Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/14/2006 1:06:04 PM EDT
|
Hello, my searches have been in vain so I turn to you...Do you perfer the balance of bullpup rifles or traditional rifles? The traditional configuration seems more ergonomically correct and natural, but I have read conflicting reports on the balance of bullpups. I feel like there 'should' be a correct answer to this question. It seems to me that bullpups offer a single advantage, shorter OAL, but are playing catch-up in all other aspects, such as ergonomics, adaptability, simplicity, etc. So which do ya like? Thanks!! |
|
An AUG balances right at your firing hand, so it feels like there is almost no weight out front. Some people like it, some don't. If you think an M1 Garand is correctly balanced, you won't like it. Personally, I love it. As for simplicity, the AUG is the simplest firearm ever. Ever major component is user level replaceable with no tools required. Yes, an AR is more adaptable and has better ergonomics, but that is not the end-all to some of us. |
|
I am the proud owner of a Steyr Mannlicher AUG A2 with the factory 16" barrel and the Mil.Std. 1913 rail on which I have mounted a Trijicon 4x32 ACOG TA01NSN for a total weight of a little over eight pounds with a loaded magazine. I have never used the rifle in law enforcement or combat, but have used it at three different two-day long carbine courses and have put a lot of rounds down range (my AUG is not a safe queen). In addition to the AUG I own other assault style rifles such as the HK SL8, various AR builds, and a WASR. The AUG is in my opinion the best balanced assault rifle I have ever fired. The weapon was one of the first weapons designed with the human form as a priority and not an after thought. The AUG's center of balance is directly centered at the pistol grip. Those who own an AUG will testify to the fact that you can fire her with one hand if needed because of the balance of the rifle. I have found many other rifles to be more front heavy and I think once you fire one you'll see what I mean. The ergonomics of the AUG are outstanding, but because most Americans have trained so long on AR platforms it takes some retraining to take advantage of the AUG's benefits. The AR is better when it comes to fast magazine changes (have to admit that), but with experience the difference is in fractions of a second with the AUG vs. the AR and it does not take a person of extreme coordination to master. There is a lot of retraining with an AUG and you do have to rethink your movements after years with an AR, but in my opinion it is worth it. I will also add that the AUG is a better field weapon than a CQB weapon in my opinion. It takes a lot of practices to learn to cant the weapon when taking right turns (or left turns of you have configured for left handed) in hallways or around buildings and even once you learn how to do it you will still take brass to the chest on occassion. The difficulty to take right turns with a bullpup was probably a major factor in the FN F2000 having forward ejection. SO...thats the worse of it...you need to train (God forbid) with a bullpup a little more than an AR and have to be a thinking shooter while doing so. However, the bullpup AUG can more than get the job done. That said, the take down of the weapon and just about every feature is made to be idiot proof. The weapon is MUCH shorter than even a collapsed M4 with a 14.5" barrel, but gives you that beautiful cold hammer forged 16" barrel increasing terminal velocity of ammunition and easier in CQB if you are willing to learn the cant or cut corners back exposing yourself a little more on right turns. The weapon is SOLID as a rock made out of the best steel and polymer in the world by the Austrians that have lead the world in polymer weapons. Felt recoil is almost non-existant and seriously my 89 year-old grandmother could probably fire my AUG. I have found that it has a much tighter MOA at 100 meters than my ARs, but that may just be my personal experience. All and all a good weapon, but a very misunderstood one. A lot of folks will trash talk the AUG, because either 1) they have never fired one and just don't like the way it looks; or 2) are just so use to the AR that they don't want to learn how to use a bullpup. Too each their own though I love my AUG. P.S. The AUG is much easier to shoot with gloved hands than any other assault rifle I have ever fired. Not much an issue in Texas, but I grew-up in Michigan and can tell you that being able to fire a weapon with thick winter gloves would be a plus if you live in a winter wonderland. |
|
Thanks for the detail. I personally prefer the traditional configuration because of feel, but understand why you like your AUG. I would certainly like to try one sometime but have not had the opportunity. I asked because I was wondering if it would be worth the investment of time and money to get a bullpup rifle and become used to it, or just stick with the traditional if it works. Thanks for the detail about the magazine change. That is something that I really like about the AR, the push button mag release, and I am very hesitant to give that up. hmm something to think about. Id be interested in any other info you care to post about your rifle. How do you like the cross-bolt type safety? Thanks! |
