Bullpup or Conventional rifle?

M

Mr Ignorant

New Member
FAMAS, Steyr, SA80, Tavor and EM2 has brought the issue to the fore.

Why is the Bullpup getting more popular??

And what does it mean for more traditional makes like the M16 family of rifles and AKs???

Discuss.
 
S

SgtStu

New Member
Bullpup design

Mr Ignorant said:
FAMAS, Steyr, SA80, Tavor and EM2 has brought the issue to the fore.

Why is the Bullpup getting more popular??

And what does it mean for more traditional makes like the M16 family of rifles and AKs???

Discuss.
Click to expand...
The reason that so many armies are adopting the Bullpup design is very simple: It makes a rifle much shorter and does not take away the accuracy. The primary reason that the British Army decided to adopt the SA80 was that they found that the old SLR 7.62 was too large, especially in the confines of helicopters, APC's, Land Rovers etc and proved to be a real headache on the streets of Northern Ireland, especially in built up urban areas. The introduction of the SA80 solved a lot of these problems overnight, but also created a few too because initially the were a lot of problems with reliability, however these have now been solved and the SA80 is now recognized as one of the finest assault rifles in the world..

It should also be said that because of the design and placement of the bolt system(s) the recoil is considerably reduced and more accuracy is attained on short bursts of automatic fire, a feature especially handy in urban areas.

Hope that answers a few questions for you,

Best regards,

Stuart
 
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
SgtStu said:
The reason that so many armies are adopting the Bullpup design is very simple: It makes a rifle much shorter and does not take away the accuracy. The primary reason that the British Army decided to adopt the SA80 was that they found that the old SLR 7.62 was too large, especially in the confines of helicopters, APC's, Land Rovers etc and proved to be a real headache on the streets of Northern Ireland, especially in built up urban areas. The introduction of the SA80 solved a lot of these problems overnight, but also created a few too because initially the were a lot of problems with reliability, however these have now been solved and the SA80 is now recognized as one of the finest assault rifles in the world..

It should also be said that because of the design and placement of the bolt system(s) the recoil is considerably reduced and more accuracy is attained on short bursts of automatic fire, a feature especially handy in urban areas.

Hope that answers a few questions for you,

Best regards,

Stuart
Click to expand...


Stuart,

Sorry, no, its an awful piece of kit inflicted upon the British Army.

Way too heavy, SUSAT fogs up too easy and remains too delicate despite the L85-A2 upgrade by Heckler & Koch.

And let's not start on the LSW. Absolute rubbish.


Give them the kit.
 
E

extern

New Member
The bulpap design has its shortcomings too:
1) The case evacuation for the right side is too close to the face - especially awful for left-handers and when you shoot all along of the right corner. This problem must be treated somewhere with forward case evacuation.
2) Poor ergonomics for shooting from low body position: the head of the soldier is too high, so it is becoming more vulnerable for enemy fire.
 
M

Manfred2

New Member
The Bullpup has to make Drill a nightmare!
Bad enough with an M-16, but that thing the British have to deal with...

I noticed the guard at Buckinghan have those also. I realize that this is an actual post, but wouldn't a Lee-Enfield be more handy for whacking the punks that get too touchey-feeley?:laugh
 
M

Mr Ignorant

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Izzy1 said:
Stuart,

Sorry, no, its an awful piece of kit inflicted upon the British Army.

Way too heavy, SUSAT fogs up too easy and remains too delicate despite the L85-A2 upgrade by Heckler & Koch.

And let's not start on the LSW. Absolute rubbish.


Give them the kit.
Click to expand...
Hi guys

Thanks for the interesting comments. I never knew this would kick up a few old chestnuts.

Anyho

The Bull Pup looks like a futuristic design with practical advantages, as mentioned by a few, namely;

1) retaining the barrel length of some 20 inches

2) Shortening the overall design, excellent in CQB

But, as traditionalists point out;

1) The conventional design has not disappeared - refer the Russians and Americans, a relevant point in case.

2) CQB scenarios in Urban Warfare may be a factor, but not one impinging decisive battles, as observed in Grozhny and Stalingrad, where the Russians
favoured artillery and tanks to just take out snipers nests.

