NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my first attempt at creating a weapon of my own so any tips would be appreciated. All the info should be here (http://wikistates.outwardhosting.com/wiki/MI-78_Sniper_Rifle)

The first thing I noticed, SI or GTFO.

The first thing I noticed, SI or GTFO.

OOC: And you're qualified to tell him this, why?

It is an awesome weapon. How much will i pay for 1?

The first thing I noticed, SI or GTFO.

eh? I don't even know what that means. lol

It is an awesome weapon. How much will i pay for 1?

I don't know, how much should I charge? lol

M.A.C would like to buy 25.000 of your MI-78 Sniper Rifles for 1290$ each.

Funds pending confirmation.

Thank you.

M.A.C would like to buy 25.000 of your MI-78 Sniper Rifles for 1290$ each.

Funds pending confirmation.

Thank you.

Make it an even $1,300 and you got a deal. Makes easier math :D.

The first thing I noticed, SI or GTFO.eh? I don't even know what that means. lol

He wants you to use metric, because hardly anyone uses purely english measurements on NS anymore.

May I tear up your design? (Point out problems, depending on how much detail you want*)

*Varies from:
-"I want a generic gun of my own, but with given properties" (see if anything is contradictory, like "57% VTOL" or "hypersonic @ sea level /w/ OMG stealth and Radar that fries chickens in one pass")

-"A want something that has a snowball's chance in hell of working Iin my RPs (theoretical stuff, or basing it on "proven" concepts and tech found amongst the fellows you be RPing with)

-"I want MOAR DETAIL so I can RP every little thing, all the way down to how an untrained prole would "learn the hard way" how they are used"
(Yeah, we got gun nuts on NS and NSD with various amount of knowledge on firearms for that [yes, you'll even find some grunts who learned how to use assault rifles and what worked/didn't work despite what the manual said])

-"I want realistic as possable" (You're pretty much asking a gun-nut to virtually build and test your gun, not sure if any of them actually do that, if they don't, you get bumped into above catagory)
------
And despite anything you'll ever hear, the highest concentration of NS-user/newbie friendly gun-nuts (especially in regards to the first 2 detail levels) is on the NS-Draftrooms (we has 2, and one is pretty dead, guess which one's still active).

He wants you to use metric, because hardly anyone uses purely english measurements on NS anymore.

May I tear up your design? (Point out problems, depending on how much detail you want*)

*Varies from:
-"I want a generic gun of my own, but with given properties" (see if anything is contradictory, like "57% VTOL" or "hypersonic @ sea level /w/ OMG stealth and Radar that fries chickens in one pass")

-"A want something that has a snowball's chance in hell of working Iin my RPs (theoretical stuff, or basing it on "proven" concepts and tech found amongst the fellows you be RPing with)

-"I want MOAR DETAIL so I can RP every little thing, all the way down to how an untrained prole would "learn the hard way" how they are used"
(Yeah, we got gun nuts on NS and NSD with various amount of knowledge on firearms for that [yes, you'll even find some grunts who learned how to use assault rifles and what worked/didn't work despite what the manual said])

-"I want realistic as possable" (You're pretty much asking a gun-nut to virtually build and test your gun, not sure if any of them actually do that, if they don't, you get bumped into above catagory)
------
And despite anything you'll ever hear, the highest concentration of NS-user/newbie friendly gun-nuts (especially in regards to the first 2 detail levels) is on the NS-Draftrooms (we has 2, and one is pretty dead, guess which one's still active).

Ah. Metric...lovely. lol. Its based on a US weapon, so i just used their stats. And if you want to provide CONSTRUCTIVE critisicm, be my guest. lol. Just don't laugh at my mistakes too hard. lol. I'll take any tips you've got.

Well, generally good design. Like what the other nation's said, needs more details and has a few spelling errors, but nevertheless a good design for a first timer! I don't usually design guns, but if you need any help, feel free to shoot a TG my way!

M.A.C Heavy Industries will buy 25.000 of your MI-78 Sniper Rifles.

Our offer is $1500.00 US Dollars each.

Makes your math even easier.

Funds pending confirmation.

Thank you.

M.A.C Heavy Industries will buy 25.000 of your MI-78 Sniper Rifles.

Our offer is $1500.00 US Dollars each.

Makes your math even easier.

Funds pending confirmation.

Thank you.

Offer accepted. Would you like complementary transport or would you like to pick them up yourself?

I want 20.000 of them for $1350 each.

Ah. Metric...lovely. lol. Its based on a US weapon, so i just used their stats. And if you want to provide CONSTRUCTIVE critisicm, be my guest. lol. Just don't laugh at my mistakes too hard. lol. I'll take any tips you've got.

