Bullpup rifles are reaching their end, despite their advantages

My favorite quote about bullpups is: “Bullpups are the rifle of the future, and always will be.”

The United States military has never adopted a bullpup, even though it has tested a few. Instead, it has used standard rifles for the entirety of its existence, but that doesn’t mean the bullpup didn’t get play elsewhere.

“Bullpup” is the accepted term for rifles that place the action behind the trigger. This trims a rifle’s overall length quite a bit. For example, a Steyr AUG with a 20-inch barrel is shorter than an M4 with its 14.5-inch one.

Bullpups came into being during the Cold War as a tool for mechanized infantry forces that might have to fight in urban environments.

Urban environments tend to feature close-quarters combat. Therefore, the shorter the rifle, the better suited it is for urban environments. That’s where the bullpup’s biggest strength comes into play, because its design makes it overall short without sacrificing barrel length and velocity.

Western Europe invested heavily in the bullpup concept. The U.K. adopted the SA-80 family of bullpup firearms; France adopted the FAMAS; and Ireland adopted the AUG. Bullpups were also adopted in China, Australia, Argentina, and many more countries. They also saw exclusive use by special operations or police forces.

However, the bullpup’s reign seems to be ending and we are seeing a multitude of countries ditch it in favor of conventional rifle designs, with most sharing DNA with the M16/M4 series.

France is moving away from the FAMAS in favor of the HK 416. China swapped the QBZ-95 for the QBZ-191. Malaysia and New Zealand are trading in their AUGs for the M4A1 and LMT MARS-L – an AR-15 derivative – respectively. The U.K. plans to replace the SA-80 series with a conventional rifle by 2030.

Plenty of bullpups still serve with militaries around the world, and will likely to serve for a long time, but I don’t see many countries planning to adopt the rifle anytime soon. Urban warfare and combat around vehicles still exists so why would anyone ditch bullpups?

The downsides of the bullpup

URUZGAN, Afghanistan – Private Daniel Gibson, from 2nd Platoon, 3rd Battalion (Para), the Royal Australian Regiment, stands over watch during a foot patrol of the town of Tarin Kowt while conducting an International Security Assistance Force mission, Aug. 16, 2008. (ISAF photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class John Collins, U.S. Navy)

Bullpup rifles tend to face several challenges, including poor triggers, difficulty in being used by left-handed soldiers, and the unintuitive nature of reloads. Yet, these are relatively minor problems to overcome, and some would argue are worth the short overall length.

Bullpups as a whole tend to be heavier than conventional rifles. The M4 weighs 6.43 pounds unloaded. The AUG, with a comparable 15-inch barrel, is 7.1 pounds; the L85 is 8.4 pounds; the Tavor with a 13-inch barrel is 7.5 pounds. Weight stacks quickly, and shaving even a pound can make a big difference.

One benefit of the bullpup is that their weight is centered to the rear, making it easier to hold up and on target. Yet, this also makes the rifles tougher to patrol with.

Further, bullpup shooters tend to experience more felt recoil as a result of the action being placed directly against the shoulder. The muzzle rise can be a bit bouncy as well. This makes the rifle a bit more difficult to fire.

Modern rifles feature laser aiming units for night vision, weapon-mounted lights, variable optics, night vision or thermal clip-ons, and suppressors. Bullpups, however, don’t offer a lot of rail space and room for accessories.

And then there’s the suppressor issue.

The majority of suppressors create back pressure; this often sends gas into the face of a shooter no matter the rifle. The back pressure is hot gas that burns the eyes, makes it tough to breathe, and is most certainly not good for your health. Rifles with adjustable gas blocks help, but with a bullpup the shooter’s face is right beside the ejection port.

Bullpup rifles have apparent benefits but have also downsides that are becoming more evident as rifles and rifle accessories change.

Conventional rifle designs might be longer, but they are lighter, easier to accessorize, more ergonomic, and often have much better triggers. The changing nature of the infantry and warfare has expanded the benefits of the conventional rifle, while highlighting the downsides of bullpups.

Feature Image: Guatemalan and American troops train with the Tavor bullpup rifle. (Creative Commons)

Read more from Sandboxx News

Ukraine strikes more than 110 Russian vessels in a few days to tighten its energy chokehold on Crimea

How American spies helped the U.K. retake the Falklands

Why does America keep relying on its 60-year-old B-52 fleet

The Navy may never build any Constellation-class frigates

Pentagon is spending big on lasers to shoot down hostile drones and cruise missiles