JASmith Wrote:I suspect that folks are confusing barrel lengths when comparing velocities. Some folks use 24" for testing. Others shorter barrels.

So, a manufacturer reports data for a 16" barrel, the reader thinks it is a 24" and subtracts the usual 150-20 ft/sec and says "Holy Cow, those velocities a really low!" The problem is they tend to not go back and cross check sources, so they think they are arguing from fact when they using erroneous information to slander a cartridge.

Tony Williams Wrote:Of course, if a long barrel is needed to extract the performance you want without going to a bigger and more powerful cartridge, then there's an obvious answer...work on a decent* bullpup design, and enjoy a 20 inch barrel in a gun the same overall length as an AR-15 with a 10-12 inch barrel.

*fully ambidextrous without having to dismantle and rebuild the gun, and with an adjustable stock length.

stanc Wrote:Hornady shows velocities for both 24" and 16" barrels, with a difference of 230 ft/sec. No confusion there.

stanc Wrote:Hornady shows velocities for both 24" and 16" barrels, with a difference of 230 ft/sec. No confusion there.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Hornady shows velocities for 14.5" and 18" barrels, in the 8th & 9th reloading editions, respectively. I haven't seen any 24" data from them yet.

LRRPF52 Wrote:That 16" velocity is actually 14.5" velocity, with an AA 14.5" gun that has a pinned muzzle device for legal length. Thanks for reminding me about their published 24" data. It's sad day for me that it took you to jog my memory...got any space for me in the room next door?

Quote:Any hot nurses, or are they all ex-cons with steroid use problems and kleptomania?

Variable Wrote:Not much really. You'd have to tweek the geometry of the tray, topcover components, and bolt.

My arguments with Stan aside (:p), the links should be the biggest obstacle, simply because setting up high volume sheet metal stamping is no task to be taken lightly. You have to be pretty dedicated on that one.

The fact that Ares is so astronomically challenged in just delivering 5.56 guns though is the real world killer. If he can't deliver on 5.56 in any reasonable manner, then Grendel is pretty much out of the question.

It's a shame really IMO. Geoffrey wanted military sales, but I doubt he'll ever see them. If he could actually manufacture like a pro (ala Colt), instead of just making really nifty prototypes that rarely see the market, then he'd be insanely rich by now.

I'd add a bit of mass to the sytem for a trials gun, but a 6.5 Grendel Shrike in about the 10 pound range would be a peach. If I could be General Curtis Lemay reincanated, I'd have my AF Security Forces abduct Bill Alexander and Geoffrey Herring and lock them in a bunker together. I wouldn't let them out until I had the Grendel Shrike. Then I'd pay them a kabillion dollars for the rights, and contract Colt to make it. Done, problem solved. Tada! I'd standardize the round, and then declare I didn't want to here any crap whining until plasma rifles in the 40 watt range are available.LOL

LRRPF52 Wrote:I think the curve starts to take a dip between 16" and 14.5", but not so much between 14.5" and 12.5". Just like a 16" and 18" are hard to distinguish from each other, just like a 20" and 24" are indistinguishable when looking at velocities. 14.5" velocities for a 123gr AMAX are 2350fps, while they are 2450fps from a 16". The best velocity Hornady lists with the 123gr AMAX is 2500fps from an 18". The average loss I have seen with identical loads between a 24" and 16" was 18fps.

My suspicion is that this is a factor of gas system length, more than just barrel length. You'll notice that the guns that use rifle-length gas systems produce the same velocities (20", 22", and 24"), just like the mid-lengths (18" & 16"), and carbine lengths (14.5" & 12.5"). If true, the argument can be made that the shortest barrel length practical with the gas system used is most efficient.

stanc Wrote:Trouble is, such a "decent" bullpup is, at this point in time, no more than a theoretical possibility.

Quote:Unless and until somebody makes it proven reality, it isn't worth discussing.

Tony Williams Wrote:If it isn't discussed, no-one will realise that there is a need it could meet, and therefore no-one will make it.

LRRPF52 Wrote:The thing I have come to realize is that the 6.5 Grendel is the cartridge I and many others have been looking for as a great all-round chambering that will fit in an intermediate cartridge weapon system of lighter weight. It has very little recoil, and lots of energy retained at distance, coming out of a little AR15.

stanc Wrote:It has been discussed ad nauseum, but still no one has made such a critter. If your idealized bullpup were feasible, why hasn't it been made yet?

The perceived drawbacks of the bullpup layout have been known for decades. It seems to me that if it is as simple to correct them as you say, somebody would've done so by now.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Traditional pistol cartridges are mostly inadequate for military operations. They are a last-ditch defensive tool for very close-in scenarios, and they suck at even that.

The one pistol cartridge that breaks this mold is the 7.62x25, which is awesome from a pistol or SMG.

Tony Williams Wrote:The problem is that most of the big purchasers of small arms (especially the USA) have a strong cultural preference for the traditional layout. Apparently mainly because it's traditional.

Quote:The recent users and developers of bullpups (notably Israel and China) obviously don't care about instant ambidexterity or a variable-length stock (nobody except the US Army seems to regard the latter as a priority). So if the users haven't asked for these features, they won't get them.

Quote:By a "decent bullpup", I meant one which addresses virtually all of the objections that supporters of the traditional layout can come up with.

Quote:But if you don't need instant ambidexterity and a variable length stock, the Tavor X95 is fine...

Quote:If a general-purpose cartridge is ever adopted, then it is likely to generate more interest in a general-purpose rifle to fire it - compact enough for urban warfare but with good long-range ballistics for open-country fighting. Another new factor emerging is the growth in the use of suppressors (the US Army apparently wants these fitted to just about everything) which add significantly to the overall length of a rifle. These two factors both play to the bullpup's strengths. So it's worth pointing out the advantages of bullpups whenever the subject arises, to keep those involved in mind of their potential for solving various problems.

stanc Wrote:I would agree (personally, I have long liked the bullpup concept), except that it has not been demonstrated that your "decent bullpup" can actually be made. Which means you are pushing a theoretical concept that may not be achievable in practice, as a preferred "solution" to the traditional design.

If I'm a little annoying on this, it's because I have grown weary of all the theoretical proposals that have been advanced with little or no hard data to support them.