Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/10/2006 1:11:38 AM EDT
|
The old bushmaster arm bull pup 5.56 pistol from the 70's. I just discovered that it is not automatically an SBR, which I mistakenly thought was the case b/c the reciever I thought would be the defacto shoulder stock. Anyway, happily now I realize that I can buy one and own it w/o hasseling w/ any NFA crapola, and I realize that it is ambidextrous. My question is: are they any good, are the servicable, will BM support them, are there barrels and parts for them? do they run or are they all crappy? W a supressor, light, and laser, and if it worked I subit that this would be the ultimate bedside gun FYI barrel is 11.63", OAL is 20.63 w/ FS on muzzle and weight is 5.25 dry. |
|
I saw one for sale on gunbroker.com for only $1600. Pretty neat design, and I have always wanted one. I think the price will only go up. I don't know about Bushmaster support. And I would also want to ask how much of the parts for the Bushmaster bullpup will work for this pistol. |
|
I think the rotating grip .223 pistols have been out of production since the late 80s maybe earlier. Also, I am thinking that the "Bushmaster" trademark for the .223 pistol you are talking about is not something that the current Bushmaster is responsible for producing. There was also the Bushmaster or "Leader" .223 rifle that was a different sort of beast. Never shot one, but read a review where the guy said it barked and spat flames "like hell" and was not particularly reliable. I think it also went by the name "Davis Arm gun." Everybody is always trying to build a better mousetrap, and the rotating grip .223 was designed to provide aircrews with a sort of personal defense weapon. The fact that no military or police force currently uses them may indicate something. |
|
I had one. Great idea, I was hot to trot for it. Looked good, parts all ok, design was teh suck and it was a POS. At that time, Bushmaster had a guy (Jim?) who was the last guyy around from when they made them, he had a few parts not many. I sold it. Glad to get out from under it. Great idea. POS. |
+1 I had one in the early 80's and CavVet hit it dead on. Joe |
|
|
Design was great, execution could have been better. If you got one and worked it over with some new parts, it would work fine. Uses AR15 fire-control parts, bolt, and some other AR parts. Piston system should not really need anything done to it. Uses AR15 mags. I wouldn't advise putting that weapon on your shoulder. It has a top mounted charging handle that reciprocates with the bolt carrier. It'll whack you right in the face, if you take a cheek-weld on the top of the gun. It was originally designed to be an aircrewman's emergency weapon, stowed under the aircraft seat, for use after ditching. Based on an evolution of the Colt Imp. It was submitted to the Air Force for evaluation and testing, but was not adopted. |
|
Here is the reply I got from BM: "The Gwinn Firearms models with the charging handle on top were discontinued in 1978. The Bushmaster models with the charging handle on the left side were discontinued in 1986. They do not use M17S parts. The only parts available for them are the common AR15 parts used in the lower receiver. Bushmaster no longer services them. Thank you, Jim Eden Technical Support Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC" I wonder if there is a quality difference b/t the ones made later and the ones made earlier. It is really sad that the weapon isn't really available or supportable. I guess if I can't get a reliable or affordable BM ARM PDW I'll just have Tony R make me a Krink in a bullpup stock. The only problem w/ that might be tha I am L handed, but if I just use it as a laser aimed arm pistol instead of a shoulder weapon, I guess I could deal w/ brass bouncing off my chest  |
|
Mack Gwinn has stated to me on several occasions that he may decide to bring back the Arm Pistol, in an updated and improved form, in the future. Bushmaster isn't the designer, and all they really do is run a production shop. The Arm Pistol is nothing at all like the M17S. If you want to know about the gun, you need to talk to Mack Gwinn. He's the guy who designed it in 1973. BTW, Mack Gwinn is now head of MGI(Mack Gwinn Industries). |
That is interesting about Mr G. If you would only come out w/ an ambi 5.56 bullpup PDW, I would be the first in line to pick one up. |
Information on the Colt Imp is pretty sparse. I found this pic on an Eastern European(Czech?) website about PDW's. All the text was in some other language that I couldn't read. Here's the pic of the Colt Imp BW.jpg) It used a smaller cartridge around the similar power levels of 22WMR. Designed by Colt at the request of the Air Force. It was also not adopted by the Air Force. Mack basically liked the idea, but he wanted it in 5.56, so he changed the design to be bigger, take the 5.56 thru AR15 mags, used AR15 fire-control parts, put in a piston system that was sort of "AK-like", and made the Bushmaster Arm Pistol. Then he entered the Arm Pistol into the trials, but I don't think anything ever got adopted out of any of those trials. Unfortunately, Mack was just out of the Army at that point, and this was his first venture into commercial gun manufacturing. He didn't know all the finer points of getting things manufactured yet, so there were some inevitable results of that. Basically, the idea was sound, but his manufacturing was not refined, and it showed up in spotty quality of the gun. However, I do believe that the Gwinn/Bushmaster Arm Pistol was the very first 5.56 bullpup in history. And one of the earliest full/semi-automatic bullpups too. Way before any of the more famous ones that we know about now. It was ahead of its time. Here's the pic of the Gwinn/Bushmaster Arm Pistol.  You can see the obvious influence of the Colt Imp in the basic layout. However, it was actually a totally different gun, based on the Imp layout. |
|
I wouldn't count on the later models being better. However, if you look at it as a project, where you can deal with whatever problem that might come up, and get the weapon sorted out, then I don't see anything wrong with that. Mack still has several old ones that are registered full-auto guns and they run real well. It's not a foregone conclusion that the one you get is a bad one. There are good ones. |
I don't know, specifically. Maybe one of these guys who had them, and said that they didn't like them could fill you in on the details. |
Armory Sponsor