Why did the Chinese switch from bullpup to normal?

[renesch93]

The Chinese introduced the 5.8x42mm QBZ-95 bullpup assault rifle in the nineties and only a few years later switched to the Type 3 QBZ-03 assault rifle which has a conventional layout.
Any ideas why?

[the_13th_redneck]

Looks like it's being issued to police and REMF units.

[Special-K]

That bayonet looks familiar. :|




-K

[Skutatos]

Seems the chinese were not satisfied with the QBZ-95's performance. Or at least that is the speculation. Maybe QBZ-03 is cheaper to produce?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as80-e.htm

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/29/qbz-03-chinas-latest-assault-rifle/

[KillerBD]

Can't remember where I read it, but I remembering seeing an article saying the Chinese wanted a more conventional layout over the bullpup design. Mostly due to issues of having to train everyone how to shoot with their right hands, and the inability to 'comfortably' shoot from the left shoulder... Hot brass in the face from the casings ejecting into your eye sorta sucks...

Not to mention I'm guessing its a little awkward to reload a bullpup QBZ-95 than it would be to load a QBZ-03 especially with high capacity (drum) mags.

Not sure about any "reliability" issues with the current QBZ-95? I haven't really read anything too in depth though.

[18SASS]

Seems the chinese were not satisfied with the QBZ-95's performance. Or at least that is the speculation. Maybe QBZ-03 is cheaper to produce?


Dont blame them. Every bullpup besides the Steyr AUG is a POS.

[AIRASSAULT7]

The Chinese introduced the 5.8x42mm QBZ-95 bullpup assault rifle in the nineties and only a few years later switched to the Type 3 QBZ-03 assault rifle which has a conventional layout.
Any ideas why?

it is not ambidextrous and the safety is located near the butt of the rifle which is problem overall i heard it is because the soldiers are not satisfed with it

[JoaMei]

Dont blame them. Every bullpup besides the Steyr AUG is a POS.

I dont think the Tavor is that bad, seems like a good design.

[Slouch]

I dont think the Tavor is that bad, seems like a good design.

The SA-80 Mk2 is pretty impressive as well. I also haven't heard of the F2000 having too many dramas.

[HVU]

the new rifle sure looks ugly.. I see that the butt stock is not entirely in line with the barrel?. That would increase the recoil. Why take a step back in design?

[dobrodan]

I see that the butt stock is not entirely in line with the barrel?. That would increase the recoil.

How?

Explain please...

[HVU]

Fellow bergenser,

Well, I formulated myself a bit wrong. The recoil force is constant (i.d.not increased), but it´s not as well displaced when the butt stock is not on the same axis as the barrel. The recoil is not elongated directly to your shoulder.

Here is a video that explains it much better: Watch from 2:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weIh3Mc6kU

[dobrodan]

Yes, I am well aware of that, but it mainly applies if you shoot automatic fire.

Also, with an inline stock, your head will be forced a few cm higher relative to the line of fire than it would with a conventional buttstock, thereby making you a slightly larger target if firing from behind cover.

[Zarak]

Looks like it's being issued to police and REMF units.

Right.

They didn't 'switch' at all, they're just issuing a cheap'o rifle to non-combat personnel.

[HVU]

Well, I am not in the PLA, but I would believe that since they have chosen that small caliber in the first place, they would want a weapon with as low recoil as possible. Regardless of semi or automatic firing, it is critical to be able to reacquire targets as fast as possible.

I just wonder why they would switch to a worse design IMO.. Besides the fact that bullpup weapons makes it impossible to shoot with left hand. Do they have a links version of the type 95?

[dobrodan]

Remember that low recoil is not the only quality of such a small caliber.

Weight and bulk is also very important. And if muzzle-flip is a big problem, they could just add a compensator...

[REMOV]

Besides the fact that bullpup weapons makes it impossible to shoot with left hand.So what? The British L85/L86 and the Singaporean SAR-21 assault rifles share the same feature which for regular army is less important than bullpup's merits.
Do they have a links version of the type 95?Nope. What for? This is rather stupid idea to create two different models, left- and right-handed versions of the assault rifles.

[HVU]

Now I've spent the last two hours reading at sinodefence.com, and it seems like:
1. The Type 95 is under improvement. It's not being replaced by Type 03 in the regular forces
2. The Type 03 is just for PAP and Border Guards and they intend to keep it.

