRC. Furthermore, a 11.5 Colt would be about the same size, but could be slimmed down to a mere 5 pounds.



I won't say the AUG is poorly balanced........It is VERY balanced. Hold a 20" AR15 with one hand, you will notice the AR is front heavy. Now hold a 20" AUG with one hand extended. The AUG's weight is very well balanced.

My only complaint with the AUG is the sling loops. One is on the side and one is one top that swivels. When walking with the AUG on a sling the rifle can twist, because the sling loops are in odd places.

If you guys want to conduct a real comparison 10.5 SBR AR vs. The Steyr AUG you should use a SBR 14" barrel AUG.

Chris
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:20:34 PM EDT
The way I learned to shoot, and anyone with a target rifle background will agree, is that your left hand holds the weight of the gun while your right hand controls the trigger. That way your trigger finger had the most controlled pull possible. Obviously that's hard to do with a bullpup since the weight of the gun, the mag and the action, is behind your right hand. I also find magazine changes difficult using a bullpup setup. Whereas in an AR you simply tuck the gun in, drop the mag, load it with your left hand, and just slide your left hand up towards the handguard so you're good to go. Maybe it's a matter of getting used to but in a bullpup, the mag is so close to your body, I find I need to remove the gun from my shoulder to change the magazine and slamming it home is more difficult.
I'm sure there are arguments that my experiences can be fixed through "proper usage" but, for what it's worth, bullpups just doesn't feel natural to me.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:37:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Not only is the AUG poorly balanced, but it weight 8.5 pounds, IIRC. An M16 (original) weighed something like 6.5, IIRC. Furthermore, a 11.5 Colt would be about the same size, but could be slimmed down to a mere 5 pounds.




Wrong, a 20" AUG weighs about 8lbs WITH OPTICS.

Good luck with that 5lb AR. There is no possible way you can build an AR with optics and an 11.5" barrel that weighs 5lbs.

A 20" AUG is about the same size as an 11.5" AR, but a 16" AUG is much shorter.

As for "balance", the AUG can be fired one handed pretty easily. That's balance if you ask me.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 10:21:49 PM EDT
From: Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition (details on my website...)

"There are certain disadvantages to bullpups. In most cases, fired cartridge cases can only be ejected to the right-hand side of the gun, which means that they cannot be fired left-handed as the cases would hit the firer's face (most can be adapted for left-handers, but that takes time). This means that users can't switch shoulders to fire round the corner of a building, for instance. Magazine changes may also be more awkward. The necessarily straight-line stock means that the firer cannot sight along the top of the barrel, so if iron sights are used they have to stick up high above the barrel and the firer therefore has to expose more of his head 'above the parapet'. Proponents of bayonet fighting will also point to the shorter length of the weapon, which means that you have to get closer to the enemy. Bullpups have the action by the firer's head, which some find uncomfortable, and short-barrelled versions have the muzzle quite close to the firer, which means that muzzle blast can be more of a problem.

There are of course counter-arguments. The lack of ability to switch shoulders may be more theoretical than real, as this may in practice be very little used by ordinary soldiers as opposed to special forces. Most soldiers in combat have enough trouble hitting the target when firing from their usual shoulder, let alone from their 'wrong' side, so many armies train only in shooting from one shoulder. The magazine change is not necessarily more difficult, and some users prefer the 'inboard' location as it makes it easier to change magazines when travelling in an open vehicle, for example. Military rifles are also increasingly being issued with optical sights, so the iron-sights objection is less important. In any case, military rifles of traditional layout also have high-mounted sights nowadays, because they generally have straight-line stocks, in which the top of the buttstock continues in a straight line from the barrel, instead of being angled downwards as it is in most older rifles. This is because the recoil thrust in a straight-line stock goes directly into the shoulder, whereas in an angled stock it goes over the shoulder and hence tends to rotate the gun upwards. Bayonets are now too irrelevant to modern combat situations for their length to matter.

Most significantly, bullpup proponents will point out that the increasing deployment of troops in cramped helicopters or armoured vehicles, together with the needs of urban combat, put a premium on compactness. Traditional rifles can only match a bullpup's short length by using stocks which can be folded alongside the barrel, or sometimes over the top of it, giving the choice between a long weapon or a short one which can't be fired accurately. Their only other option is to reduce significantly the length of the barrel, to the detriment of ballistics and effectiveness, especially at longer ranges. These folding stocks are commonly of the 'skeleton' type (i.e. they consist of an open framework) and may be made of metal or plastic. They are usually less rigid and comfortable to shoot with than fixed stocks. Not all rifles are able to use folding stocks anyway because the action may extend into the stock (e.g. the M16). In such cases telescoping stocks may be used instead, but these do not deliver such a reduction in length as a folding stock, and cannot match the compactness of a bullpup.

Finally, firers used to the traditional layout often criticise the different, more rearward, weight balance of a bullpup, but that is, of course, a matter of what you are used to.

What is certain is that the debate between proponents of the traditional and bullpup layouts can become heated and rely more upon emotion than logic. It is also worth noting that the use of bullpup rifles has been gradually spreading, with the majority of recent assault rifle designs being of this type, and that the latest of them – the Belgian FN F2000 – overcomes the principal objection by being genuinely ambidextrous without any modifications or adjustments being required."


A couple of additional comments: the 'balance' issue does of course depend on what the gun is fitted with. A 40mm GL or 12-gauge underbarrel accessory will give a moderate front-heaviness to a bullup (and make a traditional gun very front heavy). Some further info on the 'shooting left-handed' issue, from the Marine Corps Reference Publication 3-01a Rifle Marksmanship, page 6-5 "Firing from the Right or Left Side of Cover" (Complete with picture)

"To minimize exposure and maximize the cover’s protection, a right-handed Marine should fire from the right side of cover and a left-handed Marine should fire from the left side, if possible (see fig. 6-11).If, however, a right-handed Marine must fire from the left side of cover, he fires right-handed but adjusts his position behind cover and uses the rollout technique (see para. 6003) to engage the target. See figure 6-12."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 10:29:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TonyWilliams:
From: Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition (details on my website...)
...




Great post.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 10:53:04 PM EDT
So I mosied on down to the fun store to day and got my hands on an AUG for a heartbeat.

The optic- A simple donut, no illumination. If you get an AUG, get an M68, ACOG or Short Dot.

The ergos suck.

The balance does indeed suck.

I didn't see where my flashlight would attach, let alone an IR laser for the cool guys.

And that bitch is heavy. And the stock is way too long. Body armor? The gun will be in the next county.

Not saying it doesn't have a use... I just don't have a use for it.

On the upside, it was very short.

Link Posted: 3/12/2006 11:08:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 11:11:35 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By rsilvers:
I am having fun building a 10.5 inch Mk18. I told my friend.

He said "10.5 inch barrels are gay because they are not a Steyr AUG" and there is no reason to have a short barrel with marginal ballistics on a poodle-shooting caliber when you can have a 20 inch bullpup the same length with decent ballistics.

How can anyone argue with that? I see the downside of the AUG as slower magazine changes since they are behind you, and a crummy trigger (which they could probably fix by using aluminum and steel instead of plastic).

Come home modern rifle projects like the XM8 and SCAR did not require a bullpup?



US military DOES NOT like the fact that a bullpup rifle is not ambidextrious without changing parts - the inability to shoot weak-hand because of the ejection port placement is what keeps them out of service...

Before you say FN2000, that weapon is an interesting curiosity, but the 'spent round tube' is a jam waiting to happen...

Finally, when asking 'Why didn't the XM8 (whatever)' remember that the XM8 was what you get when you combine a political sop to H&K to get a factory built with a bunch of HK fanboys trying to salvage something useful from the OICW project (We can't have done all this for nothing, we can't say we were wrong about a 10.5in 5.56 rifle with a 20mm cannon underbarrel being 'The Next Big Thing'!!!)... Aside from the G36 gas system & the (melting) polymer construction, the XM8 had identical capabilities to the M4. Fortunately, it has been completely TERMINATED.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 11:35:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Most people that hate bullpups do so for completely irrational reasons.





I hate them becfause they are ghey. Whats so irrational about that?

seriously, I like the mag being infront of me.


