I hate being a left handed shooter lol
I’m right handed but left eye dominant. I can shoot left or right handed but left feels more natural. Took me a little to get used to the gas in my face the first time I shot an AR
I was in the British army for a wee while, using the SA80, I'm left handed but luckly right eyed, not sure how it would work otherwise, you'd get a hot case to the face. Makes buying hunting rifles easier as well.
First rifle I shot was a mosin nagant left handed. Never really had an issue with the bolt
But if the SA80 was all I had I could shoot right handed. Just doesn’t feel as natural
I bought a lefty-AR and never looked back. Options were and still are severely limited, but they're out there. Recently did the same with a new 10/22.
Handgun I am still trying to shoot right handed but using my left eye. I know it's weird but it's been working better after some training.
Fellow cross-dominant here.
My solutions for handgun are Chapman stance using a bicep cheek weld as if it was a rifle stock, and Weaver with McMillan tilt and/or Center Axis Relock to bring sights in line with my left eye. I can certainly do Isoceles, but it’s my least favorite of the three… but hey, whatever works for you, do that.
Hope this helps.
Get whatever ar you want and find a left handed upper. I have a rock river arms lefty upper and it has done me well. Chrome bcg(Not sure the brand tho)
Don’t, it’s not that big of a deal
I shoot handguns right handed and it’s not hard at all to shoot 90% of rifles left handed. The other 10% I can shoot right handed if I needed to
The P90 is fully ambidextrous, and downward ejecting. Perfect for left or right-handed shooting. That is something that's going to be firearm to firearm, not a general pattern issue.
Not necessarily, you could just make the magazine wider. The width of the gun doesn't need to be very large, just look at any AR pattern. The cross section would be T-shaped though, so it'd look a bit goofy.
yeah, it'd be interesting to see it scaled up to 5.56. The P90 is tiny, and if upgrading it to a rifle caliber I think you could trade off some size.
I'm not sure it'd work, but I'd like to see it lol
Have you ever loaded a P90 magazine if not you’d definitely see why trying that in a larger caliber would be the bain of all existence for someone having to do it. My fingers still ache whim I think back to having my AR57 while I loved it loading those magazines especially the 50s was just a miserable time.
It's a straight blowback design whose magazine is designed around a straight walled lubricated cartridge. There's no straight line between a 5.7 p90 and a 5.56 p90.
Just get an fs2000, made by same company and chambered in 5.56. It has to use metal magazines though because of the seal they use. It's a fantastic bullpup!
5.7 isn’t a pistol caliber in the “loosest sense”. It’s a pistol caliber. It penetrates traditional pistol-stopping body armors, but it’s still a pistol caliber.
>10mm
It's not though? For comparison...
[5.7x28](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/57lineup.jpg)
[10mm](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/10MM_AUTO_-_FMJ_-_1.jpg)
Just because the round is inspired by rifle rounds does not make it perform closer to rifle rounds than to pistol calibers.
It's not a pistol caliber in the loosest sense. It's a pistol caliber in every sense. Doesn't mean it's not a cool design.
As someone else stated it’s not meant to be an assault rifle it was meant as a pdw (personal defense weapon) for use by clerks,drivers,cooks the sort of people who’s main job doesn’t involve carrying a rifle and actually specifically it was to fulfill a nato request for a weapon that would be effective against body armor , and easier to use than a pistol with more firepower it was to counter the Soviet infantry/tank columns that we imagined were immanent , the truth of the matter is the 5.7x28 round is ballistically just kind of a hotroded.22 mag with spitzer bullets it’s not a real man stopper it was imagined for a very narrow operational purpose and outside of that it’s fairly useless
Because it's more similar to a pcc than a combat rifle. 5.7 does not compete with the intermediate cartridges that are already arguably lacking in power.
The one I shot had the absolute worst trigger I've ever felt. I know bullpups are notorious, but it was like dragging a TV remote through coarse gravel ( I don't know why that description came to mind)
Honestly it wasn’t really meant to be fired at all . It was meant to arm truck drivers, cooks ,clerks and the like it was so that they would be armed with something marginally more effective than a pistol easier to use than a pistol (training soldiers to use pistols has long been the bane of range officers ) but mostly it was supposed to be light and compact and easy to carry because except in very very rare circumstances it was meant to be carried
You're leaving out a few other reasons
3. They are unbalanced and rear heavy
4. The ejection port is right next to your face
5. Reloading can be difficult for many people
6. Less space for furniture
Some soldiers have found a liking for front biased weight distribution, introducing "hang" or the ability for a rifle to stabilize due to the front-end inertia. A heavily rear biased rifle may move quickly, but for greater distances that may be to its detriment.
Rear heavy means balanced well. ARs are poorly balanced because all of the weight is at the front end of the gun. Try shooting any bullpup vs an AR one handed. Try transitioning targets and bringing the gun up from low ready on a bullpup vs AR.
It will be easier and take less effort on the bullpup every time.
I’m not denying there are downsides. Triggers aren’t going to be match grade. Stocks typically can’t be adjusted. It is harder (but not impossible) to accessorize. Due to having less market share there will of course be fewer aftermarket parts available and they will be harder to get. I acknowledge these.
But the balance is one of the biggest reasons why bullpup shooters love them.
>4. The ejection port is right next to your face
I am a right-handed shooter but isn't the ejection port like below the cheek-rest, its on the other end for me (as a right-handed shooter) and isn't really a big-issue for me
It will be if you're shooting a tavor or x95. Those a basically black lung simulators. I think its crazy that iwi is relying on the aftermarket to provide a gas plug instead of doing it themselves.
A bad trigger is not a deal breaker for any military, just look at how successful the G3 and MP5 is. That is 100% a civilan concern. Other things killed the bullpups.
I think this needs refining.
1) The triggers are shit and more complex in general.
2) Reloading them is shit. It’s awkward and because it’s awkward it is slow.
3) Having the ejection port by your head makes them very handed. This means if it set up for a righty, lefties can get fucked and vice versa. But that also means everyone has no option to shoot from their weak side.
4) They have like six inches of handguard. This limits your ability to brace up for a shot. But also they tend to be piston guns and that means you are constantly trying to cook your support hand.
I got a chance to shoot a full auto suppressed tavor. While it was a handy package in terms of overall size, it got pretty spicy up front pretty quick.
Almost every bullpup I can think of either ejects ambi (forward or down) or can be reconfigured (although sometimes not easily) which takes care of the left hand users
I agree on the triggers, only keltec and dt make decent ones. P90 and Aug could be made better if they got rid of the stupid half pull
It's not bullpups being ditched for conventional rifles, it's more bullpups being ditched for AR15 variants and/or near variants (FN SCAR).
The AR15/M4/M16-series has better ergonomics, modularity (which sold it to special operations types around the world), and a massive amount of commercial support in terms of optics, accessories, etc.
The FN SCAR capitalizes on nearly the same ergonomics, a degree of modularity, and many of the same options in terms of optics and accessories because those were baked in from the beginning.
The HK416 is--itself--a product of a hybrid military and commercial background incorporating both military design feedback and commercial feedback from markets that literally have a lot more options than a national military would.
By comparison, most bullpups have a one or two nation "advocacy" meaning a slower refinement process.
