04-16-2018, 11:26 AM | #61 | |
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
British steel core versions apparently screwed with the accuracy. |
|
04-16-2018, 05:19 PM | #62 |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
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, it’ll always be a wonder weapon. |
04-17-2018, 05:09 AM | #63 |
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Bullpups have very bad balance apparently: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...t-perspective/
Is this reflected in GURPS? |
04-17-2018, 08:03 AM | #64 | |
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
|
|
04-21-2018, 09:38 AM | #65 |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
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.
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. Last edited by acrosome; 04-21-2018 at 09:53 AM. |
04-21-2018, 12:12 PM | #66 | |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
|
04-21-2018, 12:58 PM | #67 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
04-21-2018, 01:06 PM | #68 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." Last edited by Rupert; 04-21-2018 at 01:11 PM. |
|||
04-21-2018, 01:08 PM | #69 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
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 |
|
04-21-2018, 04:31 PM | #70 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
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:
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:
Last edited by warellis; 04-21-2018 at 10:21 PM. |
|||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|