Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at


  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Better not get the pistol grips mixed up.
    Looks cool though.

    • do people really carry grenade launchers with one in the pipe?

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        I have no idea. Good question.
        I guess it’s conceivable that the launcher might have a reliable safety. Still sounds dangerous.

        • LCON

          Grenade launchers have a safety if you look carefully you can see the safety switch above the shooter’s right thumb

        • they do have distance safeties in that the rounds dont explode unless the grenades go a certain distance but I do imagine that accidental discharges from a 40mm could be a lot worse than one from a rifle or pistol.

      • Rocket Fiend

        Yes. M203 has an external safety as well as a minimum arming distance in each grenade. I carried one in the pipe as a team leader. (0311)

  • Sermon 7.62

    Bullpup sucks. Big time.

    • Alex Agius

      And yet many armies have fielded them sucessfully for many years.

      Are they massively superior to conventional arms as some bullpup fanatics would have you believe? No of course not.

      Do they have shortcomings? Of course they do, everything does.

      But do they suck “big time”? I would say not. To suck “big time” they’d have to be inferior in every way to conventional rifles and they are not. They offer a smaller OAL without sacrificing barrel length, pretty much everything else (trigger pull, reliability etc.) will depend on which bullpup it is. Some bullpups suck (just as some conventional rifles suck) but that doesn’t mean the concept of having the firearm’s action behind its trigger group is invalid or “sucks”.

      And I know people will bring up the whole “if bullpups are so good why isn’t the US army using them” the answer is simple, no bullpup (or any gun btw) is good enough to justify replacing the ar15/m16 platform.

      • Sermon 7.62

        Bullpup’s ergonomics is the reason it sucks. Clinical state of retardation is required to like it.

        • roguetechie

          The ergonomics argument is overblown… Mostly by people who believe that the definition of ergonomics is “has controls exactly matching the AR15”.

          I own AR’s, I like AR’s but I still regret selling my AUG immensely. Honestly the kel tec RDB has shown a great possible solution to the single truly legitimate complaint against most bullpups. That being magazine position, especially when wearing body armor. By keeping the magazine slightly more forward it should be more convenient when using body armor.

          Honestly with everything you need on a combat rifle these days, I’d think people would start appreciating the bullpup design more.

          So, no you don’t have to be stupid to appreciate bullpups… However, to make blanket statements like that a low IQ and or deficiency in flexible thinking can nearly always be found as contributing factors.

          • Sermon 7.62

            For me, the best ergonomics is that of AK. People in the US misunderstand it and complain about it all the time, struggling to run it like AR, using the left hand for charging and reloads.

          • Evan

            AK ergonomics are horrid. You actually LIKE that puny pistol grip and that ridiculous selector switch?

          • Sermon 7.62

            In the cold, it’s fine.

            Search: “Tribute to Mikhail Kalashnikov and the AK-47”.

          • Evan

            In the cold, AR ergonomics are fine, too. The only thing good about the AK ergonomics is the right side charging handle, and that would be better if it was non-reciprocating

          • Sermon 7.62

            No it wouldn’t. The charging handle is attached to the operating rod of the piston. In the cold, if the piston freezes, pulling the charging handle releases it. It it was non-reciprocating that wouldn’t be possible.

            As for the AR ergoes in the cold, ask people from Alaska. That small fire selector, and all these small buttons are hard to operate with thick gloves on.

          • Evan

            Ok, but if the piston ISN’T frozen, and it usually isn’t, the reciprocating charging handle sucks.

            And if you think AR controls are hard to use with thick gloves, I imagine you’ve never tried. I found it quite simple.

          • Sermon 7.62

            That’s because it wasn’t cold enough. In Russia, the piston is going to freeze. Norwegian soldiers complain about this, too. Their HK 416s suck in the cold.

          • Evan

            Well, seeing as how AKs have primarily been used in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa, it isn’t really an issue. And even Russia isn’t frozen all year.

          • Sermon 7.62

            AK’s ergonomics are the best, because the fire selector is big and tight, and the charging handle too. And the stock is rock solid. And it is comfortable to use in all conditions.

          • Evan

            The selector switch is atrocious, the stock and pistol grip are small and oddly shaped, the charging handle is pretty good but would be better if non-reciprocating, and overall there are many things to be said in favor of the AK, but ergonomics isn’t one of them.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Go catch a Pokemon

          • Evan

            Great deflection, but I have better things to do with my life. Now tell me how the lack of last round hold open on the AK is the best feature ever, and how AK sights are superior to all others.

          • Sermon 7.62

            M70 has this “bolt hold open” feature. But it’s not as important as people think. Even L. Vickers said that. You can’t feel it in a stressful situation.

            In Russia, it is a common practice to load 2 or 3 tracers first in the mag, and then as you see the tracer you know there’s one or two rounds left. You seek a place for reloading, or go prone and leave the last round in the chamber. Then you reload.

            As for the sights, the open sights are superior because they are faster for target acquisition than the peep sights. The open sights are also better in the dusk, and in the rain. The open sight are the best sights for close range combat.

          • Evan

            In the US military, we load a couple tracers in as well, it’s a good visual signal to prepare for a mag change. The hold open still helps. And peep sights are infinitely better than open sights. It is quite easy to acquire targets virtually instantly with peep sights, and if you have enough light to see sights at all, peep sights work as well as open sights, and having done my share of shooting in the rain, peep sights work fine there too. Yes, it is possible for water to get in them (as it is with open sights), but a quick swipe of the finger clears them. The best sights for close quarter combat are holographic optics like an EOTech, iron sights of any kind work, but open sights have no noticeable advantage.

            Oh, and you may notice that the AK12 has an AR style selector switch.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Peep sights require a second to find the aperture, and the open sights are instant. Using peep sights you have to look through the aperture. Right?

            And I don’t like AK12.

          • Evan

            Using peep sights, you have to look through the aperture, that is correct. It takes no longer to do so than it does to align open sights. I find I can actually acquire sight alignment faster with peep sights, though I admit that this is partially biased as I have never had any formal training on open sights.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Here is the point. I admit it takes more time to get nice with the open sights, and peep sights are better for sport shooting. But for the close range open sights are the best.

            In the US people just don’t know that open sights require using special techniques, like shooting “under the apple” instead of “in the apple”. Also, most people in the US don’t know how to zero AK sights.

          • Evan

            I’ll admit I have no idea how to zero AK sights, I didn’t even realize they were adjustable. I also don’t know how to lead a target with open sights, which I can do fine with peep sights. And I don’t even know the phrases “under/in the apple”.

          • Sermon 7.62
          • Tritro29

            Nope, AK-12 has a classic selector from 35/40 years ago (Vz selector works in the same way than “new AK-12”, first BARS rifles had the same, the Dragunov MA had the same system. The AK selector choice was an industrial one, not a know-how one.

            Nope peep sights aren’t “better” than open sights for a couple of reasons, case, first being peripheral vision, otherwise you wouldn’t need collimators OR magnified optics.

            Let’s say that peep sights work better for a specific set of tasks (focused aim, with enough time per shot) but they aren’t better suited for most of them. Hell people have shot 500+m with Mauser style sights for ages, don’t seem to recall the Germans being inferior soldiers to the Brits…

          • Evan

            The AK12 has what looks like an AR selector right by the pistol grip.

            And yes, open sights work. I didn’t say they don’t. They don’t do anything that peep sights don’t do as well or better.

            Whether the Germans were inferior to the British is completely irrelevant to a discussion of sights, it has to do mostly with training and leadership. The Mauser and Lee-Enfield are both excellent rifles.

          • Tritro29

            Ignorance shouldn’t be your guide. The AK-12 selector looks nowhere near the AR, nor does the AR selector predates tactile switches from weapons like the STG (for instance). Once again, the AK-12 setup is an old and very unrefined solution the Soviet Union had ages ago, but that for industrial reasons it didn’t applied. Like peep sights…Peep sights especially the one on the M16/M4 family have a bigger focal impediment (around 20% more) than AK sights. That’s due to the fact the sight is slotted between two “walls”. Garand peep sights were almost as practical for combat fire than Mauser sights, too bad the peep sights makes it very hard for people with less than perfect vision to coordinate. This is why hundreds of biathletes in Russia are pushed out of the pro-circuit despite them being more than able to shoot with simple open sights (because of focal blur)

            Lol, yet both of those rifles rely on a different training, and that training encompasses different tools, the aperture sight doesn’t work the same way as a half plane sight (open). Mentally the half plane is the most difficult to acquire, but the most effective to execute on all circumstances. While the peep sight is the most easy to acquire but the most difficult to execute on all circumstances.

