Bullpups

>>33631799
>Poorly balanced
They're generally better balanced
>less reliable
Not anymore than any modern rifle that isn't garbage
>harder to load
Most people are used to the conventional layout, anyone familiar or trained with bullpups will have no issue
>harder to clear jams
not really
>less accurate
Completely the opposite

>>33631824
>>harder to clear jams
>not really
Depends on what design you're talking about. FS2000 or RFB, you're fucked.
>>less accurate
>Completely the opposite
Most bullpups are 3MOA, MAAAYBE 2MOA at best. A basic bitch AR can be 1MOA all day long.

t. bullpup enthusiast

>>33631799
you forgot they have really creepy triggers, They are a failed experiment. Which is why France is going back to convential rifle layout

File: f1famas.jpg (50KB, 1024x370px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1024x370px

>>33631799
They're fine, once you get used to them, the compact frame is really nice. The main "flaw" inherent to their bullpup design is that the stock can't be adjusted.

>>33631881
>They are a failed experiment. Which is why France is going back to convential rifle layout
Not really, most firearms manufacturers cater to the US market and demands, since that's where most of the money comes from. When all your options are essentially different flavored ARs there's not much of a choice. If the US armed forces adopted some bullpup back in the day, you'd see a lot more bullpups around.

File: MG_4679.jpg (557KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1500x1000px

>>33631907
>The main "flaw" inherent to their bullpup design is that the stock can't be adjusted.
sup

>>33631799
I always hear that bullpups have a harder/heavier trigger pull than a conventional design

>>33631799
I hope not

They're entirely a matter of preference. The idea of a compact mid-range rifle gained traction back when SBRs were keyholing garbage, but these days SBRs are excellent, so the circumstance that required them has passed. Bullpup fanboys harp on about the extra barrel length meaning much, but it really doesn't and aside from that its all personal taste.

>>33631799

Tavor owner. My issues are 1) reloading is a pain if you've spent your life on ARs, 2) Trigger sucks although a replacement trigger and trigger pack helped a lot, and 3) If there is ever a kaboom having the chamber next to your head may not be a good thing.

>>33631881
But then I've heard the new Kel Tec RDB has a very good trigger. I don't doubt that older first generation bullpups are garbage, but what I'm wondering is how many of their problems can be overcome.

>>33631799
>>33631984
As for the awkward reloading, why not develop one with a quad stack mag so that you have to reload 50% less? Seems like it would be an easy fix.

>>33631938
What a weird looking thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FMy-xY4BE

>>33631980
i'd like to see a side by side contest with a conventional and bullpup version of essentially the same rifle (same barrel material etc), just to see how much accuracy etc is gained by the same OAL gun but with the added 3-4 inches lenth of the bullpup barrel compared with the conventional layout. All other factors remaining as similar as possible. Do any tests like this exist?

>>33633939
Yeah, it's called the MSBS.

>>33633939
A shorter rifle is typically more accurate at its effective range due to much less barrel flex. Long barrels produce more velocity, yes, but you have to do some tuning to get rid of the barrel flex, like glass bedding etc.

File: sa80-l85a2.jpg (23KB, 600x248px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x248px

The best and most advanced rifle in the world is a bullpup. This is not a coincidence.

>>33634094
And the bullpup has failed the polish trials, but the standard has mostly passed.

>>33634417
quality b8

>>33631799
>poorly balanced
This is situational. They're a dream to carry or keep shouldered for long periods of time but they exacerbate muzzle climb because there's no weight out front.
>less reliable
Generally true, damn little compares to the reliability of an AR or AK.
>harder to load
Just different, not harder. Requires retraining but isn't in and of itself any more complicated or unergonomic.
>harder to clear jams from
Very very very true, usually requires a complete field strip.
>less accurate
Model dependent. There have been some exceptionally accurate ones (AUG, F2000) and some exceptionally inaccurate ones (Tavor, L85).

What are immutable truths is they are heavier compared to an AR of similar barrel profile across the board (usually by several pounds), which is the SOLE and ONLY reason they're not the "rifles of the future"--weight is EVERYTHING in a combat small-arm.

They also have shit triggers, although as we go towards the newest ones and include aftermarket they're at least usable.

>>33633939
The shorter barreled rifle will win every time on mechanical accuracy, all else being equal.

If there is a MAJOR difference in muzzle velocity, the longer-barreled rifle MIGHT make it easier for a less-than-stellar shooter to make first round hits at the far end of the round's effective range. But that's a marginal use case.

>>33634094
>unavailable on any civilian market
>rejected for military use
Sure must be a great rifle huh.

>>33632032
Sure would be nice if it actually existed though.
>I don't doubt that the older first generation bullpups are garbage
Explain why the RFB, X95, AUG A3, FAMAS G2, and L85A2, which are all 4th generation, are still garbage?

>>33631799
Predictions for ITT:
>muh RDB that doesn't exist yet
>muh MSBS which failed military trials and will never be available to civilians
>muh MDR which is vaporware and will never reach production
>muh "it's a military trigger, it's *supposed* to have an inch of creep and take 20lbs to pull while feeling like pressing on a wet sock! It's a feature not a flaw!"

>>33634498
Increased velocity from longer barrels means less wind deflection and flatter shooting. This equates to a hitting your target more often. The slight mechanical accuracy increase is ridiculously small.

>>33634588
And the difference in wind drift at any distance under 500m will not change a hit into a miss either.

Whichever way you go the differences are marginal enough most would prefer the lighter weight rifle, which will almost always be the shorter barreled one.

>>33634464
>but they exacerbate muzzle climb because there's no weight out front.
Admittedly I don't have much experience with bullpups, but this has been my experience. Very back heavy and constant reshouldering to keep the barrel from pointing up.

>>33631799
No, the only future is more AR15s.

>>33631799
Bullpups are always maligned by people who actually don't use them. The steyr AUG is actually a great gun with a lot of military use, but here's what it actually comes down to. Militaries are run on a budget. The largest and best funded military in the world is the United States. We also happen to have one of the only real thriving gun manufacturing cultures. Because of our large region of influence it is so much easier for NATO allies to pursue ARs and their derivatives that they end up cutting millions in costs. No gun is perfect (or else we'd only be using that). If you have an interest in a bullpup check them out! They can be incredibly interesting and in many cases unique. The Steyr AUG has IMO one of the best disassembly processes ever made and if I ran an armory it would be my first choice of gun (easy to swap, maintain and deep clean).

>>33634425
Source?

>>33631867
>Depends on what design you're talking about. FS2000 or RFB, you're fucked
Not even slightly. What few malfunctions I've had were all solved by tap rack bang levels of remedial action.

>>33635079
This. In 150 years they'll still be using AR15s. They are this era's flintlock. An optimal design.

File: hTYD5FSh.jpg (275KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 768x1024px

>>33634522
>RDB doesn't exist
There are at least 20 on Gunbroker right now
>RFB trigger is garbage
No. You shouldn't tall about guns you've never used.

>>33635094
Then you got lucky.

>>33631799
I've heard there is more felt recoil.

File: k is full of luddites.jpg (433KB, 1330x1405px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1330x1405px

>>33631799
fudds and luddites will insist it's dead end technology, but that's what dead end people tend to say about new things.

>>33635745
Or they're easy to clear in the unlikely event of a malfunction.

>ausfag here

I've used all five versions of the AUG (F88 Austeyr) that we have in service.

F88 - original AUG
F88S1 - AUG with trail
F88S1 Carbine - Above but with shorter barrel (my favourite variant)
F88S2 - Similar to the S1 but they made the furniture green and the metal work brown. These were horrendous when they first turned up. For some reason Thales thought it was amazing to just paint them, not cerakote or anything. So you had a lot of overly tight tolerances causing stoppages. My CSM told me of the days in early-Iraq where they got the new rifles and basically went and put 2,000 rounds through them on the range to free them up.
EF88 - This thing I'm still not sold over. It has the one thing I felt the Austeyr always needed, a bolt release, but I'm disappointed we didn't go to a new system entirely. It's harder to take apart and we're still using the same shitty waffle mag which is the single worst component of the weapon after that god awful trigger.

