>inb4 a 4th bullpup thread
Bullpups seem to be the seeth of the week and I agree that the impossibility of having even a decent trigger makes them poor choices for service rifles. What doesn't make sense to me, however, is why can't an isolated trigger be built that then sends an electrical relay to a striker, actuating the firing pin via a motor or electromagnetically. Before you say "muh mechanical never fails, electric is a fandangled gimmick that has no place on the battlefield", consider this:
>simple circuits are extremely reliable and have been used in no-tolerance for failure systems across every industry for almost a century now
>Much more complicated circuits are used regularly in electronic optics with many rifles now having no BUIS, making the optic an essential part of the weapon
>Batteries can resist heat, cold, and humidity much better than they used to. Integrated rechargeable batteries are now a mature technology, and it would be straightforward to integrate a swappable, long life durable battery that can be recharged with solar or by generating electricity when the action cycles
>Isolated triggers might even outperform traditional triggers in quality
>If all else fails, there is nothing stopping designers from adding a mechanical backup
Don't get me wrong, there are still other problems with bullpups, but considering that night vision optics oudate the M16/M4 platform, it doesn't make sense that the trigger is a barrier to the usability of bullpup rifles.
Guns should be fully hydraulic or electric with the fewest moving parts.
Oldgays BTFO
I think that if you really want to do something like this hydraulic linkage is the way to go. Batteries are inherently unreliable, have to be charged and maintained. Harvesting energy from action cycling is doable but its a lot of added complexity and will introduce failure modes that are not immediately obvious. Using the energy from a trigger pull is just a goldberg machine which makes sense only if you also switch to an electrically primed ammo and it will still be limited to semi-auto. At this point why not just replace mechanical linkage with a hydraulic one? You can even make it adjustable.
> inb4 how to bleed the trigger on my FAUG (future AUG)?
Battery tech has come a long ways from duracell AAs but an electric trigger would put a 10 year or so lifespan on a rifle without maintenance. Using an integrated capacitor could extend the life (ever work on a CRT from the 80s? High quality japanese caps will live longer than you) but the energy storage is much more limited. Capturing energy from the action cycling would be pretty straightforward actually, you'd just need to wrap a copper coil around the buffer tube and put a magnet behind the BCG (in the example of an AR). Connect that to a cap with a diode and you have yourself a self-charging trigger. Hydraulics could be another option, although the immediate concern is leaks. Admittedly I don't know enough about hydraulics to envision benefits or drawbacks beyond the obvious like easily adjustable triggers or the ability to put a trigger pretty much anywhere. Likewise the striker could just charge a coil which would then push the firing pin forward against a spring, striking the primer then resetting against the discharged firing coil. A system such as this could make modified the rate of fire or setting a burst mode extremely trivial and might make the concept of an automatic rifleman more versatile.
Wires would potentially get snagged (although there should be no loose parts inside the receiver) but you could simply put a few mm of tracing along the inside for your trigger wire and charging loop. For redundancy you could add one or two on each side. Shouldn't decrease the durability of the receiver much if at all and physically incapable of kinking. Of course this would increase manufacturing costs, but probably not significantly.
The magnets wouldn't last under impact, and the capacitor would be of concern also. Generally metal holds up long term better than the insulation on wires. Although redundancy does seem workable, it's seems a tough trade for durability and simplicity
Most electronic components can survive +50.000 g (shells fuses) if they're physically supported.
>insulation
Silicone rubber is far better than the usual PU/PVC rubbish. Its operating temp range is from -100ºF to ~500ºF and also does not degrade to a brittle state.
High quality caps could probably do 20 ± 5 years unless you operate exclusively in death valley and don't have AC. Other option is a battery, which could do 1-3 years probably, or slightly longer if rechargable.
Modern neodymium performs extremely well under high impact conditions, with the amount of force required to demagnetize the magnet would also degun the gun. Other options for electrical impulse could include generating an EMF(magnetically induced voltage) with the trigger pull or put batteries in the magazines.
If you want to push this idea further, you could use electromagnetic generation of power from the reciprocating action to charge a more generalized power system for the weapon, allowing optics, flashlights, OLED lightup waifu decals, and other necessities of modern combat be powered by onboard batteries or caps. The microcontroller responsible for the fire control group could easily also handle power rationing, ensuring that there is always enough power for the weapon to fire.
Repeat force over 1000s of rounds seems likely to demagnetize. Particularly in the buffer tube suggestion earlier as it is right behind the cartridge.
Having a hard time finding a source on the durability of modern magnets but in the worst case scenario you could have the BCG move a coil and have the magnet be stationary. The buffer tube spring itself could be the coil, compressing the spring with a stationary magnet inside would still generate electrical current.
Go for it. It just seems like a lot of effort around the action that removes reliability and requires getting dwell time etc right. A lot of things could fail and all for a nice trigger. When you could just carry a hanky to wipe up your tears at your sub perfect groups.
It would be an interesting project for sure. I think what
and
are talking about is more interesting than producing the perfect trigger on a bullpup. Firearm development has been pretty much stagnant for decades and electronic fire actuation and fire control could have some interesting and maybe beneficial properties. Running a round odometer for optimized logistics and maintenance, embedding friend or foe for QCB, chip lockout so we don't donate more rifles to terrorists when abandoning a country, nonlinear fire rates, barrel-temperature sensitive rates of fire, data logging of rifle performance in real world conditions, hell you could use downrange drones to stream wind data and only allow a shot to be taken when conditions are optimal. Obviously not all these are good ideas, but there may be some practical application, and it's hard to say if it would work or not without prototyping.
LMT already has an option for many of these features.
They have sensors in the grip that count rounds fired, frequency of fire, and the armorer has a tool to scan the data, which will then tell him how much life is left in whichever relevant components that are part of the maintenance program.
>requires getting dwell time right
how so? I don't see how an electronic trigger would have any significant effect on dwell time or require any specific dwell time.
if you were to charge the system using a solenoid wrapped around some reciprocating part of the action i.e. the bolt, a voltage would be produced that would correspond to the change in the magnetic field inside of it i.e. the velocity of the bolt.
Since you can get the velocity of the bolt from the voltage of the solenoid at any time, you could extrapolate that to get the bolt's position at every point in time throughout each cycle of the weapon! This could be used to collect data on how the platform performs over a long period of time to continually refine the system. The microcontroller could use the bolt's positional measurements to detect if the weapon is under/over gassed and even sense malfunctions before the user does. It could do things like stopping the trigger from firing the weapon on a round that isn't fully seated, preventing dry-fires, or even estimating muzzle velocity based on the pressure from the gas system.
There is no free energy. You are robbing from the primary purpose of the device.
>There is no free energy. You are robbing from the primary purpose of the device
From... the recoil?
Not the other anon but while you get "free" energy from recoil, all the printgays who tried to make magnet delayed recoil real (and not just friction-delayed recoil like derwood) basically tested it and it's difficult to harness useful energy from the recoil stroke.
