Type97 and the lefthanded user.

By the way, my dad grew up under communism. Natural southpaw forced into becoming a righty. Writes better righthanded than I do. Shoots better too.. Won a few competitions while he was in active service - now he's technically a reservist but wouldn't be called in unless there was an all out invasion. I grew up when the country shifted a little to the right and became socialist, so lefties were left to be lefthanded. The point I'm trying to make is that a southpaw can achieve pretty good right-handed shooting results, so the ChiComs aren't completely insane :cool:

So you're saying lefties should just relearn how to shoot right handed so they can gain what advantage again?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the thread...

Never said balance was everything... The Tavor and FS2000 are both ambidextrous, and the ergonomics and controls are excellent (except to a few AR 'fanatics').

You do realize you're the only one that's complained about this, yes?

The urban myth that will not die...

Because apparently a full-length top rail, side and lower rails aren't enough...

??

Yes, the Tavor could be better - but the FS2000 and PS90 are actually quite good.

Definitely disagree here.


So if balance isn't one of the main benefits to a bullpup, then what exactly is there left to ooo and aww over? I agree that bullpups do balance nicely, but a 7-9 lbs conventional rifle is hardly difficult to handle.

The Tavor and FS2000 may be ambi, but they bring other issues. The "ejection tube" and lack of access to the chamber of the FS2000 is a horrible nightmare for clearing a stoppage of any sort. The Tavor is not ambi without replacing the bolt(as do other designs).

All bullpups require the user to take eyes off the target to observe the chamber(if you're into that methodology).

(Which brings me to a side note. For those Magpul Dynamics fanboys, please explain how the MD "system" works with your bullpup rifle, or any other rifle other than an AR and a right handed shooter?)

The LOP issue is an issue if you know how to shoot properly. Sitting at the bench is not what these rifles were designed for. Blading your body and shooting like grandpa taught you is also not an appropriate method of operation. The square stance is the go to stance for rapid shooting while allowing you the most versatility in terms of positions and/or movement. The control benefits and flexibility in movement are proven facts.

Lets add a short eye relief optic, armor, LBE, and its that time of year, winter clothing. Add all this to a short shooter or a female shooter and tell me how well that's gonna work out with a fixed LOP. There's a reason adjustable stocks are the norm now, and its not because it looks cool.

As for ergonomics. There is no way you can reload a bullpup or clear a stoppage faster than a conventional rifle while keeping eyes on target. Again, this isn't a test done slick(that's no gear for those who aren't following). Add a chest rig, armor, and winter clothing and show me a fast reload or malfunction drill? And we still don't have an answer for transitioning shoulders. How does someone fire from the opposite shoulder without eating brass or the charge handle? Again, I'm not talking about some half a$$ed "hold your head away from the E port" or "cover the E port" method. I'm talking about switching shoulders, mounting the rifle and running it like a lefty would.

Mechanical offset, the distance between line of sight and boreline. The Tavor has a brutal mechanical offset. The FS2000 is almost as bad. FAMAS is horrid, the AUG has minimal offset if you run it with a flattop. It appears the type97 is fixed sights only which is a major setback. We all know carry handle mounts are excellent choices. No cheek weld, insane offset, yeah that's a solid option.

The "full" rails on a Tavor are a joke. Where and how would a guy mount a reddot with magnifier, night vision, laser(DBAL, not some NC star garbage) light and sling? Same for the FS2000, Type97, and AUG. In fact, there is a solution(kind of) for the AUG(http://www.sidearmor.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=54&products_id=36) its a rail for the exposed barrel, so you can run a light where it should be placed and other accessories.



Apparently I'm the only one who understands the downfalls of the bullpup, as the benefits are all of two and one isn't really worth discussing. The balance is nice but not required, and the "compact" package argument is great if you intend to spend most of your time indoors or confined in a vehicle. Even with that being said, the negatives a bullpup bring with it far outnumber any perceived advantages. Hey, at the range from the bench it sure looks cool, guess that's all that matters..

TDC
 
So you're saying lefties should just relearn how to shoot right handed so they can gain what advantage again?

I'm just saying that it's an option. There are plenty of easy-to-implement solutions that allow southpaws to shoot but that doesn't mean that a southpaw can't learn to shoot righthanded where the logistics dictate the need.
 
