New invention: hybrid between bullpup and conventional firearms

**Qtrborecrazy** · March 15th, 2017, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by ammo

While I've not had time to delve into viewing all of the information you've posted, I must advise you, with all due respect, to contact either US and/or International patent attorneys for this if you've not done so already.

Now I've got a craving for Pho!

My thoughts also and I'll for go the Pho.

**Berncly** · March 15th, 2017, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by DK23

That's because it takes phoever to make. Some of my Asian friends make it, but only when a lot of people are over because it's a waste to make it in small portions.

Yeah I hear ya.
The restaurants that do it right cook it in a pot big enough to take a bath in.

**fallenleader** · March 15th, 2017, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Rosco the Iroc

ah, uh,mmm,ok that's neat.

Don't know why you posted it on PAFOA. Or what your asking, I assume your asking for something.

"As the independent inventor, I am looking for feedback, comment, and cooperation to design, build and market this invention"
and investors i'd say. which in all is fine, if it's allowed per rules.

my main question is, what purpose does this serve? the bullpup is a design that eliminates some problems with a conventional rifle. has the benefit of providing a more compact package.
a standard rifle has benefits over a bullpup and doesn't suffer the issue of placing your cheek against an explosive action.
it may be "fun" to have both in one, like a .22/.410 combo gun but what purpose does this product serve other than fun or coolness?

contact a patent office as others have said. there are countless patents on file for things that make either no sense or no sense to patent, future proofing. if anyone wants to do something similar, bam already patented against it. one day your concept might be the next double barrel pump or dual tube pump. or some other kooky thing that sells like the airbow.

**Royinmontco** · March 15th, 2017, 07:30 PM

Not sure if you know or not, but for patents, in the US, it's "first to file" - so hopefully you've filed. If not, disclosing here was a big mistake.

Secondly...... WHY?

**Berncly** · March 15th, 2017, 07:39 PM

I don't know what others are thinking, but my feeling is that the OP is suspect.
I find it highly doubtful that a private citizen (subject) can design and build firearms in communist Vietnam.
It is also suspect that said weapons designer would post legitimate firearms designs on this website.
My original thought was that the attachments were suspect and should not be opened.

**39flathead** · March 15th, 2017, 07:41 PM

Meh, I can see his idea having some usefulness in military applications.

A soldier could field the "standard" rifle while out on patrol and if the need for close quarters arose it could be switched into the bullpup mode.

Not saying it's practical, but I could see at least some limited scenarios where it might be useful.

**fallenleader** · March 15th, 2017, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Berncly

I don't know what others are thinking, but my feeling is that the OP is suspect.
I find it highly doubtful that a private citizen (subject) can design and build firearms in communist Vietnam.
It is also suspect that said weapons designer would post legitimate firearms designs on this website.
My original thought was that the attachments were suspect and should not be opened.

this kind of went without saying. especially after people were more concerned with food than the designs.
and this
"2/ Personal opinion about hunting
As the sole inventor, I am against the killing of animal for any purpose, which mostly means hunting for fun or for food. Anyone must agree with this condition to buy or use the invention"
i mean... i did mention eating the neighbors. but i also love critters. deer and bunnies, turkeys and ducks even squirrels.

Originally Posted by 39flathead

Meh, I can see his idea having some usefulness in military applications.

A soldier could field the "standard" rifle while out on patrol and if the need for close quarters arose it could be switched into the bullpup mode.

Not saying it's practical, but I could see at least some limited scenarios where it might be useful.

the barrel length is the same so there is no advantage in longer ranges, he could field the M4 or the bullpup at all times. shame we couldn't utilize threaded barrel extensions. impossible to get rifling to line up?

firearm simplicity is a good thing, if it breaks, it should be easy to fix. this does not look like it's making anything more simple.
KISS and do one thing, do it well.

**Berncly** · March 15th, 2017, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by fallenleader

this kind of went without saying.

Sorry, I can be a little slow to the trough at times.
I didn't actually read much of the posts other than the intro.

**Bang** · March 15th, 2017, 08:52 PM

Generally, over decades of living, I do not believe I have seen a two-in-one design that did not do both jobs at 80 percent, as opposed to a dedicated design which reaches 100 percent. The designs on paper look interesting. The losses due to compromises would show up in the real world. Guess one can only contemplate what the product accomplishes, and is it needed.

**lemd** · March 16th, 2017, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Rosco the Iroc

ah, uh,mmm,ok that's neat.

Don't know why you posted it on PAFOA. Or what your asking, I assume your asking for something.

Uh, thank you

What? Oh, I posted a firearm design on a firearm forum? Of course for discussion about the invention, what is good, what is bad in my design... and make contact if possible, if anyone of you works for the industry.

Regards