fictional cartridges
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Pardon my autism but
What would the following rounds be like? Would they be viable military rounds?
Rifle:
> 5.86x39mm
> 6.15x45mm
> 7.39x50mm
Shotgun:
> 17x63mm shell
Pistol:
> 8.48x24mm
> 9.88x24mm
> 13x38mm
I was basically trying to imitate real world cartridges to some degree (like 13x38 is meant to be their equivalent of .50 AE, or 9.88x24mm is meant to be kind of like 10mm) but they are different because it wouldn't make sense for them to be real-world cartridges. Just curious, also fictional gun general I guess.
The question doesn't make sense because your descriptions aren't useful.
All they tell us are the diameter of the bullet and the length of the cartridge. This is not particularly useful as often shorter, more modern cartridges are considerably more powerful than older ones, or just shorter but fatter cartridges with higher internal capacities.
Also, you can name a cartridge whatever the hell you want. .223, 5.56, .22-250, .220 swift, .219 Zipper, 5.7x28, .225 wichester, are all just cartridges that use a bullet with a nominal diameter of 0.224. There is no rule that a cartridge has to be exactly what the name says it is.
That said, if you are writing fiction, just think that the rounds we are at were arrived at by somewhat logical conclusions. The graduations don't have to be the same- there's no reason the .30-30s of your fantasy world can't be, say, .31-95, which actually better describes the 30-30 than the name 30-30 does (a 0.308 diameter bullet in a cartridge introduced in 1895).
If I wanted a reliable gimmick to really approximate real world cartridges with different names, I would give them a name based on their diameters and then subtended by their case capacities- nobody does that in real life, but it is a somewhat useful metric that tells how powerful a cartridge can be.
For instance, a 30-06 holds roughly 68 grains of water and uses a 0.308 bullet. Why not call your equivalent cartridge the 31-68? That would add an interesting realistic element and comparison.
>>28308091
These are good points, thank you.
And I would assume that they would have the same quality of powder as the tech level of the guns is around that of the present time.
best fictional cartridge would be an irrational number like pi mm
>>28308112
Well, I technically fibbed a bit- some cartridges were named by the amount of blackpowder for their capacity. But cartridges using blackpowder in this day and age are a novelty or for period correct pieces.
The 45-70 is a good example. The 45-70 held 70 grains of blackpowder in its standard load. Most people nowadays load the 45-70 with smokeless powder. Smokeless comes in many different weights and densities, so there is no one single rule. Different powders are appropriate for different uses, for instance- a shotgun powder frequently is useful for pistols but near worthless for most rifle loads.
(for reloading enthusiasts, yes, you can load rifles with handgun powders, but those are generally in very specialty situations for low power loads and cast bullets and is beside the point)
I suppose my point is there is no universal standard for naming cartridges in the real world- the names tend to be descriptions, but they are not terribly useful descriptions. if you wanted to name your cartridges using water weight capacity (which is a useful metric in comparing brass in the real world) some rough translations would be:
45 ACP= a 0.451 diameter bullet with ~27 grains H20 capacity = 0.452-27, or 45-27, or 45x28, or whatever.
5.56 = 0.224 bullet with ~0.31 grain capacity = .22x31, or what have you.
Even then that is somewhat deceptive... as the 5.56 operates at a much higher pressure than the 45, more than the small capacity difference would illustrate. And also, the 45 bullet takes up much of the case's capacity. A 45 will generally only hold 3-5.5 grains of smokeless powder whereas a 5.56 will be in the mid to upper 20s. Again, it's a rough comparison.
These are just ideas.But you seem to be interested in having a reasonable approximation of real world cartridges... I think you could just change the name of real world cartridges, give them a consistent fantasy to more accurately describe them than the real world does, and roll with that.
>>28307902
The question is, why would you want to choose fictional cartridges over ones that exist?
Anyway, as the first response said, just try and use existing cartridges but come up with a different naming convention. That way you can still use all the historical and ballistic data for that cartridge should your fiction require any lore. Thinking of gun companies would help too, for example there are calibres named after Lapua, Winchester, Remington etc.
>>28307902
Powder type?
Bottle necked?
Pressure?
It's fiction so just make shit up or use real rounds. You won't get a copy infringement.
>>28308160
This for sure.
>>28308160
>3.1415926mm
>Half the diameter of .22
>not tau mm
>>28307902
>but they are different
There's a lot more to cartridges than just a bullet diameter and the case length, Familiar.
If you're going to be running with this kind of autism, you need to at least specify chamber pressures, powder loads, and bullet weight/shape for people to judge these fictitious rounds.
So far they all sound pretty damn similar to preexisting cartridges, so I don't really know what you're trying to do here.
>>28308550
When will we be rid of hipsters and contrarians and this dumb fad can end? that tau page reeks of college dropout
>>28307902
1 gauge shot (punt) gun firing seeking explosive tip assault rounds. The shell itself is called GWB 1 (George W. Bush). It is mounted to APCs and helicopters.
>>28308091
The second 30 in 30-30 is the charge of blackpowder
>>28310533
That is almost correct. 30-30 was one of the earliest commercial smokeless cartridges. It was named for a charge of 30 grains of that early powder.
Despite being a very logical naming convention when there were fewer propellants and more consistency in blackpowders, it could not be reasonably maintained given the many types and varieties of smokeless.
This
Instead of 7.62x39 it's .31 intermediate, or instead of 7.62x51 it's .31 rifle, or whatever kind of convention you want to follow.
>>28307902
They all seem to be within the threshold of reasonableness, minus the 13x38mm for a pistol. Unless you're aiming for a very large frame revolver, that just isn't going to work.