I like the Steyr, I really do and I agree that when you're use to the layout you can get some slick mag changes down pat.

Ours tend to be very accurate. I average a 50-70mm group prone unsupported during out bi-annual weapons qualification (donut sight, there are never enough ACOGs :( ). I've always wanted to throw one in a vice with a decent optic and see how good they really can group.

In automatic they are quite controllable, it's a rather slow rate of fire and the inline nature of the stock tends to stay the course with me.

As for reliability, I find our doctrine and training is retarded in that they teach you to put too much oil on the guide rods or piston. I run my rifle pretty dry because the guide rod is exposed on the left so and attracts all sorts of junk.

And if anything, I find the rifle runs better when its dirty. Especially with blank. My god I can still smell those horrible blanks...

>>33635882
Sure.
If you're lucky.

>>33635810
>but that's what dead end people tend to say about new things.
It's also what correct people tend to say about dead end technology.

I appreciate everyone's input, but as for your criticisms of bullpups they all seem like solvable problems. Weight, recoil, accuracy, reliability...they can be improved.

No
Someone could come along and do with bullpups what has been done for the past 50 years with AR and AK styles, and they'd still be completely obsolete because we'd have moved to ammunition that is not as critically impacted by barrel length. And that would still not make up for the ergonomic issues of teaching crayon eating grunts how to load a gun backwards.

>>33637234
And by the time you improve them you haven't really gotten anything that performs better in the field than a well-maintained basic AR-15
We could "solve every problem" with three-wheeled cars too. Doesn't make it worth doing.

>>33637367
It'd be able to propel 556 at effective speeds, unlike the M4. And when suppressors become commonplace it'd be even more valuable.

>>33634464
>Very very very true, usually requires a complete field strip.
Not true at all
>Generally true, damn little compares to the reliability of an AR or AK.
How reliable do you think a generic short stroke rifle, like a SCAR, is? It's literally the same thing with the action in the back.

>>33637234
None of those are actual issues. The only real issues are the lack of demand for them and less than desirable triggers.

File: Kel-Tec-RDB-Internals.jpg (41KB, 958x639px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 958x639px

>>33637440
>less than desirable triggers

>>33631980
SBRs suffer significant velocity loss. You won't hit things beyond 200m with enough energy.

>>33631867
>Most bullpups are 3MOA, MAAAYBE 2MOA at best. A basic bitch AR can be 1MOA all day long.
Can anyone explain why this would be?

>>33637579
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUM1r_444CY

>>33637701
When you shove the action into the rifle's ass you drag the barrel back through its guts too.
More points of contact with the barrel, more disruptions to harmonics. Simple as that.

>>33637701
Most ARs don't shoot 1 MOA.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?171337-14-5%94-AR-15-Barrels-With-Permanently-Attached-Muzzle-Devices
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?168882-Range-Report-Black-Hills-MK262-Mod-1

>>33637402
The velocity differences are neglible, The downsides outweigh the benefits for bullpups

>>33638029
>The velocity differences are neglible
Holy fuck, no.

>>33634417

That gun is only good in third person shooters.
It's true.

>>33638067
Good post

>>33637989
>Black-Hills-MK262-Mod-1
stick that in a bullpup and it will do 1 moa too

no shit match grade ammo shoots good groups

>>33632057
Because that would make the rifle very very heavy and very poorly balanced.

>>33637477
Why don't they make this in .308? No one wants an RDB with a tilting bolt, Kel Tec.

>>33638296
come one the gnomes at Kel-Tec can only make 3 guns a week, that aren't the KSG or pistol.

>>33638151
75gr bullets will not make any gun shoot 1moa, even off a sled. The barrel and locking lugs have to do their part.

I wish my rifle did 1moa, but even with hand loads, I'm probably not getting under 1.25moa 5-round groups.

