I was doing some research for my own enjoyment and was wondering why the US military has never gotten into the bull-pup desing form their assault rifles. If I'm reading things right you can get a very accurate rifle that is also not that long, because the action is in the rear of the weapon which lets you use most of the length for the barrel. I know that the Brits use it and like it very much. So I was hoping the someone with some more knowlege than me could give me some info.

Shoot one just once and you will know why. I have fired the British Enfield, the Austrian Steyr, the French Famas, and recently two new offering from FN. I hated everyone of them. Very uncomfortable and a real pain to change magazines.

Also if the bullpup design is so great why did the Chinese get rid of theirs in favor of a conventionally designed rifle. All of the countries I would trust as far as weapons are concerned (eg Russia and the United states) don't use it and I'm sure they know more about them than I do. Also in the case of Russia I believe they still use a version of the AK-74 and they have had atleast two bullpup designed rifles.

Bullpups, like a lot of things, are a good idea in concept, but not the "Rolls Royce of assault rifles" like I saw one very uninformed armchair general claim.

In my, and many others, soldiers and civilians, opinion, they are a pain in the butt and a good idea that just didn't work out the way that was expected. I personally hate the fact that all the weight is at the back...that's my main gripe, but then again, I've never been under fire, so I can't give a testimonial on changing bullpup rifle mags in combat.

Another thing that people will point out is that special ops units in nations that have a bullpup rifle as standard issue often opt for rifles with a traditional layout. Examples are the SAS, who usually go with the C8 (Canadian version of the M4) rather than the standard British SA80, or the Australian SASR, who also pass up their county's F88 Austeyr (a lot of people will also site France's GIGN as an example as they usually use the SIG551 or M4 rather than the FAMAS, but they are actually a gendarme, or paramilitary police force rather than straight up military). However, on the other hand, some top notch CT units actually use bullpup rifles. Examples of this are Austria's EKO Cobra (Steyr AUG), Portugal's GOE (Tavor), and the Israeli forces (although whether Met'kal will actually give up their CAR-15s is up for debate).

In conclusion, a lot probably comes down to preference, but overall, the gripes against the bullpups are pretty well documented by people who have tried it, and not just by a bunch of old timers who fear change.

the Tavor is versatile, accurate and easy to maintain. that guy Machowicz was putting rounds in the head of a metal figure from 300meters. the M-4 is great for urban warfare, the Israeli's took it further. if you get into really reading wat its capabilities are, its a helluva weapon.

The problem is, it's still a bullpup. Yes, like the AUG and FAMAS, it can be changed to fit either a left or right hand shooters, but there still is the issue with it being back heavy. I suppose it comes down to preference though.

The main issue with current bullpup designs is the integration of plastic and metal. Plastic rifles do not stand up to the abuse that infantrymen put their weapon through. I have fired the Steyer AUG in Australia and I broke the trigger housing. Additionally the U.S. Military does not need the accuracy at long distance that a rifle would provide. Thats why they issue M4's to the squad and 1 M14 or M16 to the designated marksmen.

well, i guess the Israeli's are stuck with that piece of crap Tavor.

The answer to your question is in the economics, not the utility of the weapon. There have been billions dumped into the M16/M4 series of rifles. After all, it only took 20 years to dump the M60 for an older weapon, the M240 or Mag58, that we had in abundance on our own armored vehicles. In any case, the bullpup design makes for a more compact weapon, but the lack of weight in the front makes for poorer accuracy.

I fired the SA-80 recently, and I wasn't impressed. I don't understand why the Brits like it so much, it was just plain awkward to handle.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember something about the SA80 being a very accurate weapon. I've never had the opportunity to try one. I sure don't envy the lefty Brits, though, with the righty-only gun. Does not make sense.

Accurate, but at the sacrifice of fragility and reliability. A lot of ultra accurate weapons will naturally be less reliable as it has less forgiveness and tighter fitting parts (this is less of an issue for bolt action rifles but this rule does still apply to some extent). This is one of the reasons why the PSG-1 is not a good sniper rifle for the field, though it is arguably the most accurate semi-auto sniper on the market, due to being fragile. It is a police and urban rifle only.

Yeah, I knew the SA80 had problems, such as , the receiver could be compressed by hand enough to retard the bolt operation, etc... I understand that HK had (allegedly) worked out the kinks. It's a nifty looking gun, but has problems, that's for sure. The Brits screwed up dumping the SLR.

Not a military rifle, but I have a Bushmaster M-17 Bullpup just for fun. Takes standard M-16/AR-15 magazine. With its 21.5" barrel, overall length is only 30" long. Because it's not a battle rifle, it needs to have the cotter/retaining pins changed every so often.

Would the bullpup be a more effective and efficient weapon if it weren't so heavy in the back? Say there were a gun that was bullpup in every other way except it was lighter in the back; would it be a better gun then? The weight in the back probably just takes some getting used to. If you had used a bullpup design rifle all of your life, it wouldn't be so uncomfortable. The switch from bullpup to traditional rifle would take some getting used to and might be why Britain doesn't change back.

True: a lot of the resistance to bullpup weapons is simply from conditioning, but I defy you to change a mag and return fire to target faster in a bullpup than you can with a traditional design. Thats not a conditioned response, its just simple geometry.

That said, the look cool, I read in some gun mag that someone is going to start making a knock-off semi-auto Styr AUG in the US. Gotta get me one of those! If they arent junk...

I'm not hi-jacking, but, someone said knock-off. Check out the GSG5.

http://www.gsg5rifle.com/

I fired the Steyr AUG back in 1985, and found it...interesting. I didn't put it through its paces, just plinked with it on the range.

I bought a Mossberg 500 bullpup shotgun a few years later, and found it to be fun on the range, but the accuracy (due to the fixed sights in the carry handle) absolutely SUCKED. I sold it off after getting back from GW I. The empty shells ejected from the right side of the stock.



I'm sticking with regular configurations from now on.

Im interested in how the Tavor performs for the Israeli's. It should be in the hands of some Israeli units now. That guy Machowicz seemed to like it. Would you rather have a Russian AK-47, or an Israeli Galil? I like to see the response. The Galil was a better made rifle. I say Galil.

Mac likes everything on the show, or so he pretends to. He hypes everything and makes it sound like its the end all be all answer to all the problems its supposed to address. He's a weapons expert and he probably knows some of the stuff he says is borderline BS, but the majority of viewers don't and it won't make much of a difference anyway.

At any rate, the Tavor seems like a decent rifle for a bullpup. It's been in use with Indian Special Forces for a little bit, and it's gotten mixed reviews with them, but I understand (and this is just hearsay) that the IDF units that got them are pretty happy with them.

About the Galil: It was actually based off of the Finnish Rk-62, which was based off of the AK, but made much more accurate and with better sights. So yes, I would say the Galil was a better rifle than the AK.