Many years ago at Gunsite , ol Jeff Cooper reported they did and experimnent on which rifles where the quickest to bring to the shoulder and hit a target while standting up. The fastest was the M-1 carbine. The newer and fancier the stock design the slower it was to mount.
They tried out some bolt action bullpup designs in the 60's. They suffered from all the ills that Chris talks about. The trigger pull and the slow handling were the most damned characteristics.
I recently looked at the latest version of the SVD that the Russian's have issued. They had a too large for APC vehicle problem with it. They added a folding stock to it rather that remaking it as a bull pup.
They suck for lefties.
Someone suggested a bullpup for tankers? That's pretty silly. Bullpups require a LOT of training to be handled effectively and tankers spend the majority of their weapons training on crew weapons, as they should. An SMG is my preferred secondary weapon for tankers because it doesn't require a lot of training to be effective at 50 meters and that is where it's going to be used at.
The AWC version I had mentioned earlier[that apparently got this bullpup thread fired up again(?)] was their answer to the unasked questionat the time: "What rifle should the sniper-team spotter carry that is (hopefully) the same caliber as the M40? The army as usual didn't like any of the answers so they stayed with the M-16 platform. But the AWC G1/G3 was certainly an interesting and well engineered design for the type.
An aside, when I'm back later this year I'll ship it out for you to try if you feel the need...
reliability
I've read plenty of reports about the unreliability of the British IW bullpup, most of which seem due to crappy manufacturing standards. I have not heard of any reliability problems with the French FAMAS bullpup and supposedly the FAMAS is well liked by the French army. What is your source for the FAMAS info?
balance
I've read that the balance point of the old .45 Thompson SMG was right at the pistol grip. Supposedly this was such a popular feature attempts were made to replicate it in other designs. I can see the benefit of such a balance point at least while in movement in the field or while manning a checkpoint.
I agree with you on most points, but as usual you choose to glaze over the P90 entirely except to make a jab or two at SG-1 fans (hangs head in shame). What gives?
How is it not a bullpup? Does it or doesnt it solve the typical bullpup problems?
I have never fired one (Airsoft excluded) and I'm guessing you havent either; so taking that in to account, and setting aside debate on the SS190 5.7mm, once and for all, what is your opinion on this design?
Oops, I missed the part where you DID try a P90 and found it uncomfortable. This has been a common complaint for larger framed shooters. Still, how 'bout it?
Brad,
The FAMAS info comes from the LE, and a couple of private owners in various locations.
The Legion likes how accurate it is, and has had horrible problems with the trigger. In publicly released gopvernment approved photos you'll never see a french soldier with anything but a french rifle, but I've seen ACTUAL pics of them with m4's, SG540's, and some HK variant (presumably the hk33 but it's difficult to tell from photos).
I have also seen pics of GOS, and DST carrying pretty much everything BUT the FAMS, but recently it's been the G36.
The FAMAS is more a point of French nationalism than a useful service rfile, much as the SA80 is for the U.K.
Oh and emdfl, I am always eager to test new guns.
I'd also liek to test out the Bulpupped M14 the israelis issed as a sniper rifle
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn66-e.htm
It looks awkward to me, but apparently it has proven useful for small framed shooters (as many israelis are, especially since they have had female snipers).
As I said, the only common combat mission where I can see the usefulness of the bullpup rifle is in a sniping role, where you have a bipod to be your balance point and the natural balnace issues of the 'pup arent so much of a factor.
I kinda like the G22 as the novelty it is, but I wouldn't get one unless the price dropped to about 2 hundi. Most of the problems you brought up were tactical in nature. I would never use the 22 for shtf. But, it might be a good time to bring out on a hike for general use.
I did find it a bit sloppy in the tollerance dept, hence my request for price drop.
Oh yeah, and it looks cool!
Well I was using the G22 as an engineering example, becuase it was the absolute shortest bullpup I could find.