REMOV:
1. I'd be a lousy shooter if I couldn't use my left hand to fire. So all Brits fire from right shoulder? Impressive.

2. It's not necessery to create two different models.. Like the M2 .50 cal. In that weapon you can switch one part so that the shells ejects the other way. In Norway usually to the right side. I was thinking that maybe they could do a similar thing with the Type 95.

Btw, I've been to Krakow. Nice city. I like the buns they're selling in central.

[ColinP]

I am hoping that things get cleared up legal wise here in Canada, I put a down payment on a Type 97 bullpup, it's in NATO 5.56 and takes AR mags, the short barreled version was being sold here for a bit, but now the RCMP are claiming it's a prohibited firearm. My friend imported a bunch with the proper permits and now they are stuck in a legal quagmire. Otherwise I would give you a range report, here is a buddy of mine shooting the short version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BZQFN9AJ4

[REMOV]

1. I'd be a lousy shooter if I couldn't use my left hand to fire. So all Brits fire from right shoulder? Impressive.They have no choice, as well as soldiers from Singapore or China. I think you - as anyone else who is left handed - can be trained to use the right handed bullpup rifle properly. It works through all centuries ;)
2. It's not necessery to create two different modelsYou've ask precisely about the left-handed assault rifle in addition to the standard right handed. The Brits tried this way in 1970s but gave up very fast and the SA80 system is right handed only.

It is obvious that bullpup design assault rifle with two ejection windows (plus special construction of the weapon itself) exists, and the spend cases direction can be set by user or armourer, like it happens in the French FA MAS, Austrian Steyr AUG or Israeli IWI Tavor/Tavor 2/X95 assault rifles. Another category is such design of the bullpup assault rifle that allows any shooter - left- or right handed to use the weapon without any adjustments like Belgian FN F2000 or Russian A-91M.

But it is rather stupid - as I wrote earlier - to create lets say "a mirror image" of some model of the bullpup design assault rifle, only for left handed users. It sometimes works in the sniper rifles world but is nonsensical in the world of the assault rifle.
I was thinking that maybe they could do a similar thing with the Type 95.I am afraid it will be very hard if not possible at all. The internal construction of the type 95 assault rifle is not very modern and simple.
Btw, I've been to Krakow. Nice city. I like the buns they're selling in central.I hope you enjoy you visit in Poland p-)

[slaveman]

Bullpups can be problematic. There's the obivious ejection-port issue that everyone's been discussing. Another issue is the trigger. They are usually very heavy and gritty. The trigger linkage is extremely long, and can be pretty inconsistant. This leads to a decrease in accuracy.

The sighting-radius is extremely short, and that also decreases accuracy. The sighting problem can be somewhat resolved with optics, but rail-space for accessories is usually at a minimum, which is another a problem (ie lack of space for night-vision devices, laser-designators, etc,).

Muzzle-flip is exagerated in bullpups (even in smaller calibers), because the majority of the weight is located in the rear. Compensators aren't a viable solution to this problem, because of the need for a flashhider. With the operator's face so close to the muzzle, a flash-killing device is a neccessity. Compensators can actually increase muzzle-flash and report.

Bullpups can be difficult and awkward to reload as well, especially for those who have never used one. When you put all of these problems together, it makes you wonder if the compactness is really worth it. In certain situations, it absolutely is.

But for a general-issue weapon that's used by a conscript army, I don't know if it's such a great idea. I could see why the PLA might consider a replacement.

By the way, please don't think I'm bashing bullpups. There's some excellent modern designs out there. I'm a lover of all good weapons!

[REMOV]

