# Bullpup rifles...the view



## The Basket (Sep 4, 2016)

Bullpup Rifles?
Any good?
Perhaps your left handed!
But it would be interesting to see the comments.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 4, 2016)

I've never used one but if I was in and out of a vehicle a lot, one would certainly be better, or as a secondary weapon for flight crews.

I went thru basic as the first group in basic training with the M-16 rifle at Fort Polk, La. in 1969, before that they'd trained with the M-14. At first left hand shooters just had to tough it out, the Army was slow getting the deflectors that would redirect the ejected brass.
I was the coach for a left hand shooter, once a hot brass went down his collar and inside his shirt there was just no teaching him anything about accuracy anymore.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 4, 2016)

My service weapon was the SA80 which is a bullpup. It was the older version. They could not be fired left handed. 
I thought magazine changes were awkward. But the SA80 had a poor rep so not sure if it was a bullpup or simply the weapon itself.


----------



## Token (Sep 4, 2016)

Not a fan of bullpups in general. I have several, just because I can, but they are not my favorites. Full disclosure though, none of mine were designed from day one as bullpups, but rather they were converted to that configuration. I have a bullpup configured Mini 14, a 10/22, and an M1A, I have owned and used others in the past, including some designed as bullpups. California state laws prevent me from keeping the Mini 14 and M1A here, so they stay at my place in Louisiana.

Without optics I find them less accurate than traditional configured versions of each of those rifles, I assume because of the reduced sight radius.

While they are more compact I really don't see the need for most applications. Maybe if I was in and out of a vehicle multiple times a day it would make sense.

The manual of arms for them annoys me, reaching over with my left hand and across the rifle while rotating it ~70 degrees CCW to charge it is unnatural feeling to me, reaching under is much better, but still not "right". The magazine location annoys me, and replacing a magazine on them takes longer than with the same weapons in a conventional configuration. Trying to shoot them on my weak side annoys me...because I can't.

T!


----------



## The Basket (Sep 4, 2016)

Will be interesting to see if bullpup are more than a passing fad.
Of course rifles like the SCAR have collapsing stocks which makes them easier to transport but offer no use in combat or the use of carbines such as the M4 which again makes them less useful at range.
A bullpup is ideal for cqb as it's lighter and shorter and easier to shoulder but still got a longer barrel for range.
The manual of arms may be more awkward but if it was your own military issued rifle then training would take care of that same with mushy trigger.

I do find it interesting from the American perspective about weapons like the Tavor as American forces don't use a bullpup as a standard rifle so they don't have any combat experience using one. Criticising the Tavor against say a AR-15 is criticising the Tavor or its configuration?


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Will be interesting to see if bullpup are more than a passing fad.
> Of course rifles like the SCAR have collapsing stocks which makes them easier to transport but offer no use in combat or the use of carbines such as the M4 which again makes them less useful at range.
> A bullpup is ideal for cqb as it's lighter and shorter and easier to shoulder but still got a longer barrel for range.
> The manual of arms may be more awkward but if it was your own military issued rifle then training would take care of that same with mushy trigger.
> ...


----------

