DrakeVanders

Bullpup Drop-In Kits

Recommended Posts

Something I thought about as an added suggestion towards the many "Bullup" weapons people suggest is to have someone like Peacekeeper or Skier to sell Bullpup Drop in kits for certain weapons recievers for the AK's, Shotguns and certain rifles like the SKS.

Bullpup kit for AKM / Vepr-136/209 / AK-74

179698_ts.jpg

Bullpup Kit for the SKS

SKS~~element149.png

GSUCa.jpg

Saiga-12 Kushnapup Bullpup Kit

3246925_orig.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see bullpup guns, they'd be better for tight spaces since they're shorter and they look sick af, plus they're a lot easier to handle.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, theturtlebox said:

I would love to see bullpup guns, they'd be better for tight spaces since they're shorter and they look sick af, plus they're a lot easier to handle.

And they're more inaccurate, have horrendous reliability issues and have terrible triggers in them (lower TF out of ergonomics)

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used quite a few Bullpups personally, Steyr AUG from Aussie military, etc.

They're quite great, just a non-conventional method. There will always be people that disagree with them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tactical_Fister said:

And they're more inaccurate, have horrendous reliability issues and have terrible triggers in them (lower TF out of ergonomics)

I guess that is users choice, People pick them up because of the fast fire but don't care about other things such as reliability or ergonomics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arbiter1337 said:

I guess that is users choice, People pick them up because of the fast fire but don't care about other things such as reliability or ergonomics.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by 'Fast fire'. I'm assuming you mean reflexive fire and not the actual Rate of Fire? either way, neither is especially true in the realm of firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tactical_Fister said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to by 'Fast fire'. I'm assuming you mean reflexive fire and not the actual Rate of Fire? either way, neither is especially true in the realm of firearms.

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't drop in kits and require some minor retooling such as replacing the grip and re working the fire control group. THey also suck and break easily. I had one of those K-VAR bullpup kits and it was trash. Totally unsuitable for combat.  Russians have their own bullpup rifles like the Groza, which would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arbiter1337 said:

Correct.

Bullpups aren't any superior to conventional weapons when it comes to reflexive fire, it depends entirely on the operator's personal skill. 

When you're looking at gross motor movements like that there isn't any single weapon that is 'better' within the same class (Rifle/Carbine ect) 

Considering that 90% of Service weapons now days technically fall into the Carbine category. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally a fan of the Styer AUG, and the Barrett M95. (yes, that huge thing that shoots a .50cal, is a bullpup.)

I think that Bullpups would be a great implementation into tarkov.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DaBombgamer said:

I'm personally a fan of the Styer AUG, and the Barrett M95. (yes, that huge thing that shoots a .50cal, is a bullpup.)

I think that Bullpups would be a great implementation into tarkov.

Assuming their drawbacks are properly represented yes, I'd be inclined to agree.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love reading threads like this with people who talk like they know guns. Quick google searches and COD as an information base.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tactical_Fister said:

And they're more inaccurate, have horrendous reliability issues and have terrible triggers in them (lower TF out of ergonomics)

Actually. Bulpup designs have proven to be remarkably accurate as they have full length barrels, at times longer than standard rifle/carbine barrels. Some have had reliability issues during their early years however actual dedicated designs like the L85A2 and SGT88 (AUG) are proven military service rifles.

Edited by Octosnake
Spelling/grammar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:35 PM, Tactical_Fister said:

If people want to deal with the atrocious decrease in accuracy and poor design that goes with bullpups sure. 

Decrease?

L85A2 is one of the most accurate service rifles out there but ok lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 8:35 PM, Tactical_Fister said:

If people want to deal with the atrocious decrease in accuracy and poor design that goes with bullpups sure. 

Atrocious decrease in accuracy? Funny, we use the SA80A2 (aka the L85A2) and it is one of the most accurate service rifles out there. Being the A2, its design was fixed from the A1 which had issues with stoppages, largely down to the fact that the rifle was designed for a smaller calibre cartridge and then upped to 5.56 to bring us in line with NATO standard. The only drawback is that its design is more complex than many other rifles on the market which makes weapons cleaning a pain at times but even that's not hard. No idea about most of the Bullpups out there as to their design quality but friends of mine in the Australian Army have nothing but good things to say about the Steyr Aug. 

I'm really not sure what you're getting at fella. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that the bullpups allows a longer barrel in a shorter overall length, which would be a power advantage over a carbine, and a close quarters advantage over a standard rifle.

Also im not sure how the carbine design could decrease accuracy? wouldn't that be dependent on other factors in the gun? The points about the trigger are interesting though, i guess that it would be harder to develop a good mechanism the further away it is, if that is the premise of that point?

