IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> House Rules, Ammo questions
Deadjester
post Jan 30 2006, 05:35 PM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 29-January 06
From: Orlando, Florida
Member No.: 8,210



Greetings all, my first time here and I have enjoyed reading the fourms and have seen quit a few intelligent people here discussing this and that so this seemed the place to go to.

My group and I have played Shadowrun on and off over the years and have now bought SR4. We think SR4 is a great improvment over the previous versions but still needs some tweeking like any game and so we are working on a few of our own.

We had done quit a bit so far and may post them later to see what everyone thinks but for now I have this question.

Right now we are working on ammo and I was talking to a x merc friend I know about the Explosive rounds and it raised a few questions for us.

It describes the explosive rounds as a solid slug that fragments and explodes on impact. Well it can't be solid by its very nature, its more or less like a hollow point with some explosive in it from what I was told by my friend.

So these are my questions.

1) Should a explosive round be off of Ballistic or Impact Armor?

2) Based off of Ballistic, shouldnt the stats look more like:
a) Explosive rounds: +1 AP, +1 DV
b) Ex Explosive rounds: +1 AP, +2 DV

From what I have read and talked to some military people I know, I don't see how it would have such a AP mod as it does. It would seem the explosive, fragmentation part would be more damage then it would be AP, and would expend its force on the armor and then the body.

Also from what I know of AP rounds, shouldnt any type of AP (APDS) rounds actualy reduce the damage by -1 DV while reducing the AP value? Since they more or less pass right through you without any fragmentation or bounce effects going on within the body?

We are debating of making all rounds on the ballistic chart for ease of ammo comparison and leaving impact for all else.

Such as if Flechette was based off ballistic, it might look like +3 AP, +2 DV and be very cheap and availability. Not everyone shoud be walking around in armor 24/7 and would make it effective ammo for those that are not.

Also, things arent always fair or equal on give and take when it comes to tech, somtimes the balancing factor is in the cost and availability which I think many forget.

Looking foward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Deadjester


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 30 2006, 06:21 PM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Deadjester)
It would seem the explosive, fragmentation part would be more damage then it would be AP, and would expend its force on the armor and then the body.

Depends on exactly how you see the explosive rounds as working. If they are supposed to simply explode and fragment the moment they hit something, then yes, they'd probably be worse against most types of armor than straight FMJ rounds, and in fact would likely be worse against any target barring massive advances in explosive device technology.

But they might also be designed to remain rigid through armor and only detonate some inches inside the target, in which case they'd penetrate armor just as well in addition to possibly being more effective through armor.

They could also be more complex designs, like the Mk 211 Mod 0 Multi-Purpose round which combines armor piercing, high explosive and incendiary effects. This would also require some pretty amazing new materials to make feasible for smaller and lower velocity projectiles -- the Mk 211 Mod 0 fires a bullet 3 times as heavy as what "Heavy Pistols" would, and at well over twice the velocity, which is what allows the pyrotechnical initiation of the explosive to work and leaves far more space for the explosive substance than you'd have in, say, any pistol or assault rifle bullet.

For large caliber rifles, though, the "multi-purpose" round type would explain both the increased armor penetration and the increased damage caused.

QUOTE (Deadjester)
Also from what I know of AP rounds, shouldnt any type of AP (APDS) rounds actualy reduce the damage by -1 DV while reducing the AP value? Since they more or less pass right through you without any fragmentation or bounce effects going on within the body?

This depends on what you see as being "standard ammunition", and how far you see bullet design technology as having advanced.

In the military, standard ammunition is usually FMJ, which as a general rule doesn't flatten or fragment when it hits humans -- there are some exceptions to this rule, like the US military M193 and M855 5.56x45mm FMJ rounds, but these are a bit too wonky to simulate within SR rules. Full-caliber armor piercing ammunition will create wound cavities comparable to non-deforming FMJ rounds.

If you allow for FMJ rounds that also fragment once they hit tissue (but not when they hit something more solid, like armor), then it's not a huge leap to assume that armor piercing rounds can do that too. High velocity projectiles can function differently when penetrating thin, rigid layers and deep, soft layers.

