NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically this is my new rifle, it's still being worked on right now but this is like a prototype, don't copy it, it's protected by the patent and rights services of Uldarious and our teams of thousands of super-lawyers who'll sue your asses into the ground!

Basic design so far.

Sights: Utilises Otagia's SmartGun system.
Weight: 7 kg loaded, (better?)
Length: 1040 mm.
Barrel: Smooth bore. (fin stabilised)
Ammunition: 7.62 x 51 Rocket assisted telescoping dart.
Clip size: 20 rounds.
Rate of fire: 400 RPM, (how's that?)
Optimum destructive range: For maximum damage 30-100 metres.
Combat best-effective ranges: 40-800 metres. (over this range the weapon is less accurate, under this range it has lower-than-average stopping power. Though it does still have the Gyrojet burning which would sorta make it dangerous.)
Maximum range: approx 2200 metres. (How's that?)
Muzzle Velocity: 300 m/s.
Velocity at 40m, thinking 1000-1200 m/s how's that?
Fire-type: Semi-auto.(That right>?)
Round type: Cased.


Basically this is a high-powered combat weapon, there will be a few sorts of ammo, I'll list them in a moment.
By the way, Kudos to Hurty for his continuing help.


Types of ammo.
KESH (Kinetic Energy Squash Head)- Pure lead head, with rocket motor, punches a 60 mm hole into RHA at 40-60 meters (peak KE and penetration). Weight: 250 grain dart

Standard: thick Steel capped lead bullet, polymer jacket (Help? with this? Malleable but dense, minimum barrel fouling) no streamlining, tumbles upon impact, good penetration. weight: 235 grain dart

Sniper: Boat tailed KESH, maximum energy retention and range, short range performance is sub par. weight: 250 grain dart.

WP: A White Phosphor bullet, creates a 60 to 80 meter long smoke plume, good for covering the advance of men in a hurry. weight: 220 grain dart



UPDATED

Just to comment on where the original argument started - http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3463

Just to comment on where the original argument started - http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3463

Incorrect.

It started here:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/GASN/index.php?showtopic=362
November 7, 2006.

Then here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505890

And the weapon in question was designed HERE:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513160

Anyways...
What appears to be the problem?
(Hmm, those specs look like they've inflated since the last time I saw them...)

????
What did I do?
I just changed what the round was called to try to make it more correct.

As always you are welcome to correct me on any mistakes I make because that is what they are, mistakes, I don't know enough 'bout this to try to cheat.
I dropped the muzzle velocity to 500 m/s from 800m/s.

That is what it says on the GASN thread isn't it?

errr....bump?

Come on damnit, BUMP.

Sorry about my late response, I lost phone service for 2 days, still trying to figure ut how that happened, since the phone lines in America are supposed to be proof even against the effects of a nuclear war...

Basically this is my new rifle, it's still being worked on right now but this is like a prototype, don't copy it, it's protected by the patent and rights services of Uldarious and our teams of thousands of super-lawyers who'll sue your asses into the ground!

Basic design so far.

Sights: Utilises Otagia's SmartGun system.
Weight: 5 kg loaded. (A bit light when you consider how heavy the ammo is... [over 2 kg per clip])
Length: 1040 mm.
Barrel: Smooth bore. (Insert fin stabalisation note)
Ammunition: 7.62 x 51 Rocket assisted telescoped round (dart).
Clip size: 20 rounds.
Rate of fire: 800 RPM. (Lower this, firing over 2 Kg of ammo per second is a bit hard on a person and their ammo capacity)
Optimum combat range: 500 metres.(don't know what this range came from)
Optimum destructive range: For maximum damage 30-100 metres.Combat best-effective ranges:[/B] 800 metres. (over this range the weapon is less accurate)
Maximum range: approx 1150 metres. (Raise this, as a max range of 1 km is rather pitiful considering the amount of propellant behind each of these projectiles)
Muzzle Velocity: 500 m/s.
Velocity at 40m: thinking 1600-1800 m/s how's that? (1,000 to 1,200 m/s was recommended, with 1,600 m/s as absolute maximum claimed velocity)
Fire-type: Semi-auto. Full-auto.
Round type: Cased.

The main requirement you gave was firepower, with adeaquate accuracy, recoil and full automatic properties were of not much impiortance.

So, I suggested a design of a scaled down and full auto RPG-7 concept, with the minor improvement that it uses a standard barrel and standard initial charge similar to that of a regular rifle bullet.

Accuracy would be partially solved by PMT aeronoutical development.

The goal, of course, was to pack as much power into a bullet without a super heavy gun , and without killing the shooter with recoil, while still being able to mess with early [poorly designed] mech suits.

I already knew that even with 40 or 60 mm penetratio RHAe, it would be little more than a nuisance against all but the lightest armored units, and spall liners would cause some problems, but if the spall was big enough...

-[SH rant]-
I was rather impressed by the capabilities of the old Polish gun to out-perform a German/Italian 20 mm Aircraft Cannon, while outperforming their own official penetration stats in real combat conditions against the Italians.

I did note spall liners as an issue, but I also noted that a well aimed burst of these bullets would substantially weaken a light main armor and wreck sensitive spots, while having extremely good effect against personel. Following a few of these with a single Tungsten or DU penetrating rod would be a rather simple matter. Plus, it has been noted that the mere concussion of such a projectile (reffering to accounts of HESH) could incapaitiate or even kill the crew inside the tank, the feeling [I expect] would be similar to that of being depth charged while inside a submarine...

And a bullet that 'bounces' off actually transfers more energy than if it simply stops inside the armor, meaning Reactive Armor would get rather painful on a tank crew's eardrums...
-[end HS rant]-

I already knew a rocket was less efficient than a contained eplosion, but I also know that rocket nozzles improve this to a degree, and the rest can be offset by using more propellant. I also had to make the tail section extremly easy to shear off from the main projectile (bullet) upon impact if I wanted decent terminal ballistics.

I don't know what other issues I should be addressing, if there are any.

In my opinion, the round caliber should just be increased. It is possible, but for a larger round. I think a long 12.7mm round would fit, well longer than .50 BMG. It's a gyrojet, and rocket fuel is much (5-15 times) less dense than normal bullet materials. And I would still go with more sensible speed, 1600m/s is the velocity of APFSDS, which are thin needles pushed by a large piston area in the wide barrel.

In my opinion, the round caliber should just be increased. It is possible, but for a larger round. I think a long 12.7mm round would fit, well longer than .50 BMG. It's a gyrojet, and rocket fuel is much (5-15 times) less dense than normal bullet materials. And I would still go with more sensible speed, 1600m/s is the velocity of APFSDS, which are thin needles pushed by a large piston area in the wide barrel.

Yes, the actual design of the cartridge comes into question.

As noted elswhere, the actual case is - apparently - ( and ironcly as you put it) a .50 BMG, with a dart shoved inside, this dart is essentially a .50 cal rocket motor, fins, with a 7.62 mm bullet/head protruding.

In the end, it IS an APFSDS bullet, as it fires a sub-caliber dart propelled by an over caliber propelling charge.

At least that is what I believed was the cartridge he planned on using, I could be wrong.

But if I am right, would there still be any problems for attaining said velocities within the 1,000 to 1,600 m/s range?

Then it's a designation issue. Weapons are always designated by their bore, not the actual round diameter.

Velocity range 1000-1600m/s is quite diverse - it's 2.5 times difference in energy. For high-MT cost-no-object example I'll take R1; not really mine, I should thank Maxim Popenker ( http://world.guns.ru ) for the key principles and discussions which formed this rifle. It's strictly based on real-life data and calcs, and could be built in a lab, so I'll speak of it as an existing weapon. R1 can achieve 1000m/s with just a relatively large caseless round, producing, however, certain recoil. The highest velocity in a prototype hand weapon was in Steyr ACR, where a 1.5mm, 0.66g (!) tungsten dart was accelerated to 1480m/s muzzle by a 5.56x45 SCF cartridge. SCF is basically the same construction as caseless, just sturdier, but requires ejection. The practical velocity a bit under 1000m/s at 500m.
Assuming the same velocity, for 7.62mm dart it would require a corresponding increase in round size; 14.5x114 (14.5x155mm total) round could fit an 8g dart as high estimate. Since gyrojet requires more power and size, much more. Velocity has to be reduced, maybe to 1050-1200m/s or so, not more. Seemingly small increase in velocity is a large increase in complexity.
(Though, about larger darts - R1 has a round with similar velocity and 2g dart; but it's proportionally larger and hits hard with recoil.)

If you are ready to go with 100g per cartridge, though, you can achieve that. The round would need to be a long (200mm or so) thing about 14.5 or a bit over, but less than 20mm.
But I would discard the idea of hybrid in this size. Either-or, either a small round launched by barrel pressure, or a large gyrojet working all by itself, at most pushed outside by charge. Recoil of launching a 100g round at high velocity would be tremendous - even at 100m/s it would be felt pretty well, exceeding 7.62x51 NATO. Going more requires a bipod plus heavy rifle like M82, and even so one can speak about, maybe, 500-600m/s. So it's better to choose one, in this case, gyrojet.

Bottleneck would only complicate things, and so I'd use something like 16x200mm. The round would fit in about 100g initial, with both propellant, and penetrator. No cartridge case, just the gyrojet, it works better this way. But, still, 1600m/s would have to be pretty short-ranged due to drag (and making it even longer is hardly an option for a handheld weapon), as well as light when hitting, so 1200m/s seems quite a good compromise.

Then it's a designation issue. Weapons are always designated by their bore, not the actual round diameter.

Velocity range 1000-1600m/s is quite diverse - it's 2.5 times difference in energy. For high-MT cost-no-object example I'll take R1; not really mine, I should thank Maxim Popenker ( http://world.guns.ru ) for the key principles and discussions which formed this rifle. It's strictly based on real-life data and calcs, and could be built in a lab, so I'll speak of it as an existing weapon. R1 can achieve 1000m/s with just a relatively large caseless round, producing, however, certain recoil. The highest velocity in a prototype hand weapon was in Steyr ACR, where a 1.5mm, 0.66g (!) tungsten dart was accelerated to 1480m/s muzzle by a 5.56x45 SCF cartridge. SCF is basically the same construction as caseless, just sturdier, but requires ejection. The practical velocity a bit under 1000m/s at 500m.
Assuming the same velocity, for 7.62mm dart it would require a corresponding increase in round size; 14.5x114 (14.5x155mm total) round could fit an 8g dart as high estimate. Since gyrojet requires more power and size, much more. Velocity has to be reduced, maybe to 1050-1200m/s or so, not more. Seemingly small increase in velocity is a large increase in complexity.
(Though, about larger darts - R1 has a round with similar velocity and 2g dart; but it's proportionally larger and hits hard with recoil.)

If you are ready to go with 100g per cartridge, though, you can achieve that. The round would need to be a long (200mm or so) thing about 14.5 or a bit over, but less than 20mm.
But I would discard the idea of hybrid in this size. Either-or, either a small round launched by barrel pressure, or a large gyrojet working all by itself, at most pushed outside by charge. Recoil of launching a 100g round at high velocity would be tremendous - even at 100m/s it would be felt pretty well, exceeding 7.62x51 NATO. Going more requires a bipod plus heavy rifle like M82, and even so one can speak about, maybe, 500-600m/s. So it's better to choose one, in this case, gyrojet.

Bottleneck would only complicate things, and so I'd use something like 16x200mm. The round would fit in about 100g initial, with both propellant, and penetrator. No cartridge case, just the gyrojet, it works better this way. But, still, 1600m/s would have to be pretty short-ranged due to drag (and making it even longer is hardly an option for a handheld weapon), as well as light when hitting, so 1200m/s seems quite a good compromise.

How about these?

PMT Battle rifle to be used by geneticly enhanced soldiers:
25 g projectile, /w/ 25 g propellant and 10 g tail assembly, pushed from the barrel at 300 m/s by a 4 g 'conventional' initial charge. Mx velocity: 1,200 m/s.

Projectile would have only the tapered nose exposed from the brass, and the tail assemply would be scored so that it would readily shear from the projectile upon impact, either by the force of the rocket motor, or the velocity of impact.

Why must this become an 'either-or' design? The recoil of the conventional charge allows for automatic cycling of the action, and boosts the minimum effective range and mass efficiency of the projectile considerably more than if left entirely to gyrojet, and is considerably more humane to the shooter than if it was a single charge conventinal high velocity 'hot rod' assault rifle.

Cartridge designation would be suggested to change to 12.7 mm Kurz-Rocket or something to similar effect (as caliber only reffers to nominal values, and can be off by as much as 5 mm with little dificulty).
=======
Again, thanks for pointing out yet more reasons why Uld has no fear of anyone bothering to copy this design.

