04-07-2018, 08:42 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
|
.280 British Stats?
Has anyone done a write up on the best cartridge never adopted? Seems like a good candidate for the Reloading Press.
|
04-07-2018, 09:25 PM | #2 |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Noted! I should have time tomorrow.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
04-07-2018, 09:40 PM | #3 | |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
Damage: 6d Acc: 5 Range: 600/2500 Weight: 9.25/1.4 RoF: 10 Shots: 20+1 ST: 10† Bulk: -5 Rcl: 2 LC: 2 Cost is difficult to translate from the different basis of the G:WWII line, but would be something like $1200/35.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
|
04-08-2018, 07:53 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
I have some but the equations are slightly different from standard GURPS’.
It’s 6d+1, wounding mod 1.2, recoil 3. 140 grains FMJ out of a 3.6kg rifle with 20” barrel. As a reference, 5.56 NATO is 5d x0.7 and 7.62 NATO is 7d-1 x1.6. |
04-08-2018, 02:06 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Pffft. A hollow copy of the original .276 Pedersen. (Meaning the PD-42, not the later T2 that was a result of Ordnance Corps meddling and with which it is often confused.)
'Murica! More seriously, here is the beginnings of my take on an alternate .276 timeline.
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. |
04-08-2018, 03:21 PM | #6 | ||||
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Here is info on the .280 British you might like:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ended-edition/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...f-weekly-dtic/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...the-m1-garand/ And some stuff from the comments in the 3rd link: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
04-08-2018, 04:09 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
For those who found all of that confusing, SCHV means "small-caliber, high velocity," of which the 5.56x45mm NATO round was an early example.
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. |
04-08-2018, 04:49 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
I've read all that before, its pretty interesting. The .276 looks like a fine cartridge. Though I do think it's adoption would still leave the military eventually wanting somthing slimer and lighter, the stress may be relieved long enough for somthing like the 6.5 Grendel to come along to seced it.
|
04-08-2018, 08:29 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. |
|
04-09-2018, 12:49 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
I used to be a big fan of the idea of an intermediate power cartridge in the 6-7mm range. However, today I think it's actually mostly a 'solution in search of a problem'. 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm have both proven to be perfectly adequate assault rifle rounds, and the 5.56x45mm in particular has proven to have more than enough range for line infantry use.
Even in an intermediate energy, a 6.5-7mm round would weigh more than the 5.56mm rounds in current use, and would have a higher recoil energy. What's more, to get usefully better long-range performance they'd need long, heavy bullets at good velocities, and that means they'll be at the higher end of the intermediate power range (i.e. comparable to a 6.5-7mm hunting or old military cartridge in power), for even more cartridge weight, weapon weight, and recoil energy. At this point it's not a general-issue assault rifle replacement, but a long-range specialist weapon, and we already have tons of those in any number of existing full-power cartridges, and any number more existing sporting designs available as well - any new cartridge in this category is just an exercise in trying to lock people into a proprietary round for reasons of profit. Assuming it's worth changing from 5.56x45mm (or 5.45x39mm) to a new round, the replacement would really just be a generational improvement in cartridge geometry - shorter and fatter for a shorter action and more consistent powder burn, longer neck for specialist long-range/heavy bullets, and so on. It might also be worth going to 6mm, but it's just as likely that staying at 5.56mm would be as good. The P90 experience suggest going smaller isn't worth it. I can only see a intermediate 6.5-7mm round making sense today is if everyone decides to issue that to infantry, in a full-length assault rifle, while going back to issuing non-infantry with a lighter carbine in a lighter round, like a PDW round, or an M4-family carbine firing 5.56x45mm with light, low-stability bullets optimised for short range - and currently the trend seems to be to give this as gneral issue, and provide designated marksmen, specialist units, & etc. with full-power rifles. In conclusion, the time for a 6.5-7mm assault rifle round has passed. The US' insistence on a full-power round post-WWII, followed by their jump to 5.56x45mm (and NATO thus perforce following), did for it.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
|