Doesn't seem very portable. I'm mostly thinking of assault rifles. The bullpup design seems to be nicely suited for the 50 bmg, but I'm wondering what else could be done to make it lighter/smaller.
Even if you made the gun smaller/lighter via some kind of magic technology it's still fundamentally flawed because the ammo is too bulky/heavy for someone to carry an appreciable amount of it. Also, the power advantage of a .50 BMG becomes largely moot at close ranges.
>the ammo is too bulky/heavy for someone to carry an appreciable amount of it.
What's the max you think someone could feasibly carry? The scenario would be if you were planted right in the middle of a gaza battlefield.
The GM6 could absolutely shave off at least 5-8 lbs by switching to polymer or alloys in some of the receiver areas where it'd still be fine, and that weight could then go to a double stack mag, extend it by a bit and 12-15 rounds should be doable instead of 5.
But as other anons said it's still pretty pointless vs people though sure it'd be cool as frick.
>bullpup
I understand that you want the rifle to be as short as possible for close-quarters. But the sheer weight of a .50 BMG mag would add a ton of inertia at the front of your rifle for recoil control. This is especially important when you will be primarily firing this rifle from a standing and probably unsupported fashion since it's close-quarters. The only aspect I could see to reduce its length, would be to maybe make its recoil system vertical. À la Kriss Vector.
Would moving the magazine to the front really make that much of a difference? I guess with a double stacking mag like
The GM6 could absolutely shave off at least 5-8 lbs by switching to polymer or alloys in some of the receiver areas where it'd still be fine, and that weight could then go to a double stack mag, extend it by a bit and 12-15 rounds should be doable instead of 5.
But as other anons said it's still pretty pointless vs people though sure it'd be cool as frick.
said it would, but something about it just seems a bit superfluous. I've never seen something like that before, so I could be totally wrong about it's effectiveness/practicality...
Having static weight near that small explosion and near all that heavy action will definitely help with short burst recoil. If you have to mag dump this thing, then I don't know what you're fighting but it's not human. That being said having all that weight at the front comes with some drawbacks. It's a lot harder to handle weight far from you, rather than near you. Same concept as lifting the same weight close to you chest, rather than at the tip of your arm reach.
The Kriss is actually WORSE for short length because, notice how much space is between the trigger and the mag/barrel. You're basically worsening the barrel length and increasing OAL.
This is the last thing you want with a .50 cal because the bigger the cartridge (or more specifically, the more propellant you have), the longer the barrel you want, hence many .50 cals have 20'' - 30'' barrels.
Initially my idea was to find a gun that can overpower any body armor since everyone who owns an AR/AK wears plate carriers. I'm sure there's some smaller round that could do the job, but the 50 bmg is cooler.
Then I'd say a 30 round mag fully loaded in .50 BMG would go for about 13-14 pounds. To put it into perspective, a 100 round C-mag of 5.56 fully loaded is weighed in at 4.63 pounds. It would definitely be a hefty magazine.
Yeah
Yes it's called the M2 machine gun
Doesn't seem very portable. I'm mostly thinking of assault rifles. The bullpup design seems to be nicely suited for the 50 bmg, but I'm wondering what else could be done to make it lighter/smaller.
>Doesn't seem very portable
Lift more
Metal.
Even if you made the gun smaller/lighter via some kind of magic technology it's still fundamentally flawed because the ammo is too bulky/heavy for someone to carry an appreciable amount of it. Also, the power advantage of a .50 BMG becomes largely moot at close ranges.
>the ammo is too bulky/heavy for someone to carry an appreciable amount of it.
What's the max you think someone could feasibly carry? The scenario would be if you were planted right in the middle of a gaza battlefield.
>picrel
Bad. Ass.
Just shorten the barrel moron
The GM6 could absolutely shave off at least 5-8 lbs by switching to polymer or alloys in some of the receiver areas where it'd still be fine, and that weight could then go to a double stack mag, extend it by a bit and 12-15 rounds should be doable instead of 5.
But as other anons said it's still pretty pointless vs people though sure it'd be cool as frick.
>bullpup
I understand that you want the rifle to be as short as possible for close-quarters. But the sheer weight of a .50 BMG mag would add a ton of inertia at the front of your rifle for recoil control. This is especially important when you will be primarily firing this rifle from a standing and probably unsupported fashion since it's close-quarters. The only aspect I could see to reduce its length, would be to maybe make its recoil system vertical. À la Kriss Vector.
Basically, you just want a .50 BMG kriss vector.
They say break tame a lot of that recoil, safty harbor .50s are supposed to feel about like shooting magnum slugs.
Would moving the magazine to the front really make that much of a difference? I guess with a double stacking mag like
said it would, but something about it just seems a bit superfluous. I've never seen something like that before, so I could be totally wrong about it's effectiveness/practicality...
Having static weight near that small explosion and near all that heavy action will definitely help with short burst recoil. If you have to mag dump this thing, then I don't know what you're fighting but it's not human. That being said having all that weight at the front comes with some drawbacks. It's a lot harder to handle weight far from you, rather than near you. Same concept as lifting the same weight close to you chest, rather than at the tip of your arm reach.
The Kriss is actually WORSE for short length because, notice how much space is between the trigger and the mag/barrel. You're basically worsening the barrel length and increasing OAL.
This is the last thing you want with a .50 cal because the bigger the cartridge (or more specifically, the more propellant you have), the longer the barrel you want, hence many .50 cals have 20'' - 30'' barrels.
Recoiless .50 BMG
effective? Yes. Feasible? Not really.
It's heavy, the ammo is heavy, you'd be needing to make hits to justify carrying one, like lining up guys so you hit three at once.
Initially my idea was to find a gun that can overpower any body armor since everyone who owns an AR/AK wears plate carriers. I'm sure there's some smaller round that could do the job, but the 50 bmg is cooler.
Just don't shoot them in the plates.
looks like a 15 round bmg mag would weigh about 1.5 pounds fully loaded.
How do you figure? A .50bmg cartridge is about 4.1 ounces, the mags aren't particularly light either.
I read some random chart online.
I can go load a five rounder if anyone really cares.
>4.1 ounces
That puts 30 rounds alone at nearly 8 pounds. How heavy is an empty mag?
10 round
>Barrett M82A1. Delivery Information. Shipping Weight, 1.860 Pounds
Then I'd say a 30 round mag fully loaded in .50 BMG would go for about 13-14 pounds. To put it into perspective, a 100 round C-mag of 5.56 fully loaded is weighed in at 4.63 pounds. It would definitely be a hefty magazine.
>empty mag weighs almost an entire tonne
wtf americans
That's a point not a comma euranon
I made it up
Hear me out
Mossberg chainsaw handle in place of a scope.
not armor piercing but still cool
he meant on a 50 bmg gun to help control recoil, also don't they make armor piercing slugs? idk how good they are
That's not too far from pic related and that makes me quite happy.
It must be made.
It's effective in the sense that it's going to kill what you shoot, yeah.
dah
Putting a lot of faith in that cylinder
Now I'm imagining a 50bmg thunderzap out of a short barrel Lynx
Yes, it'd be great for dog sized robot tanks to shoot each other with at close range. Not really practical for human v human cqc, on the other hand.