Another issue is the trigger. They are usually very heavy and gritty.I am afraid it is just a urban myth. You know, even the EM2 has rather nice trigger work, if I can compare it to HK417 ;)
The trigger linkage is extremely long, and can be pretty inconsistant. This leads to a decrease in accuracy. I am afraid this is also false information. Tell something about "a decrease in accuracy" to guys who use L85A2 or Steyr AUG ;)
The sighting-radius is extremely short, and that also decreases accuracy.You know, the same answer - we live in 21st century in the era of the cheap optic and optoelectronic sights. Your argument comes from mid-1960s. Even in 1980s half the bullpups used by armies has scope attached to it - L85A1 and Steyr AUG. Now this is more or less standard equipment of any assault rifle. Once again, the first bullpup design ever adopted - British No. 9 Mk 1 has optic sight.
The sighting problem can be somewhat resolved with opticsNot somewhat, but completly.
but rail-space for accessories is usually at a minimum, which is another a problem (ie lack of space for night-vision devices, laser-designators, etc,)Again, completly false argument. First - laser designators are not attached to the upper rail, second - the modern bullpup design assault rifles rail is longer enough to put every kind of NV devices or any equipment you want.
Muzzle-flip is exagerated in bullpups (even in smaller calibers), because the majority of the weight is located in the rear.I have never read such false information about the mass deployment in the bullpups. The center of gravity in every bullpup design assault rifle is not in the rear but in the middle of the weapon, usually over the hand grip! Which is a better solution in urban fight, because the time of aiming is shorter than in classic design. I understand you've never got a chance to fire or handle any bullpup rifle, because such "argument" is utter rubbish. I think it comes from the belief in "heavy on barrel" rifles.
Compensators aren't a viable solution to this problem, because of the need for a flashhider.Every modern assault rifle in any design - classic or bullpup has a flash hider. Every m o d e r n military assault rifle without any exeptions! Your "arguments" comes for me from different universe ;)
With the operator's face so close to the muzzle, a flash-killing device is a neccessity.So close? It is far far away from the muzzle. Take a look at the pictures and tell me where is my face and where is the muzzle, ok? p-)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__Jantar-M_01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_Jantar-M_01.jpg) http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/th__L85A2_01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/Inne/_L85A2_01.jpg) http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/SHOT2009/th__Steyr_01.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/REMOV/SHOT2009/_Steyr_01.jpg)
Compensators can actually increase muzzle-flash and report.Stop fantasizing. Your "logic" is based on the false assumption about the center of gravity of the bullpup design assault rifles.
Bullpups can be difficult and awkward to reload as well, especially for those who have never used one.And this is your argument!? You know, the whole role of the military training is to learn soldiers their weapon, how to fast reload. Which is - for a complete amatour - "difficult and awkward to reload" and for a normal user fast and nimble. I know a guy who has purchased the FS2000 semi-automatic version of the F2000 assault rifle and after a very short training (ca. 20-30 minutes) can change the magazines very fast with any problem.
When you put all of these problems together, it makes you wonder if the compactness is really worth it.When you put together a bunch of completly false arguments, than you thesis is also completly false. Some information you've written has nothing in common with the real world (flash hiders issue, distance between face and the muzzle as well as the mass center of the bullpups). I don't think so you have any knowledge about any military rifles including the bullpups.
By the way, please don't think I'm bashing bullpups.Yes, I think you are. Because of quality of your "arguments".

[digrar]

Business as usual I see, talk of bullbups always brings a crowd, + rep to Remov.

[goat89]

Business as usual I see, talk of bullbups always brings a crowd, + rep to Remov.
X2! Thx for info Remov... learned new stuff 2nite!!!

[slaveman]

Sorry Mr. REMOV... I didn't realize my comments would offend you to such a degree. You've taken the time to pick apart, and critique, every aspect of my post... I'm impressed.

By the look of your avatar, I assume you're somewhat partial to bullpups. That's cool. I like them as well. In fact, I like them so much, that I own two of them...

You've made some decent points, but saying that my response is "completely false" is a bit much. If you'd like to debate this further, I'd be more than happy.

Everything I listed in my post are simply DESIGN ASPECTS THAT MUST BE OVERCOME. Like I said, there are excellent designs out there. And many of them do, indeed, overcome those issues.

Reversible bolts assemblies can make them ambidextrous. Quality, precision components can make decent triggers. Rail sysytems can be incorporated, and quality optics can increase effectivness. Proper ergonomics can make them well balanced, and reduce felt recoil...

However...

The bolt, bolt carrier, recoil springs, buffer, parts of the gas system, trigger linkage, hammer and loaded magazine ARE ALL LOCATED IN THE BUTTSTOCK (ie in the rear of the weapon). That is where the weight is. It's part of the design.

ALL BULLPUPS USE TRIGGER LINKS. It is very difficult to make bullpup trigger as light and consistent as a traditional hammer-fired weapon. There's more parts, and longer distances. This is just a fact. And one of the most common modifications for the civilian AUG in the States is a trigger kit, because it's long and gritty.

