Scope on a bullpup?

[pmulcahy11b]

Normally, bullpup rifles have a lesser effective range, due to the shorter sight radius. But is seems to me that with a scope or some other optic (such as a Trilux), the sight radius of the rifle itself shouldn't matter. Anyone know if that assumption is correct?

[TiggerCCW UK]

When I was in the cadets we used the L98, a bolt action training version of the. SA-80/L85, out to 600m with ironsights. I wouldn't fancy using the 5.56/.223 much beyond that with either a bullpup or conventional assault rifle. Everything I've read would lead me to believe that the SA-80 has a similar range to the M16 family.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

When I was in the cadets we used the L98, a bolt action training version of the. SA-80/L85, out to 600m with ironsights. I wouldn't fancy using the 5.56/.223 much beyond that with either a bullpup or conventional assault rifle. Everything I've read would lead me to believe that the SA-80 has a similar range to the M16 family.

Heck, I have to aim pretty carefully to hit at 600 meters with an M-16A2 (with iron sights -- these fancy optics the young'ns have these days make me jealous).

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Heck, I have to aim pretty carefully to hit at 600 meters with an M-16A2 (with iron sights -- these fancy optics the young'ns have these days make me jealous).

I didn't say we hit much out there We worked with the L98 out to 600 yards and used the L81 Target rifle from 300 out to 1000. The L81 was a modified version of the Parker Hale M83 IIRC, modified to single shot hand loading rather than an internal or box mag.

Should have said yards from the start for measurements, not meters, sorry.

[headquarters]

My 2 cents :

The AG-3 (7,62 nato) was I my opnion the ultimae battle rifle .Rugged,reliable,accurate and pretty versatile.

Tried the L85 for a week or so - and was impressed by a number of things -firstly the range on it ,that was supposedly the AGs main advantage.Scoped for sniping I would say a pure AG yes.But in an assault rifle role ,the optics on that rifle combined with the iron sights gave it a pretty decent range .I remember the guys in the regiment I was at said that they easily engaged out to 400 + meters .The same distance we said was practical for our guys- although we did try out to 600.(No optics) .But the difference is mostly in caliber between the 2 - Most our training was at 200 meters though .

Also it was lighter and the weight differance on the mags was a staggering experience as it was the first non issue Norwegian rifle I trained with .Rate of fire was better too - the recoil really was pleasant compared to trying to do consecutive AG shots in rapid fire at the same targets.

A double tap from the AG will definently down you though - but a double tap from the 5,56 will leave you slightly less dead - but dead nonetheless.So why go heavier ?

making the swap I asked myself - which too take if the SHTF ?Both had strong points . Being mech inf I didnt care about the weight as much ,even though the AG is heavy .I had gotten used to carrying it .

Bottom line - bullpup is handy and has as good range with the optics as a M16s in my HUMBLE opinion , not really having had any training with it (ARs) .

But with iron sights - I guess there would be a difference ,although I hardly ever used the iron - it was just so mouch more cool with the optics on the L85 , that the AG wasnt issued with then .

Didnt like the bull pup mag positioning or the controls on the L85 though .

Yes - I believe the optics like Aimpoint or Leupold CQ 1-3 x 24 would make it AS effective as an M16 /AR15 platform with the same optics.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

When I was in the cadets we used the L98, a bolt action training version of the. SA-80/L85, out to 600m with ironsights. I wouldn't fancy using the 5.56/.223 much beyond that with either a bullpup or conventional assault rifle. Everything I've read would lead me to believe that the SA-80 has a similar range to the M16 family.

Ok, I was talking with a friend over the weekend about our time in the cadets, and it turns out my memory was playing tricks on me - we only used the L98 out to 500m.

In the picture below you can see why the L98 has less of a problem with sight radius as the foresight and rear sight are further apart. This is only the case as the L98 was desgned to be used with iron sights, not any form of optics.



Still a truly horrible rifle to use, regardless of the sight radius, as the ARRSEpedia description states

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/L98A1_Cadet_GP_rifle

[perardua]

Iron sights on the L85 are identically placed (though the sight itself is different if I recall correctly, been a while since I used iron sights on the rifle). Pretty much all combat arms and most of the combat support arms have SUSATs as standard in the UK, and almost everyone who deploys to Afghanistan will get an optic of some kind for their rifle (SUSAT or ACOG).

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by perardua

Iron sights on the L85 are identically placed (though the sight itself is different if I recall correctly, been a while since I used iron sights on the rifle). Pretty much all combat arms and most of the combat support arms have SUSATs as standard in the UK, and almost everyone who deploys to Afghanistan will get an optic of some kind for their rifle (SUSAT or ACOG).

Sorry, my misunderstanding - I thought the SUSAT had the emergency sights on top of it, which would have gven an incredibly small sight radius.

[perardua]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

Sorry, my misunderstanding - I thought the SUSAT had the emergency sights on top of it, which would have gven an incredibly small sight radius.

There is, as I mentioned, an emergency battle sight on top of the SUSAT, which is next to useless. However, if iron sights are fitted to the rifle rather than a SUSAT/CWS/ACOG then they are in exactly the same place as on the L98, i.e. carrying handle/iron sight on the sight rail, foresight on the gas block. Like I said, the only times you tend to see iron sights on L85s these days is in training establishments, the hands of some of the RAF and most of the Royal Navy (and not even then, on ops), and jungle warfare training. I certainly haven't touched them since recruit training.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by perardua

Iron sights on the L85 are identically placed (though the sight itself is different if I recall correctly, been a while since I used iron sights on the rifle). Pretty much all combat arms and most of the combat support arms have SUSATs as standard in the UK, and almost everyone who deploys to Afghanistan will get an optic of some kind for their rifle (SUSAT or ACOG).

The L98A1 sight was adjustable for 100-500m in 100m increments (using a dial wheel which was a pain to rotate) and also had a flip down to a 300m wider aperture (non-adjustable). The new semi-auto L98A2 has the same iron sight as the L85.

While our L81A1 target rifles were away we used the L98A1 at Bisley and cadets could achieve scores of 30+ out of 35 easily on the competition shoots at 500m.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by James Langham

The L98A1 sight was adjustable for 100-500m in 100m increments (using a dial wheel which was a pain to rotate) and also had a flip down to a 300m wider aperture (non-adjustable). The new semi-auto L98A2 has the same iron sight as the L85.

While our L81A1 target rifles were away we used the L98A1 at Bisley and cadets could achieve scores of 30+ out of 35 easily on the competition shoots at 500m.

Fair play to them - I could never do all that well with the L98, but I loved the L81. I think my best was fairly consistent 2.5" groups with the L81 out to 600+ yards. Have they solved the firing pin problems with it?

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Normally, bullpup rifles have a lesser effective range, due to the shorter sight radius. But is seems to me that with a scope or some other optic (such as a Trilux), the sight radius of the rifle itself shouldn't matter. Anyone know if that assumption is correct?

Trilux scopes

[General Pain]

not really an answer but good info
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=59326

[Ramjam]

If I remember rightly but don't quote me on this the main idea behind a bullpup design was to shorten the overall length of the weapon while not decreasing the length of the barrel (by much) to help with urban combat and the cramped space inside a apc.

Thus accuracy should be the same as a normal non-bullpup rifle and if used with a scope the general accuracy should be increased. That's the reason why most militaries are now issuing scopes as standard equipment.

I've fired the L85A1 on a range with SUSAT and iron sights every year for my APWT and never had a problem passing it.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Ramjam

If I remember rightly but don't quote me on this the main idea behind a bullpup design was to shorten the overall length of the weapon while not decreasing the length of the barrel (by much) to help with urban combat and the cramped space inside a apc.

Thus accuracy should be the same as a normal non-bullpup rifle and if used with a scope the general accuracy should be increased. That's the reason why most militaries are now issuing scopes as standard equipment.

What you are talking about is inherent accuracy, and you are correct in saying that two rifles of the same calibre that are both semi-auto/auto and have the same length barrel will have similar accuracy.

What Paul was talking about was sighting accuracy, and he is correct too. The further the distance between the front and rear sights, in theory the more accurate the weapon. Paul was also correct in saying that the reduced sighting radius on a bullpup would be negated for sighting accuracy by using a scaope.

[JimmyRay73]

I had a whole big explanantion planned out, but Targan said it better...

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Normally, bullpup rifles have a lesser effective range, due to the shorter sight radius. But is seems to me that with a scope or some other optic (such as a Trilux), the sight radius of the rifle itself shouldn't matter. Anyone know if that assumption is correct?

I would say yes, and this is exactly the ruling for weapon design in GDW's Traveller series (same system as tw2k). Here, bullpups had lower effective range exactly for the reason you mentioned but only when using iron-sights.

[Legbreaker]

It really depends on the weapon design. Most bullpups to my knowledge possess an optical sight unit of some type or other. The iron sights are no more than a backup, usually mounted externally on the optical unit. This restricts the distance between rear and foresight to often only about six inches.

If however the front sight was positioned towards the muzzle of the weapon and the rear sight in it's customary position relatively close to the firer's eye, then automatically you have a more accurate iron sight.

As Paul inferred in the original post, it's not the weapon barrel, layout or operating mechanism that's really the problem, it's the sights. It's quite possible to have a bullpup sniper rifle just as accurate as a conventional layout.