Hello!This is Tyler and was wondering about bullpups.I know that they are in cervice in manyy countries and I've heard people say that we should go bullpup.I like bullpups and tw0 of my three favorite guns are bullpups(AUG,FAMAS).The questions I have are

1.What are the advantages besides longer barrel in shorter gun
2.what are the disadvantages
3.what can make one good(AUG)while another sucks(SA80)

Hope I didn't ask too much.
Thanks,Tyler.

If you look at it the AUG isn't more compact then the M4 and it's balance is off. The barrel length is really not an issue with 5.56, for all practicle purposes the 14.5" on the M4 does all that round can do.
Jason

So,there really isn't any advantages or disadvantages?Well I still like the AUG and FAMAS.Oh,what did you mean about the AUG being off-ballance?Oh weel,I hope some other people share their honest opinions.
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

Tyler I have used several weapons of 223/5.56, such as the Colt in 20" 16" 14.5" and the Commando, also the H&K 93, 33k and the 53, and the AUG.
While I like them all the AUG was especially handy and very accurate. The built in scope sight made missing almost impossible. The circle reticle in the AUG is the perfect combat reticle. Better IMHO than the Leupold CQB or the EO-TEC reticle, both of which I shot today, by the way.
The AUG is a very good rifle.
The only other bull-pup I have extensive experience with is the AK bull-pup, which like all AK's is crude, but works.

This is an extract from 'Assault Rifles', a new book which I have written with Max Popenker (who owns the guns.ru site):

"In bullpup rifles the action and magazine are located behind the trigger, within the buttstock, thereby producing a much shorter weapon for the same barrel length as the traditional type. There are certain disadvantages to bullpups. In most cases, fired cartridge cases can only be ejected to the right-hand side of the gun, which means that they cannot be fired left-handed as the cases would hit the firer's face (most can be adapted for left-handers, but that takes time). This means that users can't switch shoulders to fire round the corner of a building, for instance. Magazine changes may also be more awkward. The necessarily straight-line stock means that the firer cannot sight along the top of the barrel, so if iron sights are used they have to stick up high above the barrel and the firer therefore has to expose more of his head 'above the parapet'. Proponents of bayonet fighting will also point to the shorter length of the weapon, which means that you have to get closer to the enemy. Bullpups have the action by the firer's head, which some find uncomfortable, and short-barrelled versions have the muzzle quite close to the firer, which means that muzzle blast can be more of a problem.

There are of course counter-arguments. The lack of ability to switch shoulders may be more theoretical than real, as this may in practice be very little used by ordinary soldiers as opposed to special forces. Most soldiers in combat have enough trouble hitting the target when firing from their usual shoulder, let alone from their 'wrong' side, so many armies train only in shooting from one shoulder. The magazine change is not necessarily more difficult, and some users prefer the 'inboard' location as it makes it easier to change magazines when travelling in an open vehicle, for example. Military rifles are also increasingly being issued with optical sights, so the iron-sights objection is less important. In any case, military rifles of traditional layout also have high-mounted sights nowadays, because they generally have straight-line stocks, in which the top of the buttstock continues in a straight line from the barrel, instead of being angled downwards as it is in most older rifles. This is because the recoil thrust in a straight-line stock goes directly into the shoulder, whereas in an angled stock it goes over the shoulder and hence tends to rotate the gun upwards. Bayonets are now too irrelevant to modern combat situations for their length to matter.

Most significantly, bullpup proponents will point out that the increasing deployment of troops in cramped helicopters or armoured vehicles, together with the needs of urban combat, put a premium on compactness. Traditional rifles can only match a bullpup's short length by using stocks which can be folded alongside the barrel, or sometimes over the top of it, giving the choice between a long weapon or a short one which can't be fired accurately. Their only other option is to reduce significantly the length of the barrel, to the detriment of ballistics and effectiveness, especially at longer ranges. These folding stocks are commonly of the 'skeleton' type (i.e. they consist of an open framework) and may be made of metal or plastic. They are usually less rigid and comfortable to shoot with than fixed stocks. Not all rifles are able to use folding stocks anyway because the action may extend into the stock (e.g. the M16). In such cases telescoping stocks may be used instead, but these do not deliver such a reduction in length as a folding stock, and cannot match the compactness of a bullpup.

Finally, firers used to the traditional layout often criticise the different, more rearward, weight balance of a bullpup, but that is, of course, a matter of what you are used to.

What is certain is that the debate between proponents of the traditional and bullpup layouts can become heated and rely more upon emotion than logic. It is also worth noting that the use of bullpup rifles has been gradually spreading, with the majority of recent assault rifle designs being of this type, and that the latest of them � the Belgian FN F2000 � overcomes the principal objection by being genuinely ambidextrous without any modifications or adjustments being required."

Incidentally, the performance of the 5.56mm is very definitely affected by barrel length. Much of the wounding effect of the little bullet comes from fragmentation which only occurs at high striking velocity, and when fired from the short 14.5 inch M4 barrel, the standard M855 bullet will not fragment beyond about 50m. From the 20 inch barrel of the M16, it will fragment to about 150m.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Tyler, it hard to add any thing to Tony's post, I have carried and usede a FAMAS, or as it was called the Trumhpit
it is the better designed bullpup when compared to the others, it is accurate easy to use and takes no time to set up for us port siders, was very easy to use inside buildings, and cramped quarters

Hello!Thanks,for the info guys.The FN bullpups(P-90 included) all eject from the bottom right.Oh,how s the AUG working for the countries using it?Do they have any complaints?And the FAMAS,is it getting complaints from soldiers?Anyway I just have one more question.Do U.S. special forces get to chhose any weapon they want or just from a couple?Could they use an AUG,FAMAS,M4,AK, or M14?Just wondering.
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

Dark Paladin you are correct. I also think they did make some AUGs with a typical selector, safe, semi, and full auto.

The only problem I got with a FA MAS after years of practice and humphteen boxes of ammo was a forearm burn due to a very hot lacquered steel case that was ejected inside my BDU sleeve when shooting with the buttstock stuck to the buckle of the belt during a defensive reaction shooting at short distance.
the trigger weight is heavy due the transfer bar between the trigger and the mecanism at the back of the stock but when knowing it , it is no problem.
There is thing I dislike on the AUG , the selection of auto fire by the way you press the trigger.
when one is inexperienced with trigger control, it is perfect but when one is able to get single shots from a 1100 RPM FA MAS , the AUG system is a POS.