Hey there. Sorry for the long wait time, due some family issues I've had to put aside my computer for a while. In response to your question, I'm afraid that I am unable to allow my work to be used for free, and according to your profile page you are unable to pay. If you'd be interested in commissioning me, I'd be more than happy to allow this or any other concept of mine to be used, and would also be willing to generate content or provide firearms expertise specifically for you, but I do have to uniformly charge for my services, or I would be unable to charge at all. My apologies.
Well, that depends on what it is you need, exactly. I can do anything from plain old 2D to multi-view orthographic drawings with full writeups, black and white to colored, flat to textured. 2D black and white lineart with no consultation or writeup to speak of is cheaper, but other levels offer more realism and detail for your universe, game environment, and fully colored and textured drawings can be used in game manuals. I personally pride myself on realism and attention to detail when it comes to mechanisms, calibers and capabilities, and I enjoy seeing games with good research behind them, but not all gamers are quite as concerned with that as I am.
The bolt carrier is very short, and allows room for a slot behind the magazine through which to drop the spent cartridges. This also makes the ROF more controllable in heavier calibers. The hammer strikes a lever on the side of the bolt carrier, which in turn taps the firing pin, further reducing the nescessary length of the bolt carrier and allowing the mechanism to work.
They eject out the bottom. The bolt carrier is very short, and allows room for a slot behind the magazine through which to drop the spent cartridges. This also makes the ROF more controllable in heavier calibers.
It looks really nice, but i'm confused as to why it would use the .280 British, though highly accurate, it just wouldn't be as effective in modern war zones as it was in WW2. Partly the reason we haven't re-adopted it.
Your thinking of .303 British. .280 British has similar ballistics to 6.8 SPC, and was developed well after WWII. It was submitted to become NATO standard, but the U.S. resisted, favoring 7.62 and 5.56.
Your'e right about the developement of the round, but it was still designed in 1945, when riflemen used high cailber rounds, in relativly low quantity in battles. Now soldiers are in battles with low caliber ammo, so they can carry more for the equivilent weight as something like a .280 whilst in places like Afghanistan, where they are on patrols for several hours and have to carry it around. I would still rather our army re-adopt the L1A1 SLR. Just because our troops have been using high caliber rifles as standard since muskets, and trained extremely well with long range. The L1A1 was perfect for us. And many other Commonwealth countries. In short for me, the larger round the better. Sure it's heavier and you have less, but the thought of having less ammo makes people aim more carefully and deliver a more accurate, more deadly round.
The End. Novel Author: AirborneLeaf
I may or may not have just contradicted my previous comment.