THE SIGHT RADIUS IS SHORTER. You're going off of the assumption that optics are infallible. That's your business. Scopes fog up and electronics can break. I will not trust my life to a rifle without good backup sights, and on a bullpup, they're shorter. That's just a fact.

Muzzle-rise is more evident. I didn't say uncontrollable. MORE FOWARD-HEFT EQUALS LESS MUZZLE-FLIP. This is why competion shooters weight the end of their wepaons. Go shoot an AUG and then an AR15. Same caliber, but different recoil characteristics.The weight of the bolt-carrier is located in the rear, and travels at high speed, extremely close to your face. It's a fact.

Like you said, FLASH-HIDERS ARE NECCESSARY ON ALL MILITARY ARMS. Any device that increases muzzle-flash and report are totally unacceptable on military arms. This is common sense. In general, true compensators can increase flash and report.

YOUR FACE IS CLOSER TO THE MUZZLE. That's the point of the design (shorter overall length). Compare the distance with a traditional small arm. I WOULD REALLY LIKE US TO DO THAT.

THERE IS LESS RAIL SPACE. On the pictures of weapons you posted, please show me where the space for an IR laser designator, red dot magnifier, flashlight, vertical grip, bipod, etc. All of those items could easily be incorporated into a modular M4. I didn't claim you couldn't mount things. I know there's rail systems on almost every modern bullpup. There just ISN'T AS MUCH RAIL SPACE, because there's less forward space. Again, that's the point of the design.

Bullpups are more awkward to reload. While keeping your weapon on target, THE MAGAZINE WELL IS OUT OF VISION. On some models, THE BOLT HANDLE IS BY YOUR FACE. I didn't say fast reloads were impossible. They just require adequate familiarization and training. The technique for reloads is different, and if you're accustomed to shooting traditional weapons, it can be awkward. An AKM requires a lot less training.

IS IT REALLY WORTH IT? Consider Chinese military doctrine. Is it really worth producing weapons like this for a conscript army, when they could be pumping out newer AK variants for less money, and have untrained soldiers familiar and effective within days? Not to mention the infrastructure, production history, and familiarity with AK's that already exist in China? The TYPE-56 has served them well for years, and probably could continue to for a long time. That's just my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

And like I said, I'm not bashing bullpups, but you're surely bashing me. You're comments are based on opinions. My comments just stated DESIGN PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE OVERCOME. Nothing I said was false.

Some rifles, like the AUG, have done a good job at overcoming these problems. They're very effective guns. But they've also gone through several design improvements over the years.

Even with these improvements, you will not see many accurized versions of bullpups. In general, the nations that use bullpups tend to use other, traditional-styled weapons, for their DMR's and sniper rifles. It is just plain difficult to make a match-grade bullpup. Not impossible. Just really hard. I already know that there's bullpup sniper rifles out there. Most of them are bolt guns, and that's not what we're talking about.

You're very quick to attack Mr.REMOV. To say that I'm somehow "misleading" people is unfair. Nothing I stated here was false. These are simply design issues that must be overcome. Bullpups are an awesome concept, and they have tons of potential. They also have trade-offs (like all weapons do).

But that isn't what the discussion was about. It was about the PLA potentially replacing their weapon. I simply listed some issues that bullpups' face. I don't have any idea if the Chinese overcame these problems or not.

So you're right. Some designers have made excellent bullpups. But some designers have not. It all just depends on whether or not the designers were able to get past the DESIGN TRADE-OFFS THAT ARE INHERENT IN BULLPUP DESIGNS. If you're such a firearms expert, then you should understand that. You sound intelligent. If you'd like, we can talk about what I learned after my time as a medic, in design school, working for a gunsmith.

But it seems that you're more interested in trying to make people look stupid. You can say what you like. It doesn't matter to me. I'll be busy shooting.

[ColinP]

I have shot the left handed Tavor, the switchover is not hard but you need a new bolt. The biggest issue I get with the bullpups are the gases from the ejection port bugging your eyes. I find the Tavor fits nicely into the shoulder and the mag is not that hard to switch unless you spent your life on the AR. The trigger issue is I think the one issue the bullpup will never get away from.

[gafkiwi]

Business as usual I see, talk of bullbups always brings a crowd, + rep to Remov.

I was almost baited into it.......But what do I know.

Expecting another kiwi to pay a visit this thread soon!!!

