>>28423470 >>28423440 + Poor mushy triggers Harder to make ambidextrous Much inferior for bayonet use Changing to something new takes effort and money Most soldiers don't have any specific reason to need their rifle to be shorter anyway
>>28423470 >awkward weight distribution What? Bullpups a very comfortable to hold. My FS2000 is my favorite gun by far because of how well balanced it is.
When I took my sister and her friend shooting, they both fell in love with my PS90 because of how easy it was to shoulder and hold. They didn't care for my 8" SBR'd AR because they said it was too awkward to hold. >intuitive to reload This is largely because most people are brought up with traditional rifles. If you learn on a bullpup, it will feel intuitive.
>>28423511 They're made for the same role as intermediate rifles, firing intermediate cartridges from a gun half the size and a little over half the weight. Recoil is an issue unless you're using a hilariously awkward design like a Vector.
There's also the fact that you just don't need a battle/assault rifle to be that short. If you wanted a short rifle, you'd be using a short barreled rifle, not a short actioned rifle. What you thought you were saving in length you actually need for a good chin weld anyway, so you put all that length back on with a stock. Why bother shortening the rifle in the first place?
>>28423489 Nobody gives a single shit about bayonet use, military triggers are generally terrible. Supposedly most soldiers don't have a specific reason to need their rifle shorter, but that didn't stop the US military from adopting the M4 as its primary infantry rifle. Weight distribution/money/ambidexterity seem like real reasons. Trigger and ambidexterity just need the right rifle and then they're irrelevant.
Bullpups have their pros, and their cons, EXACTLY like any redesign of existing machines.
what could be considered "wrong" is simply mechanical difference, or vast changes in doctrine after such doctrine has become set (for example, reloading the magazine behind the trigger is not as intuitive as normal firearms, ONLY because for the last 150 years, firearms were loaded either in the grip or in front of the trigger, if bullpups were in common usage and had been in common usage for the last 75 years it' wouldn't be a problem.
the mechanical differences are a bit different, their is a obvious tradeoff in triggers because there is a massive increased distance between trigger and the sears, this lead to mushy triggers, a reconised problem (but one, in which alot of improvements have been made, for example the kel tec RFB trigger feels similar to a standard military ar trigger (from what i've heard, hadn't actually fired one myself) such improvements could work the trigger issue out over the next 25 years to where it's no longer a problem, but the trigger difficiny was balance against the pros of the platform. the smaller package, with a standfard size barrel makes bulpups incredibly efficient as a war fighting weapon (because it has adaptability across common ranges military units could be expected to engage at)
basically TL;DR bullpups aren't wrong, they are on par with conventoinal actions, and only will another 75 years of service will we see the end result of the platform and then be in a place to truly judge it.
>>28423538 The point of bullpups are for standard soldierings which will have their primary taskings being outside, patrolling forests and mountains and shit, but will occasionally have to navigate tighter enviorns like a house or a small village or an industrial facility.
A bullpup trades off some speed on reloads (Everyone reloads fucking slow anyways since no one is Costa, so the equals actually become equal) and some weight in different places / different recoil - with the primary issue being a mushy trigger.
In exchange you have a "full length" rifle that is much, much easier to use in close quarters than a full length M16.
If your primary mission is door kicking, or law enforcement where you will use the gun at close ranges or for a shorter time, an SBR is still the optimum gun.
>ejects in the face of lefties >shitty trigger pull by design >yeah it's short, but who cares? it's only useful for rear echelon faggots in vehicles or tanks or whatever. >awkward having your face so close to the action >awkward to have to reach behind your trigger hand to remove mag
>>28423608 It's because the trigger isn't really connected to the trigger group. The trigger is attached to a bar, which is connected to the trigger group.
There is probably some torque term, like how "torque" can be used to describe why a longer wrench is better or something, to describe why it's shittier overall, but the end result is you are squeezing a trigger which is pulling a bar that runs a good couple of inches in length
>>28423440 It has to eject spend casings between your trigger hand and your body, where-as traditional rifles can eject casings forward of the shooting hand.
