Brand New America-Made Bullpup

[Kynoch]

Very interesting clip of a brand-new American-made bullpup. Actually its design is based upon an older Australian design that was once employed by Bushmaster -- it's just greatly improved:

K&M M17S Bullpup

My question is, why are they trying to get $1,800 for it? That price certainly can't be based upon the actual cost to design/build/sell such an instrument. Because that's what Tavor tries to get for their bullpups? I wish someone like Glock or Ruger would make one of these (probably with a bit more polymer) for $800.

 

[Dframe]

Appears to be a nice functional rifle. $1800 seems a bit high though

 

[Fishbed77]

Appears to be a nice functional rifle. $1800 seems a bit high though

Yeah. That's Tavor money. I wouldn't spend that much on a rifle that wasn't all that good on its first go around.

 

[carbine85]

Looks like they copied the AR180 gas piston system and bolt carrier group.

 

[Welding Rod]

Looks like they got the rail the right height for "standard" AR height optics mounts.

 

[brian923]

When your not a huge manufacturer, its cost a lot more to put out product. When you manufacture in the US, you are taxed a ton and have to account for that as well. Think of it this way... the tavor is that price and they have been cranking them out for a long time on a high count bases.... why are they that expensive? Also, look at the machining of the aluminum recievers vs the polymer injection molding. Takes more time, equal more money. I actually really like the m17s... might have to look into one....

 

[Fishbed77]

I didn't say the Tavor wasn't overpriced as well.

 

[HankC]

I like bullpups, look cool and handy but have a huge concern on putting my head by the receiver when kaboom. What design mitigations in these bullpups?

 

[boricua9mm]

I'm surprised MAC failed to mention that KKF was modifying the M17S in a similar manner a long time ago.

To me this "new" offering is simply standing on his grave looking to make a buck.

How honorable...

Also, look at the machining of the aluminum recievers vs the polymer injection molding. Takes more time, equal more money.

Polymer injection molds, for products of this level of complexity, will usually be in the ballpark of a couple hundred thousand dollars. That's for the mold tooling, on top of the rest of the equipment needed for that process. The material is where the cost savings comes into play, as well as the line speed of the production. Most manufacturers look at capital equipment expenditures in terms of payback time, or as the industry calls it, ROI (Return on Investment). Does it take 2 years for the machines to pay for themselves? More time? Less time?

It's usually cheaper for a smaller company to CNC something like this than it is to pay for the injection molding equipment right off the bat. Once the demand proves itself, the "cheaper" polymer injection molding usually follows. This is one of the big reasons why some guns, such as the H&K USP, remain unchanged for decades. People are buying them as-is, and the R&D plus injection mold tooling costs don't justify the change.

 

[MistWolf]

The problem with this new bullpup is it's all aluminum chassis heats up too fast

 

[Kynoch]

When your not a huge manufacturer, its cost a lot more to put out product. When you manufacture in the US, you are taxed a ton and have to account for that as well.

It really doesn't have that much to do with the size of the manufacturer. It has a lot more to do with how many units they sell. A very small shop could re-design, assemble, test, package and ship a huge number of M17S Bullpups if they largely relied on outside supplies to make their parts. And no, subbing out the parts doesn't always mean higher costs.

Think of it this way... the tavor is that price and they have been cranking them out for a long time on a high count bases.... why are they that expensive? Also, look at the machining of the aluminum recievers vs the polymer injection molding. Takes more time, equal more money. I actually really like the m17s... might have to look into one....

I'm not sure what you're trying to get to with your comments?

No way is the cost of the Tavor the basis for the price in which it is sold for. Absolutely no way. The price of the Tavor is based upon what the market will bear -- most assuredly the current pricing of AUGs and other bullpups that number has been dropping as of late. Similarly, I'm sure the price of this new bullpup is based on the Tavor, AUG and other bullpups.

The Tavor is a mature product. I'm sure all product design costs have been fulled absorbed at this point. That leaves production, distribution and selling costs plus profit margins.