Delaying recoil by facing up two sets of magnets when the bolt is closed and delaying recoil by driving a magnet through a copper tunnel to generate eddy currents would be very different. A magnetic recoil system like that would serve more to limit the max speed of the bolt, since the braking force would increase linearly with the velocity. It would act more as a damper than a delay.
Yeah, it would probably add more weight to the system than it'd be worth if you're actually trying to significantly change the movement of the bolt, but it would be an interesting experiment.
You have clearly never had a flashlight with the same system you are describing. You will not generate enough for the trigger to function the way you are trying to describe it.
I use "stolen" because that is exactly what blowback, delayed, roller delayed, gas and any other mixture of the like do. They steal. Strip. Siphon. Borrow. However you would like to word it so you can feel better about it. They are imperfect systems that function at the cost of velocity and often accuracy.
What you are proposing is free lunch. There is no free lunch. To steal enough energy to power the trigger, you will take from the already inefficient system more energy than you will use. It is a slippery slope.
Weigh was not the issue with the tripper, the shittty pull was. That, can be fixed not by your perpetual motion suggestion, but by simply spanning the gap with a gear system instead of a bar and springs. That also can increase or decrease the pull weight of said trigger with a simple friction tensioner. How smooth the trigger pull is would be dependent on how tightly the gears meshed. Like all things the trade offs could be function when dirty depending on the design
Never in the history of mankind has there been free lunch when it comes to energy.
Recoil?
The bolt moving is stripping energy. Technically you moving backwards is stripping energy. Gas operation systems steal energy. Any device adding weight to the bolt, or magnets and coils of wire strip energy.
All of these things people think are not a big deal add up. More than you would think. Then you get the effect of so many things sapping that they require engineering to sap MORE so they don't malfunction. It's a slippery slope.
>Then you get the effect of so many things sapping
The thing is that you want energy to be sapped. If you could get the bolt to reach zero energy before bottoming on the recoil spring or hitting a buffer, you would. It's just impractical so we allow the bolt to slam back with extra residual energy which allows you to power through added friction from fouling, etc.
We don't power electronics off recoil strokes because at the sizes involved you'd need a couple thousand rpm. It's just not practical to draw power from single strokes in a bolt mechanism.
No you want as little energy sapped ass possible. The reason things "slam" is they are inefficient dirty machines that foul and jam. That energy is being used to ensure the function of the firearm is consistent.
In a perfect world the breech would be a solid, non moving. The stripped energy would be used to bottom feed and top/side eject without any intentional horizontal movement.
>No you want as little energy sapped ass possible
Then why the frick are recoil buffers, rate reducers, etc a thing? Hell, roller and lever delayed blowback use mechanical disadvantage of the bolt over the bolt carrier to reduce the bolt velocity.
>That energy is being used to ensure the function of the firearm is consistent
After extraction and trigger reset the function has been achieved. At that point it's your design choice if the stroke length is increased so that the bolt picks up return force from a longer spring being compressed or if you stop the bolt and use a stiff spring to ensure return. When receiver length is at a premium, the bolt can stop right after function is achieved without extra stroke length. It's just a design trade off.
>We design and choose weapons based on primary use first
Crew served weapons are the primary casualty producers, not individual rifles.
You are not very bright are you anon? The bolt is moving under the power of the round fired. You want a 3 pound bolt? Or a light bolt and a spring reducing felt recoil and keeping the muzzle steady? I just cant. You are a fricking moron.
>The bolt is moving under the power of the round fired
No, it's moving under the power of residual pressure or inertia gained from bolt thrust. The bullet has left the muzzle within the first few mm of travel even in direct blowback/short recoil systems.
"Round,
Composed of bullet casing and primer"
Keep going. We can help you learn.
If the primer has been spent and the bullet has exited the muzzle, the weapon continues its function nonetheless.
The casing remains inside the system until extraction, but surely you are not implying the weapon functions off the spent casing.
What i am saying is that both your parents were blood related.
otherwise you would understand the difference between cause and effect,
Let me give it a go. Fat? Partner is a minority? Does not know you are bisexual? Underemployed? Claim to have a high iq?
I am now finished with you loser.
>cause
Excess energy in the system has to be wasted after function
>effect
Energy is transmitted to weapon and thus the shooter
Lol, wrong. On so many levels.
How does the rifle function after all chemical energy is extracted?
Go back. Fix the obvious false premise that you used to form the basis of your response.
Extra chromosomes can be fun can't they big guy?
There is much more than enough energy in a rifle bolt to do this. It probably wouldn't significantly affect the movement of the bolt, but if it did then you'd just open the gas block up a bit, move the gas port back a bit, or stiffen the recoil spring. I'm not seeing how it would require a bunch of new heavy components.
In something like a PDW I do see your point, though.
An electronic trigger system would actually save a lot of weight in other areas. On a bullpup, you wouldn't need a steel linkage to connect the trigger to the hammer. You wouldn't need the steel components of a trigger group- they could be plastic. Being able to put the trigger anywhere would free up the design of the receiver to be formed more around the user experience and less around its mechanical functions.
The bolt move specific to the needs of the rifle to prevent failure to function in the worst conditions. You propose to rob the bolt of energy that backwards motion and stolen gas come at the cost of FPS on the other end. That's the end that counts. Energy puts a premium in velocity. You are taking energy from both the external ballistics (flight path, wind friction overcome ect, and terminal ballistics)
It doesn't seem like much but 1000 yards that 30 cal military bullet may have dropped to 1200fps. Or less. That 5.56 has dropped to 800fps.
You have added friction in the system to take energy. Now you have to take more from the other end. Because of said friction a lighter bolt has less momentum, and a heavier bolt may be needed both overcome the friction and supply enough into the spring to return to reduce the amount you are stealing to steal some more. It tumbles down. It all just silly anyway. Just remove the normal springs and bars and replace them with a gear set to operate the trigger with an adjustable tensioner for poundage.
The return stroke of the bolt would feel less of a breaking effect from the system since it travels much slower. Friction is actually not an accurate way to describe the breaking force of an eddy current since the force scales with velocity.
Why do you keep saying that the energy and gas are being 'stolen'? What a strangely emotional way to describe the workings of a mechanism. There are many components of the action that are designed to purposefully 'steal' energy from the bolt. That's the reason why gas blocks are located in the middle of the barrel and not the very start. That's why some buffer tubes have dampening systems which don't serve any secondary purpose apart from slowing the bolt down. Pretty much any delay mechanism is 'stealing' energy from the bolt and thus bad by your logic.
You wouldn't need a heavier bolt since the system doesn't work on friction like you suggest- if anything it would enable a lighter bolt.
>Just remove the normal springs and bars and replace them with a gear set to operate the trigger with an adjustable tensioner for poundage.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly. You're saying that it'd save on weight to replace bullpup linkage systems with gears?
>>not understanding why the bolt needs to return at the velocity it does...
The return stroke of the bolt needs to strip the round and seat it firmly as well as lock up. Slowing it down would be disastrous in a well designed rifle.