Good points:
-You based/copied the action and operation from something that works, making details easier to come by (if you know where to find them).
-Barrel length is about as long as practical for squeezing out benchrest-perfomance from the .308
-Noted the dissadvantage of a longer gun

Bad points:
-NO METRIC! (25.4 mm = 1 inch)
-muzzle velocity in m/s, though it seems high even for a 'hot' load and slightly longer barrel (it's exceeding 3000 fps when a 26" barrel gets closer to 2800-2900 fps)
-Buttstock is utter piece of garbage compared to stuff already fielded IMO, not sure if tactical-users would back up my claim on that.
-Big scope is a joke, it really is, since even 10x is sometimes considered excessive when shooting in the 600-1000 meter range. The scope would also be perhaps the hardest part of the gun to make (as much as 75% of the gun's total cost with accesories). Most DMRs have scopes of 4x or less for a number of reasons.
(And the ART I, II and III scopes [Automatic Ranging Telescope, it had a Ballistic Drop Compensator linked with an adjustable zoom] failed to enter widespread use on the M14 based DMR for the US Army due to cost and factory-set BDC issues more than anything else, though it worked terrificly when you could find someone with the right eyes, muscles, and brains to use it)

-Gun is far too light, and would be closer to 8 or even 15 pounds 4.2~7 kg "clean".
(Upper figure taken from SR-25 7.62x51 mm sniper rifle w/ scope and bipod, which is literally a scaled up and "sniperized" M-4 Carbine, lower figure from what is essentially an SVD precurser (http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ011-e.htm) with ultra-thin fluted barrel)
And a 20% wieght savings will only shave-off 2 pounds... Which would come back again due to the extra 5" of barrel you'll be carrying.

And when your gun wieghs that much, your soldiers will rip off the bipods with their teeth because they felt it was too heavy, in the way, and kept deploying when they didn't want them to. Plus the good ones make for fugly handles.

Not horrible, but not great:
-ROF in full auto is considered excessive unless selling to bulletspam-whores
(Reliance on "A bullet has X chance to hit enemy", regardless of whether the bullet is aimed, so long as it points in your general direction.)

Though not mentioned:
-Never, EVER, use the raised sight as a carrying handle.*
-That goes double with the scope
-XM-8 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm) was a G-36 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm) in fancy packaging, right down to the ambi-dex charging handle...
Armalites simply had a pull-tab in the back that didn't reciprocate...
Also note the forward assists...

*More correct term is "charging handle brush-gaurd", because on early armalites, guess where the charging handle was? Plus, back then peope were used to riding the stock's comb with their chins rather than their cheeks, and people didn't like the idea of holding your head sideways and/or canting the gun to get a sight picture. "Just great, an army that shoots guns cock-eyed!" So they raise the sights.

-sidetracks into scopes:
Now, the thing was, people were getting a hard-on for 10x scopes for some reason at the time, and those things not only are BIG in comparission to the old 4x used on DMRs and "old" sniper rifles (such as the M1903A4 and SMLE Type I Mk III[T]), so these things had to be raised above the bore considerably (old "high mounts" that allowed the user to see the iron-sights under the scope became "low mounts" because the front objective lens was actually that big). On "in-line" stocks, this pretty much meant you could continue holding a chin-weld, while on older stocks... you had to go "monte-carlo" or float your head in space...

Good points:
-You based/copied the action and operation from something that works, making details easier to come by (if you know where to find them).

Find them on the link to the XM8

Bad points:
-muzzle velocity in m/s, though it seems high even for a 'hot' load and slightly longer barrel (it's exceeding 3000 fps when a 26" barrel gets closer to 2800-2900 fps)

That's just what the XM8 was clocked at so it can't be all that far off.


-Big scope is a joke, it really is, since even 10x is sometimes considered excessive when shooting in the 600-1000 meter range. The scope would also be perhaps the hardest part of the gun to make (as much as 75% of the gun's total cost with accesories). Most DMRs have scopes of 4x or less for a number of reasons.

Its only a 6X. Maybe a random number, but that's what its got. I may downsize back to the 4X but I'm not sure.


And when your gun wieghs that much, your soldiers will rip off the bipods with their teeth because they felt it was too heavy, in the way, and kept deploying when they didn't want them to. Plus the good ones make for fugly handles.

I actually dissagree. The Bipod only adds an extra pound or two and if their going to be sniping, it helps tremendously. Plus, its not that hard to make it both Handle friendly and ensure it won't deploy on its own. Just put a sort of rubber grip on the pod and run a Key pin through it so that when they want to deploy it, they can just pull the pin and let the bipod deploy.


Not horrible, but not great:
-ROF in full auto is considered excessive unless selling to bulletspam-whores
(Reliance on "A bullet has X chance to hit enemy", regardless of whether the bullet is aimed, so long as it points in your general direction.)