|
You either love or hate bullpups. I owned a Bushy M17s and while the rifle oculd have used alot more development, I found the bullpup to be superior. In terms of handling, the weight is more concentrated, and the pistol grip is more centralized. So IMO it handled better than a conventional rifle. It was quite easy to use one-handed, and was much easier to hold in a firing postion with one hand, while you opened a door, used a key, operated an alarm control pad, talked on the phone with 911, etc. As far as the rest of the objections go against them, they're usually rifle specific more than a problem with the bullpup in general. Simplicity-it's just as simple as any other gun really. It just doesn't have a stock. Some abortions and "kits" have some pretty bizarre trigger linkages, etc, but it doesn't have to be so. The only additional part the M17 had over one that would be conventional was a linkage that ran to the hammer/disco. That's one straight rod. You don't get a great trigger, but the lower parts were AK in design. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Trigger-as noted it's not match. Most US service rifles have great triggers, but most other nations' rifles actually suck. The M17 I had was better than alot of guns and not quite as good as an AR's. It was better than most AK's. A couple less plastic pieces, and some better development and the trigger would have been pretty close to as good as a standard AR trigger. The linkage will always detract, but there's alot that can be done that many companies just simply won't do because they aren't thinking of the gun as a match rifle. Ergonomics-I found the ergonomics to be fine. I could reach everything I needed to reach. Mag changes need to be done differently than most people try them. I had the M17 for about a year before a guy that had been in the Brit Army showed me how to change mags. After that, it was as fast as an AK, faster than a FAL, and behind an AR. AR's are fast, there's no doubting that, but the difference isn't much when you're operating the gun correctly. This is probably one of the biggest problems with people thinking about bullpups. They aren't conventional, so if you use conventional rifle methods sometimes they don't work. Adaptability-I don't really know what you mean here. You can fire grenades off the Brit SA-80, it has an adapter for the M203 available, it can take scopes,etc. So I don't get the objection. You DON'T have to do anything to make it small, like collapse a stock. You DON'T have to do anything to bring in back into a normal firing condition, like extend a stock, so it would seem to be more adaptable to me. If you're talking about left and right shoulder, that's not that big a deal. You just shoot from one shoulder and do a "rollout" if you need to shoot around a different side. The "rollout" is taught by the USMC instead of swapping shoulders, so I can't really see swapping shoulders as being too important. In all the footage from Iraq, I have yet to see a guy swap shoulders to fire around a corner. While it's just a movie, in "Blackhawk Down" you even see the actors that play the Rangers exectuing proper "rollouts", so someone showed them how to do it. Yeah, just a movie, but where did they get the technique down if it wasn't from the technical advisors? It would be interesting to hear from some of the real, genuine articles that have been to combat if they thought swapping shoulders was really that important. While I'm not sold on the FS2000's system yet (no opinion either way until there's some out there and used), that seems to eliminate the problem as well. Top or bottom ejection and caseless are other alternatives that eliminate it as well. Weight-that's a gun specific problem. If weight was all-important, why did we go to the A2 that weighed more than the A1? My M17 weighed in at 8lbs, which is basically the same as an A2. There was certainly more weight on the M17 that could have been lost. My M17 had a 21" barrel and was 2" shorter than a collapsed 16" CAR-15. 30" overall with a 21" barrel. You don't loose any performance with a bullpup like you do with a shorter barrel. You don't have to do anything to bring the gun inot action. One second it's hanging from your sling, the next it's on your shoulder and shooting. Same with having it in your hand while you look at an ID card at a VCP. It's in your hand while you use the other. Overall, I thought the bullpup to be a better system than a conventional rifle. I didn't think the M17 was a better rifle than an AR-15. There were too many things that were left "undone" by Bushmaster. Properly executed, a bullpup should be a better weapon. I would agree that "catch-up" is probably the proper word. There just hasn't been the interest and competition in the market to drive bullpup development. Now that everyone sees urban terrain, vehicle transport, ballistic performance in short barrels, etc as real issues, there might be some good products coming out. |
I'd appreciate it if you would expand on this mag-change procedure. IM sent |
|
Thank you for your input. I too would be interested in the mag change technique. I am partial to the traditional because it's what im used to, but I will try bullpups with as open a mind as i can muster when i get the chance. I do like the variety. Thanks again for your opinions. |