[digrar]

Surely he'll be too busy trying to master mag changes on that pesky bullpup to be stomping around this thread?

[Soldat_Américain]

The Famas literally can be changed out from left to right in about two minutes. Its just a matter of changing around two parts in the bolt carrier group. Worst thing about the FAMAS in my opinion is you can't use any king of magazines and the FAMAS magazines suck. Weird, Slaveman as the FAMAS is front heavy.

[Catch22]

From my and my colleagues observations almost all issues typically attributed to the bullpup has been solved these days. From the ergonomics and speed-of-operation point of view the X-95 (Micro Tavor) is surely best of modern b-p's we had a chance to compare (including FAMAS, VHS, L85, F2000, P90, AUG, TAR and Chinese ones). You can work that thing (reloads, IA drills) almost to the speed of a AR platform thanks to the properly placed magazine release button. The only issues that are still troubling the bullpups are the unreduceable lenght and eventual bulkiness of the buttstock - when using the bullpup with body armor (esp. integrated vest) it pushes the gun further away from the body, making shouldering difficult and more tirying esp for the bicep muscles. It can also present more difficulties with some fixed magnification optics that require relatively short eye relief (esp. Tavor has this issue, having a very long stock).


One of the better things with the b-p is that it has a potential to be a much better platform for the underbarrel grenade launchers, due to balance, especially if the ugl is designed specifically for that role not just adapted - take a look at new Steyr ugl for AUG.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Blah, blah, blah, bullpups suck, blah, blah, blah.

[Jippo]

Every modern assault rifle in any design - classic or bullpup has a flash hider. Every m o d e r n military assault rifle without any exeptions!

RK95 has a compensator that acts as a flashider too. Or flash hider that compensates. Point is irrelative to discussion, but just FYI.

[pmj]

I have to agree with Remov. Bullpups are valid. The new Micro Tavor with its shorter lenght of pull and the magazine release button at the pistol grip is a big improvement in terms of ergonomics. But even with older designs like the Steyr AUG speed reloads are possible - simply use the fresh magazine to hit the release button. The old mag will drop free. Insert the new mag. Now simply slap the bolt catch (new on the Aug A3) and you're done.
When the Israelis adopt a Bullpup (X95 / Micro + regular Tavor) - now that's a vote of confidence from a very exprienced and professional army.

[slaveman]

I absolutely agree that bullpups are valid. The ability to contain a full-length barrel inside a compact weapon definitely has its advantages. And like already said, there are some really slick designs out there.

I think some people are misinterpreting the nature of my post. The discussion is about the Chinese potentially replacing their current weapon. I simply listed some trade-offs that may or may not affect the QBZ.

Consider this... Before issuing the QBZ, the Chinese used AK-pattern weapons. Some of the most common complaints about AK's are poor sights, slower reloads (when compared to other modern weapons), lack of modular accessories, no bolt-hold device, general inaccuracy, etc.

Now take the Norinco 86S (a Chinese bullpup AK that I have experience with). It takes every downfall of the AK, and makes them even worse... The sights are crammed together. It reloads exactly the same, except now, the magazine well is awkward to access and the charging handle is hard to reach. It doesn't accept as many accessories, and the trigger is over ten pounds. It will not group as good as a standard AKM, and recoil is more noticable. It cannot be shot left-handed, or fired off-shoulder by a right-handed shooter as easily (because the charging handle can shred your forearm to pieces). And it costs three times as much.

HOWEVER... It handles extremely well. It's lightweight and easier to carry than a standard AKM. And it's still more accurate than a shortened Krink-type weapon that's similar in size. And it's been extremely reliable. It bridges the gap between a dedicated CQB weapon and a full-size, traditional rifle extremely well... But is it worth building millions of them for a miltary force, when a standard AK can avoid some of the issues, and cost less? I honestly don't know.

Now the MSAR STG (AUG copy) on the other hand, is absolutely awesome. Other than the heavy trigger, I can't say one bad thing about the rifle. I'm sure anyone who's been issued an AUG absolutely loved it, especially if it saved their life.

I wish we could get some of the newer bullpups here in the States. The Tavor does look great, and the newer Polish designs look awesome too. I'm not here to bash or offend anyone. I just think it's niave to think that any one type of weapon is perfect. Every type of gun has its trade-offs. My M4 had its fair share of issues too, but it served its purpose.

I like the feedback. It's interesting to hear opinions from operators with first-hand experience.