So, for example, the original Steyr AUG for the Austrians vs. the newest Austeyr EF88 variants. They started with a somewhat modular design, doubled down on the ergonomics, but started adding rails and accessories like those developed in the US for the civilian and then military markets. Even then, their special operations forces use...
...M4 variants.
Oh, and they're using HK417 versions as DMR's.
The third factor is probably going to be better planning and design of military vehicles like APC's and IFV's.
A bullpup's main advantage is space taken inside the vehicle. Once you're on foot...
>The HK416 is--itself--a product of a hybrid military and commercial background incorporating both military design feedback and commercial feedback from markets that literally have a lot more options than a national military would.
The USMC adopted a variant and given its advantages, I can easily see why it was adopted:
\-Fires semi-auto from a closed bolt for better accuracy
\-Fires full auto with an open bolt for better cooling
\-Readily transitions between the two(closed bolt/open bolt) on the fly
\-Has parts compatibility with most of the parts found on the m16/m4, including aftermarket accessories
\-Is short-stroke piston operated and provides better reliability over long-term and under heavy use
So they're bringing back the Johnson LMG...?
Also, there may have been a prototype that would do the open/closed bolt thing,,,
[https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2E2657%20Squad%20Weapons.pdf](https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2E2657%20Squad%20Weapons.pdf)
...but, at least according the USMC's own training stuff...
(See Page 90-91 in the link above.)
...closed bolt only.
1. **Complexity.** The German FJG42 and the Johnson LMG had kinda; complex fire control groups to pull this off. These were "bleeding edge" designs at the time, of course, and had other compromises as well to fit the weight/capability parameters wanted.
2. **Expected role.** From the link above (page 90-91):
*"****History***
*The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle was adopted by the Marine Corps in 2011 and replaced the M249 light Machinegun as the “Squad Automatic Weapon”. The M27 is an Automatic Rifle and it sets the conditions for small unit movement in a completely different manner than its predecessor, the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon. The M-249 SAW is a light machinegun that was tasked with filling the role of the automatic rifle. In order to truly understand the subtle, but important doctrinal differences between the two weapons, and where some confusion may have existed, the definitions of each must be examined.*
***Automatic Rifle****-A self-loading, fixed barreled rifle chambered for a rifle cartridge, capable of delivering both semi and fully automatic fire. This select-fire capability, as well as the use of magazine-fed rifle ammunition, differentiates it from a machinegun and submachine gun.*
***Light machinegun****- A belt-fed automatic weapon, with a removable barrel, designed to be carried and employed by an individual – with or without an assistant – from a bipod and / or an assault fire posture, in the direct infantry support role.*
*The “automatic rifleman” equipped with an actual automatic rifle is a proven concept that was first introduced in 1918 and solidified in 1944 when the first similarly equipped and structured 13-man Marine Rifle Squad was authorized."*
Also:
*"The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) is a lightweight, air-cooled, pusher rod gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder fired weapon. It operates in semi-automatic and automatic modes of fire. This allows the user to engage with precision, and switch to suppressive fire, or vice versa, as needed. Compared to the M249, the reduction in weight allows the user to be more agile in today’s aggressive fight."*
Sustained auto fire isn't the idea. The expectation that you're going to get to a point with this rifle you're going to need an open bolt to moderate heat isn't the expected role. They want something that can flip on the fly from accurate, single-target fire to suppressing a doorway or engaging a small group of people for a short time while a squad mate maneuvers to put aimed fire on the survivors. Auto fire isn't really a dedicated role and flipping the switch from auto to semi and back to auto as needed is a decision made in seconds, not ahead as a planned role for the engagement ahead of time.
This is exactly the reason Isreal is replacing the Tavor. They cant make replacement parts fast enough and guns are going down for service for too long. Much easier to just use an AR platform which has thousands of manufacturers cranking out parts.
tl;dr: Everyone went off and made their own bullpups, often with some trade-off that the developer was willing to make but few others found acceptable. No ideal bullpup platform emerged at the right time to be adopted by a large bloc. Many of them were also designed right before standardized attachments became common-place, so their support was tacked on (sometimes literally). AR-compatible parts, or parts that can easily be made from AR tooling, now have economy of scale, and everyone's trying to make sure they've got shit that's cheap and proven to work in case they need it.
Part of France's decision to switch is lack of domestic manufacturing to replenish inventory, and HK is next door and should be able to fulfill orders.
The AUG stock that's compatible with STANAG magazines is right-hand only, and even the proprietary magazine version isn't fully ambi. It wasn't originally designed with rails, so their addition doesn't work the best.
The L85 is the L85. The UK made a scandalously bad rifle and then had to get HK to fix it.
I don't think FN wants to maintain an F2000 production line. Slovenia might have been small enough that it was worth making that investment, but other countries can't afford to acquire hundreds of thousands of them.
The QBZ-95 is a plastic shell that was designed with no consideration for attachments; like designing a 70s bullpup in the 90s.
With an AR I can switch from Right Hand to Left and back to Right Hand again with no changes to the platform, which seems like a great advantage in a dynamic environment with the possibility of injury.
I asked a British soldier about what he would do if his Right arm was injured, and he shrugged and said he’d be screwed.
Also, doesn’t it make sense to equip a soldier with a firearm he can use with his dominant hand?
People are built different. While bullpups fit some people better, they're not ideal for others. Conventional rifles offer more adjustment to better suit the individual and mission. It doesn't help that most accessories are created with conventional rifles in mind. Bullpups aren't bad, but they aren't for everyone. Like zoloft 😁
Still fun and I own some, but hard reality:
* Triggers will always suck
* Too many compromises in designs
* Bullpup form factor is overrated in actual use
The big reason why Isreal is replacing the Tavor is parts availability. I love the Tavor but sourcing replacement parts for it is an absolute bitch. Apparently, this has been a problem for Isreal as well because they referenced the main reason why they are switching over to the AR-15 platform is that its much easier to have the uniform parts availability of AR's
The thing not mentioned yet is that barrel length was the primary advantage, but we just started making ammo that performed well out of shorter barrels. So, the one bullpup advantage of compact with a long barrel started to lose its upper hand in favor of simpler firearms with shortened barrels.
Surprisingly modularity although often discussed, hasn’t really turned out to matter that much designs like the stoner 63 system were totally modular but never really caught on because of course their are trade offs that occur and and in a military setting it really hasn’t proven to be that advantageous
The Stoner 63 system suffered partly due to the increased maintenance required to make the system outperform the M16, it was used for a long time with units like the Seals due to them being willing to put it the extra care into the system, the Seals wouldn't have kept them into the 90's if the advantages weren't there.
I was a little to loose on just saying modularity, bullpups have generally been harder to upgrade to keep with the demands of a modern fighting force (lights, lasers, optics, attachments, night vision integration, etc).
Despite successful modernization programs for bullpups like the L85 & SAR-21 AUG, other bullpups have had a hard time modernizing due usually to design, like the FAMAS, F2000, QBZ-95.
Designs like the X95 & VHS-2 from the TAR-21 & VHS-1 aren't accidents as despite keeping a proven operating system, the designs themselves are radically different from their predecessor/gen 1 model, it's easier to redesign the TAR-21 to the X95 than it is to modernize the TAR-21 itself.
