Though I am in the AR camp, it does always surprise me that the bullpup gains traction NOWHERE. I always feel as though there ought to be ONE meaningful circumstance in which it'd be the better choice. There's that word though: feel.

Even though it's a recurring retread (at least perennial), the bullpup conversation always proves to be interesting, or at least entertaining.

I thought I was onto something, with my AUG in the M16 trials hypothetical, but no one expressed an opinion.

Feelings are great. They just aren’t fact. And too many people try to pass off these feelings as fact.

“SBRs are faster/better for CQB” when it simply isn’t supported by the clock/hit factor.

If people prefer a bullpup, go buy one. Hell, go buy two. But, much like the dude that tried to make “42 ROUNDS” some sort of advantage (as if he’s never heard of a Magpul 40 rounder that just about ever gun shop sells), in practical use, the bullpup loses to the 14.5-18 inch AR in everything. To include CQB.

The AUG design is neat. Cool. Different.

If it’s not good for close quarters, then it’s useless. It is light. If I had to carry something all day it would be comfortable for that. Even possible for quick action with the sling for “spray and pray”.

But there are AR’s that will do all that.

I tried shooting the AUG at 50 and 100 yards. My experience (very limited experience) is that it is very light to handle and the the muzzle is SO LIGHT that holding it steady is near impossible. Can I hit at 50 & 100? Sure. Do it well? Nope.
Others will obviously have skill with the AUG, but for a weapon that does most things well (close and far) I would prefer an AR.

i love my bullpups. i will keep them.
I think one minor point... is that almost all long guns in military use are losing to the AR platform...worldwide. the only ones that arent have copied the AR manual of arms or some other component/function of them.
Militaries everywhere dont seem to be adopting new AK's or Bullpups or Sig SG55x series or.. on and on at the same adoption rate of the AR platform.
Also modern military AK's are looking more like AR's nowadays and not the other way around.

It won. Its ubiquity and scale are staggering. Manufacturing, training, or maintenance modern AR platform is king.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris42:
[T]he the muzzle is SO LIGHT that holding it steady is near impossible.

This is an excellent observation that I had never seen made before and probably has LtCol Jeff rotating in his grave.

Some discussion about marksmanship with heavy rifles.

Many long range precision rifle competitors like very heavy rifles for their sport. I’ve seen videos in which some mention having rifles that weigh as much as 30(!) pounds. Why is that? The most commonly-cited reason, along with choosing low-powered cartridges like various 6mm loadings is to minimize recoil for the purpose of being able to spot their hits—and more important, their misses.* But heavy rifles also have another significant advantage: inertia.

When we’re trying to hold a rifle steady to aim accurately, heavy weight and therefore more inertia helps us achieve that by minimizing the effects of our involuntary body movements; i.e., it’s harder to move a heavy weight than a light weight whether it’s deliberate or caused by something like breathing, heartbeat, or muscle tremors.

In my youth I competed in smallbore (22 Long Rifle) “positional” shooting. That sport involves using rifles designed for target shooting from three (or four) traditional positions: offhand (standing), kneeling, prone, and at one time I believe it included sitting. None of the positions permit the use of artificial supports other than a rifle sling, and therefore it is entirely up to the shooter to keep the rifle steady for accurate shooting. A rifle that was specifically developed for the sport is my Winchester model 52E.

My 52E has a long (~27"), heavy barrel and heavy wooden stock; as configured mine weighs right at 15 pounds (for the rifle itself, knock off 3-3.5 pounds for the scope, etc.). The long barrel helps minimize aiming errors when using iron sights, but the weight? It wasn’t to reduce the ferocious recoil of the 22 Long Rifle cartridge and permit us to see where we were missing, but to add inertia to help minimize the involuntary movements that disturb our aim. (For a modern 22LR target rifle, see the one posted by Mutiny in the favorite .22 thread. The barrel is long to minimize iron sight aiming errors and where is extra weight concentrated: right at the muzzle.)