>>33631799
No. Bulpups suck. The Famas sucks. The tavor sucks even more cause at least the Famas is accurate. The AUG's trigger is retarded. The MDR is too heavy for vaporware. The F2000 is a jam o matic factory, the MSBS is a meme, every bullpup AK sucks even more than a Galil in 5.56, the L85 is litteraly scrap metal, the SAR21 is litteraly scrap plastic, the P90 is retarded and fragile, the QBZ95 is so shit even the chinese can see it and are replacing it, the VHS is worse than a BETAMAX, every Kel-Tec Bullpup would fail on a real battlefield.

>>33638631
>Kel-Tec Bullpup would fail on a real battlefield

This effects me not at all because I will never be a soldier, and I always get to clean my guns after a hunt or range trip. I'd totally be down for an RDB if I didn't already have an .223 gun, and I'd certainly take one in a .308 if they'd make it.

>>33638130
Living by your example.

>>33638631
>the P90 is retarded and fragile
Never heard serous complains about P-90 reliably and durability. Not much faith in the cartridge, yes but not about gun.

>>33637402
>It'd be able to propel 556 at effective speeds
And the United States Military is already considering moving back to a larger-caliber, likely 7.62 interim rifle.
Bullpups are an answer in search of a problem and as such are always going to be obsolete the day they are born. Now I love the AUG and can appreciate it as being cutting edge for its time and also arguably the only bullpup to really check all the boxes of what it needed to be able to do, but one exception doesn't overturn the trend of bullpups being overdesigned, overly complicated crapshoots.
>>33637477
>posting kek-tec or any other non-milspec gimmick firearms company

>>33638786
It's funny because they're stupid durable. Mostly on account of being needlessly beefy to the point of weighing the same as an M4.

>>33638786
He's just memeing about guns he can't afford and has never seen in real life.

>>33638631
>QBZ95 is so shit even the chinese can see it and are replacing it
They're not, they literally just made a new variant.
>FAMAS sucks
>The AUG's trigger is retarded
So you have actual experience or just memes?

File: IMG_8401.png (228KB, 1192x830px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1192x830px

>>33631907
>Tfw you will never own a MAS.223 because they're basically WA 2000-tier rare and go for upwards of $20,000 now

>>33638121
Hell to that.
That piece of shit was a jamming motherfucker when I was playing stalker and ran out of ammo for the val.
Damn thing was at around 80% condition when I grabbed it and it kept choking.

>>33637402
>It'd be able to propel 556 at effective speeds, unlike the M4.
How is it in the 1962?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIKdstJP7Qw

File: vRgnos.jpg (405KB, 735x1295px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 735x1295px

>>33638190
Really weird that taping magazines together is so common in modern militaries then, especially considering two mags are even heavier than one quad stack would be.

>>33639111
>he wants to blow up his gun and make it a smooth bore while he's at it

>>33638849
bullpup hate is a meme spread by troglodytes

>>33639111
When I put load powder beyond SAAMI specs in a 5.56 case I'm being 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible'.

But when the US government does it, it's just the bees knees.

>>33639342
I known it is fashionable to hate M855A1 but regardless of your likes Army buys only this round since like 2015 and will continue to do so. M855A1 happened.

>>33639319
jungle mags don't require any extra resources to produce though. No extra tooling, logistics of shipping out or any of that.
A quad-stack magazine or something ridiculous like that would require a lot of extra shit be done just to make up for a natural shortcoming of the bullpup design.

File: shoulder-sig-brace.webm (2MB, 840x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 840x360px

F90 from Lithgow got cancelled. A shame as it was the only bullpup i was interested in. At least we have pistol braces still...

File: bemad.jpg (59KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x500px

>>33639884
>F90 from Lithgow got cancelled
sauce?

>>33631907
>The main "flaw" inherent to their bullpup design is that the stock can't be adjusted
"I have never owned anything other than an AR, or similar cuck-gun"

>>33639577
It's making up for a shortcoming of bullpups, sure, but it's still an improvement no matter the rifle. Having 60 rounds without a reload in between is certainly worth the investment.

