NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:24 pm**

Ea90 wrote:I believe he was responding to the point that rifle cartridges are too big to find in pistol grips.

While it isn't a realworld example, and would probably be a bit cumbersome, I did see this in the PMG group on Flickr the other day:

By Feral Wolf Boy

It's a large handgun that's supposed to accept 5.56x45mm magazines. I'm uncertain as to whether such a weapon would have any practical applications, however.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:26 pm**

Bezombia wrote:
United states of brazilian nations wrote:
well, i chose CTA over polymer-cased ammo because one of the weapon i'm making is a P90-ish carbine (related to working mechanisms), and it needs to have rifle power with a short cartridge or else i'd need a lulzy tick receiever to fit that mag in. and i don't know if a p-90 style mech would work with all these lulzy LSAT mechanisms as i frankly don't have the slightest idea of how they work.

If wikipedia is to be trusted, the LSAT uses a mechanism similar to the G11.

And a P90 wouldn't work with CTA.

G11 is way too complex german wizardry/engineering for my brain.

well, i'm not using your average CTA. i'm using a "rimmed" CTA, though its rim is in an "unrimmed" configuration (akin to the 5.56mm NATO, 30-06, etc., just if that caused confusion), and as such i believe it would work in your everyday "usual" mechanism configuration. of course the FN P90 is not so usual, but the ammunition i described could work in a similar system? does not necessarily need to be the exact same mechanism, i'm taking the magazine and downwards-ejecting parts at least. and, if it wouldn't work, could you explain why/what would i need to do to make it work?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:30 pm**

hey, Page 240!
top page poster, Y U no post M240 gunporn? disappoint.

let me fix that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rofile.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... oilder.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 004-01.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Tripod.jpg
(pics are way too large)

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:31 pm**

United states of brazilian nations wrote:
Bezombia wrote:
If wikipedia is to be trusted, the LSAT uses a mechanism similar to the G11.

And a P90 wouldn't work with CTA.

G11 is way too complex german wizardry/engineering for my brain.

well, i'm not using your average CTA. i'm using a "rimmed" CTA, though its rim is in an "unrimmed" configuration (akin to the 5.56mm NATO, 30-06, etc., just if that caused confusion), and as such i believe it would work in your everyday "usual" mechanism configuration. of course the FN P90 is not so usual, but the ammunition i described could work in a similar system? does not necessarily need to be the exact same mechanism, i'm taking the magazine and downwards-ejecting parts at least. and, if it wouldn't work, could you explain why/what would i need to do to make it work?

The problem is the lack of a headspace, not the lack of a rim. "rimless" (i.e. a rim rebated to the base diamter) CTA wouldn't be a problem at all.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:37 pm**

Bezombia wrote:
United states of brazilian nations wrote:
G11 is way too complex german wizardry/engineering for my brain.

well, i'm not using your average CTA. i'm using a "rimmed" CTA, though its rim is in an "unrimmed" configuration (akin to the 5.56mm NATO, 30-06, etc., just if that caused confusion), and as such i believe it would work in your everyday "usual" mechanism configuration. of course the FN P90 is not so usual, but the ammunition i described could work in a similar system? does not necessarily need to be the exact same mechanism, i'm taking the magazine and downwards-ejecting parts at least. and, if it wouldn't work, could you explain why/what would i need to do to make it work?

The problem is the lack of a headspace, not the lack of a rim. "rimless" (i.e. a rim rebated to the base diamter) CTA wouldn't be a problem at all.

what if it had an "angled" front? would that suffice for headspacing?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:39 pm**

United states of brazilian nations wrote:
Bezombia wrote:
The problem is the lack of a headspace, not the lack of a rim. "rimless" (i.e. a rim rebated to the base diamter) CTA wouldn't be a problem at all.

what if it had an "angled" front? would that suffice for headspacing?

Are you talking about headspacing off of a shoulder?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:40 pm**

Bah, 9x19mm made down to 6.5x25mm is too mainstream.

I shall use .455 made down to .303.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:41 pm**

Kouralia wrote:Bah, 9x19mm made down to 6.5x25mm is too mainstream.

I shall use .455 made down to .303.

Use 7.62x21 necked down to 4.85.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:43 pm**

Bezombia wrote:
Kouralia wrote:Bah, 9x19mm made down to 6.5x25mm is too mainstream.

I shall use .455 made down to .303.

Use 7.62x21 necked down to 4.85.

I don't use inferior rounds.

You may have noticed there is a theme across my rounds (beyond .59 and .338). That theme is they are all superior to everything else ever made ever in the history of ever and all and sundry.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:43 pm**

United states of brazilian nations wrote:hey, Page 240!
top page poster, Y U no post M240 gunporn? disappoint.

fite me irl

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:44 pm**

Kouralia wrote:Let's go at this again, do people use Imperial or Metric to classify ammunition?

it'll sound weird, but well, both. we tend to call cartridges by the designation they had when created; for instance, .45 ACP and .40 S&W, which are measured in Imperial, and 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO are in metric. we tend to pend more towards metric though, because Metric RULES. way easier to calculate things. i don't wven know why there are countries which use Imperial, it might be classy but try to make calculations with that, then try it with metric. everything is in a ...-1-10-100-1000-... scale, it's so easy to get and to calculate.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:45 pm**

Ford upon seeing a doge meme

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:47 pm**

Sevvania wrote:
United states of brazilian nations wrote:hey, Page 240!
top page poster, Y U no post M240 gunporn? disappoint.

fite me irl

IRL? IRL no, we aint allowed to have dem gunz. stupid gun controlz sheet.

i wouldn't fight you. i'm not that stupid

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:47 pm**

Kouralia wrote:Ford upon seeing a doge meme

I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic at hand, or even a topic on the last couple of pages.