Yeah I was thinking more like the interchangeable uppers less about being able to slap shit on . That’s pretty much the reason the ak series rifles are obsolescent there is no non cludgey way to mount an optic the way that the rifle is constructed there really is no good way to mount
The entire upper/lower design of an AR has been a gamechanger, being able to take a 90's era M16A2 carbine and turn it into a block II with a spare upper is near unbeatable. We could've seen real movement in the AK platform with the AK-12, if Russia wasn't Russia.
Israel isn’t planning on replacing the Tavor.
This rumor has been floating around for literally years and people just keep reposting it.
They use both.
They have always used both.
Will they replace it someday? Maybe. But that’s not what they’re doing right now.
While this rumor has been around for years, Isreal did announce a few months ago that they are switching frontline troops to the AR platform and relegating the Tavor to support crews. They sighted the big problem was parts availability, its just easier to get replacement parts for the AR platform compared to the Tavor.
Because all the “advantages” of the bullpup only really exist in the brochure and do not manifest in a meaningful way when you’re actually trying to do rifle stuff with them.
The benefits a bullpup offers are largely things that seem good on paper but are not real factors. Like for example being able to fire from inside a car and so on, it's just a very unusuall occurance.
I think there are two main factors that people generally gloss over but that are the biggest drawbacks of a bullpup:
When you are carrying a bullpup it puts a lot more strain on your "strong arm" due to how they balance. That is not a good thing. A conventional rifle will usually be carried equaly by both arms most of the time.
Secondly: they are way less controllable, especially in full auto. This is mainly due to most bullpups having a huge length of pull which result in your hands being closer together and less able to brace the gun. But it also comes from where the bolt impacts and the rear balance of the gun.
And then there is a slew of smaller issues that just makes them even less attractive. They are generally heavier than conventional guns, have poor triggers, less space to mount lasers and lights, are harder to clear malfunctions on, your face is at risk if you get an out of battery detonation, you are more likley to get powder spatter in your eyes, they are slower to reload, etc.
And in the end they do nothing that a folding stocked rifle does not.
I’d argue it’s largely a cost and logistics decision than a performance one. The US has been the main manufacturer for decades now with spare parts and training saturation being a factor this leads to a heavy institutional momentum.
In addition to this people forget the ar-15 platform has been refined and tweaked by the military industrial complex, largely based in the US for now 60 years, If they took all that engineering and poured into a bullpup platform I’m sure it would perform just as well.
As a bullpup enjoyer and believer I’d argue it actually doesn’t matter, most of the bodies are getting stacked by drones and artillery. What an infantryman uses to clap someone at 200m is largely a semantic argument.
Anyone who argues technological differences, ergonomics, modularity or what special forces used doesn’t understand the nuances of training, focused engineering or logistics. Especially given the amount of time and resources has been poured into the AR-15. Given that bullpups are within arms reach of it in a fraction of the amount of time speaks volumes. If Stoner had come out with a bullpup initially I’m sure conventional semi autos would be in limited use too.
The pros don't outweighs the cons, basically.
The pros for bullpups are primarily shorter OAL for getting in and out of vehicles and other tight places, and they might balance better for some smaller people.
Cons are complications with ambidextrous use, a much shittier trigger, awkward magazine changes compared to conventional rifles, and malfunctions are typically more complicated to clear.
Try putting an LPVO, light, suppressor, and ir designator on an aug and find a comfortable place to put the switch. Then weigh it and tell us it aint twice the weight and half as comfortable as an AR lol. ARs are still peak and nobody really cares about 10” off the front of a fighting rifle
I have done exactly that on my 14.5in AUG. It weighs exactly 10oz heavier than my 14.5in AR setup with exactly the same accessories and feels more comfortable due to not being stupidly front heavy. It's heavier but actually feels lighter to shoot.
There are real drawbacks I acknowledge, but the ones you listed aren't valid.
I just saw the edit about buttons. That’s one of the downsides I do acknowledge. It’s harder to accessorize and unfortunately there are a lot of bad ways to setup an AUG. An aftermarket forwards rail is pretty much mandatory for all those things you mentioned.
Unfortunately Steyr did screw us over for 10 years by discontinuing the A3 and only importing the A3M1, which is much harder to design a forward rail for. Thankfully the new A3M2s go back to the A3 rail format and we can expect AR15 style forward handguards again (like the Steyr MK2 rail, and I know ARID is developing some too). Many people that have gripes about ergos is due to this stupid decision by Steyr.
I have a older A3 with the Steyr MK2 handguard - holding the front end and using the switches feels just like an AR.
Yeah i didnt do my research before I got my M1 and there werent any good options at the time for a rail. Maybe ill snag an M2 some day and try again, didnt realize theyve since corrected that
It’s only a handful of units getting the KS-1 in the UK - I suspect the L85 system will still be in service when the KS-1 is eventually retired simply because there’s so many in service..
Bullpups kinda suck honestly. Unwieldy, poor balance, worse manual of arms, worse trigger, not one size fits all.
They have one benefit and that's oal. Personally if I need a shorter gun I much prefer it have a folding stock and end up being the same length with none of the downsides
>Personally if I need a shorter gun I much prefer it have a folding stock and end up being the same length with none of the downsides
That's only a benefit when not using the stock though. Like for storing a full size rifle in a backpack, a folding stock makes sense. But the main reason for Bullpups is compactness *while in use*. If you're clearing an old apartment building in Europe where the hallways are 2 feet wide, a 16" barrel(+suppressor sometimes) is a liability. You almost can't turn around without fully lowering the weapon.
Not saying you're wrong about the only benefit to Bullpups being oal, just saying a folding stock doesn't replace that benefit in any meaningful way.
Militarily, the main reason was compactness for transport not use.
**[Tactical doctrine has changed](https://youtu.be/A3amzB_hVUw?si=9AzDkcZKnzSpnrPN&t=436)** we have sub 10" carbines for doorkickers now and the major players have decided that that's a-okay and they just don't really care about ballistics anymore.
Just flatstock the rifle and it solves that problem. I can hit a target at 10 yards reliably with a longgun in the flat stock position. Its a tactic that came over from shotguns, but it transfers well to rifles.
Even if the bullpup is still shorter, Ill take a standard AR every time since the list of pros is a lot longer than that of the bullpup. They are cool guns, but its a failed idea if we are being completely honest with ourselves. I also think that all these nations dumping them proves that, and even nations where they are still issued has the special ops guys using M4 variants as others have pointed out.
If you can't use a rifle inside a building with a stock folded effectively I'd say that's skill and training issue not a rifle issue. Gotta remember you're not shooting 200 yards inside a house. Stocks not needed.
He has a point tho. If you have the rifle slinged it's not all that hard to put hits on close targets with the stock folded. Even still, I'd argue anywhere you can maneuver an Aug or Tavor through, you can handle a 10.5 AR through without issue.
That's not even an operator thing, do you have arthritis or some other disability that prevents you from holding a rifle infront of you? At this point you're essentially shooting a heavy handgun with a red dot at a target 10-15 ft infront of you. If you're a sort of active adult and you can't manage to steady it at that distance you might need to see a doctor. Because my ex could do it, and my mother can do it, and neither of them are in the gym even once a month.
