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 04-16-2018, 11:26 AM   #61
warellis
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Effectively everyone except the US agreed that full-powered battle rifle cartridges were uselessly over-powered for infantry rifles. The US essentially bullied everyone into standardising a round that wasn't fit for purpose, then when it realised this bullied them into switching to a new round that fortunately was.
Not quite. The .280 British's inability to pierce steel helmets beyond 700 meters and its heavily arced trajectory made the French & Canadian delegates also wary of the round.

British steel core versions apparently screwed with the accuracy.
warellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 05:19 PM   #62
Ji ji
 
Ji ji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

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, itíll always be a wonder weapon.
Ji ji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 05:09 AM   #63
warellis
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Bullpups have very bad balance apparently: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...t-perspective/

Is this reflected in GURPS?
warellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 08:03 AM   #64
Minuteman37
 
Minuteman37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by warellis View Post
Bullpups have very bad balance apparently: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...t-perspective/

Is this reflected in GURPS?
Not at all as far as I can tell.
Minuteman37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 09:38 AM   #65
acrosome
 
acrosome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado Springs
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

I always found the trend of issuing carbines to front-line troops to be odd, as well. But then, I know a lot of ballistics. If anyone needs the more effective longer barrel it's the front-line guys. Here I'll give the USMC a little credit for keeping the M16A4 rather than succumbing to the fad of issuing carbines. And even more weird, for a long time the US military issued the less effective short-barrelled carbines to front line troops yet forced rear-echelon troops (who might actually benefit from a smaller weapon since they rarely use it) to use older M16A2s!

And, of course, now even the USMC is pulling all sorts of shenanigans with the M27. (Don't get me started.)

Anyway, it runs out that the shorty 14.5" barrelled 5.56mm weapons can be made to be very effective, but it takes quite a bit of effort. The new rounds developed for this purpose (M855A1, Mk318, etc.) tend to run at the bleeding edge of the NATO specs, so they burn out barrels faster.

And carbines do have benefits. It's just that improved ballistic effectiveness is not one of them. Here is where the guys from the InRange videos reveal their lack of operational experience- they disparage collapsing stocks on ARs. Mind you they have a point that functionally they are fairly pointless, but neither of them has ever had to live and work with an AR strapped to their bodies all hours of the day. Neither of them has ever had to get in and out of an MRAP a dozen times a day with a full-sized "musket-length" fixed-stock M16. So from a daily living perspective the collapsing and folding stocks are damned nice.

Bullpups of course are an attempted solution- they allow longer barrels in much shorter overall packages. They also have their issues, of course. Most importantly they require long trigger linkages, which results in rough triggers. This may be insurmountable unless someone gets brave enough to try an electronic trigger. Also, reloads are extremely awkward. This can be overcome with training and decent design (the X95 Tavor changed the original design to make this better), but it takes quite a bit of training and is still awkward. Anyone can do magazine changes much faster with an M16, though admittedly for most soldiers fast magazine changes are far from a critical characteristic. Most bullpup designs also limit one's ability to fire with the other hand, since they then deposit the ejected cartridge into one's face. This is an issue in urban areas where one is often firing around corners which will be on the off-hand side about 50% of the time. Downward- and forward-ejecting designs are a solution, but add complexity. Designs that put the ejection port forward enough to mitigate this partially defeat part of the point of bullpups- short length. (Partially. The VHS seems to manage this well, though it is still obviously built for very large people. The length of pull is kind of ridiculous.)

Obviously, bullpups are viable- many respectable militaries have adopted them. But they aren't perfect, either.