3) Armies in general, are still prejudiced towards conventional designs, Germans and Spanish with the G36; Americans with the M16s; Russians with the AKs and now Nikonovas; Iranians with their assorted G3s and AKs; and so on-

Must we proudly proclaim the virtues of the Bull Pup and if so, what is the likelihood of British armed Forces abandoning the design for something off the shelf and can still do the job???

The SA80 will be replaced in 2015 and currently it is one of the heaviest battle rifles around. Or is the Bull Pup still way ahead of its time??

Mr Ignorant who shall remain ignorant for the benefit of this discussion.
 
Tasman

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Manfred2 said:
The Bullpup has to make Drill a nightmare!
Bad enough with an M-16, but that thing the British have to deal with...

I noticed the guard at Buckinghan have those also. I realize that this is an actual post, but wouldn't a Lee-Enfield be more handy for whacking the punks that get too touchey-feeley?:laugh
Click to expand...
Hence the reason some precision drill teams (e.g. Australian Federation Guard) revert to older weapons for their displays(see image below from "Digger History" website).
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-army-today/fed-guard.htm

I guess a lot comes down to personal preference. I realise that the shorter length could be handy in some situations but problems like that of the cases ejecting too close to the face of a left hander is a negative. Personally I just don't like it and much prefer the more 'traditional' designs.

Having said that I know a number of ADF personnel who say that they like the Steyr.

Tas
 
E

extern

New Member
Bulpap - is a great design but its shortcomings noted above must be treated.
As an example I can offer the successeful Tula's A-91 assaulte rifle. It's popular in some Russian special units. It has a proved AK input in reloading mech, but the case ejection works in forward direction. It also very comfortable for left-handers too.

One can find more info about the device in the follow article:

"Caliber: 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: 660 mm
Barrel length: ??
Weight: 3.97 kg empty (with integral grenade launcher)
Rate of fire: 600-800 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds

The A-91 bullpup assault rifle (also known as A-91M) was developed during the 1990s by KBP (Instrument Design Bureau) in Tula, as an offspring of the A-91 family of compact assault rifles described above in the 9A-91 article. While the A-91 retains the basic gas-operated, rotating bolt action and a trigger unit design from 9A-91, it features a bullpup polymer housing, with an integral 40 mm single-shot grenade launcher mounted under the barrel. The earliest prototypes of the A-91 bullpup were fitted with the grenade launcher above the barrel, and with a front vertical foregrip; current models are fitted with the underbarrel launcher, which also serves as a forearm. The A-91 features a forward ejection system, initially developed in Tula by designers like Afanasiev during the early 1960s. In this system, the ejection port is located above the pistol grip, and points forward. Extracted cases are fed from bolt head through the short ejection tube to the ejection port, and fall out of the gun well clear of the shooter's face, even when firing from the left shoulder. As for now, the A-91 is made in small number and, probably, is used by some elite law enforcement units in Russia; it is also offered for export and domestic military and police sales.

The controls include double triggers (front for grenade launcher, back for rifle), and a large fire mode / safety lever at the right side of the receiver, above the magazine housing. The rifle trigger is fitted with an additional automatic trigger safety. The charging handle is located above the receiver, under the carrying handle, and is easily accessible for either hand.
The sights include a front post, mounted on a high base, and an aperture rear, adjustable for range, which is mounted on the integral carrying handle. The top of the carrying handle is shaped as a Weaver-type rail, and can accept a vide variety of scopes and sights. Folding grenade launcher sights are mounted at the front of the barrel.
Originally developed for 7.62 x 39 ammunition and standard AK-pattern magazines, the A-91 bullpup is now also available in 5.56 x 45 NATO chambering, which uses proprietary 30 round polymer magazines.
Source: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:M5qnNeEmKMAJ:world.guns.ru/assault/as66-e.htm+a-91+assault+rifle&hl=ru&client=opera&strip=1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/A-91.jpg
 
E

extern

New Member
More one article about A-91 bullpap assault rifle on the developer's page:
http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/strelk/556a91.htm

I think, the forward case ejection and two-shoulder usableness must become the standard before bullpap rifles come to broad service. Otherwise, I cannot understand, what an advance of the bullpap rifle in the quarter combat while the maneurability from corner to corner is the question of life or death.
 
A

AGRA

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The AUG can be converted from left to right ejection but it needs a different bolt for either configuration. So its not something you do in the field when you need to change the side you shoot from to take advantage of firing around cover.