PMT Battle rifle to be used by geneticly enhanced soldiers:
25 g projectile, /w/ 25 g propellant and 10 g tail assembly, pushed from the barrel at 300 m/s by a 4 g 'conventional' initial charge. Mx velocity: 1,200 m/s.
Looks more realistic, but still... too heavy projectile, likely. The energy released in gyrojet can be around 1300 J/g, and practically 1000 J/g, translating to 1400-1600m/s pure propellant. With equivalent charge propelled, it changes to 1000-1150m/s. The initial charge adds a little, though, but that's just 40m/s or about. I'd go with a lighter projectile, like maybe 15-20g, and semi-combustible casing.


Why must this become an 'either-or' design? The recoil of the conventional charge allows for automatic cycling of the action, and boosts the minimum effective range and mass efficiency of the projectile considerably more than if left entirely to gyrojet, and is considerably more humane to the shooter than if it was a single charge conventinal high velocity 'hot rod' assault rifle.
Either-or is because a rifle requires a strong thick-walled metal round (best solid), and gyrojet prefers a thin shell. Check the recoil for 50g bullet at 300m/s - it's whole 15kg*m/s, almost double that of 7.62x51. Hits pretty hard. On the other hand, it adds just a small percentage to the real velocity. For semi-auto (I guess auto-firing these is a bit too much, but the requirement is the same) even 100m/s will suffice, and the recoil will be just somewhat over 5.56x45 round, or like 7.62x39. And that hybrid design adds nothing, it just takes space and mass which could be used for propellant to build thick round walls. Add here the case for containing initial charge. It just works best consistently - either a thin-shell rocket or a solid metal bullet.

I see...

Looks more realistic, but still... too heavy projectile, likely. The energy released in gyrojet can be around 1300 J/g, and practically 1000 J/g, translating to 1400-1600m/s pure propellant. With equivalent charge propelled, it changes to 1000-1150m/s. The initial charge adds a little, though, but that's just 40m/s or about. I'd go with a lighter projectile, like maybe 15-20g, and semi-combustible casing.

A lighter bullet also has a lower ballistic coefficent, meaning a faster drop-off in combat effectiveness as range increases. Oh, right, fin stabalised smoothbore rockets are inherently inaccurate to a degree, though the minimum goal is to surpass the capabilities of the .308 Armor Piercing bullet.

You would still need the round to be fin stabalized.

At 40 m/s the bullet won't do much at point blank... plus it would then take a full second or more for the rocket to safely arm and fire, not a good thing when in a firefight...

Either-or is because a rifle requires a strong thick-walled metal round (best solid), and gyrojet prefers a thin shell. Check the recoil for 50g bullet at 300m/s - it's whole 15kg*m/s, almost double that of 7.62x51. Hits pretty hard. On the other hand, it adds just a small percentage to the real velocity. For semi-auto (I guess auto-firing these is a bit too much, but the requirement is the same) even 100m/s will suffice, and the recoil will be just somewhat over 5.56x45 round, or like 7.62x39. And that hybrid design adds nothing, it just takes space and mass which could be used for propellant to build thick round walls. Add here the case for containing initial charge. It just works best consistently - either a thin-shell rocket or a solid metal bullet.

Not necessarily true, a thin wall conventional cased 'magnum' could be used provided the chamber of the gun was of sufficient strength (like comparing chamber pressures of a .308 to a .30-30). Also, if desired, a combustale case could be used, provided one air-ram type chamber cooling via the bolt assembly, pure caseless gets a bit tricky.

I also considered 2x the RL battle rifle as acceptable for a PMT battle rifle used by augmented soldiers. And that is by far less than what he'd recieve as recoil if he treid using Godslayers and HM-320s instead... If I recall, some PMT nations use .50 BMG and 14.5 as personal weapons, these have (on a conservitive estimate) 4x to 8x the recoil of the .308, so, in perspective, this is a relatively pleasant PMT battle rifle to shoot.

@Uld: I haven't done much of the math on this rifle, so the figures I suggested may still be up for debate. Otherwise, it looks roughly in the ballpark of PMT capabilities.
(though I'd keep the full auto for those occasional firefights where all your plans hit the fan and everything goes out to 'spray and pray', your men should know how to conserve their ammunition anyways, no sense giving them hobbles to enforce it.)

I also recommend getting a competing company to propose their own design for this PMT battle rifle. Similar to the Johnso/Garand shoot-off and the Russian purchase of both the AN-94 and AEK-971.

At 40 m/s the bullet won't do much at point blank... plus it would then take a full second or more for the rocket to safely arm and fire, not a good thing when in a firefight...
I mean a different thing. It's that if you launch the round at 0m/s (only self-propelled), it will have max velocity of, say, 1100m/s. If you launch it at 300m/s, it will be 1150m/s. Velocity doesn't add up linearly.


Not necessarily true, a thin wall conventional cased 'magnum' could be used provided the chamber of the gun was of sufficient strength (like comparing chamber pressures of a .308 to a .30-30).
That's not about the brass, but about the "bullet". A relatively pure gyrojet can have it with lightweight wall, focusing on fuel. A round launched at high velocity needs a thick wall, heavily reducing the amount of fuel inside.


If I recall, some PMT nations use .50 BMG and 14.5 as personal weapons, these have (on a conservitive estimate) 4x to 8x the recoil of the .308, so, in perspective, this is a relatively pleasant PMT battle rifle to shoot.
More. 8x-12x. These rounds are long, and barrels aren't probably that long.
In my opinion, if 2,000,000 lemmings are going somewhere, it doesn't mean you have to follow them as well. I could use it to my advantage - they won't be able to shoot on move, or without a bipod.

Though this is nice, but I still find really low-recoil rounds more interesting. For close range, one can use special rounds.

Though this is nice, but I still find really low-recoil rounds more interesting. For close range, one can use special rounds.

You mean an Uber-high powered combat pistol that would put the M1911 to shame?

Because I doubt anyone would be willing to lug 2 long-arms into battle, one for short another for long. One could suggest Uld to turn his gun into a daul caliber weapons system, but that idea was quickly dismissed, due to the complexity of the gun, though an autoloading underbarrel shotgun/grenade launcher could prove usefull. Most likely tube feed to keep the design compact, reloading would be clip type (replace the whole tube) or hand loading single shot. A test concluded that 1 of 3 well aimed shots (of buckshot) from a 12 ga can hit a man sized taget at 100 yards.*

Seprate triggers should be used to allow both weapons to be fired simultaniously for effective suppressive fire.

Hand grenades, shovels, and bayonets though tend to become your best friend (or worst enemy) in close combat... Since they have no recoil, make very little noise when used, and are extremely deadly in such instances.

I mean a different thing. Velocity doesn't add up linearly.
Oh, I thought you were suggesting that as the launch velocity...

That's not about the brass, but about the "bullet".
Chalk one up for less than optimum efficency... I guess that'll be the cost of a decent launch velocity and downrange performance (an empty gyrojet has an insanely low ballistic coefficent, and plenty of drag, plus once the fuel is spent, you don't have much mass to work with)

Using the 'dual stage' method, with the conventional charge as a 'booster', halfway decent close-in performance can be achieved while short-mid range performance is enhanced, with the cost of extreme range performance, cartridge mass, and a bit of accuracy.

A pure gyrojet has a very narrow 'effective range' envlope, while a conventional has a clear advantage at close range, and due to the solid bullet, and high BCs, better extreme range performance as well. I opt to keep the bullet/rocket mass high in order to expand the long range effectiveness, and this consequently, was a requirement when giving it a reletively harsh lsunch accelertion, though this can be lessened by using a slow burning powder and longer barrel.

On paper, the idea looked rather inviting, at least worth open discussion as to its feasability in PMT as a small caliber round, and in MT Anti-material rifles.

In my opinion, if 2,000,000 lemmings are going somewhere, it doesn't mean you have to follow them as well. I could use it to my advantage - they won't be able to shoot on move, or without a bipod.
I'm no lemming, consider that the proposed round has less than a quarter of the recoil than that used by the 'lemmings'.

Something like the South African Neostead 12 ga or Russian GM-94

Because I doubt anyone would be willing to lug 2 long-arms into battle, one for short another for long. One could suggest Uld to turn his gun into a daul caliber weapons system, but that idea was quickly dismissed, due to the complexity of the gun, though an autoloading underbarrel shotgun/grenade launcher could prove usefull.
Hmm... BTW, UGL - that's what would work fine for closer range. A lot of power, limited recoil.

For special close-range rounds, they may be different, like just a saboted round, or fast-burning rocket. They don't need as much accuracy, so a fast-burning almost unstabilized round will do.


(an empty gyrojet has an insanely low ballistic coefficent, and plenty of drag, plus once the fuel is spent, you don't have much mass to work with)
That's why I would go with semi-combustible round. The rear part is just burnt/damaged and thrown away by drag, reducing it.


Using the 'dual stage' method, with the conventional charge as a 'booster', halfway decent close-in performance can be achieved while short-mid range performance is enhanced, with the cost of extreme range performance, cartridge mass, and a bit of accuracy.
With the cost of losing the gyrojet's advantages, actually, and making it hardly useful. A round at 800m/s already contains a lot of energy, but gyrojet fuel content would be severely limited. One simply can't keep fuel % high in a round which is fired. The walls need to be quite strong to hold it all, and clearly not disposable.
~300m/s is more or less OK, though rounds will still be expensive.


Note, though, that such round still can't be silenced. I've seen once a 12 gauge shotgun with silencer and "laser scope". The secret: a 3-gallon bucket with welded lid and some holes. A flashlight shining through a mesh works as "laser scope", to approximately display estimated damage.
That shotgun silencer was made just for fun, of course, and idea testing.


I'm no lemming, consider that the proposed round has less than a quarter of the recoil than that used by the 'lemmings'.
Agreed. Unless one uses teenage mutant ninja turtles, running around with full-power 12.7 (let alone the 14.5) is not advisable. However, lower power will work, though still pushing well.

Just that I don't think it's a good idea to base design on, or compare with, poor designed ones. PMT weapons don't have to be very different from MT ones - the tech has hardly progressed during half a century.
Actually, I'm not sure if there is a single thing I'm going to change in R1 if/when I move in PMT. Probably not - wankish or purist, there's simply nothing to change anyway. Maybe a newer model laser scope, but that's not really a part of the rifle.

For special close-range rounds, they may be different, like just a saboted round, or fast-burning rocket. They don't need as much accuracy, so a fast-burning almost unstabilized round will do.

~300m/s is more or less OK, though rounds will still be expensive.

Ah... like replacing the rocket motor with explosives... isn't that a 10 mm APHE grenade? (of the worst grade)

Just that I don't think it's a good idea to base design on, or compare with, poor designed ones. PMT weapons don't have to be very different from MT ones - the tech has hardly progressed during half a century.
Actually, I'm not sure if there is a single thing I'm going to change in R1 if/when I move in PMT. Probably not - wankish or purist, there's simply nothing to change anyway. Maybe a newer model laser scope, but that's not really a part of the rifle.

Uld wanted a unique rifle, I offered, he took it, mostly because of performance claims when compared to recoil (almost neglected to inform him on the cartridge mass issue). The closest thing on NS to his weapon is Otagia's 60 mm Godslayer Anti-Material rifle, which I believe also uses the Smartgun system. I developed a slightly smaller and less recoil friendly 40 mm underbarrel version intended to deal with mechanized infantry into mid-PMT.

Uld purchased all of said weapon designs. Hence, such a rifle would be easily considered merely an extension upon these weapons.

As for myself, I stated in an earlier thread on the development of this rifle, that ICly my nation would have little benifit from switching weapons in PMT. As I invested heavily into the 6.5 x 55 magnum cartridge (which outperfoms the .308 slightly at the muzzle, and this performance gap only gets bigger as the range increases).

Hey, other guys can post your opinions here too, if you've got stuff to say.

bomp-bump

Hey, other guys can post your opinions here too, if you've got stuff to say.

I think all complaints on this design have been adaquately met and satisfied.

The main things that set this gun apart from others:
>Rocket propulsion utilised in projectile both as a short range explosive weapon and to increse KE at little/no increase to recoil.
-Meaning: Even though the flight is similar to an RPG-7 grenade/rocket, it does not rely upon a chemical energy warhead (IE: not a grenade or artillery, but uses rocket propulsion).
>The action: roller delayed blowback, open bolt, single pin.
>Smoothbore fin stabalised assault rifle projectiles (darts/flechettes)
>Reletively large quantities of initial propellant in order to attain decent short range performance.

The HM-320 is a break action weapon that relies predominently upon the chemical energy warhead, and uses rocket propulsion solely in order to keep the recoil within tolerable limits while attaining a suitable effective range (it lobs intentionally explosive ordnance).

The Godslayer, even though it relies upon KE and uses rocket propulsion, doesn't utilise the same action, and is not fin stabalised, rather, it relies upon the gyro effects of the rockets to impart the required spin. It also launches its large shells at reletively slow velocities to limit recoil, and thus, is not effective against short range targets.

(Just covering my bases so I don't get into a lawsuit next time I use the HM-320)

Alright then, it seems there are no further objections, I'll bump for a few more days and if nothing comes up I'll state the new info and then start production.

Change ammunition size. It's classified by physical brass size, not by penetrator. Otherwise tanks would have 30mm guns (penetrator diameter).

Change ammunition size. It's classified by physical brass size, not by penetrator. Otherwise tanks would have 30mm guns (penetrator diameter).

And if the arms industry had it that way, the .308/7.62x51 NATO would roughly be the 10 x 51 mm, since ~10 mm is the case diameter at the base.

In that case, specify bore diameter.

Very rough guess(es):

Base diameter of cartridge would be ~25 mm, length: ~50 to 60 (56?) mm
Bore: ~10 to 15 mm...

Hmm, back to .50 cal esque size bore in PMT...

Slow barrel velocity of <300 m/s allows about any lubricant to be used, even wax, grease, or paper. Hitting someone in the beltline with one of these'll knock them flat even if the rocket was a dud.

Keping my 6.5 cause I can carry a 40-50 round mag the same size as a 20 round mag of these.

In this case, you have three - penetrator, bore, brass. Just specify all three.

(BTW, 7.62x51 has 12mm at the rim, and is ~62mm long.)

Length: Not nearly enough, unless it's penetrator only. Take at least from 12.7 or 14.5 rounds, meaning 120-150mm. Such gyrojets need length desperately.

Bore/base: Take 14.5 or 15mm bore, to allow for heavy large projectile. Base may be even less than 25mm, like 22.

20 x 75 mm brass then?

12-15 mm bore (seems a bit large, as the original gyrojet was 13 mm [sectional density of a 200 grain 15 mm bullet isn't that great, so ammo/penetrator specs would need to be modified accordingly])

Full up cartridge length may be about 100-150 mm.

Penetrator/rocket assembly would be 75-125 mm long, with much/all of the rocket motor protected within the brass cartridge, and only the penetrator itself protuding.

Under the standard labeling, it would be something of a
[12-15] x [75-100] mm

15 x 100 looking more like the massive 14.5 Russian... with up to 50 mm of bullet protruding.
and the 12 x 75 looking like a cut down BMG cartridge... as little as 25 mm bullet protuding.
[left 25 mm of brass primer clear of rocket motor to prevent fouling]

the short+thin relies more on the initial charge than the 'long' round, since the 20 mm brass holds more powder, recoil/pressure can be dealt with using the old high-low pressure system.

The 'long and fat' would have greater rocket fuel and space, less felt recoil due to 'slightly' slower launch, which is offset by using more rocket. Could be made a 'skinny' by using a larger brass diameter.

So...everything is in order? Argument over? No more discussion from any other parties>?

Correct.

You are free to make your own choices.
Based upon what has been said.
(Don't forget V10's info, as it is perhaps the only source that can be considered firmly grounded in reality [My suggestions are slightly wankish to compensate for the 'PMT effect' on NS])

Okay then I'll redesign as I can gather information and re-post a newer design in a week or two, V10, HT any tips? Anything major you want to point out?

I think it will be easier to discuss corrections to the preliminary design once it's done.

What needs to be changed from the original, I need to add the action and change the muzzle velocity anything else?
Okay then, aside from that the only issue I have is what the final resolution to the ammunition issue was, is that what Hurty's post was about with the two different types of ammo, they are the types I should use? Are they still going to be the basic same types of ammo that he listed and that I also put at the start or has that changed?

I'm not sure. But the idea of two rounds looks useful, and they seem of likely size - small normal and large AP. Still, both need the same bore diameter. I think either 14.5 or 15mm, whichever preferable, with 20mm brass. One long, 150mm overall, with 50mm penetrator, the other short, with 25mm - looks OK.

Updated report.
(not a lot of new stuff yet, anything else I should add? Like propellant or estimated impact energy (however you work that out)

Sights: Utilises Otagia's SmartGun system.
Weight: 7 kg loaded.
Action: roller delayed blowback, open bolt, single pin.
Barrel: 1040 mm smoothbore.
Ammunition: 15 x 100 fin stabilised telescoping rocket dart/flechette.
12 x 75 fin stabilised telescoping rocket dart/flechette. (Still using flechettes?)
Clip size: 20 rounds.
Rate of fire: 400 RPM.
Maximum effective combat range: 500m
Muzzle Velocity: 150-200 m/s.
(was that right? I guess it would be closer to 100m/s for the ehavier round and toward the higher end for the lighter one)
Velocity at 40m, (thinking ~1000, that more accurate?)
Fire-type: Semi-auto, full-auto
Round type: Cased.

EDITED

errrrr...bump? What else do I need to add, except a write-up of history, thanks to Hurty and V10 foir their advice/technology.

Maximum range: approx 2200 metres for acceptable accuracy. (That right? not sure how new ammo will affect that))
Velocity at 40m, (thinking ~1000, that more accurate?)
I don't think such a thing is possible with gyrojets. They in general have to be tailored to a specific range: either you make it all burn in first 60m and get a round with poor ballistics above that, or you make it burn slower and get long range.
2200m is in excess of even the best sniper rifles' range. Normal troop assault rifle has range of 300-500m, designated marksman rifle 600-800m, army sniper rifle and AMR 700-1000m. They often don't even have the marks to target further.

To calculate approximate gyrojet round ballistics, you first need to decide on the most important range. The good thing of gyrojet is that you can specify the best range exactly and get it, using special grain shape. The round will have three key points:
First, best energy point - highest m*v^2. The most important one. You'll have cubic-root velocity increase to that point, with energy increasing a little bit slower.
Second, best velocity point - highest v - these two will be close, but in between the energy is basically constant and the highest;
Third, fuel out point. The closer the fuel out point to the first key point, the longer will be the best damage range, but the shorter maximum range. And vice versa, you can slow down fuel burning there, so the round will lose energy fast, but retain it for a long time. In general, first way is better, unless that optimal range is very short.

Simply state the optimal range you need, both low and high, for instance 200-500.
Also, what's the desired penetrator mass?

JESUS
I do one thing and you guys tell me to do another, originally I had set the range as about 1000 metres, but Hurty said that was too low.
Ideally I'd want as large optimum ranges as possible.
I'm not too sure on the weights of the bullets, as I'm using the sizes of bullets Hurty gave me and I'm not sure how much of that is penetrator weight and how much would be fuel...

I don't think such a thing is possible with gyrojets. They in general have to be tailored to a specific range: either you make it all burn in first 60m and get a round with poor ballistics above that, or you make it burn slower and get long range.
2200m is in excess of even the best sniper rifles' range. Normal troop assault rifle has range of 300-500m, designated marksman rifle 600-800m, army sniper rifle and AMR 700-1000m. They often don't even have the marks to target further.

To calculate approximate gyrojet round ballistics, you first need to decide on the most important range. The good thing of gyrojet is that you can specify the best range exactly and get it, using special grain shape. The round will have three key points:
First, best energy point - highest m*v^2. The most important one. You'll have cubic-root velocity increase to that point, with energy increasing a little bit slower.
Second, best velocity point - highest v - these two will be close, but in between the energy is basically constant and the highest;
Third, fuel out point. The closer the fuel out point to the first key point, the longer will be the best damage range, but the shorter maximum range. And vice versa, you can slow down fuel burning there, so the round will lose energy fast, but retain it for a long time. In general, first way is better, unless that optimal range is very short.

Simply state the optimal range you need, both low and high, for instance 200-500.
Also, what's the desired penetrator mass?

I make a rather large differentiation between "ASbsolute Maximum Range", "Maximum Effective Range", and "Maximunm effective combat range".

Absolute range is the theoretical max range achieved when the bullet is fired purey for distance, accuracy and consistancy don't matter.

Effective Range is the farthest a skilled marksman (in this case, equiped with a smartgun sight), can hit a stationry target, provided he compensates for windage.

Combat range is what you are actually able to achieve against a moving target that may be taking cover. (in the 18th century, this meant being able to hit a square of marching infantry, now it means hitting the guy who pokes his head up for a moment)

Needless to say, 1,000 m/s max velocity and 2,000 meters downrange, your target has 2 or 3 seconds to move around before that bullet reaches him, and a person can move pretty far in 2 seconds when compared to the size of a bullet and the man's vitals... In the anti-material role, one is generally targeting a large stationary target, unless it is a moving tank, in which case, you'd best hold fire until they are within 200 meters or considerably less...

A link with some interesting points as to 'effective range':
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/range.html
And designated marksmen armed /w/ Light Machine guns (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/dm.html)

An interesting thought occured to me while reading this though.

The Smartgun system could be applied to a 'Commando mortar' or even an underbarrel grenade launcher to fire MRSI trajectories by calculating angle, lead, and propellant loading/cartridge used in order to achieve a massed barrage from a single infantryman.

I'm also still assuming that PMT studies of extirior ballistics would improve gyrojet accuracy to something akin to current conventional bullets.

In summary:
It is Tactical Accuracy not visibility that is the limiting factor.
A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an AWARE target can sprint 5-9m :- you don't know which direction he will take and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single aimed shot is virtually random.
I think most shooting was less than 500m because most German riflemen knew there was little point shooting beyond this unless the foe didn't know you were there or you could fill an area of about 10m with bullets.

Therefore, if you are going to use this cartridge to shoot 2,000 meters, invest in developing a LMG... Investing in an MRSI capable underbarrel mortar/grenade launcher helps too. PROHT is about halfway there in that respect (has mortar, but no fancy computer aided sights, yet)

I do one thing and you guys tell me to do another, originally I had set the range as about 1000 metres, but Hurty said that was too low.
Ideally I'd want as large optimum ranges as possible.
Maybe that was max range, 1000m?

If you want high optimum range, keep in mind you'll have lower power at lower range. If your optimum is 1000m, then at 500m you have only ~85% of the velocity and ~70% of energy. At 300m you have ~72% velocity and 50% of the max energy. At 100m you'll have just 28% of the max energy. Well, below 100m it will grow from muzzle velocity
Now, keep in mind that the most frequent fire contact distance today is about 100-200m, 300 most. Do you really want to have 2/3 of the bullet's power wasted at the most frequent distances?

And the engagement range thing. Gyrojets accelerate gradually, and so the target at 1000m has 2 seconds rather than 1. At 2200m, 4 seconds. Four seconds seem like nothing when sitting in front of the computer, but actually it's enough to pick out, empty the entire magazine or make one aimed burst, hide back.

Okay, I've updated again, max combat range is now set at 500m, how does this sound?
Hey V10, what do you think of other nations weapons such as the Silver Sky and Otagia? Are their weapons realistic?

TSS Storefront
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495984

Pale Rider Storefront
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450603

I think it would be easier to just post the stat block as I would see it, if you use gyrojet:

* Weight: 5 kg empty, 7 kg loaded
* Length: 1040 mm
* Action: roller delayed blowback, open bolt, single pin.
* Barrel: 600mm, smooth (if bullpup) or 450mm (if not)
* Caliber: 15mm gyrojet
* Clip size: 20 rounds.
* Rate of fire: 60 RPM (it would be insane to go auto-fire with this size and recoil)

Ammunition:

1. Anti-materiel medium-range
* Full size: 20x150mm, 140g
* Round: 15x140mm rocket, 100g
* Penetrator: 4x50mm tungsten rod, 10g
* Muzzle Velocity: 200m/s (the recoil is close to double-shot from 12 gauge shotgun)
* Range and energy:
* Muzzle: 200m/s, mass 100g - 2 KJ
* 50m: velocity 350m/s, mass 70g - 4.25 KJ
* 100m: velocity 500m/s, mass 50g - 6.25 KJ
* 200m: velocity 800m/s, mass 35g - 6.25 KJ
* 300m: Best damage range
** Velocity 1000m/s, mass 30g - 15 KJ
* 500m: Fuel out point
** Velocity 1100m/s, mass 25g - 15 KJ
* 1000m: Maximum aiming range
** Velocity 700m/s, mass 25g - 6 KJ
* 2000m: Maximum range

2. Armor-piercing long-range
* Full size: 20x75mm, 70g
* Round: 15x70mm rocket, 50g
* Penetrator: 3x40mm tungsten rod, 5g
[...]
More later if it fits.

Okay, I've updated again, max combat range is now set at 500m, how does this sound?
Hey V10, what do you think of other nations weapons such as the Silver Sky and Otagia? Are their weapons realistic?

TSS Storefront
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495984

Pale Rider Storefront
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450603

My prime competitors (aside from CA sponsor nations), and upon review of my nation's history, I'm in an MT-PMT transition. Since I noted that ICly the Chitzi conflict was '50 IC years ago', and even if that conflict was done in the 80's, I'd still be in the year 2030...

