Your technical designs skills really show through again. Very nice design on the gun. As well as the cat.

gm-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gep%C.....materiel_rifle

GM-6 Lynx .50 bullpup semi-auto BMG anti-material / sniper rifle from Hungary, made by Sero.

Honestly for Power VS Weight and recoil you will have a hard time beating the Shotgun.

Range is the main trade off.

Yet essentially all military and police organizations use them in the real world.

The power and versatility of a shotgun lets you switch from a tungsten slug to stop an elephant or pierce armor to a beanbag round to drop a pissed off drunk without a taser in a few seconds.

Also looking at the large urban areas of Zootopia you don't really want a .50 BMG slug flying 3 miles across the city do you?

I wasn't suggesting a .50 BMG weapon, merely the action, scaled down, to make for a more moderate weapon with the extra recoil mitigation that the design has. For that matter, that action in a shotgun could be be a thing, though would loose the muzzle brake.

So, no "air-powered elephant tranquilizer" in your AU?

The situation is outside of Zootopia and the niceities of ZPD suspect securing. Bad guys in bad places, killing each other.

Huh, that'd be a damn interesting round.

For the type of action, almost anything will do, but that particular cartridge design would look pretty cool. Also, I prefer bottle neck cases for auto-loaders for more reliable feed and like higher velocity over heavier bullet.

Oh yeah, definitely.

just your detail and explination fo your tec designs always make me do the homer drool . It's why I like your technical work alot :)

The cartridge design reminds me a little of the .357 SIG -- a 9mm in a .40 case -- but with a bigger bottleneck. Okay, so it's a .50 Action Express case and maybe a 9mm or 10mm projectile. That would make 'bulletproof vest' a laughable misnomer.

I don't mind a little recoil -- I have 1911s in 10mm and .38 Super and I have several .44 Mags -- but I only fired a .50 AE once. I'm a big guy, but the Club Instructor had a Desert Eagle he was demonstrating to a class one Sunday morning. After they had cut their teeth on .22 LR, .38 S&W Specials and .380s, he showed some know-it-all what the back-blast from the DE would do inside the range house. I was standing two firing points away, and the thing was doing CPR on me. After the class had skittered away, he derided my Ruger Super Redhawk and offered to let me shoot the 'real gun'. Must have been kinda like this thing.

I was thinking of the .357 SIG at the time (couldn't recall the name thou-) However, there are a whole family of smaller bottle-necked rounds out here nowadays that would be more than adequate for all but the largest targets with power over-lapping into intermediate carbine/assault rifle types. The bottle-necked .50AE was more for the cool, I can make one of these, kind of things. I've fired .50 AE in a Grizzly automatic, it was managable, but unpleasant. Had a idea for a silly bit with a shoot-out in a nice echo-y setting, like a huge empty parking garage, at night with little or no lighting, and both guys pull out their hand-cannons, and spend then next x-minutes nearly deaf and blind from the muzzle blasts. My Stupid Brother made a very effective muzzle-brake for his Ruger GP100 .357 and ran up various hot loads for it. So much so that he was damaging the acoustic tiles at one of the ranges and was cutting the back strap on the gun. But the Brake really worked, felt like .38 specials.

As a silly, I did some fun loads for a .44Mag. Just a few grains of powder behind a lead round ball, you could see the ball bouncing down range when shot. Also did some full BP loads for instant smoke screen.

That sounds like my brother's first experiments with a Ruger Old Army (Black Powder cap & ball revolver on the Remington model). He tried one of the synthetic modern BP replacements. The balls went bouncing downrange like something out of a comic. He had also brought s can of real FFFG Black Powder. He loaded up with The Real Thing and got a truly lovely boom, a cloud of beautiful blue smoke, and a satisfying recoil jolt. The first ball edged the X-ring.

So, what are you using for a reloading press?

I've got two single stage presses a RCBS and older, larger Herters , and have but don't use a four position progressive that uses a smaller diameter, fine thread die of which I have only a couple dies sets for. I've also collected a few vintage field reload tools, one is a truely all-in-one tool for 32-20 (have a couple little Colt PPS and a Marlin lever action in 32-20)

My brother and I each have Dillon 550Bs we've had for years. I bought a basic jones Lee Reloading Press exclusively for decapping the brass before cleaning it. It failed after a month. I bought a little RCBS single stage to replace it; it's decapped countless rounds and shows no wear.

I have several Ideal/Lyman pliers-type devices: .45 Colt (of course), .41 Long Colt (for my Model 1892) and a (surprise!) .32-20 because it was cheap.

The eyes have it :)

so which is better Caseless or Cased ammo? Caseless has an advantage of no Brass or steel to pickup or trace there are some you can buy but they are all Military or Prototype.