From personal experience I can assure you all that firing an AUG (F88) from the left shoulder is quite possible. The odd brass in the face is not the end of the world and as long as it doesn’t go down your shirt life goes on. However some other bullpup weapons like the SA80 can not be fired from the left shoulder. They have a charging handle fixed to the bolt carrier that moves back and forth as the action cycles. This is courtesy of the SA80 just being a copy of the AR18. If you try and shoot the SA80 from the left shoulder it will knock your teeth out.

The most problematic thing about a bullpup rifle is the full use of the butt stock space for the action means it isn’t easy to add an adjustable stock allowing for reducing the length. Reducing stock length is needed for wearing body armour vests that change the comfortable length relationship between the butt stock and where the firing hand will be. Of course there are solutions to this problem, just like the shell ejection issue.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
AGRA said:
The AUG can be converted from left to right ejection but it needs a different bolt for either configuration. So its not something you do in the field when you need to change the side you shoot from to take advantage of firing around cover.

From personal experience I can assure you all that firing an AUG (F88) from the left shoulder is quite possible. The odd brass in the face is not the end of the world and as long as it doesn’t go down your shirt life goes on. However some other bullpup weapons like the SA80 can not be fired from the left shoulder. They have a charging handle fixed to the bolt carrier that moves back and forth as the action cycles. This is courtesy of the SA80 just being a copy of the AR18. If you try and shoot the SA80 from the left shoulder it will knock your teeth out....
Click to expand...
Ta. Yet another thing to back up my gut feeling that the SA80 was a ghastly mistake. It may have eventually turned into a useful weapon, but it took so long! And the cost! It cost so much to rebuild our stock of SA80s to make them reliable I suspect it might have been cheaper to throw them away & buy the FAMAS, or AUG, or FN2000 - or almost anything else.
 
M

Mr Ignorant

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
I was thinking about the SA 80 in particular. But if the Rifle performs in the extremes of desert and mountain warfare, is that not justifiable???

Yes, it was removed from the NATO list of small arms, back in the 90s. But, I feel maybe the British should have dropped altogether and purchase Diemaco C7 Rifles.

Expediency or Pride???
 
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Mr Ignorant said:
I was thinking about the SA 80 in particular. But if the Rifle performs in the extremes of desert and mountain warfare, is that not justifiable???

Yes, it was removed from the NATO list of small arms, back in the 90s. But, I feel maybe the British should have dropped altogether and purchase Diemaco C7 Rifles.

Expediency or Pride???
Click to expand...

As Swerve states, cost was the deciding factor in keeping the rifle in service. Not only the expensive and long-winded H&K/ROF refurb to bring it to A2 standard, but the absolutely criminal expense lavished on it's even more protracted development in the 1970's/early-80's.

Also, if memory serves, didn't the SA 80's introduction come shortly before the Government's commercial sale of the original manufacturer? Thus, the conspiracy theory that SA 80 was rushed into service long before being ready, purely for business interests.

A sorry state of affairs that I hope is never repeated.
 
M

Mr Ignorant

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
In all fairness, there is some virtue to the Bull Pup, in spite of the SA80. The FAMAS, FN2000, Tavor and Steyr are reputable, but maybe.............it will take some time for most armies to adopt a controversial design.
 
I

Izzy1

Banned Member
Mr Ignorant said:
In all fairness, there is some virtue to the Bull Pup, in spite of the SA80. The FAMAS, FN2000, Tavor and Steyr are reputable, but maybe.............it will take some time for most armies to adopt a controversial design.
Click to expand...
Totaly agree, please don't get me wrong when it comes to BPups.

I have said here before, the best rifle I ever had the chance to shoot is the Steyr AUG, a wonderful piece of kit.

Granted, it doesn't look the most robust of rifles, at first sight it looks pretty fragile. But as soon as you pick it up, the ergonomics of its design come out. The grip felt good, the weight of it for me was centred in the right place - for me it sat well, lifted little - it felt right. Dare I say it though, it's now a dated design!!!

The FA MAS, through sheer luck I got to handle it thanks to a long story involving my French-teaching Dad. You have to put your shoulder into the 'clarion' because when it goes auto, it expresses itself. Great fun, but perhaps designed for a different era of ideas.



BPups have their qualities, but if I had to choose a next-gen weapon for the British Army - let it be the G-36, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top