Sure, though it might not apply to other bullpups. The M17 has two mag releases. One is in the standard M16 positon relative to the magwell (i.e. the right side) and it also had another that was a lever similar to the bolt release that levered against the normal mag catch, so in effect you have two buttons that release the same catch, one on each side. When I bought the gun I was trying all sorts of different things that just didn't work. The second mag catch simply wasn't in the best place, took too much effort, and was shaped and positioned much like the bolt release, so it wasn't the best system IMO. Using my right hand and the catch button on the right proved pretty time consuming as well. What this guy who had used the SA-80 showed me was to keep it shouldered and reach under the gun with your left hand and hit the mag release on the right side. The mag pops into your hand and you either take it out or let it drop. Grab the new mag and insert it and hit the release. This left the gun at my shoulder and in firing position, which was easy with the central pistol grip, and only took as long as an AK to execute. It also used the right side release, which was far easier to manipulate with less effort than the lever contraption Bushmaster came up with. It also eliminated the chance of hitting the bolt release by mistake, which was going to happen sooner or later because they look and feel the same and are positioned in nearly the same place. It might seem obvious to everyone to do it that way, but I couldn't think of it. If it's no new secret, then sorry, but I was trying all sorts of stuff and none of it worked because I simply hadn't been shown a good way of doing it. Even a little training is better than none. The SA-80 has the mag catch on the left side for this reason. It's a lever catch, similar to the opriginal AR-180's lever but on the left side to work with the M16 mag's hole in the left side. The selector is also on the left side, aft of the magwell, so you operate that with the left hand as well. The mag change process would work better on the SA-80 than the M17 as the mag catch would be on the left side and much easier to get to than the right side one on the Bushy. I tried it on the Bushy with the left side catch the had on there and it was just too difficult to make it a smooth motion with the wierd afterthought of a mag release that was there. I always wondered if you could make a better catch that would just work on the left side. Just another example of why the M17 was simply "unfinished". I don't know about other bullpups because I've played with and shot a couple others, but never really spent time with them other than the M17. A similar method, just adapted to others would seem to work, but I wouldn't want to guess about other systems than ones that I've actually spent alot of time with. |
When ACE gets this out on the market, I'm going to be willing to try it. It can't be as expensive as some of the other options, and ACE makes some quality stuff. They're developing it for the AR-15, AK and FAL. They won't take any e-mails nor calls about it because they have alot of stuff left to do. This came right off their website. |
|
Now that's interesting and I've got no doubt Ace will do a good job of it. I'm not so sure about just how practical any of those rifles will be when turned into bullpups however. The AR would need a fairly radical redesign to work with both a piston and no buffer spring. The AK will suffer due to the way it's magazines lock in and a charging handle that can't be easily relocated. The FAL with a similar mag system and a full length cartridge would seem to be even more awkward. IMO, the best solution would be to just start from scratch. The differences between the two designs are radical enough that trying to convert them will only result in a mediocre rifle. |
Thank you very much. I'll train with this system, as it sounds better than anything I've come up with so far. |
|
The reloading issue really isn't an issue in my mind with the AUG. It takes three easy steps and your back in action. If you are in such a CQB situation that you need to change mags in at a lighting fast clip than you should screw the mag change and transition to your pistol anyways. The AR is faster for mag changes, but is more prone to failures and is harder to clear than the AUG should it jam in my opinion. The operating system in the AUG is 110% reliable and I'd take the Pepsi challenge against any other firearm available today in terms of reliability (keeping it fed with decent ammo and not junk). The magazines for the Steyr have a much better feeding lip on them and I've never had a single Steyr AUG mag go bad (which is good because they are expensive compared to AR mags). The stock trigger on the civilian semi-auto AUGs do suck, but so do most stock triggers out there. You can buy something called the "trigger tammer" for the AUG at sights like PJs and it is as nice as any match grade trigger I have ever used. So far the major draw back to the AUG is that you don't get a lot of rail space and that wont be too much of a factor once they release the AUG A3 or TDspot comes out with an American AUG with rails. B&T sell a rail system, but no one really sells it and even if you can get ahold of it you'll pay a pretty penny for it. The AUGs right now really aren't for those on a tight budget either even though it is hard to lose money off one in a resale. |