>You have clearly never had a flashlight with the same system you are describing.
I have had those shake flashlights before. Microcontrollers sip very small amounts of electricity. The system I'm describing could be powered off of a coin cell for years if not for the solenoid that releases the hammer, and said solenoid would still require a lot less current to activate than that generated by the stroke of the piston. I've built solenoid based parachute release mechanisms with microcontrollers that stay powered almost indefinitely even with IMUs and other sensors being powered.
What I'm describing isn't perpetual motion, honestly I have no idea where you're getting that from. Just open up the gas system a bit if you need to, and you probably wouldn't need to at all. The resistance you feel when shaking one of those flashlights is far, far less than the forces acting on the bolt in a rifle. It's not a slippery slope. You seem to think the system would need to generate way more energy and cause way more resistance to the bolt's travel than it really would.
As for the gears, what happens when the gun heats up and the metal expands? What happens when grit gets in between the gear teeth? The more gears you add, the more slop is added to the trigger that will get worse over time. I'm amazed that putting several gears in series down the length of the action seems like a better solution than a pull bar. Even a wire and pulley system would be better than that.
Wrong.
>>I'm amazed that putting several gears in series down the length of the action seems like a better solution than a pull bar. Even a wire and pulley system would be better than that.
Hey no guns, the issue is the shitty trigger pull. Thanks for telling us you don't understand the problem.
>>just open up the gas system a little
FFS. Are you for real? So you want to lose more energy than you are capturing at the expense of performance. If only someone spent half a thread explaining that this is exactly the problem with your idea.
Electronic triggers require a battery and parts that are not viable in a battle rifle.
I get what youre saying but honestly how much energy do you think it would take to run a system like that and whats the effect on muzzle velocity. Id bet a system like the other anon talks about drops muzzle velocity by single digit fps, more variation would be caused by the temperature.
Buffer tube has a copper wire built in, bcg is magnetized.
There might be enough time with a maxim to power rbg lights
>hydraulic
This. There's a reason your car has brake fluid, not brake wires.
Trucks use air and springs.
>air and springs
Pneumatic is fine too. I'd still prefer hydraulic for guns, however, so the trigger won't be mushy. The only reason to go electric would be if you switch to electrical primer and do away with moving firing pins entirely.
>There's of course hydralic brakes for them that let them stop on a dime but I wouldn't call them more reliable.
That's exactly what you need from a trigger though. Consistent discharge at a precise amount of pressure.
A hydraulic trigger would be mushy soft and long to operate.
The perfect trigger already exists.
>A hydraulic trigger would be mushy soft and long to operate.
Ay lmao.
They already make them. It's not like I said anything that isn't common knowledge. They are also very large and usually used for remote use. By hand they feel soft with a long pull.
>A hydraulic trigger would be mushy soft
Why? It has the opposite effect in brakes. Liquids don't stretch like cables or compress like air.
Draw a diagram of the trigger you are proposing. You will see the flaw before you finish.
A normal trigger, but hydraulic.
So you also don't understand how triggers work. K
Yeah, it's heavy and brake fluid lets it brake better.
Bicycles traditionally used brake cables and it's fine because they don't have to stop as much mass. There's of course hydralic brakes for them that let them stop on a dime but I wouldn't call them more reliable.
words words words words words
Words
The absolute STATE of common-core zoomers
you can already have good triggers on bullpups. you're like 10 years too late to think up this solution.
M4 milspec lies around 6.5 lbs, the AUG is 10. The keltec bullpup also manages 6.5 lbs, but there are a lot of other reasons to not use the cocaine inc rifle in combat.
It's clear that the US military expects infantry engagements to be longer range and require higher precision - just look at the XM7. They traded a huge volume of fire for a round with flat ballistics pushing 800 m. Further illustrating this point is the switch from the milspec M4 accuracy - 4 MOA, to the XM7 - 2 MOA, and if you want more proof, look at the built in ballistic computer.
the high pressure load is a literally 135 gr ball .308, but with better sectional density, is 30k psi lower than the stated goal of the project, and the commercial version of the round is slower still, it's no flatter shooting than .308, and the smart scope is a light up bdc reticle. the .277 SIG fury round is just graft, and the spear is the new SCAR-H, nobody will use it, and some cool guys are gonna use MCX's in 5.56 for a while just to look cool. that's why they offered the final spear in .308 also, because civilian sales won't float their turbohomosexual cartridge, but some people might want a new piston .308
That 30kpsi difference is probably what the military is interested in. I imagine they have some super hot loads intended for use against near peers that are fielding level 4 armor. Against goat herders it's more important to just sling rounds and preserve barrel life, but once we're in Taiwan or wherever against bugs in body armor, replacing barrels isn't gonna be the concern.
Good luck changing all your optics because now the bdc is wrong. Only morons would plan to swap cartridges in the middle of a war.
>Only morons would plan to swap cartridges in the middle of a war.
And yet here we are.
>swap cartridges in the middle of a war
Do M4fudds really? What war? Oh no, a Chinese bomber just flew over my house!
>good luck changing your optics because the BDC is wrong
The M157 computerised optic is the best part of the procurement. good luck fighting against American soldiers with IVASS and self correcting scopes when they start aimbotting you through two walls from 200 meters away.
that 30k psi difference was promised but unfulfilled, the civilian cartridge is downloaded even further. The two part casing also failed to materialize (pun intended) and the high pressure samples being produced are just all steel negating any potential weight savings over brass .308.
US military switched to the long-range high-accuracy platform that is the XM7 because that's the platform they really would have needed/ really wanted in the 20 year frickery that was Afghanistan. There's no real indication that near-pear war will be at long ranges against hard to hit targets like in Afghanistan. Look at Ukraine; everything beyond 200yd is taken care of by artillery, missiles, and drones. And it's important to remember that even though the XM7 and it's badass optic with an integrated ballistic computer can reach out super far, it doesn't mean the half-moronic grunt can.
So if we end up in another anti-insurgency conflict, then the XM7 will be great, because the XM7 was designed for that experience.
If we end up fighting China, the grunts will wish they had their lightweight M4's back.
As with nearly all military R&D, the XM7 was designed to fight the last war, and will probably exhibit shortcomings in the next war because of that
>As with nearly all military R&D, the XM7 was designed to fight the last war, and will probably exhibit shortcomings in the next war because of that
the grunts will simply hold the weapon, next upgrade will have AI do the targeting
>but there are a lot of other reasons to not use the cocaine inc rifle in combat.
so what you're doing now is admitting you have no point but are inventing new constraints.
Us mil is preparing for the previous war where they got shot at from 1000m by small insurgent forces who were shooting primarily to instill fear and take out handfuls of troops
Reality is any competent force will use combined arms + suppressing fire to make taking slow aimed shots very difficult
The fact that they based a design philosophy around outranging a crew served belt fed GPMG is so stupid its infuriating.