I suspect the hard costs to produce a Tavor are less than $300.00/unit -- Glock pistols are far less than $100/unit. Take the Tavor apart and compare its component pieces to firearms priced far lower and there's little difference.

I could see sales and distribution costs to equal 25% of actual production costs or $75.00/unit for a total cost of $375.00/unit. There are huge margins at every level (manufacturer, distributor and retailer) if they actually sell them for $1,800.00/unit.

That's a gross margin of 79.17% -- a stunningly high margin for firearms manufacturing. If IWI's sales of the Tavor continue to grow (they sold 20K units in the USA in 2013) it will attract competition and if sales continue to climb, prices will continue to drop as competition continues to increase.

 

[Kynoch]

The problem with this new bullpup is it's all aluminum chassis heats up too fast

Says one reviewer in a very basic review. A reviewer who essentially said the problem (as he sees it) would be solved by the simple addition of a fore grip.

 

[Kynoch]

I'm surprised MAC failed to mention that KKF was modifying the M17S in a similar manner a long time ago.

To me this "new" offering is simply standing on his grave looking to make a buck.

How honorable...

What? Your comments make no sense. MAC made a special point out of noting that K&E (not "KKF") started by reworking Bushmaster M17S bullpups.

Polymer injection molds, for products of this level of complexity, will usually be in the ballpark of a couple hundred thousand dollars. That's for the mold tooling, on top of the rest of the equipment needed for that process. The material is where the cost savings comes into play, as well as the line speed of the production. Most manufacturers look at capital equipment expenditures in terms of payback time, or as the industry calls it, ROI (Return on Investment). Does it take 2 years for the machines to pay for themselves? More time? Less time?

What are you talking about? There are no plastic injection molded parts that I could see on this firearm. But that's not really the point. You're suggesting the amortized costs for tooling add to the unit cost of production and that's true. It also makes it even more difficult to justify the $1,800/unit price of a Tavor when both the design and tooling costs have both been long absorbed by military contract production.

It's usually cheaper for a smaller company to CNC something like this than it is to pay for the injection molding equipment right off the bat. Once the demand proves itself, the "cheaper" polymer injection molding usually follows. This is one of the big reasons why some guns, such as the H&K USP, remain unchanged for decades. People are buying them as-is, and the R&D plus injection mold tooling costs don't justify the change.

I rather doubt the M17S's body is an actual CNC hog-out. The cost/unit of the raw material would be tremendous. MAC suggested it was an "extrusion." The extrusion process doesn't lend itself to asymmetrical parts but one never knows. MIM would be insanely expensive to tool for parts that size. I suspect it's investment castings.

FWIW, injection molds don't last for "decades" under constant production. I suspect most guns don't change because customers are satisfied with them as is, and not because of additional tooling costs. Further, most companies getting started wouldn't do their own injection molding -- they would own the tool and it would be run by a contract injection molder.

 

[boricua9mm]

What? Your comments make no sense. MAC made a special point out of noting that K&E (not "KKF") started by reworking Bushmaster M17S bullpups.

Apparently you've failed to perform your due diligence. Kurts Kustom Firearms (KKF) was modifying the Bushmaster M17s, almost exactly like your proposed "new" rifle at least 10 years ago, possibly even longer. The fact that he (MAC), and you, are oblivious to this fact doesn't bode well for credibility on the subject matter of this particular rifle. It reeks of "clueless newbie" to be frank. He should know better.

What are you talking about? There are no plastic injection molded parts that I could see on this firearm. But that's not really the point. You're suggesting the amortized costs for tooling add to the unit cost of production and that's true. It also makes it even more difficult to justify the $1,800/unit price of a Tavor when both the design and tooling costs have both been long absorbed by military contract production.

Go back and re-read my response along with the quoted context; it was specifically aimed at the fella who said that a CNC'd lower of this type is more expensive to produce. That simply isn't the case for ANY small start-up shop, not until all of the requisite equipment is bought and paid for.