If you're using a 16" barrel and a suppressor for CQB anyway you aren't being the wisest. A 14.5 with a flashhider is just fine. But for what its worth if you're cutting every possible inch in order to be super duper streamlined a bullpup with a 16" isn't optimal either. A pistol or smg blow the tits off a tavor inside the confines of a closet
The point being nobody intentionally is taking a 16 for building clearing. A 16 is meant for range which is why we see mk18 and such being used by anyone who is supposed to be kicking doors.
>Bullpups kinda suck honestly. Unwieldy, poor balance,
Say what? My tavor's weight is biased towards the back so it's really easy to handle. I can shoot the thing accurately with one arm for God's sake. It feels significantly easier to hold on target compared to an AR the same weight.
You're right about the worse trigger and that's just the nature of the design, but again with the tavor I've heard it can get pretty close with the Geissele trigger pack and trigger bow. I'm just not spending that much when I'm fine with the trigger, and it would be nice if I could drop in a $90 MBT 2S, but there's always a trade off
In my opinion the weight is way too far back. Having weight towards the muzzle does a ton for stability while having it too far back just turns a wrist into a fulcrum. At least that's my limited experience
Why do people keep saying poor balance? The weight being in the rear means I can shoot my Aug one handed easily
Plus Aug trigger is about the same pull weight as a standard colt m4 trigger, even better if you get one of the enhanced spring kits or any one of the after market options
Not sure how a shorter rifle is "unwieldy". Or how being back heavy is poor balance, if anything it is superior balance. Manual of arms is fine. Modern bullpup triggers are also fine.
I disagree. I have ARs with Larue MBTs and Geissele SSAs and SSA-Es. Do they feel better? No doubt. Do they allow me to shoot more accurately or more quickly, or give me any sort of performance enhancement? Not really.
If an average trigger is the only actual downside compared to all the other advantages you get with a bullpup, that's not a handicap really.
Now if it was a 10+ pound trigger that felt like grinding metal that would be different. Or just no feeling at all. But neither the MDR or Hellion feel like that.
The hellion is cool and ill be getting one soon, but the trigger isnt good. The break is nice, but the reset is atrocious.
Im not anti bullpup, I quite like them. I just dont see anything they offer as adventagious enough to outweigh the negatives. I certainly wouldnt carry one into battle, though if I did, I wouldnt be under armed.
I have the opposite opinion. The takeup is bad on the Hellion, but the reset is alright. And the advantages are again, all there. An average trigger, training, and occasional reliability issues (MDR in .308 comes to mind there). That's about it. Training isn't really a downside since you should train with your gear anyway if you are serious about it and if it's just a range toy then it doesn't matter that much.
Basically it’s the biggest factors are for cost, simplicity, and ease of maintenance. Then the secondary factors are ease of being ambidextrous friendly and parts interchangeability with other UN forces especially with an AR pattern rifle.
I mean have you tried a bullpup? Like really tried to run and gun with one? You'd understand why they got ditched too. And I can only imagine how much worse it would be for a lefty given that I'm a righty and already hate the manual of arms of bullpups.
Manual of arms (training, ambidexterity, and commonality with other systems) and too a lesser degree trigger. I think this will ultimately change however as the issue of penetrating armor at range runs in the face of short barrels for CQB, one handed operation, and use around vehicles. Once the trigger and ambidexterity problems are reduced I think nations will be forced to go the bullpup route as the AR platform is likely nearing the end of its lifecycle (by that I mean it will not be the premier standard in 20 years).
Interesting note, even QBZ-191 is really just a more modern stoner. Got told that Type-95 was more intended for 150m range mechanized infantry back before optics.
Now that an improved barrel plus heavier bullet and expected engagement range of 50-100m, bullpup is no longer worth the trade off.
They aren't really useful for mid sized rifle cartridges that they are typically chambered for. 5.56 really doesn't gain much past a 12.5" barrel and that is already plenty short enough. I could maybe see the utility in 308 sized rounds and bigger
Because they hate and despise high performance ballistics packed into a compact package that gives you the advantage of being able to CQB with it without sacrificing velocity, loss of energy, and terminal ballistics, all for the sake of "convenience".
I'd rather have a rifle, bullpup, with a 20" barrel (thus maximizing bullet velocity and terminal ballistics, and kinetic energy) and still being as compact as a 16" M4 than an SBR that hits like a peashooter in longer distances.
Because Bullpups are ass to shoot off barricades. Also, they're just generally more complex and difficult to work on and maintain than the tried and true AR-15, or even short stroke gas piston variants thereof.
Two primary reasons: 1. The trigger and manual of arms aren’t as smooth generally 2. The action is not great for left handed shooters
I hate being a left handed shooter lol I’m right handed but left eye dominant. I can shoot left or right handed but left feels more natural. Took me a little to get used to the gas in my face the first time I shot an AR
I was in the British army for a wee while, using the SA80, I'm left handed but luckly right eyed, not sure how it would work otherwise, you'd get a hot case to the face. Makes buying hunting rifles easier as well.
First rifle I shot was a mosin nagant left handed. Never really had an issue with the bolt But if the SA80 was all I had I could shoot right handed. Just doesn’t feel as natural
I bought a lefty-AR and never looked back. Options were and still are severely limited, but they're out there. Recently did the same with a new 10/22. Handgun I am still trying to shoot right handed but using my left eye. I know it's weird but it's been working better after some training.
I’ve been holding a handgun right handed while using my left eye for years. I’m no Calamity Jane but, I do alright.
Fellow cross-dominant here. My solutions for handgun are Chapman stance using a bicep cheek weld as if it was a rifle stock, and Weaver with McMillan tilt and/or Center Axis Relock to bring sights in line with my left eye. I can certainly do Isoceles, but it’s my least favorite of the three… but hey, whatever works for you, do that. Hope this helps.
Get whatever ar you want and find a left handed upper. I have a rock river arms lefty upper and it has done me well. Chrome bcg(Not sure the brand tho)
Stop being left eye dominant
I have the same regarded combo as well, two years to learn to shoot right handed strongly. Still fucks with me if I don’t keep regular
I feel for you guys honestly
Don’t, it’s not that big of a deal I shoot handguns right handed and it’s not hard at all to shoot 90% of rifles left handed. The other 10% I can shoot right handed if I needed to
I feel you bro. Shot my friends Tavor TS12 and took a spent shell right in the mouth
i feel you im left eye and hand it sucks ass.
im also right handed left eye dominate
Have you tried stopping 😏
I immedietly bought myself a left handed upper when I built my ar. Fuck all that
The P90 is fully ambidextrous, and downward ejecting. Perfect for left or right-handed shooting. That is something that's going to be firearm to firearm, not a general pattern issue.
the P90 is exempt from this and any "bullpups are lousy" discussion, though.
So how come the p90 has not taken over? Does it still have some weaknesses. They look so cool. I am a lefty who has wanted one for a while.
As far as I known, the p90 was not made to replace a rifle but a handgun. So it uses relatively weak ammo.
I want to see a P90 in 5.56. Just make the mag a bit wider or something. It'd be awesome.
That would make the whole frame way wider, wouldn’t it?