That's why it has optional full auto. It's usally single shot, but if they want they can use full auto

A thing about metric: We canucks use mm, not inches. I ahve never even been tought inches, except to never use them, if possible. A good plan is to put both metric, and whatever else is popular. I personnaly like you design, but I suggest: Increase the weight, and make it designed for two man teams. That way, it will be much easier to carry, and you can have slightly better accuracy. 1 spotter+1 sniper= :sniper: I suggest extending the buttstock a bit, that will make it more comfortable. Try making it contoured. Perhaps try modeling it after the Barret? Although it has the same problems Hurtful thoughts pointed out. The bi-pod would increase stability greatly. Perhaps it can be easily taken apart, into two peices? That way the wieght is halved between a two man sniper ssquad. I like the gun. I don't design guns a whole lol (or anything) but I'm beginning to try, and I could help. Check the Universal Defence storefront for ideas/help from Falk and I. We are combining our weapons, and imaginations there. We could even feature some of your future designs!

I actually dissagree. The Bipod only adds an extra pound or two and if their going to be sniping, it helps tremendously. Plus, its not that hard to make it both Handle friendly and ensure it won't deploy on its own. Just put a sort of rubber grip on the pod and run a Key pin through it so that when they want to deploy it, they can just pull the pin and let the bipod deploy.
I'll put it this way: Integral bipods can still break.
When that happens, you'll need a new stock.

I'll put it this way: Integral bipods can still break.
When that happens, you'll need a new stock.

Ah! but there you have it! Its not an integral bipod. Its detachable. That's the whole point of the XM8, modularity.

And about the weight, I actually have a reason for having it a bit low. It's modeled after the XM8, which is a lighter version of the M4 and M16 and made of composite materials. Even so, i did up the weight a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now.

not too much to me, but im not a weapons designer....Or wasn't three days ago...

Ah! but there you have it! Its not an integral bipod. Its detachable. That's the whole point of the XM8, modularity.

And about the weight, I actually have a reason for having it a bit low. It's modeled after the XM8, which is a lighter version of the M4 and M16 and made of composite materials. Even so, i did up the weight a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now.
Yes, modular, to the point that you pull off one forestock to attack another while the broken one is in for repairs. Because your source disagrees (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/XM8-Poster.jpg).
-More realisticly, the front would end up becoming a 4-way RIS mount.
-Not sure if soldiers would use solid/hard-adjustable stocks or the buffered Knoxx-stock (http://www.knoxx.com/products/SpecOps_Stock.php) (which was more designed with shotgun recoil in mind).

Still too light. You're taking a 7 kg base-line 7.62x51 mm weapon using comparable AR-10/15 action (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn13-e.htm)*, adding 25% more barrel, and claiming 20% reduction in wieght resualts in one that wieghs 4 kg.

*Which is in-fact, heavier than the select-fire M14A1 w/ bipod and improved buttstock... Hrm...

And a large part of the wieght increase isn't in the action, but in the barrel/chamber (to handle the bigger and stronger cartridge), bipod, and sight.

If you really want/need a good GP DMR scope capable of the occassional "1,000 meter dash", the 3-9x40 ART II (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-10/Appb.htm) did pretty good out to 900 meters provided it stayed within reasonable amounts of zero. Just remember that eye-relief and night-transmission are generally worse through a variable-power. And the older ART IIs are only good to 0.5 MOA, so "holds" are essential (also because of variance in cartridge ballistics [tracers have more "drop", for example]).

Past 10x it would make an "iffy" spotting scope at closer ranges.

Yes, modular, to the point that you pull off one forestock to attack another while the broken one is in for repairs. Because your source disagrees (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/XM8-Poster.jpg).

Same thing pretty much isn't it? But still, even if its not, whoes to say I can't add a mount on the stock and make only the Bipod detachable? Remember, i am modifiying the XM8 a little. lol.

-Not sure if soldiers would use solid/hard-adjustable stocks or the buffered Knoxx-stock (http://www.knoxx.com/products/SpecOps_Stock.php) (which was more designed with shotgun recoil in mind).

I'll stick with the solid stock for now. not much difference when its shooting a relatively small caliber round.


Still too light. You're taking a 7 kg base-line 7.62x51 mm weapon using comparable AR-10/15 action (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn13-e.htm)*, adding 25% more barrel, and claiming 20% reduction in wieght resualts in one that wieghs 4 kg.

*Which is in-fact, heavier than the select-fire M14A1 w/ bipod and improved buttstock... Hrm...

Does it not matter that the XM8 was originally designed to be lighter? It uses lighter materials for all parts except the barrel for which i added a few pounds. And i did mention that I upped the weight, so that's why its heavier than the M14A1