Competitive shooters experience a variety of space limitations, prop configurations, and movement restrictions. Some of these are similar to housing configurations, some aren't, and some are even more challenging than housing conditions.

Top competitors investigate & test just about anything that potentially gains a fraction of a point or a second. Brands, lead times, costs, and configurations mean little if the results are there. Bullpups don't exhibit the touted advantages in CQB situations, and therefore competitive shooters stick with AR-type rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
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.

^^^^
How many HD situations will ever require a magazine reload, especially with a 42 round magazine? Competition shooting is a different scenario than HD where some just broke into your house. So are military operations. As for SWAT, how many times have you had to reload your AR in a tactical situation? That I think would be interesting to know.

There's a lot more to competition than reloads. I've been in many stages where reloads weren't necessary. Sometimes where a single 20-round mag was more than enough. Competition is about getting rounds on target accurately, while under time pressure. Competition situations may require placing multiple rounds on multiple targets, shooting on the move, shooting from multiple positions, shooting from improvised positions, shooting around/from barriers, shooting in confined spaces and/or lanes -- which just might sound like a defensive situation.

Are AR's with barrels <16" popular in those competitions?

My former LE agency T&E'd a few early gen Tavor bullpups over a decade back, with an eye towards potentially adopting them as issued rifles.

The thinking by the training sergeant who suggested it was that their more compact nature would help in confined quarters, and their shorter and butt-heavy nature would allow for easier manipulation of doors/radios/etc. with the off hand while keeping the rifle shouldered.

(He also got swayed by the dubious suggestion of some IWI sales rep that using this funky stance/grip that involved laying the off side forearm down along the sloped front of the trigger/hand guard would add a "fifth point of contact", which he claimed would allow for greater stability and accuracy than an AR...)

That last one aside, both those primary points were true. However, those positives were not enough to offset the various negatives, like greater weight, lack of parts availability and greater difficuly of having in-house armorer support, more complicated/different manipulation and the need for significant retraining, etc.

Which meant that the idea was dropped fairly quickly in favor of sticking with the ubiquitous AR.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Are AR's with barrels <16" popular in those competitions?

I won't speak for all competitors and in all forms of competitions.

I see that it's personal preference -- influenced by target types, target distances, total weight carried, marksmanship skills, among others. One of the more successful 2-gun competitors I know has won multiple matches where the carbine target distances vary from 5 to 400 yards, and his preferred AR sports an 11.5" barrel.

I've considered using my 14.5" barrel AR for this match. I started with my 18", which is uber accurate, but a pig. Going with the 16" was a big improvement.

The Brits very well may end up replacing their bullpup with an AR design too:

Project Grayburn

The hunt for a replacement is underway now

When considering these topics, I think it's important to remember that ubiquity is earned. Something inherent about the AR15 gave it the initial edge, leading to it's not dominant ubiquity.

I think it's the svelte nature of the base rifle. The AR15 is lighter and lower-profile than any other rifle. The internal piston design is what gives it the inherent edge.

However, the bullpup does have a deceptive edge in the same regard, because of it's weight distribution.

I think silencer application plays a part in the current bullpup struggle. The current offerings of the AUG and Tavor are historically tricky to suppress. The VHS seems silencer-friendly, but it's not exactly dominating the market for other reasons.

I think it may also be a commonality factor where they have a carbine that is in common use by trainers. The M4 is used by one of the largest and most used militaries and alot of things are built around it and its pros and cons. This would hit even the tier one units and trainers where thats the gun thats bought out and alot of drills work around it.

Consider that many drills add reloads, do not take spatial issues into consideration, and then run that out of a bullpup, and it will highlight why you might like an AR. Also many military folks arent "gun guys" by default and it may simply come down to contracts, politics and loyalties which plays into way more stuff than people think.

A hypothetical that came to mind today is this:

Consider the Vietnam conflict. We're dedicated to the 5.56mm cartridge. We're not yet making regular use of optics in the GI infantry ranks, let alone lights and lasers.

Had the AUG been developed at the time, and been developed in the USA, would anyone be able to come up with a good reason to choose the AR15 over the AUG?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

We're not yet making regular use of optics in the GI infantry ranks

We aren't? I thought it's been standard for 10-15 years now

That was referring to the Vietnam era hypothetical.

quote:

Had the AUG been developed at the time, and been developed in the USA, would anyone be able to come up with a good reason to choose the AR15 over the AUG?

The question still stands. Had the AUG with iron sights, or even the 1.5x optical sight, been in contention as a potential replacement for the M14, would it have beat out the M16?

Something just like this:

https://www.robertrtg.com/stey...reen-the-classic-aug

Would it have been chosen over the M16? If so, why? If not, why?