While I agree that starting from scratch would be ideal, that also brings with it costs and a price tag like the FS-2000. The AK's gas system is completely connected, so you can add an additional charging handle anywhere, like the top of the gas piston and have it vertical, and it just reciprocates with the bolt. There's also no reason to just leave it alone and use it the same as the SA-80, with the bolt handle sticking out the right side. You can't shoot it left handed anyway. Check the Norinco .223 AK bullpup. It worked fine. The FAL was originally designed as a bullpup. The Israelis use a bullpup version of the M14, and it works well. It's practical for them at least. Cartridge length would seem to not be a problem. Making a FAL shorter should lessen it's awkwardness. The mags on the AK and FAL are actually easier to deal with in a bullpup than the AR's because you can easily release them with your left hand. Mag changes are actually easier with these mags. Reach up with your left hand while the rifle is still on your shoulder and aimed at the target, remove the old mag, grab a new mag, insert the new mag. The only problem is with the 7.62x39 30rd mags because they are so curved that they'll hit the back of the pistol grip when you angle them. The AR version is based on using the Olyimpic OA pistol upper, which has been in production for over a decade. There is no piston, so no piston reworking. The OA system uses a return system housed in the upper instead of the lower, so no buffer, extension, etc. Look up OA-93 and you'll see what the Oly pistol looks like. You can use the same upper type to use the ACE folding stocks on ARs and have an AR-15 that truly folds. Obviously there's alot of work involved. That's what it will take to not get a junk bullpup kit like those plastic ones out for the Mini-14. I doubt that the ACE unit will be as low priced as that either. Even at a couple hundred bucks though, it's still going to be cheaper than an FS-2000. It'd be nice if someone really went at building one that was no nonsense, or at least importing one that was. A fully updated AUG wouldn't be cheap, but it would probably be pretty close to ideal. |
I'll chime in on the mag change on the AUG. There are a couple ways to quickly change mags and I have found that in a fast change situation the Aussie way has worked for me. With your, for righty's, right hand on the pistol grip and trigger finger in the ready, take your replacement mag in your left hand and simply use it to dislodge the spent mag by striking the mag release firmly and deftly. The mag will fall free and you can insert the fresh mag. If you are in such a hurry to replace the mag, the one lying on the ground is probably your last concern. Now, I will say that if you utilize the NATO AUG stock as we will be at TPD, there is room for a new mag release that we are working on. As the NATO stock has additional mechanical parts to function with the M16 configured mag they have left exposed on the left side mag catch. We are working on an addition to this to facilitate a thumb release while holding the fresh mag which "approximates" the change of an M16, but on the left side and only slightly under the shooters arm. In our humble opinion there is little to enhance on the AUG save for the rail which we have rectified quite easily and inexpensively actually. They fall short in full submerssion and firing shortly after removal from water.. There is a chance for a hydraulic effect in the recoil rods which can cause FTF or to move into battery. Rare, but possible. As you can have barrel rupture in any weapon, it is not advised to fire before draining the barrel. TPDSOT US AUG builders USAUG.com (not up yet) |
| I just got a FS2000 and it is much easier to handle offhand,it ballances so well that you could shoot it one armed pritty easily if you had to without a lot of fatigue.If you handled one you would instantly understand.Also mag changes are pritty quick if you trim the gasket in the stock so the mags drop free. |
I've got to disagree with you about the AK and FAL mags. Because they have to be rocked back into place, that means you have to clear the pistol grip which means that unless you're built like Manute Bol, the gun's not really going to shoulder right. Just look at the picture you posted above and imagine the changes you'd need to make in order to have adequate clearance on an AK or FAL based weapon. The idea of a charging handle attached to the piston of an AK is a very intriguing one, but the stock charging handle would be in a very awkward location on a bullpup. Also it says right on Ace's site that the AR based rifle will have a piston. FWIW, the Bushmaster M17 was pretty reasonably priced. |
M17s are awesome, the best non-standard weapon I every owned...never had a AUG though... Fast, accurate, dependable. I modded my M17 for heat at the front, Folding F-BUIS, side sling points, side charging handle, no carry handle and a left side rail for a weapon light, (not in the pic)..never should have sold it. 