[slaveman]

By the way...

From what I can find, the QBZ is not ambidextrous. There is no bolt-hold device, or drop-free magazine feature. The magazine is "rocked" into place, AK-style. Other than a scope and bipod, I haven't seen any accessories. It's extremely compact, just a bit over two feet long.

Maybe someone could elaborate? I'd like to hear more about it...

[18SASS]

waiting for the F2000 bullpup to be adopted.:roll:

Out of all the existing bullpups Id favor the AUG. Would choose the Vektor CR21 if it existed. Spanked the AUG out to 600 Meters and in general reliability. Also a zero signiture flash hider was an added bonus coupled with a special barrel that burnt off all powder. I have yet to see an assault rifle that emits zero muzzle flash like the CR21.

[REMOV]

By the way......by the way, as usual, your informations has not much or sometimes nothing in common with real world.
From what I can find, the QBZ is not ambidextrous.This is true. Is not. And I wrote about it before.
There is no bolt-hold deviceAgain... First - the prototypes of the QBZ-95 has the bolt hold device, but Chinese army has forced to remove it. So, the type 95 has an option, just like G36, which in fact has a hidden bolt hold device. Most probably you can (re)introduce this feature if you want to purchase serious number of assault rifles, but the Chinese army tactical/technical requirements not demand the bolt hold device. If the requirements will change the bolt hold device also will appear in the assault rifle.

Second - the export models for 5,56 mm x 45 ammunition like QBZ-97 as well as NQZ-03A (used by Cambodian military) has the bolt hold device. You can clearly see it at the YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Cbs-a3gL4
or drop-free magazine feature. The magazine is "rocked" into place, AK-style.So what? You know, before you wrote something like that, just take a look at another YouTube movie. Especially for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMmaIZ8 ;)
Other than a scope and bipod, I haven't seen any accessories.You haven't seen? It is not suprise for me at all. But the smart Chinese people introduced the Chinese universal rail located in the transport grip you can attach a few optic and optoelectronic scopes as well as several different caliber underbarrel grenade launchers and two types of blunderbusses, plus blank fire attachement.

[REMOV]