The FS-2000 does sort of mcguiver them up to the front of the stock for ejection. but then we get to the second part of why bullpups are bad: Over Engineering. Because your face is cheek welded to a part of the gun directly on top of the breech and chamber, the guns have to be built in ways that make them universally difficult to maintain, or repair.
>>28423622 Maybe. Who knows. Really it comes down to what the mission / deployment is, and if your country really thinks you need a gun with 18 inches, of if a shorter traditional rifle would be just as good.
I can see the advantages of a bullpup from a force that is deployed into a forest, and then has to go deal with a populated area and housings.
Pic related is, holy fuck, imagine having to clear houses with shit like that looking for terry taliban
To play devil's advocate, field stripping may not be the entirety of maintenance, but most of the time that's all you need. The only time you'd need to really take it apart and clean it completely would be when you have plenty of time and space to do it, where the overengineering and difficulty isn't as big a deal.
I'm done posting photographs now, but basically if you can't understand why some countries are under the assumption that a bullpup makes a better multi-role weapon platform then there is no helping you.
It's down to preference, but clearing tight spaces with a full length M16 sucked dick.
I like bullpups, honestly. For modern soldiers, I really don't see many downsides besides being harder to make ambi.
They're compact, they balance well, recoil seems to be distributed better compared to a traditional rifle, it's easier to manage muzzle rise, and it can be held 1-handed a lot easier than a normal rifle. Not to mention the CQC and transport benefits.
I'm thinking about buying a Tavor soon, or an RDB since my LGS keeps a fuckload of Kel-Tec products in stock. It'll be my first rifle, and after experiencing bullpups at the range with friends... I quite like them.
Also, maybe it's harder for lifelong shooters to get used to bullpups since they're a relatively new concept. Given I've owned guns for barely a year, it's easy for me to adapt to a given firearm since I don't have much in the way of experience.
>>28423503 >how exactly will having the action behind the trigger allow to make the weapon shorter? With only minor exceptions, all the functional gubbins in a rifle lay between the bolt (in the fully-open position) and the muzzle. The muzzle is almost always the forward extreme of the rifle, but the rearmost extreme is the butt of the stock. So in-between the rearmost extent of the bolt's range of motion and the butt of the stock, most rifles have a good 10-15 inches of mostly-dead space. But by moving the entire action rearward, so the bolt, magazine and chamber now sit BETWEEN the trigger and the shoulder thus filling this previously-dead space in the stock, the overall length of the firearm can be shortened by a good degree without compromising the action or barrel length.
In other words, picture taking an ordinary rifle, hacking off most of the stock and moving the trigger forward of the magazine so that what remains of the rifle can still be held comfortably against the shoulder. Same basic principle.
I've never really understood the "awkward and unintuitive to hold" argument. Isn't that mostly because mist gun owners learnt to use traditional firearms and are just unfamiliar with bullpups? When I take new people shooting and hand them my Swedish Mauser It's not uncommon to see them take the "dangerous outside the kitchen" if they are short and considerable chick lean is the norm among pretty much all new shooters. Handing them an AUG you see much less chick leaning due to the weight distribution and even the most ignorant hipster will shoulder it correctly because there is literary only one way to hold it.
>>28423511 >institutional and industrial inertia are delaying the age of bullpups. Nigga bullpups are dead, Everyone is dropping them for AR type rifles, the French, NZ'ers, Choina, Think there was someone else as well.
>>28424570 >training soldiers to use their weapons is more expensive than making their weapons easy to use Which would betotally correct, if not for the fact that you have to train your troops to use their weapons anyway..... >>28426231 IIRC the British Army just makes you learn to shoot right handed, you just have to man up and shut up.
>>28423503 it's not really about having the action behind the trigger. forget that stupid shit for a sec
the reason a bullpup is shorter is literally because they lopped the stock off and made the end of the receiver into the stock. once you do this you have to relocate the trigger because it's too close to your chest to use.
