The Downside of bullpup rifles.(one of them)

[Steve Janes]

im sure you will produce evidence of this fact ?

Ummm, evidence, the design of any and all bullpups (to my knowledge anyway) puts the detonating case in question less than an inch from your face as opposed to the (I'm guessing here) 1 foot, when compared to conventional rifles. Some people feel safe with an explosion this close to there face and others do not, but the fact that the exploding case is mere centimeters from your face is not up for debate, it's a fact.

I won't argue that bubba the basement gunsmith will always find ways to make a firearm or it's ammo unsafe.
Looking back over the years I have seen and heard about a several guns blowing up in people's faces.

In every case the firearm or it's ammo had something stupid done to it.

So the lesson here is be careful around bubbaed firearms.
Personally I would trust a military designed and well tested bullpup rifle.

Who said anything about gun smithing anything? Are you trying to say that unless some idiot screws with his gun or ammo that a kaboom cannot happen? If so, your sadly mistaken.

I say again,

No matter which way you slice it, whether your hurt or not, in a catastrophic case failure in a bull pup, all the nasty exploding stuff is going to happen right beside your head. CAN ANYONE ARGUE THAT???

The answer is NO, in fact, I present a challenge, find me a bull-pup that doesn't have the receiver right beside your face?

 

[TDC]

wasn't me, don't think he holds it that way anymore.

My bad sorry.

Tdc

 

[Aries-]

Ummm, evidence, the design of any and all bullpups (to my knowledge anyway) puts the detonating case in question less than an inch from your face as opposed to the (I'm guessing here) 1 foot, when compared to conventional rifles. Some people feel safe with an explosion this close to there face and others do not, but the fact that the exploding case is mere centimeters from your face is not up for debate, it's a fact.

Where the explosion is matters not when there is armor between the explosion and the squishy stuff. the FS2000 is not the greatest example of a bullpup as there is very very little steel in the gun. the Tavor, the RFB, not sure about the p90. all have armor directing the blast away from your face.

i have seen far more people injured using a shotguns and regular bolt actions than i have bullpups.

 

[twyeh]

On a side note, the SAR-21 is kevlar reinforced, so in the case of a kaboom it would be fully contained.
It makes you wonder if the TAR-21 receiver is strong enough to withstand a kaboom, maybe Canadaammo or North Sylva can chime in.

 

[Aries-]

On a side note, the SAR-21 is kevlar reinforced, so in the case of a kaboom it would be fully contained.
It makes you wonder if the TAR-21 receiver is strong enough to withstand a kaboom, maybe Canadaammo or North Sylva can chime in.

looking on the inside of mine, there is a whacking great chunk of aluminum around the chamber area.

 

[cr5]

Ummm, evidence, the design of any and all bullpups (to my knowledge anyway) puts the detonating case in question less than an inch from your face as opposed to the (I'm guessing here) 1 foot, when compared to conventional rifles.


Unless you shoot like the girls on the youtube videos your face is a lot closer than 12 inches from the breach of any conventional design such as the AR. I love my bullpups and I love my AR's I don't want any of them to detonate while I'm shooting them.
3-4 inches in front and below my cheek or 2 inches below with armor plating to isolate me in the event of a rupture matters not. I don't want either to happen.
Watch some videos of AR's letting go, they grenade. It isn't pretty with any firearm.

 

[Ebola]

i would say that FN2000 is a well designed rifle when it comes to catastrophic failures. i only hope my tavor performs as well if a failure should ever happen of that magnatude.

 

[cr5]

No matter which way you slice it, whether your hurt or not, in a catastrophic case failure in a bull pup, all the nasty exploding stuff is going to happen right beside your head. CAN ANYONE ARGUE THAT???

It's okay to love Bull-pups, but just because we love something doesn't mean it's perfect, I love my Swiss Arms rifles, but have recently started to feel that the right side charging handle is a detractor to certain drills,I also always felt it's a bit heavy, it's not perfect, I can admit that and I still love the things.

