Is this the power of British gun design?

Is this the power of British gun design?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tJPZX9QtXAQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92×33mm_Kurz#Background
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>10mm
Meme round, too big for practicality and too small for maximum lethality.

I always liked bullpup rifles, but this just looks plain retarded even if it was a fictional concept

Superior Italian design

>you will never own that Italian pistol chambered in .454 cassul with a separate single shot barrel chambered in.308

the bullpup refers to the stock, without one...

Why can't they make a gun that attaches to the wrist, like cool aliens from star trek?

-add modular buttstock option
-add modulat long-ass barrel option
now you have a potentially ok pistol caliber rifle
i hope the cartridge is like that special russian one that eliminates blast from the space between the magazine and the barrel. otherwise your face will get fucked.
actually forget the buttstock. by lengthening the thing all the way to be a buttsock would give you a ridiculously long barrel for a pistol cartridge while still being a very compact rifle
however at that point the reloading will be pain in the ass. maybe turn the entire cylinder into a magazine that you can quickly replace.

it achieves longer barrel length and/or shorter total length by putting the main mechanism that would otherwise be in front of the trigger behind the trigger so i say it qualifies

fairly sure it means having the chamber behind the trigger guard

how would you fire?

palm trigger?

It looks like it will fire backwards towards you lmao

Looks like a wonderful way to give your whole forearm a bad case of cylinder thumb.

nothing uglier than bullpup

Like spider man.

That’s simultaneously one the most autistic and coolest things ive ever seen.
t. borderlands fanboy

not meant to be lethal dipshit it says HV it's a tazer of some sort

it's not autism, it's made by someone whose job it is to design props and elements for film

What does bullpup mean?

No the best British gun design would be the Lawgiver from Dredd.

I'm reading it's a Weta Workshop design so dunno where you're getting the British from.

Weta isn't British.

fucks people up without you even near it

it means the magazine is located behind the whole firing mechanism

they're the same thing

>battery
If your gun design needs a battery to operate, might as well do something usefull like a Gauss rifle.

The only modern-era British infantry weapon of note is the Maxim Machine Gun, which was designed by an American expat.

don't forget the british designed anti tank weapon propelled by a spring

youtube.com/watch?v=tJPZX9QtXAQ

>propelled by a spring
wtf? would the spring hitting the rocket not make it explode and break the gun and kill the shooter before it's sprung out of the gun??

...

You need some brace or powered exoskeleton to do that (maybe just on the arm). Otherwise goodbye wrist/arm/hand, and goodbye accuracy.

It just means the action (ammo loading, locking, firing, extracting, ejecting) is behind the trigger mechanism. Mainly used for shorter length (without sacrificing barrel length) and balance.

Have a picture of an actually functional revolver bullpup and the rare gun fiddler comfy talker man. It does actually work a bit like those british wobbly autorevolvers tho

This is my most favourite pistol.

>force us to use shitty 7.62 instead of 7.9 kurz because of a bad case of NIH syndrome
>clearly isn't working as intended (like with the FAL in automatic)
>develop another shitty round in the 5.56 that now has the opposite problems
>all of this when the ideal intermediate round had already been designed and perfected over 70 years ago
>somehow this is our fault
i hate murritards so, so much

Ignore OP, he's just another butthurt retard who has to slander off Brits for his obesity problems.

>the ideal intermediate round had already been designed and perfected over 70 years ago

>electronic ignition point
>battery
Not overcomplicating things at all, totally reliable too

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92×33mm_Kurz#Background

Oh shit thanks for posting the historical garbage already I'm aware of. I'm asking for proof for your claims of this particular cartridge being "perfect" which I assume means better ballistics than the ones currently employed by NATO.

sweetie...
no, sweetie
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

not doing your homework for you mate says further reading right at the bottom
.280 was different in a few ways but it still outperformed dogshit 7.62

>battery
>"electronic ignition"
>cylinder gap that close to the shooter's face
>rear heavy, probably doubling the effective recoil
>wasted space in the grip aka an obsolete bloody revolver

>not doing your homework for you mate says further reading right at the bottom
Oh so it's just yet another bad case of a wehrabooism.
Good to know.

Electronic ignition is less complicated than mechanical you dumbasses.

I have couple of questions

how does it rotate the cylinder?
how is it hold in place to begin with?
how does it fire bursts?
why is it covered in random holes?
how do you holster it?
what benefit does electric ignition give?
why is it named after 100+ years old bolt action rifle?
what is a "handstock"?

a weapon designer shouldn't have any latent bias a good design is a good design regardless where it came from. 7.9 kurz wasn't some hypothetical it was proven to work and fit exactly or near exactly the standard NATO was looking for in an intermediate round for semis and autos. without murritard meddling it would've amounted to more or less the same as you can see by what the FAL was originally chambered for.

You still haven't posted a single fucking proof of 7.9 kurz superiority over 5.56 or any contemporary intermediate design at all. If it was superior it would've been used don't you think?
And inb4 you start spouting shitty memes about americans suffering from not-invented-here - standard nato pistol caliber was developed in Germany and in this case you can actually argue whether they actually chose the correct one.

7.92mm kutz was 7.92mm only because of all the 7.92mm tooling they had already set up

if 5.56 is so terrible, why did the Soviets switched over to 5.45mm, the Chinese to 5.8mm?
And Germans wanted even smaller calibers - G11 would be 4.7mm caseless and G36 was originally meant for 4.6mm

>7.92mm kutz was 7.92mm only because of all the 7.92mm tooling they had already set up
hey well it's a happy coincidence then.
but i am not saying 7.9 kurz was the be-all end-all cartridge. i am saying it was a step in the right direction, and probably needed little refinement to have served well long, long after the war.
i've no idea why i even have to argue about this, the stupid design of 7.62 is evidenced by the fact that 5.56 had to be developed afterwards at all, because it was so obviously not an appropriate round for automatic fire. as for 5.56 it's an improvement (you can shoot it continuous without blowing your arm out) but it's gone in the other direction to where few people seem happy with its strength in all situations. but there is no reason for any of this, it could've been avoided by just adopting a working intermediate round in the first place.
can't speak for the soviets or chinese but they have a long history of monkey see monkey do. although it's worth noting that the AK uses (soviet) 7.62 and still sees light years more use than than AK-74 or whatever its name is. i don't think the export patterns of that gun even chamber for 5.45 (could be wrong on this though)