NationStates Jolt Archive

Kohin Super Tank
Designed by Raven Industries Inc.

The Kohin Super Tank was design to decimate any other tank on the battlefield, and it does just that. Design of the KST began with the birth of the United States of the Ravens so that this region could influence its military might on neighboring nations and spread its form of government.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2609/mk40my0.png

The KST posses a superbly advanced computer which monitors the area for enemy targets and advises the ammunition to be used. The KST can also be remote operated if needed. It is also equipped with a satellite dish so it can receive constant information about the battlefield.

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/5339/kohintanknewnewgo6.png

Vehicle Specs

Weight: 50 Tons
Length: 35 ft
Width: 12 ft
Height: 8.7 ft

Engine

Main: Raven Gas Turbine Engine (2,000 HP)
Transmission: Allison Hydro-Kinetic Automatic transmission
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Operational range: 270 Miles
Speed: 40 mph

Weapons

1 120 mm M256 Smoothbore Tank Gun
1 30mm Auto cannon
1 7.62 Coaxial Gun

This thing isn't very super considering it's size compared to it's weight. I can only assume the armor is made out of cardboard.

Looks like a nice tasty target for my tanks.

A 4,000 hp Gas turbine would be a massive fuel hog. Where are you carrying the 2,000 gal. of fuel you would need to give you the 400 mile range?

And how much would it cost? I'd rather have my T-80s or my Gorm Light Tanks than this huge gas drinking beast.

And also, what about that 'satellite' dish? It could easily be destroyed by mortars, artillery, or other tanks, therefore destroying communication with other tanks.

ooc: At least it looks cool...and be easy guys not everyone is a statistical guru a few edits and it could make a pretty decent weapon to punch through fortifications..I wouldn't use it for tank-tank combat it'd be out maneuvered too easily

Its fuel will freeze out in winter :(

you can't just stick the word super in front of words and claim it makes your tank superior.

To the Kohinland national government;

From Detusva National Foreign Ministry;

The national government of Detusva under threat from foreign powers and rag-tag rebel groups would like to purchase 30 of your Kohin Super Tanks and like the tanks to be shipped to our nation. If we cannot purchase them could we arraign a lease of thirty tanks to our national defence department.

Thank you.

OOC: If you want to transfer a few to our nation just PM me.

Your human males are pretty small....the tank is 9ft high and the man is less than half that height. Maybe a young male?

Also, its all well and good drawing some armour but saying it is secret and can defeat nearly all tank rounds is ridiculous(especially with a weight of 70tons at that size).

60mph is very fast for such a large tank, and of course it would weigh quite a bit at those dimensions. Currently as it stands the only good bit is the pic, (because its cool :P) but even there the radar dish on the back is pointless(the tank would stop any forwards information...probably the most important information for a tanker).

The turret-less main gun and external missile racks look to be seriously liabilities, along with the other problems already mentioned.

For example, I can't see your tanks getting into good hull-down positions--the main gun is too low to the ground relative to the tank--and incendiary, penetrating fire can set off sympathetic explosions among the missiles.

Do you have any idea what transmission is?

To the Kohinland national government;

From Detusva National Foreign Ministry;

The national government of Detusva under threat from foreign powers and rag-tag rebel groups would like to purchase 30 of your Kohin Super Tanks and like the tanks to be shipped to our nation. If we cannot purchase them could we arraign a lease of thirty tanks to our national defence department.

Thank you.

OOC: If you want to transfer a few to our nation just PM me.

You can have the tanks for free for testing. We are sending them now.

OOC: Can someone help me make stats for it?

OOC:

Clearly you have no idea what you are even talking about with this tank. It is absolutely horrible and cannot possibly work. I'll make each point nice and seperate for you.

First the armor, I think we should what kind of armour it is and how it functions, you can't just dump a new type of armour out that can defeat tank rounds with huge amounts of energy behind them with this armor. At the very least it will be leaving huge holes in the tank armor. This armor cannot possibly work and is a waste of time and energy no matter how you want to describe it. The fact that it weighes over 70 tons is clearly proof of this. You are pressing the limit for transportation and I must say it is absolutely critical you understand what armour is supposed to do and the balance of armour and weight.

