01-31-2010, 06:40 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
It's mostly irrelevant. Overall length and bulk are relevant, and shortening a barrel is a common way of shortening a weapon to make it more compact, but the barrel length of two completely different weapons, without any other data on them, is not going to give any useful information. You could compare two weapons and say that the one with the 14" barrel is shorter than the one with the 20" barrel, but if it ends up that you're comparing a M4A1 and an AUG, you'd be wrong.
While this case isn't quite so extreme, it [i]can[i] give slightly misleading results. The MK 14 was shortened by more than just 4 inches off the barrel. I'm not saying it's enough to make a difference, but presenting only a single measurement of part of the weapon is misleading. |
01-31-2010, 07:46 PM | #12 |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
The MK14 Mod 0 EBR is 35 inches long (I'm guessing with the stock extended). The G3AK4 is also 35 inches long. If everything else was equal, the MK14M0 and the G3AK4 should be the same Bulk, I'd think. Maybe the forward grip or some other design feature of the EBR is supposed to make it have a lower Bulk or something, or maybe it's just errata. A battle rifle with the bulk of an MP5K does seem a little off, even if the stock is retracted.
|
01-31-2010, 08:21 PM | #13 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
Quote:
Quote:
Total length of the G3KA4 is 21" with the stock folded, around 35" otherwise. The total length of the MK 14 MOD 0 EBR is around 35" at maximum retraction and around 40" at maximum extention. No matter how you slice things, the G3KA4 is shorter and lighter. Why does it get a higher Bulk stat?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
01-31-2010, 08:46 PM | #14 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
Quote:
If we're comparing like to like, it's 21" with the stock folded. Quote:
Meanwhile, all weapons* near the size of the G3KA4 get Bulk -4. *Well, except the G36K, which despite being 34" with stock extended and just over 24" with it folded gets Bulk -5*. Meanwhile, the M4A1, at 33" inches extended and 30" retracted, is Bulk -4. Looks like short versions of H&K weapons get short (heh) shrift.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
02-01-2010, 12:45 AM | #15 |
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
It sounds more like errata (I never thought I'd get to call anything this) the more it's described; I thought something was up when I heard Bulk 4*, because that would mean that you'd be holding the average SMG (GURPS Bulk-wise), which sounds wrong for a battlerifle with the stock folded.
Looking at it it sounds like somewhere along the line 4 was hit instead of 5; if the size dimensions are as similar as you say (I could easily check but it's sooo laaate) than even my hair-brained Bulk-dimension suggestion at the beginning sounds like it wouldn't explain it. EDIT: Actually to be particular, a person with a MOD 14 and a person with an MP7A1 will both be handling weapons with Bulk 4*, which kinda compounds the notion that it just ain't right. Last edited by Ubiquitous; 02-01-2010 at 12:50 AM. |
02-01-2010, 05:27 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
Quote:
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
02-01-2010, 06:45 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
The G3 is/was made with a stamped sheet metal receiver and polymer stock and handguards. it is lighter than the same class of rifle with a heavy wood stock and a milled receiver would be.
|
02-01-2010, 08:52 AM | #18 | |
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
Quote:
And are Battle Rifles made into carbines? My understanding of such rifles is tht they use full-on rifle cartridges; not the 5.56 but the big 7.62 (or whatever the FAL is chambered for); doesn't seem like this'd benefit from a smaller packaging recoil-considering, but I know precious little about this kinda thing. |
|
02-01-2010, 09:59 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
Quote:
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
02-01-2010, 10:28 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
Re: Relative Bulk for Battle Rifles
|
Tags |
guns, high-tech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|