FACT: Bull-Pups have a much higher chance of hurting the shooter during a catastrophic case failure, this doesn't mean you can't admit that it's a detractor to any bull-pup platform and move on while enjoying your rifle...it also doesn't mean that it's a horrible rifle or anything like that. But if some people choose to dislike the idea of an explosion beside there face, that's there business, why try to convince them otherwise, I choose not to shoot bull-pups for an entirely different reason (Horrible triggers) and if I had one would not worried about case failure and hurting myself!

Fact: Bullpups are designed to direct the energy from a case rupture away from the shooter. The designers know that your face is going to be right next to it and they plan for it in the design. Traditional firearm designs rely on blind luck that the energy will find a route to escape away from you without grenading the receiver right in your face.

It's ok for you to be a hater but at least have a good reason. The ergonomics aren't for everyone, sure. The mag changes are a little awkward compared to an AR, sure.
Yes they have some negatives just like every other firearm out there but nothing that the adaptable human body can't be trained to overcome.
Since you find your Swiss Arms so heavy maybe you should open your mind to something different and try a bullpup. Having the weight further back makes the rifle feel half as heavy as it really is. The triggers on modern bullpups aren't that bad. They are not bench rifle good but they are a lot better than they used to be. These aren't target grade bench guns, they are typically battle rifle designs so why would you care if the trigger isn't ultra crisp and light.
The trigger in my DTA SRS is as good as any trigger I've pulled and I've shot many custom built bench guns with professional trigger jobs but it's not really in the same league as most guns. How many 14 pound plus glass heavy barrel 338 lapua's with a 26" barrel can you shoot offhand and hold steady? Thank you bullpup design

In the event of a case rupture or firing out of battery I don't care what firearm is in your hands your going to have a really bad day.

 

[easysauce]

actually modern designs for pistols and rifles are engineered to direct the energy from a failure away from the user as well,

if there is any measurable difference in safety between bullpups and standard actions, its likely to be infinitesimally small.

every design is a trade off, I like the bullpups for longer barrels in reduced profiles, but dislike the ergonomics of the mag changes,

its not better or worse, just balanced for different priorities

 

[Steve Janes]

It's ok for you to be a hater but at least have a good reason.

Okay. Things I dislike about most bull-pups.

1) Trigger's Suck argue all you want, it's unfortunately inherent of the design.
2) Not great Ergonomics, great infantry gun, horrible gun fighters gun, How many tier 1 special forces unit's use bull-pups again?
3) Receiver beside your face, I think the video at the beginning of the thread takes care of this.
4) Probably the biggest thing I hate about bull-pup's are people who think Bull-Pups are the answer to all things rifle.

Even besides all that, I still almost bought a Tavor, when I picked it up it felt amazing, really, I thought wow would I love to carry this around all day in the bush (as oppose to the NR Swiss) then I felt the trigger, that's what turned me I must say. I still think I'd love to shoot one, own one, and carry the tiny thing around all day, but the trigger really soured me, if I had more money I think I would buy one anyway and enjoy it, I already stated I personally wouldn't worry about the receiver beside my face, just that some might and I totally understand why.

 

[Aries-]

Okay. Things I dislike about most bull-pups.

1) Trigger's Suck argue all you want, it's unfortunately inherent of the design.
2) Not great Ergonomics, great infantry gun, horrible gun fighters gun, How many tier 1 special forces unit's use bull-pups again?
3) Receiver beside your face, I think the video at the beginning of the thread takes care of this.
4) Probably the biggest thing I hate about bull-pup's are people who think Bull-Pups are the answer to all things rifle.

Even besides all that, I still almost bought a Tavor, when I picked it up it felt amazing, really, I thought wow would I love to carry this around all day in the bush (as oppose to the NR Swiss) then I felt the trigger, that's what turned me I must say. I still think I'd love to shoot one, own one, and carry the tiny thing around all day, but the trigger really soured me, if I had more money I think I would buy one anyway and enjoy it, I already stated I personally wouldn't worry about the receiver beside my face, just that some might and I totally understand why.

The rfb is equipped to have a fully adjustable trigger. They dont have the parts in there because they dont want roughnecks breaking the trigger and blaming them.

The trigger on my tavor i can keep all the rounds within the MOA of the retical out to 100 yards.

I fail to see how it is not a gunfighters gun. They are accurate, weighted nicely to be easy to swing, they dont get in the way. They arent for everyone thats for sure.