I dont know a lot about guns (clearly) but i feel like variety would be great in any case :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Octosnake said:

Actually. Bulpup designs have proven to be remarkably accurate as they have full length barrels, at times longer than standard rifle/carbine barrels. Some have had reliability issues during their early years however actual dedicated designs like the L85A2 and SGT88 (AUG) are proven military service rifles.

 

2 hours ago, DanExert said:

Decrease?

L85A2 is one of the most accurate service rifles out there but ok lol

 

1 hour ago, Hussar91 said:

Atrocious decrease in accuracy? Funny, we use the SA80A2 (aka the L85A2) and it is one of the most accurate service rifles out there. Being the A2, its design was fixed from the A1 which had issues with stoppages, largely down to the fact that the rifle was designed for a smaller calibre cartridge and then upped to 5.56 to bring us in line with NATO standard. The only drawback is that its design is more complex than many other rifles on the market which makes weapons cleaning a pain at times but even that's not hard. No idea about most of the Bullpups out there as to their design quality but friends of mine in the Australian Army have nothing but good things to say about the Steyr Aug. 

I'm really not sure what you're getting at fella. 

Going to respond to all of you at once, Since y'all are basically saying the same thing. And this is going to be a big ole wall of text so apologies on that. 

First, Western Service Rifles generally speaking are for the most part all accurate. Anything past 300m is gravy when looking at a realistic engagement scenario.

Imma lay out a list of issues with Bullpups, Only have physical experience with two (TAR-21 and FN2000). So there is going to be some Copy-Paste on this. But it gets the point across.

Accuracy

Bullpup rifles typically have a higher sight offset, or "height over bore." For example, the IWI Tavor's sights are almost 4 inches over the bore, compared to the AR-15, which is as low as 2.5 inches. This may not be a factor for long-range shooters, but when considering a close-quarters tactical rifle for law enforcement or home defense purposes, users may find themselves needing to compensate for that drastic height over bore for close-up shots. Additionally, shooting from a structure or through a portal such as a window will require more care using a bullpup firearm as the muzzle must be clear of the structure to ensure clear shot placement. Just because you can see the target doesn’t mean your bullet is going to strike it.  

 

Trigger Pull
Standard rifle: Conventional rifles have perfected trigger mechanisms over the years. By being located immediately next to the action, there are few problems that occur with the triggers.           

Bullpup: Bullpups utilize trigger linkages between the forward trigger mechanism and the action in the back of the rifle. Like anything mechanical, extra parts are exposed to additional stresses and are sometimes cited as weaknesses of the platform.

Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).

 

Weight Distribution: 

Nutshell, Standard configuration weight is centered more toward the front, which makes recoil from successive shots less of an issue, Where as on a bullpup with weight centered at the rear makes recoil more difficult to control. (Yes training alleviates this to an extent but not all of it) 

Safety 

If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket. 

Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).

Reloading:

Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle. Not to mention reloading from the prone with a bullpup is immensely more difficult than with a conventional rifle 

A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.

More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.

 

Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well). 

Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward. 

This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck. 

A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.

 

Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way. 

This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.

The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.

The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).

This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel,  by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.

A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands. 

Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum. 


Main article used as reference. 

https://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html

Edited by Tactical_Fister
Adding link
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Bullpup weapon to consider is the FN P90. That weapon is rather famous. It fires the 5.7x28mm cartridge. The P90 is still in service in over 40 countries today. It has been in multiple wars including Iraq and Afghanistan. The Rate of Fire is a standard 900 Rounds per Minute. It can reach out to 1800m and carries a 50 round magazine. It has been in service since 1991.

 

 

FN_P90.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KRDucky said:

Another Bullpup weapon to consider is the FN P90. That weapon is rather famous. It fires the 5.7x28mm cartridge. The P90 is still in service in over 40 countries today. It has been in multiple wars including Iraq and Afghanistan. The Rate of Fire is a standard 900 Rounds per Minute. It can reach out to 1800m and carries a 50 round magazine. It has been in service since 1991.

 

 

FN_P90.jpg

You know the difference between Effective range and Max range right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KRDucky said:

 

You apparently have a very different standard of 'reaching out' than most of the rest of the world. Which typically means you can effectively hit targets at that distance. 

I.E 'A 22 Inch barrel AR-15 can reach out to 600m' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tactical_Fister said:

You apparently have a very different standard of 'reaching out' than most of the rest of the world. Which typically means you can effectively hit targets at that distance. 

I.E 'A 22 Inch barrel AR-15 can reach out to 600m' 

don't put words in my mouth I didnt say. If the FN P90's Effective Firing Range is 200m and the Maximum firing range is 1800m, The FN P90 can each out and touch you at 1800m.

Edited by KRDucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely, The M16A2, which was my service rifle by the way. Has an effective firing range of 550 - 800m for iron sights. It's maximum firing range is 3600m. Therefor, the M16A2 can reach out and touch you at 3600m. The likelihood is slim, but it is possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now