Type97 and the lefthanded user.

Evil_Edie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Someone above(a long time ago) mentioned some ignorant BS about the bullpup designs are evolving whereas the AR is not. The Steyr AUG is the oldest bullpup design and is still a far better one than what is currently available from other companies, so much for evolving. As for the AR evolving, it has, a lot, and often. There isn't/wasn't much that needed improvement to an already amazing design.

The DTA rifle looks interesting (I would say the best of the bullpups thus far)but is still an answer to a question no one has asked. The fixed LOP is still a major failure, as is the difficulty in reloading. I don't need to look at my AR(or VZ) to reload, this keeps my eyes down range. For the brief moment a shooter may need to view the rifle during the reload(to orient the magazine, not to observe the chamber. I don't do it and anyone with half a mind doesn't either, its flashy bullsh*t. You can't see the chamber in the dark and you won't stop and check it when the reload is a critical one, so there's no point in including it in ones manual of arms.) the action required is a movement of the eyes, not the head and eyes. The later eliminates your ability to detect movement via your peripheral vision as your head is down. Reloading a bullpup from prone is far from intuitive or natural. Heavy clothing and load bearing gear also add to the difficulty of a bullpup reload.

Mechanical offset is still an issue as most bullpups have insane offset whereas the old AUG does not, so much for "evolving" design. As for the adjustability of the classic and now standard AR stock, its actually the first 3 positions that are important, not the last three. Most who use an adjustable stock like that of an AR run them too long. This is the result of poor stance which is a direct result of poor and/or absence of training. Learn to shoot, learn to use your equipment properly. Nevertheless, you say an adjustable stock could be worked in, so why hasn't it been? So much for "evolving" design.

Other issues which I likely posted about way back when this thread was fresh include the lack of "rail estate" for the MIL/LE customer base(or the financially free civilian). How is a soldier/officer/citizen supposed to mount an optic, iron sights, light, sling, visible/IR laser, NV, bipod or any combination thereof on a rifle with very little rail space? Steyr even offers an add on piece to give the user some more rail space http://www.steyrarms.com/store/index.php/picatinny-rail-1/steyr-aug-factory-accessory-rail-kit.html.

Having the chamber next to your face is a bad idea as well. If you've ever observed a catastrophic case failure or an over pressure round you'll appreciate the separation of the chamber and the stock on a conventional design.

TDC
 
If you search a gentleman has designed a deflector.

I fired my friends T97, i promptly got nailed in the face by the ejecting brass as i forgot about the ejection issue. You can scooch your head back away from the port but then it feels akward.

Frankly one of the issues is the peep sights. They require you to get up close and personal with the rear sight for a good sight picture and thats when the ejected brass says "hello" to your face.

I am working on a tacticool beard. Should scare the brass away....
 
(Bullpups are) still an answer to a question no one has asked.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with that.

I agree that most bullpup designs are not terribly high-speed low-drag, as thus are not optimal for use in close quarters.

The ergos are sub-par, but not terrible. Most (but not all!) don't have an AR-style release actuated by the trigger finger, but how many rifles have those? Mag changes on an AUG would not be much different from A G36 or AK, for example. Chances of the average troop training on his own time to shave split-seconds off a reload: Extremely low.
You typically have enough room for an optics and a few accessories, just not every toy on the planet.
Mechanical offset would be difficult for shooting a hostage-taker between the eyes at close range, but is irrelevant for double-tapping someone center mass.
LOP is a pain but works for most average body types.

What can we glean from this? Bullpups are rifles are designed for mechanized infantry, who will need a rifle in a compact package while mounted, but then could seriously benefit from the velocity from a full length barrel once dismounted. That you can get a full-length rifle in a package shorter than a conventional carbine only becomes a plus for close quarters at that point. That they point super easy and stop on a dime because of mass distribution is nice as well.

They're not door-kicking secret squirrel bodyslayers, so they're not going to be rescuing hostages, or doing shoulder transitions or speed reloads. Yeah, you can do mag changes on an AR-15 lightning fast if you're standing in a relatively sterile environment, with nothing to impede your muscle memory reload. But how often will you actually encounter this in typical infantry use? My experience: damn well never.

Who do you see using bullpup rifles? Mechanized infantry. I would say for that use, you're gaining advantages that matter at the expense of features that ultimately don't.

Reloading a bullpup from prone is far from intuitive or natural.
Click to expand...

Reloading ANYTHING from the prone is far from intuitive or natural. But I've found prone mag changes on bullpups to be pretty easy if for no other reason than it's effortless to keep the muzzle out of the dirt as you struggle to get your mags out, because gravity and leverage is on your side.

you say an adjustable stock could be worked in, so why hasn't it been?
Click to expand...

VHS-2. How effective it is, no one can say, as I don't think anyone outside of Croatia has touched one.

Last I checked, the British and Aussie SAS run an AR in some form or another even though their standard issues are bullpups.
Click to expand...

I don't know, why did the SAS use MP5s at the Iranian Embassy when the Army was using the FAL? Maybe because it's more appropriate to the specific task?
Why do Navy Seals roll with the HK416 when (and I agree with you on this) they're no better than DI carbines?
 
Last edited:
TDC, I suppose the reason why despite the fact that a bullpup can have a non ridiculous HOB but most designs still do, i suppose that comes down to what you consider ridiculous HOB. Bullups being designed for close quarters to mid range combat i can only assume it';s designed for use in the "gunfighter" stance. squared off body, butt tucked closer into the chest rather than out at the shoulder and usually means less cheek weld and more of a chin weld. Unless you're crazy flexible. But the increased hight of the optics and sights means it's easier to actually use the sight rather than just look over it.

