What Happened to Bullpup Designs

[wholagun]

Given the nature of today's combat in more built up urban areas, doesn't it make sense to have a bullpup design compared to the standard design. Take for example the G 36 (sweet gun, no question about that) but it seems to be too long and clumsy to be used in built up areas. Sure you can fold the stock and problem sloved, but if your gonna do that why not just go with the bullpup design in the first place. The M4 is a nice little gun, small but does not pack as much punch as the M16, although in urban areas your up close and personal with the emeny so you don't need as much power and distance. In a sense i guess I answered my own question, however Im just curious why you don't see more guns like the AUG being used? Is there a reason for this, technical problem, preference?

[kutter]

I think its a little premature to sound the death knell of bullpup rifles. They do have their disadvantages primarily the 'unusual' ergonomics and the fact that most can't be fired from the left side without modifications (although the FN F-2000 has solved this problem) but if you look at the new generation of assault rifles you'll find that the bullpup concept is still alive and well. Some of the new bullpups are the SAR-21(Singapore), F-2000(Belgium), TAR-21(Isreal), CR-21(S. Africa), QBZ-95(China) and several others in developement. The G-36 is one of the few new rifles that still retains the the conventional configuration, as time goes by it seems that bullpups will become the rule rather than the exception.

[Chris196]

Sign me up for mushy breakage ****e triggers, slow reloads and the inability to fire off the weak shoulder.

[Gringo]

I think its a little premature to sound the death knell of bullpup rifles. They do have their disadvantages primarily the 'unusual' ergonomics and the fact that most can't be fired from the left side without modifications (although the FN F-2000 has solved this problem) but if you look at the new generation of assault rifles you'll find that the bullpup concept is still alive and well. Some of the new bullpups are the SAR-21(Singapore), F-2000(Belgium), TAR-21(Isreal), CR-21(S. Africa), QBZ-95(China) and several others in developement. The G-36 is one of the few new rifles that still retains the the conventional configuration, as time goes by it seems that bullpups will become the rule rather than the exception.
I've heard that the TAR21 is not that popular in Israel, that troops prefer the Colt M4.

[StarvingStudent47]

What about for sniper rifles? Fast reloads and alternating shoulders don't matter for sniper rifles, and I'd imagine that the savings in length could be pretty handy. I know that Russia has a bullpup sniper rifle (SVU-A, I think). I'm not sure if the "mushy, breakage-****e trigger" issue could be resolved, but if it could, will we see more bullpup snipers in the future?

[perdurabo]

Yes Poland now is building WKW on .50 cal
bullpup with floating barrel look on topic Polish SVD mod. in equipment and gear there are pictures of it.

[Ratamacue]

I'm not sure whether any military uses them, but I know Barrett makes a couple bullpup models of .50cal sniper rifles.

[GazB]

The Russians have a bullpup version of their SVD (SVDU), and there is a 50 cal sniper rifle they ahve that is a bullpup as well (ONV-98 or something).
The balance of bullpups is often rear of the pistol grip which makes them feel strange to fire... the weight of the rifle pushes the butt down in our shoulder rather than balanced between your hands like a conventional rifle. I would expect this to increase muzzle climb during firing but have not fired a bullpup myself.
The Groza (OTs-14) and the TKB-0239 and the A-91 are also bullpup designs used by various Russian units, and their design was rooted in the problem of adding an underbarrel grenade launcher to a normal rifle. This normally upsets the balance of that rifle and moves the centre of balance too far forward to be comfortable. The use of a bullpup configuration reestablishes balance forward of the pistol grip to allow a better feel, or better balance.

[digrar]

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:11 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think its a little premature to sound the death knell of bullpup rifles. They do have their disadvantages primarily the 'unusual' ergonomics and the fact that most can't be fired from the left side without modifications



The Australian Austeyr only needs a left hand fireres bolt and the plastic clip on port ejection cover being swapped over. It's a 30 second job.