Also the engine is completely invalid. A 4000 hp engine will never pull that tank because the engine clearly cannot exist. The frame of the tank offers no possible place to store a 4000 horsepower behemoth inside it. The M1 uses a AGT-1500 turbine engine and even then that takes a up a large amount of the inside. Your engine would be massive and I do no see it as even beginning to fit inside without throwing the tank horribly off balance and causing huge problems in the tank. A gas turbine engine of 1500 hp is all that is needed, anything larger poses an unnecessary threat to the tank.

To pull the tank at the speed of 60 mph your fuel consumption will be HUGE. The fact your are feeding a massive engine as well will cut down the range on this by even more. It'd be lucky to get .4 miles to the gallon. I'm expecting .3 though. This means to have a range of 400 miles you have to have 1200 gallons of fuel. This means your gas tank is over four times larger then the M1. Meaning you will have a huge amount fuel that will be confined in a very large space that is already jam-packed. It will be easy to destroy this tank.

Next.... Your transmission and other things are too brief to be taken, but you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.

BIGGEST ISSUE

The rail gun.

Okay. You have a 175 mm barrel. What kind of projectile are you planning to fire? Do you even realize how much recoil and shot will be on the tank? To fire a 3 gram charge at 10 m/s it takes 500000Gs on firing.

Twenty-seven compulsator-powered railgun experiments have been performed, including a 1.0 MJ discharge at 3510 r/min. In this test, a 724 kA current pulse accelerated an 80 g, aluminum armature to 2.05 km/s, thus exceeding the projectile velocity goal at 73%-rated machine speed.

However if you want something capable of destruction you need a 3.2 Kilogram projectile. Now this requires huge amount of energy, over 32MJ. The capacitive power and maximum capacitors that the tank would use would be impractical and the ablility to fire would put so much strain on the tank's systems that it would be impossible to work at all. Though a 3.2 kg shot did almost nothing. You would need something FAR more to pierce tank armor.

Your design is impossible and impractical and a blatent godmod to boot.

Okay my friend changed it for me to be more realistic.

The UK in Exile;12480854']you can't just stick the word super in front of words and claim it makes your tank superior.

Perhaps one of the most true things in all of NS design.

Kohinland, its still unrealistic fora new nation of March 2007 to create tanks with armour that can "defeat almost any other round". Quite simply, if that's a sales thing, noone'll believe it, and if you're actually claiming to have made one of the best tanks in the world you're godmodding.

THe main gun is still rather unrealistic. To get the velocities needed to double penetrate an Abrams (disregarding yaw on the part of the projectile. That void space commonly referred to as a crew compartment makes for great protection), you'd most likely end up with the chamber exploding violently due to the pressures involved. Not going to happen.

Although, I suppose you could set the Abrams on it's side and shoot through the top and floor armor...

Perhaps one of the most true things in all of NS design.

Kohinland, its still unrealistic fora new nation of March 2007 to create tanks with armour that can "defeat almost any other round". Quite simply, if that's a sales thing, noone'll believe it, and if you're actually claiming to have made one of the best tanks in the world you're godmodding.

Nonsense, Redcoat. The super sherman has superior armor due to an aura of awesomeness that magnetically repels other ammunition.

Well I use the Super Sherman too so I guess it cancels out.

Nonsense, Redcoat. The super sherman has superior armor due to an aura of awesomeness that magnetically repels other ammunition.

xD. Duh. Doesn't everyone know that?

[/sarcasm]

The retrofitted (?) tank looks much more acceptable now, but its largest tactical weakness is still its lack of a turret. Only with properly secure flanks could you send these tanks in, since enfilading fire would make a mess of the weaker side armor. Meaning that the tank would have to move bodily to face a threat from the side, which gives the enemy extra time to fire upon them.

As a support/assault unit, this would be ideal, but as a main battle tank, no. It's also too heavy and slow to make a good tank destroyer self-propelled gun.

I'll buy some for target practice.

I'll buy some for target practice.

No, not funny.

It has been updated again now it has a turret.

90 Tons? You just reduced the entire TANK to nothing worth fighting in. I'm sorry, but this still needs a LOT of work. Since its an original put some more time into it if you plan to use/sell it.

nice picture

90 Tons? You just reduced the entire TANK to nothing worth fighting in. I'm sorry, but this still needs a LOT of work. Since its an original put some more time into it if you plan to use/sell it.

