Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2018, 10:00 PM   #71
Kax
 
Kax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: God's Own Country
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
As long as they're metallic they'll be locatable anyway. Now, the plastic needles the Soviets used in some of their 30mm grenades, those are really hard to find in flesh, and caused an outcry as a result.
And the nylon balls in Claymores, which are transparent to X-rays.
__________________
Paul May | MIB 1138 (on hiatus)
Kax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2018, 10:01 PM   #72
Kax
 
Kax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: God's Own Country
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ji ji View Post
I have read another take on the 5.56 debate. The hypothesis was that the 10”-14.5” barrel of carbine-version assault rifles used in various wars could be an important culprit, whereas the standard 20” barrel brings satisfactory effects.

I reckon that barrel length is often overlooked in those discussions and should be carefully considered.

Which is why forward- or downward-eject bullpups are what you want. 20"-24" barrel, no problem.
__________________
Paul May | MIB 1138 (on hiatus)
Kax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2018, 10:10 PM   #73
Kax
 
Kax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: God's Own Country
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
The 7.62mm NATO came after the US had rejected the .280. At the time the 7.62mm did not lose power compared to the issue .30-06 ammo of the time.

However, the reasons that the .280 wasn't adopted were simply that it wasn't invented in the US, and that the US was adamant that the new round must have good performance out to 2000 yards. The US was not acting in good faith during the selection process, either, lying about whether they were developing a new design, among other things.

They were also adamant that anything smaller than 0.30" was not going to be acceptable.

The whole point of the 276/280 was lower recoil, as the 7.62 was rather punishing.

It managed to match all the requirements except size, which would have remove all the advantages.

An older bullet design would have been interesting, BTW; extremely long and aluminium with a gilding metal skirt. Same advantages as a small cal, can use the same barrels as 7.62.
__________________
Paul May | MIB 1138 (on hiatus)
Kax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2018, 10:22 PM   #74
Kax
 
Kax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: God's Own Country
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ji ji View Post
On the other hand, in 3ed GURPS the FN FAL was the best firearm by far :D at least on the core rulebook.

So, to me, it’ll always be a wonder weapon.

And here's a pre-prod FN FAL bullpup that ejects forwards: http://www.nvtech.com.au/ProjPast/GP...ifle/GPIR.html
__________________
Paul May | MIB 1138 (on hiatus)
Kax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2018, 11:00 PM   #75
warellis
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kax View Post
And the nylon balls in Claymores, which are transparent to X-rays.
Those use steel balls, not nylon ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kax View Post
Which is why forward- or downward-eject bullpups are what you want. 20"-24" barrel, no problem.
Except for poor weight and balance distribution. And often being non-ambidextrous.
warellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 03:45 AM   #76
Ji ji
 
Ji ji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kax View Post
And here's a pre-prod FN FAL bullpup that ejects forwards: http://www.nvtech.com.au/ProjPast/GP...ifle/GPIR.html
The author has his personal idea of ideal military cartridge, too:

Quote:
As for me, I think if there were no compelling reasons to stick to existing calibres, the best calibre for infantry use, when all things are considered, is around 6.25mm, a 110 grain projectile, with a muzzle velocity of around 1,000 metres/sec.
A bullet with more power, more penetration and flatter trajectory than the current 7.62x51.
Ji ji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 04:19 AM   #77
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kax View Post
Which is why forward- or downward-eject bullpups are what you want. 20"-24" barrel, no problem.
Forwards ejecting either means a long ejection chute (with potential for jams), or is actually via the top, which has issues with sights interfering. Downward has issues when firing prone.

I used to be a fan of bullpups, but over the years, and after exposure to the Steyr AUG and handling some others, I'm not not so keen, at least for semi-autos.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 04:46 AM   #78
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Forwards ejecting either means a long ejection chute (with potential for jams), or is actually via the top, which has issues with sights interfering. Downward has issues when firing prone..
So caseless is the solve then ;-)!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I used to be a fan of bullpups, but over the years, and after exposure to the Steyr AUG and handling some others, I'm not not so keen, at least for semi-autos.
Hi sorry can I ask what is it about SA that has you not so keen? I'd have thought what issues there are firing SA would be worse in FA (or do you fire FA in a way that's different from SA that mitigates this issues?).

Cheers

James
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course

Last edited by Tomsdad; 05-01-2018 at 06:10 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 05:53 AM   #79
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post

Hi sorry can I ask what is it about SA that has you not so keen? I'd have thought what issues there are firing SA would be worse in FA (of do you fire FA in a way that's different from SA that mitigates this issues?).
Actually, I was thinking in terms of bullpup bolt actions. These have issues of handedness (because the bolt handle tends to sit right by your cheek), but allow very long barrels in reasonable overall lengths. This has uses in civilian hunting and target shooting that can make it worth the costs in ease of reloading, etc. (because these usually aren't that important in a hunting rifle).
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 06:12 AM   #80
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Actually, I was thinking in terms of bullpup bolt actions. These have issues of handedness (because the bolt handle tends to sit right by your cheek), but allow very long barrels in reasonable overall lengths. This has uses in civilian hunting and target shooting that can make it worth the costs in ease of reloading, etc. (because these usually aren't that important in a hunting rifle).
Ah OK got it (sorry yep not the comparison I thought was being made)


cheers

TD
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.