            One relies on a longer motion to set, the other on a shorter one (longer vs shorter sight radius). This is almost eliminated with the M4…if it wasn’t for the carry handle ‘walls’.

          • Sermon 7.62

            The sight radius of M4 is about the same as AK.

          • Tritro29

            That’s what i said…the M4 deletes the M16 issue. But not the walls.

          • If you measure I think you’ll find the AK has a shorter sight radius.

          • Sermon 7.62
          • Anything will freeze in extreme cold but that can be mitigated using the proper lube made for that kind of cold.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Tell this to Norwegian soldiers

      • Zachary marrs

        France is looking to replace the FAMAS

        New Zealand just adopted LMT AR’s over their AUGs

        The only country to adopt bullpups in recent past is Isreal.

        • Vitsaus

          So, the country that is constantly tested in its internal security, constantly at a state of ready against its neighbors, and requires that soldiers blend in with the population at all times because at any moment war can break out…. good comparison.

          • Zachary marrs

            Who said anything about a comparison? I listed countries that are moving away from bullpups, and the one country that has made a (relatively) recent move to bullpups.

            Besides, Israel still uses tons of AR pattern rifles, much like every country that uses bullpups.

          • mig1nc

            I think he makes a valid point though. Of the countries that have moved away from the bullpup, none have the combat experience of Israel. Perhaps they see the need to have a simpler to operate system for their less experienced (and mostly conscript) armies. Not to say Israel doesn’t have a mostly conscript army, but they tend to take it a little bit more seriously since they are under constant threat, unlike the previously mentioned armies.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Israelis have a couple of batallions capable of fighting, but most of the job is done by the air support and tanks, and the soldiers break into houses at night and kidnap people, or patrol the streets and act in general more like the police. I have friends in Israel and I heard it from them. Israeli soldiers don’t fight.

            The reason Israel has adopted bullpup is that their troops use tanks for transportation, and in the confined space inside their M4 carbines are loo long for them. Also, because, like I said a big part of their job is to arrest people in their homes, so a short rifle is preferrable to them.

        • Nicholas C

          You left out Singapore and their Bullpup. China has a lot of bull pups as well.

          • Zachary marrs

            By “recent” i mean in the last 16 years”

            But yes, you are correct

        • Tritro29

          … Not because the concept behing the bullpup, but for monetary and production reasons.

          France has no more means to build its own rifle and thus turned to the more “economical” solution.

          New Zealand asked for a modernization of their EF 88 and the only offer was twice the money for new COTS rifles.

          There are also a few countries that adopted a bull pup.

          Belgium bought 2000 F2000’s; Slovenia about 10000 F2000’s. Croatia two orders of roughly 20 000 VHS rifles. 7000 already paid.

          Saudi “I don’t know what I’m doing” Arabia, bought 50 thousand F2000’s.

          Shall I stop here or will the morale improve with more beatings?

          And China also adopted a bull-pup, before switching to “normal”, both because of less than perfect design and issues with quality production.

          • Zachary marrs

            Whatever you say, captian.

          • Tritro29

            Facts over bollocks. You know, keeping it real etc…

      • SP mclaughlin

        Don’t forget the US Army does have the bullpup XM25.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      Very insightful.

      • Sermon 7.62

        I can see through bullsh*t

        • TheNotoriousIUD

          Of course you can.

        • A bearded being from beyond ti


    • iksnilol

      I’d say they have their advantages. Like with that grenade launcher there, with the bullpup being nose light the GL won’t mess up the balance as much as it would on an conventional layout rifle.

      • Sermon 7.62

        That’s a point, of course, but it looks more like an impractical solution for the problem to me.

    • For you but certainly not for everyone.

  • dave

    logistically, this kinda sucks. for a grenade launcher it should be basically plug and play. mount the launcher, donezo.
    with this you have to mount the launcher, mount the aiming device and change out the grip.
    but hey, whatever works for them.

    • mechamaster

      You can see the gap in the grip actually, it is 2- separate piece grip, if you take out the grenade launcher, your main rifle grip is still intact.

      I see similar system in modern rifle like the ARX160, FN2000, VHS-2, and other has similar sytem to mount the underbarrel launcher. You have to mount the grenade sight manually too, even the grenade launcher module is Quick-detachable.

      **The only grenade launcher that has built-in sight and true ‘plug-and-play’ system is russian GP-34 family and M320 if I’m not mistaken.