Wow it sure is fortunate that no nato army has the bullpup design as a standard service rifle, like the British. The big advantage that the bullpup design has is more barrel length for a given OAL. When you use a "velocity cartridge" like the 223 the extra barrel means more velocity and more velocity means better terminal performance. As an example a T97 NSR runs a 19 inch barrel in a package shorter than a 14inch ar.
 
I just hate all bullpups...
Flame.jpg
 
Wow it sure is fortunate that no nato army has the bullpup design as a standard service rifle, like the British. The big advantage that the bullpup design has is more barrel length for a given OAL. When you use a "velocity cartridge" like the 223 the extra barrel means more velocity and more velocity means better terminal performance. As an example a T97 NSR runs a 19 inch barrel in a package shorter than a 14inch ar.

Bullpups are great in the city, in the bush and inside vehicles. The only place where the standard form-factor would have some advantages would be in open country like deserts and frozen tundras. Otherwise, if you're in a place where you may bump into things, the shorter the better.
 
Oh good lord, are we still doing this?! Fine, if you are left handed, have stumpy arms, need more rail mounted crap than CN, and don't maintain your rifle- you can't buy a bullpup. You probably shouldn't reproduce either, because the world just isn't custom made for you enough to suit.
tumblr_lf8qgh2HUk1qg6nqao1_400.jpg


ancient-aliens-guy-big-hair-giorgio-tsoukalos_zpsc59dc73c.jpg
 
I'm just saying that it's an option. There are plenty of easy-to-implement solutions that allow southpaws to shoot but that doesn't mean that a southpaw can't learn to shoot righthanded where the logistics dictate the need.

Its a stupid option that would require an insane amount of time and resources to facilitate, in an attempt to gain next to zero gain in performance. Even still, it does not allow you shoot from the support(left) side when needed.

Wow it sure is fortunate that no nato army has the bullpup design as a standard service rifle, like the British. The big advantage that the bullpup design has is more barrel length for a given OAL. When you use a "velocity cartridge" like the 223 the extra barrel means more velocity and more velocity means better terminal performance. As an example a T97 NSR runs a 19 inch barrel in a package shorter than a 14inch ar.

Oh yes, the Enfield L85. A ten plus year abortion that still doesn't run right and cannot be run from the left shoulder thanks to an integral/reciprocating charge handle/bolt assembly. A genius design. Ever noticed what the British SF community runs? Its not an Enfield product, not even a Steyr product, no not an IWI product either. Its an AR. Even the Aussie SF community doesn't run their native bullpup which is arguably the best of the breed. If my memory serves, only two NATO nations run a bullpup, the French and the British. I can see the bullpup design is taking the world by storm.

As for ballistic performance, I'm well aware of the benefits of velocity over mass and the relationship between M193 and M855 ball and velocity as it relates to terminal performance. Here's the part many miss. If the gun doesn't run and you can't get those rounds on target in a timely fashion, all that "gain" of a longer barrel in a smaller package is pointless. What's more, is that shot placement trumps all. Place your hits and stop worrying about the rest. The "gain" of the bullpup is grossly over shadowed by the long list of negatives it brings with it. Clearly that point is lost on most, as fixed LOP and non ambi operation is of no concern, let alone the other issues that negatively effect performance.

I knew a guy(USMC) who made several confirmed kills in Iraq at ranges exceeding 500 yards with a stock M16a3/4 whatever they're on now, using the issue TA31RCO ACOG optic and M855 ammo. Velocity is nice, and more is always better, but its not worth sacrificing other more important features. Typical engagement range these days is well under 300. If you're roaming the far east open country then the benefit of a small package is no longer a benefit.

TDC
 
since I'm the OP... I'm taking my F'n thread back!!!!

I DONT GIVE A FLYING @#$% IF THE BULLPUP DESIGN DOES NOT APPEAL TO YOU!!!!


i just wanted to know if i could use the Type97 as a left handed shooter.. i dont care if brass occasionally bounces off my arm when shooting, but i just dont want to eat brass everytime i pull the trigger.

there are a few guys on CGN that have fired the Type 97 from back in the day, and i was really looking for some input from them prior to putting in a pre-order for one.
 
since I'm the OP... I'm taking my F'n thread back!!!!