SayUncle, the FN P90 does not have left righty issues. It is completely ambidextrous. All the contrls are either on both sides or centered. The spent shells eject out of the bottom making them a non-issue. The mag snaps onto the top eliminating prone shooting issues and in fact in that way is superior to most rifles.
Chris' points on safety, trigger mechanism and ergonomics are completely valid. I just want to credit FNH for solving half of the issues.
Yeah but in order to do so they had to come up with a total Kluge of a feeding system that responds very poorly to dirt, and makes mags extremely non-instinctive to change.
That said, I do like the bottom ejection system. I'd like to see more weapons use one.
The old Ithaca had one, and it worked a charm.
Yeah, I have wondered long and hard about the feeding system. I have not been able to find good field data on this gun to see if there has been any evident problems with the 90 deg turn it has to make.
I suppose the noninstinctive mag change could be overcome. It would be less drastic of a change then shooting AR for five years and then switching to an SKS with strippers.
Bottom ejection would be sweet. If for nothing else it would make it easier to save your brass for reloading.
Bullpups aside, the in and out of carteidges and brass respectively from the P90 could be utilized in "regular arms".
The ambidextrousness of both pistols and rifles will hopefully become a solid trend. You have a P22 right? Is it ambi? I know the P99's mag release is.
Kluge?
The Calicos also had a bottom eject but the design of the gun was such that the shooter had the tendency to place his hand over the ejection port resulting in burnt flesh. Cool mags however.
I have to disagree on the mag change issue, admitedly my experience comes from an airsoft version, but the design is the same and the mag change took no getting used to. That 90 degree turn issue does seem sticky though.
Just curious about the one oddity bullpup you didn't address...the HK G11. Although nobody uses it, I understand the Germans were close to buying when the wall came down, and they went with the G36 because it was less expensive and the technology was already proven.
Also, IIRC, the FN P2000 also solved the ejection problem by somehow-not really sure how it worked-pushing the casings out the front, next to or over the barrel.
I dont think the G11 was ever close to adoption, it had too many ammo and cleaning/complexity issues.
I'd love to see some caseless system work out soon though.
Typical of an engineer -- you are right by the numbers but wrong by aesthetics. these things look like crap. they are not cool looking at all. They look retarded. Get it? Ugly. All of them.
Actually I happen to agree, but apparently that opinion is in the minority.
I thin the SA80, P90 and AUG could easily go 1,2,3 in the ugliest guns contest.
The M14 is one of the most balanced and well proportioned weapons in history, and the bullpup version is... It looks lie an overgrown remington XP-100R
Actually, I think the G11 would win the Ugly Gun Contest (Rifle Division) hands down...come one, the thing was a box, with a pistol grip on the bottom and an optical sight on top. It looked more like a wierd video camera than a gun.
Good point, I jsut dont see the G11 as a real gun. It was an engineering excercise really... mental masturbation for HK gun designers.
I've stated it on other forums and I'll state it here: The Spanish Astra (any model) is the ugliest pistol I have ever seen. In fact a mere glimpse put me out of work for a full day. It just turns my stomach!
But tell us how you really feel Ian
HA! Koko like bullpup! Like bullpup banana, feel good in paw!
In all sincerety, I think it's just an operator/training issue WRT mag changes. The trigger pull issue can be dealt with electronically.
BTW, while I've got an engineer in front of me, why haven't firearms designers used the weapon cycle to create "on-board power" for electro optical devices and other things? Couldn't the op-rod stroke a farraday device and produce electricity, and couldn't it be stored in capacitors in the buttstock?
I'm no engineer, but I happened to be quite opinionated. So here it is: The sweet thing about military rifles for the most part is simplicity. They usually have few parts therefore reducing the oportunity for failure (either catostrophic or in general ability). A scope is dependant only upon itself which is sweet.
You know as I think about it, it is an OK idea, just for limited mission specific encounters. I would be uncofortable having my optics (electronic) dependant on a mechanical tool.
If my special optics were either on my helmet or independent in a pack, then even when I'm in the shit and I have melted my barrel and I am then dependent on my enemy's collected AK, I am still functional.
But, it is still a sweet idea.
So, what happens when you arent shooting? do the batteries go dead?
Ubercontrarian: If you're using the action to power electronics, than you're robbing power from the action and decreasing reliability. You'll get more than enough of that just out of normal fring residue buildup- no need to add more.
We are assuming that there is a way to convert about 2" of irregular and infrequent reciprocal movement into enough useable energy to power any sort of useful electronics, while still being lighter, more reliable and more compact than a couple of lithium batteries . I don't think there is such a way.
"bullpups are only slightly shorter than their conventional counterparts .......... they are unreliable-"
I'm definitly not an expert, but I've used the L98 (single action ver. of L85 SA80 A1) quite a bit in both standing and prone possitions (prone a lot more than standing). It wieghs about 5kg which is (I've heard) heavy for a bullpup, the same wieght as my air rifle and about 1 third the size AND its made from thin pressed steel, I dont get that... It jams if the the bullet stacking in the mag is poor and if you cock it too slowly. Also if poorly cleaned (not so good in a battle rifle I would imagine)
"-they are ergonomically incorrect-"
Once I'd wrapped my body around this rifle a few times to get at the working parts (saftey, trigger, bolt catch, bolt release, battle sight, mag release) it seemed fine, I needed to exercise for a few days before I could hold it in my right hand only long enough for mag changes though..
"-and they are more likely to injure their user."
This means if it goes arse over head and you double load and get a breach explosion, am I right? I dont think a few inches distance would make much differance though, Its still half your face in a plastic bag..
I've also used a 7.62 cal rifle, the kind of thing they might have used in ww1. Unfortunately I am probably knee high to a Gurkah and realy had to strech my body around that rifle just to reach the bolt. Vay vay nice rifle though.
anyhoo, point is.. I think bullpups are made for fictional storybook characters like myself, and probably not your average squaddy.
just my 2 pence worth..
oh good lord! I've opened a can of RANT-EX, so sorry..
The bullpup was made so that you can have a longer barrel in a short rifle. Then why the hell are they making these really ugly unwieldy looking bullpup carbines and even bullpup commando sized rifles!?!?
What about if you want to go prone with a bullpup...wouldn't feel really weird? The magazine would be the pivot point right? But you have to keep the rifle onto your shoulder to shoot accurately so now you have to point your elbows down far enough so that the elbows become the pivot point. But since most bullpups have a longer length of pull, that means you really can't pull in your arms enough so that you can extend your elbos further down than the bottom of the magazine.
I'd say, if you want a bullpup, biuld one with a full size barrel and a short receiver in order to make it more front heavy than back heavy.
If overall length is a non-issue, why is there such a fashion for cropping M16s barrels to 12-16 inches, with substantial degredation in balistic performance?
Some people seem to want short guns very badly.
I'm interested in the bullpup idea, but would agree that it is a concept that is often poorly executed. The British SA80 looks like having the shortest service life in British firearm history, and with good reason. I also respect your objections, but I see most of them as non-critical and
possible to overcome.
"More complex" - yes, marginally - but hardly a deal-breaker.
"Bulkier" - sorry, definitely not proven. No way to escape that you can trim of nearly a foot of inert material with a bullpup
"Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way" - yes, many are ...often badly so. But it is possible to get that C of G very near or on top of the master hand (witness EM2, maybe the first and one of the best.).
.
Thanks for you insights (...I still think it can be done though!)
David M
I find that re-loading the SA80 is quite easy to do and to me, having only been trained on that bullpup i find its quite an easy weapons to use. Sure you can't fire it from the left hand side, but there are problems firing from the prone possition?? I've hit the deck plenty of times and fired from the prone with 80's and there's no problem that i've ever hit. Its an accurate rifle and i personally feel its the way to go, sure there are some problems, with the L85A2's most of them went, and as far as the round being too close to your face etc, i really don't have a problem with it.
Bullpup is, i believe, the way to go.
Back in 1997, "the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine publishes the technical report "The Effect of Gender, Rifle Stock Length, and Rifle Weight on Military Marksmanship and Arm-Hand Steadiness." Thirteen female and fifteen male soldiers were recruited to take part in the study. Performance on the Noptel marksmanship simulator showed no gender differences in marksmanship with the M16A2 rifle and the M4 carbine. However, reducing the stock length from 10.3" to 7.0" significantly improved marksmanship scores for both male and female soldiers. Weapon weight was also a critical factor. Shot groups were tighter with the lighter M4 versus the heavier M16A2. Similar findings were found with arm-hand steadiness: shorter and lighter weapon configurations allowed a steadier hold regardless of gender. However, no live-fire testing was completed as a part of the study."
If 3" makes difference, how much would the lower weight and overall length reduction of a bullpup make? Thanks!
Great point DavidRSw... this guy claims to be such an 'expert' I wonder how he can explain that the Tavor and PS90 are so much more easy to shoot. My wife, who is neither strong nor experienced with firearms, was able to engage steel at 300 yards standing with the FN bull-pups, particularly the FS2000 when in fact, most men that day had a hard time holding an M4 steady (while standing) at that range.
Bullpups bring the center of gravity out from between your hands and put it inside your chest.
This guy is a tard, he probably bitched that Glock's were crap when they came out, and probably denounced MP3 players as well.
Seems I'm a little late finding this article, but I'll comment anyway(and in a respectful manner). I find most of your points invalid, as mentioned. Operator training is the answer to most.
Unreliability? In all respect, this comment in completely unfounded. Yes, the L85, including the new A2 is one hell of a piece of crap. Undoubtly. Even so that in 1997 it was taken off NATO's approved weapons list. As far as I know, it hasn't made it back. Other horrible bullpups include the Valmet M82 and Koborov TKB408. But, this dosent mean its a bullpup problem, its simply bad design. There are plenty of traditional layout assault rifles that suffer reliability problems also. That dosen't mean traditional layout rifles are inherently unreliable.
Infact, the AUG is a very reliable weapon. As is the FAMAS, I really don't know where you recieved that info(I've never heard it before). The TAR-21, SAR-21, QBZ-95 have all proven reliable. However, the QBZ is being removed from Chinese service, although I can't find a reason why it is.....
Bad ergonomics? YEAH I'm with ya there! Held a bullpup and it definitly was not anything close to comfortable. Perhaps that could be worked out with a sling of some type however. And whats this talk about shooting in the prone? It dosen't matter where the magazine is, if it its the ground then it hits the ground. It will still cause problems. In a traditional layout rifle, your weapon would be pointing in the air instead of at the ground. That's still a problem.
Oh well, dosen't make a damn difference for me. I'm stuck with the M16A4, that's right. A 20 inch barrel. Dosent really make a difference in room entry how short your gun is though, because the bad guy already has the bead on you. Only if it was piston driven and shot a 6.5 grendel. now that would get me going....
What does everyone think of Kel-Tec's new RFB?
http://www.kel-tec.com/images/
do...OT_2007_web.pdf
I'm only commenting on airsoft guns... so have no ejecting cartridges to contend with, admitedly 
I actually like the balance & grip of the AUG; (the airsoft gun is very nearly the same weight as the real thing)
Everyone I've airsofted with complains about the length of the M16 making it unweildy - in woodland games, not urban. (ok, they're not exactly trained soldiers... )
I can sort of see the issue with the centre of mass being between the hands being a little more natural with the conventional layout.
Is it not simply the case one rifle or design will never suit all situations and all people.
My patent, 6,079,138 uses a folded delayed blowback, for no gas mechanism, and the operating spring/rollers are kept away from the burned gasses for high reliability.
It permits a 24 inch barrel in a 28 inch rifle. As you know, the 5.56mm round must be traveling at 2500 feet per second to fragment, for maximum effect on the target. The M-4 has a 14.5 barrel, and thus reaches 2500 feet per second only out to 50 meters. The 24 inch barrel permits reaching the critical velocity out to 300 meters. This is key to using the 5.56mm round and being assured of adequate stopping power.
As implemented, I have a downward ejection path, and the receiver is a continuous forged piece of steel, to protect the shooter from a ruptured cartridge case. It holds two magazines, each in a generous funnel, so that the rifle can be loaded while the shooter is ready to fire.
Further, a quick change barrel permits switching from 5.56mmx45 to 7.62mm x 51 to 12 gauge, with a change of barrel and magazines. As you no doubt know, the 12 gauge round with Number 1 Buckshot rules the roost when it comes to close range stopping power. That puts out 25 each .30 caliber projectiles from a 3 inch magnum, and each projectile will penetrate more than 12 inches of calibrated ballistic gell It also permits use of a developed line of less lethal rounds for riot control.
The same magazine can be loaded with 35 each 5.56mm rounds, 20 each 7.62mm rounds, or 10 each 12 gauge rounds. That gives you 71 each 5.56mm rounds, 41 each 7.62mm rounds, or 20 each 12 gauge rounds.
I recommend a "Scout" positioned sight device that uses laser ranging to provide a compensated aim point, with backup iron sights. There is also room, and available weight, for a GPS device, and broadband communication device. These useful items add weight for reduced felt recoil, and move the point of balance out toward the pistol grip. Batteries to power these devices fit comfortably in the pistol grips.
That boosts the part count, but puts the necessary functions in one system, for easy integration.
Oh one more thing. If you slant the pistol grip so that the bottom end is slightly forward of the top, you can easily shoot it with your firing elbow tucked in tighter. This is particularly useful for foxhole supported, or prone positions.
I like to attach a short bipod to the forward pistol grip, and attach front and rear pistol grips with a bar for strength.
Bayonet drill should use the old Civil War anti cavalry technique, with the non-firing hand on the butt, with the firing hand on the rear pistol grip. The bayonet would attach to the stock, so that it would remain attached and ready for use, even if the barrel is removed (say one needs the bayonet during the barrel change.)
Grenade Launcher? Just look at all the add on crap on the average m4 in service. stock mounted mag pouches. optics. laser designators, surfire lights Easily another 2-6 lbs easily depending on the mission. Why not just use a rifle that has all that crap already "engineered" into the system. Thats the next gen long gun. We didnt have too many "engineers" in K 3/7 so the kiss principle definatley applies. Keep the dust cover closed.
as i was. Ejection port cover
Most of the supposed problems you allude to can be over come by training. ie magazine changes. As to the hand holds on a bullpup, if you have ever fired a hand gun (weaver stance) you will find it very similar but with more stability. As to the P-90, it is a bullpup! I also think that they (FN) are on the right track. I would like to see a 6.5 grendel version of the P-90. Obviously it would need to be larger to accommedate a gas system, locking lugs, etc. But with 50 rounds at my disposal and a simple glance will let me know what i have left in the mag. That would make me happy. With downward ejection the lefties can't complain. One last thing, most of the weight of a bullpup will be between the shoulder and firing hand. with all the crap that we attach to an M-16 or M-4 which would be easier to fire one handed?
Thanks so much, I have had a lust for a bullpup, since the Steyr AUG, (was that in Moonraker?) anyway, your points are accurate, and potentially saved me thousands of dollars on a rifle that is just not that good, so for that I thank you. I looked around the rest of the blog, and am looking forward to building out the "UBR" Ultimate Battle Rifle on the m14 chassis, I have been looking for a 7.62 rifle, and your ultimate battle rifle, has made me think, we have been using the UBER, tag in our shop for many years, (UberGekkan) so I would like to proclaim you as the designer of the UBER Battle Rifle. Give me a shout back, cool to meet a Brother...
tl;dr version: "Bullpups are different from what I trained on, so they're awkward and suck."
I bet when the M14 was introduced, a lot of soldiers found the idea of changing a long removable magazine underneath the rifle to be a lot more awkward than just popping in a fresh 8-round clip from the top like they could with their Garands. A Garand is also far easier to fire prone. Does that mean we should've just stuck with Garands all the way through to the present day?
Best I can say is that yes it is an awkward design when acustomed to a conventional setup. As I often play paintball and the mechanics of it are such that for most effective gun battles you want the least space and most barrel that your cover can accomidate. weight and ballance of a paint marker and a well cunstructed bullpup are similar. I am also a lefty that was taught to shoot right handed by a USMC father so giving up on what feels right and going with works best was an easy transition. I have shot the Styer and felt that it was unweildy... shot a converted AK which shook like it was gonna kill me but effective... and own a SKS converted... my own build and since it is a strictly righty rifle I set the pistol grip slightly offset to bring it back and simplify the linkage. shortend barrel and a larger release for the after market mags removes many of the disadvanages of the bullpups you sighted but that is mine.
Thanks. I used to like bullpups in the 70s, but seeing them on Stargate I really wondered about the ergonometrics of them.
Thanks for this article.
I feel bullpups get a bad wrap. Yes most designs today are inferior to a more traditional design, but companys have also not put in the R&D time that they have into their other rifles. Back in the day, and maybe even still today, bullpup designs are ahead of their time. I personally like them (depending which specific rifle I guess) such as the AUG/USR i feel are great firearms and very versetile to where what settings they may be used in.
Another reason I feel bullpups arent welcomed so well is because most companies are taking their current rifles and modifying them into a bullpup set up instead of building a rifle from the ground up.
Just my 2 cents.
I like how people are making comments on these weapons based on their airsoft counter parts. Other than basic shape nothing will be comparable. That is like having a blow up doll and say U have been with a woman.
Now THAT is funny...old, stuck in the mud cranks without a clue. Gunsite? Gunsite? While the rest of you bullpup nay-sayers go on and on and on...the rest of us can celebrate the fastest, lightest, most adaptable and certainly the platform of the future...the bullpup..For every dollar spent on a conventional stock, there are 6 spent on bullpups. Buckle up boyz, the only "persistantly" bad idea is to listen to old Jeff Cooper cranks...
Start reading....
http://www.militaryphotos.net/fo...ad.php?
t=112162
AUG's uncomfortable? what?
have you tried a tavor. now that is a bullpup that was designed from the ground up.
I said unweildy not unconfortable for the AUG. The one I shot was so tail heavy moving was awkward with it in my hands... effective and comfortable while standing or prone but tended to drop off the shoulder when walking. not my cup of tea but like with all rifles if you want the one that fits you best shoot a few and pick what you like!
Wow... you are NOT an expert! This whole article is an opinionated biased perspective of the basic bullpup design.
1. The bullpup rifle design is far superior to te conventional layout in almost every respect.
2. bullpup design allows for a longer barrel. This in turn allows for far better accuracy and high velocity along with higher impact force (Ft Lbs)
3. bullpup designs are far better balanced(ever try holding an AK47 with a full clip with one hand?)
4. bullpups are by far NO less dangerous than a conventional layout. I have seen m16's/m4's blow up and injure the user badly. I have also seen AK's blow up in people's faces. The round explodes and blows the cover off the weapon right into the SHOOTERS FACE! however, bullpup's are designed where they will blow out and away form the shooters face, preventing injury to the shooter.