Hence, PMT... Hmm, I should figure out how to MRSI my PGL-40 and HM-320s...
===
Back on topic
===
I considered 2,000 meters a good max range since the warning label on a box of .22 LR ammo claims to shoot 1 mile or 1,800 meters. Wheras Aberdeen Proving grounds claimed the M-14 could lob a 7.62 NATO 2 miles out (~3.6 Km)...

A shorter combat range would be desirable, such as 50-200 meters, V10's "medium" bullet has an optimum of 300-500 meters. Which is a bit excessive, since 90% of your shots will be at less than 300 meters, and performance at less than 50 meters with V10's bullet is rather weak even when compared to the 5.56 NATO fired from a sawed-off M-4 Carbine... Which is where you'll want performance the most (a nice fat pistol or underbarrel shotgun may solve this)

A quick way to figure out optimum combat range, is to figure out how long i would take for the bullet to get there, and how far the intended target could move in that time.

Still the value of the 'stray bullet' is often underestimated. As at max range, the bullets function something like micro-godrods... With almost all their terminal energy imparted by gravity.

Hey V10, what do you think of other nations weapons such as the Silver Sky and Otagia? Are their weapons realistic?
I consider Silver Sky to be clear PMT, and for PMT... well, some seem possible. I'll read more later.

I considered 2,000 meters a good max range since the warning label on a box of .22 LR ammo claims to shoot 1 mile or 1,800 meters. Wheras Aberdeen Proving grounds claimed the M-14 could lob a 7.62 NATO 2 miles out (~3.6 Km)...
The problem with gyrojet is that once it burns out, you've got a high-drag empty lightweight shell. It doesn't have much range beyond the fuel out point.


A shorter combat range would be desirable, such as 50-200 meters, V10's "medium" bullet has an optimum of 300-500 meters. Which is a bit excessive, since 90% of your shots will be at less than 300 meters, and performance at less than 50 meters with V10's bullet is rather weak even when compared to the 5.56 NATO fired from a sawed-off M-4 Carbine...
I made that round as anti-materiel one, so it's likely to be used a bit further.
The power at close range is actually still pretty high. It's not all about energy, it's also about impulse. At 50m, you have a bullet with the energy of a sniper rifle at muzzle and comparable penetration of the rod part, plus the 60g bullet at 350m/s. With any flexible armor (Class IIIA) it's totally deadly, as the heavy bullet can break the bones. With a ceramic plate, it will be broken by the first round. But below 50m you can shoot to areas not covered by the plate (they plates are quite small).

With gyrojet you won't get all out of it at close range. Of course, you can add up muzzle velocity, but the recoil is a problem.

Still, that round, even at muzzle, is more destructive than 5.56 in each aspect. Just a little less energy, but that energy is concentrated on thin tungsten rod tip rather than the entire bullet tip - that compensates for lower velocity. Hit of a 100g round will add stopping power.
I really have no reason to make it weaker; some realistic PMT advancement is accounted for already. But it has to be large - propellants aren't too dense and can't be denser without losing efficiency.

But if you really want extremely close range performance, gyrojet is not the way to go. You can fire APFSDS out of it if you have time to reload, or use underbarrel grenades if not. And, if you want both in one bullet, it's the job for a normal rifle.

But if you really want extremely close range performance, gyrojet is not the way to go. You can fire APFSDS out of it if you have time to reload, or use underbarrel grenades if not. And, if you want both in one bullet, it's the job for a normal rifle.

Mixed ammo in one mag

At least that'll solve the problem for LMGs.

Other loading suggestions:
3 explosive tipped 'spotting' bullets at the end of a clip to signal 'out of ammo', not as traceable as tracer ammo, and would show up differently when compared to the rest of the clip. ('spotter' ammo was used in sniper rifles during WW2 by both the Russians and Germans, even though it was in direct violation of the Hague convention)

A bullet with a noticeably different recoil at the very end of a mag.
(barrel cleaning wad?)

V10's design is looking pretty good.

My infantry are issued with Otagia's Predator pistols as a sidearm I'm not sure if that qualifies as a "good, fat, pistol" though.
I was thinking that an under barrel shotgun might be the option for 50m and lower, so some would have these and others would have underbarrel grenade launchers, that's what you said would be good right?

3 explosive tipped 'spotting' bullets at the end of a clip to signal 'out of ammo', not as traceable as tracer ammo, and would show up differently when compared to the rest of the clip. ('spotter' ammo was used in sniper rifles during WW2 by both the Russians and Germans, even though it was in direct violation of the Hague convention)
A bullet with a noticeably different recoil at the very end of a mag.
(barrel cleaning wad?)
I think it isn't needed. At least not here. A good shooter will even feel the ammo gone by weight, and it isn't hard to remember how many is left. If nothing else, make a LCD indicator (passive LCD, like on calculators, so it doesn't shine). After all, the magazines would be between 10 and 20 rounds - it's a single-shot weapon by design, not a chaingun.

I don't even have the ammo counter on R1 which uses small caseless rounds, though it will probably be added on export version (my forces are small, however very experienced - that's a natural consequence of corporate structure, where there is no draft or temporary service, only career professionals).


I was thinking that an under barrel shotgun might be the option for 50m and lower, so some would have these and others would have underbarrel grenade launchers, that's what you said would be good right?
It may be possible to just go with barrel grenade ignited by a separate trigger. After all, 15mm isn't that small a diameter, so the grenade would stay compact enough (the barrel contains only the propelling part). I can make a design for barrel grenade. UGL is extra weight.


Still the value of the 'stray bullet' is often underestimated. As at max range, the bullets function something like micro-godrods... With almost all their terminal energy imparted by gravity.
Well, I wouldn't compare them... "Godrod" effect is caused by explosive impact effect due to high velocity. Bullets falling from above are just falling pieces of lead. They can kill one unlucky, as anything can, but generally are little more than a nuisance. Air drag slows them down to less-than-lethal velocity. However, at ballistic trajectory they often stay lethal.
Still, this is simply useless - there are no marching crowd armies today, one would just waste the ammo with one hit in millions.


My infantry are issued with Otagia's Predator pistols as a sidearm I'm not sure if that qualifies as a "good, fat, pistol" though.
I don't know why to use such a large pistol (BTW, it still won't pierce Class III and above armor - it takes velocity and length, not just mass), IMHO it is just unnecessarily loading the soldiers.
As for me, my logistics troops (and these are over 80% of all troops in any high-grade military) carry full-scale R1L rifles. More exactly, will carry. They are bulkier than PDW, but I had my reasons.

The first reason why I don't use PDW is because out of Israel, Russia and USA - the three countries which armies really fight in wars - none uses or considers a PDW, and none even has a PDW program. Except for USA which has programs for anything what can or cannot be imagined, but still there are no serious PDW programs. Ones making and using PDW are EU militaries.
That has a reason. What is an army of a West-European country? It's a minimal internal defense force, which isn't supposed to fight more than for a show in case of a real war, plus a show-off tool. While combined EU could be considered the fifth military power, it doesn't make large steps towards that, and that's quite understandable. Western Europe is hard to defend (unlike USA or Russia), has Russia isolating it from China, and so a surrender would be more favorable than defense, in case of a war against a major power. In other words, EU militaries aren't trying to prepare to a global war, and will most likely just never use their weapons in combat. Therefore better comfort is worth the lack of firepower in logistics troops and ammo commonality.

In case of countries really fighting, capabilities are more important. All three have extremely similar approaches: shortened (or sometimes normal) AK, Galil (just the same) or M-16.
The second reason was an argument on a weapon forum (not NSD, serious one), where the major issue of low stopping power of PDW was brought forward, as well as low AP capabilities of pistols. That made me decide definitely to leave playing with PDW to ones with too many personnel and resources.

TSS Storefront
Pale Rider Storefront
About Silver Sky, for me his weapons, even accounting for 2030-or-so TL, appear as "Something is wrong, but has too little effect... OK, let it go". In other words, he is on the line where people feel it's wanky, but not yet as much to ignore or argue about that. However, I'm more familiar to MT (where his weapons would be dismissed for PMTness), and so they may be mostly OK for PMT, where numbers are constantly wanked up and such non-ignorable wanks aren't outstanding. He makes detailed descriptions for some of them, just overestimates the effect of supposed innovations and does use the psychological effect of length->credibility to high extent. Still, overall, I think he's just compensating for wankiness of other PMT designs. So I'd say IMHO he is neither a realist nor a prowanker - for PMT that's fine, though.


For Otagia... I recall an argument with Otagia about his insane muzzle velocities. IIRC, after I explained the physics of internal ballistics which shown that would take a huge weapon, it was eventually found out that he originally misread fps figure for m/s on Wikipedia. Then converted it (with a mistake again) and applied to his design. The result was 5280 fps or something like that muzzle velocity. That argument later spawned again at the NSD, and then people again confirmed they don't find it possible. Many of his arms specs seem to be based on results of that miscalculation.

Another particular oddity is that his weapons' barrel lengths are almost equal to total weapon length. While IRL even the most extreme and dense bullpups have 200-300mm of difference (it's easy to check), his weapons seem to be barrels alone.
For instance, his rifle labeled PRA M220 has just 80mm difference - and that's on a sniper rifle. Still, it is supposed to fire 60mm long round, have a muzzle flash suppressor, be semi-automatic and even has a recoil absorber. If I were to discuss it, I'd say the super-short flash suppressor certainly is sufficient, because, as the firing chamber is shorter than the rounds, no flash would ever come out of the muzzle anyway. Well, just that his weapons are so shining that one can't tell what is wrong, because just everything is. On the other hand, with he doesn't account for either positive effects of the longer barrels or negative (higher vibration level).
I think it implies a certain level of simplification in his impression of firearms.

Despite lacking solid connection to specs, though, some of his pictures look nice, and he's a better artist than me. So nothing personal, just that to get any more unrealistic one would have to make the barrel longer than the entire rifle or make a magazine hold more cartridges than the magazine/cartridge volume ratio. That, however, applies not to all designs; many designs simply don't have enough specs to be unrealistic, for instance have no dimensions.

I'm guessing this weapon is an infantry rifle not a big 20mm that would be used in mobile units...

=Massive Snip=

The barrel cleaning wad was more so to prevent barrel fouling, since you'll have unburnt propellant traveling down that tube...

A semi-transparent mag would also allow at-a-glance mag checks.
(one side only perhaps so that the enemy wouldn't see your empty mags)
----
I like your idea for allowing the gun itself to operate as a compact grenade launcher such as the Neopup 20 mm automatic grenade launcher.
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl29-e.htm
(note max bombardment range is 1,000 meters, point targets can be in excess of 300 meters if using Smartgun sights, hence, long range ammo)

Though an underbarrel shotgun would be best for close in engagements, since grenades take awhile to arm, and tends to produce shrapnel... A 'shotgun' that can double as a mortar with max range exceeding 1,000 meters and possesing greater firepower than the 15 or 20 mm grenades would be nice.

I also recall Pale Rider or TSS marketing a 40 mm grenade that had rocket assist.

As for firing 12 ga at full auto...
http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh16-e.htm
The earlier Atchisson assault shotgun achieved 360 shells per minute...

Hmmm, a Neopup firing these rounds would be interesting indeed...
------
Just to get the gears turning again...

And I'm reminding V-10 this is a PMT gun intended only to be used by Uld's super soldiers...
So chances are we won't see anyone running around with souped up Neopups and Atchissons as battle rifles...

As for my recently PMTing military (it needs to be modernised, again) I'll stick with the 'overpowered' 6.5 mmand rely more heavily on non-powered battle armors and assorted grenade/shotgun/missile launchers.

Plus I'll need to restart my super soldier program, and this time I can't settle for doping them up on drugs...

Thanks a bunch for your continuing efforts guys, I'm lucky to have guys like you.
I see myself at a high end of PMT, but I don't want a weapon that is pure wank, I'd like a bit of realism too, which is why I like you guys' designs.

@ V10

So what would you recommend I do? Not have a Predator as my sidearm any more? No pistol at all or just a different one?

@ Hurty

Hmm those weapons you have shown are quite interesting indeed, what elements from them would you think to incorporate in my rifle?

Also I would like to second Hurty's statements that my infantry CAN handle a good deal more recoil than the average joe as they are professionals and enhanced soldiers as well, and the mass of my weapon would also counteract the recoil in part, I think.

Also, some forms of semi-active recoil damping (counterwieghts and a spung stock) could minimize recoil, at least for single shots... For bursts it would most likely have to be designed so that it has a 'rythm', when the bolt group travels forwards as the rest of the gun recoils, and vice versa. Leaning into the expected recoil is key as well.

As I could bring up the odd footage of US soldiers dual wielding M249s or a certain person runing willy-nilly through the woods with 100 rounds and an M-60E3 and hefting it like an assault rifle... 'Crazy gun loving yanks'...
-----
Note the mag size on the Neopup, 6 or 7 20 mm striaght wall cases, which would be roughly the size of one of your unfired cartridges, although shorter...