You'd be suprised how many people use heavy and superheavy tanks on NS.

I prefer mobile medium tanks with heavy tanks to smash through enemy land fortifications

You'd be suprised how many people use heavy and superheavy tanks on NS.

Yes. Though the fact of the matter is the transportation issues and fueling and the severe lack of understanding about tank armor. The heavier a tank is the worse it is in general.

Overall armour piercing is going to negate heavy plate armor on tanks. It is currently being utilized now. However remember this. Depeleted uranium encased in steel is unable to properly defend the M1 against a SINGLE $10 RPG. When dealing with anti-tank weapons it is a fraction of the cost to pierce the armor then it is to install.

Protecting against the armor piercing rounds is exponentially costly and has currently in modern times topped out the reality of cheaper and more effective solutions. No matter how much armor you have you will not be able to stop them from puncturing through with modern (or even very old) weaponry.

People on NS must be very short-sighted or careless to make super-heavy tanks.

However remember this. Depeleted uranium encased in steel is unable to properly defend the M1 against a SINGLE $10 RPG.

post proof from a reliable source

Silly westerners,

http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/20060916_164242_abrams_013.jpg

Overall armour piercing is going to negate heavy plate armor on tanks. It is currently being utilized now. However remember this. Depeleted uranium encased in steel is unable to properly defend the M1 against a SINGLE $10 RPG. When dealing with anti-tank weapons it is a fraction of the cost to pierce the armor then it is to install.
It's more expensive to guard against self-forging weapons, like RPGs, but not devastatingly so. Simple reactive plates mounted on the regular armor stop them qute nicely. Granted, the plates are one-time use, but I hope the support forces screening the tank aren't going to be taking that lying down. Plus, modern armor, like the current Chobham armor can defeat a reasonable variety of armor-piercing munitions.

Protecting against the armor piercing rounds is exponentially costly and has currently in modern times topped out the reality of cheaper and more effective solutions. No matter how much armor you have you will not be able to stop them from puncturing through with modern (or even very old) weaponry.
It depends on the armor-piercer being use. (Not all AP munitions are created equal).

Plasma-jet and self-forging projectiles are classically countered by reactive plates that disrupt the formation/penetration of the projectile.

Kinetic energy penetrators, like the US APFSDS rounds, are defeated by just having armor that's hard and can absorb shockwaves.

People on NS must be very short-sighted or careless to make super-heavy tanks.
Not so. It just takes a higher tech base. I could point to Laumer's Bolos, but that would be courting god-mode. Yes, I'm a proponent of super-heavy tanks, considering the subject has a developed-enough tech-base. I mean, with current or near-future tech, we're inviting scrap heaps if we deploy super-heavy units. When we have AI point-defense, defensive shields, line-of-sight energy weapons... we'll have to see.

post proof from a reliable source

RPGs are cheap. Do I even need to go into these about in black markets?

Though if you mean damaging tanks:

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1998/infantry-rpg.htm

However, I'd look more into RPG's on ERA and tandem-fire shots which are known to pierce the side armor on tanks more easily and cause damage. Face it...RPGs are still a viable threat. Though I doubt I would need to extend this to other DU rounds, HE explosives and other weapons. Heavy armor is getting beaten BADLY by new weapons, much less the weapons already in the hands of people on NS. The M1 is heavily outclassed by modern weapons which are insanely stockpiled or more destructive creations by MT-PMT nations. (This tank was also CLEARLY PMT as he tried to put a railgun on it, so my comments about armor are even more relevant.)

Though if you mean damaging tanks:

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1998/infantry-rpg.htm

If you don't mind, can you post where is says that an M-1 Abrams was destroyed by an RPG? I only see reports of M-2 Bradleys at the .mil link, which are thin-skinned compared to Abrams. The only Abrams I see being destroyed is one which was hit by friendly fire from a 120mm cannon, after taking an enemy RPG hit.

The global security link only states kills of T-72s and even then only with multiple hits on the same spot.