All else being equal a GPMG will always, always, outrange your standard issue rifle. So instead of gimping your other capabilities in the squad to allow every individual to fight the GPMG threat, you retaliate with something better than your standard issue rifle, like your own GPMG, mortars, dmr fire, artillery, air support or armor.
The effective range of an HCAR can easily be more than that of the 240B.
That moves down to light machine guns as well. A high sd/bc 6mm or 6.5 will have an effective range longer than basic b***h 5.56.
The effective range of the 240Bravo is for argument sakes 1200 meters.
The effective range of the HCAR WITH MILITARY ammo is the exact same.
The effective range of many 6.5s are well past that.
Of course a smart military would use the same round for its crew served as it does its rifleman and snipers. There is zero reason to do otherwise in basic positions. Specialized snipers, crews and teams can obviously deviate without too much issue as they are not so dependent of the logistical nightmares of the main body.
Yeah, thats what the "all things being equal" part of my statement means anon.
An infantry carbine chambered in the same cartridge as a GPMG is always be outranged by the machinegun, purely due to the nature of how effectiveness of each of them is defined, than being that the sustained rate of fire out of a carbine will always be less than a crew served weapon.
A crew served weapon does not serve the same purpose of a rifleman.
All things being equal the job of a crew served weapon is to pin the enemy down, or to build a wall of lead the enemies musc cross in the fatal final.
Where the rifle in the hands of the rifleman is a more precise instrument.
So no, they are not comparable. That said a couple riflemen can do the job of a crew served weapon with the same amount of people, using the same amount of ammo.
That's not necessarily correct. Often the rifleman fire is what keeps the enemy pinned down so that the machine gun team can move and produce casualties.
That's why the other anon is saying that the GPMG is more effective. The rifleman is often forced to take spoiler shots at enemies he can't see, that's not precision at all.
You don't know the basics of how an infantry works but you have a strong opinion huh kid? We design and choose weapons based on primary use first.
(Angrily types response claiming POG status as a natty girl)
>Often the rifleman fire is what keeps the enemy pinned down so that the machine gun team can move and produce casualties
lmao
No, a few rifleman cannot do the same job as a crew served weapon you dunce.
Why do you think crew served weapons are classified having a longer effective range than other weapons chambered in the same cartridge?
The answer anon is the rate of fire, thats the only fricking reason a PKM outranges a SCAR17 or any other .308 battlerifle, because it can produce a beaten zone at 1000 meters or more than cannot be replicated by a magazine fed weapon even though the ballistic difference between 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54r is moot
This is why the NGSW concept is fricking moronic, because youre gaining this theoretical range advantage, while increasing the weight and reducing ammunition capacity, and the only thing that it takes to reset this supposed advantage is a barrel swap on the GPMG.
So in short anon, no a fricking rifleman is not an adequate counter to a beltfed machinegun, thats why we have a myriad of other tools for dealing with them.
Yes, a few rifleman can and have done the job of a crew served weapon. Many times with great success. Firing 6-12 rounds per volley can easily be achieved by a few riflemen. On top of that the volleys become a "moving crew served weapon" as the duty is moved not only from squad to squad when talking but passed around the teams. Making the job that draws fire impossible to pin down.
You have to be smarter than the natives.
>volley fire
>muh natives
Jfc are you a member of His Majesty's MOD circa 1914?
This isnt debatable my man, you cant replace a belt fed machinegun with an infantry service rifle, they are no match for the sustained fire achievable by a machinegun.
You are right it is not. As I have the experience of doing and you clearly do not.
You are so full of shit buddy boy, ill be taking my W and you can keep coping and seething.
You can keep whatever larp this is for you. Ill keep the scars and badges.
Didn't serve I take it?
Malding
>proud zogbot
Doesnt take a low iq lemming to read doctrine buddy, the entire purpose of having a machinegun is to do what a rifle cant, which is bring a certain volume of fire to bear.
If there are an equal number of men, say 12, and one unit has a machinegun and your group doesnt, you are at a distinct disadvantage, in both engagement range and firepower as a whole, no amount of "volleyfire" can even the odds here moron.
This is simple logic.
>b b but what if the machinegun goes down
Then the rest of the riflemen increase their volume of fire, TEMPORARILY, until the machingun can be brought back into action.
Again, you dumbfrick, riflemen are not and have never been an adequate replacement for a mchinegun.
Hmm, you seem to have a learning AND personality disorder.
Rifleman can indeed replace the machine gun. As you said they could not ignorantly.
Again, you do not have the machine gun to do what the rifle cannot. You have the machine gun to do the job of MULTIPLE rifles.
No amount of seething and larping is going to erase the fact you have bisexuality tendencies.
A rifle=/= a machinegun
Never has, never will.
A rifle doesnt have the same effective range as a machinegun with the exact same catridge, why? A rifle(singular) cannot sustain fire like a machinegun, why?
Why do you think this is the case?
You are incorrect, since you are a smoothbrain and cant understand this simple train of logic I suggest you read your own doctrine, assuming you have the capability to read.
Seeing your performance so far it doesnt look good for you.
Consider yourself owned, but you were already werent you zogger?
Speak some English before you have a meltdown and add in more buzzwords
Not seeing any argument here Black folk, sorry but claiming to be government property doesnt hold any weight here.
Try arfcom if you want your dick sucked for zogbot status.
Speak some English and maybe people will argue with you in good faith
>Oh noes, it appears you don't speak perfect english
>Therefore your argument is invalid
American arrogance: rivaled only by american ignorance. The funniest thing is the word "ESL" - english as second language. As though the fault was not speaking poor english, but not being english-speaking by birth.
>Ours himself as esl
>Whines about American arrogance while ignoring his own
>>Ours himself
>>OURS
Indian detected
Did you just claim effective range was determined by rate of fire?
Effective range is determined by velocity, sectional density, ballistic coefficient and the intended target. The effective range of the 249 and the m16a2 are both 800 fricking meters.
Are you confusing max range, and effective range and comparing that of the m4 5.56 to that of the bravo 7.62 or even worse the BMG. Lol.
You have to stop. Seriously. Go spend time with those kids you have neglected.
>Did you just claim effective range was determined by rate of fire?
Yes
>Here is a target at 1000 yards. Now try to hit him with a rifle
Vs
>Here is the same target, but you get to use a GPMG. Also, here's 1000 rounds of ammo. Have fun.
One will be vastly more effective at hitting the target than the other.
Noooooo, volume of fire out of a machinegun doesnt increase its range NOOOOOOO PLS NO
i know they shoot the same cartridge and all but a rifle is JUST AS GOOD NO
I DONT HAVE AN ANSWER AS TO WHY THIS WOULD BE, THE ROUNDS ARE BALLISTICALLY THE SAME BUT IDK WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE HERE.
Please do not show me the effective range of a PKM vs a SCAR17, two ballistically similar catridges PLEASE
It's easier to hit a target at 1000 yards with a rifle equipt with an optic than it is trying to follow where you hit in front of the target with iron sights and bare eyes. You "walk" a machine gun onto target by shooting low and following through.