Them there mags are gonna be about the size of an M249 belt box... Ah well, double, and even quad column feed clips already exist...*

Rate of fire from the Achtisson and the velocity of the 20 mm grenades from the Neopup are worth consideration.

Allowing this 'Battle rifle' to become a DP gun, capable of firing HV Rocket bullets, shotshells (150 mm = 6", one looooong slug...), and grenades could be interesting.

15 mm could handle 20 or 28 ga shotshells, a 12 ga is 18 to 20 mm in diameter...

A modified Smartgun capable of computing artillery bombardments, target cordnates, and how to best lob 20 or 40 mm grenades and various mortar shells MRSI upon the enemy almost instantly would of course make both the gun and grenades more useful. (Such tech has already been used in the Soviet 82 mm Automatic Mortars, and more recently in their automatic grenade launchers [well, not quite yet], the Americans are still fiddling with airburst grenades, but a TDC/FCS that is MRSI capable isn't that far off)

*One would assume the LMG crews would have 'ammo backpacks'
=======
Ammo supply within the fire team unit on patrol would become THE issue, so they should be trained not to waste bullets when a grenade does the job better... So you'd be returning to the days when soldiers are issued no more than 100 rounds each, with MGers being issued an additional 300 divided amongst the squad. Compare that to the [I]minimum 1970's ammo loadout for an American at between 300 and 800 rounds of ammo each, the 800 refferiing to the ammo issued with the M-60... Good old 7.62 NATO...

You could feasably issue your troops a combat load of an additional 100 rounds each (mostly for the MG and slung bondolier style). After about 15 to 30 minutes of heavy fighting without resupply, your troops will start running low on ammo... Luckily, not every minute of combat is a 'mad minute'.
=====
Hmmm, multi-feed ports... one for nades, another for shotshells, and one more for the rockets... A simple gate like that of the M249 could be used to select such shells. Then one could allow the smartgun to select ammo based upon range automaticly.

Since it fires from open bolt, it doesn't strip a bullet from the feed till you pull the trigger, meaning no need to eject unwanted cartridges.

10 or 15 round staggered boxes would be the norm, 20 starts getting a bit too cumbersome for the average person... Especially when you start plugging two or three mags into a gun at once... (20 to 45 shells per fully loaded gun) This also allows you to 'top off' your 'mag' while shooting, something competitors in CQB exercises would give an arm or leg for.

Need a shotgun for CQB? Load 3 mags of shotshells into the gun. Long range shooting at pinned units? Load 2 mags of nades and a mag of rockets. They're charging?! relace empty mags with ammo type suitable for shorter range engagements until involved in CQB.

After RPing a fight with this 'crazy' gun, then you might want to think about additional improvements to the design, till then, love your rifle, warts and all.

Gee I really am starting to warm up to this rifle, it is multi-purpose and powerful and seems to be based in reality, to an extent.l

(note max bombardment range is 1,000 meters, point targets can be in excess of 300 meters if using Smartgun sights, hence, long range ammo)
That won't really work well - the grenades can fly far, but lack accuracy. Even RPG don't work well at 300m, and these are much larger and with stabilization. So handheld GL are still mostly sub-100m weapon.

Ammo supply within the fire team unit on patrol would become THE issue, so they should be trained not to waste bullets when a grenade does the job better...
The grenades wouldn't be much smaller. To match the Neopup, grenade should be still 15x75, the size of normal AP round for this. Constant problem of special vs versatile: straight-wall grenades work better, but the chamber is 20mm and made for bottlenecks.

Need a shotgun for CQB? Load 3 mags of shotshells into the gun.
That's crazy. 3 mags 15 rounds each would weigh more than the entire gun (unloaded). Not to mention the bulk, because that, would look like you're carrying a box with something. These 3 magazines would, by mass and volume, equal a 600-800-round box of 5.56x45 ammo. The entire backpack of the machinegunner in mechanized infantry.


So what would you recommend I do? Not have a Predator as my sidearm any more? No pistol at all or just a different one?
The very last thing you would need in a war is carrying around a 2-kg hunting pistol. Mostly useless and bulky.
However, with such big gun you do need a backup which at least can be used in CQB, where a meter-long gun is just asking for trouble.

A good ready choice is Stechkin Automatic Pistol, aka APS. Probably the best 9mm pistol today, as with a good 140mm barrel, sufficient accuracy and 20 rounds for automatic fire it is as compact and light as Beretta 92F. And, besides, it's sturdy and reliable. Stechkin was originally chambered either for 9x18mm or 7.62x25mm; I would take the latter variant, for better penetration.
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg22-e.htm

I can also make a custom design based loosely on the APS. If only someone makes the picture for me, as I lack the skill.
Of course, one can make fancy and original designs, but personally I clearly prefer simple, reliable and, importantly, conventional weapons for self-defense. There's nothing worse than trying to grip a complicated PDW with rails, scopes and other stuff everywhere, when the enemy is twenty feet from you.


Then one could allow the smartgun to select ammo based upon range automaticly.
Never let your weapon be smarter than yourself.

That's the cornerstone of weapon design.

This just has to be quoted in relation to the "smart" handguns.


'' Kadar raised the "Reason". The multi-ammo weapon started to aim at the figure, almost hidden behind the trees.
- I'll finish you - Kadar promised Kay. - I'll kill you, not you me.
- Yes, I was wrong - the old woman replied from the window. - Kay will kill the Bulrathi, not you. - Do you want to see how will you perish?

Her tone was more convincing that the words. Kadar turned, trying to aim the multi-ammo at Henriette. Alas, the weapon's intellect module, which has just aimed at Kay, didn't understand him. "Reason" turned the barrel, tracking the previous target.
- Thus, - concluded the old woman. Something in her hand, looking like a short pencil, quietly clicked. A thin jet of flame hit the Kadar's face.
He screamed - as long as he still had his larynx. But that wasn't long.

- The weapon shouldn't be smarter than man, - Henriette said, turning around the hot incendiary cartridge - an ancient tool of Empire's terrorist groups. - Even though it isn't hard to outsmart him.
She threw the cartridge at the Kadar's beheaded body, next to the hysterically twitching "Reason-36". There was nothing valuable in the single-use flamethrower - a thin ceramic case, pyrogel, focusing nozzle and the fuse. ''


...Well, this never gets old.

Regarding the last point V10...are you aware of the specifics of Otagia's SmartGun system?
One thing that I do think is VERY highly probably is that in PMT computers are going to be a great deal more advanced, so a highly efficient and accurate computerised targeting system doesn't seem so outlandish to me, so why shouldn't it be able to select the ammo? I mean by PMT computers are getting to be as smart as people if not better...Hmmm, maybe I should consider cybernetic advancements...

Well, check the post next after that one. That episode never gets old.

"The weapon shouldn't be smarter than man - even though it isn't hard to outsmart him."

Yes but my point is that since the computer is so much faster and more advanced than the man it is better.
Your example is using a system which is, seemingly, very weak.

Yes but my point is that since the computer is so much faster and more advanced than the man it is better.
Why use men at all, then?

Until FFT the computer won't approach the human level of adaptability and comprehension. It is still a moron with a calculator. But, even when it does, they shouldn't be mixed together in this way. The master should naturally be the smarter one, but a system can't have two masters.


Your example is using a system which is, seemingly, very weak.
The system is good - the piece is from a book set in the far future of space empires. It's smart, it perfectly tracked the target and fulfilled the purpose. Just that it lacked the ability to read the shooter's mind. As well as the single-use flamethrower, but it was dumb and didn't try to make decisions.

A system reading the shooter's mind and killing on thought, however, would be even worse.

Well, check the post next after that one. That episode never gets old.

"The weapon shouldn't be smarter than man - even though it isn't hard to outsmart him."

You are assuming that Otagia's smartgun would target enemies automaticly and has no 'manual' overide in the event of an electronic malfunction.

One could apply a small set of multi-function switches or triggers to target a unit (or more correctly, a point and distance, not the moving target [unless specified]). The computer could then figure out rnge via laser rangefinder and use stored ballistic info to calculate bullet/grenade drop or shotshell dispersion.

True, versitility will be an issue, as would ammunition supply. A pair of 10 round staggered row mags would be a slightly more practicle method to solve the dilema. The size of this ammo feed would be not much bigger than the 20 shot drum from the USAS-12 Shotgun... (a bit longer though, and narrower, since drums are circular, and box clips are straight)

Manual override would involve simply leaving the smartgun system 'off' so that the laser rangefinder doesn't give away his position, plus allows for the men to work out the math themselves. Ammo selection sans Smartgun III would be a simple lever that would undoubtedly be prominently placed in an easy to access location (such as a behind the pistol grip toggle switch).

And there is no such thig as a computer 'smarter' than the user.
(for example, these spelling mistakes, printed using a computer, yet they are still there)

Aiming with the Smartgun is comparable to using the gunsight of a modern M1A2 Abrams tank...

You are assuming that Otagia's smartgun would target enemies automaticly and has no 'manual' overide in the event of an electronic malfunction.
Not exactly. The problems occur when the electronics function properly.

It will be too late to activate the override when it is needed. And, considering Otagia's impression of firearms, I personally would keep the override always on. Because ou really don't want your weapon to fire a grenade in CQB at a window or do some other logical, but deadly action.
And you also don't want your weapon to load a grenade each time you point the weapon at a target 50m apart, and load a long-range gyrojet each time you point it upwards.


And there is no such thig as a computer 'smarter' than the user.
The concept "Weapon shouldn't be smarter than the man" doesn't actually address the real power of the AI. It addresses the supposed weapon's intellect. The principle that the weapon creator should never assume his weapon will be smarter than the user, and pass the weapon a function the user could perform.

Can the user select the cartridge to use himself? Yes, he can. So leave it to him.
Actually "smart guns" is among the few things which make PMT weapons' advantage over MT very questionable.


Aiming with the Smartgun is comparable to using the gunsight of a modern M1A2 Abrams tank...
Or any other tank. They all work this way. But the important part is that they all fire *exactly* where you point and with the round you loaded. The only thing FCS does is compensating for range, tank's own movement, wind and similar detail. All the choice is left to the shooter. That is critical for a successful weapon.

Modern weapons don't have even 1% of automation they could have. The rest 99% are just harmful. Well, suppose you just make the weapon choose the round depending on what armor the target has. I can guarantee then that every well armored target will pretend to be unarmored. And in these two second it takes you to realize the weapon's mistake and override it, you will be dead.

Not exactly. The problems occur when the electronics function properly.

It will be too late to activate the override when it is needed. And, considering Otagia's impression of firearms, I personally would keep the override always on. Because ou really don't want your weapon to fire a grenade in CQB at a window or do some other logical, but deadly action.
And you also don't want your weapon to load a grenade each time you point the weapon at a target 50m apart, and load a long-range gyrojet each time you point it upwards.

The concept "Weapon shouldn't be smarter than the man" doesn't actually address the real power of the AI. It addresses the supposed weapon's intellect. The principle that the weapon creator should never assume his weapon will be smarter than the user, and pass the weapon a function the user could perform.

Can the user select the cartridge to use himself? Yes, he can. So leave it to him.
Actually "smart guns" is among the few things which make PMT weapons' advantage over MT very questionable.

Or any other tank. They all work this way. But the important part is that they all fire *exactly* where you point and with the round you loaded. The only thing FCS does is compensating for range, tank's own movement, wind and similar detail. All the choice is left to the shooter. That is critical for a successful weapon.

Modern weapons don't have even 1% of automation they could have. The rest 99% are just harmful. Well, suppose you just make the weapon choose the round depending on what armor the target has. I can guarantee then that every well armored target will pretend to be unarmored. And in these two second it takes you to realize the weapon's mistake and override it, you will be dead.

You [or is it me] are mistakening the difference between Otagia's 'smartgun' sight system (a trade name for a fancy small arm mounted FCS with optional remote viewing around corners for 'blind firing' and not actually being blind) and a "smart-gun", a weaponm that simplifies everything to turning it on and pulling the trigger when you wish to fire.

And if I am istakening Otagia's system, then I'd not be infringing on 'NS copyright' by fitting a shell drop calculator into my underbarrel grenade launchers, with provisions for calculating alternate trajectories and the differing trajectories of different grenades. Prompting the user to fire a pre-set sequence of grenades at pre-determined angles so that all shells land at the same range at the same time (or at least within a 15 second timeframe).

Aiming even with Otagia's system is itesf 100% manual, the only thing it adds are aids such as rangefinders, thermal imagers, night vision, and automated bullet drop compensation on the secondary graticle (the primary graticle is fixed in the event of an electronic fritz). Otagia's system appears to only be capable of providing 'picture in picture' and targeting info, and does not target targets for them.