[BMF]

just my opinion, but weapons like the G36, M16A2, M4, etc arent exactly impossible to use indoors. the longest of these, the M16A2 is a shade under 40 inches, weighing less then 9 lbs loaded. thats nothing. the weapon is extremely easy to move around in buildings, doorways, whever you may need to. bullpups lose a lot in accuracy and stability, not to mention that you have to take it off your shoulder to reload because of the magazine wells' position. not to mention that most bullpups either cannot fire from the left handed position, or are less reliable when used like that if it's even an option. I'm definetly more in favor of folding/collapsing stock designs.

[Gringo]

In fact when the M16 first came out in 1950 something, it was considered quite compact for an Assault rifle.

[Carlos]

The Australian Austeyr only needs a left hand fireres bolt and the plastic clip on port ejection cover being swapped over. It's a 30 second job.

...one you surely won't try in the middle of a gunfight... ;)

[ArmoredDov_D9]

I think its a little premature to sound the death knell of bullpup rifles. They do have their disadvantages primarily the 'unusual' ergonomics and the fact that most can't be fired from the left side without modifications (although the FN F-2000 has solved this problem) but if you look at the new generation of assault rifles you'll find that the bullpup concept is still alive and well. Some of the new bullpups are the SAR-21(Singapore), F-2000(Belgium), TAR-21(Isreal), CR-21(S. Africa), QBZ-95(China) and several others in developement. The G-36 is one of the few new rifles that still retains the the conventional configuration, as time goes by it seems that bullpups will become the rule rather than the exception.
I've heard that the TAR21 is not that popular in Israel, that troops prefer the Colt M4.

I've heard the opposites. Infantry soldiers who used the TAR-21 (Tavor) report of great satisfection with this bullpup rifle. Mainly because it is light and easy to aim with. Evantually, it won the trails against the M4A1 and were selected as the IDF future standard assult rifle. So far it was only issued in small quantities due budget limits.

[Royal]

bullpups lose a lot in accuracy and stability

Untrue. Bullpups are more accurate. Just look at international military skills competitions. The much maligned L85 regularly beats all comers on accuracy.


not to mention that you have to take it off your shoulder to reload because of the magazine wells' position.

Untrue. At least as far as the three I've used more than a couple of times (SA80 family, FAMAS and Steyr AUG).


not to mention that most bullpups either cannot fire from the left handed position, or are less reliable when used like that if it's even an option

True for the L85/86, but I've not heard similar complaints from left handed French and Aussie users...

[ArmoredDov_D9]

The thing about bullpups is that they keep barrel length in a shorter rifle frame by pushing it into the stock. In regular rifles the barrel begins after the trigger while in bullpups it begins at the stock.

[Tripod]

umm ever hear of the G36k? what aobut the G36c? they are both pretty small and can be used in urban combat, infact I believe the G36c is ment for indoor fighting.

And the P90 ejects cartridges from the bottom so left and right handed users may use it. It's ergonomics may look strange but it's extremely comfortable to hold, the bullpup design makes it extremely small (i mean small) and the round is pretty good.

Also, what are you talking about the M4A1 not having the same power as the M16A2? They like use the same ammunition...

[rob]

the m4a1 DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME POWER AS THE A2.

the 5.56 ammo relys very heavily on velocity to do what it does. and a longer berral gives more velocity and range. there for you have less power. think about this, if the m4 had the power and range of the a2 then why the hell would the a2 be around. but for built up areas te m4 is more then adequate.

as for bullpups, i think the are worst for built up areas. transitioning shoulders to shoot around corners and not expose yourself a lot is just not real easy to do with a bullpup. plus there is more movement involved in changing mags so you will never be as fast as with a conventional design.

as for the tavor, it lost the trials. the m4 was actually adopted, but political pressure from imi revearsed the desition after a few thousands of m4s where delivered.

[BMF]

the one time i handled an L85, i had a helluva time reloading the damned thing, possibly because i'm lefty. I also heard a lot of comments from brits over here this summer for cross- training, saying they liked the M16A2 much more at the range. the full-size rifle eats up recoil, and so followup shots came faster and more accurate.

[ogukuo72]

One of my favourite topics! :D

I've fired a SAR21, M16 and CAR-15, and handled the Steyr AUG, FN2000 and G36 so I feel I can comment on bull-pups vs 'normal' designs.

Faults inherent with bull-pups:

1. Safety - because the trigger is in front of the magazine, the safety and single-to-auto selector are usually placed awkwardly. The SAR21 and L85 has push button safety on top of the trigger guard with selector under the cheek. The Steyr AUG has a push button just above the grip and a 'double-pressure' system. The FN2000 and FAMAS has rotating drums in the trigger guard.

The safety on the SAR21 and Steyr AUG I handled were both very stiff and hard to deactivate. I actually had to tilt the weapons over to one side to gain enough leverage to de-activate them. I don't know if this is common to all bull-pups, but you will need less leverage to flip a thumb switch than to press a button in horizontally.

None are as convenient and intuitive as the thumb selector of the M16 and G36. The M16 selector design is particularly good. Even in a dark jungle night, I can check which position the selector is in by feeling with my thumb.

2. Magazine - I really liked the M16 arrangement, although sometimes that leads to lost magazines. You dump the empty mag with your trigger finger while you go for a fresh one. Insert and tap the slide catch and you are ready to go.

None of the bull-pups had a slide catch. You had to pull back the bolt catch again to release the bolt. Also, on all of them, you had to remove the magazine first before going for the fresh one.

3. Optics - the SAR21 1.5x scope is definitely better than the old M16 iron sights. For not-so-young people like me, this is better. But if you put an optical scope on the M16, that advantage is gone.

4. Felt recoil - the SAR21 had very little felt recoil compared to the M16, but since the M16 had light recoil already, I felt that there wasn't much of a difference.

5. Handling - for MOUT (or FIBUA as we call it here), the M16 is OK. For the M16 to be too long, it'll really have to be a really small room or window. But the CAR-15 was even more compact than even the SAR21. Without the bulky stock of the M16 and with 5.5in less barrel, the weapon was really handy.

Conclusion: I feel that the advantage confered by the bull-pup design (shorter length) doesn't outweigh the disadvantages (awkward safety/selector and magazine change). Some of its old 'advantages' had already been made up for through better optics on the M4 and G36.

Give me an M4 anytime.

[digrar]

The Austyer safety catch is easily operated with thumb and forefinger. Brand new ones are a bit stiff but nothing to worry about.
Once a soldier is trained on a weapon and is considered proficient I would imagine he could do a mag change rapidly regardless of the weapon.
The Austyer is a bugger to fire from the left shoulder when it is set up for a righty because the ejection port lines up withthe face. But a few toughen up pills generally sort that out.
Our steyrs can now be fitted with a night aiming device (infra red), night sight, 4X wilcat sight and (finally now we can get rig of the M79 grenade launcher) a 40mm grenade launching attachment which makes for a reasonable bit of kit both in urban and field conditions. Saying that we would prefer m4s though.

[Royal]

as for bullpups, i think the are worst for built up areas. transitioning shoulders to shoot around corners and not expose yourself a lot is just not real easy to do with a bullpup.

Unless you shoot like a Somali street kid with an AK, you don't transition shoulders when shooting anywhere....

Non aimed fire is wasted fire, and in an IS rather than GW situation is illegal under the 'laws of war'.

I fully accept the left handed drawbacks of bullpups, but for a left handed firer to shoot round a corner to the left (or a right handed one to shoot round a right hand corner) is always going to be a pain.


None of the bull-pups had a slide catch. You had to pull back the bolt catch again to release the bolt. Also, on all of them, you had to remove the magazine first before going for the fresh one.

L85/86 has a bolt release catch.

[ogukuo72]

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. :)

Btw, take a look at this pix of a Tavor 21.


http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/General.gif

I noticed that it has a thumb safety/selector. So, there's at least one bullpup out there with this good design feature.