Last edited by acrosome; 04-21-2018 at 09:53 AM.
acrosome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 12:12 PM   #66
johndallman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrosome View Post
I always found the trend of issuing carbines to front-line troops to be odd, as well. ... And even more weird, for a long time the US military issued the less effective short-barrelled carbines to front line troops yet forced rear-echelon troops (who might actually benefit from a smaller weapon since they rarely use it) to use older M16A2s!
This seems as though there might be a chain of thought along the lines of "short-barrelled carbines are handier," which is in itself true, followed by "new stuff must be better, so give it to the front line."
Quote:
Originally Posted by acrosome View Post
Most bullpup designs also limit one's ability to fire with the other hand, since they then deposit the ejected cartridge into one's face.
It seems like this could be solved with an upward-ejection design, plus a moveable deflector to bounce the case to left or right. No idea if the trajectory could be made reliable, though.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 12:58 PM   #67
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by warellis View Post
Bullpups have very bad balance apparently: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...t-perspective/

Is this reflected in GURPS?
Only in familiarity penalties.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 01:06 PM   #68
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrosome View Post
And carbines do have benefits. It's just that improved ballistic effectiveness is not one of them. Here is where the guys from the InRange videos reveal their lack of operational experience- they disparage collapsing stocks on ARs. Mind you they have a point that functionally they are fairly pointless, but neither of them has ever had to live and work with an AR strapped to their bodies all hours of the day. Neither of them has ever had to get in and out of an MRAP a dozen times a day with a full-sized "musket-length" fixed-stock M16. So from a daily living perspective the collapsing and folding stocks are damned nice.
And that's precisely the reason for them. Folding stocks were never really intended as a thing for combat (Soviet propaganda of paratroopers firing AKMS-47s with their stocks folding notwithstanding), but to make the weapon less awkward and annoying when not in combat. Hence their use by paratroops, & etc.
Quote:
Obviously, bullpups are viable- many respectable militaries have adopted them. But they aren't perfect, either.
Having had the Steyr AUG inflicted on me, all your points are true, and their more rearward balance point also means that they tend to have more muzzle flip as well. On a personal matter, I found that the AUG didn't point at all well for me - the sight was too far to the rear, the length of pull was wrong, etc. The M16A1 pointed much better simply because it's proportions fitted me better. The majority of my fellow soldiers found the opposite or didn't care enough to have an opinion. This is, of course, something that's way below GURPS' resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
This seems as though there might be a chain of thought along the lines of "short-barrelled carbines are handier," which is in itself true, followed by "new stuff must be better, so give it to the front line."

It seems like this could be solved with an upward-ejection design, plus a moveable deflector to bounce the case to left or right. No idea if the trajectory could be made reliable, though.
Making such a thing so that it wasn't prone getting cases stuck in it when fired at odd angles, and also so it was easy to clear the chamber through might be tricky. That was another flaw of the AUG, by the way - those of us with thick fingers found it quite hard to reach in and clear simple misfeeds (the ejection port is narrow and the magazine well quite deep) and disassembling the weapon in combat is not usually to be encouraged. This is not something all bullpups suffer, and some conventional rifles also suffer it, of course, but putting a deflector that turns 'up' to 'left' or 'right' seems to me to be likely to make access through the port tricker.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."

Last edited by Rupert; 04-21-2018 at 01:11 PM.
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 01:08 PM   #69
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post

It seems like this could be solved with an upward-ejection design, plus a moveable deflector to bounce the case to left or right.
The alternate ejection directions of choice appears to be downward or even forward. this is seen ion several unorthodox designs.

Straight up is a negative feature on some historical firearms. I've heard it attributed to the PPSh. If the rounds only bounce off your helmet that's only annoying but if they go down the back of your shirt collar that actually can be a serious problem. Freshly ejected brass is hot enough to cause serious burns.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 04:31 PM   #70
warellis
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: .280 British Stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrosome View Post
I always found the trend of issuing carbines to front-line troops to be odd, as well. But then, I know a lot of ballistics. If anyone needs the more effective longer barrel it's the front-line guys. Here I'll give the USMC a little credit for keeping the M16A4 rather than succumbing to the fad of issuing carbines. And even more weird, for a long time the US military issued the less effective short-barrelled carbines to front line troops yet forced rear-echelon troops (who might actually benefit from a smaller weapon since they rarely use it) to use older M16A2s!

And, of course, now even the USMC is pulling all sorts of shenanigans with the M27. (Don't get me started.)

Anyway, it runs out that the shorty 14.5" barrelled 5.56mm weapons can be made to be very effective, but it takes quite a bit of effort. The new rounds developed for this purpose (M855A1, Mk318, etc.) tend to run at the bleeding edge of the NATO specs, so they burn out barrels faster.
The carbines are shorter and weigh less and don't have stupid ideas like poor quality 3-round bursts. And are fully automatic.