So what does all that have to do with the suitability of bullpup rifles for military combat? Many shooters gush over how light they can make their 5.56mm rifles, and of course in serious use light weight does have its advantages if the gun must be carried for long distances. But does light weight aid with precision marksmanship? See above and the answer is no.

Plus, for steady aiming where is it best to have the weight concentrated? Out front as with my Winchester target rifle’s long, heavy barrel; the worst place for it to be concentrated is at the rear. That leads us to the observation by Chris42: a lightweight muzzle end and heavy rear end is exactly what we don’t want for precision marksmanship, especially when shooting from unsupported positions as is common in high stress military combat.

The next question, though, is does long range marksmanship matter in military combat? In my opinion, much less than is often touted by various civilian commentators, but as we see in the other thread about special operations guys wanting semiprecision rifles chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor and are therefore more suited for the purpose than their M4 carbines, it certainly matters in some situations.

And how about civilians? The incident in which a police officer neutralized an active shooter at a reported range of 183 yards with his AR prompted me to reemphasize longer distance engagements for my patrol rifle trainees. Even before that incident I had them practice engaging human-sized targets at 200 yards with their patrol weapons, And although that’s not particularly difficult from a supported position, what’s better—to have a rifle whose configuration and weight contribute to minimizing aiming errors (i.e., weight and therefore inertia in the right place), or one with a very light muzzle end? And it’s not whether a good shooter can hit a 200 yard or longer range target with an AUG, it’s about what works better in general for all shooters.

So, after all that discussion, what’s the point? A bullpup rifle whose weight is concentrated at the rear of the gun behind the shooter’s firing hand may indeed be better for clearing those 10×10 rooms, but as pointed out in the quotation above, it’s a handicap for the precise longer range fire that is far more common in military combat. That’s also no doubt at least part of the reason why such rifles are not commonly used in sport competitions either. People who actually have to hit their targets tend to chose the guns that make that easier.

* One of our smarter members here, jljones, astutely advised that we shouldn’t choose a defensive firearms cartridge on the basis of what it’s best to miss with, but I can see its value in some disciplines.

The light front end being unwieldy was mentioned in our previous bullpup discussion.

FWIW, I borrowed an AUG from a friend in the midst of that prior discussion, and did a bit of shooting with it, to specifically investigate this point.

Compared to (I think) an 11.5" AR, I didn't notice any meaningful difference, and actually found it felt easier to make recurring hits from a standing offhand position on a man-sized at 100M with the 1.5x donut and the AUG than with the AR.

I don't recall the optic on the AR, and the comparative session was admittedly brief and unscientific.

I missed the earlier discussion about the weight distribution of bullpup rifles.

And I didn’t get into it in an already long discussion, but extra heavy rifles are not always a benefit to practical marksmanship. It’s necessary for the shooter to be strong enough and, especially, experienced enough with the gun to be able to shoot it as well as possible. When I started in smallbore competition I was easily strong enough to handle the rifle, but it took practice and experience to be able to support and aim it properly and consistently.

I don’t know about the rifle Mutiny’s daughter is using and whether it is subject to an upper weight limit by the competition rules, but even if not it would still be necessary for it to be light enough for a woman to handle and control properly during extended firing strings. The weight that it does have is configured for maximum aiming control benefit, however.

Simply adding weight to a rifle in such disciplines will not necessarily make things easier for the shooter. For many shooters it is possible that when shooting from an unsupported offhand position a lighter weight rifle may be preferable, and especially in long shooting sessions when fatigue can become a factor. That doesn’t change the fact, though, that that will be because of the shooter’s capabilities, not a violation of the laws of physics.

I will also point out that an AR with 11.5 inch barrel has handling characteristics that are much closer to an AUG’s than a normal carbine’s with a 16" barrel.

Then there is the question of what level of accuracy are we trying to achieve. If it’s a hit someplace on an IPSC target at 100 yards, it can be much less precise and require a much less steady aim than if we’re trying to hit the part that’s exposed by an enemy shooting around a barricade at 250 yards. As mentioned, for close engagements a lighter muzzle makes it easier to maneuver quickly, and that sometimes can help at longer ranges—assuming of course that the target is big enough.

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