Talk:Bullpup

message: Shouldn't this article mention the main reason bullpup designs have proliferated? They allow a same sized barrel to fit in a smaller rifle... -Unsigned
Should Austria be in the list of countries using bullpups? David Bofinger (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep. Thats where the Steyr AUG comes from.Irondome (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proliferation

message: 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)
thread_title: F2000

message: "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)
replies: text: Because the bullpup has a real-world defect: it is very difficult to design a bullpup that allows immediate switching from right-shoulder to left-shoulder firing --- such as a soldier needs to do when fighting in urban areas --- while still allowing easy immediate access to the rifle's ejection port for clearing stoppages.   While some of the currently fielded bullpups allow conversion from right-side ejection to left-side ejection, it requires partial disassembly of the rifle and may require swapping of parts.  In practical terms, it isn't done in the field.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.109.125 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Not totally true as there are some examples such as the Kel-Tec RFB which eject the round forward to get round this problem. DickyP (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Design Issues

message: 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)
thread_title: Changed link in the Steyr AUG picture

message: Could someone explain why they are called bullpups? -Unsigned
: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)
thread_title: Name of bullpup

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Misleading

message: 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)
thread_title: Added

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Design issues

message: I'm no firearms expert, but I don't think the M4 Carbine is of bullpup configuration, and having its picture on the page is rather misleading. 96.18.35.35 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is there to show a reader what a traditional rifle looks like. The caption even states that. RoyalOrleans  19:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't a traditional rifle not be a carbine? And still I think that the picture is misleading. 96.18.35.35 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a carbine is a short rifle, so the M4 is still a traditional rifle; and as has been pointed out, the caption above it clearly marks the QBZ-95 as a bullpup, and the M4's caption clearly states it is a traditional rifle, and both point out the main difference between bullpups and traditional rifles.--LWF (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: M4 Carbine

message: Ok, so this articles is just a little biased to bullpups, perhaps a rewrite? 71.186.23.61 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think wikipedia guidelines suggest against a criticism section of any sort; issues should be discussed in the general body of the article. I am trying to actually get meaningful books on the subject, so that the advantages and disadvantages are discussed in more depth in the overview section. It obviously still neds a lot of work on all fronts. --Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: You think that the FAMAS and VHS has Carrying handles like the M4. French FAMAS and Crotian VHS are similar to Me! --Family Guy By Seth MacFarlane (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FAMAS Vs VHS

message: Seems like the references are all junk and don't work. They should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.222.50 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: A bullpup does not have to have its magazine behind its trigger group, it only has to feed from behind its trigger group. Saying it must have the magazine there creates confusion regarding weapons like the P90, Neostead, Kel-Tec KSG and G11, where some or most of the magazine extends in front of the trigger group. It also doesn't have to have a stock (that stupid USFA Zip pistol is a bullpup), so having the action in the stock isn't a good description. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common error 

message: https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/technics/Early-Bullpup-Rifle-designs/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4200:EEB7:A023:CF29:D092:A9BB (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godsal was also one of the early 

message: Not sure these two are fair comments:
Changing magazines are often less intuitive and ergonomic,[8] and very difficult to perform a "drop free" change. This can be particularly problematic when the weapon is equipped with a sling, whose attachment is nearer to the magazine well in bullpup weapons and can physically interfere with magazine insertions.
Surely this is purely a matter of what the user is used to? If you've only ever used a bullpup, swapping magazines in a conventional rifle would feel slow and awkward, and vice-versa.
Check of the rifle's status is more difficult, because there is no direct view on the chamber.
This is completely dependent on the specific firearms being compared, it's no more difficult to see in to the chamber of a fully assembled FAMAS or L85 than on an M16 or AK-47  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.129.50 (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Accounting for the fact the magazine is further back, removing and replacing the magazine, and then returning the hand to a ready position is a more complex maneuver than it is on a regular rifle Loafiewa (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion