From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


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)

  • Yep. Thats where the Steyr AUG comes from.Irondome (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


  • 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.

Preceding items doesn't seems to be verifiable. -Unsigned


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 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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. -Unsigned
Excellent, thanks! Maikel 11:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We really need to get some reference on that, though. Done. Maikel (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Following Oxford English Dictionary (1989) bulldog can the humourosly refer to a cannon or other firearm; in mod. use, a particular revolver. Hence, the bulldog is the big gun and the bullpup is the little gun.

Notice that a "bull pup" is mentioned in Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes story "A Study in Scarlet" in the meaning of "a short-barreled, large caliber revolver" Here is a reference explaining the term's usage in that book: (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading an article about the Experimental Model 2 submachine gun and it said the American soldiers in the pacific called these 'bull pup' because they were so rare to find. It also had the unique feature of having a magazine extending from the pistol grip. I thought it was worth mentioning. (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I was reading the article on James E. Sieg's automatic rifle which refers to the web site. They seem to have scanned an article published in 1946 by American Rifleman magazine that says, about the rifle, folding sights permit the use of a "bull-pup" stock. So it seems that the term bull-pup was used, without further explanation, at least in 1946. (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1953 edition of Small Arms of the World by W H B Smith refers to the British EM-2 as a 'bullpup' weapon. DickyP (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Design Issues[edit]

"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. 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 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2014 (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.

Changed link in the Steyr AUG picture[edit]

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)

Name of bullpup[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


"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)


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

Design issues[edit]

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. (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 (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. (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. (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)

My biggest problem with this article (quite apart from the lack of enough objective and well-reasearched information) is that much of it is written not from an objective viewpoint, but rather from a subjective and obiouvly very biased pro-bullpup viewpoint. Nowhere, however, is this more clear than in the section outling the pros and cons of the bullpup over a more traditional configuration. Please let it be remembered that Wikipedia is supposed to provide information, and not an argument or even a dsicussion. It is NOT acceptable for the cons to be added only as a means of highlighting how the design has absolutely NO problem or that it is not really or "not really that much of a concern". That issue SHOULD be for the reader o9f the article to figure out based on objective evidence and maybe even quoted sources, but definitely not in poorly disguised arguments posing as perfectly objective factual material with inarguable hard evidence. It is evident upon close inspection that the cons section does JUST this - the author of that particular section is writing an information page but merely outling his point about why HE THINKS bullpup is good, sometimes in the face of emperical evidence to the countrary: e.g. the point about bullpups being unsuitable for squad automatic weapons as a modular design is one which has NEVER really been solved, especially since such a weapon is ALREADY heavy, without the requirement for the weight necessary at the front of the barrel in order to sufficiently overcome the increased muzzle climb inherent in a bullpup design so as to enable accurate sustained automatic fire (as is often required in such a role). Indeed, the Steyr AUG in machine gun configuration only has a 45 round magazine, as opposed to the usual 100 round or greater capacity of most other machine guns (which is also seen in other modular weapons systems, such as the HK G36). In addition, there has also been no solution to the inability of a bullpup to be belt-fed, a problem which once again undermine the possibility of a truly modular bullpup design which can be used in the role of a squad automatic weapon or machine gun of some sort.

Such issues must be addressed, in order to maintian the standards of Wikipedia, and care must be taken that any revisions keep this in mind, without any subjectivity towards the traditional or bullpup layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph incorrect[edit]

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. (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)

M4 Carbine[edit]

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. (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
Wouldn't a traditional rifle not be a carbine? And still I think that the picture is misleading. (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
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)


Ok, so this articles is just a little biased to bullpups, perhaps a rewrite? (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely biased. Especially in the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

well... i agree it really only says one good thing about it and thats the 25% size reduction, and thats taken back in the shortcommings Jalex3 (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)


in the 2nd pic the aug has no magazine, which makes the pic more less shit!

FAMAS Vs VHS[edit]

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)

"Semi bullpup"[edit]

A user has added this section a couple of times. This is not a distinction normally made by firearms publications are designers. I am unable to find a reference to this category in any publication. Unless someone can show that this is used with any frequency, it can't be included in the article. --Daniel 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I havent found any official term although it has been mentioned to describe the FG42 and M60.
Semi Bullpup layout's are similar to the Bullpup mentioned, with the operation behind the trigger section but with the magazine area directly above the grip, which requires the magazine either inserted sideways, or in some cases as the grip. The M60 machine gun has been described as a semi bullpup, but is an unofficial term. Examples of "semi bullpup" firearms are the Bergmann MG15, FG42, Interdynamics MKS, M1946 rifle, Spz-kr and Sturmgewehr 52. Oinbuh 23:28, 31/10/2011 (UTC)
You need to cite a reliable source that uses and describes this term, otherwise it won't be useable here or in any of the other articles. ROG5728 (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


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

Common error[edit]

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)

Godsal was also one of the early[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4200:EEB7:A023:CF29:D092:A9BB (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)