I'd wonder about the total energy versus chamber volume, as I'd WAG that the caseless propellant might be a bit less energenic to make it safe and sold enough. Also, a cartridge case also functions to seal the chamber. Ends up being a toss-up of varying factors. Possibly the one thing cased has over caseless is that it is super-durable and reliable, even after a LONG time (I have 100+ year of ammo which is still good) and can be run through awfully marginal actions, while caseless seems to need fairly tight actions.

true weapons like Metal storm are electrically ignited and are designed like a 1900's Cannon Loaded from the front problem being the first rounds have an inaccuracy problem.
Keep in mind any caseless ammo weapon could wear out faster, meaning seal replacement and breech erosion. cases can also be made of cellulose any case particles will get ejected when the round levies the barrel. there is also the moisture factor, Metal cases can be used 50 Years later just stored on a shelf. However most Caseless Propellants/explosives are hydroscopic making them less effective over time stored. being organic salt based.
I have seen clumsy rotating barrel setups for caseless trying to make them fool(Idiot) proof. all seem to need an electric ignition source to eliminate possible primer strike accidents. people have also been toying with gas propellants, there main drawback is bulkiness,
people are now making "Air" more popular for sport shooters. there main problem is "Range anxiety" LOL on the pulse side limitless propellant little noise and you only need to carry projectiles which are less bulky. guys can shoot all week with an Air rifle.

For larger ordinance there have been work done on liquid propellants too, but that could get tricky to scale down. My Albedo scenario has the ILR using telescoping caseless, with the bullet in the middle of a propellant mass, with a fairly conventional primer fitted to the base of the bullet for a more positive ignition strike. The propellant is also worked as a polymer for durability. They use such to save weight on combat loads (also small, high velocity bullet) and as they don't expect a long service life in the arms, are willing to live with erosion issues.

Yes the US had that problem due to barrel fouling from there corrosive powder...

You thinking of a particular issue/circumstance? Far as I know, there is no such thing as a modern "corrosive" powder. Powders that are more or less dirty, sure.

Ok yes Metal based powders for instance used until the 1960's by US Army. caused Jamming in the AR16 also because of gas blow-back operation of said series of weapons No Piston it just fed the hot gas into the receiver.
changed to (sorry still trying to find the Reference) Cant find my Jane's Guide book in this mess LOL found this though http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm

"Metal" based powder?? The AR problem was based on bulk production ammo using a common performance-equivelent powder that simply was not as clean burning as the original development loads, then mistakenly hyped the weapon as never needs cleaning. Had troops in the field been instructed on routine basic servicing, there would have been no problem with the guns. And the bores were never in issue, being stellite lined.

yes see Modern firearms for the Metal versus nytrex which where given code names like CD 45 and AD 30 as you said one burned cleaner and the Army used the Dirty powder Metallic based until it was used up causing solders to be killed by an exploding weapon or from misfires caused by Improper cleaning. Course this was rectified and solders used to put condoms over there rifle barrel tips and the manufacturer fitted all later models with flip dust covers to prevent jams and dirt fouling of the breech. the AR14 was a dangerous weapon of not kept clean.
Not even sure if you can find one now that has its original configuration.

I used to commute to school when I was a Kid with a Sargent who then drove the bus I used to take. Long rides where boring and He told me things that most people will not hear about that War. Bad Equipment, Shitty lintel useless Rifles that nearly got him killed and boxes of Sigs laced with THC.

I don't know where you get your info, but it sure doesn't match my own understanding of the issue. Again "metallic" powder? It has been my understanding that all small arms ammo is basically nitrated hydrocarbon molecules, sometimes with a little dab of inert ingredients for stability. The early generation ARs were not exploding, at least not due to dirty powder, but simply fouling out to misfunction, as the troops were not instructed to service the weapons. Simply keeping obvious dirt out of guns was a habit used by troops long before the AR.

As for my own background, I've been shooting ARs since the '70s (ya know, Vietnam and beyond) and have been seriously into gun and ammo history and design and ammo load developement since the '80s.

I have an early pattern upper, light barrel and three prong muzzle, no BS forward assist plunger.

Ok no Idea why we Do not have the same Info......
I'm not going to argue who is right or wrong... Possibly me might be getting it wrong

Hi. Didn't want to turn it into an argument, rahter simply wanted clarification. back to fun with AR ammo. As mentioned, the development of the AR included a particularly clean-burning powder in the 5.56x45 ammo. But when the weapon was adopted and bulk ammo production began, equivelent performance powder was substituted without any fouling tests. The powder was a common commercial type with a reasonable track record. As the weapon had been developed with clean powder and had performed so well, it was badly over-sold a perfect, never-needs-cleaning system, and new troops were simply not instructed to take care of them. Needless to say, that proved to be a disaster. (personally, I don't like the 5.56x45 in the AR as it is a poor cartridge design for an auto-loading action, the long narrow case can easy misfeed out of the magazine and jam in a dirty chamber)

Out of that came all kinds of ignorant mis-information as to the merits of the gun and confusion about the ammo. Fore example, some thought that changing the format of the powder (stick versus ball) was to blame, but the shape of the powder grains has nothing to do with its composition nor performance.

I think this was a Nato/UN thing when the AR was Adopted by the UN for general use... re-chambered for the Lighter 5.56X45 so that the UN standard Ammo could be used.

Oops. see overall msg stream for response.

Adoption of the 5.56x45 by the US was more a parallel development with NATO thinking on a lighter cartridge, as both were looking at alternatives to the 7.62x51. The UN had nothing to do with it.

I know this is 8 years old, but there have been two necked down .50AE cartridges. The first, .440 CorBon, was introduced in 1999 for the Desert Eagle. There were problems with getting the shoulder right and MRI stopped making guns for it. The current cartridge is .429DE, which was introduced a few years ago. Both of those are "
44" rather than .357, though.