FWIW, injection molds don't last for "decades" under constant production. I suspect most guns don't change because customers are satisfied with them as is, and not because of additional tooling costs. Further, most companies getting started wouldn't do their own injection molding -- they would own the tool and it would be run by a contract injection molder

Service life of ANY type of production equipment is going to depend entirely on the production schedule and numbers. In the specific example I used of the H&K USP, their customer base has long since asked for a picatinny rail rather than the proprietary light rail. They never changed it. They produced a different pistol instead and let that branch out into different designs.

You like to argue, I get it. I don't think it's too much to ask for folks get their facts in order before getting diarrhea of the mouth/fingertips.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Like most factory bullpups, this thing is out of my price range...

But I like it!

 

[Kynoch]

Go back and re-read my response along with the quoted context; it was specifically aimed at the fella who said that a CNC'd lower of this type is more expensive to produce. That simply isn't the case for ANY small start-up shop, not until all of the requisite equipment is bought and paid for.

Wrong. Apparently you're not aware that the amortization of a capital tool like an injection mold (whether it's "soft tooled" (aluminum) or "hard tooled" (steel) is not amortized over a single unit, a handful or units or even a year's production.

A hogged-out part may be far easier to obtain by a company with limited means but the price/part is not cheaper. Most product-based start-up don't buy their own machines anyway. Their own capital tools, yes, machines, no.

Service life of ANY type of production equipment is going to depend entirely on the production schedule and numbers. In the specific example I used of the H&K USP, their customer base has long since asked for a picatinny rail rather than the proprietary light rail. They never changed it. They produced a different pistol instead and let that branch out into different designs.

Nope. Tooling design, tooling material, mode of operation, level of tooling maintenance, material processed, etc., etc. are all going to play huge parts in its service life -- and cost.

You like to argue, I get it. I don't think it's too much to ask for folks get their facts in order before getting diarrhea of the mouth/fingertips.

Actually I don't and no, you don't get it. I just don't like people to offer half-baked ideas on why this bullpup is $1,800.00 It has little or nothing to do with cost. It has to do with what the market will currently bear.

It's you that needs to dig a bit deeper before popping-off.

 

[MistWolf]

Says one reviewer in a very basic review. A reviewer who essentially said the problem (as he sees it) would be solved by the simple addition of a fore grip.

That rifle has always run hot. A vertical foregrip might protect your hands but what if you don't like VFGs? What about running the rifle in the sun- how does the shooter protect their cheek from the sun heated aluminum? The rifle doesn't offer enough for me to be interested in solving these issues

 

[Kynoch]

That rifle has always run hot. A vertical foregrip might protect your hands but what if you don't like VFGs? Or running the rifle in the sun? How does the shooter protect their cheek from the sun hot aluminum? The rifle doesn't offer enough for me to be interested in solving these issues

Are you sure you would be able to solve said "issue" if it did?

I'm not entirely sure it's actually an issue. Let's say it is as MAC employed the rifle. One could wear a glove(s) as those do that the rifle was originally designed for. They could add a fore grip (there are many different types/sizes.) The real sensitive could wrap part of the fore stock in heat resistant header tape so their hand would not be uncomfortable.

 

[Kynoch]

Like most factory bullpups, this thing is out of my price range...

But I like it!

The neat thing is that bullpups are slowly getting more attention. It would be great to see a Glock, Ruger, Remington/Bushmaster/DPMS offer one in the $599-799 price range. The entire market would change. It would be great.

 

[MistWolf]

Are you sure you would be able to solve said "issue" if it did?

I'm not entirely sure it's actually an issue. Let's say it is as MAC employed the rifle. One could wear a glove(s) as those do that the rifle was originally designed for. They could add a fore grip (there are many different types/sizes.) The real sensitive could wrap part of the fore stock in heat resistant header tape so their hand would not be uncomfortable.