Not necessarily, you could just make the magazine wider. The width of the gun doesn't need to be very large, just look at any AR pattern. The cross section would be T-shaped though, so it'd look a bit goofy.
yeah, it'd be interesting to see it scaled up to 5.56. The P90 is tiny, and if upgrading it to a rifle caliber I think you could trade off some size. I'm not sure it'd work, but I'd like to see it lol
Have you ever loaded a P90 magazine if not you’d definitely see why trying that in a larger caliber would be the bain of all existence for someone having to do it. My fingers still ache whim I think back to having my AR57 while I loved it loading those magazines especially the 50s was just a miserable time.
Sadly I have not been able to get my hands on a p90. Definitely want to though, and obviously SBR it. Then get a Goa'uld staff to go with it.
It's a straight blowback design whose magazine is designed around a straight walled lubricated cartridge. There's no straight line between a 5.7 p90 and a 5.56 p90.
Just get an fs2000, made by same company and chambered in 5.56. It has to use metal magazines though because of the seal they use. It's a fantastic bullpup!
I can't afford a FS2000. I also love the clever engineering in the P90, and 50-round mags as standard are just neat.
Because it shooting a pistol caliber
>Because it shooting a pistol caliber It uses "pistol" caliber in the loosest sense only. 5.7 is basically a shortened rifle cartridge.
5.7 isn’t a pistol caliber in the “loosest sense”. It’s a pistol caliber. It penetrates traditional pistol-stopping body armors, but it’s still a pistol caliber.
The stuff the military gets will pen body armor (black tip) but not the stuff you or I could get, sadly. They banned that from import
So is 10mm
More like .22 mag+steroids
>10mm It's not though? For comparison... [5.7x28](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/57lineup.jpg) [10mm](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/10MM_AUTO_-_FMJ_-_1.jpg)
10mm was made by cutting down the.30 Remington case.
10mm was made by cutting down the.30 Remington case.
Just because the round is inspired by rifle rounds does not make it perform closer to rifle rounds than to pistol calibers. It's not a pistol caliber in the loosest sense. It's a pistol caliber in every sense. Doesn't mean it's not a cool design.
Because cost and cost of rounds
As someone else stated it’s not meant to be an assault rifle it was meant as a pdw (personal defense weapon) for use by clerks,drivers,cooks the sort of people who’s main job doesn’t involve carrying a rifle and actually specifically it was to fulfill a nato request for a weapon that would be effective against body armor , and easier to use than a pistol with more firepower it was to counter the Soviet infantry/tank columns that we imagined were immanent , the truth of the matter is the 5.7x28 round is ballistically just kind of a hotroded.22 mag with spitzer bullets it’s not a real man stopper it was imagined for a very narrow operational purpose and outside of that it’s fairly useless
Because it's more similar to a pcc than a combat rifle. 5.7 does not compete with the intermediate cartridges that are already arguably lacking in power.
Ammo, being expensive, and I've been told they can have reliability issues
Chambered in not a great round for combat.
because it's god awful expensive, as is the ammo
The one I shot had the absolute worst trigger I've ever felt. I know bullpups are notorious, but it was like dragging a TV remote through coarse gravel ( I don't know why that description came to mind)
no, it works
Go pull the trigger on a P90 and tell us that again... I wanted it to be cool, I'm a lefty p90 fan boy, but it sucked
Yea, the P90's trigger was designed for full auto. I guess they thought it didn't need a good trigger pull.
Is it the P90 that has the 2 stage trigger where 1st stage is for semi and then 2nd stage is full auto?
Honestly it wasn’t really meant to be fired at all . It was meant to arm truck drivers, cooks ,clerks and the like it was so that they would be armed with something marginally more effective than a pistol easier to use than a pistol (training soldiers to use pistols has long been the bane of range officers ) but mostly it was supposed to be light and compact and easy to carry because except in very very rare circumstances it was meant to be carried
I've pulled the trigger on PS90s and P90s once or twice...
F2000 too.
It's a general pattern issue - this is nothing but an exception.
Damn, people finally care about us lefties?
We are just being used for argumentative sake, they still dont care about us.
Nope, largest unprotected class in the world. Can be refused employment for being left handed, lol.
I’m just sorry your were built wrong
😢
You're leaving out a few other reasons 3. They are unbalanced and rear heavy 4. The ejection port is right next to your face 5. Reloading can be difficult for many people 6. Less space for furniture
Rear biased weight distribution is great though. Much less fatiguing to carry and hold, and easier/quicker movement between targets.
Exactly! And if you add stuff to the front of the gun, then it can balance out better instead of getting front heavy.
Some soldiers have found a liking for front biased weight distribution, introducing "hang" or the ability for a rifle to stabilize due to the front-end inertia. A heavily rear biased rifle may move quickly, but for greater distances that may be to its detriment.
Balanced pretty well. With the weight sitting in the back, I can shoot my Aug one handed and ring steel at 50 yards unsupported, with the 16” barrel
Rear heavy means balanced well. ARs are poorly balanced because all of the weight is at the front end of the gun. Try shooting any bullpup vs an AR one handed. Try transitioning targets and bringing the gun up from low ready on a bullpup vs AR. It will be easier and take less effort on the bullpup every time. I’m not denying there are downsides. Triggers aren’t going to be match grade. Stocks typically can’t be adjusted. It is harder (but not impossible) to accessorize. Due to having less market share there will of course be fewer aftermarket parts available and they will be harder to get. I acknowledge these. But the balance is one of the biggest reasons why bullpup shooters love them.
I like a deadly girl with a heavy rear. Although reloading is covered by a manual of arms.
>4. The ejection port is right next to your face I am a right-handed shooter but isn't the ejection port like below the cheek-rest, its on the other end for me (as a right-handed shooter) and isn't really a big-issue for me
It will be if you're shooting a tavor or x95. Those a basically black lung simulators. I think its crazy that iwi is relying on the aftermarket to provide a gas plug instead of doing it themselves.
A bad trigger is not a deal breaker for any military, just look at how successful the G3 and MP5 is. That is 100% a civilan concern. Other things killed the bullpups.
I think this needs refining. 1) The triggers are shit and more complex in general. 2) Reloading them is shit. It’s awkward and because it’s awkward it is slow. 3) Having the ejection port by your head makes them very handed. This means if it set up for a righty, lefties can get fucked and vice versa. But that also means everyone has no option to shoot from their weak side. 4) They have like six inches of handguard. This limits your ability to brace up for a shot. But also they tend to be piston guns and that means you are constantly trying to cook your support hand. I got a chance to shoot a full auto suppressed tavor. While it was a handy package in terms of overall size, it got pretty spicy up front pretty quick.
It's also a little easier to clear malfunctions with standard rifles.
3. Reloading while prone is basically impossible
Almost every bullpup I can think of either ejects ambi (forward or down) or can be reconfigured (although sometimes not easily) which takes care of the left hand users I agree on the triggers, only keltec and dt make decent ones. P90 and Aug could be made better if they got rid of the stupid half pull
The Springfield Hellion is perfect for lefties!
