Defence Q&A Do Bullpups have a future?

[Ryder]

This is the question a lot of people have been asking even debating.

I want to ask you guys about bullpup firearms.

Do they have a future?? Or is the conventional design just too better to rather look for different design configurations when it comes to firearms.

France replaced their Famas with the HK416 while China is slowly phasing out the Type 95. Bullpups seem to be reserved for special forces or for law enforcement but bullpups dont seem to be getting adopted as a standard arm in a conventional army maybe except the Israelis. Australia uses the AUG for its army.

But the adoption of bullpups is still small compared to conventional designs.

 

[500]

Neither bullpup of convectional design have decisive advantage over another. So both have a future.

I believe that standard infantry firearm should not be longer than M4 - 84 cm. Because modern combat is largely urban. This leaves you with 37 cm barrel which is close to minimum possible.

Bullpup on the on the other hand allows you to have tiny 67 cm rifle with 42 cm barrel (similar to full length AK-47).

Main issues of bullpup are relatively heavy trigger and cases released in ur face if u change your shoulder. But these two are mostly critical for special forces.

 

[Merzifonlu]

With caseless ammunition maybe. Otherwise no.

 

[Ryder]

Neither bullpup of convectional design have decisive advantage over another. So both have a future.

I believe that standard infantry firearm should not be longer than M4 - 84 cm. Because modern combat is largely urban. This leaves you with 37 cm barrel which is close to minimum possible.

Bullpup on the on the other hand allows you to have tiny 67 cm rifle with 42 cm barrel (similar to full length AK-47).

Main issues of bullpup are relatively heavy trigger and cases released in ur face if u change your shoulder. But these two are mostly critical for special forces.

Bullpups have proven their worth in cqb situations.

But still conventional designs are still the strongest to be adopted.

Decades have passed still bullpups have not taken over completely. I like bullpups a lot. They will not be phased out in the future of course.

 

[Ryder]

With caseless ammunition maybe. Otherwise no.

HK G11 was pretty innovative especially with caseless ammunition. It took decades to develop and research.

HK G11 did not get adopted because it was expensive and created a logistical problem. It will take decades for caseless ammo to replace the 7.62 or the 5.56.

 

[Merzifonlu]

HK G11 was pretty innovative especially with caseless ammunition. It took decades to develop and research.

HK G11 did not get adopted because it was expensive and created a logistical problem. It will take decades for caseless ammo to replace the 7.62 or the 5.56.

LSAT caseless ammunition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While they were valid arguments, another issue with the rifle was overheating. Because the number of fire per minute was very high. I have analyzed the G11 concept in great detail. The Americans are working on caseless weapons using the technology they got from the H&K company. But my guess is in the far end they will still choose polymer case technology.

 

[500]

Bullpups have proven their worth in cqb situations.

But still conventional designs are still the strongest to be adopted.

Decades have passed still bullpups have not taken over completely. I like bullpups a lot. They will not be phased out in the future of course.

The difference between most of modern firearms (whether bullpup or classic) is not big and largely matter of taste.

My personal favorite is AUG. Super compact and pleasant to fire.

 

[Anastasius]

As Nein mentioned, the main advantage of bullpups is in close combat situations as their lighter frame and shorter length allows for quicker and steadier aim. I think bullpups may completely replace SMGs as time goes on since less recoil means they can be more accurately fired on-the-go but that's 1-2, possibly 3, decades down the line.

Conventional assault rifles will still be the go-to for long-range engagements though.

 

[Merzifonlu]

I think that bullpup style rifles have no place in CQB in the future. Rifles with a rather short barrel but using increased caliber ammunition will be sufficient for this job. For example, 300 AAC Blackout ammunition.

IMO in summary, bullpup style rifles will be nothing more than a trial.

 

[Ryder]

Great argument guys.

I feel like Bullpups could still be part of the future even if they are not adopted in such huge numbers but you still have bullpups that are the standard issue like Australia, Austria, Israel and the UK you dont see any replacements as they are upgrading their standard issue assault rifles.

Tavor of Israel has went through numerous improvements and changes ever since it was adopted. I dont think Israel is going to abandon the bullpup concept from its army as they are keen on improving and upgrading it as we seen the Tavor go through numerous changes.

 

[Nilgiri]

Honestly not a huge fan of bullpups (at least the ones ive tried out)....i prefer conventional layout and a reliable design

Conventional layout i just find the weight distribution better overall and also reloading feels more ergonomic (ammo feed being more centralised and in front of trigger + grip...you can muscle memory this stuff lot nicer and quickly imo).

If there is a feed issue to clear etc, I feel its better too as you have eyes on it right away without changing stance too much...compared to closer cheek position check etc.

These are my personal preferences overall though.

But I feel that they are somewhat shared in larger sense as practical "in field" use + inertia with operators... probably overall has led to conventional winning out overall.

Even for SMG kind of length just give me conventional stuff imo:

I can see an argument for some spec ops roles and such ..but they have the training regimen too to work out the issues to bring forth the singular advantages present (say caliber/compactness ratio) in an unorthodox design.

So I would say yes, they would have a future....but mostly niche use....I dont see large scale adoption as service rifle etc where training of grunts becomes exercise of maximum all-round practical efficiency with the platform.

500 pointed out urban warfare as well....honestly I found conventional good for most part in what I and buddies simulated to get a feel for that kind of stuff...but maybe lot of actual training in military for it would change my impression.

It would be important for any military to try it all out among good array of its servicemen and find out on training field for themselves the pros and cons and efficiencies.

Boils down to overall preferences, training etc....I just used conventional the most and got hardwired to it's feel....which just might be the case with lot of grunts worldwide too.

Everyone should just try firing both and see for themselves if interested in the subject.

US by far (speaking as northern neighbour) is best place to visit to try out this stuff at a range with some gun fans.

 

[500]

Other than urban combat short rifle is also very important when u load/unload APC/IFV.

As for weight distribution I prefer bullpup actually. You feel much less fatigue when weight is in the middle.

 

[Nilgiri]

Another bullpup (type 95) being replaced by conventional in major numbers...