Sorry Mr. REMOV... I didn't realize my comments would offend you to such a degree.You comments do not offend me at all, just - once again - make me aware that in the huge, huge world are some people who are really, really convinced that they have k n o w l e d g e about something. That's all.
By the look of your avatar, I assume you're somewhat partial to bullpups.You assumption is at the same level as your arguments about firearms. If I have a wolf avatar and the discussion was about the wolves, you will have - by the look of my avatar - assumption I dancing with them or what? p-)
That's cool.Yes? Because in the real world I am so much connected with bullpups as with classic design. No less no more.
Everything I listed in my post are simply DESIGN ASPECTS THAT MUST BE OVERCOME.Most of the "everything" you've listed are the false information, I pointed out. For you it may be, naturally, "design aspect that must be overcome" (how I forgot the bolt fonts!?), but again it is rubbish. A few of "yours" design aspects are long, long time ago overcomed, most - never exists.
The bolt, bolt carrier, recoil springs, buffer, parts of the gas system, trigger linkage, hammer and loaded magazine ARE ALL LOCATED IN THE BUTTSTOCK (ie in the rear of the weapon). That is where the weight is. It's part of the design.Rubbish. The trigger bar is light, and its mass has marginal. The same with the hammer. Yes, the magazine is located at the 1/5 overall length of the rifle, but you forgot - or you cannot understand - that the most of the mass in the weapon is hidden in the barrel. More over, all the gadgets are attached to the front, as well as the scope is located more or less in the middle. That's way - again - in the real world the bullpup assault rifle center of gravity is in the middle of overall length of rifle. In the Steyr AUG, L85A2/L98A2, FA MAS F1 etc. Ups... again, no bolt fonts in my statements.
ALL BULLPUPS USE TRIGGER LINKS. It is also false. Even if you write it in all caps. I know at last one bullpup design automatic rifle which trigger is - or was - as much - or even more - accurate than classic design (hint: a RFB prototype). No bolt fonts, no caps. You know why? Because I am not a child and I know what I write.
It is very difficult to make bullpup trigger as light and consistent as a traditional hammer-fired weapon.Nope, it is not. That's why there are many bullpup design s n i p e r rifles. Beat that p-)
There's more parts, and longer distances. This is just a fact.It has no matter. Really. Funny thing is that some pistols or revolvers has heavier trigger pull than a n y military bullpup design assault rifle. And this is a fact. And you can clearly check it but reading a technical manuals.
And one of the most common modifications for the civilian AUG in the States is a trigger kit, because it's long and gritty.Once again the same question - you've talk about military rifles or some semi-automatic shooting devices for civilians? Because there is a huge gap between them. As well as between military and civilian rifles.
THE SIGHT RADIUS IS SHORTER.Which is unimportant. At all. The battle distance in the modern world (apart of some specific situation like in Afganistan, in which, by the way bullpups are better than short-barreled assault rifles like M4) and relatively close, and in the real fight, you do not aim very long. That's why the red dots and holo sight plus small magnification scopes dominates battlefield in 21st Century.
You're going off of the assumption that optics are infallible.It is not assumption, boy, it is h a r d evidence collected from the r e a l world, from real battlefields. Funny thing, but the red dot or holo sights are more reliable than some assault rifles attached to.
That's your business.Yes, my business is analysing the datas. Reliable datas, not some assumption based on lack of knowlegde p-)
Scopes fog up and electronics can break. I will not trust my life to a rifle without good backup sights, and on a bullpup, they're shorter. That's just a fact.Nope, it is not "a fact". It is your own belief. Which is not "a fact" at all. The bullpup design weapons are used on the battlefield over 30 years, and the problems you trying to imagine and convince someone just not exist in the real world. More over, some of the nations just dropped the backup sight at all (take a look at the L86A3). Why? Because the optics are as reliable as the weapon. And if not, it has no significant matter. Sorry.
Muzzle-rise is more evident. I didn't say uncontrollable. MORE FOWARD-HEFT EQUALS LESS MUZZLE-FLIP.Rubbish. I fired dozens of assault rifles - classic and bullpup design - and the muzzle rise of the bullpup is the same as the classic design.
This is why competion shooters weight the end of their wepaons.Sure. "Competiton shooters". Now, back to the militaryphotos, and military assaulr rifles, ok? You know, the competition rifles are completly different issue, which is not a topic of this disscusion.
Go shoot an AUG and then an AR15. Same caliber, but different recoil characteristics.It is generality, not "a fact". You know, every assault rifle has slight different recoil characteristics. So what?
The weight of the bolt-carrier is located in the rear, and travels at high speed, extremely close to your face. It's a fact.So what? Yes it is "a fact", but meaningless. In fact there is no difference - just take a look at the bolt carrier way in the M16? Is it really not extremaly close to your face? Really?
Like you said, FLASH-HIDERS ARE NECCESSARY ON ALL MILITARY ARMS.Yes, I wrote it. You've just repeated my words.
Any device that increases muzzle-flash and report are totally unacceptable on military arms. This is common sense. In general, true compensators can increase flash and report.Back to the real world. Show me a n y compensator at the bullpup design assault rifle. Show me any device attached to the bullpup design assault rifle which increase the muzzle flash. Time, start! But wait... there is any? Not at all? So what is the sense of your bolt and caps letter statement? A rubbish again, right?
YOUR FACE IS CLOSER TO THE MUZZLE.A rubbish. It is also meaningless, because the difference between classic and bullpup design rifles is rather small. That's why the short barreled bullpup assault rifles are in use. Again, in the real world, not in your imagination.
THERE IS LESS RAIL SPACE. On the pictures of weapons you posted, please show me where the space for an IR laser designator, red dot magnifier, flashlight, vertical grip, bipod, etc.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=l85+rail+system+photos
All of those items could easily be incorporated into a modular M4.As well as the bullpup design assault rifle. Wait, it the real world, all of those items a r e easily be incorporated into such weapons.
I know there's rail systems on almost every modern bullpup. There just ISN'T AS MUCH RAIL SPACE... is not much rail space, than you imagine. Right, this is "a fact" p-)
Bullpups are more awkward to reload. While keeping your weapon on target, THE MAGAZINE WELL IS OUT OF VISION.Again. Doesn't matter. You can reload magazine with the same speed as the classic design. Again, in the real world, not in the world of your imagination.
On some models, THE BOLT HANDLE IS BY YOUR FACE.For example? Show me only one adopted by any army bullpup design which has such nonsence feature, ok? But, you know what, you and I know that you wrote another rubbish :)
I didn't say fast reloads were impossible. They just require adequate familiarization and training.Which is a fundament of the military.
The technique for reloads is different, and if you're accustomed to shooting traditional weapons, it can be awkward.If you are accustomed to something always breaking of your habits is unpleasant. But, if you are accustomed to the bullpup design it can be awkward to switch to the classic design. This is the same level of the argument.
An AKM requires a lot less training.It is - again - your out of touch of reallity theory. The training of the bullpup and classic design assault rifle is the same. You cannot liberate of your habits, boy, and you think that every human beings on the face of the planet shares your accustomed behaviours. Which is not "a fact", but a rubbish.
IS IT REALLY WORTH IT?Sure it is. That's why in the real world bullpup design assault rifles are used and purchased by more and more armies. Regardless you theories, I am afraid. Welcome in the real world, Neo p-)
Consider Chinese military doctrine. Is it really worth producing weapons like this for a conscript army, when they could be pumping out newer AK variants for less money, and have untrained soldiers familiar and effective within days?Again rubbish and lack of any knowledge of Chinese military, which becomes more and more professional those days. That's why they reduced the army and put emphasis on training. There is no such Chinese army you can see at the propaganda cliches from Korea in 1950s. And no, the AK line has reach its modernization end and it make no sense for China to hold such obsolete design.
Not to mention the infrastructure, production history, and familiarity with AK's that already exist in China?So what? In the US was the infrastructure and production history of milions of the M1 Garand. Why the Americans weren't stay with something they familiarize? Why? Have you ever heard about of something called "progress"? The AK is the obstolete assault rifle, regarless of the lack of innovative ideas and funds Russians from IzMash or Venezuelans may said. And yes, it is "a fact". By the way there is no such thing like "familiarity of AK" in China. Again go and learn how the civilian market looks there. You transfered your vision of the US arms law on the PRC.
The TYPE-56 has served them well for years, and probably could continue to for a long time. That's just my opinion.You know, in the real world, in the regular Chinese Army the type 81 replaced the type 56 several years ago. Again, in the r e a l world which, I am afraid, you're far far away.
And like I said, I'm not bashing bullpups, but you're surely bashing me. You're comments are based on opinions. My comments just stated DESIGN PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE OVERCOME.Rubbish. It is not real "design problems", as you called it, but several out of the real world generalisations, which are not to defend.
Nothing I said was false(now, I use the bolt font, to summarize your opinions)