Last time I checked, the mag on an aug was still "in front" of the shooter... unless you are going negro commando and shooting with the rifle at your waist and to the side.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 11:59:26 PM EDT
I have no problems with bullpups, I just cant buy the bullpup I want

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 1:15:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
US military DOES NOT like the fact that a bullpup rifle is not ambidextrious without changing parts - the inability to shoot weak-hand because of the ejection port placement is what keeps them out of service...


Note the item I posted earlier, from the Marine Corps Reference Publication 3-01a Rifle Marksmanship, page 6-5 "Firing from the Right or Left Side of Cover"

"To minimize exposure and maximize the cover’s protection, a right-handed Marine should fire from the right side of cover and a left-handed Marine should fire from the left side, if possible (see fig. 6-11). If, however, a right-handed Marine must fire from the left side of cover, he fires right-handed but adjusts his position behind cover and uses the rollout technique (see para. 6003) to engage the target."

Obviously the USMC has no interest in riflemen being able to switch shoulders, as they actively discourage it.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 1:25:48 AM EDT
One thing I've realised about the AUG was how incredibly pointless the QCB feature is. Unless you happen to be an inverterate gadgeteer, you are never going to swap barrels unless you shoot them out. It's a cool feature but honestly, rather useless unless you are running it as a LMG/SAW.

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 2:40:59 AM EDT
I've always been a big fan of bullpups, and I still feel that they are the future of weapons development. I know it is plagued with problems, but next to an AR I think the SA80 series of weapons is one of the best looking rifles out there......
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 8:28:12 AM EDT
I really like bullpups, I think the design is brilliant. That said, of course they have flaws like every other design.

The ambidexterity issue can be overcome buy clever design. The P90 type magazine arrangement is one way. Another possibility would be to have the bolt have long rearward travel, ejecting a spent case downward BEHIND the magazine. I'm sure there are many other ways to fix this. I agree the FN2000's tube thingie scares me.

As far as your head being near the action, my face feels awfully close to the bolt when my nose is pressed up against the charging handle of me ARs too...no biggie, especially if the design incorporates some reinforcement around the upper part of the action area to protect the head in case of a KB.

As for balance, yeah, the bullpup balances toward the stock, but all that weight is tucked in a lot closer to your body, so it does not feel at all awkward when shouldered. And that same weight balance makes a bullpup second to none in speed for getting the muzzle on target.

Overall, I think the bullpup has some huge advantages over conventional rifles, and in return has some minor disadvantages. We'll see if it becomes the future or not. In the meantime I'll shoot my ARs and wait for a "must have" bullpup to appear.

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 9:07:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
The optic- A simple donut, no illumination. If you get an AUG, get an M68, ACOG or Short Dot.
The ergos suck.
The balance does indeed suck.



Makes we wonder if you really got to hold an AUG. Especially one handed, in a retention position,
it handles more like a big pistol than a rifle. Inside a building or car the AUG rules due to its great
balance and compactness. The 16" version may be the best handling assault rifle built to this day.
But the decision depends on your mission profile As a civilian I don't need to mount an IR laser,
grenade thrower, etc. Neither do I need lightning fast mag changes. I need first shot and shot to
shot speed, accuracy and reliability above all- without having to take a three day armorers class
twice so that I know which tweaks are necessary.
And the whole gun is based on the KISS principle: Reload- pull the charging handle to release
the bolt. Stoppage- same procedure. I can everything without once moving my target out of my line
of sight.

Besides, if I want proven reliability (not to mention less parts, no pins or screws) and great ergonomics
out of the box, I choose the Glock / AUG. Even hardcore M4 fans admit it- hardly any M4 carbine
class takes place without several and major stoppages. It seems that there are too many places in
the 50 year old design where you can fuck up either the QC in manufacturing or due to user neglect.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 9:50:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Most people that hate bullpups do so for completely irrational reasons.




I hate them because I'm left-handed, and because, to me, they're fugly as hell. But to each his own.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 9:52:35 AM EDT
B+T makes a nice rail system for the AUG.

