Why the US military refuses to adopt bullpup rifles

The Pentagon has tested bullpup rifles for decades, but from the Steyr AUG to the RM277, every one has been rejected.

Kyle Gunn
Aug 13, 2025 10:23 AM EDT

For decades, the U.S. military has flirted with bullpup rifles — compact, futuristic-looking designs that put the action and magazine behind the trigger instead of in front of it. From the Austrian Steyr AUG to the Israeli Tavor, the sci-fi-looking FN F2000, and most recently the RM277 from the Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon program, the Pentagon has tested them all.

And every time, the verdict has been the same: No thanks...

Complete article:

https://taskandpurpose.com/tec...tary-bullpup-rifles/

Interesting, but I'll still keep my X95. It fits next to my bed better than an AR (which I don't own anyway).

Relevant lengthy discussion from a while back...

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...935/m/2620058884/p/1

Had the FS2000 and the AUG. Bought because they were cool looking.
Both felt unnaturally awkward, the worse being the FN. And of course, the triggers suck. The compactness advantage alone is not a sufficient selling point.

I love my AUG and will never get rid of it, but the trigger is not good and reloads are nowhere near as natural as an AR.

There is a plethora ( love that word) of threads in Sigforum history about bullpups. A wealth of threads.
______________________________


Our boy James Reeves, from an earlier thread:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
There is a plethora ( love that word) of threads in Sigforum history about bullpups. A wealth of threads.

9mm vs .40 vs .45 kinda turf.

How many military foreign military units adopted a bullpup to only dump it for some M4 platform?

How many have long term bullpup use with a replacement that was also a bullpup?

I think that tells the tale.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
How many military foreign military units adopted a bullpup to only dump it for some M4 platform?

How many have long term bullpup use with a replacement that was also a bullpup?

I think that tells the tale.

Something to this I think.

The Brit’s have been using the L85, Australia the AUG as is Austria ( of course) then the French FAMAS and the Israeli Tavor.

Funny thing is in most of these organizations the high speed special ops door kickers opted for something else in the M4 pattern

Oddly, the bullpup trigger is not something that I take major issue with.

I do take some issue with a lack of adjustable LOP (no, the VHS/Hellion doesn't fix this). Being able to adjust your optic's distance from your eye according to shooting position or style is something I have become more appreciative-of the more I shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
How many military foreign military units adopted a bullpup to only dump it for some M4 platform?

How many have long term bullpup use with a replacement that was also a bullpup?

I think that tells the tale.

Something to this I think.

The Brit’s have been using the L85, Australia the AUG as is Austria ( of course) then the French FAMAS and the Israeli Tavor.

Funny thing is in most of these organizations the high speed special ops door kickers opted for something else in the M4 pattern

Serious military units do not use them. There is a reason why - they are not great for fast mag reloads and overall just awkward. If they were so great every American shooter would own one.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:


Funny thing is in most of these organizations the high speed special ops door kickers opted for something else in the M4 pattern

Yeah.

More particularly, the British SAS is the founding father of Tier 1 SOF. And up to very recently, their mainstay was Colt Canada L119A1 and A2.

Not exactly cutting edge bullpup tech. Recently, I’ve read they have a mixture of KAC KS1 and SIG MCXs. And they can buy anything that they want.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:Funny thing is in most of these organizations the high speed special ops door kickers opted for something else in the M4 pattern

Our SAS and SBS laffed it out of the door. L119A1 and variants thereof.

Mind you, I wouldn't say no to ANY Desert Tech model......

Because, at it's heart, the .gov wants the absolute minimum that will reliably and cheaply do the job.

The cost of replacing the M4 system vs. adopting something really different would require phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range improvement (or more honestly).

.gov is not looking for "the best rifle". They are looking for the rifle that works the best given the average of the situations that might be encountered averaged over the cost of the rifle and training systems used to make the rifle work along with the costs of adoption and maintenance. The inertia in that to replace the M4 will not be marginally better (at best and I'm not saying that bullpups are), it must be fantastically better. And there hasn't been anything new that is that.

If you are a small police force training from scratch and/or a small country with little investment in the system you have, you can make this calculation easier. But even then, the M4 is the assault rifle of the world unless you want the AK and even then the calculus of that has really shifted from the 80s to now. And there is no ready system of cheap training that's vetted and "off the shelf".

Now, your (the civilian end users) calculation about the best rifle is much easier and more nimble. So the individuals milage may vary.

It's not just the U.S. military, just about everyone else except I guess Australia and Israel has given up on or in the process of phasing out bullpups.

And it's not all that surprising, the advantage it offers is dubious all the while trading off an intuitive manual of arms that a conventional rifle offers.

The bullpup technology peaked at the Steyr AUG and that was introduced in 1977, everything else that came after it has been a failure.

Counterpoint: An AUG with a 42 round magazine would be a perfect HD rifle. No ballistic compromises with a SBR, easy to maneuver in tight spaces, and completely reliable. And if you need more than 42 rounds for HD, you either need to practice more, move, or change your lifestyle.

But for .mil, yea, it’s not optimal.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Counterpoint: An AUG with a 42 round magazine would be a perfect HD rifle. No ballistic compromises with a SBR, easy to maneuver in tight spaces, and completely reliable. And if you need more than 42 rounds for HD, you either need to practice more, move, or change your lifestyle.

But for .mil, yea, it’s not optimal.

Except for New Zealand, going with an upgraded AUG was going to be 3x the cost of going with an LMT AR.



And just to show how much bullshit the XM5/7 program was, would you take this over the Spear?



Give Sig credit, they made what Big Army wanted, even though Big Army was like the evil Uncle that wanted to sodomize your children.

^^^^
But I limited my “counterpoint” to home defense. I have an LMT, I’d still like an AUG for HD. And yes I’ve shot them and IMO, the complaints about the trigger are overstated. There are also springs you can get from Steyr that improved the trigger - not to AR match trigger levels — but better.

As far as the civilian market, ask yourself what the top competitors in two gun, three gun, and the tactical games are using. That is all about performance. If the bullpup was advantageous, they would all be shooting one. It’s not.

But competition shooters aren’t in standard doorways, long, narrow hallways, stairways and 10 x 10’ rooms when competing.

US Military won’t adopt a non-US invented bullpup. A huge case of the not invented here. As far as other countries choosing M4s over bullpups, we, as a country, virtually give those M4s away as “foreign aid”. And train their militaries in their use. Free is a huge incentive.