If the bullpup assault rifles were not exist at all, and we were discussed a theoretical problems, some of your opinions I (may) would recognized as valuable.

But, I am afraid, the bullpup assault rifles are over 30 years used by several armies around the world, a new models are created and adopted, thats why I pointed out, that your "fact" has nearly nothing in common with reality. We have over 30 years experiences with bullpups which lead us to more and more sophistical designs. In the real world the muzzle distance is irrelevant, as well as the short sight line and a lots of your "design problems that must be overcome". No, it hadn't had. There are irrelevant. Completly meanignless. And "facts" for you. When I compare such "facts" to the real designs and real weapons suddenly you don't know any of them. You have no knowledge about rails in bullpup assault rifle, you cannot find a bolt hold device in some Chinese weapon and so on. You've written just a few pure theoretical thoughts, that's all.

Your whole statement is one, big cry that you have different habits and you cannot understand the design which is clearly against something you are familiar and used to. That's why you repeat over and over again with bolt and caps fonts a few platitudes about overcoming something, which in the real world is overcame long time ago. Now, the bullpups are on completly different level of development. You arguments sound for me, like copied from some magazine from 1960s or from some hobbyst magazine, but not exactly connected with military weapons. And it is not an attack for you, my friend, it is just "a fact" (or truly opinion). The same category you're used to ;)
Some designers have made excellent bullpups. But some designers have not.Some people wrote truism. Some not. Some people has a lot of time to talk in generalities. Some not.

[ancientgrump]

Show me a n y compensator at the bullpup design assault rifle.



Err, not to be a smartalek or anything, but doesn't the F2000 come standard with a compensator?

[LineDoggie]

Jeez someone has a huge chip on his shoulder over Bullpups.....

To me their biggest failing is the lack of being able to be used Ambidexterously in combat conditions (I know FN 2000 & Kel-Tec RFB can , but most others either cannot be switched or it is an Armourers skill)