Was watching a show that featured some British soldiers wielding “bullpup” style rifles–don’t know the brand as I’m not a weapons expert. As I understand it, the design allows for a more compact weapon. Wouldn’t this ALWAYS be desirable? Or are there drawbacks to the design that make the (“non-bullpup”? “assault rifle classic”?) M-16/AK-47 style preferable despite being bulkier?
I don’t like them because the chamber is right next to the head. If there is a failure that results in the round firing out-of-battery, I am concerned my head will be hit with shrapnel and hot gases.
But… perhaps my fears are unfounded. I don’t know. I just know the chamber being so close to my head makes me feel uneasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup#Benefits_and_Drawbacks
I’ve shot a few of them, both “stock” and converted from conventional designs. I don’t like them myself.
Bull pups have universally lousy triggers due to the mechanism not being direct. Some of them cannot be converted for left-handed people. They’re shorter but much bulkier. The balance is different. The AK/AR designs are ubiquitous and inexpensive. The US doesn’t use bullpups and that’s the biggest firearms market.
There are any number of reasons why they haven’t taken off. Pick one.
Ejection is right by the face with a bullpup. That means less ability to use the weapon for both left and right handed firers. Sure you can go for the extra complexity and cost of being able to switch which side it ejects from. You could also have two variants, with the added logistics overhead to match up rifle and firer and less ability to scavenge/use weapons when things get ugly on a battlefield. For a military making a purchase decision it’s about supporting both left and right handed firers.
The magazine is in close to the body. Most weapons, for simplicity, have the magazine release right by the magazine well where it can be operated by the same hand used to fire while the other is grabbing a magazine. Reloading most bullpups involves pulling the weapon away from the body and using the off hand to work the release. That can slow reloading. Remember the military is also looking for ability to reload in situations like lying prone and while leaning against the side of a foxhole.
The Israelis have designed the Tavor for their forces, although I don’t know to what numbers they expect to field it. Certainly any weapon has better or worse purposes for a mission.
Wiki on Tavor: IWI Tavor - Wikipedia
Interesting Quora thread: **Israel Defense Forces: What do US soldiers think of the Tavor rifle? ** https://www.quora.com/Israel-Defense-Forces-What-do-US-soldiers-think-of-the-Tavor-rifle-IMI-Tavor-TAR-21
AFAIK, a “bullpup” rifle (Tavor) is now the standard issue rifle in the Israeli army.
Most of the complaints about bullpup configurations like the Steyr AUG or the SA-80 come from specific design decisions rather than inherent defects in the bullpup layout, e.g. the direction of port ejection, use of the firing hand to extract the magazine, et cetera. In fact, the bullpup configuration alleviates many of the difficulties of the conventional receiver forward configuration, such as the poor balance and overall length of the weapon, the need to draw the weapon down and inward to access the magazine port, et cetera. Because the bullpup configuration uses the stock space for the functional mechanism, it allows the center of gravity to be locate reward and in line with the barrel axis, reducing felt recoil (although this is almost negligible on a 5.56mm x 45mm chambering), allows the weapon to be more compact in both length and height, gives access to the magazine without having to reorient the weapon, et cetera. The one significant deficit of a bullpup is that the action, being located so far rearward, is connected to the trigger group via a pushrod which is mechanically somewhat more complex. This doesn’t mean that the trigger has to be heavy but it does introduce the potential for slop in the mechanism, and because most bullpup rifles are dedicated infantry rifles they tend toward heavy triggers.
The US has stuck with the M16/M4 configuration because of inertia and logistics despite the fact that while it has dramatically improved in reliability and capability since the teething problems in its introduction. The mechanical simplicity of direct impingment is offset by the propensity of the weapon to foul after firing a few mechanisms, and liberally applying Break-Free CLP in the middle of a firefight is a stupid fix. The.5.56mm NATO is adequate for front-line infantry insofar as it provides a high volume of fire for the carry weight but is very limited in its capabilities, hence the development of more capable rounds for special forces usage. As others have noted, Israel military forces have adopted the Tavor after substantial development and trials, and the general consensus among others who have assessed the weapon is that it performs substantially better than the AR-15 platform in every respect.
Stranger
Direct answer about the type the Brits use if OP is curious: the SA80 Family, typically the L85 ‘bullpup’ rifle. Still learning about firearms myself (not quite an owner yet, but have some experience).
nevermind, didn’t read that that Stranger_On_A_Train put that in his post… mods can delete my posts.
As has been mentioned, the British military use the SA-80 (officially the Rifle L85).
Australia uses the F88 Austeyr, which is the Steyr AUG. I’ve fired one - not a fan. It’s ergonomic and compact, but you can hear the action working in the stock next to your ear, which is off-putting.
Thanks for the replies. I do see from looking at the links that some designs (not the Tavor) eject the rounds down rather than left or right.
The advantage of bullpups is in short range urban combat. If you are sweeping through a building, the short length is a huge advantage. With a longer weapon, there’s more of a tendency to bang the end of the barrel against a door frame. Sure, a shorter weapon could be used, but the bullpup configuration keeps the overall barrel length and retains the weapon’s better long range accuracy as a result.
But that only goes so far. While the barrel is just as long as in a conventional rifle, the distance from the rear sight to the front sight is greatly reduced, making the weapon more difficult to aim accurately at a distance.
If you plan on fighting more in the open, you’d probably prefer a more conventional rifle layout over a bullpup, partly because of the better sights, and partly because of all of the other issues previously mentioned (ejection port location, increased danger of injury from a malfunction due to the exploding bits being close to the face, etc).
Things like downward ejection ports and forward trigger mechanisms add cost and complexity to the weapon, reducing its reliability somewhat.
Less important, but worth mentioning, is that longer rifles tend to use the stock as a place to store cleaning rods and cleaning accessories. The compact bullpup has much less space available for cleaning accessories, and cleaning kits are often separate items that must have space allocated to them in the soldier’s backpack.
That’s only relevant if you’re using the weapon’s built-in iron sights. Most modern military rifles, bullpups included, use advanced optics.
Well, no - so far, it’s standard issue in 3 infantry brigades and a few smaller units. The IDF usually takes its sweet time phasing in new equipment.
Also if you’re crew in an armoured vehicle, surely?
Their length gives an advantage in general - the shorter a weapon is, the easier it is to swing around when something pops up on your flanks. That’s useful regardless of your environment.
The shitty triggers are the single largest drawback. I fired, live or dry, a number of bullpups. None of them had a trigger that could be compared favorably to even a standard, basic AR15 trigger. Only hits count, and hits are a fuck-ton easier to make when you aren’t fighting a long, mushy, heavy inconsistent trigger. I will note, further, that I am another shooter who isn’t enthused about where bullpups place the chamber in relation to my precious, precious head.
Excellent username/post combination.
I understand the gas venting/cartridge ejection issues. But how common are chamber-related problems in any rifle? A jam is one thing, but do rounds ever explode in the chamber in a way that endangers the shooter in any rifle? Or am I misunderstanding the objection?
Yep, a few examples.