>>33631938
fuckin kel-tech man

File: 1482696698798.png (956KB, 769x937px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 769x937px

>>33639475
Never said it didn't autist. Doesn't change that the M4 can't do its job without blowing up in the process.

>>33639319
Why always with the blue tape? Is blue the most tactical?

>>33639319
quad stacks would cost the mil a butt-ton to buy, they'd rather buy tape and have bad rifles (a soldiers life is cheap)

>>33640259
>quad stacks are expensive
And so are shiny new bullpups, what's your point? Everything has to advance at some point.

File: 03XSJ6p.png (393KB, 1028x748px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1028x748px

>>33631799

how fucking often do we have this thread?

It's your life, you buy the gun that suits your situation.

For fuck's sake, we're not buying the gun for you

File: otgklt.jpg (22KB, 800x272px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 800x272px

>>33634417

Obvious troll is obvious. Try a real gun.

>>33632193
The regular RDB just looks like a Micro Tavor. THAT version was designed partially to stow better in backpacks, partially to make a Cali-legal version.

>>33635119
>all dose meme guns
Embrace the meme, dude.

Just wait til Kel-Tec discontinues the RFB and releases a 308 RDB. Desert Tech fanbois will shit themselves as Kel-Tech beats them to the punch with the first ever "gud" 308 bullpup.

>>33631799
>poorly balanced
Quite the opposite.
>less reliable
Not to any significant degree.
>harder to load
Only for people used to the conventional layout
>harder to clear jams from
Not to any significant degree.
>and less accurate
Not to any significant degree.

>>33638659
So what's wrong with the RFB right now? Are you sure they'll release an RDB in 308 in the near future? I know Kel-Tec's reputation, but most reviewers seemed to have nothing but glowing recommendations of the RDB, and the RFB before was also considered a "must-buy", even at the absurd $1600 they were selling for at first. Unfortunately, Kel-Tec seems like the kind of company to make a one-off product that lasts all of a couple years before they move on to the next meme.

>>33639449
Are you really using the same propellant?

>>33641868
>what's wrong with the RFB right now
Nothing really, but as an American, I have a useless obsession with accuracy on my guns. There's a trip on the board who loves his RFB, but even he will tell you he's not getting under 1.5moa due to the tilting bolt action.

>>33641882
No, I don't think St. Mark even sells domestically. But aside from ease of measure and burn rates, powder is powder. Every manufacturer publishes their recommended max loads. Your call if you want to run hot and heavy ala m855a1, just watch your primers and be ready for increased wear.

Actually, it does make me wonder if we'll ever be able to M855A1, since I don't know if any distributor will sell ammo over SAAMI specs. Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

>>33638121

It's breddy good in Killing Floor 2.

>>33641821
The RFB is plenty good already. I'd bet my life on mine.
>>33642098
1.5 is plenty accurate. That's still hitting a 12in plate (or man sided target) all day long out to 800 yards.

>>33642179
If they put out the RDB in .308, would you buy another?

>>33642192
Maybe just to have it, but my current experience with the RDB and RFB would still make the RFB a better rifle in my mind.

>>33642216
That's surprising. What irritated you about the RDB?

>>33642222
Nothing, the RFB is just a higher quality rifle. I paid $1800 for mine (that's what they went for in 2011) and I feel I got my monies worth. The RDB meanwhile feels more like the $1000 rifle that it is. It's hard to explain but if you handle both you should see what I mean.

>>33642257
I mean, the RFB's like 1.5 lbs heavier than the RDB, so maybe it's just... heavier? Plus I have doubts that the forward ejection system is terribly reliable. It seems needlessly complicated compared to downward ejection and I can imagine the ejection well would jam quickly if you never tilted the rifle forward to empty it.

>>33639319
Literally all of those pictures are almost a decade old and Russian. Ie before they unfuckerized their military.

>>33642373
You'd be wrong. You can fire the RFB vertical and it will eject the cases just fine.

>>33642192
This would make me moist.