Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Going by the AUG, sure.
Though might be overclunky for pistol ammunition.
Though might be overclunky for pistol ammunition.
Maybe a Snub Pistol example
- Thread starter gchuck
- Start date
Because they're actually a bit more integrated than that.
We certainly have these today. The AR series is quite modular, and while it doesn't require machining, it down require tools to change out parts, and isn't designed to do this in the field (vs say field stripping the receiver).
There also several "pistol carbine kits". With many, you simply insert the pistol in to the new mechanism and you mostly get a firearm with a stock that you can shoulder and mount stuff too. These do nothing to the original gun itself. It fires the same round through the same barrel. At best its a little more stable as a firing platform, perhaps improving the accuracy of the shooter, but, that's about it. Damage wise it's the same device.
Most application don't need a super versatile swiss-army knife firearm in the field.
As the anecdote goes: Someone walked up to a guy carrying a pistol and asked "Expecting trouble?" to wit he replied "No, if I were expecting trouble, I'd have brought a rifle."
The primary benefit of an actual carbine over a pistol is the longer barrel which provides a longer site radius and more velocity of the projectile (with appropriate ammunition). Longer site radius make it more accurate, higher velocity more energy. With modern electronic sites, the site radius discussion becomes more moot, but more velocity is more velocity.
If you to carry one of these pistol stock kits, you're better off at least getting a legitimate carbine to get the velocity boost.
Mind, at least in the US, there are issues with potentially converting a pistol in to a "Short Barreled Rifle" which runs in to regulatory problems not worth discussing here.
In the end, all you're sharing between them is a receiver, maybe a grip, and the that doesn't save enough room to bother with swapping parts on the fly vs just having a whole different weapon handy.
Do you think there’s a Traveller equivalent? Seems like a no-brainer but as I said above I know essentially nothing about firearms.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Not really.
IMTU for a while now, sure. Because I got away from specifics in terms of "I have a Mark X Blast-o-Matic, which is clearly superior to the Alliance B-97 rifle, blah blah blah" as a matter of game mechanics.
When you get down to it in the real world, most decent pistol rounds have about the same general effect on humans. Similarly for most military rifles. Sure, there are differences in ergonomics, reliability, manufacturing costs and the like - but, in general, slug throwers are doing about the same thing at the end of the day. PARTICULARLY if you then try to correlate that to a 1-4D6 result of any nature.
For flavor and character background? Sure thing - go nuts. And, it's great to have different societies and races have typical traits to their weapons (much as I do for starships). But it doesn't really end up affecting die rolls often.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I think the interesting thing I've learned while doing deep dives/pondering future dev is how much the weapon designs are predicated on human form factors and use re: recoil and aiming and carrying, and even with different technologies they have to be addressed.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I was always focused on the HEAP rounds. A nice little punch in a handy package.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
So did I.
Recently, I started thinking of the implications.
As regards the assault rifle, I tend to think it will be considered quaint like we do of the Winchester, but still highly effective in the right circumstances.
Weaponry tends to prioritize effectiveness (good enough) and ergonomics, which is why there was tendency to lighten the platform and the ammunition, so that you can schlep along more ammunition.
Recently, I started thinking of the implications.
As regards the assault rifle, I tend to think it will be considered quaint like we do of the Winchester, but still highly effective in the right circumstances.
Weaponry tends to prioritize effectiveness (good enough) and ergonomics, which is why there was tendency to lighten the platform and the ammunition, so that you can schlep along more ammunition.
Maximum damage is a function of kinetic energy and the wound channel created in the target. Currently that is largely dependent on the amount of propellant as well as the size and the behavior of the projectile on impact.
Weapon minimum size is determined by the size of the projectile and the amount of propellant behind it. Beyond that there is a matter of ergonomics, recoil dissipation (or not), and barrel length (high velocities and large projectiles need a running start); rifle cartridges do not perform like rifles when launched from concealable length barrels as much of the propellant is ejected, unburned, from the barrel.
The next big step, if any, in chemically propelled slug-throwers will likely be using light gas combustion as the propellant. This is harder than it sounds as hydrogen gas (the ultimate light gas) is notoriously hard to contain long term. The benefits would however be great; higher velocities with far, far less propellant mass( i.e.; recoil) and volume.
