I know the question isn't new, but I am curious as to SIGforum's current opinions. Why aren't they more widely adopted by military and law enforcement units? Everything about them makes sense; it's hard to find arguments against them, other than the often-repeated difference in manual-of-arms, when compared to more conventional rifles. After reading an article recently shared in another thread, concerning barrel length reductions and the impact on overall performance, sound pressures, and muzzle pressures as they relate to silencer safety, the debate was renewed in my mind. It seems the only answer is politics and stubbornness. Training will take care of most things, when it comes to differences in manual-of-arms, and petty arguments like trigger quality are kind of moot, in regards to a fighting rifle, IMO. Mounting of contemporary optics and accessories presents a potential problem, but one that certainly isn't insurmountable. Another interesting aspect of the discussion is the fact that the nations that do utilize bullpups still don't equip their most elite units with them. My best guess there is that the US more-or-less leads the way in contemporary tactical doctrine, and we use the AR, therefore elite units of the world follow suit. The more elite units have always led the way, in the reduction of AR barrel length, making performance and safety sacrifices with every inch; why not just use a bullpup?

Please refrain from "I have a Tavor, and I like it for this reason or that". I think an honest discussion about arguments against the design is more beneficial.

Aftermarket support, as mentioned above, in regard to the accessories, is not really a valid point, IMO, as it would very much exist, if the concept were more widely embraced. We ought to be more concerned with fundamental arguments against the design.

I’ve never had any experience with bullpups, but isn’t one of the problems designing them for alternate shoulder shooting?

Perhaps so. I believe most of the currently produced/adopted designs can be set up to eject out either side.

If we refer to the recent discussion in this same forum concerning shooting from the off-hand shoulder, we'd find that most ultimately deem it of little value, and training can certainly provide techniques that bullpup users can employ in those rare events it is required.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Bullpups have traditionally had some drawbacks compared to more standard modern rifle designs, mainly things like poor trigger feel/quality due to the long transfer bar required, issues with alternate shouldering, and slower/more complicated magazine manipulation and malfunction clearance.

This can be offset by potential upsides, such as less overall length without giving up any barrel length and bullet velocity, a more rearward balance, and easier one-handed shouldering (for more easily manipulating objects with your offhand while keeping the rifle shouldered).

It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, weighing the pros and cons. There are a number of militaries and other units that have decided the pros outweigh the cons, but that won't necessarily be true for every unit or individual's needs.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’ve never had any experience with bullpups, but isn’t one of the problems designing them for alternate shoulder shooting?

This is especially true of early generation bullpup designs, but is one area that's been specifically addressed by certain newer bullpup designs to alleviate this known issue.

For example, the FN F2000/FS2000 and Keltec RFB eject out the front. And the VHS-2/Hellion has cheek stops and brass deflectors specifically designed to allow alternate shoulder firing.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Perhaps so. I believe most of the currently produced/adopted designs can be set up to eject out either side.

The issue is that you can't do that on the fly. It requires disassembly and swapping parts around.

So if you have a rifle set up with right-side eject, and come up to a left-side corner, or need to peer around the left side of a piece of hard cover, you can't just flip a button and quickly switch to left side eject while you transition to your left shoulder.

With most older bullpup designs, firing a right-ejecting bullpup from your left shoulder causes the cases to be ejected into the side of your face. This is both annoying/painful as well as potentially malfunction-inducing.

Offside shouldering wasn't considered to be an issue in the 70s/80/90s when most of the earlier bullpups were being designed, but has increasingly become a consideration under the new lines of thinking in the LE/Mil world about techniques involving use of cover/room clearing/tactical movements.

But as noted, there are methods that allow you to fire even older bullpups from the alternate shoulder, such as by indexing the buttstock on the offside cheek rather than the offside shoulder. This lets you give up a bit of stability and recoil control but gain potentially greater cover/concealment utilization.

I think the trigger and magazine manipulation issues are far outweighed by the advantages, and can be mitigated with training. Malfunction clearance raises a more legitimate issue, but one I feel the same way as I do about the alternate shoulder firing: it can be mitigated with training, and malfunction clearance shouldn't be a regular event. Hell, in some scenarios, you might be ahead to have a bullpup; the Tavor facilitates quick and easy removal of the guts, regardless of the state of the action, I believe. An AR can be problematic to disassemble, in the event of certain malfunctions.

US Mil hasn’t adopted one, and on the whole, they have been expensive and uncommon imports.

What are potentially good reasons why the US military hasn't adopted one? Obviously commercial popularity would follow military adoption, which would lead to lower prices and wider availability.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
What are potentially good reasons why the US military hasn't adopted one?

Easy: One's never been presented for US service rifle trials, until the recent NGSW trials, which saw a bullpup submission by Beretta/General Dynamics.

There were a couple of prototype bullpup rifles produced for the US military back in the immediate post-WW2 era, like the T31 and 45A, but none made it out of the experimental stage.

Well, descending deeper into the rabbit hole, why hasn't the US military solicited bullpup entries more specifically, and/or why haven't companies felt motivated to submit a bullpup, if a solicitation doesn't specifically prohibit one? Seems initial suspicions of politics and stubbornness are proving especially viable.

They've always been relatively expensive and had relatively bad triggers. That doesn't recommend the design to either civilians or the military, and in the US the idea is always to sell essentially the same EBR design into both markets.

Artillery may still be the big player on the conventional battlefield, but surely the investment the US military has made into individual rifleman optics is eloquent testimony that the US expects its riflemen to shoot well.

bad trigger, awkward reloads....explosions closer to your head, more complex ejection (to make ambidextrous), barrel length advantages that are somewhat irrelevant in today's environment.

Also they're kinda bad for bayonet charges

They're cool to look at but I rather use something more conventional as a go to weapon.

Il Cattivo,
I have not shot any bullpups made before 2012. That being said, I may not have experienced a truly bad bullpup trigger. The one's I have handled (AUG and Tavor) have had very acceptable triggers, when compared to a GI AR15 trigger, and current examples are what this discussion is about. Is it easier to shoot well with a "better" trigger? Yes. Can someone shoot well with a Tavor or AUG trigger without a ton of extra time and money invested in training? Probably.

I can definitely understand the expense of production and resulting higher price-per-unit deterring both military and civilian markets, but I think that was a more relevant argument in the days before the Marine Corps was equipping folks with 416s (this is me assuming those are similarly priced; we know the 416 is quite high on the civilian market).

darkest2000,
The awkward reloads are trainable, and to suggest that we let an awkward reload outweigh superior performance and range is counterintuitive. All the contemporary bullpups are arguably more ambidextrous than any AR15, aside from the off-hand shooting mentioned above, which is a rare need and also mostly a matter of training. I don't think a longer barrel and it's advantages in performance and range are irrelevant; neither does the Army, it seems, with the current NGSW trials. In a near-peer conflict, which seems more likely than a continuation of the counter-terror efforts that proliferated the short-barrel AR, the extra range and performance will be appreciated, and to have it in a compact package seems advantageous. I also disagree that they're cool to look at.

The proximity of explosions is of little concern, in my opinion. I'd certainly be curious to know if injury statistics differ between the US, and bullpup-using nations. Soldiering has it's inherent dangers: being shot, being blown-up, breaking limbs on a drop zone, explosive breaching, etc. Is a bullpup's explosion contained within that rifle's chamber next to your cheek any more hair-raising than an exponentially higher-magnitude explosion inside a shoulder-fired rocket launcher, a mortar tube, or artillery piece?

I am mostly playing devil's advocate here; but not in that I am saying things I don't believe, for the sake of argument. I am neither for nor against the bullpup. I am a short barrel fan, mainly because of their handiness, especially when a silencer is used. I have taken some flak for the short barrel affinity, considering the sacrifices made in performance, and the bullpup seems the logical compromise. It seems those that knock a short-barrel AR aren't quick to support a bullpup, and I wonder why. Maybe the bullpup falls in this weird generational gap; they're too weird for an older generation that is content with a conventional-layout 16"+ gun, and not cool enough for a younger generation born of the transparency of the GWOT.

My Tavor kicks ass. SBR length with 16 inch barrel ballistics. Reloads aren’t awkward they are different. If you used the platform and trained with it it would not be an issue at all. Trigger isn’t as good as an AR trigger. It’s certainly good enough though compared to mil spec AR triggers. For a house gun it makes a lot of sense.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
What are potentially good reasons why the US military hasn't adopted one?

Easy: One's never been presented for US service rifle trials, until the recent NGSW trials, which saw a bullpup submission by Beretta/General Dynamics.

Don’t forget contestants of the SPIW and ACR trials.

I sold my AR and replaced it with an AUG. It’s hard for a normal rifle to beat it on length and balance. With some practice, reloads are very smooth and I don’t have to move the rifle from my shoulder. I have no issues shooting it from both shoulders with a brass deflector installed. The trigger is also at least as good as an AR’s with an aftermarket sear installed. Factory designs seem to be the issue.

A stock is a waste of space. How many other designs tried to incorporate a recoil system, storage, etc. into a stock? A bull pup uses the whole of the rifle more efficiently. As I mentioned above, many of these designs only need some minor tweaks to fix the most obvious perceived flaws and complaints.

They make so much sense that it seems as though a stubborn addiction to the legacy layout is the only thing deterring folks. A lot of people talk of their attitude toward weapons being so practical, yet it seems we ignore the most practical weapons.

I don't get hung up on the reloads, as so many do. I consider the reload in the infantry context: the shooter is likely in the prone, or otherwise making a serious effort to utilize a piece of cover that may not be a wall he can simply step or duck behind, and has to defeat some form of retention on his equipment before he can even furnish a new mag. That being said, we're not talking about adding a second to a three second reload; we're adding a second to a ten second reload. Not quite so catastrophic of a compromise.

A big factor is cost. It would be a HUGE jump financially to arm all of our military folks with a brand new platform that costs substantially more to fund. Right now, the contract price for an M4 rifle is far lower than any quality bullpup would be.

Now add in the infrastructure surrounding upkeep, armoring, parts replacement, training, etc. All of that and more is in place and deeply entrenched in the various branches of the military now with a platform that has become extremely reliable, fires more accurately than most are able to shoot them, ease of maintenance and parts replacement, platform configuration for mission needs, etc.

The M16 platform will not be replaced until technology changes radically and introduces a completely new type of weapon system. It will be replaced by the Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range or some such, but not likely sooner.

Those constraints don't hinder the citizen shooter as much. A bullpup costs no more than a high-end AR15, and not even as much as ARs from the highly-regarded brands.

We don't like bullpups because... reasons.

If someone likes something, parts commonality and infrastructure doesn't matter. "It ain't gonna break; if it does, some real crazy shit happened and I'll improvise something else, but I'll probably be dead, so it won't matter" If they don't like something, parts commonality and the like become very important arguments against it.