 

[Steve Janes]

The trigger on my tavor i can keep all the rounds within the MOA of the retical out to 100 yards.

I am very happy for you. But you being able to shoot your Tavor out to 100 yards does not make bull pup triggers any better.

I fail to see how it is not a gunfighters gun.

Bull-Pup's being used this was has been discussed a few times on CGN recently, several conclusions have been discussed, one has already been mentioned in this thread

The ergonomics aren't for everyone. The mag changes are a little awkward

The mag changes being a little awkward is only one of many reasons why you don't see many if any Tier 1 groups using bull-pups throughout the world, we had this discussion on here a while back. While they have there advantages (mainly based on Size and Length) there disadvantages have clearly caused some of the worlds best special forces groups to opt out. Can you explain this?

 

[Aries-]

Unwillingness to change, to used to using something else, you train with something for years and try and switch its not easy especially when given a choice. Being i havent trained at all with an AR platform using a bullpup platform is easy to learn.

 

[Runningfool]

Despite all of the reassurances that bullpups are designed to protect the user in the case of a catastrophic failure, by the looks of this guy's face I'd like to have my eyes as far away from an event like that as possible.
It looks like buddy was wearing decent eye-pro, better than the majority of glasses I see at my range...looking at the discolouration of his cheek and glasses makes me think that if he was wearing just a typical pair of safety glasses without a facial seal, his day would have been considerably worse.

 

[agilent_one]

Despite all of the reassurances that bullpups are designed to protect the user in the case of a catastrophic failure, by the looks of this guy's face I'd like to have my eyes as far away from an event like that as possible.
It looks like buddy was wearing decent eye-pro, better than the majority of glasses I see at my range...looking at the discolouration of his cheek and glasses makes me think that if he was wearing just a typical pair of safety glasses without a facial seal, his day would have been considerably worse.

Agree. This could've been a lot worse. Choosing not to run eye/ear pro may have left him deaf and blind on one side.

 

[Farmer Harv]

Some much hate in the thread. In bold even. Might just be easier to let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, rather than attempt to get them to dislike what you so obviously dislike.

I have a far better chance of being injured driving to town or operating heavy equipment than ever being hurt from an exploding firearm of any sort, so I'm not going to lose any sleep or develop a flinch over the thought of firing a Tavor or any other bullpup.

 

[Aries-]

as i stated earlier the 2000 is not the best design, it has a little flip hatch on the back of the gun where your face sits so you can look in if you get a jam since you cant take the gun all the way appart without problems. which is likely where all the blast back came from on that guys face. most other bullpups dont have that, the rfb, and tavor dont have anything on the top of the frame over the chamber to have that happen.

on the 2000 you flip the little hatch up so you can see the shell carrier that pops the shells down the ramp. so its easy for the blast to go up there and fly into your face.

 

[cr5]

The mag changes being a little awkward is only one of many reasons why you don't see many if any Tier 1 groups using bull-pups throughout the world, we had this discussion on here a while back. While they have there advantages (mainly based on Size and Length) there disadvantages have clearly caused some of the worlds best special forces groups to opt out. Can you explain this?

Well it's a good thing I'm not a teir 1 blah blah blah. I am a civillian buying a civillian firearm that just happens to do everything I need it to do at the range and in the bush.
If you had just stated earlier than you were some kind of special forces superhero we would have all understood why you couldn't possibly like the bullpup design and it's cumbersome downfalls.

Carry on soldier.

 

[cp220]

Just my two cents but if a gun I'm shooting explodes, I want it as far away from my face as possible.

 

[blaxsun]

Some much hate in the thread. In bold even. Might just be easier to let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, rather than attempt to get them to dislike what you so obviously dislike.

Yes, but why would we possibly want to introduce logic into an emotional discussion?

We're talking a modified FS2000 and/or bad ammunition. There aren't any post-incident photos of the FS2000 to know how it fared, but all things considered - the guy appears to have walked away for the most part. Sounds like the rifle did it's job as advertised.

I could also point out that I've yet to hear of a Tavor, FS2000, PS90 (etc.) suffering any kind of catastrophic failure like this in Canada, so statistically I'd say the probability is extremely remote at this point.