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 04-07-2018, 08:42 PM   #1
Minuteman37
 
Minuteman37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
Default .280 British Stats?

Has anyone done a write up on the best cartridge never adopted? Seems like a good candidate for the Reloading Press.
Minuteman37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 09:25 PM   #2
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minuteman37 View Post
Has anyone done a write up on the best cartridge never adopted? Seems like a good candidate for the Reloading Press.
Noted! I should have time tomorrow.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 09:40 PM   #3
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minuteman37 View Post
Has anyone done a write up on the best cartridge never adopted? Seems like a good candidate for the Reloading Press.
There's a 3e version of the EM2 rifle in GURPS WWII: All The King's Men. It translates to 4e as something like:

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.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 07:53 AM   #4
Ji ji
 
Ji ji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Default 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.
Ji ji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 02:06 PM   #5
acrosome
 
acrosome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Default 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.
acrosome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 03:21 PM   #6
warellis
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default 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:
Sure, the gap is not bigger than that of other rifles. Although, I have seen an AK go down due to debris getting in the charging handle slot and causing the fire control to malfunction.

I don't "hate on" intermediate* cartridges; I am critical of the arguments made by their proponents for military use. I like intermediate rounds a lot, in fact. I'd love a hunting rifle in something bigger than .223 but shorter than .308, for example.

I think there's a lot of stock put in the idea that the .280 British would have drastically changed the American small arms landscape. IIRC, this idea comes primarily from Anthony Williams, who also alleges that the 5.56 was "adopted by accident".

I do not know why he believes this, but it's simply not true. It's very telling, for example that even though the Soviets had a round lighter and with less recoil than the .280, they too felt the need to copy the SCHV concept, as they thought the logistical gains of a lighter round that used fewer resources was too significant to pass up.

And why would the .280 obviate the SCHV program anyway? The development of SCHV rounds was happening mostly inside of Aberdeen early on, and had little to do with the infantry rifle ammunition program then ongoing, which would later produce 7.62 NATO. Further, one of the primary reasons for the Army adopting the AR-15 when it did was the lack of M14 rifles, which ceased being produced in 1964. How would a .280 caliber M14 change this at all?

*By which I mean rounds in between 5.56 and 7.62 in energy, an application of the term I don't wholly approve up, but w/e.
Quote:
I am fairly certain they would still have adopted the AR-15. .280/30 is not much different than 7.62 in terms of size and weight.

Certainly, the work of the SALVO program and the various SCHV experiments in the 1950s were pretty independent of 7.62 development, so I think if .280 had been developed instead of 7.62, SCHV would have progressed along much the same lines as it did.

Realistically, though, I don't see the Americans accepting .280. Not a chance.
Quote:
I forgot how big the .280 was, although still shorter than .308. I was thinking of it being about the size of the 7.62x39.

The SCHV program doesn't necessarily have to lead to the adoption of the .223/AR-15 if the obtained results aren't deemed to be enough of an improvement to make it worth changing and General LeMay meets an untimely end in a bad car crash.

Alternatively, he goes ahead with procuring a separate rifle for the USAF and ends up with an AR-10 in .280. It wouldn't be unheard of for militaries to end up using a variety of arms for whatever reason (mostly interservice rivalry, I suspect).

Iran's Revolutionary Guard's standard rifle is an AKM/Type-56 clone, but the army proper issues license-made G3s. It looks like the French Navy/Marine FAMAS G2s might not be able to use the non-STANAG magazines of the FAMAS F1 still used by the French Army, etc. etc.
Quote:
The basic dimensions of the .280/30 are 12mmx65mm (width x length), compared to the 7.62x51's 12x71mm. The .280 also weighs over 20 grams, compared to 24.2 for 7.62 NATO. They are very similar in most respects.

For some reason, their differences have been exaggerated by some writers. Often, the .280 British is compared to 6.8 SPC; not only do those two rounds not have particularly similar performance, the 6.8 is 10.8x57.4mm and about 17 grams in weight - much smaller.

Isn't that an admission that the .280 alone couldn't preclude the adoption of SCHV? And isn't that itself an admission that at the time SCHV had enough merit to warrant adoption?

Further, keep in mind that the Army had gooned up producing the M14: By 1964, production of it had ended. Ordnance maintained that the revolutionary SPIW was right around the corner, but McNamara wasn't buying it and forced them to provide rifles in the meantime; the obvious choice at the time being the AR-15.
warellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 04:09 PM   #7
acrosome
 
acrosome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Default 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.
acrosome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 04:49 PM   #8
Minuteman37
 
Minuteman37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrosome View Post
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'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.
Minuteman37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 08:29 PM   #9
acrosome
 
acrosome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minuteman37 View Post
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.
You have almost certainly only seen information on the T2, which yes was over-powered. You have to look really hard to find information on the original PD-42, which was much closer to being an actual intermediate cartridge. It wasn't, mind you, but it was closer.
acrosome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2018, 12:49 AM   #10
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default 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."
Rupert is online now   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 01:50 AM.


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