Of course, to get clarification from Otagia will take another week as he has been temporarily banned for heckling a poster on a certian spam/war thread. Although I'm sure he still has a valid posting privilige on NS draft (which I thank Sarz for letting me view, even though I am listed as an unregistered member, which is fine by me [I would hug Sarz but it is rather difficult to find him])

You [or is it me] are mistakening the difference between Otagia's 'smartgun' sight system (a trade name for a fancy small arm mounted FCS with optional remote viewing around corners for 'blind firing' and not actually being blind) and a "smart-gun", a weaponm that simplifies everything to turning it on and pulling the trigger when you wish to fire.

Well, I was addressing the idea of letting the weapon select the round to use. That's really just begging for trouble. The user can do it as well and as fast (really even faster - less switching), and with way better results, because he knows what he wants, unlike the gun.

For Otagia's system, I'd personally hesitate to use anything with Otagian brands, as that word works as a laugh trigger for many MT players. Even though the system isn't be too wanky, generally a similar noname system would cause more positive reaction. And you get to choose the features better.
I hate speaking ad-hominem, but this is an uncontroversial situation - his knowledge of firearms isn't really far from zero. Do you think someone knowing something about guns could possibly confuse feet per second and meters per second, and could not even know AK-47 and M-16 muzzle velocities? Or make a gun with 60mm long ammo, 810mm barrel and muzzle suppressor 890mm overall length? So he can occasionally say something about "smartgun" which would make it a failure, and not even notice it.

Maybe I'm overconcerned about my soldiers, but I wouldn't trust their lives into the hands of a possibly flawed chip.

The answer to that is rather simple, I have SmartGun production rights for this new weapon so I can simply alter the system to better fit my weapons, if Otagia's prove defective. I think, actually I'll ask about that.
Because I do care about giving my men the best I can, that's the whole point of this thread, otherwise I'd just use AK's or some PMT equivalent.
However, it is possible that Otagia doesn't know about weapons but does understand computers and so could design a good battlefield one.



By V10
Why use men at all, then?


Until FFT the computer won't approach the human level of adaptability and comprehension. It is still a moron with a calculator. But, even when it does, they shouldn't be mixed together in this way. The master should naturally be the smarter one, but a system can't have two masters.

I don't actually believe in fully automated weapons, but I was just arguing because I think it is a PMT possibility, playing Devil's Advocate as it is not one my troops would have because I'd prefer the thermal imaging, range-finding etc. package rather than fully automated.
But maybe for some one who employs a less professional army a more automated weapon would do.

My only gripe is that you really seem to underestimate the level of computer advancement, which is one of the fastest advancing things around.
For example, a computer brought today is obsolete in three or four years, a gun brought today will still be as useful in twenty.
It is my understanding that PMT is basically between fifteen to about sixty or seventy years in the future in terms of technology, depending on what level of PMT you are, now assuming the that technology advances at the same rate it is, that is not speeding up, then I think that it would be highly likely that a computer that is better at deciding what sort of ammo to use, the angle to fire at and so forth, but probably not on the same level as a well experienced soldier, as that takes a level of experience that a computer wouldn't have, unkess you could program it to learn by adding combat data or something.


Why use men at all, then?
'Cause robots are stupid, they are definitely FT and you'd need so many stabilises and other such like that it just wouldn't make sense to use them instead of infantry, plus they'd unlikely be anything near as cost effective as humans.

But I hope I haven't upset you, If I sound rude it is not my intent as I am thankful for all the work PROHT and you put in to this design.

However, it is possible that Otagia doesn't know about weapons but does understand computers and so could design a good battlefield one.
Well... A good battlefield computer is VIA C3, or a militarized version. That has more power than you could possibly need, low consumption and high reliability.


My only gripe is that you really seem to underestimate the level of computer advancement, which is one of the fastest advancing things around.
For example, a computer brought today is obsolete in three or four years, a gun brought today will still be as useful in twenty.
But what's the point?

Even the processors on F-22 Raptor, the plane with the most powerful computers today, are only equivalent to 80386. That's right, 80386, these old 40-MHz things, though there's a lot of them, and, combined, they equal a Pentium III and carry 300 MB of RAM.
It's easy to switch them for Opteron, Xeon or Core Quad, increasing the power over a 100 times (that's right, more exactly hundreds of times), but there's just no need to do it. The 80386 units are more than enough for all the needs of the most advanced air superiority stealth fighter.

And you don't need anything more powerful in just a gun.


then I think that it would be highly likely that a computer that is better at deciding what sort of ammo to use, the angle to fire at and so forth, but probably not on the same level as a well experienced soldier, as that takes a level of experience that a computer wouldn't have, unkess you could program it to learn by adding combat data or something.
No. Never. Computer is a moron with a calculator, but still a moron. It does know how to crunch numbers, but has no idea of what to do. Yes, it can determine the angle of fire, that's fine. But keep it away from your ammo.
Are your soldiers total, clinical idiots? I think not. And even a person with IQ of 40-50 can memorize the simple rules of where which round is best.

The important thing is that the soldiers will be able to use a different round, and without any hassle with overriding. You don't need a powerful computer for that decision, 4004, designed in 1971, has more than enough power for any rifle's systems. And no computer is fine as well, analog systems work as well. But human brains still work well.

Sometimes you are standing on a cliff (or a rooftop) and want to throw a grenade down. The smartish gun will choose a long-range gyrojet.
Sometimes you are aiming through the window and want to hit a target behind. The gun may see the window, but it has no idea whether it is breakable by a grenade; you do have.
Sometimes you are shooting into the interior of a light wood building through a window, broken or not. And only you know whether you want to lob a grenade into the room or shoot someone through the wall. The gun doesn't.

In other words, the soldier understands the tactical situation and his needs, the gun doesn't. And it will always stay this way, as long as it's the soldier who's in control. So leave it to him. He isn't that dumb to be unable to select the proper round. The weapon shouldn't be - or try to be - smarter than the man.

Did you miss the part where I said...

Posted by me.
I don't actually believe in fully automated weapons, but I was just arguing because I think it is a PMT possibility, playing Devil's Advocate as it is, not one my troops would have because I'd prefer the thermal imaging, range-finding etc. package rather than fully automated.
But maybe for some one who employs a less professional army a more automated weapon would do.

But thank you for your input, I can see the errors now, fully computerised weapons=FT.
So back onto the subject of the main gun, how many different sorts of ammo would you advise and how much of each should my men carry?

I read it, but the post was not just to you. The point is that high automation on weapons is possible, but just not needed as long as they are manned.


For the rifle, I'd suggest this ammo set:
AMR - Anti-materiel, 300-500m optimal range - 150mm long
AP/SR - Armor piercing, short range (100-300m) - 75mm
AP/LR - Armor piercing, long range (500-1000m) - 100-150mm
FR - Fragmentary (100-300m) - 75mm
FL - Flechette (not gyrojet) - 75mm
S24 - Shotgun shell 1 - 75mm, just a normal 24 gauge shell
S12 - Shotgun shell 2 - 100-150mm, actually like a 16-12 gauge shell

That's what I see as essential. Since the rounds are pretty heavy, I wouldn't make too many types. A soldier would normally carry 3-5 types in 8 magazines, totaling 10 kg. Each magazine would weigh 1.25kg, differing in number of rounds. Specifically, 150mm ones would have 8 rounds (8*140+magazine), 75mm ones 15 rounds in two rows. Equal magazine mass allows to improve accuracy.
The rifle would accept no more than 2 mags at a time.

The basic loadouts would depend on mission. In the [] there's the optional loadout, normally carried only on march. I assume here that you want to make Teshaile the prime weapon, but not discard other guns. Since that gun is heavy, I'd assign it only to designated riflemen. I still assume "enhanced" soldiers, but not to the point of insanity.
Total loadout is assumed as 20-25kg, which is as much as even a strong human can carry w/o major efficiency loss.


Versatile fire team:
* Team leader - R1, 300 rounds (various - I won't go into detail yet); 3 grenades; radio, etc.
* AT soldier - 1xATGM or RPG with 6 rounds, Stechkin with 80 rounds
* 2xRifleman - Teshaile, 2xAMR, 2xAP/LR, 2xAP/SR, 1xFR, 1xFL, 4 grenades (either rifle or hand)

AT fire team:
* Team leader - R1, 300 rounds; 3 grenades; radio, etc.
* AT soldier, hv. - 1xATGM, R1L with 200 rounds
* AT soldier - RPG with 5 rounds, Stechkin with 60 rounds [ Extra 2 RPG rounds, 40 Stechkin ]
* Rifleman - Teshaile, 1xAMR, 1xAP/LR, 3xAP/SR, 3xFR, 2 grenades [ 2xAMR, 1xFL, 2 grenades ]

Counter-heavy-infantry fire team:
* Team leader - R1, 500 rounds; 3 grenades; radio, etc.
* 2 x Rifleman - Teshaile, 3xAP/LR, 2xAP/SR, 2xAMR, 1xFL, 2 grenades [ 1xAMR, 1xFL, 1xFR, 2 grenades ]
* Machinegunner - MG1, 1500 rounds, 2 grenades [ 500 rounds, 2 grenades ]
Note: by heavy infantry I mean ones in power armor.

Counter-light-infantry fire team:
* Team leader - R1, 400 rounds; 2 grenades; radio, etc.
* 2xMachinegunner - MG1, 1000 rounds, 2 grenades [ 500 rounds, 2 grenades ]
* Rifleman - Teshaile, 2xAP/LR, 2xAP/SR, 2xAMR, 4 grenades [ 1xAP/LR, 1xAP/SR, 2 grenades ]

Special fire team (AA or otherwise):
* Team leader - R1, 400 rounds; radio, etc.
* Rifleman - Teshaile, 1xAMR, 2xAP/LR, 2xAP/SR, 2xFR, 1xFL, 2 grenades [ 1xAMR, 1xFL, 2 grenades ]
* 2 specialists - Special weapon plus R1L or Stechkin as backup


That's what would work optimally.

*ahem*

Even I don't know the MV of the M-16 or AK-47 offhand, mostly due to the variety of SS109 and American grade .223 ammo, and the less than match grade of Soviet ammo. Plus the many different barrel lengths of the M-16 and normally excessive barrel wear of the AKs (due to presumably extensive use or abuse)...

And you are painting it so that Otagia appears to be of the same competancy of TPM... Which is just wrong...

I also know that the engine of a surface ship is generally located near the bottom center of the hull, or 1/4 to the rear of the center, and why, so please don't hold it agaist me when I don't bother to figure out the math (or lineart) on a weapon design that I stated from the begining I wouldn't design, for if I designed it, it wouldn't be his gun, it would be my gun in his hands, and I'd rather he develop his gun at his own pace so that he understands it as well or better than anyone else on NS, which prevents anyone from abusing the stat-block.

Plus, at the very begining, I noted that 'electronic guns' are a liability when one is aiming for a rock-solid performer. I considered the 'Smartgun' as a weapon enhancement that Uld already had, and could be used in a manner similar to a quick detach scope. Works great when it works, simply not used when it doesn't.

At less than 50 meters, and in a firefight, chaces are the advantages of a smartgun are moot.

Bullet selection was for long range MRSI bombardments ONLY, and I found it simpler/faster for the gun to do the loading and prompt the user rather than give a massive list of instructions that the infantryman would have to complete with almost complete precision. And mis-reading an LCD display can become incredibly easy. (it would select slower velocoity rounds first and then higher velocity, but I guess one could do this manually if drilled well enough - fire one clip of nades, then let loose with bullets, then run for cover, cause after 15 seconds of the first impact, the whole point of continuing fire in single shot is moot unless it is merely to pin the enemy down)

I guess upon further looking into it, yes, a well trained grunt could most likely know what cartridges are 'faster' downrange, and could manually work out the times and punch in the angles himself. With almost no loss in performance.

Though at 1000 meters, one is best to call in a dedicated air or artillery bombardment, though the unit may have to effectively ambush and pin down the enemy for up to 15 minutes at such ranges.
=======
Later posts:
Using it as a DM's rifle is a very good idea, since he is issued with long range (grenades), effective Armor piercing (rocket/bullet), and sufficient CQB cababilities so that he doesn't need to be escorted about the battlefield like an aircraft carrier/dedicated sniper...

Though the accuracy of his primary ammo would be in question.
It has good anti-armor capabilities at a pretty good range, but not quite that of a true DM, wich is up to 600 meters. And clearly, if used by a regular human unit, it would be classed as a specialist weapon.

AP/LR is best left to a regular grenade fired through the gun with high angle trajectory (making the rangefinder and such pretty usefull)

AMR would then be the only 'long' ammo left, and then it becomes a coin toss whether you want shorter and slower grenades or long and fast bullets.

The gunsight could also figure out of the target is above or below the rifleman with greater accuracy (Cosine*range [hypotonouse]=height of a triangle), and thus, compensate. Allowing one to shot down a cliff with as much accuracy as one would have shooting on level ground.