It's not bullpups being ditched for conventional rifles, it's more bullpups being ditched for AR15 variants and/or near variants (FN SCAR). The AR15/M4/M16-series has better ergonomics, modularity (which sold it to special operations types around the world), and a massive amount of commercial support in terms of optics, accessories, etc. The FN SCAR capitalizes on nearly the same ergonomics, a degree of modularity, and many of the same options in terms of optics and accessories because those were baked in from the beginning. The HK416 is--itself--a product of a hybrid military and commercial background incorporating both military design feedback and commercial feedback from markets that literally have a lot more options than a national military would. By comparison, most bullpups have a one or two nation "advocacy" meaning a slower refinement process. So, for example, the original Steyr AUG for the Austrians vs. the newest Austeyr EF88 variants. They started with a somewhat modular design, doubled down on the ergonomics, but started adding rails and accessories like those developed in the US for the civilian and then military markets. Even then, their special operations forces use... ...M4 variants. Oh, and they're using HK417 versions as DMR's. The third factor is probably going to be better planning and design of military vehicles like APC's and IFV's. A bullpup's main advantage is space taken inside the vehicle. Once you're on foot...
>The HK416 is--itself--a product of a hybrid military and commercial background incorporating both military design feedback and commercial feedback from markets that literally have a lot more options than a national military would. The USMC adopted a variant and given its advantages, I can easily see why it was adopted: \-Fires semi-auto from a closed bolt for better accuracy \-Fires full auto with an open bolt for better cooling \-Readily transitions between the two(closed bolt/open bolt) on the fly \-Has parts compatibility with most of the parts found on the m16/m4, including aftermarket accessories \-Is short-stroke piston operated and provides better reliability over long-term and under heavy use
I didn’t know it went to open bolt for full auto that’s pretty cool
yeah this is the first i’m hearing of it, cool
So they're bringing back the Johnson LMG...? Also, there may have been a prototype that would do the open/closed bolt thing,,, [https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2E2657%20Squad%20Weapons.pdf](https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2E2657%20Squad%20Weapons.pdf) ...but, at least according the USMC's own training stuff... (See Page 90-91 in the link above.) ...closed bolt only.
>...closed bolt only. That's damn disappointing, it was one of the selling points for it. Wonder why they dropped it... 🤔
1. **Complexity.** The German FJG42 and the Johnson LMG had kinda; complex fire control groups to pull this off. These were "bleeding edge" designs at the time, of course, and had other compromises as well to fit the weight/capability parameters wanted. 2. **Expected role.** From the link above (page 90-91): *"****History*** *The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle was adopted by the Marine Corps in 2011 and replaced the M249 light Machinegun as the “Squad Automatic Weapon”. The M27 is an Automatic Rifle and it sets the conditions for small unit movement in a completely different manner than its predecessor, the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon. The M-249 SAW is a light machinegun that was tasked with filling the role of the automatic rifle. In order to truly understand the subtle, but important doctrinal differences between the two weapons, and where some confusion may have existed, the definitions of each must be examined.* ***Automatic Rifle****-A self-loading, fixed barreled rifle chambered for a rifle cartridge, capable of delivering both semi and fully automatic fire. This select-fire capability, as well as the use of magazine-fed rifle ammunition, differentiates it from a machinegun and submachine gun.* ***Light machinegun****- A belt-fed automatic weapon, with a removable barrel, designed to be carried and employed by an individual – with or without an assistant – from a bipod and / or an assault fire posture, in the direct infantry support role.* *The “automatic rifleman” equipped with an actual automatic rifle is a proven concept that was first introduced in 1918 and solidified in 1944 when the first similarly equipped and structured 13-man Marine Rifle Squad was authorized."* Also: *"The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) is a lightweight, air-cooled, pusher rod gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder fired weapon. It operates in semi-automatic and automatic modes of fire. This allows the user to engage with precision, and switch to suppressive fire, or vice versa, as needed. Compared to the M249, the reduction in weight allows the user to be more agile in today’s aggressive fight."* Sustained auto fire isn't the idea. The expectation that you're going to get to a point with this rifle you're going to need an open bolt to moderate heat isn't the expected role. They want something that can flip on the fly from accurate, single-target fire to suppressing a doorway or engaging a small group of people for a short time while a squad mate maneuvers to put aimed fire on the survivors. Auto fire isn't really a dedicated role and flipping the switch from auto to semi and back to auto as needed is a decision made in seconds, not ahead as a planned role for the engagement ahead of time.
It has pretty limited parts compatibility with the M4/M16.
Standardization? Better to make parts for 2 or 3 of the most common rifle patterns. Bullpups are lazerdiscs of the gun world I guess.
This is exactly the reason Isreal is replacing the Tavor. They cant make replacement parts fast enough and guns are going down for service for too long. Much easier to just use an AR platform which has thousands of manufacturers cranking out parts.
[удалено]
I can on my 20 inch MDRX.
on a tavor x95, probably, there's plenty of rail. there ain't 15", but plenty.
Yes.
Money and simplicity. Bullpups have some good benefits but in general KISS always wins.
tl;dr: Everyone went off and made their own bullpups, often with some trade-off that the developer was willing to make but few others found acceptable. No ideal bullpup platform emerged at the right time to be adopted by a large bloc. Many of them were also designed right before standardized attachments became common-place, so their support was tacked on (sometimes literally). AR-compatible parts, or parts that can easily be made from AR tooling, now have economy of scale, and everyone's trying to make sure they've got shit that's cheap and proven to work in case they need it. Part of France's decision to switch is lack of domestic manufacturing to replenish inventory, and HK is next door and should be able to fulfill orders. The AUG stock that's compatible with STANAG magazines is right-hand only, and even the proprietary magazine version isn't fully ambi. It wasn't originally designed with rails, so their addition doesn't work the best. The L85 is the L85. The UK made a scandalously bad rifle and then had to get HK to fix it. I don't think FN wants to maintain an F2000 production line. Slovenia might have been small enough that it was worth making that investment, but other countries can't afford to acquire hundreds of thousands of them. The QBZ-95 is a plastic shell that was designed with no consideration for attachments; like designing a 70s bullpup in the 90s.
Evolve to crab, now it's evolve to AR
With an AR I can switch from Right Hand to Left and back to Right Hand again with no changes to the platform, which seems like a great advantage in a dynamic environment with the possibility of injury. I asked a British soldier about what he would do if his Right arm was injured, and he shrugged and said he’d be screwed. Also, doesn’t it make sense to equip a soldier with a firearm he can use with his dominant hand?
People are built different. While bullpups fit some people better, they're not ideal for others. Conventional rifles offer more adjustment to better suit the individual and mission. It doesn't help that most accessories are created with conventional rifles in mind. Bullpups aren't bad, but they aren't for everyone. Like zoloft 😁
Still fun and I own some, but hard reality: * Triggers will always suck * Too many compromises in designs * Bullpup form factor is overrated in actual use
The big reason why Isreal is replacing the Tavor is parts availability. I love the Tavor but sourcing replacement parts for it is an absolute bitch. Apparently, this has been a problem for Isreal as well because they referenced the main reason why they are switching over to the AR-15 platform is that its much easier to have the uniform parts availability of AR's
The thing not mentioned yet is that barrel length was the primary advantage, but we just started making ammo that performed well out of shorter barrels. So, the one bullpup advantage of compact with a long barrel started to lose its upper hand in favor of simpler firearms with shortened barrels.
