Why Bullpups Aren't A Good Idea
- Thread starter One Lung Wonder
- Start date
Your analogy didn't really make sense, but I understand what your trying to say. So bullpups are beetles, and AR's are Porsches, and there isn't 1 solder who likes bullpups...
LordEvilPepper
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Under a rusty barge in BC
Whatever floats your boat. I'll take my bullpup over any AR-15 platform any day. That's not me saying AR-15's are crap as we know fine well they are not. It's just that this is the rifle I'm used to, am accurate with and suits my shooting style.
I would take just about any gun over an AR15.... the one in your post would not be one of them.... that L85-A2 is a POS, I used it for 3 weeks on ex and hated it every moment. its heavy, a pain to take apart, hard to clean (you need a drill bit otherwise you pouched) is easily fouled and is unreliable, the things are jam'o'matics. Even if you said "here you can have this gun for free, you can shoot it full auto at the range no prohib status for you with this gun." I still wouldn't take it. It would piss me off just looking at it and having it remind me of those 3 weeks of wanting to pitch that POS from the top of my LAV.
AS for the OP's article break down... he is very correct. The person writing the article sounds like a desk general.
Haven't shot my RFB much, haven't even picked a sight/optic. Other than the fear of putting my support hand out in front of the muzzle, it balances on the pistol grip at around 9 lbs, I don't forsee any issues. Yes I am going to have to learn a new manual of arms but this RFB is like climbing in a Porsche when one has only driven pickups, the potential is high.
Matt_dal123
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Great to know
Your three weeks sounded like fun! Glad the rifle served you well.
It maiby the alcohol but it funny cause of the fail!
i believe he was referring to old VW beatles, which indeed had rear mounted engines
After spending time with my t97 I really think you hit the nail in the head with this. Everyone is screaming and complaining about the mag release on this rifle because they're so used to the out front mag changes. If they took the time to adjust habits, and relearn, they'd realize that the t97 mag changes are lighting fast and easy if they use their dominant hand to do it. It doesn't need an ambi release. It just takes time to break the habit of keeping your hand on the grip and using your left hand for changes.
- Location
- Aaaaaadmontin AB
True, Zesty!
Who is that tall lanky kid with the sunglasses and AR? Costa? I watched him shoot on some vid and the guy is a MACHINE. He engages targets like a self indexing automated machine. He shoots his gun dry and the mags fly from it as if by telekenisis. The only time he looks at the gun is when he is checking the chamber. It's a treat to watch. You cannot tell me that most the naysayers are even close to that level of competency, and you can't tell me that the man would be rendered a sitting duck if you took his AR away and gave him a bullpup. My guess is that he would adapt to any weapon you gave him - just as we are!
Wow, the internet is lighting up on bullpups! More articles and posts are coming out all the time now.
Who is that tall lanky kid with the sunglasses and AR? Costa? I watched him shoot on some vid and the guy is a MACHINE. He engages targets like a self indexing automated machine. He shoots his gun dry and the mags fly from it as if by telekenisis. The only time he looks at the gun is when he is checking the chamber. It's a treat to watch. You cannot tell me that most the naysayers are even close to that level of competency, and you can't tell me that the man would be rendered a sitting duck if you took his AR away and gave him a bullpup. My guess is that he would adapt to any weapon you gave him - just as we are!
Wow, the internet is lighting up on bullpups! More articles and posts are coming out all the time now.
I disagree. As much as I like an AR I can tell you that there is a special place that an AR 15 will never fill that the ps90, fs2000 certainly does. For me it is the element of originality in FN design. Totally functional and of superb quality; quality way above many ARs.
What is really unfortunate is how they are demonized for their scary design by our elected officials.
What is really unfortunate is how they are demonized for their scary design by our elected officials.
Last edited:
Matt, I have to agree with LordEvilPepper entirely.
I was in Wainwright in '89 and got together with some brits engineers.
They cried nostalgically longingly gazing at my smg with envy.
They showed me their first generation L85s.
All I can say is that they made the Sten Gun look like a lovingly crafted piece of art in comparison.
Bad ergos and cheap welding of rejected metals.
Only thing useful was the glass optical sight. They felt that it was only there to keep the eye of the user, from looking at the rest of the rifle.
I know you like it.
But you got to deal with it after three or four government and private industry attempts to make it work.
I suspect your attitude has more to do with some kind of a firearms version of Stockholm Syndrome.
As for bullpups;
I am down from 14 ARs to nine, as well as two Tavors and a Type97.
It is mostly about muscle memory.
That has more to do with their sbr tax stamp baloney than anything.
Blogs. If a bull pup works for you then nothing else really matters. Some of these guys spend a lot more time blogging than they do shooting and the result is so much BS online that it's getting hard to separate fantasy from reality. Go shoot your rifle and you'll learn more than you will by reading blogger warrior fantasies.
Matt_dal123
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Matt, I have to agree with LordEvilPepper entirely.
I was in Wainwright in '89 and got together with some brits engineers.
They cried nostalgically longingly gazing at my smg with envy.
They showed me their first generation L85s.
All I can say is that they made the Sten Gun look like a lovingly crafted piece of art in comparison.
Bad ergos and cheap welding of rejected metals.
Only thing useful was the glass optical sight. They felt that it was only there to keep the eye of the user, from looking at the rest of the rifle.
I know you like it.
But you got to deal with it after three or four government and private industry attempts to make it work.
I suspect your attitude has more to do with some kind of a firearms version of Stockholm Syndrome.
As for bullpups;
I am down from 14 ARs to nine, as well as two Tavors and a Type97.
It is mostly about muscle memory.
Not entirely sure what your reference to me having "Stockholm Syndrome" is, and I'm sure I'll be flamed for it but whatever
It's fine that people hate it lol. It makes no impact on my opinion
I have used it in combat and it served me well during my time using it. My point is that It doesn't matter if people don't like it. It's what YOU like to use that counts. The engineers you spoke of were using the A1 so yes it had faults. I used the A1 and wasn't a huge fan at first. But to compare to a sten?.... Come on lol.
As far as I'm concerned the British army has been pretty good at Doing what we do best, making use of what we have an dealing with it. The L85 seems to be one of those rifles everyone has their own little attack on how terrible it is lol. But we have to make do with what we have. And we could ##### about it until we are red in the face. And some did. But guess what. We're still using it
I like my L85 like TVPressPass likes his Tavor. If you don't like it then that's all good
I honestly respect your opinion. But please don't base it all off someone else's experiences.Hate away
Without reading 50-60 posts, but reading the first one.... (sorry)
Bullpups have a purpose. I personally would own one as an option for getting a very long precision barrel in a shorter and lighter system for hunting and varmint shooting where hiking is required. This is not the case as a general rule: they tend to be used in the short barreled "urban enforcement & combat" platform.
It is my opinion that often firearms are "dummied down" or "socially modified" to appeal to the largest sales base: the more people that will buy, the more they are out there (which isn't so horrible). A Glock is a nice firearm, but with no exposed hammer and not exposed safety, they are very "dummied down" to appeal to anyone and everyone: something that is an asset to the design. I would prefer a 1911 myself over a Glock, but with the exposed "cocked and locked" hammer being seemingly "socially unacceptable" and the exposed safety not being "dummied down" enough; they are not as widely used among LEO, military, security and sportspeople as much nowadays. Bullpups are tougher in this sense because they don't appeal to the largest group of users: either because of complexity, lack of home repair, expense, or most likely their requirement for more practice to use well. Chris (original blog poster that the original poster comments on) is likely commenting on this view: that firearms of the bullpup design are not "dummied down" enough for the large firearms users and owners base required to make them popular.
This does not make them useless: it makes them focused; and there is nothing wrong with that.
Bullpups have a purpose. I personally would own one as an option for getting a very long precision barrel in a shorter and lighter system for hunting and varmint shooting where hiking is required. This is not the case as a general rule: they tend to be used in the short barreled "urban enforcement & combat" platform.
It is my opinion that often firearms are "dummied down" or "socially modified" to appeal to the largest sales base: the more people that will buy, the more they are out there (which isn't so horrible). A Glock is a nice firearm, but with no exposed hammer and not exposed safety, they are very "dummied down" to appeal to anyone and everyone: something that is an asset to the design. I would prefer a 1911 myself over a Glock, but with the exposed "cocked and locked" hammer being seemingly "socially unacceptable" and the exposed safety not being "dummied down" enough; they are not as widely used among LEO, military, security and sportspeople as much nowadays. Bullpups are tougher in this sense because they don't appeal to the largest group of users: either because of complexity, lack of home repair, expense, or most likely their requirement for more practice to use well. Chris (original blog poster that the original poster comments on) is likely commenting on this view: that firearms of the bullpup design are not "dummied down" enough for the large firearms users and owners base required to make them popular.
This does not make them useless: it makes them focused; and there is nothing wrong with that.
