Talk:Bullpup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

Contents 1 Proliferation 2 Verification 3 F2000 4 MN-23...?! 5 Etymology 6 Design Issues 7 Changed link in the Steyr AUG picture 8 Name of bullpup 9 Misleading 10 Added 11 Design issues 12 Introductory paragraph incorrect

[edit] Proliferation

Shouldn't this article mention the main reason bullpup designs have proliferated? They allow a same sized barrel to fit in a smaller rifle...

[edit] Verification

Following items doesn't seems to be verifiable

8mm Type 11: No information regarding country of neither origin nor manufacture. There is Japanese Type 11 Machinegun with 8mm, but it is not a bullpup configuration.

Afanasiev TKB-011M: Unverifiable.

[edit] F2000

Someone wrote that the F2000 may be use by some country, well that not very encyclopedic and i'll edit it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MN-23...?!

I removed the Seburo MN-23, which is a fictional gun and shouldn't be on the list.

[edit] Etymology

So a bullpup is a young bulldog, but why is this design called thus? Maikel 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Same bite but smaller? A very good question that I've never seen explained. GraemeLeggett 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say because bulldogs have an underbite as opposed to a normal bite - ie: the magazine being put behind the trigger mechanism as opposed to in front.

Excellent, thanks! Maikel 11:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We really need to get some reference on that, though. Maikel (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maikel (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Design Issues

"Further, muzzle blast is actually less in a bullpup rifle than in a conventional rifle of equal overall length" What justification is there for this statement. Given the same barrel length and charge in the bullet the muzzle blast should be the same whether the gun is bullpup layout or conventional layout. This statement either needs to be clarified or removed. I vote removed.

Given the same overall length, a bullpup will have a longer barrel than a conventional rifle. Overall length, remember, is measured from the butt to the muzzle; your point about equal barrel lengths giving equal muzzle blast is, assuming identical ammunition, perfectly correct. However, because the bullpup is shorter overall, the muzzle blast will still be closer to the shooter's face. What you can cope with at a range of 2 feet might well be more than you're prepared to put up with at 18 inches (or 60cm versus 45cm, for ballpark Metric figures; I may think more easily in Imperial, but let's be polite). I hope this clarifies your concerns; I'm willing to have a go at tweaking it for page use if necessary. 86.11.124.189 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why will the us Army not adopt a Bullpup such as the CR-21. their accuracy and length are very good for the overall weapon handling, especially at close range. none of the prospects for the military are even bullpups, such as the M8 and the FN SCAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.161.13 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell about the main idea/reason about bullpup design in this article. What I knew was it kind of to overcome the problem with the conventional assault rifle. Long barrel means longer range but it's kind of burden when operating it in small spaces; which is critical like when countering an assault while inside the vehicle; limiting movement. Shorter barrel saves spaces and gave more movement but descreases the fire range. So, using two size of rifle is a must. Bullpup covered this gap.

[edit] Changed link in the Steyr AUG picture

Someone had arranged the link so that the linked name was split, where Steyr was referring to a village and the AUG part was linking to the actual weapon. I altered it so that it now is only comprised of one link that leads directly to the Steyr AUG page. The village/town has very little to do with this article, in my humble opinion. -Sybaronde 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of bullpup

could someone explain why they are called bullpups

the possible answers to that question are above at "etymology".-ozsmith0 12:42 march 21 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozsmith0 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

"The United Kingdom had been considering the idea of a bullpup service rifle since 1944. Two designs, the EM-1 and the EM-2 were developed by the British as a replacement for separate pistol, submachine gun and rifle. The choice of bullpup design was a necessity to keep the accuracy up while keeping overall length down. The EM-2 was adopted by the UK in 1951 as the world's first (limited) service bullpup rifle but was promptly displaced by the adoption of the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge."

-the above makes it sound like the British government decided not to use a bullpup design after all. Any ideas on how to change this without losing anything? Leushenko (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, the British forces used the FN FAL until the 80s, before switching back to the bullpup design with the SA80. Geoff B (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added

I added the Tavor, QBZ-95, FN F2000, and EM-2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.220.149 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design issues

Comments by both detractors and proponents were lumped together in a single section misleadingly titled "design issues." I separated them into "Design criticisms" and "response to criticism." Also, the response section has some outdated information, namely that all bullpup rifles have magazines that protrude from the casing. This is not so, the Walther G22 being an example of a bullpup rifle whose magazine is flush with the casing. 68.230.161.164 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

this is not very good, in response to criticism, you repeat the problem before anwsering them, i think it was better before, maybe needed some work, but the way its is now is worse. the name design issue was also correct believe. Even thought you don't care, ejection in bullpup is a problem, its harder to work with than a conventional rifle, for the user or the one who built them, yes its been overcome, but with complicated process, by this i don't mean not reliable, but i mean that you have to dissamble the rifle to change or it as a marginal loading or ejecting process. This is not criticism, this is fact, just like the fact that the balance off the weapon is diferent and that the breech and muzzle are closer to the shooter face. You are right on one point thought, the fact that reloading is more difficult is an opinion and more off a critisicim, but theyre is desing problem bullpup maker have to overcome that theyre isn't on standard desing, i'll change when i'll have the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.122.12 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually write any of it. It just seemed to be in two distinct sections in the same paragraph, all I did was separate them. 68.230.161.164 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to remove that "have argued that all bullpup rifles have visible magazines" section, since it's untrue. 212.224.71.3 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the splitting of arguments into pro and con-sections doesn't work as there are too many issues. I also tried to clean up some inconsistencies. Maikel (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph incorrect

A bullpup is a firearm with the action behind the trigger. There are plenty of firearms with the action contained within a stock that are not bullpups, such as the M-14/M1A. 220.235.130.204 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's apparently been sorted out.

I don't understand the second part of your statement, though. The M14/M1A just seems to be a conventional-design rifle. Maybe the mixup pertains to the terms stock and buttstock? Maikel (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)