I'm not interested in adding a VFG to my rifle, nor am I interested in a rifle where I need to wear gloves. I don't care if the I could solve the heat issues or not. They are big enough that I don't want to bother with the extra weight, cost and inconvinience of the potential solutions

 

[Kynoch]

I'm not interested in adding a VFG to my rifle, nor am I interested in a rifle where I need to wear gloves. I don't care if the I could solve the heat issues or not. They are big enough that I don't want to bother with the extra weight, cost and inconvenience of the potential solutions

4 ounces, 20 bucks and 4 minutes?

 

[Tirod]

A lot of us gave bullpups attention when the Steyr AUG came out.

Bullpups have issues - you can't swap out mags quickly, the proximity of the muzzle to the support hand is too close and endangers it, the triggers are usually less than acceptable to experienced shooters - who have the money to afford competitive rifles that do all those things better.

The $1,800 price is actually GOOD for a new intro combat assault rifle. Apparently the Masada and SCAR aren't too familiar to some. The Masada was anticipated to come in near $1000, but Remington destroyed a lot of hopes when their MSRP was "normal retail."

What is happening is that a number of firearms fans are just tired of the AR15 and want something NEW! they can claim is superior to show off at the range. So every potential gun gets a lot of anticipatory hype when it hits the market. Maybe some day that ship will come in, but a $800 AR15 is a very tough competitor, with 50 years of product development and a considerable industry supporting it. That's why I gave up on the HK, Steyr, and all the others over the years. It takes being military issue and the government underwriting the costs, plus a lot of competition for those contracts to deliver a working copy for $800.

No contracts, add $1000 - which is what all the rest charge - and suffer a single source for any proprietary parts, too. Not so much, thanks.

 

[bannockburn]

Like others I have always been fascinated by bullpup designs (especially the aAUG and the Tavor), And like some others, while I may have a keen interest in them, I can't really justify their rather high end price tags. So for now I will just keep looking, hoping to someday to find that lucky Pot O' Gold that will finally make a bullpup rifle a reality instead of just a dream.

 

[Kynoch]

A lot of us gave bullpups attention when the Steyr AUG came out.

Bullpups have issues - you can't swap out mags quickly, the proximity of the muzzle to the support hand is too close and endangers it, the triggers are usually less than acceptable to experienced shooters - who have the money to afford competitive rifles that do all those things better.

You certainly can change a mag quickly on a Tavor -- I'm not sure about the rifle under discussion?

The $1,800 price is actually GOOD for a new intro combat assault rifle. Apparently the Masada and SCAR aren't too familiar to some. The Masada was anticipated to come in near $1000, but Remington destroyed a lot of hopes when their MSRP was "normal retail."

"Good" compared to what? What the market will bear, or pricing actually based on the costs to design, produce and sell the rifle?

What is happening is that a number of firearms fans are just tired of the AR15 and want something NEW! they can claim is superior to show off at the range. So every potential gun gets a lot of anticipatory hype when it hits the market. Maybe some day that ship will come in, but a $800 AR15 is a very tough competitor, with 50 years of product development and a considerable industry supporting it. That's why I gave up on the HK, Steyr, and all the others over the years. It takes being military issue and the government underwriting the costs, plus a lot of competition for those contracts to deliver a working copy for $800.

And that $800 AR will be a $500 AR soon enough. It's not really a matter of the gov't "underwriting costs." It's a matter of the AR being a highly adopted, modular firearm platform that others are free to reverse-engineer. Very much like when IBM choose to farm-out the original IMB PC operating system to MS, while also keeping the hardware non-proprietary. That created a STORM of competition and prices plummeted.

No contracts, add $1000 - which is what all the rest charge - and suffer a single source for any proprietary parts, too. Not so much, thanks.

The key is for one respected maker to break free with a well designed bullpup in the $500-800.00 range. AUGs, Tavors and the like would plummet in price. There simply has to be competition. I really wish Glock would do that. It could do so without worrying about what it would do to their non-existant rifle line.

 

[macadore]

I wish someone would make a bullpup with a reversible ejection port like the Beretta carbines. That would allow left handed shooters to shoot one.