Actually from what I have read, they did mentioned something on the high sight of a typical bullpup rifle. And from some of our members, they mentioned that the sight is actually located on the carrying handle rather than in line with the rifle itself. I believe this might not be by choice. The main issue is the awkward magazine location in which it was loaded somewhere at the stock of the rifle. Thus it the sight was impossible to be inline with the rifle.
For conventional rifle like the AK-47, AK-74, M16 etc, it is possible because the magazine is located infront. Although basic variant of the M16, had its sight also somewhere on the carrying handle, but the weapon is highly customisable, the carrying handle, I believe can be remove (can't really remember, it had been around ten years since I last have any contact with one, and even that one is not the same one as those used in US).
Sometime it is not up to the comfort of individual soldiers and whether they are used to it or not. The main problem would arise in certain cases whereby when they have use higher aiming sight, they would tends to expose themselves more in order to aim and fire their weapon, thus it might give them a bit more risk.
If you have ever handled and studied an M-16, then you would know that it pretty much pioneered the placement of the rear sights in the carrying handle.
I was an armourer for 2 years here in the Philippines and trained with M-16s, M-1 Garand's, M-2 carbines and M-1903 Springfields (which are about as 'conventional as they get) and I can tell you despite the so-called 'unconventional placement' of the the rear sight, the M-16 is by far the easiest to train and shoot with.
The M-16's flatter trajectory, lightweight, low recoil and relatively lower noise make it much easier to shoot and hold on target.
The M-1 Garand and M-1903 Springfield will roll your whole upper torso when fired, removing your sight picture. The M-16 will 'jab' you slightly back - no problem maintaining the target in your field of vision ('sight picture').
I have also fired the AK-47, (we had a Chinese made Type 56) and can say that it recoils somewhat intermediate between the Garand and the Armalite.
As to the placement of the magazine, on the Armalite and Kalashnikov, in the dark you can feel with both hands for the magazine which is immediately in front of the trigger guard, so with little practice it becomes second nature.
On a bullpup, I would expect it to be a little more difficult and awkward, but IMHO, the weight and length saved by the design would still be worth it.
As to the issues of greater blast and flash, those are pretty much inherent in a bullpup design having the muzzle much closer to the shooters' face.
One way to significantly reduce these effects would be to lengthen the barrel - and thus get better muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory in the bargain to boot.
The whole thing actually revolves around the issue of training and getting used to your weapon.
Unless your rifle actually blows up in your face (which has happened here several times with locally manufactured M-16s - made in 2 factories one in Limay, Bataan and the other in Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija), and can reliably hit a target with reasonable accuracy, then is a good weapon.
Seems to me all these 'one-child' family soldiers are a bunch of complaining sissy's. Going to war is not a picnic.
I never heard of any complaints from users of the Steyr AUG (like Australia) about magazine placement and cartridge ejection issues, so I pretty much see this not as a design issue but as a training issue.