Have you never shot before?
The goal isn't to tap a steel plate once at 1000 yards and call it a day. The goal is to lay as much hate onto the 70 year old towelhead taking potshots at you with a rusty ak until he stops moving.
For this, a GPMG can do the job better than a rifle and put to a greater distance, even if they're firing the same round.
homies were considering maxim machineguns effective at 2000m during ww1.
Volume of fire is the reason why, and also the reason why the origin of the NGSW program is moronic.
The XM7 is a stupid solution for Abdul spraying down your unit at his max effective PKM range and then hauling ass, your not likely to get a shot in the first place, youre sacrificing ammo load and youre getting a heavier rifle for your trouble.
No it isn't. The reason you shoot at the sand people with the bravo is because it fires a 7.62 projectile that is 150 grains and still moving 1200 feet per second at 1000 yards. Roughly. The M4 in the rifleman hands is firing a 50g bullet that has slowed down to 8000 feet per second at 1000 yards.
A rifleman with an M1Garand using iron sights with his 30-06 ammo that is a ballistic twin to the 240 bravos 7.62 would stand a far better chance at hitting the target at 800-1000 and killing him than either the gunner or the rifleman armed with the m4.
The real thing the 240 is doing here is providing controlled bursts of fire to stop the sand people from having time to take pot shots at us. Covering fire, to be exact. Hitting them is an added bonus. It's not easy with a machine gun
You are walking backwards in a feild of dildos and discovering why in open and mountain warfare the m4 and more to the point the 223/5.56 was insufficient. THE ROUND does not carry the energy downrange it needs to have a decent trajectory, to buck the wind, and to kill the intended target.
>.t myth of the american rifleman believer
>Army DOD circa 1955
Volume of fire wins battles and kills combatants, sorry you had to learn what everyone has known since 1945 today Sergeant York.
You sucked a lot of wiener in church didn't you.
you don't even know what tracers are for >.>
Im a big believer in accuracy by volume but i think youre mixing up some distinct things.
Range has nothing to do with with rate of fire. Suppression at range might, maybe even hits on target, but actual range bullets remain lethal at absolutely not.
The relationship of rate of fire and range is absolutely part of the equation when youre talking a military context.
A Scar17 effective range is less than that of a 240, both fore the same cartridge, both use magnified optics.
The only difference is one has a higher sustainable volume of fire.
No, effective range is not effected by rate of fire. Max range and effective range are not the same thing. Platforms however can be limited by optics/sighting, barrel length and any other number of factors.
The 240B has a maximum effective range of 1,200 meters from its 21" barrel firing standard ammunition. The ammunition from that barrel has a maximum range of near enough 5,700 meters.
The scar 17 has both 16 and 13 inch barrel configurations. Chopping off 5" of a barrel or 8" has a pretty drastic effect on velocity. That in turn effects both the maximum range, and the max effective range.
You should just stop parroting this nonsense about volume increasing max range. It is simply untrue and shows your ignorance on the subject.
5" costs you about 400 yards in this case on the back end.
In the case of smaller calibers or lighter loads a few inches does not increase velocity as much. So you can see as little as a 50 meter difference in some cases. Looking across platforms that seem the same but are from different periods of development can be misleading as well. Ammunition changes led to increased range. Higher bc/sd bullets. he change in twist rates to stabilize bullets at specific velocities as well. Overclocking can a high velocity be a disaster. Underclocking leads to wobble and less effective range.
The short story is rate/volume of fire is irrelevant to max, or max effective range.
>Effective range
>area effective range
>max effective range
Im not refering to ballistic effective range you stupid Black person.
Why is it that a 240b firing m80 ball has a longer effective range (the one doctrine actually cares about in this context) than a SCAR 17 firing the same cartridge?
Why is that?
Stop moving the fricking goal posts and answer the question.
Because the bullet fired from the 21 inch barrel is moving significantly faster than the same bullet fired from an 18 or 15 inch barrel.
So the bullet that is moving slower has less energy, less momentum, is effected more by wind, is less accurate, and does not travel as far.
Your question can be asked like this.
(Numbers rounded for simplicity sakes)
>>Why does a 150g .30 cal bullet moving 2700fps at the muzzle have a longer max effective range than a 150g .30 cal moving at 2550fps?
Simple. Because it is faster. It has more energy, more momentum, and that translates to better accuracy and the ability to not only hit but kill a target at longer ranges.
Your arguments are childish and based on knowledge you don't have
The "job" of crew served machine guns in the Infantry is to provide concentrated bursts of fire. It is not nor has it ever been that a group of soldiers could not do the same job as a machine gun crew, but instead that that a small number of men can do the job of many with less equipment. Hence the reason for the machine gun to begin with. If a 240B goes down, the 249saw quickly steps up and takes its place. Should the saw goes down, the job of concentrated bursts of fire return to that of those the guns replaced to begin with. Volley fire. To claim that 9-13 men or 40 men cannot do the job they train for every day using tactics and techniques as old as the rifle itself is beyond mind boggling.
You could also break concrete with your fists, but in a concrete breaking contest you'd be fricked against a guy with a hammer. Using forty men, or ten, when you could substitute two with a machinegun is fricking moronic and you should be ashamed, and your forefathers who went over the top at the somme are rolling in their graves
You're fricking moronic and sound "british", even if you served, your military isn't a viable fighting force according to your own glowies and the rest of FVEY, and you're acting like you fought at rorke's drift or that it was somehow relevant. Stupid inbred isleBlack person
>circa 1914
We really have gone full circle. They went into WW1 with 2000m volley sights, then hastily brought in 50m SMGs and shotguns. They'll go into the next war with their battle rifles and magic optic, then realize the optic can call down all the fire support they want at long range, but they'd much rather mount it on a good old M4 at short range.
If russian ukraine has showed us anything, its shown us that any failure to decisively end a conflict will result in short range trench bound firefights, the supposed range advantages of siggers new shitpile will never come to bear, and neither will the superoptic be able to be used on fleeting targets.
Designing a rifle to outrange a crewserved weapon is illogical, a waste of time, money and ultimately lives.
Why can't you speak in the standard English lexicon?
>muh esl
Youre gonna have to try hard than that.
A war with the US involved will be a lot more dynamic than that. And I think the optic will see decent use - might be drones take over some of the role, but drones can be detected and jammed or shot down more easily.
I'm talking about the units that actually fight dumbass. It's good to know rear echelons won't be burdened with battle rifles nor with PDW peashooters, but that was not my point.
>I'm talking about the units that actually fight dumbass.
Then you're the dumbass here
no u
>crew served, belt fed medium machine gun on a tripod
The tripod point is what really shows that these goobers were totally detached from fricking reality.
It really just boggles the mind how so far offbase the whole program is.
