I am thinking about a bullpup stock for a hunting rifle.

Is there a bullpup style stock for a Remington 700 VS LH Stainless Steel, chambered in .30-06?

I want a bullpup style stock because I will keep all the good things, including the sight radius, of the "stock" Model 700(can I make that kind of joke in a post?), but decrease the weight and length of the rifle. I do not understand why I must lug an extra pound or more of weight, and another foot or so of length, when I carry my rifle afield, hunting.

Furthermore, the Steyr AUG, the Enfield SA-80, the French FA MAS, and the IMI Tavor 2 are all bullpup rifles. Regardless of the success or failure of a particular weapon, several nations have adopted the bullpup design in the hunt that matters most: national defense. Surely there is something to that.

Of course, why would anyone have a bullpup Remington 700, a bolt action rifle? Would it not put the bolt right under his/her ear? Shooting prone and operating a bolt up by one's ear would be rather dicey.

A bullpup configuration would be better on a semiautomatic rifle, like the Remington 7400, right? Or would a bullpup 700 have an extender from the bolt to a handle farther forward on the rifle, underneath the pistol grip, so the shooter could operate the action?

Any one have experience with "regular" stocks vs. Bullpup style stocks?

Thanks,

Leslie :-)

"I do not understand why I must lug an extra pound or more of weight, and another foot or so of length, when I carry my rifle afield, hunting." Actually the weight would stay the same or more than likely you would gain a little because of the configuration. I think you are seeing a problem where there isn't one. By the way, national defense has nothing to do with hunting. There are combat weapons, and there are hunting weapons. Also you mentioned sight radius, well, it would change as well if you used sights. If you used a scope you would have to mount it way forward of the reciever. You are looking at some serious money to set up a rifle that I doubt would function the way you espect it to.

Dear "frizzellr":

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful response. I appreciate your flame-free post, which shed light on the topic, not heat.

You wrote: "I think you are seeing a problem where there isn't one." That very well could be; right now I have more questions than I have answers. So, in my posts, I may ask some questions for which the answers may seem very apparent to you. I guess they are not apparent to me.

One point you made which was especially good was about sight radii and using a scope: " . . . sight radius . . . would change as well if you used . . . a scope (Y)ou would have to mount it way forward of the reciever". I had not thought of that at all. So, I would face the same "problems" if I used a scope on a "regular" rifle or a bullpup rifle:
1. I would need to know where to mount it (close to the eye, or far
away, like the long-relief sight used on the Steyr Scout Rifle)
2. I would have to sight the weapon in

Am I reading you?

I think you have raised a key point when you wrote: " . . . national defense has nothing to do with hunting. There are combat weapons, and there are hunting weapons."

Some people disagree with you, like the text on the Remington Law Enforcement Website: "The heart of Remington’s law enforcement rifles is the legendary Model 700 action. This is the same action that is at the core of the advanced M-24 Sniper Weapon System we built for the U.S. Army" (http://www.remingtonle.com/rifle/rifle.htm). Yes, this text is advertising fluff, but it seems that, at some point, (besides the obvious point that they are both using GUNS, duh! :-) hunting and warfare do cross paths. This crosspoint in the two paths of hunting and warfare is where my questions lie.

It seems (to this layman) that hunting and warfare have three things in common:
1. Aim the weapon quickly and easily at the right target
2. Put the bullet exactly where you intend it to go
3. Do it every time

As evidence for these three points, I quote from the Remington 40XB Tactical Website which says: "Performance: 1/2" or less group with proper ammo at 100 yards*** Factory test target included demonstrating (accuracy -Ed.)" The Remington 40-XB page says that the "40-XB ™ rifles (are) so accurate and rock-solid dependable."

You wrote, "the weight would stay the same or more than likely you would gain a little because of the configuration." Here are some figures I have gleaned from various Web sites about lengths and weights of various caliber .223 rifles, both "conventional" and bullpup:

Manufacturer Model Overall Barrel Weight
Length Length
Remington
Model 700 VS LH 45 3/4" 26" 9 lb.
(Varmint Special)
Model 700 VLS 45 1/2" 26" 9 3/8 lb.
Model 700 VS SF 45 3/4" 26" 8 1/2 lb.
(Varmint Special,
Stainless, Fluted)
Model Seven LS 39 1/4" 20" 6 1/2 lb.
Model Seven SS 39 1/4" 20" 6 1/4 lb.
(Synthetic Stainless)

IMI
Tavor 2 STAR 28.34" 18.11" 2800 grams
(Designated Marksman
Version)
Steyr
AUG A1 31" 20" 7.94 lb.
AUG/HBAR-T 35" 24" 7.94 lb.
(heavy barrelled
with telescopic sights)

Fabrique National
FA MAS 30.28" 19.5" 8.0 lb.

It seems that, when we compare the bullpup weapons to the conventional stock weapons, the bullpups split the difference in weight, but are significantly shorter, while having roughly the same barrel length. The questions then would be: because of the design, is the weight distributed differently, so that bullpup designs are easier to sight and to shoot accurately? Then, do the bullpup weapons shown here in this table have the same accuracy as the conventional weapons in the table? Why or why not?

Like all good writers, you save your best point for last: "(y)ou are looking at some serious money to set up a rifle that I doubt would function the way you expect it to."

You are 100 percent correct on this point. I, a layman, have no resources like a Col. Jeff Cooper or a Willy Bubits (both Steyr), to turn my ballistic dreams into reality. That is why I turn to this forum. I ask questions of you all, so that your collective wisdom can be brought to bear on my questons.

So, I ask, since several nations have invested millions (billions?) of dollars in combat bullpup weapons that are accurate and dependable, can we hunters not learn some lessons that these governments have so expensively earned the answers to?

Sincerely,

Leslie Nordman :-)

Edited by - Leslie Nordman on 12/15/2002 15:29:04

Edited by - Leslie Nordman on 12/15/2002 22:47:55