You know, I usually answer this kind of question by saying, "observe and paid attention in how I do it. And after that it's your turn to try" or something along that line.
In theory yes bullpup design look more advantageous due to their barrel length in more compact overall package. However, in practice a service rifle or sidearm is an extension of your body. And for all-purpose & intent should be considered as part of your body. Which mean to reach a sufficient proficiency with any weapon, you need good muscle memory, meaning your hands & arm already know what parts of the weapons you touch without looking at it. Any proficient shooter / operator would also know how much ammo left in the magazine simply by holding the gun. All those are about muscle memory.
Back to bullpup design. All our soldiers were trained from the start using a conventional weapon. And that mean muscle memory is already stuck to conventional design. To change into bullpup would require to "unlearn" half of what already been learned. Not only that took time (and money for the training ammo) but when changing back from bullpup to conventional can't be done instantly as far as proficiency count.
As for bullpup design itself, shooting with bullpup mean the weapon action is on your face literally speaking, while on conventional design there is the stock that put some distance between your head (read : face) from the mechanical action of the gun.
Now I'm guessing you now thinking as "Why not training with bullpup from the start" right? The problem is, most rifle (battle rifle, long range rifle) are in conventional design (technical & practically reason). And the last thing any military want is for the men to "unlearn" what has been taught from the start just to take a speciality role. And that is the main reason why there are only few countries that equipping their soldier with bullpup.
In the end It doesn't matter what brand or type of weapon you use, they basically just a tool, what really count is the man behind the gun.
I never think to that basic thing actually, yes am agree with you.
Especially our training rifle are come from M1, even M16 are still service at firing range practice.
And yes, conventional design rifle has action in front of the stock, meanwhile the action bulpup are placed under the buttstock.
Other than the things above, conventional rifle were has simple mechanism compare to bulpup, leading to ease of maintenance at the field.
Am glad actually, the regular infantry nowadays were geared up
Properly, although still lack night vision goggle, and optical device for the rifle.
Anyway, is there any news about subs, boat, or even fighter procurement since last month ?