The MG would have been good if the piece of shit featured a QD barrel.
you're a fricking dumbass
what
>4 MOA, to the XM7 - 2 MOA
we have 2moa with m193
The entire op post is whining about triggers, and then here you admit "okay yeah good bullpup triggers exist BUT THIS SPECIFIC RIFLE SUCKS"
fwiw I own an RDB and I agree, the trigger is great but it would never work for a professional military - due to how hard it is to clear malfunctions. But just copy paste its trigger onto a traditional ejection system and it'll work.
Merely okay triggers do not make bullpups somehow unusable, and as a bullpup appreciator myself, I'd say the trigger is not even close to their biggest downside. To be frank, I don't think it's a problem that needs solving in an infantry rifle when most countries issue out heavy triggers intentionally to keep boots from NDing into the fire team partner. "Meh" triggers can be compensated for by the most basic fundamentals of marksmanship.
>It's clear that the US military expects infantry engagements to be longer range and require higher precision
The last time the good idea fairies of military procurement made this determination, they ended up fighting WWI. Rifle engagement distance isn't determined by power or precision, but line of sight. It doesn't matter if you have a rifle that will headshot a flea at 10km, and it doesnt matter if you use a drone to locate a mobik in a trench 2km away if you can't see further than 300 meters before there's a hill or treeline or building. At that that point all that extra weight bulk and recoil that buys you that range and precision becomes detriments, not benefits. The XM7 is born from bringing M4 carbines to fricking afghanistan, but that conflict is done.
>14.5" barrel rifle is lighter than a 20"
Comparing apples to fricking oranges here.
Have you ever used a milspec AR/M4 trigger? They're dogshit and we've been using them for decades. Grunts aren't marksmen, nor do they need to be.
Why do people shit on Mil-spec AR triggers?
The only "Mil-Spec" trigger I've used was from an Anderson lower parts kit and made of stainless. Is that cheap ass Anderson Trigger amazing or is actual milspec that bad?
Does it really matter when a real one is full auto?
I dont think service weapons really need match triggers
and triggers are overrated anyway, especially trigger takeup and reset
Triggers are probably the only thing that isnt overrated in importance, are you serious?
Again, grunts are not marksmen, and grunts do not need to be marksmen.
And i am not a grunt. There is no downside to putting a nicer trigger into a service rifle. It doesnt make you a good shooter but it makes shooting good a lot easier.
Are we talking about service rifles or are we talking about civilian clones of service rifles? Pick one. The downside of putting match triggers in service rifles is economic - way to costly to equip every small arm with something unnecessary. Your own personal clone? Who gives a frick; go crazy.
Bullpups will never replace traditional rifles/carbines. Get over it and enjoy the thing you like without seeking validation for it
There is a quality of trigger between a match trigger and sliding a brick against sandpaper. Shitty triggers significantly degrade accuracy but you do not need a Geisley to shoot good enough.
Maintenance or reliability, if it's built into the frame you have to replace the frame. Wires seem failure prone kinking/impact/insulation, and something more solid is a crack hazard among other things. It could be done, but optics are physically a smaller package
ATF considers an electric trigger inherently a machine gun due to the ease at which it can be modified to be such, and the way the law is written. This means that any such gun designed with an electric trigger system can never be sold to the US civilian market which is a huge chunk of cash, especially if your product can't win adoption trials which bullpups have been losing for a while now. The mechanical trigger is gud enuf for the grunts who'll be using it, and there's no incentive for a company try and convince the notoriously conservative MIC that an electric trigger is the better option.
>ATF considers an electric trigger inherently a machine gun
The ATF has never said this and has in fact said the exact opposite in the past in a letter; an electric trigger is NOT automatically a machine gun and various electric triggers have been made before.
I cannot find a single example of an electronic trigger on a semi-auto firearm because the ATF issued a ruling in the 90s stating that they did view them as readily convertible. The famous Remington electronic trigger was on a bolt action which sidestepped this problem by making it impossible to have automatic fire. There are a few fly by night operations that provide them as a drop-in solution for AR-15s and such like Digitrigger, but they're pretty clearly relying on the ATF not coming after them.
https://digitrigger.com/legal-information/
picrel
Not an electronic trigger, shill. It just has a cross bolt saftey operated by a solenoid. The "FULLY ELEECTRONIC TRIGGER FOR REAL111!!1!!!" is marketing shart.
The ATF explicitly stated that bump stocks weren't machine guns, until they were.
Mechanical makes sourcing easier incase the supply of something goes offline when making them
Not OP but couldn't an electric trigger or electric ignition system be designed with a disconnector that is part of the physical trigger like a double stage trigger? You make the take up reset the disconnector-blocker (for the electronic trigger) and then the wall is resting on the microswitch of the electronic trigger.
if it's electronic you can just slap a microcontroller to the trigger's signal wire and reroute the microswitch to one of its inputs. Add in some power regulation and an oscillator and write a bit of c++ and you have repeating fire with one trigger actuation. You could do this with any off the shelf development board.
The point is to have a disconnector that physically interacts (literal contact disconnector) that would pass ATF scrutiny without "modifying the code turns the e-trigger/e-ignitor into having select fire capabilities." Having it function in such a manner that physically prevents re-initation unless the physical trigger is let off would satisfy issues about changing a few lineds of code or otherwise "hard wiring" (bypassing) the system.
The chip controlling the firing system probably wouldn't be able to be flashed with anything once it leaves the factory anyway. Hell, the whole PCB would almost certainly come encapsulated in resin.
I would like to see a mechanical system that physically disengages the contacts like that. I'm sure they already exist in some form for switches meant for machinery. Of course, you could just pull out the original trigger and mount your own button switch somewhere in the trigger well and it'd still be better than most mechanical triggers, but that's getting a little far from what I'd consider a simple modification.
Just having the IC detect a reset in a SPDT button switch before being able to register another input would probably be enough for any reasonable regulatory body. It's arguably easier to bang out an auto sear than to solder signal wires to an Arduino, upload some code, and stuff it into the grip anyway.
It either has to be powered externally (battery) or self-generating in power (piezo per pull or some kind of crank/supercap system). Electronics are susceptible to failure rates due to the errors in production being atomic scale and not being really noticeable until it suddenly dies one day so you need to make the system redundant (like dual-parallel or triple even) plus add your backup.
All of this is cost but I for one would welcome nanosecond or millisecond lockup times for electric ignition.
>wires aren't durable
Who the frick said you needed to use a wire?
Bullpup triggers aren't actually bad.
People here haven't actually fire one.
Some moron in another thread argued with me but the aug's trigger weight doesn't impact your accuracy much. On pistols bad triggers are harder to compensate for since you're likely to jerk the gun but on a rifle you have your 3-4 points of contact. The main issue imo is that doing vollies of 3-4 rounds with semi-auto is more difficult
That that issue is strictly an AUG issue because of the specific design of its auto selector making the trigger strange.
Bullpups dont have a trigger problem, the x95 is ok, the MDRX is good as are the RDB and RFB keltec rifles and the only one on the market rn that doesnt have an improved trigger option is the Hellion.