I DONT GIVE A FLYING @#$% IF THE BULLPUP DESIGN DOES NOT APPEAL TO YOU!!!!


i just wanted to know if i could use the Type97 as a left handed shooter.. i dont care if brass occasionally bounces off my arm when shooting, but i just dont want to eat brass everytime i pull the trigger.

there are a few guys on CGN that have fired the Type 97 from back in the day, and i was really looking for some input from them prior to putting in a pre-order for one.

This! Something I am also interested in.... not to read TDC's hate propaganda about bullpups. Chill the #%*@ out let people enjoy whatever type of firearm they want.
 
This! Something I am also interested in.... not to read TDC's hate propaganda about bullpups. Chill the #%*@ out let people enjoy whatever type of firearm they want.

Me chill out? I'm not the one(or two in this case) that had a hissy fit over the topic. Feel free to enjoy a bullpup or a a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Just don't pretend its the best option out there for serious work. Bullpups suck and suck for lefties, and Norinco products are junk. Carry on...


TDC
 
since I'm the OP... I'm taking my F'n thread back!!!!

Lol, that made my morning. ;)

TDC - here's the one thing that bullpups have going for them over an AR: at least the design is evolving. In 50 years, the AR has hardly changed. And that has less to do with being a 'perfect' design than the stubbornness of those who adopted it to change.
 
Lol, that made my morning. ;)

TDC - here's the one thing that bullpups have going for them over an AR: at least the design is evolving. In 50 years, the AR has hardly changed. And that has less to do with being a 'perfect' design than the stubbornness of those who adopted it to change.


The nature of this topic we seem to be on now (AR platform vs bullpups) is more opinionated that fact based (in my opinion, lawl). I'm a lefty, I've shot the Tavor and I'm just not a fan. I've shot a lot of the AR variants and the original AR-15 platform is my PERSONAL favorite. I've been using that platform for about 5 years now and I just can't get away from it. I do not like the ergos of a bullpup. I hate how short they are. They DO have an advantage for CQB but I'd PERSONALLY use a 7.5 or 10.5 AR in .50 beo or .458 SOCOM for strictly CQB (which is where I believe the bullpups only advantage lies) situations.

If it aint broke, don't fix it. For me, the AR platform still work in all situations. Is it perfect? Hell no, but I believe it is far more versatile than a bullpup. Just my 2 cents and what works for THIS guy <---
 
Me chill out? I'm not the one(or two in this case) that had a hissy fit over the topic. Feel free to enjoy a bullpup or a a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Just don't pretend its the best option out there for serious work. Bullpups suck and suck for lefties, and Norinco products are junk. Carry on...


TDC

Hissy fit eh? By letting you know that no one cares about your opinion on a matter not related to the thread? Ok if you say so.
 
since I'm the OP... I'm taking my F'n thread back!!!! I DONT GIVE A FLYING @#$% IF THE BULLPUP DESIGN DOES NOT APPEAL TO YOU!!!! i just wanted to know if i could use the Type97 as a left handed shooter.. i dont care if brass occasionally bounces off my arm when shooting, but i just dont want to eat brass everytime i pull the trigger. there are a few guys on CGN that have fired the Type 97 from back in the day, and i was really looking for some input from them prior to putting in a pre-order for one.

Heh, thanks for the chuckle. And, well said. :D
 
well if you look at this video you notice two things:

[youtube]NK1Hi1t1CwE&list=PLT3_Gb4uTMRMfN-2mxnt2zA0ZRVilvpFi[/youtube]

1. The rifle ejects brass forward and to the right.

2. Where his cheek appears to be while shooting may be the optimal way to get your face chewed up. ( at 4:30)
 
My brother doesnt like to shoot mine anymore since he split his lip for the second time on a casing ejecting, they come screaming out of the port on my rifle, it may be the loads im using (american eagle idk what gr. but designed for AR's) the best solution would probably just be a case deflector to stop them from hitting you, they do eject forward most of the time but it would stop them from being able to hit you in the face
 
So you're saying lefties should just relearn how to shoot right handed so they can gain what advantage again?




So if balance isn't one of the main benefits to a bullpup, then what exactly is there left to ooo and aww over? I agree that bullpups do balance nicely, but a 7-9 lbs conventional rifle is hardly difficult to handle.

The Tavor and FS2000 may be ambi, but they bring other issues. The "ejection tube" and lack of access to the chamber of the FS2000 is a horrible nightmare for clearing a stoppage of any sort. The Tavor is not ambi without replacing the bolt(as do other designs).