Kouralia wrote:Let's go at this again, do people use Imperial or Metric to classify ammunition?

Sevvania uses imperial measurements for pretty much everything else, but refers to ammunition with metrics.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:49 pm**

Sevvania wrote:
Kouralia wrote:Ford upon seeing a doge meme

I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic at hand, or even a topic on the last couple of pages.

This happened a couple dozen pages ago.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:50 pm**

The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:50 pm**

Spreewerke wrote:
United states of brazilian nations wrote:
what if it had an "angled" front? would that suffice for headspacing?

Are you talking about headspacing off of a shoulder?

well, i haven't the slightest idea, but i guess it'd also make feeding easier. might also help with headspacing.

i'm talking about an angled "head" on a "rimless" (rebated rim) CTA cartridge, kinda like the shape of a .44 magnum bullet (these with the flat head), i guess.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:54 pm**

United states of brazilian nations wrote:
Spreewerke wrote:

Are you talking about headspacing off of a shoulder?

well, i haven't the slightest idea, but i guess it'd also make feeding easier. might also help with headspacing.

i'm talking about an angled "head" on a "rimless" (rebated rim) CTA cartridge, kinda like the shape of a .44 magnum bullet (these with the flat head), i guess.

In the .44 Magnum the "angled" part is the bullet. It headspaces on the rim, which yours will not.

You're basically taking a bottlenecked cartridge and cutting off the bullet and neck.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:55 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
what
the
actual
fuck

It seems like a lot of work went into it, but tbh I think it'd jam every 5 seconds irl

E: also, is it supposed to have such controllable recoil that you don't need a stock ???

Have you not noticed the stock?

Also, who cares if it would jam IRL? So much effort's gone into that, and its so original, if the creator posted it here for review by us I'd not even be mad.

NS is a website which includes MT, PMT, FT and FanT. My side-arm used to be (and is, in limited quantities) a bull-pup, over-under, double-barreled, armour-piercing, revolver-action, metal-storm pistol, I also issue 13mm pistols to officers (and on occasion NCOs and the Ranks) because of the treat from demons etc., which only a huge-ass pistol can counter. What I'm saying is, ultimately, realism can take a break if you've got some epic-as-all-fuck 5.56mm carbine like that.

tbh I want that to be made just so we can see if it will work.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:02 pm**

Bezombia wrote:
United states of brazilian nations wrote:
well, i haven't the slightest idea, but i guess it'd also make feeding easier. might also help with headspacing.

i'm talking about an angled "head" on a "rimless" (rebated rim) CTA cartridge, kinda like the shape of a .44 magnum bullet (these with the flat head), i guess.

In the .44 Magnum the "angled" part is the bullet. It headspaces on the rim, which yours will not.

You're basically taking a bottlenecked cartridge and cutting off the bullet and neck.

i know it, i'm just giving an example of the shape. i'm not dumb enough to not know that a bullet =/= case.
exactly what i am doing, i was wondering if that'd work.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:12 pm**

Sevvania wrote:
Kouralia wrote:Ford upon seeing a doge meme

I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic at hand, or even a topic on the last couple of pages.

And?

If I post a query about TRFs, that's also not relevant to anything that's ever been posted here (most likely).

So, let's go for it, do you use TRFs, and what are some of the more famous ones?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:13 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
Sevvania wrote:I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic at hand, or even a topic on the last couple of pages.

And?

If I post a query about TRFs, that's also not relevant to anything that's ever been posted here (most likely).

So, let's go for it, do you use TRFs, and what are some of the more famous ones?

What is TRF?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:13 pm**

BTW, this is what i mean:

before anyone complains about the lack of essential parts, or anything else, this is not the cartridge i'll be using. it is merely a very very very basic illustration that focuses only in the headspacing system only.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:26 pm**

Bezombia wrote:
Kouralia wrote:And?

If I post a query about TRFs, that's also not relevant to anything that's ever been posted here (most likely).

So, let's go for it, do you use TRFs, and what are some of the more famous ones?

What is TRF?

A little piece of cloth badge sewn to a soldier's sleeve to mark out what unit he's from. Used in Britain, primarily.

Queen's Royal Lancers, Subdued TRF.

Royal Signals

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:35 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
Sevvania wrote:I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic at hand, or even a topic on the last couple of pages.

And?

If I post a query about TRFs, that's also not relevant to anything that's ever been posted here (most likely).

So, let's go for it, do you use TRFs, and what are some of the more famous ones?

TRF is relevant to infantry discussion.

Posting how a member who isn't here may or may not respond to a a picture of a dog isn't relevant to infantry. If it was a picture of something infantry-related with doge-style comments around it, such as "wow," "amaze," and "much rifle," then there would be some relevance.
---
A patch worn by an elite unit of Sevvanian raiders. Raiders are generally intended to fight behind enemy lines.

NationStates

NS Infantry discussion thread