Electronic gun parts defeat the main benifits of a gun. Just as does any other added inconvenience.
Hold the frick on while I change my batteries, or cranking up a charge into a capacitor is dumb as frick when a basic mechanical device works perfectly.
The Thorpe EM-1 had an interesting bullpup trigger where the system bypassed the need for a trigger linkage by having the trigger lift a sear and send a plunger flying backwards which hit a hammer that was mounted on the bolt itself.
Alternatively, just use an airsoft AEG gearbox as the trigger lol:
I don't really see it happening
nobody will not buy it because
>muh gubmint will turn off my gun
>muh grunts will break it
even if it's literally just two wires in short circuit and a capacitor to give it oompf
>I've never felt an aftermarket bullpup trigger, the thread
My ps90 pulls at 3.5lb, Aug has similar parts, and the tavor geissele is superb.
It is quite easy to put a good trigger in a bullpup.
All that is required is a straight pushrod that is stiffly mounted in some glide bushings in the receiver, with no way to bend or flex excessively.
It's been done once or twice.
There is a good reason tho for why you never see a good trigger in an overall good bullpup. Any rifle that ever mattered, is or was a service rifle that was fielded by at least a mid-sized military, and had the shit beaten out of it by recruits, thusly had it's problems fixed to become a reliable rifle.
The issue with service rifles is, nobody gives a shit about the trigger. The reason you still have nice triggers in your direct enshartment AR is cause the trigger is 1 compact modular unit and trivial to swap.
Not so in a bullpup. The trigger pushrod is an integral part of the receiver, requiring the rifle to be designed around it. So difficult to retrofit to be decent.
Some rifles even have strongly bend pushrods which is a total no no due to total lack of bending stiffness, and would require a total receiver redesign.
All the shitty pseudo boutique civilian only oriented guns from garage companies never have to go thru that service rifle fielding process and thusly universally suck ass.
But there are "improved" bullpup trigger kits...
Congrats, your IQ is below 100.
But that's an example of a modular unit trigger group, which you said did not exist.
>But that's an example of a modular unit trigger group, which you said did not exist.
I never said such a thing. the trigger unit doesn't matter if the pushrod it actuates is spongy as frick.
Do you believe that all bullpups use push linkages?
>Do you believe that all bullpups use push linkages?
Turn it into a pullrod, doesn't matter. The key issue is stiffness (and ofc slop in bushings/pins but that's a more trivial problem to fix)
You seem to have absolutely no mechanical understanding, you're probably a woman.
Yeah but, do you, like, know, like, what you know, a trigger like that feels like?
Do you know?
That pull linkages, dont, you know, bend, because, you know, youre pulling them and not, you know, pushing them???
You do not understand.
Even a thin steel shaft, if in tension, and pulled with normal trigger forces, will expand an amount so small you can hardly measure it. It's not about stiffness, it's about design.
Proarmament momentos. Universalis guerrerra mundi.
> Bullpups seem to be the seeth of the week and I agree that the impossibility of having even a decent trigger makes them poor choices for service rifles.
Your premise is flawed.
Firstly it doesnt matter if an infantry rifle has a trigger that the civilian buyer wouldnt accept.
Secondly it is not an impossibility for a bullpup rifle to have a good trigger.
Interesting theorycrafting tho, you definitely are not a moron.
why? service rifles don't need nice triggers and civilian rifles don't need to be bullpups. the only people who buy bullpups are guys who think they're cool but you have no constraint to overall length and needing a long barrel. and if you want a nice trigger any gunsmith can polish yours pretty nicely.
electronic triggers are dumb, would add more cost more failure modes and you'd need a mechanical backup anyway so you'd double the cost for what real gain? a nicer trigger which again doesn't matter in most settings?
and mechanical triggers are already really good and nice, self evidence by the fact that match shooting isn't asking for electronic triggers. and nobody in Match is using a bullpup because it's silly.
The trigger is a non issue you mouth breathing non engineer consumer scum.
>impossibility of having even a decent trigger
Who says?
>We need to bridge the gap for the last 10% of combat, even if we hamper or capabilities for the other 90% by that
Lol.
Of course the real question is, why does a modern army need to have a single service rifle, when rifles and rifle ammunition account for a tiny fraction of the logistical or fiscal footprint. I'm going to guess the us army knows that too and will quietly keep the M4 around.
>quietly keep the M4 around
The m4 will still be used dumbass, it'll be used for rear echelon troops and so on.
>no argument
>no data
Yet another W for me, keep giving me yous tho.
Go back to school and maybe people will actually argue with you in good faith
>>you
Don't understand basic military or ballistic concepts.
Mald, Seethe, Cope, Rope.
Here's my Beretta I took apart to do a trigger job on
Everyone above me, is Fricking moronic. I saw Op's thread, I Ignored Op's thread because it reads like gobblyasiatic shit something a nogunz would say. Yet you fat fricks fell for it and I'm sickened by it. No one cares about bullpup triggers because they were figured out in 2000.
Yet you all fell for Op's bad bait. IF IT SOUNDS moronic, IT IS SO IGNORE IT.
We're talking about NGSW now you moron
consider yourself BTFO like the other welfare queens itt
the only people who care about triggers have never seen combat.
do you think the guy taking a lead pill can tell how heavy your trigger is?
any marksman worth a shit doesn't need a match trigger anyways.
if you can't shoot 500 yards with an AUG, it's a skill issue. that's what it all comes down to.
bullpups are not hard to figure out. if you can't make it work, you just got filtered.
Can someone explain to me what the actual problem is with bullpups?
Everyone I knew that had to use one for their service (primarily bongs and frogs) didn't have a problem with them.
I heard more complaints about the footwear than the guns.
Is this an actual issue, or is it another case of rifles under-performing on paper?
moron american grunts too stupid to get a real job retired from GWOT who control the industry decided AR is best because moving the magazine 8 inches back totally mindbreaks them
Nothing really wrong with them in the current year. Theyre just different.
But pervasive fuddlore and mygun is better than yourgun persists.
Controllability is the only real downside with bullpups, because more of the mass is located near the contact point of the buttstock there is less inertia to resist muzzle flip. A bullpup will always be more jumpy than an equivalent normal rifle.
To fix this all of the moving mass in a bullpup should be mounted concentrically with the bore and completely in line with the shooters shoulder and even then the gun would not be quite as stable when considering the movements of the shooter.
The geometry gives your hands better control/ leverage over the recoil despite the mass placement not being as efficient. If you actually control the rifle instead of just letting it bounce everywhere, the bullpup configuration is superior.
This is not true. Your hands are in the exact same places as with a conventional rifle and they can exert the exact same controlling force. With a conventional rifle all of the recoil movements and sway from your hands is significantly dampened by the weight out front. You can try this yourself by hanging 2-3 pounds off the muzzle of your bullpup. The gun becomes a lot more stable.
NTA but I'm not so sure bullpups would inherently have more recoil. The recoiling parts being further back is a double-edged sword. Yes, there's less weight out front, but the recoiling parts will also have less torque to sway the rifle, as they are closer to the shoulder.