The first few positions of the AR stock are the only important one's eh...well doesn't that then completely corroborate what i said about only needing the 4 inches of adjustment? it doesn't matter to me which end of the adjustments you're on that wasn't my point. that just means the actual section of adjustable stock needs to be fit within that zone. as for the first few sections...well i would like to call you out on that. No one i have ever come across so far uses the AR in the first few sections and i've shot with other soldiers from all across the country at an international level competition. The best of them run usually the last 2-3 positions depending on arm length and thats wearing full battle rattle, flak vest and all. Hell the team i'm on is coached by 3 queen's medalists ffs. you are absolutely full of shi* in this regard.

Last but not least just GTFO already. if you don't care for bullpups why are you even in here? leave us who love them alone and go spread your elitist bull crap elsewhere. As someone who actually runs an AR rifle for work, i can't believe how often i've thought how much better it would be to have something half the size but maintaining the full length barrel. So you're full of shi* if you think it's the answer to a question no one's asking. The reason they exist is because so many people have asked that question. so many countries have adopted them because it was a question that needed an answer. You don't run well with them and thats ok, but stop trying to force your inability to adapt on the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Uhh..doesn't the SCAR have an adjustable LOP??
And when ambi he doesn't mean left handed shooters (don't know why he's letting himself get dragged into this argument). A shooter needs to know how to shoot both hands.
You do NOT want to ONLY be able to shoot around left hand corners without getting shot.

EDIT: Almost forgot the most important misconception from TDC. Alberta is NOT debt free anymore. Not by a LONG shot. Why? Because we GIVE our resources away. WE make less from our oil and gas than pretty much any other oil producing country. And I mean ANY including Nowray, Nigeria, Kazakhstan...yes KAZAKHSTAN makes MORE from their oil than we make from ours. WEll we make the same/barrel but Alberta and Canada just don't get to keep it. :-( It just gets more and more embarrassing to be Canadian every DAY :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
Wow just thought I'd read a bit in here to learn a thing or two, realized I missed a lot of fun and constructive discussion! :)

Sounds like what we could have heard in 1890:

"Bolt actions are dumb, dangerous, and flawed from the start. Falling blocks will always be better!"

Going back further:"These hand canons are a joke! Nothing could ever beat the longbow."

"Grunt, grunt - big pounding stick better than stupid thrown spear!"

Etc...

Anyways, as a really-left-handed guy though, I would love a decent-priced bullpup (eg. Norc T97) to be ambidextrous.
 
Red_Liner740 said:
If you search a gentleman has designed a deflector.

I fired my friends T97, i promptly got nailed in the face by the ejecting brass as i forgot about the ejection issue. You can scooch your head back away from the port but then it feels akward.

Frankly one of the issues is the peep sights. They require you to get up close and personal with the rear sight for a good sight picture and thats when the ejected brass says "hello" to your face.

I am working on a tacticool beard. Should scare the brass away....
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the guy that machined a deflector for it?
 
I recently got my T97 with FTU. Love the rifle.

Feels great in the hands and shoots like a dream. Also, scary looking black rifle in the woods is always a good thing.

The lack of left-handed shooting is okay if you're running a 3-point sling as one of their downsides is how they get in the way for switching shoulders anyways.

ae3ef1d8-e24f-446c-b42d-419a7eefa25a_zps7c162b24.jpg
 
Last edited:
NintendoDuckHunt87 said:
I recently got my T97 with FTU. Love the rifle.

Feels great in the hands and shoots like a dream. Also, scary looking black rifle in the woods is always a good thing.

The lack of left-handed shooting is okay if you're running a 3-point sling as one of their downsides is how they get in the way for switching shoulders anyways.

ae3ef1d8-e24f-446c-b42d-419a7eefa25a_zps7c162b24.jpg
Click to expand...


i didn't realize that you could use the P-mags with the T97...huh, go figure...
 
To the OP.
Yes sadly as everyone her has suggested the T97 is not really lefty compatable, I myself am a Lefty and had this worked up for me.
It works well and forces the brass down without hitting me in the face.
My first time using the T97 I took a shell right in the lip that left a nice bloody gash. and then I had this made up. no more issues. Otherwise wait the mallenia till be get an ambidextrous version (hahahaha).





 
I've seen on CGN somewhere that someone moulded a cheek-riser and a casing deflector all-in-one.. I personally think it looks a bit better than the sheet metal design... but might not works as well.... has anyone else seen that?
 
thebutcher said:
To the OP.
Yes sadly as everyone her has suggested the T97 is not really lefty compatable, I myself am a Lefty and had this worked up for me.
It works well and forces the brass down without hitting me in the face.
My first time using the T97 I took a shell right in the lip that left a nice bloody gash. and then I had this made up. no more issues. Otherwise wait the mallenia till be get an ambidextrous version (hahahaha).





Click to expand...

Needs black paint.

A grand to ghetto with a piece of sheet steel and a screw. :)
 
thebutcher said:
To the OP.
Yes sadly as everyone her has suggested the T97 is not really lefty compatable, I myself am a Lefty and had this worked up for me.
It works well and forces the brass down without hitting me in the face.
My first time using the T97 I took a shell right in the lip that left a nice bloody gash. and then I had this made up. no more issues. Otherwise wait the mallenia till be get an ambidextrous version (hahahaha).

thanks man...but i took the plunge and grabbed 4 of them...i will eventually figure out the lefty issue...


Click to expand...
 
Lol I brought mine (T97) to a friends camp this year. He grabbed it to go shoot a squirrel or something, I forgot he was left handed. The casing cut his lip pretty good. We laughed. It also failed to cycle with the .223 case stuck in his mouth. That said, my T97 has never had a FTE or FTF, other than this one time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom