I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering about how the M4 stacks up against some of the bullpups out there. Has anyone here noticed any difference in accuracy, reliability etc?

I'm curious how a traditional short rifle compares to say, a Steyr AUG or FN F2000.

I don't know about the M4, but can compare my Wilson AR to my MSAR STG 556, an AUG clone. Both have nominally identical barrel lengths, at 16", +/- flashhider length. With an ACE SOCOM adjustable buttstock with rubber pad, in "normal" light clothing position, the OAL of the AR is 35". The STG is 28", which is a world of difference in handling ease in confined space such as a truck cab, but also the condensed mass of the bullpup makes it easier to handle, and carry in a tactical sling. These rifles haven't been compared with identical optics --- there's a conventional Leupold 1-4x on the AR, with which it shoots sub-MOA without trying very hard, even with Black Hills remanufactured ammo. The STG is fitted with an Aimpoint 2x/2MOA red dot, and with the same ammo, can, with care, hold close to MOA. The STG trigger is not even close to the Wilson's superb JP trigger, even after a little work. I guess I regard the bullpup as well suited for CQB, vehicular, and urban use, and the AR as the more capable GP rifle. I recommend availing yourself of one of each type!

Sir, bullpups have some problems inherent in the design.

They have long trigger linkages that make for weird mushy trigger feel, as well as butt-heavy balance that takes considerable getting used to. Many (but not all) bullpups are right-hand-only; when shot left-handed, ejected brass goes either in the user's ear or down his collar. Sight radii are very short, almost requiring an optical sight.

The biggest thing is that the muzzle is much closer to the operator's face than on a conventional rifle. This is problematic in a couple ways. It's easy to inadvertently get your support hand in front of the muzzle at the wrong time. Also, the muzzle blast so close to the shooter's face is hard on the ears; I understand the Brits have noted a significant increase in troops' developing hearing problems since the switch to the bullpup.

The bullpup design does allow for a very short weapon without resorting to pistol-length barrels, but overall it looks better on paper than in the real world.

JMHO, FWIW.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

"The bullpup design does allow for a very short weapon without resorting to pistol-length barrels, but overall it looks better on paper than in the real world."

Everything Ron H. says is true --- the bullpups all have inferior trigger systems, some, (not the STG 556, with mods) are unuseable by southpaws, and the muzzle blast is closer to your ears. But, they're nonetheless short, compact and handy! Try one, I'll bet you'll like it!

I always wanted to try one of those now discontinued Bushmaster M17s bullpups, but never seemed to have the funds. Maybe somebody who has one can share their experiences.

I bought a couple of the Styer AUGs when they first came out. I like their optics and I hate their triggers. For a troop kinda gun they are great, they are not precission rifles by any long shot.

I still have them and shoot them on occasion.

Rule 303