>>28428695 Tavor was heavy? I held it and was light as fuck to shoulder since all the weight is closer to the shoulder than an AR. I could extremely easily shoulder it with one hand. Which for home defense is perfect. Open door with one hand, aim rifle wherever you want it with the other. Every bullpup I've held has felt lighter than any AR I've held, even if the pup literally was heavier they are way easier to shoulder due to weight balance
>>28428735 >despite being strange and borderline uncomfortable to use I still got much better groupings at 150m range than I get with my own AK. That should tell you all you need to know about exactly how 'familiar and comfortable' and 'biomechanically effective' are related. You're not alone, by the way: >http://pro.sagepub.com/content/58/1/1844.full.pdf
>>28428768 For me it felt like one heavy mother fucker. I was an armorer at the time, for sensitive items I hold all ~150 M4 we had in about 30 minutes. It could all be in my head, but it felt heavy as shit. Certainly more balanced wth one hand, and not uncomfortable, just heavy
why do people think shorter is automatically better? think about it prior to the 1900s everyone had two meter long rifles and nobody gave a shit about making guns smaller obviously thats too long by the time wwii rolls around and you start to see things with 20 inch barrels that length seems to work perfectly fine for house to house battles
then you keep going smaller and smaller to the point where a 20inch m16 is considered huge and too lange for use in a house and the standard is 14.5 the only reason being convenience so you can get in and out of a car easier and we are all lazy fucks who want a gun as light as possible
>>28428822 The tavor is particularly bulky (I'm pretty sure the contact dimensions are larger than the FS2000, despite that one looking much bulkier) and is actually quite heavy. Not that surprising if you're used to M4s.
>>28428841 >convenience so you can get in and out of a car easier You literally answered your own rhetorical question. And if it doesn't sacrifice any real performance, which the next generation of bullpups looks to be finally accomplishing, why not go for the more 'convenient' size?
Shit, will you still be complaining if future-tech brings us PDW-sized small arms with main battle rifle ballistic performance?
>>28428896 You realize because of the DI gas piston inside the bolt carrier, AR15s tend to have much more destructive catastrophic failure events than any military bullpup save perhaps the FAMAS?
The worst I can find for bullpup KBs are the .300BLK in a FS2000 thing, no injury to the shooter in what is probably the single worst case scenario, and an AUG blowing the shooter-side ejection port cover off into his cheek, again, no injury.
Meanwhile, AR15s are splitting receivers and spitting shrapnel all over the place.
>>28428887 yes at a certain point the the gun will be too fucking small to comfortably hold and shoot p90s are pretty nice for that but imagine a p90 sized weapon with all the crap from a modern m4 theres no space on the gun
people so focused on close quarters combat when its obsolete why bother clearing a building with cqb tactics when you have grenades drones or airstrikes vehicle combats going the same way that scene went down in sicaro you dismount at which point length isnt critically important and the guys still stuck in the car are fucked even with the shortest weapons known to man
it would be nice if someone made a long bullpup something with the same overall length of an m16 with like a 30 inch barrel in it that would take full advantage of a bullpup design
>>28428997 >>28429081 The reason you won't see that when discussing common bullpups is that most people are talking about military service rifles, ie, .223, which are already maxing out in carbine length rifles with 20" barrels like the AUG, FAMAS, F2000, etc.
>>28423440 Bullpups are the way of the future, but for me, I was trained on ar by the marines. I don't have any gucci range-toy guns that aren't fudd-tier, so I'm really not interested in anything that's not highly standardizes and combat proven.
Also I'm not buying a bullpup that isn't bottom-ejecting, that should be a requirement.
I could go into the yadda yadda on the differences between the two, but I will keep it short, and apply what I assume could help /k/ in the same way it helped me, an aut/o/.
On the pedal (trigger), the bar that pushes the piston on the Brake master cylinder, is usually near a 7:1 ratio. Now on non-powered brake cars, that ratio is closer to 4:1. Would this help bullpups trigger pull?
>>28423647 im seeing something i havent considered yet.
say you have a regular m4 or m16, whatever. And you're using cover with an opening and you need to stick you're barrel out a bit to return fire. with the regular rifle you have a solid 2 feet from the opening, if firing out straight anyway, so you have a good 2 foot buffer from the end of your barrel or the covers opening and your face.
but with the bullpups your face is a lot closer and vulnerable to debris and fire from the flank.
Not to mention if you have a tiny hole opening like how snipers use (though im sure regular infantry can use them as well, im sure) you dont want your fucking face so damn close to the hole.
>>28433071 >every military in the world, for whatever reason, seems to really want to give their soldiers long barrels >overall length of weapon begins a big issue >don't just simply cut down the barrel to like 8 inches to make weapon small and compact >instead engineer entirely new weapon where you have reduced overall length while maintaining barrel length
But yeah I guess it doesn't matter at all in the real world
>>28433626 m8y no fightin' gun needs more than a 20 inch barrel a 20 inch barrel for the grunt just improves his sight radius setting that 20 inch barrel back into the stock worsens his sight radius while giving him the improvement of less overall length if you really want less overall length, just shorten the barrel for the reduced overall length with the added bonus of a shorter barrel
>>28427512 That's less to do with the 'overwhelming superiority' of the AR platform and more to do with the fact that many countries used to have gun industries developing military rifles 30/40 years ago and now don't.
>>28423440 >they have bad triggers! Not anymore. >they're harder to reload! They're really not, just turn it sideways in prone. >you can't shoot them left handed! Many newer designs you can as they eject forward or downward. >you can't adjust the length of pull! Some new designs you can, though few because the LOP is already generally longer than a conventional rifle and few people are lanket status tall, plus that's more moving parts that can possibly break when most people would likely leave it on the shortest setting anyway.
>>28433938 >my point is that if you don't care about sight radius then you don't want a longer barrel
>sight radius >sight >radius >SIGHT RADIUS If only you could somehow magnify the image what you were looking at. Man, that would be a great invention, it would probably make shooting distant targets much easier desu
>>28423440 >mechanical issues/flaws -crappy, heavy and mushy triggers -not enough weight forward, select fire designs HAVE to have a brake instead of a flash hider -ridiculously short sight radius plus poor optics mounting options
>issues with doctrine and switching -Saving a massive 4" overall isnt worth getting a new rifle and retraining for it -for institutions issuing weapons, giving a lefty a right handed rifle can cause serious injury instead of just being a pain in the ass. No design yet has a field expedient, toolless CH/ejection port changeover (doesnt apply to forward or downward ejecting rifles with non reciprocating CHs)
Please note that I said some and some does not mean all. For me personally the sporter tavor 21, Aug, and that godawful ak bullpup had not the greatest weight distribution, and I'm not the only one that thinks this. You are also right that it is because I grew up with conventional weapons, but so did 99 percent of americans. Which probably contributes as to why they aren't as popular here (which was my explanation to op).
You want as short a length as possible for CQB (this also comes in handy when dismounting from vehicles), but when fighting at longer ranges (especially with a 5.56), you want a long barrel. Now, you can have one rifle fill all roles* instead of issuing a myriad of rifles and carbines.
*Fun fact: AUG is Schnitzelspeak for "Universal Infantry Rifle"
I own an RFB with the 24" barrel, so my critiques will reflect only this rifle and not other bullpups.
I quite like the balance of the rifle. My friend who I shoot with does not, he owns an AR. The gun is easy to shoulder and because the center of gravity is right on the grip I don't feel like my left arm is working hard to keep the barrel pointed up even though the gun weighs like 10 pounds. I could shoot it one handed if need be though I wouldn't hit shit since the .308 recoil is heavy. The trigger is solid, I have no complaints. I judge triggers against my 1911, and I have not fired a striker fired pistol that had a trigger I liked. The RFB trigger is fairly crisp and not too heavy. It's not my 1911 but I vastly prefer the RFB trigger when compared to a glock's. I have not trained reloading quickly with either an AR or my RFB so I can't comment as to how hard it is to reload under pressure compared to a standard rifle, but I don't find it hard to do.