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 11:49:50 AM EDT
I was out plinking/shooting with my buddies yesterday, and we had a slew of different weapons to pick from. FAL, HK91s, AR-15's AR-10, Socom II, ect... And my buddies AUG. We have this target that's an IDPA silhouette with a small head sized target that flips from shoulder to shoulder when you hit it. We had it out at 75yds. With all the other guns, I had to take a knee in order to accurately hit the spinner. With the AUG, I was able to hit it consistently and quickly from an offhand position.

I'm pretty sure this was because the AUG is extremely well balanced and not front heavy in the slightest. Virtually all my point of aim movement that I normally get in an offhand position was eliminated. The weapon felt like an extension of my body more than any other firearm. It has great ergonomics. It seems to me that the AUG is a great design for offhand shooting, which is the purpose of most assault rifles. Changing mags isn't all that hard. The paddle mag release is easy to find without looking at, and if was fairly easy to index and insert the mag by feel. Since the AUG isn't a target rifle, a long trigger pull is no big deal. I kinda like the trigger, since it moves straight back like a 1911, instead of pivoting like most triggers.

If I could own an AUG for the same price as an AR, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. A high price-tag can make a weapon system less palatable, making people more prone to point out it's inadequacies. All weapon systems have strengths and weaknesses. AUGs and other Bullpups, have their place. Besides, most of us here shoot for sport and fun, so who gives a damn about which is the “better” weapon? If you like your rifle, and have fun shooting it, that should be good enough.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:02:53 PM EDT
In regards to the post title and subject I have to say "why" is what I think every time I see a bullpup.

Opinions and tastes vary.

Go with what works for you and don't worry about what others think.

CSP
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:33:46 PM EDT
One major flaw in the AUG and bullpup design i see is how the trigger is placed so far forward. To operate the hammer way in back somewhere there's got to be a long skinny piece that moves a lot. Anything long and skinny which moves is bound to break more often than a short, fat moving component. And then to replace that piece instead of pushing a few pins and replacing it you have to open up the whole damn rifle. To me this is a major turnoff. And even if you figure out some way to modify it to open like an AR you have a hugely tall pivoting section which is gonna stick up more than down and beg to get snagged on something. And with no crosspins you're left to either clips or pressure to hold things in. Both clips and pressure are far inferior in tensile strength. And with the mag being so close to the body, say you're wearing a load bearing vest and as the mag drops it catches on a pocket. You move the firearm forward to drop the mag and WHAM- your wrist snaps back. Wrists are delicate things (holding a dinner plate 1-handed horizontally puts 10x as much pressure on your wrist as on your hand.) For the small accuracy benefits (which only last as long as that barrel) it isnt worth it to me. Also the price as others have mentioned, is insane. Much of a gun's success comes from popularity, widespread use, and those minds using it thinking up innovations and improvements. If hardly anybpdy uses it then it won't be improved very much and will suck for a much longer period of time. For an example just look at the Ruger 10/22. Everyone seems to have one because they're cheap and there's lots of aftermarket parts out there to make them extremely nice rifles.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:44:03 PM EDT
Cato, my Colts, and those operated by my associates run without fail. I've seen 25,000 rounds go downrange in a week. The Wilson Combat and Bushmaster rifles were somewhat problematic (the Bushy being disabled due to a loose carrier key). The Colts ran like raped apes.

I don't find the weapon comfortable at all, not the way an M4 is.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:08:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SimonTan:
One thing I've realised about the AUG was how incredibly pointless the QCB feature is. Unless you happen to be an inverterate gadgeteer, you are never going to swap barrels unless you shoot them out. It's a cool feature but honestly, rather useless unless you are running it as a LMG/SAW.





If it's so useless, why do the SCAR and MRP have easily changeable barrels?
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:32:44 PM EDT
I just can't seem to grasp the big advantage of a bullpup configuration

1) If you need a really short "longarm" for CQB then you don't really need a long barrel
2) The mag pull and reload can be very awkward
3) They are less wieldy around corners
4) They can be tail heavy

but the biggest problem to me;

5) Sure they shorten the length of the weapon while retaining the long barrel, but they also reduce sight radius, which is a big cut back in long range accuracy


bottom line (for me anyway) is no increase in CQB effectiveness, and some decrease in medium and long range effectiveness (due to the sight radius issue).
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:39:59 PM EDT
SCAR - Multicalibre requirement. In reality....it will never be used. Guns will go out the door in config X and stay that way. Much easier just to have an upper complete upper, ready to go. No....noone is going to hump spare barrels and different calibre mags etc. with them into the field. It will all be at the FOB or equivalent.

