Probably best answered by Tony, but I'd like ideas ... I'm looking to design my own weapons for a wargames army (fictional country) and have always liked the bullpup design ('cos it looks cool and that's all there is to it). But is there any reason why bullpup designs came so late in the development of small arms? Would they have been feasible even earlier than post WWII? (I haven't seen anything earlier than the EM-1 and -2 weapons but haven't really looked into it that far yet). Would, say, a bullpup Thompson SMG have been possible, or MP-18? AFAIK it's just a question of where the trigger goes, and sure, it's "logical" to put the trigger as near as possible to the mechanism it's operating, but is there an actual REASON? TIA
The bolt-action Thorneycroft carbine, produced in 1901, utilized the bullpup design, but I don't know with what success it meant. AFAIK, a Frenchmen patented the bullpub design back in the 1930's, so maybe it was rather feasible. The rather appearant flaw with the bullpup design is the chance of the spent cartridge being ejected into the shooter's face. Obviously this has been eliminated with the development of ambidextrous designs. I imagine the bullpup design initially required a shorter recoil operation, which inferferes negatively with accuracy. That may have been one of the challenges to overcome.
Thanks Zhukov. That'll teach me to look for myself. The first link I got from Googling Thorneycroft Carbine also says that So I feel OK using bullpups for my country. Can't find a picture so far of the Thorneycroft but the Korovin sounds good... Avtomat Korovina = AK!!! I can't see why the recoil should be shorter though, I thought it was only! a case of moving the trigger group forward of the magazine and putting the butt plate on the end after losing the stock. I think there's abook about bullpup designs in general, but if it's the one I'm thinking of it's about £35-£40 for ~150 pages or less. Same series as the one I have on SPIW - will see if my library can get it for me...
One practical problem with bullpups is that it's more difficult to arrange the controls - the trigger, safety and fire selector switch have to have some sort of remote linkage, or (in the case of the safety and fire selector) be located inconveniently at the back of the gun. Decent modern designs provide the linkages, but they add complication. The main driver for bullpups IMO has only come since WW2, when troops started to spend much more time jumping in and out of cramped vehicles, helos etc. A short gun is a great boon then. It is also useful in street fighting; SMGs are just as good for that, but a bullpup rifle combines the compactness of an SMG with a good long-range performance. There have been few designs for bullpup SMGs - at least successful ones - because with the wrap-around bolt and the mag in the pistol grip they are as compact as they need to be. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
If you read 'The Foresight War' by A. Williams, he has the British designing Bullpups in the late 1930s. I assume that this means that it was technicaly feasible, as Mr Williams seems like a knowledgable guy...
I think I've heard of him Actually I should be picking my copy up this weekend, been waiting to get hold of it since I first heard of it.
a firearm where the magazine and reciever are behind the trigger and grip, eg. the Steyr AUG and the British SA80
Hmm. I'm not, but try http://world.guns.ru/assault/as73-e.htm and then folllow the Korovin link in the text. It should be a trustworthy/ accurate site - it's Max Popenker's - the guy that wrote the assault rifle book with Tony W.
Now I get a grey screen with a message saying Help/Navigation Error - forbidden. Do you have to be a member of this site by any chance? Try this link for an alternative picture (And yes, it is an ugly bugger ): http://www.assaultweaponguide.com/as73-e.htm
Err Simon - you should point out that the Korovin is not the one in the picture (I think that particular weapon - the Korobov looks quite "neat"). But the Korovin is pictured if you click on the link in the text below it.
:-? The XIX century Spencer carbine should be considered bullpup? It's magazine is in the stock, after all. http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/spencermore.htm Could have been possible to modify some weapons to a bullpup configuration. After all, that's what the israelis have done with the M1 carbine for police use (with too much plastic/polymers, i should add) http://www.advancedcombat.com/civilian/sm1.html And don't forget the FG42.
No, because the action is ahead of the trigger, not behind it. Just about any rifle can be modified to a bullpup configuration, although they tend to be less satisfactory than purpose-designed bullpups (for instance, the fire select lever is difficult to provide a distant linkage to, so tends to be left towards the back of the gun, which is inconvenient). The FG 42 is not a bullpup - the action is ahead of the trigger. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Right about the Spencer, I was so sleepy I didn't check the drawing i put myself :lol: What are a few centimeters among friends?
All right - I'll grant you a semi-bullpup :lol: Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
i read that the earli british military bullpup was a flimsey perice of crap..and that most sas were carrieing m16s..that one could step on it and bend the reciever,,has this been corrected ,i hope
Read this for the full story on the SA80: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm The SAS adopted the M16 many years before the SA80 became available. They stuck with the M16 afterwards for various reasons - for instance, it was lighter (an important issue if you're carrying the thing for days) and it could be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher (not available for the SA80 until the A2 version came out). Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