|
|
The M17s "showed me the light" about bullpups. The only problem with it was it was not a finished weapon IMO. It's whole history showed a lack of development on the part of Bushmaster. The first ones didn't even run. Bushy had to do a recall/update and install parts that any kind of testing would have shown was needed. The later models ran well, but still would have problems. The plastic trigger parts gave a different weight pull every shot. There was a simple fix that a user came up with, but why didn't BM come up with it to begin with? Because they didn't bother developing it. The scope mount was total BS. The mag release was bogus. The upper retained too much heat. There was no handguard. There was no cheek piece. There was no way to service the gas system without detail stripping the gun with tools. I shot over a thousand rounds out of mine, and by the end of that it needed cleaning the "self-cleaning gas system" (Yeah, that's what BM called it!). No one could have ever shot that rifle in any kind of testing and not noticed it needed a handguard. It really was a nice weapon, but it just was "unfinished" in so many ways. I can't think of anyone who owned one that didn't think the same thing. The only completely satisfied owners were the ones who did all the mods that should have come on a factory gun. Mods that other owners came up with because the factory didn't do any development work. I don't want to sound like I'm bashing the M17. I liked mine, warts and all. But it was obivous from owning one that Bushmaster didn't spend any money developing it. They kept the price low sure enough, but they could have jacked the price up a bit and payed for some R&D to fix the glaring problems, and the same number of people would have bought it. As it was, everyone was spending money to "fix" it anyway. That rifle could have been so much more. I was never really disappointed at the rifle. It was what it was. However I was disappointed that it never was developed to the potential it had. Additional R&D would have jacked the price up, but it wouldn't have been something crazy like $2,000 at least. |
What was the user developed fix? I wonder if it's the same thing I did, which is rather simple also. |
|
There were serveral fixes for the trigger and crossbar. Adding a plastic washer to take up th slack, I designed a better bar and used teflon washers. If you study the weapon closely you can see where the trouble is. I really think since BM is no longer making these we will see the demand for them rise and so will the price for an unmodded M17. Next years Ill be out of California...I'm getting two! |
|
Bullpup balance much better with a 40mm nade launcher on the end. In my fantasy land every rifleman would have a 556 bullpup with a 40mm grenade launcher as standard issue. Develop 40mm rounds that can be used as hand grenades as well as projectiles  Anyways...shot a few bullpups, didn't matter much to me. |
Pretty much along the same lines I did. It seemed that the trigger wiggle is what gave the differing trigger pulls. Because of the linkage rod, changing the angle that the trigger was travelling through would change all the geometry with the rod and you'd get different amounts of drag on the rod, and pulling it through an angle instead of straight, resulting in differing trigger pulls. I can put up with a heavy trigger, but it's darn hard to get repeatable results with one that is different every shot. I shimmed the trigger and polished the internals. It was a decent shooter after that. I think they're going to be harder to find in orginal condition, and you never really saw many anyway. Many people that had them either modded them or had KKF do the work. Once the bugs are gone, they're a pretty nice rifle and it seems those folks are holding on to them pretty tightly. You rarely see anyone part with one they've worked on and got running right. |
Armory Sponsor