Weapon minimum size is determined by the size of the projectile and the amount of propellant behind it. Beyond that there is a matter of ergonomics, recoil dissipation (or not), and barrel length (high velocities and large projectiles need a running start); rifle cartridges do not perform like rifles when launched from concealable length barrels as much of the propellant is ejected, unburned, from the barrel.
The next big step, if any, in chemically propelled slug-throwers will likely be using light gas combustion as the propellant. This is harder than it sounds as hydrogen gas (the ultimate light gas) is notoriously hard to contain long term. The benefits would however be great; higher velocities with far, far less propellant mass( i.e.; recoil) and volume.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I think they've abandoned gas combustion for the howitzers.
In terms of barrel length, military application would be more as to engagement range and closed in environment; civilian uses likely to mandate minimum barrel and total lengths, because of the concealment issue.
One reason there was that trend towards bullpups.
In terms of barrel length, military application would be more as to engagement range and closed in environment; civilian uses likely to mandate minimum barrel and total lengths, because of the concealment issue.
One reason there was that trend towards bullpups.
Yeah, I'm not at all sure about the future of light gas or caseless for general adaption; in small arms especially. Combustible casings seem to have some future in large ordnance.
Bullpups are certainly a means to diminish overall length while keeping the barrel long for projectile acceleration. The trade-off is a shorter sight radius (not as critical as some think and completely eliminated by optics), case ejection during off-hand use (mitigated in newer designs) and bringing the flash and blast of the muzzle closer to the user's face.
Velocity, and the required propellant supply, is also a factor with regards to the size of the weapon's action; bigger cartridges require more space in which to be stored, contained for firing, and handled in and out of the chamber. Arms that are expected to perform with some degree of accuracy and durability in the full-automatic mode also require extra action (receiver) length for buffering.
So call "short magnums" trade length for girth but the volume of the cartridge remains much the same.
Bullpups are certainly a means to diminish overall length while keeping the barrel long for projectile acceleration. The trade-off is a shorter sight radius (not as critical as some think and completely eliminated by optics), case ejection during off-hand use (mitigated in newer designs) and bringing the flash and blast of the muzzle closer to the user's face.
Velocity, and the required propellant supply, is also a factor with regards to the size of the weapon's action; bigger cartridges require more space in which to be stored, contained for firing, and handled in and out of the chamber. Arms that are expected to perform with some degree of accuracy and durability in the full-automatic mode also require extra action (receiver) length for buffering.
So call "short magnums" trade length for girth but the volume of the cartridge remains much the same.
Well one can theorize more efficient propellents being developed that give the "same power for less volume", thus shrinking cartridges.
Full boat 7.62x51 power out of a 7.62x39 cartridge kind of thing.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
That's why they went with the rail gun option.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
That sounds more like a Gauss rifle / coil gun than a rail gun. Very cool regardless.
Gas piston isn't going to reduce the felt recoil in zero-G, as in zero-G, the amount of gas escaping is going to generate the same vector either way..
A muzzle brake will reduce, but physically is unlikely to be able to completely compensate even the majority of the recoil.
When you fire a round, the total forces pushing back must meet or exceed the force on the bullet. (That's basic physics.)
The only way to cancel the rearward forces energy are to have energy pulling it forward or to transfer the rearward forces to a larger object. A piston's not going to do that. (It might cycle the Cylinder, tho'. )
Felt recoil is a function of energy over time; it's literally acceleration. And, given that it's off the axis of the support, it wants to rotate the support... we call that "muzzle climb"... A counter-bolt piston could be used to reduce muzzle climb... but the snub as drawn doesn't support that.
For zero G, if you're braced in place, you transfer force normally. If not braced, you're going to convert that force to speed. It's going to be off-center. And it's not going to be that much different between 500J across 0.05 sec or across 0.2 sec. It's still 500 J offcenter acceleration.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
One thing that's not accounted for here is the atmosphere the gun is fired in. Z-G on a starship with a standard atmosphere present will recoil differently than the same weapon fired on a airless moon. Why? Because the gas (assuming a chemical reaction firing sequence) will have different characteristics in terms of expansion and the resulting force from that. If there's no air pressure fighting its expansion, it will have a different force on recoil than if there is an atmosphere present.