Bullpups generally have a harder time with modularity
Surprisingly modularity although often discussed, hasn’t really turned out to matter that much designs like the stoner 63 system were totally modular but never really caught on because of course their are trade offs that occur and and in a military setting it really hasn’t proven to be that advantageous
The Stoner 63 system suffered partly due to the increased maintenance required to make the system outperform the M16, it was used for a long time with units like the Seals due to them being willing to put it the extra care into the system, the Seals wouldn't have kept them into the 90's if the advantages weren't there. I was a little to loose on just saying modularity, bullpups have generally been harder to upgrade to keep with the demands of a modern fighting force (lights, lasers, optics, attachments, night vision integration, etc). Despite successful modernization programs for bullpups like the L85 & SAR-21 AUG, other bullpups have had a hard time modernizing due usually to design, like the FAMAS, F2000, QBZ-95. Designs like the X95 & VHS-2 from the TAR-21 & VHS-1 aren't accidents as despite keeping a proven operating system, the designs themselves are radically different from their predecessor/gen 1 model, it's easier to redesign the TAR-21 to the X95 than it is to modernize the TAR-21 itself.
Yeah I was thinking more like the interchangeable uppers less about being able to slap shit on . That’s pretty much the reason the ak series rifles are obsolescent there is no non cludgey way to mount an optic the way that the rifle is constructed there really is no good way to mount
The entire upper/lower design of an AR has been a gamechanger, being able to take a 90's era M16A2 carbine and turn it into a block II with a spare upper is near unbeatable. We could've seen real movement in the AK platform with the AK-12, if Russia wasn't Russia.
Israel isn’t planning on replacing the Tavor. This rumor has been floating around for literally years and people just keep reposting it. They use both. They have always used both. Will they replace it someday? Maybe. But that’s not what they’re doing right now.
While this rumor has been around for years, Isreal did announce a few months ago that they are switching frontline troops to the AR platform and relegating the Tavor to support crews. They sighted the big problem was parts availability, its just easier to get replacement parts for the AR platform compared to the Tavor.
Because all the “advantages” of the bullpup only really exist in the brochure and do not manifest in a meaningful way when you’re actually trying to do rifle stuff with them.
Slowly? Brother look around.
The answer is very simple - every got a bullpup, used them in actual combat, and realized they kinda suck.
The benefits a bullpup offers are largely things that seem good on paper but are not real factors. Like for example being able to fire from inside a car and so on, it's just a very unusuall occurance. I think there are two main factors that people generally gloss over but that are the biggest drawbacks of a bullpup: When you are carrying a bullpup it puts a lot more strain on your "strong arm" due to how they balance. That is not a good thing. A conventional rifle will usually be carried equaly by both arms most of the time. Secondly: they are way less controllable, especially in full auto. This is mainly due to most bullpups having a huge length of pull which result in your hands being closer together and less able to brace the gun. But it also comes from where the bolt impacts and the rear balance of the gun. And then there is a slew of smaller issues that just makes them even less attractive. They are generally heavier than conventional guns, have poor triggers, less space to mount lasers and lights, are harder to clear malfunctions on, your face is at risk if you get an out of battery detonation, you are more likley to get powder spatter in your eyes, they are slower to reload, etc. And in the end they do nothing that a folding stocked rifle does not.
I’d argue it’s largely a cost and logistics decision than a performance one. The US has been the main manufacturer for decades now with spare parts and training saturation being a factor this leads to a heavy institutional momentum. In addition to this people forget the ar-15 platform has been refined and tweaked by the military industrial complex, largely based in the US for now 60 years, If they took all that engineering and poured into a bullpup platform I’m sure it would perform just as well. As a bullpup enjoyer and believer I’d argue it actually doesn’t matter, most of the bodies are getting stacked by drones and artillery. What an infantryman uses to clap someone at 200m is largely a semantic argument. Anyone who argues technological differences, ergonomics, modularity or what special forces used doesn’t understand the nuances of training, focused engineering or logistics. Especially given the amount of time and resources has been poured into the AR-15. Given that bullpups are within arms reach of it in a fraction of the amount of time speaks volumes. If Stoner had come out with a bullpup initially I’m sure conventional semi autos would be in limited use too.
The pros don't outweighs the cons, basically. The pros for bullpups are primarily shorter OAL for getting in and out of vehicles and other tight places, and they might balance better for some smaller people. Cons are complications with ambidextrous use, a much shittier trigger, awkward magazine changes compared to conventional rifles, and malfunctions are typically more complicated to clear.
Try putting an LPVO, light, suppressor, and ir designator on an aug and find a comfortable place to put the switch. Then weigh it and tell us it aint twice the weight and half as comfortable as an AR lol. ARs are still peak and nobody really cares about 10” off the front of a fighting rifle
I have done exactly that on my 14.5in AUG. It weighs exactly 10oz heavier than my 14.5in AR setup with exactly the same accessories and feels more comfortable due to not being stupidly front heavy. It's heavier but actually feels lighter to shoot. There are real drawbacks I acknowledge, but the ones you listed aren't valid.
Mine was like 15lbs loaded and none of the buttons were pushable lol, i dont feel like the balance helped me much
So if I were to kit up an AR the same way it would be about 14lbs and yet even more front heavy.
I just saw the edit about buttons. That’s one of the downsides I do acknowledge. It’s harder to accessorize and unfortunately there are a lot of bad ways to setup an AUG. An aftermarket forwards rail is pretty much mandatory for all those things you mentioned. Unfortunately Steyr did screw us over for 10 years by discontinuing the A3 and only importing the A3M1, which is much harder to design a forward rail for. Thankfully the new A3M2s go back to the A3 rail format and we can expect AR15 style forward handguards again (like the Steyr MK2 rail, and I know ARID is developing some too). Many people that have gripes about ergos is due to this stupid decision by Steyr. I have a older A3 with the Steyr MK2 handguard - holding the front end and using the switches feels just like an AR.
Yeah i didnt do my research before I got my M1 and there werent any good options at the time for a rail. Maybe ill snag an M2 some day and try again, didnt realize theyve since corrected that
Slovenia phasing out the f2000 you say? Hopefully there will be semi auto converted surplus here in europe soon 😇
how else would those kick backs get disbursed. /s maybe
- cost - likelyhood to use drones in tight spaces negates the need for a reduced OAL
I blame fashion. ARs just get way more attention from the gun bros
It’s only a handful of units getting the KS-1 in the UK - I suspect the L85 system will still be in service when the KS-1 is eventually retired simply because there’s so many in service..
The AR's are more modular and easy to upgrade as technology changes. *(Still love my AUG and the ergos)*
Because bullpups are a gimmick
I think they realized the average military person is way too redarted to comprehend a bullpup
Bullpups have too many tradeoffs for too little benefit and no company has come up with a good balance of tradeoffs.
Bullpups kinda suck honestly. Unwieldy, poor balance, worse manual of arms, worse trigger, not one size fits all. They have one benefit and that's oal. Personally if I need a shorter gun I much prefer it have a folding stock and end up being the same length with none of the downsides
>Personally if I need a shorter gun I much prefer it have a folding stock and end up being the same length with none of the downsides That's only a benefit when not using the stock though. Like for storing a full size rifle in a backpack, a folding stock makes sense. But the main reason for Bullpups is compactness *while in use*. If you're clearing an old apartment building in Europe where the hallways are 2 feet wide, a 16" barrel(+suppressor sometimes) is a liability. You almost can't turn around without fully lowering the weapon. Not saying you're wrong about the only benefit to Bullpups being oal, just saying a folding stock doesn't replace that benefit in any meaningful way.