Also, although the overall weight of a bullpup is closer to the shoulder, the weight in front of the recoiling bolt is greater, since the grip and sights are in front of the bolt and magwell, not above and below it.
The longtidutional position of the moving parts is irrelevant. You can imagine them as longtidutional vector forces that are slightly offset from the bore axis and therefore causing torque. It's the same effect as when you're using a barrel nut tool with a torque wrench.
>the weight in front of the recoiling bolt is greater
This has no effect on anything whatsoever. Your shoulder is the pivot point. The distance from your shoulder and mass is what results in inertia of the firearm.
>it would be straightforward to integrate a swappable, long life durable battery that can be recharged with solar or by generating electricity when the action cycles
By all means, if it's so straightforward then elaborate. What model of battery? Who's going to make it? Will it be proprietary or commercial? What are its temperature limits? Are you going to use multiple per gun or just one? Will it still function after ten years in storage? Twenty? How about fifty? How large? How heavy? How exactly will it recharge itself? How many shots will it last? What happens when it wears out? Will it explode after it's punctured? Did you mother drop you on the head when you were a baby?
Not that anon but yes it would be straightforward. You'd use a lithium BR cell. They have very low self-discharge characteristics, high heat tolerance, a high energy density, and they don't burst into flames. Also they're already used in red-dots on guns by every major military worldwide, so you'd probably just use a few of the same batteries that come in those with a capacitor to discharge to drive the solenoid.
You would know how stupid your post is if you understood anything about batteries and embedded systems. Major militaries already rely on batteries in their rifles, it isn't some wacky new concept.
>Answering the rhetorical question
Your entire post was suggesting that it wouldn't be straightforward when choosing a battery is indeed very straightforward. You specifically asked for elaboration. Calling your stupid questions rhetorical doesn't make them any less stupid.
Bullpup triggers are fine
Man if there were only some kind of evidence to prove whether or not a velocity difference between two barrel lengths would equate to a 400m difference in effective range?
Hmmm m80 ball, 21 vs 16.
Hmm 120fps buys you 400 meters?
Bullshit, verifiable bullshit.
How can anon square this circle?
You cant, because volume of fire has a bearing on the effective range of your weapon you fricking dunce.
claims 2800fps for the 240B
2400 for the 17
That's about 400fps.
Both are real world exaggerations
And yes, that makes a world of difference and is why they have different max effect ranges
Explain to the class how 120 fps difference in velocity translates into 400m of difference.
Explain how you subtracted 2400 from 2800 and came up with 120?
You are just quoting military flashcards you don't understand and confusing covering and suppressing fire as a "job" and how far one can do it and actually putting bullet on bone as a "job" and it's silly.
Buy your attempt at logic the maximum effective range of a rifle increases if you shoot two at once.
See how stupid you are?
Now shush while I bang your mom.
2807-2682= 400
So Im dealing with a moron, good to know.
Considering the government claims close to 2800 for the 240 and the 17 has been repeatedly shown to chrono 2400-2500...your numbers are wrong.
And yes when you get that far from the barrel a few hundred fps start to make a very big difference.
Quick it's 2004 and you need to shoot a alalalal that's 900 yards away who is unaware of you and your position. What do you use?
(Hint m21 sdm leg)
Quick there is a building 900 years away with alalal taking pot shots at you snoopy and the gang. What do you use to put rounds on building at that distance?
(Hint 240 bravo)
Don't have the 240 bravo but alalalala is taking pot shots at you and the gang? If your rifleman where armed with m14s few of them could do the same job as the 240.
Now shush, you are really throwing off my rhythm.
I have barrel length data.
You dont.
So anon.
Explain to me how a 120fps increase in velocity translates into an extra 400 m of effective range.
I have chrono numbers from the actual rifles both lengths, you don't.
A couple hundred feet per second difference at the muzzle changes the energy level at 1000 yards from 308 to 470 ft lbs.
That's all the difference in the world when it comes to terminal ballistics.
Just admit you suck did and didn't realize that you were comparing max effective range across two different applications and didn't know it and tried to apply it to how "deadly" it was because you are a never served little b***h.
My data is there in black and white homosexual.
What im seeing here is you getting btfo, yet again, for the 50th time this thread.
Volume of fire is part of the calculus when determining effective range.
You shouldn't have fricked that boy in the Phillipines.
Is that what government property does in the Philippines?
Whats the difference in effective range for an m4 shooting on semi and burst/auto? Different volumes of fire so they must be different. You mean theyre the same, because youre making shit up? Show me any source that claims volume of fire has anything to do with effective range. Any handbook or field manual, even a company promo will do.
They are different in the military. But the effective range for a machine gun is for covering and suppressing fire. Suppressing fire basically means everyone within a meter of where the bullet hits is going to become busy trying to not get hit instead of attacking.
So the number he is giving is the range a 7.62 can hit within a yard of where it is aiming.
Rifleman also can give covering and suppressive fire. But when listing the maximum effective range of the standard issue rifle they list the maximum effecive range of its direct fire capabilities. That is hitting a man. Not within a meter of one.
Hence the difference.
However the maximum effective range can be directly compared in either role. To do so comes down to velocity and accuracy if they both use the same round.
This guy is a full tard thinking cyclic rate changes maximum effective range.
I know theres a difference in effective range for a point target and an area target. That guys moronic and is basing his whole argument off of rates of fire. If that was the case there should be a published standard for effective range when using the m4 on automatic or burst, but there isnt, because rate of fire is unrelated to range.
If he was correct mutiple rifles firing at the same time would have a longer maximum effective range than a machine gun.
you can square any circle anon, that's just basic geometry.
what's the relationship between velocity, BC, and bullet drop?
this is a 140 gr rifle bullet of differing G1 BCs fired with a muzzle velocity of 2950 ft/sec (900 m/s).
when velocity is held constant, you can clearly see that BC matters a lot more for what you're talking about.
Shush anon, this other moron still thinks that a diffence of 5 inches of barrel length translates into 400 fps with m80 ball, let alone how minute the velocity difference is when using heavy for caliber projectiles.
There isn't a chrono on the world that had a 16 inch scar hitting that velocity
Show me your 240b chrono data.
Because giving grunts clean trigger breaks is like 200 priorities past where the military is willing to go
>picrel
What are the bullpup implications?
electronic P90 firing LSAT 556 ammo, fricking when?
VGH
not soon enough. I need 120kpsi chamber pressures stat.
Idiot. Low key asking for ideas for your shit ass failure of a smart gun are ye? Gun controller.
>good trigger
>service rifle
LAMO, anyone who complains about a trigger on a rifle can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside, virtually every service rifle trigger is terrible.
the Aug stock trigger is on par with the bushmaster service rifle I used.
The main bullpup issue is not a trigger but the average IQ of the conscript that is decreasing
because batteries are worst then bulpup
Gun buyers are Luddites and afraid of electricity.