All bullpups require the user to take eyes off the target to observe the chamber(if you're into that methodology).

(Which brings me to a side note. For those Magpul Dynamics fanboys, please explain how the MD "system" works with your bullpup rifle, or any other rifle other than an AR and a right handed shooter?)

The LOP issue is an issue if you know how to shoot properly. Sitting at the bench is not what these rifles were designed for. Blading your body and shooting like grandpa taught you is also not an appropriate method of operation. The square stance is the go to stance for rapid shooting while allowing you the most versatility in terms of positions and/or movement. The control benefits and flexibility in movement are proven facts.

Lets add a short eye relief optic, armor, LBE, and its that time of year, winter clothing. Add all this to a short shooter or a female shooter and tell me how well that's gonna work out with a fixed LOP. There's a reason adjustable stocks are the norm now, and its not because it looks cool.

As for ergonomics. There is no way you can reload a bullpup or clear a stoppage faster than a conventional rifle while keeping eyes on target. Again, this isn't a test done slick(that's no gear for those who aren't following). Add a chest rig, armor, and winter clothing and show me a fast reload or malfunction drill? And we still don't have an answer for transitioning shoulders. How does someone fire from the opposite shoulder without eating brass or the charge handle? Again, I'm not talking about some half a$$ed "hold your head away from the E port" or "cover the E port" method. I'm talking about switching shoulders, mounting the rifle and running it like a lefty would.

Mechanical offset, the distance between line of sight and boreline. The Tavor has a brutal mechanical offset. The FS2000 is almost as bad. FAMAS is horrid, the AUG has minimal offset if you run it with a flattop. It appears the type97 is fixed sights only which is a major setback. We all know carry handle mounts are excellent choices. No cheek weld, insane offset, yeah that's a solid option.

The "full" rails on a Tavor are a joke. Where and how would a guy mount a reddot with magnifier, night vision, laser(DBAL, not some NC star garbage) light and sling? Same for the FS2000, Type97, and AUG. In fact, there is a solution(kind of) for the AUG(http://www.sidearmor.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=54&products_id=36) its a rail for the exposed barrel, so you can run a light where it should be placed and other accessories.



Apparently I'm the only one who understands the downfalls of the bullpup, as the benefits are all of two and one isn't really worth discussing. The balance is nice but not required, and the "compact" package argument is great if you intend to spend most of your time indoors or confined in a vehicle. Even with that being said, the negatives a bullpup bring with it far outnumber any perceived advantages. Hey, at the range from the bench it sure looks cool, guess that's all that matters..

TDC

These are problems to be addressed by the people who design rifles. The inherent lack of certain features or the issues you've pointed out aren't flaws of the bullpup concept but shortcomings of existing designs. For example, with the exception of adjustable LOP, most of the problems you've listed have been addressed with the Desert tech MDR. With the mag release where it would be on an AR you have the same quick mag change (and don't you dare tell me about how it's unnatural to stick a mag in around your armpit. I have run the reload drills both on ARs and to date an RFB, Tavor and T97. the only place where the time differs is during mag removal.) The forward ejection addresses the left hander issue, while the forward ejection chute can be opened and thereby you have clear access to the chamber just like on an AR. the rifle can be fired with the port open in which case it would eject to the side as per a tavor.

If you think you don't look away from the fight using an AR when looking into the chamber thats just a AR elitist BS. If you have the rifle canted to the side, up, and looking into the chamber you ain't seeing nothing beyond your rifle. "Keeping your rifle in the battle space" is an advantage in drills where you don't need to look to complete it, where muscle memory is all you need like reloading. if you're looking into the chamber you've already taken your eyes off the fight. The AR has no advantage here.

HOB issue, again an issue to be taken up with the designers. there's no reason for a bullpup to require such great height over bore. Entirely just an issue with current designs. Again i believe the MDR does not have this issue

As for adjustable LOP, you know i really don't know why there isn't already a design with adjustable stock. that is my one complaint across all designs so far. I mean looking at the MDR, Tavor, even the keltecs, there's more than enough room back there for an adjustable stock mechanism. Granted any design that fits into that space won't give you the 6-8(?) inches of adjustment an AR stock would. but one could definitely work in a stock that will allow the user to adjust up to about 4 inches. which is about the amount you'd need anyways. the last few positions of an AR stock are mainly for easy storage.
 
Back
Top Bottom