Not true. The second spiral of M855A1 has been reduced back to 59,000 PSI.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...the-real-deal/
Quote:
True, I probably should have emphasized ‘accepted’ accuracy
standard. While the Army recently mandated that M855A1 be downgraded to 58,000 PSI from the original 63,000 PSI to help barrel life, it was also to protect the soldier from his rifle going
high-order when a round of M855A1 had a small amount of bullet setback. The problem with current accuracy vs accepted accuracy crops up with the Army placing its initial order of 300 million rounds in 2010 with another 600 million rounds that they hope to add to the strategic stockpile by the end of 2017. That much ammunition means inevitably the current accuracy will degrade as looser lots are produced and accepted.

For an unknown reason, both the 63k PSI and 58k PSI loadings tend to have a wild-flier approximately every 5 rounds, although I suspect it may be due to the uneven amount of weather sealant from round to round. While a new M4A1 with its standard 1x7 twist has shown an ability to achieve an approximate 2 MOA with the original 63k PSI loading, the “95 percent of hits on an 8x8 plate
at 600 yards” is a bit of a misnomer, the Army achieved that from using an AMU accurized marksmanship rifle utilizing a 20 inch 416R barrel with a 1x8 twist.

I’m aware of the improved feed geometry on the HRM and hope the Pentagon can come up with the funding for all branches to replace existing mags, the problem is the cost of replacement or the unwillingness to do so. The USMC won’t replace a dangerously worn-out magazine unless you ‘accidently’ fall on an unloaded one and crush it. From what I hear, the Army isn’t much better in that regard, although I hope they will come through will the HRM for the increased reliability factor alone.

When it comes to armor, The M855A1 may defeat a CRISAT panel more reliably then Mk318, Mk262 or SS109, but all, including M855A1, tend to fail against Soviet-era LIFCHIK vests with loaded magazines seen in Iraq and Afghanistan being used as a poor mans ballistic vest…and all without the need of an Abrams tank.

M855A1 isn’t a terrible round, I was just personally hoping that
a round that took so much time and money to produce turned out better than it did, and wouldn’t need an asterisk next to some of its claims.
The Army has mandated the pressure to be downgraded back to 58,000 PSI which is the same as the old M855 ball.

Also in that same set of comments, it was mentioned the second spiral of M855A1 ammo had a pressure at 59,000 PSI.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...new-round-gel/
Quote:
The G&A article is the source of a great deal of misinformation about the M855A1. Let's take their alarmism about the round's high maximum average pressure (MAP). M855A1 has a MAP of 63,000 PSI, compared to M855's 55,000 PSI (that bit is true), but why? Back in 2006, NSWC Crane engineer Charles Marsh and his team discovered that the propellant being used in M855 and Mk. 262 up to that point, which was WC 844, suffered from extreme pressure excursions at temperatures above the 165 degree standard NATO testing threshold. These temperatures, such as might be found in the hot chamber of a gun fired on fully automatic for extended periods caused M855 to reach pressures of up to 90,000 PSI.

A new thermally-stable propellant was developed for Mk. 262 to fix this problem, and later a derivative SMP-842, was used in M855A1.

M855A1 can get away with a 63,000 PSI chamber pressure because it doesn't suffer from those pressure excursions (as much) with temperature. Therefore, the MAP can be raised. Conceivably, yes, firing slowly M855A1 could wear out a firearm's barrel more quickly than M855, but that is not what the military is worried about. They are worried about firefights like Wanat where weapons reach temperatures of 300 degrees or more. In those situations, M855A1 is actually safer.

In fact, Spiral 2 M855A1 uses a reduced MAP of 59,000 PSI, to help alleviate concerns from the USMC about the round's higher pressure, with the aim of standardizing the rounds between the two services.

The Guns & Ammo article is a poor source for any information regarding M855A1. I would recommend these instead:

http://www.refactortactical.co...

http://gruntsandco.com/army-vs...

http://looserounds.com/2015/11...

Last edited by warellis; 04-21-2018 at 10:21 PM.
warellis 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 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.