[Gringo]

as for bullpups, i think the are worst for built up areas. transitioning shoulders to shoot around corners and not expose yourself a lot is just not real easy to do with a bullpup.

Unless you shoot like a Somali street kid with an AK, you don't transition shoulders when shooting anywhere....

Non aimed fire is wasted fire, and in an IS rather than GW situation is illegal under the 'laws of war'.

I fully accept the left handed drawbacks of bullpups, but for a left handed firer to shoot round a corner to the left (or a right handed one to shoot round a right hand corner) is always going to be a pain.


None of the bull-pups had a slide catch. You had to pull back the bolt catch again to release the bolt. Also, on all of them, you had to remove the magazine first before going for the fresh one.

L85/86 has a bolt release catch.

The bolt release catch is at the rear of the SA80 though. As the M16s bolt release catch is nearer the front handguard. But, I suppose it is above the magazine housing, so after you've inserted the mag u can get to it easily.

[GazB]

"umm ever hear of the G36k? what aobut the G36c? they are both pretty small and can be used in urban combat, infact I believe the G36c is ment for indoor fighting. "

They are short barrel weapons. You'd have to have a pretty rich armed forces if you could reequip all of your troops like that... ie fight through the desert with the full length version then all swap to G36K for fighting in the streets of the cities you come to.

"In fact when the M16 first came out in 1950 something, it was considered quite compact for an Assault rifle."

It has always been very light... it has never been compact.

"Untrue. At least as far as the three I've used more than a couple of times (SA80 family, FAMAS and Steyr AUG). "

How did you find the FAMAS?

I have heard it wasn't very accurate, but it was from a Brit and I think he was comparing it to an SA80, which is a lot of things but inaccurate isn't one of them.

"And the P90 ejects cartridges from the bottom so left and right handed users may use it. It's ergonomics may look strange but it's extremely comfortable to hold, the bullpup design makes it extremely small (i mean small) and the round is pretty good. "

It is a SMG, not an Assault Rifle.

"Also, what are you talking about the M4A1 not having the same power as the M16A2? They like use the same ammunition..."

As Rob says in the post after yours there is a significant difference between the power of this particular round in different barrel lengths.
It fires a small light round which relies on velocity for its effectiveness.
From a full length 20in barrel out to about 200m the bullet is effective because when it tumbles the velocity is so high it snaps in two main fragments. The lower velocity from the M4A1 means that it is not travelling fast enough to snap as it tumbles... depending upon the conditions sometimes even at the muzzle.

I personally think the Brits should go for a real rifle... an AK-101. An AK-74M in 5.56mm. It actually has a folding stock so it can be as short as a bullpup and retain a full length barrel. I think the so called collapsable stocks on the M16 series rifles are a joke... shortening by 3-4 inches is an adjustable stock... not a collapsable stock.

[Royal]

How did you find the FAMAS?

I have heard it wasn't very accurate, but it was from a Brit and I think he was comparing it to an SA80, which is a lot of things but inaccurate isn't one of them.

Accuracy is relative. Most assualt rifles are designed for use (and used) in the 0-300m range. Most accuracy problems are down to poor shooting, not poor weapons. IMHO the L85/86 is one of the few that are consistently usefull fast that range.

I spent a year on attachment with the French and had no great problems with the FAMAS. I like the bipod and the fact it has iron sights. It's internal configuration is better than the L85/86, but I think on balance the A2 is a better weapon system.

Personally I prefer the M16/M4/C7/8 to either, but then again as an assualt rifle, I prefer Kalashnikovs to them - simple, wide tolerances and perfectly accurate to 300m with good training.

[rob]

I think the so called collapsable stocks on the M16 series rifles are a joke... shortening by 3-4 inches is an adjustable stock... not a collapsable stock.

u have yet to see a soldier with the stock folded on any weapon that is in a combat unit, folding is mostly for suply, and storage. however the colapable stock is usefull because you can extend it all the way when you have no armer and push shorter when you have body armour on so you have the same postition of the rifle, but this can not be dont with a folding stock. a stock that folds and colpses would be a good idea though.

but i guess it is personaly preferance.