Just because he started playing the game recently doesn't mean someone couldn't design a very superior tank or have a nuclear bomb etc etc just in this case clearly they have no idea about armor design etc etc

If you don't mind, can you post where is says that an M-1 Abrams was destroyed by an RPG? I only see reports of M-2 Bradleys at the .mil link, which are thin-skinned compared to Abrams. The only Abrams I see being destroyed is one which was hit by friendly fire from a 120mm cannon, after taking an enemy RPG hit.

The global security link only states kills of T-72s and even then only with multiple hits on the same spot.

Yes. The thing is they do still damage them. Although not as effective as other methods you can still damage a tank with an RPG7. I am just proving my point, if you want a better example, how about the DU rounds and other shells and anti-tank weapons that already exist or atleast near production.

Heavy armor is becoming obsolete and increasingly expensive. Its a losing battle.

thus the development of things like the stryker and other vehciles geared more towards mobility and urban combat

In the interim maybe heavy armor is becoming obsolete, but in the near future systems such as active shields (like FCLAS/FSAP) and electric armor(a little further into the future) will probably allow heavy armor to re-assert its role.

Yes. Though the fact of the matter is the transportation issues and fueling and the severe lack of understanding about tank armor. The heavier a tank is the worse it is in general.

Overall armour piercing is going to negate heavy plate armor on tanks. It is currently being utilized now. However remember this. Depeleted uranium encased in steel is unable to properly defend the M1 against a SINGLE $10 RPG. When dealing with anti-tank weapons it is a fraction of the cost to pierce the armor then it is to install.

Protecting against the armor piercing rounds is exponentially costly and has currently in modern times topped out the reality of cheaper and more effective solutions. No matter how much armor you have you will not be able to stop them from puncturing through with modern (or even very old) weaponry.

People on NS must be very short-sighted or careless to make super-heavy tanks.

Re cost, the vast majority of people on NS have insane GDPs, far above those of any real life nation, so they can afford to go with more expensive options when neccesary.

Also, no RPG is capable of doing significant damage to a modern tank unless you hit it on the top. ATGMs are a bit of a threat, yes, but then there are things like reactive armor, spacing cages, ARENA, and electric reactive armor (which is in testing) which greatly reduces the ability of HEAT rounds to do much of anything to an armored vehicle.

I would also advise you to chill out and be less argumentative and offensive in general as most people do not appreciate being talked down to.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but quite clearly I'm looking at a tank that weighes 90 tons was fifty feet long and until just a few hours ago was sporting a railgun.
In all practical use ERA can be defeated by tandem missiles.
Electrical ERA is only useful against RPGs and other small threats. Until it is upgraded (I am MT, but PMT could apply) to reduce warheads like HEAT rounds.

However ERA and Electical ERA have a fatal flaw. ERA is dangerous to use with troops nearby the tank. Also they are both one shot in that place. Electrical ERA can be defeated with Metal Storm (due on the battlefield, but is operationable
now)

What's to say I fire a collection of RPGs or Heat or other rounds in rapid succession with Metal Storm weaponry? The rounds hit so fast and so close that they easily cause a critical failure in the armor. That is why I so heavily support for other methods as new or existing technologies that can easily overcome current technology will reduce over 80% of the world's military forces to obsolete in a matter of a year or two after arrival.

Oh, this tank certainly is indefensible. It's most definitely a horrible design.

Also, Metal Storm has two rather obvious flaws that you're missing: it's horribly inaccurate and the only way to reload it is to swap out the entire barrel of the gun.

Oh, this tank certainly is indefensible. It's most definitely a horrible design.

Also, Metal Storm has two rather obvious flaws that you're missing: it's horribly inaccurate and the only way to reload it is to swap out the entire barrel of the gun.

Hmm... not true. It is very accurate, but the ability comes from the targeting. The first tests were crude and manual, but now they have been definately updated, you might want to check the site again. They put up a new video less then a month ago.

Metal storm has the stacked tubes yes, but they are for more long-term uses, such as guarding a mine field or deploying a single burst of bullets as a possible anti-missile or target defense. However main-stay combat use requires belts (which are easy enough to produce, but for higher cost then standard ammo of the same type) that can be fed into permanent barrels. However they will clearly not have the same amount of use as other dedicated belts that are very long. In short we will see more likely use as a way to pump out anti-tank and personnel rounds. Which is perfect for my intended use and most likely the military's.

Wait, I'm not understanding your reloading process.

As we understand them today, MetlStorm tubes are stacked with the munitions packer between propellant charges, i.e. the propellent of round1 is nestled up against the nose of round2.

They're packed in tight, too, so they don't rattle around and so that the ignition of one round causes minimal expansion to "seal" the propellant of the following round.

Now, assuming I'm understanding you correctly, you want to feed belts of ammunition into MetalStorm tubes. Doesn't that make the tube a severly bastardized standard breechloader?

If I got you wrong, there's still a problem. MetalStorm, from what I understand, can't be field-reloaded, period. Tubes can be changed out, yes, but the bullets can be rammed down the barrels by the average tanker.


One thing, though, about accuracy. For the volume they project, MetalStorm is damned accurate. It expels the bullets so fast that the last round in a burst has already left the weapon before recoil starts to take effect.

One thing, though, about accuracy. For the volume they project, MetalStorm is damned accurate. It expels the bullets so fast that the last round in a burst has already left the weapon before recoil starts to take effect.

Yes, but the length of the barrel is rather short for every round but the last couple, meaning you still won't hit anything and that you'll break something. Anyway, recoil isn't too much of a problem for vehicle-mounted weaponry, barring large weapons, which aren't going to be able to use MetalStorm in the first place.

Wait, I'm not understanding your reloading process.

As we understand them today, MetlStorm tubes are stacked with the munitions packer between propellant charges, i.e. the propellent of round1 is nestled up against the nose of round2.

They're packed in tight, too, so they don't rattle around and so that the ignition of one round causes minimal expansion to "seal" the propellant of the following round.

Now, assuming I'm understanding you correctly, you want to feed belts of ammunition into MetalStorm tubes. Doesn't that make the tube a severly bastardized standard breechloader?

If I got you wrong, there's still a problem. MetalStorm, from what I understand, can't be field-reloaded, period. Tubes can be changed out, yes, but the bullets can be rammed down the barrels by the average tanker.


One thing, though, about accuracy. For the volume they project, MetalStorm is damned accurate. It expels the bullets so fast that the last round in a burst has already left the weapon before recoil starts to take effect.


* Manual, automatic and semi-automatic reloading concepts exist, incorporating breech and muzzle loading into permanent barrels, throw-away barrels (and barrel arrays), a belt-fed stacked-cartridge gun patent, and a patented breechless continuous feed gun with injected propellant. With the exception of the belt-fed and the breechless gun patents, all of Metal Storm's gun concepts are limited to bursts of no more the number of bullets or shells pre-loaded into the barrel(s). A barrel array might contain more shells in fact than a traditional 'clip' or 'belt', but would not be able to compete with ship or aircraft mounted guns or dedicated belt fed machine guns with very long ammunition belts (unless the barrel array was duplicated to allow alternate reloading). Single-barrel designs appear to currently be limited to 3 or 5 stacked rounds before reloading. That limitation in the case of 9mm bullets may appear restrictive, while in 40mm and above calibres it is competitive with current capacities in traditional technology guns. In cases where sustained rates of fire are required, or where manual reloading would be hazardous, automatic reloading technology will need to be incorporated with Metal Storm technology, reducing the advantage of 'mechanical simplicity' inherent in the original Metal Storm concept.


They do have automatic reloaders and other things in the works, but for most of the use you are no expected to use belts of ammo or anything. Tubes work fine, but I've yet to seen their proof-of-concept on automatic be actually working in what I mentioned before.

Also...about the speed, they can fire so fast the last bullet never even left the barrel by the time the next is started. Accuracy and precision of one hit after another is the reason why the military looked at the technology so seriously. It also ends the reloading of grenades in combat situations and allows for easier packing and moving.

Think of this on a troop basis at least for the grenades. You can fire them semi-automatic without the eject and reload problem. So no taking your eyes off the target/mission to reload your grenade launcher. It can revolutionize the way we do combat.

Yes, but the length of the barrel is rather short for every round but the last couple, meaning you still won't hit anything and that you'll break something.
It's a balance between ammunition capacity and accuracy.

I'll leave it to the real engineers, but there's an acceptable ratio, somewhere, where a maximum number of rounds can be punched in without a significant loss of accuracy.