    • jono102

      Plug and Play for a grenade launcher is up there with QC barrels on in service rifles. A nice feature but not a driving requirement. Soldiers aren’t going to be swapping 40mm launchers or barrels in the field, and its more of a “Look what we can do” from companies. Its useful back in camp/base being able to remove the parts at individual level for cleaning and maintenance.

  • Martin Grønsdal

    in a stressed situation, the soldier may hold the wrong grip….

    • david

      You usually don’t carry a single-shot grenade launcher in condition 1. They also have safeties.

      • Mario AK

        It’s not about grenade safeties, but a potential loss of operational capacity with the main rifle. Think imaginary malfunction.

    • mechamaster

      It has separate safety switch, plus the grenade launcher pistol grip position is lower and in forward position than the main rifle grip.

      Plus the grenade launcher trigger is double action too if I’m not mistaken, so it feels different.

      • Martin Grønsdal

        Sure. In combat, however, it may not be as obvious

        • jono102

          I think if that was so much of an issue the grenade launcher on the SCAR or the F-90/EF-88 etc would be different too. They both require minimal movement of the master hand/trigger finger between the rifle trigger and grenade launcher trigger to fire.
          To use the 40mm sights generally requires a change in position and hold making movement between the trigger groups a lot easier to remember or note. From there its just training and repetition.

    • Al Wise

      That’s what training is for.

      • Martin Grønsdal

        I am sure that in your special forces unit, where each have 15 years of combat experience, that wouldn’t be a problem.

        An IDF soldier in his first year may get overwhelmed, however.

  • Matt Shermer

    How can it be stable if it’s secured by a single push pin? Does the X95 have a rear cradle by the cutlass grip?

    • mechamaster

      It’s picatiny rail mounted + Push Pin actually, like the ARX160 grenade launcher too. ( you can check it in the Youtube for clarification )

  • jono102

    It is just a further extension to go to an underslung 40mm on the X95 for them. Better than doing what some armies have done and have a standard service rifle and another rifle type to run the M-203/40mm from. Having carried the M-79 on top of a rifle in a light Inf Bn, I’d definitely go for an underslung/203 option. Units doing short duration/spec tasks can afford to have a sleeve strapped to their backs for a stand alone but in a light Inf unit it is a massive pain.
    The M-203 is fine but the likes of the H&K M-320 and Colt Canada Eagle are getting to bulky and are more of a stand alone tacked onto a rifle. Never had an issue with weight carrying a Steyr or M4 with an M-203 and would generally question any soldier who did

  • Sermon 7.62

    That’s right. AK beats them all.

    The first bullpup was designed in Russia, and the second too. Korobov TKB-408. It lost the trials to AK because of bad ergonomics.

    • Tritro29

      Nope it lost to the AK because it took roughly 30 hours to make per unit…(and had like twice the parts). It had issues with the stamped receiver, and milling it would render production longer. It had more failures (65 in total for the first 2000 rounds, receiver and bolt lasted less than the 5000 shots required) for the trials.

      Oh and funny part, it had accuracy consistencies. Also that’s not the first bullpup (in Russia that is). The Korovin one came about 2 years ahead. And others in Italy had tried to make “bullpups” in semi auto. The French in bolt action and the Brits as well.

      No need to become SuperPatriot.

      • Sermon 7.62

        I am a lot of things, but “patriot” is not one of them. I like AK because it’s gorgeous and tough, not because it’s Russian.

        • Tritro29

          My bad, but basically you’re still wrong. But still wrong assumption on my behlaf. Cheers.

  • Sermon 7.62

    Thanks, but I meant the first automatic bullpup, that was good enough to be considered for adoption as a service rifle.

    • Tritro29

      Still two years late behind Korovin. And about a decade late to the Italian bullpup attempts (even though it was on SMG cartdrige).

  • Evan

    I’ve always been a big fan of the AR charging handle. When you think of other designs, like the G3 or FAL, the AR wins in the charging handle department hands down (not saying that those are bad rifles, the FAL especially is awesome, but still). I don’t understand what people don’t like about the AR charging handle.

    • Tritro29

      The fact it’s an off balance movement (both hands on the back of the rifle) while aiming…ergonomics. Just not the way you think. While you can aim down with a G3…On a bipod/supported/concealed position the G3 is better. War is not speed reloads on your back yard.