Charles St. George and the Bushmaster M17-S Bullpup

By olegv published on in General, News

M17-S bullpup with a reflex sight.

M17-S bullpup with a reflex sight.

In Bushmaster’s product line-up, the M17-S bullpup was always the odd one. It shared a few components with the AR-15 rifle, but remained more of a low-volume curiosity for its entire 13-year product run. This rifle has its origins in the Leader T2 rifle mentioned last week. In 1986 the Australian Army invited bids to replace the L1A1 rifle. Charles St.George submitted an improved select-fire version of the Leader T2 designated the M18. The M18 used a short stroke piston and a gas regulator, with the non-reciprocating charging handle, bolt carrier and two action rods of the T2. The plunger ejector was changed to a fixed ejector like the Stoner 63. A folding stock was added. Beta light sighting system was to be standard. The Australian army eventually adopted the Steyr AUG instead and produced it under a license as F88.

The designer with his rifle.

The designer with his rifle.

Charles re-designed the trigger mechanism and converted the M18 into a bullpup rifle named the ART30. Once fully developed it was licensed to Bushmaster as M17-S. Probably to make use of more common parts, the U.S. version used AR-15 type plunger and a further altered trigger mechanism. A heavier extruded receiver added noticeable extra weight. The lower receiver was also altered  in a way which made stripping and removal of the bolt carrier assembly more difficult. Rudimentary emergency open sights were built into the “carry handle”, but it was expected that an optical sight would be used. At the time, the reliance on optics for a defensive rifle was considered a flaw by most.

Partly as the result of those changes, the rifle came out somewhat heavy, with a spongy trigger and tended to retain heat. The heavy weight was mitigated by the excellent balance and very low felt recoil. With right-hand only ejection, it was also an awkward fit for left-handed users. Since bullpups were new, few training materials existed and most shooters viewed the manual of arms as awkward. One major plus of the M17-S was its use of the standard STANAG magazine. During the ban years (1994-2004), AUG magazines were extremely expensive, while AR-15 magazines remained at least somewhat affordable. The rifle itself cost about two-thirds of an AR-15 because the design allowed cost-effective manufacturing.

K&M modified M17S with 1-4x GRSC scope

K&M modified M17S with 1-4x GRSC scope

Recently, I test-fired an M17-S modified by K&M Aerospace. The modification started with ventilating the receiver to reduce weight by half a pound and to improve air flow. Combined with the already thick barrel, the ventilation greatly improved the sustained fire capability. Use of a vertical foregrip further insulated the support hand from the barrel heat. The “carry handle” was removed and replaced with two rails, permitting the use of standard AR-15 optics and other accessories. The longer rail also provided useful separation between the front and rear backup sights. Because of the central balance of the original rifle, addition of accessories didn’t make the gun too front heavy. Fired with GRSC 1-4x scope set to 4x, this modified rifle shot at 2MOA from prone with plain American Eagle 55gr ball. Surprisingly, the mechanical noise of the operating parts was not noticeable at all.

The major issues with the M17-S —weight, trigger quality and awkward take-down—have been addressed in the next rifle designed by St.George. I will cover it in the next chapter of this tale.

Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (7)

  • redfish

    |

    100 rounds, 10 minutes, warm, not hot. My stock is ribbed, the first ones were not.

    Reply

  • seth scheller

    |

    I did 6 years in the USA infantry and i would say this rifle is better then the m4 colt.
    i have shoot over 600rds throw my m17s and no issues. with dime size grouping at 50 yrds is only shows how well the rifle works. never had over heating problem.
    trigger pull is like perfect. m17s p01885

    Reply

  • Samuel Anderson

    |

    I own one of the first versions of the M-17. I’m crazy about Bull-pups and so this is on my collection. However, there are two issues with the first version.

    1. I can adjust my pull of the trigger and if I squeeze lightly I can get a round off. If I squeeze too hard, it’s ROCK’N’ROLL baby! I have also learned how to squeeze off 3 round bursts and 8 round bursts. After contacting Bushmaster about this, they corrected that issue. However, the trigger has always been a touchy item with this rifle. You can’t predict when that round will go off compared to an AR-15/M-16. It surprises you each and every time. I don’t like this part.

    2. Although this new design is nice looking and appears to separate the heat from the shooters cheek, it still doesn’t talk about it. How come? I shoot that rifle wit one round and it is very warm. After the third round, it is very hot. By the seventh round I am FORCED to put the weapon down. It’s too damn hot! There you go. A .223 Bullpup rifle you can only shoot a few rounds with.

    As solid as it is, I like it. It’s simple and feels great. But, this heat issue needs to be addressed heavily in topic, not just “the ventilation greatly improved the sustained fire capability.” Come on, talk about it. Does this weapon still have the heat issue let’s say after 15 rounds now, or one mag? It sure looks sexier and I like it, but I won’t buy it and I suggest to all you readers out there to NOT spend your money on this weapon until they address this heat issue because unless you don’t have nerves in your face, your skin will melt off and cook on that aluminum wrap.

    Reply

  • olegv

    |

    It worked fairly well for me, probably because the barrel is quite heavy. Almost all military bolt action rifles placed barrels under tension and it worked reasonably well. We are not talking about match accuracy but it shoots rather better than an a typical AKM.

    Reply

  • neutrino_cannon

    |

    My recollection from reading the manual is that the receiver placed the barrel under tension in this design. Is that the case, and if so, how well did it work?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


− three = 6