They do have automatic reloaders and other things in the works, but for most of the use you are no expected to use belts of ammo or anything. Tubes work fine, but I've yet to seen their proof-of-concept on automatic be actually working in what I mentioned before.
Well, there you go. It's more a problem about procedure than the actual engineering. Well, yes, design has some role in it, but it'll all boil down to how fast the support personnel can smack on new tubes.

Accuracy and precision of one hit after another is the reason why the military looked at the technology so seriously.
I think that was the driving concept behind the H&K G11, as well.

deploy JSOW

game over

Yes, but the length of the barrel is rather short for every round but the last couple, meaning you still won't hit anything and that you'll break something. Anyway, recoil isn't too much of a problem for vehicle-mounted weaponry, barring large weapons, which aren't going to be able to use MetalStorm in the first place.

Prove to me this inaccuracy defect.

Prove to me this inaccuracy defect.

...You're kidding, right? Fine, mathematical proof that a conventional weapon has a longer barrel. Barrel of an M16 (chosen because I can find the relevant data) is 508mm, plus a 45mm chamber, for a total of 553mm for all shots. Barrel of an M16 converted to fire, say, ten 5.56mm MetalStorm round would be a 553mm total barrel, minus 450mm, for a total barrel length of 103mm, roughly that of a Glock 19. Add 45mm for every successive shot.

A longer barrel allows for more power to be transferred to the bullet by the expanding gasses, as well as more stabilization from spin, etc. This means that a longer barrel for an identical bullet will (up to a point) result in a faster moving, more accurate bullet. If you need proof, try cutting off all but 103mm of an M16's barrel and firing it. Compare your grouping to that when firing a standard M16.

...You're kidding, right? Fine, mathematical proof that a conventional weapon has a longer barrel. Barrel of an M16 (chosen because I can find the relevant data) is 508mm, plus a 45mm chamber, for a total of 553mm for all shots. Barrel of an M16 converted to fire, say, ten 5.56mm MetalStorm round would be a 553mm total barrel, minus 450mm, for a total barrel length of 103mm, roughly that of a Glock 19. Add 45mm for every successive shot.

A longer barrel allows for more power to be transferred to the bullet by the expanding gasses, as well as more stabilization from spin, etc. This means that a longer barrel for an identical bullet will (up to a point) result in a faster moving, more accurate bullet. If you need proof, try cutting off all but 103mm of an M16's barrel and firing it. Compare your grouping to that when firing a standard M16.

Terribly sorry about the wait, I was posting in another thread.

Ah, I see your point on this. However your term for accuracy comes from the spin and velocity of the gunpowder. This means the longer it is in the barrel the more accurate and fine the gun functions. However it functions in the opposite direction to. If you have too little it will mess with your grouping also. This is in the case that the explosion and bullet has reached maximum velocity and has no more continued push behind it. Friction in the barrel will actually go against it.

Though your term on accuracy is limited to this aspect the reason Metal Storm is wonderful is because of the fact that the tubes are replacable and never suffer much wear and tear. Guns are constantly changing do to wear and tear and firing of the rounds. Each bit widens the barrel a little more each time. After your first shot the gun changes each time you use it. As well as the ammo. If you really wish to complain about accuracy on this part, think about the most excellent and well-trained of snipers and shooters. They prefer to hand-load their own ammo and some even weigh them. The ability to know your ammo weight down to hundreths of a gram in a small way DO effect the process of firing.

Also, cleaning of the guns and parts are a major hassle and this does come into play largely in the military. Vietnam was a good situation in which the guns did not function properly. Metalstorm has a way around this. The tubes are airtight and sealed. The round needs electronic detonation which is an explosion that simply guides it along, but additional shots in a burst are claimed to be more accurate because of the firing process. Clearly Metal Storm suffers from one degradation of accuracy, but benefits in many other fields as well as the fact your ammo and parts are less complex in the overall scope of the gun.

Another thing. The higher velocity the round the better. It transmit less punch to the user. Since we are considering launching grenades say from an AIWC or one of the other such models, it is infact better to have metal storm over conventional loading. Though the Metal Storm pistol did show amazing accurate and a perfect spread on live-firing.

The Metal Storm can't jam and because of the FLOATING chamber each shot in the burst is accurate and able to work with the handgun.

Here's a vid for ya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBAMNJZ8OVo&NR