- Location
- Aaaaaadmontin AB
There are a lot of folks that dislike them and a few hate them outright. I used to follow the gun bloggers and the self proclaimed gun experts and Chris happened to be one of them. Chris has a world view and politics typical of men that exist on a higher moral and intellectual plane of existence than I do - but he is still a great kid in spite of it. He put together one of the best lectures on the subject that can be seen here:
http://anarchangel.########.ca/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html
You have to remember this was written back in 2005. All the cool kids and gun bloggers at the time were busy hating on the AR15 (even as they pimped them and chambered them in wildcats) - and just to prove they were all the coolest thing since sliced bread most of them hated the emerging bullpup rifles too!
I have had some preliminary play time with the Tavor and would like to take exception and umbrage to some of Chris' points. My rebuttals are in bold. Without further adieu:
Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).
True. The same argument can be made of jet fighters, helicopters, and any other modern weapons. But here in the west we are mechanically inclined and sophisticated enough to appreciate and practice preventative maintenance. Properly maintained weapons seldom go down without warning and properly done, periodic maintenance and checks vastly reduces the numbers of failures. No engineering solution really required...just common sense. The Tavor has a crappy trigger but it still shoots as well as a service grade AR, and better than ex-Soviet junkers like the SKS and AK's
If current munitions infrastructure and laws allowed for electronic trigger, feed, and ignition systems, this would be a non issue, and the bullpups advantage may outweigh it's several disadvantages; but for now, that's not an option (also, electronic systems have their own issues).
Yeah - namely batteries and their reliability in cold environments. No thanks, when you get a unit that works in +40~-40C - then we'll talk
If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket.
Well if some idiot wants to think he is safer because the grenade goes off 4" from his face rather than 2" under his chin - it won't make any difference in the aftermath.
Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).
Hasn't been a problem for me so far with my Tavor.
Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.
A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.
More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.
This is subjective and I disagree with it. I have been watching the Youtubers and some of those gun geeks are swapping out mags faster than your wife can change her mind! Speedy mag changes are a function of practice and conditioning. If you can swap a mag on a regular rifle in the dark you can do it with a bullpup too.
Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well).
This I have to look into. I don't anticipate a problem, I use those shorty 5 rounders for precision work anyways but I could see a potential problem with the 30 rounders, maybe. I will be looking into this. I have concerns about how this rifle will sling up for precision shooting as well.
Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward.
This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck.
A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.
I have never tried using the mag as a monopod - what's the point? If you sling up properly you can effectively shoot out to 300 yards and the younger punks with better eyes and steadier nerves can probably go out past that! But what do I know, I am a gun club stubfart and not a gun expert, veteran and whatever else Chris is...
This isn't an issue for rifles that are generally fired off bipods, so in an SAW or LMG role, the bullpup may be an appropriate solution (though having the feed system in such tight quarters with your shoulder and cheek is its own issue).
Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over the rifle with your support hand (again, some conventional rifles do share this weakness; and this is a problem that can easily be solved with proper engineering).
Might be something to that...but again...if it were practiced...maybe not. The IDF folks don't seem to be too concerned about it...
Most bullpups can only be operated from the right shoulder; or if switchable, can only be operated from one shoulder without being reconfigured (this is changing, with the adoption of forward ejection mechanisms).know of, can be fired from the left shoulder.
I hear the Tavor solved that, and there are many conventional semi-autos with the same problem, or so I've heard. If I have to fire from my weak side I use my pistol...but that's just me.
Because of the way most bullpups eject their brass, and cycle their actions; attempting to operate the weapon from the wrong shoulder will result in hot brass being ejected directly into your face, and possibly injuring the user... or they my simply not be able to cycle at all.
Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.
Who says? Chris, if you want to stick to instinctive weapons, you have your fists, your teeth, and maybe the club and the spear. These guns swing and point like a hot damn.
This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.
The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.
The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).
Practice will work too...
This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel, by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.
A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.
Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum.
Oh yeah? The engineers also proved mathematically and scientifically that honey bees can't fly. What bothers me here in all this isn't necessarily the comments - it is the same problem most old school engineers have: they sit in their offices in front of a computer and they read something somebody else said and then come up with the math and physics to prove their viewpoint - but at no time do they actually get down to the range and start shooting or running drills or talking to the squaddies that will use the damned thing.
The other thing that bothers me is that these guns are an evolving concept. I look at some of the junkers on this post and want to laugh. The guns emerging today are becoming weapons of choice for a lot of well informed shooters - and I don't think the show is over yet either.
In any event - all of this does make for interesting discussion when the weather is cold and crappy and the range is uninviting...
Hope your forecast has some warmth in it as mine does - I can't wait to get out and shoot!
http://anarchangel.########.ca/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html
You have to remember this was written back in 2005. All the cool kids and gun bloggers at the time were busy hating on the AR15 (even as they pimped them and chambered them in wildcats) - and just to prove they were all the coolest thing since sliced bread most of them hated the emerging bullpup rifles too!
I have had some preliminary play time with the Tavor and would like to take exception and umbrage to some of Chris' points. My rebuttals are in bold. Without further adieu:
Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).
True. The same argument can be made of jet fighters, helicopters, and any other modern weapons. But here in the west we are mechanically inclined and sophisticated enough to appreciate and practice preventative maintenance. Properly maintained weapons seldom go down without warning and properly done, periodic maintenance and checks vastly reduces the numbers of failures. No engineering solution really required...just common sense. The Tavor has a crappy trigger but it still shoots as well as a service grade AR, and better than ex-Soviet junkers like the SKS and AK's
If current munitions infrastructure and laws allowed for electronic trigger, feed, and ignition systems, this would be a non issue, and the bullpups advantage may outweigh it's several disadvantages; but for now, that's not an option (also, electronic systems have their own issues).
Yeah - namely batteries and their reliability in cold environments. No thanks, when you get a unit that works in +40~-40C - then we'll talk
If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket.
Well if some idiot wants to think he is safer because the grenade goes off 4" from his face rather than 2" under his chin - it won't make any difference in the aftermath.
Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).
Hasn't been a problem for me so far with my Tavor.
Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.
A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.
More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.
This is subjective and I disagree with it. I have been watching the Youtubers and some of those gun geeks are swapping out mags faster than your wife can change her mind! Speedy mag changes are a function of practice and conditioning. If you can swap a mag on a regular rifle in the dark you can do it with a bullpup too.
Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well).
This I have to look into. I don't anticipate a problem, I use those shorty 5 rounders for precision work anyways but I could see a potential problem with the 30 rounders, maybe. I will be looking into this. I have concerns about how this rifle will sling up for precision shooting as well.
Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward.
This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck.
A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.
I have never tried using the mag as a monopod - what's the point? If you sling up properly you can effectively shoot out to 300 yards and the younger punks with better eyes and steadier nerves can probably go out past that! But what do I know, I am a gun club stubfart and not a gun expert, veteran and whatever else Chris is...
This isn't an issue for rifles that are generally fired off bipods, so in an SAW or LMG role, the bullpup may be an appropriate solution (though having the feed system in such tight quarters with your shoulder and cheek is its own issue).
Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over the rifle with your support hand (again, some conventional rifles do share this weakness; and this is a problem that can easily be solved with proper engineering).
Might be something to that...but again...if it were practiced...maybe not. The IDF folks don't seem to be too concerned about it...
Most bullpups can only be operated from the right shoulder; or if switchable, can only be operated from one shoulder without being reconfigured (this is changing, with the adoption of forward ejection mechanisms).know of, can be fired from the left shoulder.
I hear the Tavor solved that, and there are many conventional semi-autos with the same problem, or so I've heard. If I have to fire from my weak side I use my pistol...but that's just me.
Because of the way most bullpups eject their brass, and cycle their actions; attempting to operate the weapon from the wrong shoulder will result in hot brass being ejected directly into your face, and possibly injuring the user... or they my simply not be able to cycle at all.
Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.
Who says? Chris, if you want to stick to instinctive weapons, you have your fists, your teeth, and maybe the club and the spear. These guns swing and point like a hot damn.
This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.
The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.
The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).
Practice will work too...
This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel, by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.
A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.
Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum.
Oh yeah? The engineers also proved mathematically and scientifically that honey bees can't fly. What bothers me here in all this isn't necessarily the comments - it is the same problem most old school engineers have: they sit in their offices in front of a computer and they read something somebody else said and then come up with the math and physics to prove their viewpoint - but at no time do they actually get down to the range and start shooting or running drills or talking to the squaddies that will use the damned thing.
The other thing that bothers me is that these guns are an evolving concept. I look at some of the junkers on this post and want to laugh. The guns emerging today are becoming weapons of choice for a lot of well informed shooters - and I don't think the show is over yet either.
In any event - all of this does make for interesting discussion when the weather is cold and crappy and the range is uninviting...
Hope your forecast has some warmth in it as mine does - I can't wait to get out and shoot!