[GazB]

Royal, what did you think of the burst facility of the FAMAS?
Did you use it much?

The new AN-94 has a two round burst at a very high Rate of fire (30 rounds per second for the first two rounds) and the M16 series seems to have gone for burst fire as well.
I have heard that in desert storm the American troops envied the British for their full auto capability, while the British envied the Americans for the reliability. And that although trained to fire single shots most of the time that the British fired in full auto because the SA80 failed less often in full auto.


"u have yet to see a soldier with the stock folded on any weapon that is in a combat unit, folding is mostly for suply, and storage."

APCs and Helos is where I see it most often.

"Unless you shoot like a Somali street kid with an AK, you don't transition shoulders when shooting anywhere.... "

I respectfully disagree, though I don't kill people I often change hands when hunting to fire around trees. Because animals are very aware of movement I try to move from cover to cover to get close to an animal. Most of the place I shoot the animals are familiar with the shape of a human and tend to run when they see a full sillouette. Shooting around trees is often the best way to go... especially near the base of a tree or fencepost where they don't expect to see humans. If fire from left and right shoulders, though I prefer the right I am left handed. Using my AK for hunting firing left handed actually means I can move the selector with my free hand. (If you pinch it outwards before you move it down it makes no sound at all)
This means that the target will probably only see my trigger arm and shoulder and 1/3rd of my head. If I didn't change shoulders then it would see more than 2/3rds of my head and my whole chest... pretty much my whole sillouette.
I also can swap shoulders with my SLR and SKS as all three ejection ports are well forward.

[Gringo]

"In fact when the M16 first came out in 1950 something, it was considered quite compact for an Assault rifle."

It has always been very light... it has never been compact.

It was considered more compact then some of the rifles at the time.
Lee Enfield No.4 = 1128mm
M1 Garand = 1106mm
M14 = 1120mm
G3 = 1025mm
FAL/SLR = 1090mm
M16 = 998mm

[Royal]

Royal, what did you think of the burst facility of the FAMAS?
Did you use it much?

Personally I think burst fire is a waste of time, with properly trained troops - IMHO it is method of saving ammo with troops who have a habit of cabbying off full magazines on auto. Bursts of 2-3 rounds can be fired with any full auto weapon, while very occasionally full auto is needed (eg clearing a bunker/trench).

I worked with a unit for just over six months and at a school for almost 5, so yes, I used it a fair bit.



"Unless you shoot like a Somali street kid with an AK, you don't transition shoulders when shooting anywhere.... "

I respectfully disagree, though I don't kill people I often change hands when hunting to fire around trees. Because animals are very aware of movement I try to move from cover to cover to get close to an animal. Most of the place I shoot the animals are familiar with the shape of a human and tend to run when they see a full sillouette. Shooting around trees is often the best way to go... especially near the base of a tree or fencepost where they don't expect to see humans. If fire from left and right shoulders, though I prefer the right I am left handed. Using my AK for hunting firing left handed actually means I can move the selector with my free hand. (If you pinch it outwards before you move it down it makes no sound at all)
This means that the target will probably only see my trigger arm and shoulder and 1/3rd of my head. If I didn't change shoulders then it would see more than 2/3rds of my head and my whole chest... pretty much my whole sillouette.

Not being a hunter, I can't comment on the above. But the only military application I can remember for 'wrong handed' shooting is with a pistol. There was a fad a while back in the UK for trying out new entrants to units that used pistols alot with the 'wrong' hand. There were some surprisingly good results (after considerable ammounts of ammo expended and very good coaching).

[obd]

if you were to go to isayaret.com which is the official site of the Israeli SF, you would find much info on their heavy experience with all manner of weapons including Galil, Ak47, M16 variants, and the new Tavor. If you were to read the article compairing these rifles that is based on SF operational reports form the real soldiers using them, you would read this: The M4 is by far the most preferred rifle over all others. The galil is not much liked, the Ak47 is used by the naval commandos mostly out of tradition, the Tavor is disliked for all the reasons listed by previos posters to this forum. The only reason it was ever adopted was political and economic pressure due to the fact that it is manufactured by IMI which means it is made in Israel. According to Israeli SF, whose opinions I trust much more than any of the armchair arms experts in this post, the M4 is accurate, realiable, light, is quick into action, and can be easily modified to suite any mission with scopes, grenage launchers, silencers, IR, etc. No other weapon has all these attributes in one package of those put under review in the article. Other guns such as the Ak47 outperform the m4 in certain areas, but the M4 is the best all around performer. Only units under cover or those needing deniable weapons use Ak47. Galil is hated. Tavor is not considered usefull for CQB due to its slow mag change, an inabiliy to switch to eaither shoulder to "cut the pie" around right hand or left hand corners as most Israeli Spec ops are trained to do. Consider this: If you look at all other work Spec ops. 99% use traditional design rifles and do not choose the bull pup. I tend to trust these most porfessional soldeiers with years of combat experiece in real world ops than designers telling me the "design benefits" of bullpup. If they dont work in real world, they dont matter!!!

[IDFM203]

if you were to go to isayaret.com which is the official site of the Israeli SF, you would find much info on their heavy experience with all manner of weapons including Galil, Ak47, M16 variants, and the new Tavor. If you were to read the article compairing these rifles that is based on SF operational reports form the real soldiers using them, you would read this: The M4 is by far the most preferred rifle over all others. The galil is not much liked, the Ak47 is used by the naval commandos mostly out of tradition, the Tavor is disliked for all the reasons listed by previos posters to this forum. The only reason it was ever adopted was political and economic pressure due to the fact that it is manufactured by IMI which means it is made in Israel. According to Israeli SF, whose opinions I trust much more than any of the armchair arms experts in this post, the M4 is accurate, realiable, light, is quick into action, and can be easily modified to suite any mission with scopes, grenage launchers, silencers, IR, etc. No other weapon has all these attributes in one package of those put under review in the article. Other guns such as the Ak47 outperform the m4 in certain areas, but the M4 is the best all around performer. Only units under cover or those needing deniable weapons use Ak47. Galil is hated. Tavor is not considered usefull for CQB due to its slow mag change, an inabiliy to switch to eaither shoulder to "cut the pie" around right hand or left hand corners as most Israeli Spec ops are trained to do. Consider this: If you look at all other work Spec ops. 99% use traditional design rifles and do not choose the bull pup. I tend to trust these most porfessional soldeiers with years of combat experiece in real world ops than designers telling me the "design benefits" of bullpup. If they dont work in real world, they dont matter!!!

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you wrote; I just have a few corrections to make.

First isayeret is NOT any official site of the Israeli Special Forces. No, it is a site that is run by some ex soldiers which has the opinion and observations mostly from them. While it is indeed a great site, it is by no means official or for that matter to be the most complete accurate description of the Israeli special forces community. there are indeed a few fallacies that are scattered in that site. When you are dealing with opinions no two are alike and a lot of ex soldiers have some differing views of what they write there. But in general they and that site is correct.

As for the tavor. Most of what you say I actually agree (well somewhat)with, though I do make one caution. A, that article was written a while ago, so it was before most infantry units had any real and extensive use from that weapon. And secondly IMI (the maker of the weapon) released an improved one, which I have heard has addressed a lot of these concerns. We will have to wait and see. Just last month the Idf officially announced that it was switching all its infantry units to the tavor. now of course politics has some part in this (as part of Israel’s campaign to become militarily and technology independent in case some future negative politics should arise that would stop the flow of m4’s etc….,) but the idf wouldn’t go with the tavor if it weren’t a good weapon.

So the jury is still out on the tavor.

Anyways just some of my thoughts.....

Here is a good pic of one in action. (I believe its not the improved one, but it still looks impressive)
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/jenin-tavor.jpg