5. bullpups are by far, easier and faster to reload. I honestly don't know where the author of this article is coming from talking about how hard a bullpup is to reload. In fact, it is by far more complex and time consuming to reload a conventional rifle than it is to reload a bullpup. On a bullpup, you never move the weapon away from your should, you reach with your left hand, drop the used mag, and slap in a new mag without even looking. second, to chamber the weapon, you use your same left hand to slap the bolt forward, or tilt the weapon a few degrees to the left and cock and release the bolt with your left hand. On a conventional rifle the shooter must tilt the rifle away form his target(weapon weight) since it can not be held easily with one hand. release the used mag and replace it with a new one, then the rifle must be turned 90 deg. in order to cock the weapon unless the bolt is on the left hand side, then and only then can the weapon be brought back up to fire position with BOTH HANDS!
6. reliability is the same as any other rifle, bullpup or not. If it is a poorly designed weapon, or a bullpup conversion, than yes it will screw up just like the original m16's did in Vietnam. reliability is also up to the user, EVERY WEAPON NEEDS TO BE CLEANED! If the weapon is dirty or anything is not in spec, then of course the shooter is asking for trouble. Just like the original m16, because it was made out of cheap aluminum(thermal expansion, too tight tolerances) and because it wasn't kept clean, the bolt would stop functioning and seize. and because there was no other way to push the bolt forward(the charging handle is not connected for forward use), the gun was rendered useless. Now if we look at a far simpler design such as the AK, the AK used steel which did not expand as much from heat, and the tolerances are extremely loose, the weapon almost never jams. IE. a crap design vs. a good design. Even today, if the m16 is not kept 100% spotless, it will malfunction in combat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O...h?
v=Oh1lyMyejpI
In conclusion, the author of this article is NOT an expert in weapons, but an opinionated fool that does not appear to be open to different and newer ideas in weapon designs.
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/32...-2/
RFB_3002.jpg
Seems to make any ergonomic criticisms a FAIL.
A bit short for a bayonet, though, and the mag is still a bit long.
The RFB is a superlightweight that's for sure. Actually the FS2000 is also surprisingly well balanced.
I havent played with the tirgger on the Kel-tec yet; but I suspect it's mediocre, but not awful. The FS2000 is the same. Also someone came up with a kit to make the AUG trigger not suck.
Like you, I'm leery of front ejection. too hard to clean out if it does jam.
I've never had any real ergonomic problems--I like the AUG a lot. They also tuck under the arm handily for door to door.
For other activities, they don't offer much advantage, and do complicate the firing mechanism.
In all honesty a bullpup is not inferior to a standard carbine ergonomically. Have you ever handled a P90? I think alot of the bad experiences come from earlier bullpup designs that were ill concieved. Right now one issue we can't resolve with small arms technology is barrel length. So for the time being in order to extend range for convential cartridges we need longer barrels. The bullpup solves this issue. I agree many bullpups suck, but many are extremely effective. The newer tactical weapons will evolve into hybrid ergonomical designs.
I hate bullpups too. Im glad somebody else agrees with me. The knowledge and calculations that you posted are fascinating; hopefully thats that reason why the US military hasn't (and hopefully never will) adopted a bullpup design yet.
The only rifle i favor is the Israeli Tavor 21, though all bullpups suck for left handed people. Firing my friend's Microtech MSR 556 (civilian AUG) i found it difficult to keep consistent in my grouping because i would so easily shift positions or throw rounds.
I say stick with conventional designs. Heckler & Koch ditched a bull pup design (G11) for the conventional (a startlingly, stupid simple, but brilliant, design) G36 series and that should serve as an example to other companies. Unfortunately, others have designed their own such as singapore's SR21 (which is abysmal i heard), South africa's AK47 conversion, and the british SA80. All of which i haven't heard good things. The only one I can effectively shoot is the F2000, which is bulky, still awkward to reload, and temperamental (i anticipate) after being in the field.
Stay conventional please
Commenting by HaloScan.com