Hunting Bows have 'pendulum sights' which are good from about PB to 20 meters (horizontal) at any hieght, useful when hunting from a treestand but when you only sight-in on level ground, also arrows drop rather fast, so 20 meters is pretty good in thick woods. Though I do NOT suggest using these for firearms, the concept of a sight that can automaticly find bullet drop even at exreme angles is still a good thing (since chances are you can't train infantry to shoot up/down cliffs and long range level shooting, also gets tricky since people tend to estimate only to within 5 degrees of arc [unassisted] and can guestimate range within 1% of actual range, 5 to 10% being more realistic)

As for the nade/cliff thing, drop hand nades, then shhot a burst behind it just before they explode (so they don't get the chance to throw them away/back)
====
*looks again at gun*
OMG a rocket and grenade launching assault shotgun!!!

It has come a long way from a feasability comparrision between the TPM "HT-SUX" rifle, an AK variant, and this... thing... can't tell what it really is, except an assault weapon of some sort...

Is that a bad thing? It will keep them ALL guessing.
But the problem is that now I'll still be without a main battle rifle if I use it as a DMR.
Maybe I should go for the Kriegzimmer Hali-42 Assault Rifle, true that company has closed but Mac said I could still order some stuff if I was quick.
But then I wouldn't have my nice, unique, shiny new weapon for my men.
Hmm.

Even I don't know the MV of the M-16 or AK-47 offhand, mostly due to the variety of SS109 and American grade .223 ammo, and the less than match grade of Soviet ammo. Plus the many different barrel lengths of the M-16 and normally excessive barrel wear of the AKs (due to presumably extensive use or abuse)...
And you are painting it so that Otagia appears to be of the same competancy of TPM... Which is just wrong...
Well, it's one thing not to know exact numbers, and another not to know at least that AK-47 is between 700-800m/s, M-16 and AK-74 800-1000. At least not 1700m/s. That is funny.
I don't mean he's like TPM... still... Maybe I have too much perfectionism, but I just personally feel less certain about people who don't acknowledge or correct their mistakes. Having been explained here in II, then again on the Draftroom, and it's still there.


Bullet selection was for long range MRSI bombardments ONLY, and I found it simpler/faster for the gun to do the loading and prompt the user rather than give a massive list of instructions that the infantryman would have to complete with almost complete precision. And mis-reading an LCD display can become incredibly easy.
But are there many long-range bullets? I think only two - AP/LR and AMR (in my designation). First against body armor, but best at 500-1000m, second against light armored vehicles as well, but best at 300-500m. Note these ranges are not absolute range, but rather the optimal one. I deliberately made these numbers simple, all split at 100, 300, 500, so a soldier can be easily drilled.
Compare that to his job on BMP-3 or BMPT, when he has two kinds of rounds for the gun, ATGM, the machinegun and a mortar.
Actually it isn't hard at all to select the proper round at all. Besides, you can't stick all the mags into the gun, two most, so you'd have to follow machine's orders... it's just easier to do it yourself.

Well, and suppose we have an extra kind of rounds for MRSI. Then a computer will help, but with just a laser rangefinder and a line on the scope. Keep it simple - that's another cornerstone.
And, for PMT, the computer can also program these grenades. Nothing super-complex, just like on OICW.




But the problem is that now I'll still be without a main battle rifle if I use it as a DMR.
Maybe I should go for the Kriegzimmer Hali-42 Assault Rifle, true that company has closed but Mac said I could still order some stuff if I was quick.
Calibre: .221 Orchomenos [capable of using the .223, .224, .225 and .220]
Overall Length: 113cm
Barrel Length: 64cm
Bayonet Length: 33cm
Weight [Empty]: 4.4kg
Magazine Capacity: 45 rounds
Muzzle Velocity: 1,070 m/s
Rate of Fire: 750 rounds per minute
I think Hali-42 is a normal rifle for MT, but for PMT could use more punch and, besides, is not too compact. A bullpup would work out better, IMHO.

You can go with R1, as I've mentioned. That rifle was made with PMT in mind - all these power armors, cyborgs and other fancy stuff. Quite lightweight but powerful weapon for team leaders and others who need something not too bulky. That will also double as main close-range weapon.
BTW, when I say "Stechkin", I mean the concept, not exactly APS pistol.

Teshaile can work as "battle rifle", but clearly not as an assault rifle for everyone. It may be not exactly specialist weapon, but still the primary weapon, not something you throw on your back just in case. So it needs a complement.

One could act like the British during the Falklands and just issue battle rifles all round.

(FN FAL, which was a rather heavy gun, and the british made theirs single shot only)

For MT, this gun would qualify as a slightly too complicated assault weapon for general issue (something similar in issue to the MP-5K, 6.8 mm M-4, and the Combat shotgun, or the ever constantly submited automatic assault grenade lancher [which has only seen service in China])

For PMT, where gun weght and recoil aren't quite as big an issue, and ammo supply becomes the only real problem (which is THE problem for all PMT nations, unless they settle for an 'underpowered' standard round and issue them in a manner similar to assault rifles), these would be compareable to a WWII grade battle rifle or 'automatic weapon' (Like the BAR) depending on intended ROF.

An MT Battle rifle would make a halfway decent PMT assault rifle, though troops lugging these would undoubtedly have to be issued a secondary weapon such as an Underbarrel Grenade Launcher. As the assault rifle would be something between the batle rifle and pistol in performance.

The russians developed an AP bullet for the 9x19 mm Luger, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to issue a similar bullet in 7.62x25 in APSish format, which had the interesting advantage of burst and fully automatic 'spray and pray' fire. A very usefull tool in confined spaces when used in conjuction with (hand) grenades and melee weapons.

(The MRSI concept is 'proven', and all one would have to do is miniturize the existing hardware to fit the rifle, all this tech already exists, it's just a little on the heavy side to be issued on a rifle [OICW for example, is not battle rifle by any stretch])

Teshaile grenades could be used as improvised hand grenades. And with the additional powder contained in the brass, would make a comparable explosion.

So would it be a better idea to have a more llightweight pistol or heavier one as a sidearm? I suppose I'd want something light and with a reasonable bite to it, but not too heavy so as not too overburden my men, but a pistol and a few clips shouldn't be that bad...

An MT Battle rifle would make a halfway decent PMT assault rifle,
I have to somewhat disagree. There are no inherent differences between MT and PMT personal weapons. There are no PMT rifle techs impossible in MT. Firearms have barely evolved since the 50s, and the most important part is the design, not the specs. A good MT rifle beats an average PMT rifle. Well, it might be shifted one step down in the role, but in that role it will beat the average PMT weapon for that role.

New technologies? I haven't even seen PMT designers use any, besides caseless ammo (which aren't as new as they seem - 18-19 century paper cartridges were essentially caseless ammo). I have checked: high-MT R1 contains more advanced technologies than any PMT rifle; I'm not sure if that's more than all PMT rifles combined, but on par at least. And, for the PMT technologies I don't use, the reason for me not using them is that I just don't trust them: Reliabilität uber Alles (reliability above everything). Of course, sometimes PMT designers claim "better specs" - but they don't always even know what these specs mean. For instance, sometimes extreme accuracy is claimed - but the scope used has 20-30 times lower resolution. Sometimes extreme ROF is claimed, but that just means it will waste all ammo quickly, and specifically waste, because the bipod is forgotten. Firearms specification figures have long ago exceeded the required values; current firearms design is not about numbers at all. Many people fail to understand this fact.

So a good MT rifle will stay a good PMT rifle. Maybe it will be called "light assault rifle" instead, but it will stay as good in own class as it was in MT.


So would it be a better idea to have a more llightweight pistol or heavier one as a sidearm?

Best of all is an automatic pistol. A rifle may have close-range round, but a pistol - even a semi-auto - is still better in CQB. However, auto-pistols tend to be heavy and often also inconvenient. The weapon should be light enough to be useful and not make the soldiers put it away and take an extra mag instead. It should also have lighter ammo, so enough can be carried. And it would best have a secondary role.

So the choices are Stechkin APS, CZ Scorpion, Beretta 93, and Glock 18. The latter is lighter (620g vs. 1050), but, however, has ROF of 1200 rounds per minute, rather than 600. High ROF is not an achievement, but rather a drawback; it's decreased intentionally, particularly in pistols. Lack of slowdown and light weight make Glock 18 uncontrollable and inaccurate in autofire, basically just spraying around - good only at point-blank range. It's basically semi-auto Glock 17 with autofire added.
Beretta 93 can fire only bursts, and again is primarily a semi-auto pistol with autofire added.

The Czech Scorpion is a very short and small SMG. I haven't fired this one, but I've heard it's well controllable. It makes a viable choice, but Scorpion is a little bulky, designed as the main weapon for police.

Stechkin Automatic Pistol, or APS, was made originally with automatic fire accuracy in mind, featuring controllable recoil and improved balance. It was designed as the main weapon for officers, secondary weapon for RPG soldiers, and as a KGB weapon as well - compact and powerful. Due to being, unlike other Russian pistols, very expensive to manufacture, it never replaced the ultra-simple Makarov (it isn't that cheap on the market due to paperwork, but the manufacture is so simple and fast that one factory can supply half of the army). However, the wars have proven it very valuable - Stechkin pistols were sought after and carried by those who could get them, in Afghan and both Chechen wars. It was soon realized that even the high cost pays off, and there was made a silenced version for Spetsnaz and KGB. Lightweight, accurate, fast-firing, reliable weapon - it seems to be the best choice for the backup sidearm.

I may be a little biased, since Stechkin is my favorite pistol, but, on the other hand, it's my favorite not just for looks and not for fitting my hand. While looking and weighing just like an average pistol, it is very accurate for one, and, importantly, the most accurate pistol in automatic mode I've ever fired, even compared to ones firing short bursts only. Less accurate than Uzi, but that's not a pistol, not by a long shot.
Of course, APS Stechkin isn't the best one possible. IRL, just recently Igor Stechkin has developed a new pistol, similar to the APS, but better - http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg139-e.htm . However, it has yet to get on the market, and will probably be expensive, as it's made only by KBP (more known for high-end sniper and hunting rifles).

In NS, I'm right now developing a modernized APS, for caseless 8mm ammunition. It will be more expensive, but more powerful, capable of piercing heavy armor with special ammunition, but basically will follow Stechkin's design. Of course, it can be made in any caliber you prefer. I use 8mm caseless so it can take R1 rifle's ammunition.

I think APS or a modernized APS would make the best choice for the reserve weapon. Particularly a modernized one, since caseless ammunition is lighter.

I recall trying to get someone to lower the optics of his assault rifle (he wanted 20x or 30x), which he eventually did. High ROF weapons were the vogue of NS PMT, I don't know why, maybe cause they want everyone armed with an MG42 knockoff so they can all use the same clipart?
-----
And yes, a good/great MT rifle beats the stuffing out of the average -poorly designed- PMT rifle.

Although making a PMT rifle using only MT tech isn't really taking full advantage of things. (Not to use the tech to increse ROF, but to make the gun lighter and more stable and ccurate, maybe even some better AP qualities)

Plus, PMT rifles have to occassionally deal with armored battlesuits. Something Current rifles wouldn't be much use against, since that was exactly what those armors are supposed to be nearly immune to.
-----

ROF can be delayed, doing so just adds mass, hence why the APS a Skorpion wiegh more.

The Scorpion has been also used as a sidearm and PDW/SMG. Since it was extremely small even for a SMG, though fitting it inside a normal pistol holster loaded isnot possable.

I have a slight bias for the Scorpion.
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg26-e.htm

For my own use, I developed (on NS) one with an 'odd' feed system, using a 2 step rearward extraction system from the magazine in order to squeeze pistol grip/bullpup barrel lengths into it with 55 mm long cartridges...
(It was to double as a covert sniper rifle and PDW grade assault rifle for downed aircrews, and once a barrel extension, silencer, scope, and bipod are fitted, it looks the part)

As for reliabilitty of such a feed, I'll merely point you at the Soviet SGM heavy machinegun or PKM GPMG.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg35-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg30-e.htm
A requirement of this gun was tht it could feed reliably when mounted on its side or upside down...
Feed was rearward because of the prominently rimmed cartridge.

Although making a PMT rifle using only MT tech isn't really taking full advantage of things. (Not to use the tech to increse ROF, but to make the gun lighter and more stable and ccurate, maybe even some better AP qualities)
I tried. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't found a single PMT technology to help this which is impossible in MT.
Weight... Carbon nanotubes? Way too expensive, still vulnerable, and can shave off maybe 300g.