MRP - Ditto...it's set up and that's it. An acquaintance to took one to Iraq actually decided that it was all cool but a waste of time and money since it didn't do anything more than his M4.
The monolithic platform was never properly exploied because he never got a UNS type sight and didn't try to run his PVS-14 behind his ACOG, preferring to leave it on his helmet.

Quick change and calibre conversion is all funky in theory but it's just a drag when you get out into the field.



Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:47:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAFhack:
I just can't seem to grasp the big advantage of a bullpup configuration

1) If you need a really short "longarm" for CQB then you don't really need a long barrel



Bullpups weren't designed as a CQB weapon, they were designed as a replacement for a main rifle, and for the normal purposes of something like a 20" M16

These days, a LOT of troops arrive at the battlefield in armored vehicles, helicopters or other tranportation - THAT is where much of the benefit of the short length comes from. CQB is an added benefit, but more incedental in my opinion.



2) The mag pull and reload can be very awkward



More a matter of training than a design problem. When you are used to one way, anything new and different appears awkward.



3) They are less wieldy around corners



Personally, I find the better balance of bullpups much easier to move around corners with - and as others have pointed out, professional organizations like the Marine Corps do NOT recommend switching shoulder when shooting around the opposite corner



4) They can be tail heavy



That is a somewhat odd observation to me, since practically ALL regular rifles are front-heavy - so perhaps the really good balance that most bullpups have somehow feels "tail heavy" to you, but that may just be a matter of the unfamiliarity. Every bullpup I've handled could be shot one-handed with pretty good balance, an almost impossible feat with a regular 20" rifle.



but the biggest problem to me;

5) Sure they shorten the length of the weapon while retaining the long barrel, but they also reduce sight radius, which is a big cut back in long range accuracy



Pretty much all modern bullpups are intended to be used with optics, so the iron sight are generally only for emergency back-up use. When the British army was first adopting the SA-80, we shot with them at a big shooting range facility, and the accuracy was amazing.

Either way - I really like 'em - but it's not like I'm trying to sell one to you or anything
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 6:23:13 PM EDT
Nobody has come up with one that is as user friendly as a standard config. A bull pup only gains a shorter OAL, but gives up lots of ergos for that. The gains are just not enough to justify what you loose (at least to most people).
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 8:40:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
So I mosied on down to the fun store to day and got my hands on an AUG for a heartbeat.

The optic- A simple donut, no illumination. If you get an AUG, get an M68, ACOG or Short Dot.

The ergos suck.

The balance does indeed suck.

I didn't see where my flashlight would attach, let alone an IR laser for the cool guys.

And that bitch is heavy. And the stock is way too long. Body armor? The gun will be in the next county.

Not saying it doesn't have a use... I just don't have a use for it.

On the upside, it was very short.





You really need to shoot a AUG some time instead of just observing it at a gun shop.
Your main point is the AUG sucks because it has a donut scope and you can't hang a bunch of tactical shit all over it.

First, you need to know that the AUG was WAY a head of its time. In 1977 there were very few standard military rifles with a optic sight. Now, look at today we are just starting to have optics on all standard rifles.

The AUG's donut of death was way a head of its time.

If you want to upgrade the optics then you will need to look into the Steyr AUG A2 or USR. Of course the 1989 ban robbed us from importing more A2s and this years new A3.

But the A2, A3 and USR allows you to switch out the donut optic for a ACOG, AIMpoint or long range rifle scope.

If you are into the tactical wizz bangs than up grade to the B&T four way rail to hang all the tatical shit on you want. The new Steyr A3 has plenty of room for all that crap.

As for ergos.......and the stock was too long.....I think you have shot your AR15 with the stock fully collapsed for too long to know how any other rifle would shoot.


Link Posted: 3/13/2006 8:54:38 PM EDT
No complaints about my KKF bullpup:

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top