So far through around 200 rounds I had one malfunction, it appeared to be a double feed. I've heard that the springs on thermold FAL mags need to be broken in, so I'm gonna say this was probably a case where the magazine spring spit two rounds up into the chamber at once. If I have more issues I may change my mind. I have not even touched the gas system though, which I read could be finicky. Considering how complex the ejection system is I'm ok with 99.5% reliability so far.
All in all I just liked the bulpup design and really liked the way the rifle felt when I picked it up at a gun show. I can't comment on accuracy yet as I've just thrown some iron sights on it and shot in my friends back yard. Once I get a scope and sight it in properly I'll see how accurate it is.
>>28423470 You're a retard, I can balance my RFB on the trigger guard.
>>28423618 The RFB isnt. The hammer is connected to a bar; pic related.
>>28423637 >Because your face is cheek welded to a part of the gun directly on top of the breech and chamber, the guns have to be built in ways that make them universally difficult to maintain, or repair. Again no, the RFB solved this by having a couple pieces of thick steel between the breech and the shooter. The gun itself is simple as fuck.
>>28427579 >The lever delayed blowback tends to mangle brass, which meant steel core ammunition, which meant no NATO commonality. I dont know about 5.56 NATO, but for 7.62 NATO the STANAG 2310 specifies a steel case for ammo, including how hard it should be in various areas of the case; brass faggots are the ones using nonstandard ammo.
>>28428968 RFBs have suffered a few kabooms, worse one I know of was Andrew(?) from KT had one while they were developing the RFB, and it was caused by over pressure proof loads. Only thing that happened was the magazine blew out and put some brass shrapnel in to his arm, which he was able to pick out by himself himself.
>>28438209 >it appeared to be a double feed If you have multiple magazines and a pair of calipers double check the space between the feed lips. I doubt it'll be a issue with the Thermolds but i've had surplus steel FAL mags which were so loose that even tapping them would cause them to spit rounds out.
>>28438484 I've got 5 mags, all thermold. They also don't seat all the way with 20 rounds in there. I was told the springs needed to break in before they would give that last little bit to seat when full.
>>28438905 >They also don't seat all the way with 20 rounds in there. Thats normal on the RFB. Technically you can seat the magazine if you use enough force, but you'll crush the shoulder of the case against the bolt.
>I was told the springs needed to break in before they would give that last little bit to seat when full. nein
Left handed forner f88 user here. I used the f88 in combat and the m4 in training. Each has its inherent advantages. The bullpup has a shorter overall length, is easier to manouvre. The tradituonal layout is more intuitive (even to someone who was no guns before the army)and has a more "even" weight distibution. In longish range shooting with both weapon systems (both with an acog) i shot better with the f88. May hav3 been because it was the weapon i learnt to shoot on may have been the particular weapons. When it came to rapid target aquisition at 25m the m4 easily outperformed the f88. The m4 allowed me to adjust the stock and the positon of the forgrip, allowing me to accomodate to my much larger frame. It also allowed the manelts and the chicks to use the rifle more efrectivly by shortening the stock. So both are great (ish) designs. But the one thing that no one has mentioned is how the rifles actually perform in combat. When i was using the f88, reloading from the lrone positon was a bitch to do because the mag is underneath me. This made it difficult to do without losing situational awereness. The same things happened when you moved to CQB style shooting. The IA requires you to look down at the rifle and acertain what has casued the stoppage. With the M4 i was able to conduct ny IA whilst maintaining situational awerness. I could look over the rifle as opposed to looking down at it. So the advantage of the shorter barrel in CQB shooting was detracted by the fact that using the weapon properly put me at risk. Its the main reason so many soldiers in the australian army want to move to an m4 style rifle (that and SF fanboyism) and given the choice i would take a conventional layout over a bullpup based on this alone.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.