Old Man Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 We're all three dice away from an 18, my friend. Speak for yourself--I throw four dice to hit! Ragitsu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Hmm just seen this on my Facebook. Say hello to my little friend the .557 Tyrannosaur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZcMS1sYy9U http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.577_Tyrannosaur So theoretically, what would the damage on that be in Hero terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadman Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 According to this online conversion tool http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Hero/Conversions/Firearms/rw_conversion.htm (which is pretty well written in my opinion) the .577 Tyrannosaur would do 3d6+1K with 1 point of Piercing and a +4 Stun Multiplier. bigbywolfe, mikeward2534 and Hyper-Man 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 According to this online conversion tool http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Hero/Conversions/Firearms/rw_conversion.htm (which is pretty well written in my opinion) the .577 Tyrannosaur would do 3d6+1K with 1 point of Piercing and a +4 Stun Multiplier. That's cool, thanks for the stats and the link. I've never used the Piercing rules from Dark Champions, and I'm not sure if I would want to use his Armor Effect house rule, but it's a good start for building the gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeward2534 Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 According to this online conversion tool http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Hero/Conversions/Firearms/rw_conversion.htm (which is pretty well written in my opinion) the .577 Tyrannosaur would do 3d6+1K with 1 point of Piercing and a +4 Stun Multiplier. Thanks for the link and stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 6, 2014 Report Share Posted December 6, 2014 I am not certain it needs any piercing. Oh well, no big deal. I am the nerd who figured out how to write up armor that would stop iirc 7.62X51 AP but not 50 caliber because that is the way some light military armored vehicles are classified... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DusterBoy Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Check this cutie out: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/05/16/338-nm-lightweight-medium-machine-gun-lwmmg/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted December 18, 2014 Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 I wonder when the US military is going to move to a modern small arms round. It might have to wait until the caseless stuff comes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Caseless still has a lot of problems. Current thinking is apparently focused on the polymer cases, possibly with a steel Case head. The new 7x46 uiac looks like it may be designed for conventional cases, and may have too much recoil for automatic use from rifles. on the high end, The new .264 USA appears to be designed for the polymer cases bodies, based on the VERY slight case taper. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/ I disagree with the author on the desirability of a GPC round, among other things.,, but it is the easiest link to find. The polymer cases apparently have an efficiency advantage due to the fact that they do not absorb or transmit heat from the burning powder like a conventional case. (This actually brings up one of the problems of Caseless rounds. In a conventional cases see e, the shell absorbs a significant amount of heat, then removes it from the system when it is ejected.) Supposedly this allows the effective use of some percentage more , of the energy from the combusting powder. Imo this advantage, however, is partially offset by the thicker case walls needed for the polymer cases, which means that for any given case size, polymer will hold less powder. There are apparently some "cute" tricks allowed by the polymer cases, built around gluing the bullet into the case neck or just forming the body around the bullet, then gluing the case head on. I would like to see more information comparing the polymer cases to the thin stainless steel bodies with aluminum case heads that were demonstrated a few years ago. These managed to cut 20 or 25 percent from the weight of a loaded round in 7.62 NATO. These also apparently provide more internal volume for any given external dimensions. With a purpose designed case, the increased internal volume could be used to get a bit more performance from a given case size. Some peopl don't like the idea of a GPC, or the lwmmg, because the ammo weight goes up compared to 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. The problem is, that the GPC will approximate (in some ways improve upon) the heavier 7.62x 51, and the .338 in the lwmmg would far exceed the performance of 7.62x 51 and approximate the range of the .50 mg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Caseless still has a lot of problems. Current thinking is apparently focused on the polymer cases, possibly with a steel Case head. The new 7x46 uiac looks like it may be designed for conventional cases, and may have too much recoil for automatic use from rifles. on the high end, The new .264 USA appears to be designed for the polymer cases bodies, based on the VERY slight case taper. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/ I disagree with the author on the desirability of a GPC round, among other things.,, but it is the easiest link to find. The polymer cases apparently have an efficiency advantage due to the fact that they do not absorb or transmit heat from the burning powder like a conventional case. (This actually brings up one of the problems of Caseless rounds. In a conventional cases see e, the shell absorbs a significant amount of heat, then removes it from the system when it is ejected.) Supposedly this allows the effective use of some percentage more , of the energy from the combusting powder. Imo this advantage, however, is partially offset by the thicker case walls needed for the polymer cases, which means that for any given case size, polymer will hold less powder. There are apparently some "cute" tricks allowed by the polymer cases, built around gluing the bullet into the case neck or just forming the body around the bullet, then gluing the case head on. I would like to see more information comparing the polymer cases to the thin stainless steel bodies with aluminum case heads that were demonstrated a few years ago. These managed to cut 20 or 25 percent from the weight of a loaded round in 7.62 NATO. These also apparently provide more internal volume for any given external dimensions. With a purpose designed case, the increased internal volume could be used to get a bit more performance from a given case size. Some peopl don't like the idea of a GPC, or the lwmmg, because the ammo weight goes up compared to 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. The problem is, that the GPC will approximate (in some ways improve upon) the heavier 7.62x 51, and the .338 in the lwmmg would far exceed the performance of 7.62x 51 and approximate the range of the .50 mg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Caseless still has a lot of problems. Current thinking is apparently focused on the polymer cases, possibly with a steel Case head. The new 7x46 uiac looks like it may be designed for conventional cases, and may have too much recoil for automatic use from rifles. on the high end, The new .264 USA appears to be designed for the polymer cases bodies, based on the VERY slight case taper. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/ I disagree with the author on the desirability of a GPC round, among other things.,, but it is the easiest link to find. The polymer cases apparently have an efficiency advantage due to the fact that they do not absorb or transmit heat from the burning powder like a conventional case. (This actually brings up one of the problems of Caseless rounds. In a conventional cases see e, the shell absorbs a significant amount of heat, then removes it from the system when it is ejected.) Supposedly this allows the effective use of some percentage more , of the energy from the combusting powder. Imo this advantage, however, is partially offset by the thicker case walls needed for the polymer cases, which means that for any given case size, polymer will hold less powder. There are apparently some "cute" tricks allowed by the polymer cases, built around gluing the bullet into the case neck or just forming the body around the bullet, then gluing the case head on. I would like to see more information comparing the polymer cases to the thin stainless steel bodies with aluminum case heads that were demonstrated a few years ago. These managed to cut 20 or 25 percent from the weight of a loaded round in 7.62 NATO. These also apparently provide more internal volume for any given external dimensions. With a purpose designed case, the increased internal volume could be used to get a bit more performance from a given case size. Some peopl don't like the idea of a GPC, or the lwmmg, because the ammo weight goes up compared to 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. The problem is, that the GPC will approximate (in some ways improve upon) the heavier 7.62x 51, and the .338 in the lwmmg would far exceed the performance of 7.62x 51 and approximate the range of the .50 mg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DusterBoy Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Triple post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Dangit, the tablet keeps acting as if the post has not gone through... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 It was a good post that bore repeating. Meanwhile, spoiled for size: wcw43921, aylwin13, GoldenAge and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakboy6117 Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 New prototype Canadian Military smart gun more details tkdguy and Ragitsu 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Russian helmet testing: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 New prototype Canadian Military smart gun more details The less attractive brother of the OICW, it seems . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 The less attractive brother of the OICW, it seems . Yeah, not intended as a fieldable weapon, just seeing how things can fit together. AIUI, this uses the polymer cased telescoped rounds from the LSAT program, and a 3 round metal storm grenade launching barrel. I am not sure, but I might have seen something about a 60 rd magazine for the rifle. To me, the most interesting recent development of the LSAT program is that they are apparently focusing on a 6.5 mm cartridge instead of the original 5.56 equivalent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I wonder what the recoil is on a round that's 6500 meters across. Good to hear they're changing up the caliber. Mid-6mm rounds have proven superior ballistic performance to existing small arms ammunition. Changing the caliber when they switch over to telescoped makes too much sense. (Not that that would stop the DOD of course.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Russian helmet testing: Of such stuff are old ethnic jokes made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rails Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I wonder what the recoil is on a round that's 6500 meters across. Well, it DOES say "Not man fireable". Twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Damned Cel phone... okay, Darned operator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakboy6117 Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 custom AR lower receivers a prototype of a new one Remjin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragitsu Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 While I can appreciate the artistic skill put into those receivers, I see a slight problem with dolling up your shooting iron. Namely, if your enemy is close enough to see them and calm enough to take in any appreciable amount of detail, something has gone terribly awry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakboy6117 Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 i guess its the psychological bonus for you of looking bad-ass or maybe the marketing bonus of signature weapons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.