Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: bullpup design fad or future?
HYPOCENTER    1/6/2007 2:38:56 PM
What advantages does a "Bullpup" constructional scheme have when comparing with traditional weapons? The "bullpup" constructional scheme seems to be very popular among new generation weapons. I'm not sure just how many country's are currently using it, or are planning on eventually using it.... but here are a few: (see post below with pictures)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Yimmy       1/7/2007 2:58:07 PM
Changing magazine is no different.  Your just moving your left hand to behind your right, rather than infront.  You do read of people complaining that it takes longer with a bullpup - but I would think it more the change which they struggle with, while once the new muscle memory is developed they would find it just as easy.
 
The only conventional assault rifle I have fired is the H&K53, and I found it harder to change the mag than with the bullpup, but only due to my not being used to it.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       1/7/2007 4:24:35 PM

The major advantage of a bullpup is the reduction in length without compromising on barrel length. Hence the L85 has an overall length of less than an M4 with a barrel length greater than an M16.

I knew ergonomically it was better... but over length is less than an M4 with barrel length longer than an M16?? Wow. Does the rifle get better ballistics as a result? More accurate at longer ranges... etc.

Since the receiver is much closer to the ear, is it substantially louder when shooting?

Here's another general observation: Think of all of the Iraq war footage you have seen.... of US troops constantly getting in-and-out of LAVs, STRIKERS and HUMMERS. These are cramped confined spaces and a bullpup design would really come into its own here. I mean... think of having to get in and out of your car at home with an M16... let alone trying to fire out the window with it... and one can get an idea of just how unwieldy it is.

Not to mention clearing houses with an M16 has got to be a pain... but using something as good-as an M16 that's shorter than an M4 would be enormously beneficial.

I'm sure someone somewhere in the military hierarchy is taking notice.... but there seems to be no interest in it. Why? It seems like such a no-brainer. Our military would have the most to gain from a bullpup (we need a highly mobile highly efficient design more than anyone else).

Is it because the bullpup design is a distinctly "european" design and therefore the US military is resisting it? Why are there very few serious bullpup designs entered into the replacement program? Realistically, the next rifle to enter into American service will have a lifespan as long as the M16 or even longer... it's an important decision.

 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER    ... IMI MATAR   1/7/2007 4:43:48 PM

My response is baed on my understanding of the Israeli Tavor.

The Tavor had already entered service in the IDF this past August 2006 and will slowly replace the M4. Other countries such as India and Georgia has purchased the Tavor.
Any word with how it's performing? I'm assuming its been getting lots of use in the recent months. Just curious.


 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/7/2007 4:59:24 PM
The L85 is 780mm overall length with a 520mm barrel.
The M4 is between 760 and 840mm long, due to the extending stock, and has a 370mm barrel.
The M16 is about a metre long (depending on model) and has a 510mm barrel.

Source: ph

The SA80 was, AIUI, designed with mechanised infantry in mind. 

The basic bullpup deficiency is that it cannot be fired from the 'off-hand' shoulder (except for the F2000, which is a bit of a special case) because if you try it, you'll get a face-full of hot brass and, in some cases, your teeth knocked out by the charging handle. There are other complaints, but I'm not convinved that they are valid.


 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       1/7/2007 5:58:45 PM
I don't really see why people complain about the M16's handling though.  I have only ever handled an A1 rifle, bit 1m really is not very long, especially when compared to older rifles.  Plus it is very light.  If anything I would have thought the extra length would aid in pointability.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       1/11/2007 4:34:01 PM

I don't really see why people complain about the M16's handling though.  I have only ever handled an A1 rifle, bit 1m really is not very long, especially when compared to older rifles.  Plus it is very light.  If anything I would have thought the extra length would aid in pointability.

 



Length of sight radius plays as important, if not a more important, role in rifle accuracy than length of barrel.  While I can't attest to the terminal ballistic effects, you don't really see a lot of loss in the ability of a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round to get out to real world combat ranges whether it's launched from a basic-service rifle kind of barrel of 24" length or 12" length (+/- getting used to some differences in trajectory).
 
 
I think the reason why bullpups are just starting to really be adopted by a large number of nations in, say, the last generation or so, is because the advantages of the bullpup are offset by the sight radius issue until you get to a situation where magnifying optical scopes or zero-mag red dots are common issue, as we're seeing these days.  Once you slap an ACOG or its equivalent on a bullpup, it will perform in terms of sighting the same as a conventional layout rifle with the same sight slapped onto it.
 
 
I would guess they are not as popular here in the US as they might be possibly because the US has a larger population of civilian shooters than many other places.  If you grew up shooting grandpa's Remington 700 (or M4 or SKS or whatever), the bullpup format is not going to be as easy a sell as if you are completely unfamiliar with firearms the first day of basic training.  (I'd also guess a lot of British troops had mixed emotions at best when the SLR went away and they got handed the L85, at least until they got used to it.)
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       1/11/2007 5:40:14 PM
I had a chat with a bloke in my old TA who used to be in the RGJ's in the regs, about how they felt with getting the SA-80 to replace the SLR, and he said they were all very happy with the change, and all it really took to get used to the new rifle was a day or two practice with it.

If you think about it, to the troops then with the SLR, the SA-80 was a gucci piece of kit, what with being a noval shape, shooting a new small high velocity round and capable of full-automatic fire (for the first time in a British service rifle, not counting the M16).

I don't think oppinions started to change until the novalty of "rock and roll" mode ended and it sank in that the new rifle was actually shit, what with bits melting and falling off and all.


 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       1/11/2007 5:44:36 PM
Sorry for the double post, but concerning sight radius, I agree that it plays a major factor.  With the SA-80 I find it gets difficult to reliably hit 400m fig 11's with the irons (has been a while since I have tried mind), due to how comparitably large the foresight post is compared to the target.

Barrel length has really nothing to do with accuracy, past the minimum length of 10 inches or so needed to fully stabilise the bullet.  A short barrel is actually likely to be more accurate than a long one - due to their being less chances of minor imperfections along the length and so better harmonics, and more importantly their being more rigid, and suffering less barrel whip.  The loss is of course in velocity, and ergo hitting power.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/12/2007 9:15:32 AM
Higher velocity does help in aiming, as the effect of bullet drop is less for any given range and therefore sighting errors, and particularly ranging errorshave less effect than they do on slower bullets
 
Quote    Reply

H2O MAN    Future   8/18/2011 2:54:43 PM
I think you see more bullpup rifles put into service.
 
My first bullpup was a Bushmaster Armpistol that I had back in the late 70's... my current bullpup is a
Crazy Horse MK14 Mod 0 type SEI installed in a brand new M14HDW.US Rogue bullpup chassis stock.
 
I am waiting on a set of tall scope rings to arrive from SEI so I can mount up some quality Leupold optics.
 
http://www.athenswater.com/images/IMG_5769.JPG" height="1002" width="1040" /> 
 
http://www.athenswater.com/images/IMG_5768.JPG" /> 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics