Questioning bullpup optic mounting options.

[Mod90]

Why is it that when I look at bullpup guns offered by various manufacturers, the scope trails on their guns are so high above the barrel. A scope mounted on a thin rail high over the barrel has only one advantage, and that relates to long range shooting, something the bullpup concept wasnt designed for. And there are several drawbacks, especially for us air gunners that shoot at close range targets.

My thinking is that by making the front of the breech longer by 3-4" and machining a longer section of the barrel to fit into it to eliminate the added length, theres is no reason a  scope couldnt be mounted to the rails on the breech like a normal rifle without the added rail or making the gun longer. Doing this would cost a bit more by means of materials and machining costs, but i believe it would make for a better gun.
I think a lot of ppl are turned off by the way optics are currently mounted on bullpups & would appreciate a lower mounting system closer to the barrel.

So what do you guys think? Am I crazy or does this idea make sense?

[Motorhead]

Ever handle a Bullpup ?

Because we humans have necks and a head quite a distance higher than our shoulders, when you shoulder a pup correctly it is pretty close to your chest.  You simply can not use good shooting form cocking your head sideways to get it down onto the top of receiver when scope down as low where conventional stocked guns get them mounted.
Thus the higher position where you can keep your head upright.

Now certainly a stock configuration having a LOT of drop would raise the action up relative to ones line of sight with head held up, but the compactness would be compromised.
* Look at FX Bobcats or Daystate Pulsars for this design bias .... them compare lines and compactness to those more common pups with higher scope mounting you dislike.

YES ... most Pups are VERY difficult to shoot well at closer ranges due to the extreme parallax difference from 10 to say 50 yards over a conventional rifle.  You need a range finder or a very good side parallax scope with good dope to do it with any degree of success.

JMO ...
Scott

[Gerard]

This high scope problem is the one thing which prevents me from going to a true bullpup. I've been using modified Crosman 22xx rifles and now a QB78D as carbines with tubular aluminum stocks mounted inline with the main tubes. This puts the trigger and grip somewhat closer to the shoulder than a proper rifle but not a vast difference. I like being able to dismantle these carbines for ease of transport, and a shorter barrel works just fine for the modest power levels in after. My cheek rests on the same level as the main tube with each of these so in that sense I'm in the same situation as with a bullpup. I've found that the slight cant of my head with a centre-bore to centre-optic measure of 33mm works fine, no effect on accuracy or consistency in FT or squirrel hunting use. With the QB I'm using taller mounts such that the same dimension is 44mm, but only to clear an 8-shot magazine. If not for that I'd probably go for 33mm again. The slightly more head-up position with the QB does make it a bit more comfortable to shoot. Don't want it any higher though, as already my cheek weld is just right and any higher would leave my head floating unsupported unless I added a pad to the stock.

So referring again to a bullpup - I very much like the FX Impact, except for the scope mount height. It's as bothersome to me as the high mount on an AirForce rifle. I did some tuning and setup on an AF Talon for a friend, and even with the lowest scope rings possible and that big bottle to rest on I found it very difficult to shoot well. Just too high. And for no practical reason I can see. I know the Impact isn't quite a true bullpup... but the high mounts on the real thing combined with the awkward cocking setups on most of them just put me off too much. Maybe if I had a really big face I'd think differently on this one? But I don't, just average, and a low scope is just too nice for close-up and personal time with grey squirrels for me to want anything higher.

[Mod90]

well Scott you do have a valid point wrt the distance between shoulder & cheek.  Also to a degree I think about stock configuration. But if the toe of the buttstock were simply lengthened downward a few inches, I believe that would provide sufficient compensation to accomodate for a good cheek weld without having to bend the neck too much to find a good sight picture in the scope without adding extra length.

[smythsg]

I have a P12 Bullpup and an Airforce Condor and there is no getting around the high mounted scope issues. It is bit of a problem on the P12 because I have detuned it for a 50 yrd max gun and expect to be shooting at shorter range, but the Condor is pushing 70 ft lbs and I don't expect to shoot it at ranges of less than 40+ yards (zero at 50 yards) so the high mount is not so much an issue. The advantages outweigh the negatives on both guns for me, but the high scope mount is an inconvenience for sure.