Bull Pups: Tell me what's wrong (and right)!

[Jason M.]

I've been daydreaming about different rifle configurations and how they could be improved. Bullpups are the current flavor. Their biggest strength is a longer barrel and therefore higher projectile velocity in a smaller package than a traditional rifle could offer. The negatives I see are:

1. KB factor. When one of these rifles does have a kaboom, it's generally not a good thing to have it happen right next to your face.
2. Magazine changes. Apparently changing the magazine in a traditional bullpup configuration can be ackward.
3. Right to left/left to right problems. A KB right against your cheek is not a good thing. Nor are spent casings slapping you in the head. Accomidating for southpaws is a bit trickier for bullpups.
4. Funky triggers. The trigger mechanism is a relatively long distance from the hammer and sear.

The FN 2000 has forward ejection. This sidesteps problem 3. Their P90 uses downward ejection, if I recall correctly, and has the magazine mounted on top. This appears to solve problem 3 as well, while at the same time possibly worsening problem 2. (Anyone with hands-on experience care to correct me?) Those are the biggest innovations I know of. Admittedly, I haven't done a thorough study of the subject. Maybe that will change now.

So, now for interaction from the THR populace. Are there any other inherent disadvantages? Further, what other steps have been taken to work around the bullpup's flaws, and is the added compactness worth it?

 

[Owen]

The tough part about p90 mag changes is snaking the magazine under the sight rail. if you can do that, you are golden.

It still feels very butt heavy to me.

 

[Spiggy]

the P90's magazine is loaded from the top, yes... but the cocking levers and mag release is ambidexterous, the selector is right above the trigger. The round also doesnt pack much kaboom and recoil.

Only issue I see with it is the horrifying ergonomics put into the design, it's like hugging a textbook

 

[Bigfoot]

The weight is usually centered in the pistol grip or just foreward instead of between you hands like most people prefer.

The muzzle is closer to the shooters ear so wear hearing protection.

I assume you are talking military weapons?

Both Rem and Savage make target pistol versions of their bolt action recievers and they both use the same trigger mechanism that a bullpup would need so target quality triggers are already available, aftermarket ones even. Here's a bullpup stock for a bolt action. http://www.mpistocks.com/stocks.htm

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I'm not an expert, but I certainly am a biased observer as I love anything and everything bullpup-especially those made by Steyr.

The design is relatively new (actually it's not - a British designer came up with it almost 100 years ago...but for all practical purposes, it's only been designed actively since the late 70's and early 80's) and there just hasn't been enough R&D done on them for them to be considered a total replacement for conventional designs or a total flop.

Actually, I think bullpup's are the design of the future, but I also think that conventional designs are still needed for certain roles.

I think the most important thing to consider in the bullpup debate is that as more and better R&D is done on bullpup rifles, the more traditional problems will become more easily solved, and new problems will arise and create new questions and concerns.

I think that if the United States actively pursued a bullpup main battle rifle for the US Army we would see, within 10 years, many, if not most, of the traditional bullpup questions answered. The only problem is is that the United States military has fought a long and hard war against small arms innovation for the last century, and with the two new weapons that have been considered (the now dead OICW, and the seemingly dead XM8) for replacing the Stoner series, history is definately repeating itself.

 

[Tony Williams]

An extract from Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition by Max Popenker and myself (details on my website ):

The 'traditional' system (so-called because it emerged first) has the magazine and action ahead of the trigger and pistol grip. This is really a hang-over from the days of bolt action rifles, in which the bolt handle needed to be close to the trigger for rapid operation; this inevitably meant that the magazine and action were in front. This became the accepted layout for a rifle, although it should perhaps be noted that the bullpup layout was first tried in bolt-action rifles, e.g. the Thorneycroft carbine of 1901. The origin of the bullpup layout as applied to automatic weapons is somewhat uncertain. There were various experimental designs, such as a bullpup pistol patented by the Frenchman Henri Delacre in 1936, and the concept was being considered for automatic rifles during the Second World War. The derivation of the term 'bullpup' is also obscure, but it may relate to the stubby, short-nosed bulldog puppy.

In bullpup rifles the action and magazine are located behind the trigger, within the buttstock, thereby producing a much shorter weapon for the same barrel length as the traditional type. 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.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[roscoe]

I worry about the accuracy with iron sights, given the shortened distance from front to rear sight. Yes, I know that they generally have optics, but what if you drop the thing?

 

[Bigfoot]

You like long a sight radius? Tell that to the military with it's 10-14" barreled carbines that it's using or testing. In 5.56 caliber for petes sake.:banghead:

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Bullpups are good being that they are short and the weight is back towards the shoulder. Faster time to target. Not to mention that you can pack a 20" barrel in something that is 26" long. You don't lose ballistics with a bullpup as you do the carbines.

As for mag changes and what not, nothing that a little training can't handle. After all, the last photo of someone the secret service bagged they had him on the ground with P90s aimed at him. If there where issues, do you thing the SS would use them?

 

[Crosshair]

Does anyone one one of the new 10/22 bullpups (No, not the cheap plastic ones.) made by Dixie Consolidated. They are aluminum and are suposed to be quite well built. Here is their site http://www.dixieconsolidated.com/

 

[Langenator]

Herr Inquisitor-Tony didn't mention it, so I will-bullpups have been 'actively designed' for the military use since the late 40s, early 50s. Most notable was the British EM-2, which was adopted as the No 9 Mk 1, until the US forced the 7.62 cartridge on NATO. The EM-2 didn't work with 7.62, so they went with the FAL.

Soviet weapon designers also came up with a number of bullpup designs starting in the 50s, although none were selected for production.

Note: I got all of the above info from Tony and Max's book.

And as far as military use goes, maybe I'm a bit quaint, but I still haven't really figured out bayonet drill with a bullpup.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Gas venting right by the face is also a problem, especially with suppressed automatic weapons.

 

[Koobuh]

China uses them

China's new assault rifles are bullpups. They have access to much of our technology, and decided to use bullpups as replacements for their aging AK variants. Something must be right about the design for an army that large and wealthy to start churning them out.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Most Chinese recruits are shorter than Americans. A short rifle makes sense for them.

 

[Tony Williams]

More to the point, the Israelis are buying the Tavor to replace the AR-15 family.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Spiggy]

*shudder* ugly QBZ weapon...

Most Chinese recruits are shorter than Americans. A short rifle makes sense for them.

the average height is 5'11 and moving taller. What's the numbers for US soldiers? -considering how mixed our forces are, I dont think it's fair to generalize