pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Someone should build this idea I have for bullpups
#1
I've had this idea for while and haven't told anyone about it, but now I'm realizing that it will never come to fruition if it just stays in my head. One of the biggest issues with bullpups is that the trigger pull sucks, because of the linkage. I thought about building a bullpup where the entire fire control group is directly above the trigger, like you have for a normal gun. But there would be a linkage on the hammer, which would connect to a second hammer which is located behind the firing pin. With this setup you could have a match trigger with a feather-light trigger pull, and still keep the bullpup form factor. What do you guys think?
Reply
#2
bac0nfat;99106 Wrote:I've had this idea for while and haven't told anyone about it, but now I'm realizing that it will never come to fruition if it just stays in my head. One of the biggest issues with bullpups is that the trigger pull sucks, because of the linkage. I thought about building a bullpup where the entire fire control group is directly above the trigger, like you have for a normal gun. But there would be a linkage on the hammer, which would connect to a second hammer which is located behind the firing pin. With this setup you could have a match trigger with a feather-light trigger pull, and still keep the bullpup form factor. What do you guys think?

That sounds intresting ..... Now delete your post and contact some Bullpup builders ..... Think $$$$
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

Contact your reps and lets stand in front of the NRA


Sharkey, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012. ........ ShootingCowboySmiley-1
Reply
#3
Sharkey;99144 Wrote:
bac0nfat;99106 Wrote:I've had this idea for while and haven't told anyone about it, but now I'm realizing that it will never come to fruition if it just stays in my head. One of the biggest issues with bullpups is that the trigger pull sucks, because of the linkage. I thought about building a bullpup where the entire fire control group is directly above the trigger, like you have for a normal gun. But there would be a linkage on the hammer, which would connect to a second hammer which is located behind the firing pin. With this setup you could have a match trigger with a feather-light trigger pull, and still keep the bullpup form factor. What do you guys think?

That sounds intresting ..... Now delete your post and contact some Bullpup builders ..... Think $$$$

That's what I thought for awhile which is why I never told anyone. If I tell a gun maker about it they will just steal the idea anyway, and I don't have the money for a patent, nor do I have the resources to build it, so....
Reply
#4
Thanks for the idea. I'll send you a picture of me on my new yacht, named the SS Improved Bullpup Trigger. Big Grin
NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Instructor:  HFS, Pistol, Rifle, PPIH,PPOH
Suarez Combat Arms Instructor School
Admit nothing.  Deny everything. Demand proof.
If we lie to the government, it's a crime. If the government lies to the people, it's called politics.
Paying for welfare is slavery.
Reply
#5
Been there, thought of that concept too ... The big problem that I see is the relatively huge mass of the hammer/linkage assembly - resulting in real big-bad locktime.

I've heard talk of using hydraulic coupling to get around the mechanical linkage which could be pretty nice if done right.
-JD-, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#6
-JD-;100864 Wrote:Been there, thought of that concept too ... The big problem that I see is the relatively huge mass of the hammer/linkage assembly - resulting in real big-bad locktime.

I've heard talk of using hydraulic coupling to get around the mechanical linkage which could be pretty nice if done right.

Even if only one of the hammers has a spring? I know you still need to overcome the friction of the linkage and the mass of the second hammer, but I think it could work for intermediate cartridges. Maybe just make it delayed blowback instead of locked breach?
Reply
#7
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding this but...
Usually when a design is "improved" it uses less to do more...all you did was move the linkage and add a part...more parts = more chance of faliure.

Keep in mind, chances are if you have thought of it...someone else has too.
Reply
#8
P89;100870 Wrote:Maybe I'm just misunderstanding this but...
Usually when a design is "improved" it uses less to do more...all you did was move the linkage and add a part...more parts = more chance of faliure.

Keep in mind, chances are if you have thought of it...someone else has too.

If you don't have anything nice to say, post it over at PAFOA. Tongue

Actually the total number of parts in my design would stay the same. I'm just making the linkage do something else. The result could be a bullpup with a match-grade trigger if it was done right. That's something that we've never had.
Reply
#9
bac0nfat;100867 Wrote:
-JD-;100864 Wrote:Been there, thought of that concept too ... The big problem that I see is the relatively huge mass of the hammer/linkage assembly - resulting in real big-bad locktime.

I've heard talk of using hydraulic coupling to get around the mechanical linkage which could be pretty nice if done right.

Even if only one of the hammers has a spring? I know you still need to overcome the friction of the linkage and the mass of the second hammer, but I think it could work for intermediate cartridges. Maybe just make it delayed blowback instead of locked breach?
Locktime is the time from pull to "bang". The longer it is, the more wander you are likely to find with reduced accuracy

It is not a friction issue primarily (although it could still come into significant play depending on the exact details of the design), it is one of mass and inertia. The more mass that the after-sear components (firing pin, hammer and linkage) has, the longer it takes to complete the movement from cocked to "Bang" positions. Stiffer "hammer" springs can help to counteract that (and improve striking force,) often with the competing characteristic of making trigger-pull heavier.

Look at the various target/match FCGs on AR and 1911 platforms. Many use lighter hammers, specifically to reduce the locktime.

The locking/blowback system doesn't really make a direct impact on the locktime issue, unless the geometry somehow forces a FCG mass increase.
-JD-, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#10
-JD-;100979 Wrote:
bac0nfat;100867 Wrote:Even if only one of the hammers has a spring? I know you still need to overcome the friction of the linkage and the mass of the second hammer, but I think it could work for intermediate cartridges. Maybe just make it delayed blowback instead of locked breach?
Locktime is the time from pull to "bang". The longer it is, the more wander you are likely to find with reduced accuracy

It is not a friction issue primarily (although it could still come into significant play depending on the exact details of the design), it is one of mass and inertia. The more mass that the after-sear components (firing pin, hammer and linkage) has, the longer it takes to complete the movement from cocked to "Bang" positions. Stiffer "hammer" springs can help to counteract that (and improve striking force,) often with the competing characteristic of making trigger-pull heavier.

Look at the various target/match FCGs on AR and 1911 platforms. Many use lighter hammers, specifically to reduce the locktime.

The locking/blowback system doesn't really make a direct impact on the locktime issue, unless the geometry somehow forces a FCG mass increase.

Oh okay, I figured locktime was the amount of time that the bolt remained closed after firing. Now that makes sense. Although I don't think we can really know how much of an issue that would be until someone actually builds it.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BUILD AN 11 SHOT MOSSBERG 500 – DETACHABLE MAGS, NO GUNSMITH REQUIRED! das 4 1,514 10-20-2015, 11:02 PM
Last Post: Emoticon



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.