Accuracy? You just can't. There is a limit to the accuracy, when it's limited by the shooter, and that's reached already on R1. Besides, it doesn't matter if you hit here or half an inch to the left, in warfare. Military-grade rifles are times less accurate than even mediocre amateur benchrest rifles, and less accurate than police rifles. There's just no need for accuracy below 0.5 MOA, and very little for below 1 MOA. That's not even counting that all helping techs have been invented and applied IRL.

Penetration? Yes, current rifles won't work. R1 will, as it was designed with full plate armor in mind (I don't like to call that by any name but the medieval armor it was copied from), specifically to warrant its penetration. Some nations pretending to be MT use it too. However, a 11,000 Joule AP round will pierce any of them, and an APFSDS will pierce even mini-mecha, as it pierces light AFV. It doesn't take a PMT weapon to penetrate PMT armor, there's a load of RL ones which do it with ease. And a weapon on the edge between MT and PMT, so-called high-MT can do it while staying compact.


I have a slight bias for the Scorpion.
I don't think it's a good idea for backup weapon. Scorpion doesn't offer any solid advantage over APS except for more convenient two-hand grip, while it's way bulkier. APS does the job in a compact package, and is easier to handle and carry. Scorpion just wastes space inside the grip, APS uses it. Scorp's barrel is 115mm out of overall 270, while APS has 140mm out of overall 225. The Scorpion was made as the primary police weapon, where size is not as important.

Accuracy also includes acquisition time, and rate of aimed semi-auto rifle fire.
Or:
"How long would it take to hit 300 targets dead center at 300 meters?"
"How much ammo would it take?" (Bonus points if <300)

The Scorpy also found use in their military.
Though I wasn't overly happy with the fact that it limited its mag size to something small enough to fit inside the handle...

Improved metallurgy for smaller and more robust springs and trigger groups?
Longer lasting and lighter barrels?
Self vibration dampened barrels to improve full auto accuracy at long range?
Smaller and more robust optics with greater clarity and less paralax distortion?
More accurate/dependable laser rangefinders?

Hmmm, V10, why do you lack faith in the abilities of PMT?
I was under the impression that, on average, a PMT weapon if designed properly should outclass MT weapon of the same genre, simply because the technology has advanced.
Now I could understand your arguments if PMT was just say, ten years in the future, but the fact is that a PMT nation can go quite far, maybe even sixty or more years into the future. Now at that stage how can you or I claim that some new invention won't be made? Sixty years ago the Jet was just being produced (I think, aviation isn't my forte), I think you might have an awfully conservative opinion, not uninformed, but conservative nonetheless.

Now I'm probably not that crazy-advanced, actually I know I'm not.
Also I can understand your stance, it isn't good to see someone say "Well my rifle is better because it's PMT, it has three times the power for no adequately explained reason."

But how can we say that they couldn't have developed some new fangled polymer or propellant or something?
I of course only offer my relatively uneducated opinion on this matter.
But by the way, could I see this R1 of yours? I would greatly like to see the specs on this thing...

Thanks for everything guys.

Improved metallurgy for smaller and more robust springs and trigger groups?
They are already light.

Longer lasting and lighter barrels?
Self vibration dampened barrels to improve full auto accuracy at long range?
Tensioned barrels with antiresonance system are implemented in R1; Osmiridium coating provides more barrel life than needed. Any lighter would just not work well. Full auto accuracy depends on the shooter, not just the weapon. Any lighter and you just can't control the recoil. In fact, 20% of R1 mass are just actually a counterweight system to combat the recoil and provide accuracy, and another 30% are casing you could remove with ease; it just helps the balance, reduces barrel rise due to recoil, absorbs heat, et cetera. These are mechanics, and they don't progress with time considerably. Yes, it could be done in 2kg (in fact, the first M16 prototype weighed just that), and there is a version in 3kg, but they lose efficiency. All the techs used are MT, though.


Smaller and more robust optics with greater clarity and less paralax distortion?
More accurate/dependable laser rangefinders?
Optics size is determined by laws of optics, not by quality. Clarity, distortion? Already very good. You don't need even that on a military rifle, your targets are larger anyway. The inaccuracy of benchrest rifles already comes mostly from influence of the wind. High-grade sniper rifles' inaccuracy is caused by the hand.
Well, maybe the optics and rangefinders could become more robust, but that's all. You just don't need any more accuracy than modern ones offer.


Now I could understand your arguments if PMT was just say, ten years in the future, but the fact is that a PMT nation can go quite far, maybe even sixty or more years into the future. Now at that stage how can you or I claim that some new invention won't be made?
It could. But what invention, then? You can't just claim "an invention has been made and it became way better", after all. It takes an actual invention.
Helicopter and many other things were invented centuries ago. It's most likely that we already know of most future techs, they just take implementation.


Mass-production assault rifle has been first invented in 1913 by Vladimir Fedorov - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat . They were produced,
And assault rifles have hardly changed since then. They got better bullets and better quality parts. Some were still worse, in fact, all until AK-47; some were better. The assault rifle, in general, however, has changed very little since that. Replace wood with plastic, clean up a bit, and it will compete fine with M-16; in fact, the 6.5mm caliber is right now regarded as the optimal. And, unlike automatic rifles of the time, Avtomat Fedorova was as reliable as AK, tested and proven to tolerate abuse and be jam-proof. AK-47 mainly became just cheaper and more compact. AF can be considered clearly inferior when compared to modern AK-107, AK-108 and related developments, but these appeared only by the end of the century.



But by the way, could I see this R1 of yours? I would greatly like to see the specs on this thing...
It's here:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3400

Might be needed to list to the end. That's not final, I'll update it somewhat. For instance, I finally decided on the revolving chamber and dual-magazine feed, plus there are some minor changes, but that's what it's like. There's no spec block, it's all in the writeup.
Still, even in current state, the first person I discussed it with on NS had this comment - "The rifle sounds like a great NS option, the R1 is to rifles as the Nakil IV is to tanks- the best." Well, and, of course, he'll be the first customer, since it does offer an advantage.

In all regards it applies more new technologies than even PMT rifles do, and does it without losing the qualities of a good assault rifle, because they are very integrated, not just put in a heap. For instance, it can work with muzzle brake or without, and that is controlled not by some electronic switch, but just by sliding the flash suppressor. And the ergonomics were put to the highest regard; I actually designed it with my shotgun in hands, thinking of what I would want there. Something most PMT rifles lack. The problem is that people try to build the weapon around supposed new technologies, instead of building it around the shooter, as R1, or at least around the purpose.

And here's the problem. MT firearms turn out as good as PMT just because MT designers are less susceptible to that and often build the weapon around the function. Rifle technology is so advanced that anything new offers only a marginal advantage; while even small mistakes in the most important things, integrity, reliability and ergonomics, lead to major drawbacks. In a sense, the firearm's quality is determined by the weakest link, not the strongest. It took me over three months to ensure all the links in the chain become stronger, because only this way the chain becomes stronger. And that's with consulting with Maxim Popenker and trying out many rifles myself; I'm not sure I could do it otherwise at all, even in a year.

Lack of attention to detail may do in some other fields, not in firearms. If the rifle has a problem, that overwhelms the good things. That's why many seemingly excellent (in one aspect) weapons were phased out or stay disliked, while the best regarded weapons are seemingly just average or good in all aspects. Improving over them requires regarding all aspects. It's also the reason why such rifles as R1 aren't developed in the real life: you need to replace all production equipment, change the caliber, use a very different approach, spend a lot of money, and, finally, train the soldiers much better so they can use the advantage of a better rifle. For me, it takes just developing and writing it down, but a government would have to actually produce it and allocate massive funds, and that's way easier to say than to do.
Actually, when considering any new technology, the first question I ask is: Why isn't it used in the real life? Most of the time there are good reasons not to. In case of R1, all technologies applied are used IRL, but separately, in different weapons - but it takes not only engineering, but financial effort to bring them together, and effort which just would never pay off IRL, with soldiers who will never learn to use it well. The world of NS, on the other hand, justified that.

Very heavy weapon, a normal assault rifle will weight 4kg or so, 7kg is a crazily high, unless this is a sniper, but 800m is not the greatest accurate range...

IMO its quite possible to make an MT weapon this good if not better, in fact V10 has, or is, doing so.

The advantage of PMT is that the costs involved are much lower as machinery and mass production will be improved. You also get the use of superconductors, but in rifles that are currently being designed and as PMT this kind of thing isn't going to help...

R1:
An 8 mm Steyr ACR (bullpup) with lever delayed blowback operation?

One of the things about recoil operated automatics is that, unlike gas operated weapons, cannot change ROF without switching the return springs.

Meaning a method to switch between 300 and 600 RPM is a bit heavy.

It also uses an electrical primary ignition source, and only has a crude pully system to operate the gun mechanicly, rather than the tried and true trigger shears.

This I assume, is because it generally uses caseless ammo.

An 8 mm Steyr ACR (bullpup) with lever delayed blowback operation?
Not as simple. It does look like Steyr ACR, though.

One of the things about recoil operated automatics is that, unlike gas operated weapons, cannot change ROF without switching the return springs.
That's why electric ignition. Simple as it is, if you don't ignite it, it won't fire. So the ROF can be changed from nearly nothing to the maximum, at which, with mechanics a bit switched, the counterweight does just one throw per burst.

With pure mechanical operation, yes, the ROF is fixed, but slowed down to 600rpm compared to caseless operation (it always attempts to eject the case in mechanical mode). However, mechanical operation is really the last ditch measure. Failure of both battery/capacitor and piesoelectric systems, each triple-redundant, is extremely unlikely. Maybe one of 20,000 rifles will ever have to resort to mechanically working with caseless ammo. Well, the risk of running out of ammo is greater, but it's the emergency; what's more important is to have an efficient weapon that doesn't waste the proper ammunition in the first place. In mechanical mode, it's like an AK-107, but it is still a suitable weapon.
OTOH, blowback provides high ROF when it's needed, and that means really high ROF, particularly cyclic. By high I mean ROF comparable to high-ROF aircraft weapons, further increased by smaller caliber and size. It allows to fire the burst before the recoil takes full effect.


It also uses an electrical primary ignition source, and only has a crude pully system to operate the gun mechanicly, rather than the tried and true trigger shears.
I just didn't draw the mechanical system. In general, it's remotely like this:
http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/assault/img/ak107op.gif
With differences, of course, particularly using blowback and rotating chambers, and having the counterweight closer to the muzzle end, by the barrel.

Right. I still want my Teshaile and I want it too be mad-good, if it is possible to make it better then it shall be, by the beard of Apollo!
Having said that could I also purchase production rights to the R1 for my UUSSDF? Right now I use Carbandia's Wyvern, but that can be transferred to the police forces or something.

Well, just state the requirement and I can help with fulfilling it.


For R1, production rights are not yet for sale, and won't be soon. Selling them would somewhat undermine the idea, or I'd have to request an excessive price. In general, I sell production rights only when a better model comes out, and that wouldn't be fast - my next firearms will be in the budget sector, mostly to promote the CL8R (8mm caseless) caliber. They'll have rights for sale, of course. But here it would be just not the best way.
So I decided to just sell the weapon; the price won't be excessive for such a sale, and it's expensive to make anyway. Of course, a large-scale sale involves technology, drafts and rights for making domestic-use ammunition, including custom ammunition. And, of course, I can always collaborate for any modification needed.

Riiiight.
Well then I'm not that interested as I'd rather have weapons I can produce domestically as I don't like having to re-order weapons whenever I expand my military, which is about once every few months.
Still, I might think about it for some elements of my army.
Back to the Teshaile, so what further work needs to be done? It is looking pretty good to me.

I think we can figure something out at ease. For instance, what about just getting the production rights after the initial purchase? But without the foreign sales right, however, just for domestic production.

BTW, the new thread: http://draftroom.modernwarstudies.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=23


For Teshaile, I think it's fine already. Only may need more ammunition.

I don't need foreign sales rights, but domestic production is a-ok.
I'll start looking into the ammunition for the Teshaile soon, I'll need to reorganise my military again soon as my computer appears to have eaten my older files.

Hell, looks like I'll have to use V10's ideas for bullets/rounds because the international pressures are hotting up and I need to be ready to move.
If improvements can be made to this gun either tell me now or we'll have to adapt it later because otherwise this is going into mass-production.
So far I need to remember to stay close to the supply lines.
Okay, before I start actually using this anything to say?

B7ump for replies, in three days I'll be adopting the Teshaile otherwise so I need to know if anything else needs to be added.

Two days.

Accuracy also includes acquisition time, and rate of aimed semi-auto rifle fire.
Or:
"How long would it take to hit 300 targets dead center at 300 meters?"
"How much ammo would it take?" (Bonus points if <300)
Not much to add.

Set into prodution, use it, see what happens, improve, repeat.

Ammunition seemed optimised for ranges exceeding what you should expect.
Though I could be wrong.
Since at close range BA may become a non-issue by aiming to avoid it or letting the high impulse rocket motor do its job on their chest.

Okay then! Thanks for the input.