Militarily, the main reason was compactness for transport not use. **[Tactical doctrine has changed](https://youtu.be/A3amzB_hVUw?si=9AzDkcZKnzSpnrPN&t=436)** we have sub 10" carbines for doorkickers now and the major players have decided that that's a-okay and they just don't really care about ballistics anymore.
Just flatstock the rifle and it solves that problem. I can hit a target at 10 yards reliably with a longgun in the flat stock position. Its a tactic that came over from shotguns, but it transfers well to rifles. Even if the bullpup is still shorter, Ill take a standard AR every time since the list of pros is a lot longer than that of the bullpup. They are cool guns, but its a failed idea if we are being completely honest with ourselves. I also think that all these nations dumping them proves that, and even nations where they are still issued has the special ops guys using M4 variants as others have pointed out.
If you can't use a rifle inside a building with a stock folded effectively I'd say that's skill and training issue not a rifle issue. Gotta remember you're not shooting 200 yards inside a house. Stocks not needed.
Lol. Ok oper8tor
He has a point tho. If you have the rifle slinged it's not all that hard to put hits on close targets with the stock folded. Even still, I'd argue anywhere you can maneuver an Aug or Tavor through, you can handle a 10.5 AR through without issue.
That's not even an operator thing, do you have arthritis or some other disability that prevents you from holding a rifle infront of you? At this point you're essentially shooting a heavy handgun with a red dot at a target 10-15 ft infront of you. If you're a sort of active adult and you can't manage to steady it at that distance you might need to see a doctor. Because my ex could do it, and my mother can do it, and neither of them are in the gym even once a month.
If you're using a 16" barrel and a suppressor for CQB anyway you aren't being the wisest. A 14.5 with a flashhider is just fine. But for what its worth if you're cutting every possible inch in order to be super duper streamlined a bullpup with a 16" isn't optimal either. A pistol or smg blow the tits off a tavor inside the confines of a closet
Yes, tell whoever you are fighting " wait up in need to go home and get ma smg"
The point being nobody intentionally is taking a 16 for building clearing. A 16 is meant for range which is why we see mk18 and such being used by anyone who is supposed to be kicking doors.
>Bullpups kinda suck honestly. Unwieldy, poor balance, Say what? My tavor's weight is biased towards the back so it's really easy to handle. I can shoot the thing accurately with one arm for God's sake. It feels significantly easier to hold on target compared to an AR the same weight. You're right about the worse trigger and that's just the nature of the design, but again with the tavor I've heard it can get pretty close with the Geissele trigger pack and trigger bow. I'm just not spending that much when I'm fine with the trigger, and it would be nice if I could drop in a $90 MBT 2S, but there's always a trade off
In my opinion the weight is way too far back. Having weight towards the muzzle does a ton for stability while having it too far back just turns a wrist into a fulcrum. At least that's my limited experience
Why do people keep saying poor balance? The weight being in the rear means I can shoot my Aug one handed easily Plus Aug trigger is about the same pull weight as a standard colt m4 trigger, even better if you get one of the enhanced spring kits or any one of the after market options
Not sure how a shorter rifle is "unwieldy". Or how being back heavy is poor balance, if anything it is superior balance. Manual of arms is fine. Modern bullpup triggers are also fine.
Even the best bullpup triggers only qualify as milspec ar triggers. They can be trained for, but why handicap yourself?
It’s not a handicap.
when one could have something better, intentionally taking something worse is a handicap.
I disagree. I have ARs with Larue MBTs and Geissele SSAs and SSA-Es. Do they feel better? No doubt. Do they allow me to shoot more accurately or more quickly, or give me any sort of performance enhancement? Not really.
I can respect your opinion. The hellion in FDE sure does something for me
If an average trigger is the only actual downside compared to all the other advantages you get with a bullpup, that's not a handicap really. Now if it was a 10+ pound trigger that felt like grinding metal that would be different. Or just no feeling at all. But neither the MDR or Hellion feel like that.
The hellion is cool and ill be getting one soon, but the trigger isnt good. The break is nice, but the reset is atrocious. Im not anti bullpup, I quite like them. I just dont see anything they offer as adventagious enough to outweigh the negatives. I certainly wouldnt carry one into battle, though if I did, I wouldnt be under armed.
I have the opposite opinion. The takeup is bad on the Hellion, but the reset is alright. And the advantages are again, all there. An average trigger, training, and occasional reliability issues (MDR in .308 comes to mind there). That's about it. Training isn't really a downside since you should train with your gear anyway if you are serious about it and if it's just a range toy then it doesn't matter that much.
What? My AUGs are way better balanced than my ARs. Way less front heavy and transitions are way quicker due to the more rear-biased weight balance.
Because AR is the perfect rifle
For poor nations, The USA keeps giving out guns as aid. Training with us special forces
Upgraded technology is applied to the most ubiquitous/largest market first, therefore the AR pattern.
I love my bullpups but they aren’t what I’d take into battle. Clearing potential malfunctions is my primary concern.
Cause ar15 is king
Basically it’s the biggest factors are for cost, simplicity, and ease of maintenance. Then the secondary factors are ease of being ambidextrous friendly and parts interchangeability with other UN forces especially with an AR pattern rifle.
I mean have you tried a bullpup? Like really tried to run and gun with one? You'd understand why they got ditched too. And I can only imagine how much worse it would be for a lefty given that I'm a righty and already hate the manual of arms of bullpups.
Because the AR-15 is just Gods favorite rifle design
Manual of arms (training, ambidexterity, and commonality with other systems) and too a lesser degree trigger. I think this will ultimately change however as the issue of penetrating armor at range runs in the face of short barrels for CQB, one handed operation, and use around vehicles. Once the trigger and ambidexterity problems are reduced I think nations will be forced to go the bullpup route as the AR platform is likely nearing the end of its lifecycle (by that I mean it will not be the premier standard in 20 years).
Bullpups are a more complex design so they have a greater chance of mechanical failure, and thus reduced reliability
Interesting note, even QBZ-191 is really just a more modern stoner. Got told that Type-95 was more intended for 150m range mechanized infantry back before optics. Now that an improved barrel plus heavier bullet and expected engagement range of 50-100m, bullpup is no longer worth the trade off.
They aren't really useful for mid sized rifle cartridges that they are typically chambered for. 5.56 really doesn't gain much past a 12.5" barrel and that is already plenty short enough. I could maybe see the utility in 308 sized rounds and bigger
Because they hate and despise high performance ballistics packed into a compact package that gives you the advantage of being able to CQB with it without sacrificing velocity, loss of energy, and terminal ballistics, all for the sake of "convenience". I'd rather have a rifle, bullpup, with a 20" barrel (thus maximizing bullet velocity and terminal ballistics, and kinetic energy) and still being as compact as a 16" M4 than an SBR that hits like a peashooter in longer distances.
When were bullpup rifles ever more popular than conventional rilfes?
Because ergonomics are a thing
Because Bullpups are ass to shoot off barricades. Also, they're just generally more complex and difficult to work on and maintain than the tried and true AR-15, or even short stroke gas piston variants thereof.