View Full Version : Bullpup HD shotgun. Why the heck not?

October 29, 2000, 01:06 PM
In the thread about dream guns several of us want a Bullpup Shotgun. (Thats where the action is in the buttstock for those of you who aren't familiar with the concept).

The negatives of a bullpup rifle are the ejection being difficult for lefties and having all that gas in your face. But with a pump shotgun this isn't a problem at all. On a semi, if the gun is tube fed, the tube can be on top of the barrel and eject downward, or it can be under the barrel and eject downward like the BPS or Ithica, and still no gas or ejection problems.

The guns could be shorter, lighter, and still have very controllable recoil because of the straight line of the stock.

My question is why doesn't anybody make one of these here in the states? As somebody said in the other thread, purpose built, not jury-rigged with wires and junk. I bet that Remington, Winchester, or Mossberg could build one of these and sell it for under $500. I bet they would sell like hotcakes.

The older bullpups out there suffered from some design problems, the Mossberg took three hands to operate and pointed like a fence post.

So why doesn't somebody build one of these? Any guesses, opinions?

Jeff, CA
October 29, 2000, 03:42 PM
Too short per NFA?

Too much $ to develop a totally new design for the relatively small (I'm guessing) HD market? HD shotguns, are, for the most part, just sporters with short barrels, long magazine tubes and black paint.

Al Thompson
October 29, 2000, 04:40 PM
Didn't both High Standard and Mossberg make one? The HS was a semi, the Mossberg a pump.

Seems there was just not enough consumer demand.

As for NFA status - as long as it's not under the limit (27 inches?) it should be fine.


Shawn Dodson
October 29, 2000, 08:43 PM
My father once had a Mossberg bullpup style shotgun about 20 years ago. I handled it but never got the chance to fire it before it was stolen.

/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute (http://www.firearmstactical.com)

October 29, 2000, 10:16 PM
The HS was before its time I think. And the Mossberg had some ergonomic problems caused by it being a regular gun adapted to the bullpup role. I think in our current climate, a bullpup designed to be a bullpup would see like crazy.

October 30, 2000, 09:47 AM
I too remember the Mossberg bullpup -- I wanted one in the worst way during middle/high school (late 1980s). You can still see some at gunshows for $350-400 in my area.

One thing I seem to remember about the Mossberg bullpup was that it had a high carry handle, much like the AR15 but more square. For anyone who remembers, were the sights on top of the carry handle too?


Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

October 30, 2000, 12:02 PM

October 30, 2000, 12:04 PM

General Tso
October 30, 2000, 01:58 PM
You can still find both the High Standard 10A and B's and the Mossberg bullpups occasionaly at gun shows. The High Standards are big money now though, Typically $800 and up. The Mossbergs are between $300 and high $400's.

I think[ that Gun Parts Corp still has Mossberg factory conversion kits to turn your regular 500 into a bullpup and they were selling for about $250 bucks. That and a 500 will bring you in under $500 if they still have them.

The Mossbergs weren't bad. I kinda liked the feel and balance of them although I never fired one. I had a chance at a High Standard about 10 years ago too. Guy wanted to trade me for either an Ar-15 or a SPAS-12 (can't remember which I was selling at the time). I passed on it although it was an intrigueing design.

Here's the link to Gun parts list of 500 Bullpup parts. I don't see the full conversion kit here but it is listed in thier print catalog.


Oleg Volk
October 30, 2000, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gizmo99:
Didn't both High Standard and Mossberg make one? The HS was a semi, the Mossberg a pump. Seems there was just not enough consumer demand.[/quote]

High Standard sold only to Police, at least when they brought out the gun. Mossberd is an ergonomic nightmare with lousy sights and a hefty recoil.

Dave McC
November 1, 2000, 01:00 PM
I'm not strongly for or against the bullpup design. I AM against unreliable, awkward wepoans, and the bullpups haven't felt "right",at least in the ones I've handled and the few I've shot. I'm sure mo' shooting would adjust me, but I do fine with the standard one. As for reliability, My hunch is that designing and building a purpose built bullpup would be right expensive, and the market would be limited, due to the excellent HD/Tactical/WIHTF shotguns available now.

Badger Arms
November 3, 2000, 10:17 PM
We've gotten off the orig. post here a bit. Everybody is talking about the Mossberg and High Standard. IMHO, neither of these was anything but a bad compromise. They were both designed from full-sized guns. What Correia and I were getting at was making a gun in much the same way that Steyr did with the Aug and the French did with the FAMAS. These guns are well thought-out and work as well as or better than their full-size competition.

What I'd like to see is a bullpup that ejects from the bottom. Based on the Browning design used in the BPS, Ithaca 37, and Remington, you can build a gun that is legal (over 26" long with an 18" or longer barrel).

I disagree that it should have the magazine on top. The advantage to this is that the line of the bore will line up with the shoulder better and therefore less muzzle rise. The disadvantage is that you'd then need some sort of contraption to load it. You could not load the gun from the ejection port as you can with current bottom feeders. I think there should be one port on the bottom for loading and ejection.

The main problem is having a proper trigger mounted far forward of the action. Doing this requires drawbars to work well. These should not merely pull the trigger at the rear of the gun but act directly on the sear as in an automatic pistol of like design.

The gun HAS to have a good deal of plastic. The receiver should be polymer for the purpose of ballance and having a warm cheek rest. I'm not talking the plastic used in the High Standard or Mossberg, I'm talking Glock or Benelli Nova style plastic utilization here.

The sighting device should be a strong, reliable type such as a raised rail or solid tube with ghost ring and bead enclosed.

There should be a guard on the foreend to prevent the hand from sliding forward over the muzzle. Controls on the gun should be located within easy reach of the trigger finger. There should be Two controls: 1) Selector with three positions. One for safe, one for fire and one for "slam-fire" when desired. 2) slide release.

I'll rate the South-African design here from what I've READ as I haven't handled the gun. I like the twin magazine idea. I think I can get used to the 'pump-forward' design after a while much like I got used to the H&K P-7 squeeze cocker. I don't think it will be light and handy enough. Nor do I believe it will be reliable enough for me. It's a new design and seems to have a good deal of gadgets on it. I doubt it will ever be avialable.

November 4, 2000, 01:27 PM
Badger is right on the money. Thats what I want. Not a compromise but a real gun designed just for that purpose. I like the idea of having it encased in a plastic shell like the nova as well.

As far as R&D money, the bolt needs little or no experimentation. And the trigger could be based on any number of different bullpups out there like the Aug, or FAMAS.

November 5, 2000, 01:04 AM
I had a Mossberg bullpup..it looked nice but was just too darned heavy.. I bought it long time ago and eventually sold it cuz I needed the money wish I didnt because i hardly ever see them any more :(

"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"