Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Sturgeon

Administrator
  • Content Count

    15,740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    149

Everything posted by Sturgeon

  1. As I slowly get things back together to reboot, I wanted to ask: What procedural changes would you like to see in how the competition is run when we reboot it? Feel free to make any suggestions you think are appropriate. Also what start and end dates would be best for everyone?
  2. We're currently looking at rebooting it in the next few weeks. The biggest problem is that I have a newborn and very little free time. We would love to have you participate, though!
  3. >why I dislike this aircraft Ok go take your fee fees somewhere else thanks.
  4. Yeah, another thing to think about is that for arcane reasons I won't explain here, the total receiver length of a gas operated, rotary-locked rifle will be equivalent to 3*(C2-C1)+R1, where C1 is the cartridge overall length of the identical pattern smaller rifle, C2 is the new COAL, and R1 is the original receiver length. So, the HK433 being obviously designed for 5.56mm, you would need more extensive modifications (new upper + lower) to accommodate 7.62. What is in contention is whether a 7.62 HK433 would need a new pin axis distance, or not. I could go either way on that.
  5. Please don't, we've seen enough.
  6. Ok, if you're honestly interested in learning, try talking less authoritatively. Asking questions is fine. As an example: This is an authoritative statement. It's also wrong. If you say it like this, I now have to correct you. Instead, try wording it like this: "Is it true that the SCAR-H's receiver is an inch longer, and wider, than a SCAR-L's?" And don't just word vomit. If you're here to learn, it's at the grace of people who can answer your questions. Don't test their patience.
  7. I like how OSC already explained it to you and you ignored him. You're accusing your opponents of being "conspiracy theorists" while you struggle to maintain an argument about the "defectiveness" of an OPERATIONAL aircraft in active use with eleven countries. It boggles. And you wonder why I'm being dismissive and insulting to you. You're a completely unserious person.
  8. Known idiot wanders in from another forum, spews decade-debunked bullshit, and then whines about being treated poorly. News at 11.
  9. You know nothing of this thread or this website. You know little of anything at all. Substance! A joke, a jest, a surprising modicum of wit! It must be. It certainly isn't anything else!
  10. It's funny how you completely failed to notice the thread's title is ironic, or that nobody likes you because you're a dolt.
  11. You continue to be a fucking idiot.
  12. You need to stop this nonsense and start contributing. Nearly every relevant thing you said is incorrect, misconceived, or misapplied. It is tiresome to have someone here who is so verbose and so erroneous at the same time. It takes a lot of time to refute it all, and we are no longer young, patient men with nothing but.
  13. Well within margin of error.
  14. If you cite Forgotten Weapons again, I'm banning your IP.
  15. Not because you'd have to forge the receiver. This really makes you sound like you know nothing about manufacturing technology. It's like saying your Dodge Neon must be fast because it's painted the exact same red as a Ferrari. You are literally equivocating the produceability of the EM-2 and the Garand with the Bren. Incredible. What's remarkable about this is that you completely fail to understand the criticism of the EM-2's produceability that Collimatrix and I made. You think the EM-2 "would be too expensive". You don't understand that no production standard for the EM-2 was ever made. It's not that you couldn't ever make one economically, but that the design much more immature and hadn't reached that stage yet. Then you strut around making strong statements like "I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR" well ok but you clearly haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, you aren't contributing anything to this conversation, and nobody cares what you want. I love how you just come out of the gate with this with no citation or understanding of the topic at hand, and you're comparing a gun from 1950 with a gun from 1958. Just amazing. HURR DURR I'VE READ THE LAST ENFIELD TOO You evidently have horrible reading comprehension then: This is an incredible statement. Truly amazing. You have about as much understanding of this subject as a mussel has of the tides. The fuck does this have to do with anything? You seemingly just dropped this in here because I mentioned that the Brits couldn't make complex steel cored projectiles consistently. Oh, I dunno, probably due to the critical lead shortage of 1949-1951. They did not do it for barrier penetration reasons, so this is rather like everything else you "know". Yes they were, because its trajectory was not very good. That has nothing to do with the precision of the rounds, though. Wind. Bag. You don't. Stop acting like you do. You say, never having held nor shot one, and getting your opinions about it from other people. Are you from /k/?
  16. I think you need to read the forum beginner's guide.
  17. No. The accuracy problems were due to the British not being able to construct consistent steel cored projectiles. That shows a lack of knowledge on your part, since the 6.25mm British has both lower muzzle velocity and lower BC. Did you know the M1 Garand used a forged steel receiver? We made those in the millions. So, you do not really know what you're talking about here. Sounds regurgitated. Ever held an EM-2? Based on your extensive experience with it? .280 was one of the most modern calibers of 1951 and steel forgings were the most modern production techniques for small arms of the period. So you just want it to have come from the future? Something I find very frustrating about young people in this age is that they do not seem to be able to think clearly. They pass around tokens of memes, laundering self-contained ideas to each other and assembling them into a modular "philosophy" in which each individual piece is interchangeable and stitched together with cheap chinese thread. The problem is these philosophies fall apart under the most modest stress. Stress such as, what the fuck are you talking about, the EM-2 had no caliber conversion provision and it's hard to think of two more different rifles from the past 100 years than the EM-2 and HK433. If my guess is right, you just have both weapons stuck in your mind, so out comes the cheap chinese thread and stitched together they go. Some advice: First, read the starter guide for this forum, or we'll kick you off. You can't just strut into a place like this and put on the airs of an expert and spout whatever you like. Us folk here don't like that much. And, based on what I've seen, heaven help you if you get into a real argument with any of us.
  18. It builds character! I wouldn't get preoccupied with "hole size". Remember, a .270 round creates a hole only 0.053" (1.35mm) wider than a .22 cal round. Also, spitzer rounds, if they do not fragment or expand, do not fly straight into a target. They yaw. The areas of most significant damage within this path will not be at the sides of the bullet, but at the turbulent tip and base as it tumbles through. This rather graphic photo illustrates this more perfectly than I could have hoped for: We don't know by what round this individual was struck, but it's remarkable that from the wound cavity you can tell which direction the bullet was pointing as it passed through tissue. The tip is the most devastating part of a non-deforming bullet, it shears tissue like scissors, as is evident here. The diameter of the projectile, the breadth of literature tells us, does not really have a directly lethal effect, at least within the scope of the sizes normally considered for individual weapons (say .20-30 caliber). One of the problems with relying on gel tests alone is that gel, though made of a collagen solution, is not under much tensile stress, whereas human tissues are, being quite literally pulled taught against the muscle attachment points and the skin against the tissues. Lacerating effects in gel show up as barely visible cracks for the most part, but in actual living tissue they result in blown apart tissues, destroyed ligaments, and other dramatic effects. Something worth remembering when thinking about this subject. And of course, I have not even touched on fragmentation or expansion as lethality mechanisms. Fragmentation results in widespread and extreme laceration which has effects on tissue that very much resemble a meat grinder, including widespread bruising and skin failure in very extreme cases. Since the Romulan and Vulcan rounds all were developed with fragmenting EPRs in mind, it doesn't make much sense to seriously consider the diameter of either round, since if they perform properly (and EPRs almost always do) they won't hold their shape for any more than an inch of gel penetration. A fragmented rifle round doesn't have an overall diameter. For EPRs and other fragmenting bullets like SOSTs and BATs (my own invention) what matters much more than diameter is the mass of the disintegrating components (jacket/fragmentation filler), the velocity limit to initiate fragmentation, the angular limit to initiate fragmentation (ideally fragmentation initiates at any striking angle), and the SD of your penetrating components (slug + penetrator). 6.86mm Vulcan does have some advantages in this regard, which leaves the question: Are they worth the extra weight? HK433's lower accepts only 2.26" cartridges. However, I have it on a nudge nudge wink wink confirmation that the 433 was designed to swap between "L" and "H" (7.62 OAL) sized lowers while retaining the same upper/lower junction. We haven't seen an "HK433H" yet but chances are good it at least was on the drawing board. My large frame design, the F-12 Archangel, was also created with intermediate OAL rounds in mind. It is the primary proposed platform for the 5.56mm Supercruise, as well as the 6.5 Archangel.
×
×
  • Create New...