There’s no question that warfare has changed significantly in many—but not all—ways since World War II, but that conflict involved a lot of urban action and strangely enough in all my reading and limited discussions with its veterans, including my father, I have never encountered any complaints about the lack of a micromini rifle with <16 inch barrel and bullpup action to permit ease of handling when clearing rooms. As I recall in fact, the attitude toward that activity was summed up in the book Back Home by Bill Mauldin. One of the things he discussed was a program the Army had to educate returning veterans for reentry into civilian society. The story was that a combat vet sergeant was asked, “How do you enter a room?” and his response was, “Throw in a satchel charge, and go in shooting.”

One caution I clearly remember about clearing a typical Vietnamese village hut during that war was that its walls might not stop the frag from the hand grenade thrown in before making entry. I.e., don’t stand next to the door while waiting for the explosion.

My point is how many combat troops need a rifle whose only real advantage over conventional weapons is (really) close quarters combat? If DEVGRU or CAG need AUGs for a mission, I’m pretty sure they can get them, but even if they can’t, I imagine they can make do with their normal armament. As for everyone else—? Even low speed, high drag me managed to handle an ordinary 16" AR-15 and could have used it effectively while riding in an ordinary passenger van (if it hadn’t been during exercises), not to mention in countless room-clearing exercises.

If a military force is going to adopt a completely new weapon system, it behooves the people making the decisions to consider all the relevant factors. As I recall, the UK’s bullpup rifle cannot be fired from the shooter’s left shoulder; “Oh, you’re left-handed? Well, learn to shoot right-handed”—which, if not totally ridiculous is certainly not optimal for the average recruit. And how would that work for the Tier 1 guys who are taught to switch shoulders when engaged in certain CQB maneuvers, as are even civilian LEOs?

Plus, the “Its disadvantages can be overcome with sufficient good training” idea totally ignores the realities of military operations. It was reported that during WWII, basic training for certain soldiers was so abbreviated that they arrived in the ETO without ever having fired a weapon, and had to be given basic remedial instruction when they got to their units, and assuming they ever were.

What’s possible today with all-volunteer forces may not be in some future conflict. My weapon in basic training after I enlisted in the mid-1960s was the M14. Two and a half years later when I requested assignment to Vietnam, there was an M16 transition familiarization class that lasted—wait for it—all of one day, including firing a qualification course once. Infantry soldiers would have been given more training (sooner or later, I believe), but for the rest of us, that was it.

The bullpup is terrible for CQB.
CQB, where you have to switch to weak side of your body and shoot lefty as situation/enviroment dictates is nigh impossible with a bullpup.

But is easily done with an M4.

Location of magwell is awkward for changes.

However, I adore the Steyr AUG!

quote:

Originally posted by BillyBonesNY:

CQB, where you have to switch to weak side of your body and shoot lefty as situation/enviroment dictates is nigh impossible with a bullpup.

'taint.

FWIW, I have seen/read before that the shoulder switching in CQB is a relatively highly specialized technique. So, maybe not something worth considering, in the scope of a GI infantry rifle selection.

Also, mag changes from retention, in the prone, aren't fast, no matter the rifle. GI infantry circumstances may dictate less emphasis on speedy mag changes as well.

Switching from strong to weak side shooting positions is a relatively advanced technique. This is regardless of shooting position -- standing off-hand, kneeling, sitting, from barriers, prone. Switching mags from prone is not is easy as it is from standing, however it's definitely easier while using an AR (or a traditional bolt action rifle) than a bullpup.

The bottom line that some refuse to accept is that while a bullpup can be quite good, an AR performs better in the total package.

Oh, I am on the side of the AR. I am just trying to be objective in conceiving every opportunity for the bullpup to succeed.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Oh, I am on the side of the AR. I am just trying to be objective in conceiving every opportunity for the bullpup to succeed.

Why? The internet seems to be the only place the bullpup is successful. LE/.mil Tier 1 special operators. Can buy anything they want. Money is no issue. Even the militaries that issue a bullpup their Tier 1 guys don’t use them.

Practical shooting. Not a single high end two or three gunner uses one at a high level.

Both of these groups have performance at a high level in common.

And when you call people on the carpet to provide metrics (specific speed/accuracy data) for “CQB”, home defense, or whatever, the best they can do is tell you their feelings. “Well, it feels better” or “it feels faster”. It’s a choice that people attempt to make up reasons that it’s better than the AR. I can tell you exact data points in CQB, and bullpups (nor SBRs) have the advantage that the internet claims. And generally, it’s touted as the greatest by dudes that don’t have a lot of CQB experience.

It’s a choice. I’ll happily argue data points. But, how you feel about something isn’t data, its preference.