04-11-2018, 06:00 AM | #31 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
Quote:
IIRC the concern was more about initial assessment, treatment and subsequent treatment in field hospitals in possibly not as full a facilities as we* might like. I.e. maybe no x-rays available. TBH We still sometimes miss stuff even in full facilities, I think the premise was not to go towards a situation that might make that more likely Either Way I'm not sure if it was ever a 'thing'. Didn't know about the plastic needled though! *and not everyone has access to first world resources, and G8 budgets for this Yep that's what I found, needless to say the International Red Cross Committee has naturally enough a different set of criteria it applies in this regard. One that might well be respected by other bodies but not necessarily adhered too or has policy based on. Quote:
Well as I said earlier, fine distinctions! Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-11-2018 at 06:21 AM. |
|||
04-11-2018, 06:11 PM | #32 |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
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. |
04-11-2018, 06:23 PM | #33 |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Well, hell, I guess I'll post another link to alternatehistory.com, a thread that started out as a weapons discussion but quickly strayed into ammunition. There's also a little on a SJG forum here. And see the link in my sig.
Bottom line: There are people who hate 5.56x45mm for no justifiable reason. Anecdotes are just that- anecdotes. There is perfectly fine real-world combat data about it's performance. The M855 was indeed a poor decision, especially when we started feeding it through short barrels, but this has been rectified with M855A1, Mk262, and Mk318. So, yes, barrel length matters for any round that's of the SCHV model. Frankly, I tire of the discussion. There is nothing wrong with 5.56x45mm. It just has different design goals than 7.62x51mm. Bear in mind that there is a lot of hyperbole, grandstanding, and rank idiocy on the internet gun forums. A LOT of people are talking out of their asses, and the quality of the answer you'll get on the issue in any forum is dependent upon whether someone who knows what they are talking about happens by, because the popular meme of "5.56mm sucks" is simply too pervasive, so the uninitiated take it for granted.
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. Last edited by acrosome; 04-11-2018 at 06:46 PM. |
04-11-2018, 09:00 PM | #34 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MO, U.S.A.
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Frankly, any non-explosive hand held weapon will not get good knock down if it doesn't hit the brain, heart, or a major bone. It doesn't really mater if it's a .22LR or a .454 Casul.
__________________
Xenophilia is Dr. Who. Plus Lecherous is Jack Harkness.- Anaraxes |
04-11-2018, 10:11 PM | #35 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
04-11-2018, 10:57 PM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
Though it doesn't discuss improved rounds mitigating the short barrel and long(-ish) range problem.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
04-12-2018, 12:33 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
It mentions match grade heavier rounds doubling the thresholds on pg61. I could have sworn the point was also made about later rounds as well (but I may well have internalised that from other GURPS sources in this forum). Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-12-2018 at 08:09 AM. |
|
04-12-2018, 07:33 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
You are assuming to have access to reliable, trustworthy, and complete data; the assumption is wrong. |
|
04-12-2018, 07:35 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
Quote:
|
|
04-12-2018, 08:23 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: .280 British Stats?
I'm not sure what you mean, you posted as though you had found some new aspect that cast light on this debate, Rupert and I pointed out that not only was this not some newly discovered thing but it had already been mentioned in this thread (and if you re-read your own posts you will see that you have already responded to posts bringing it up).
To be honest I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here. You raised some points and they have been addressed. You seem to be basing your argument on assumptions and those assumptions have also been addressed. Quote:
OK what have you brought? Because yeah OK it could all be a 5.56 conspiracy and we've all been duped (including the army surgeon you are responding to above). Or it could just be this is actually an old debate and really the questions you are proposing in an attempt to bring organisational performance management* into this, aren't new and have been answered before and here. *on which you seem to have conflated anecdotes for "field data" here. Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-12-2018 at 09:00 AM. |
|
|
|