If you assume standard ammunition uses some kind of deforming bullet, then, uhh, you'll have all kinds of trouble justifying various ammo types. But then I guess you already do, with such sillyness as flechette and APDS for assault rifles etc.

Whatever standard ammunition is in your games, you can argue for APDS to do less damage, since it usually uses a significantly smaller diameter projectile. Problem is, APDS (or SLAP, saboted light armor piercing) ammunition is very rare for anything smaller than 12.7x99mm, non-existant below .30-caliber rifles, because of how small the projectile ends up as being, inaccuracy/rifling twist rates, case capacity, feed reliability, etc. For anything smaller than that, armor piercing rounds are full caliber as a rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sigfried McWild
post Jan 30 2006, 06:55 PM
Post #3


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 7-October 02
From: A figment of you imagination
Member No.: 3,423



Regarding flechette rounds, see other threads like the SHP 1.3 and slivergun ones for arguments about why it is sick.

Given the mods you suggest flechette would be a straight +1DV over normal ammo with a slightly higher chance of being stun damage instead of physical, on average (each point of armour reduces damage by 1/3 on average).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Jan 30 2006, 07:00 PM
Post #4


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
They could also be more complex designs, like the Mk 211 Mod 0 Multi-Purpose round which combines armor piercing, high explosive and incendiary effects. This would also require some pretty amazing new materials to make feasible for smaller and lower velocity projectiles -- the Mk 211 Mod 0 fires a bullet 3 times as heavy as what "Heavy Pistols" would, and at well over twice the velocity, which is what allows the pyrotechnical initiation of the explosive to work and leaves far more space for the explosive substance than you'd have in, say, any pistol or assault rifle bullet.

The really screwy thing is that ExEx ammo is cheaper than armour piercing. Although if you roll a Glitch with ExEx ammo that is bad because a rounds jams or something and blows up in your face.

My GM did his own ammo number modification, and he refers to them by model numbers. I don't know exactly what the numbers are, I haven't asked because usually my character doesn't shoot things. Maybe I should ask him for them.

I assume they are at least a bit closer to current ammo, since he is ex-military. But then I haven't seen his dischange papers, so maybe he was just a janitor? He looks like a guy that knows his way around a mop. :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deadjester
post Jan 30 2006, 11:02 PM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 29-January 06
From: Orlando, Florida
Member No.: 8,210



Hmm I don't know how I missed some of that logic the first time but I did and has given me food for thought for the second time around.


I am curious now if DV should not be add till AFTER penetration is rolled for. That way AP and DV would be more separated in their applied values.

So it would look like:

Roll to hit and work out result
If target is hit, then see if round penetrates the armor
If round penetrates, then add DV of the round to the DV of what was rolled and work out results.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sigfried McWild
post Jan 30 2006, 11:12 PM
Post #6


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 7-October 02
From: A figment of you imagination
Member No.: 3,423



I like that idea, at the moment +1DV is for all purposes much better than +1 AP, this would balance things a bit (not much though since stun damage at the moment is preferable to physical damage since the stun track is likely to be shorter than the physical one on most characters)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post Jan 30 2006, 11:30 PM
Post #7


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



Digging way into the realms of sci-fi here...

My recollection of how the movie Aliens explained pulse rifle ammunition was as "explosive, light armor piercing." You essentially had a jacketed round with a tiny explosive charge in the base and a penetrator at the core. On impact, the charge would detonate, driving the penetrator forwards (which would aid in armor penetration, if the slug had impacted armor) and blowing the jacket apart into fragments (which would aid in wounding, if the slug had impacted a "soft" or unarmored target). The Smartgun round was functionally almost identical (although slightly longer and heavier), except it had the option to be fused on firing, either for immediate detonation on impact (functioning like the standard pulse rifle round), or for a delay (which would allow the round to penetrate lighter armors or surfaces that wouldn't stop it without the charge detonating immediately, reducing it's effectiveness against lightly armored troops or targets behind light cover).

Way too advanced for Shadowrun? Well, we've got nanotech, the Matrix, and cyberwear. It doesn't seem too ludicrous to me, especially when you look at how expensive a single round of explosive (or EXEX) ammunition is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 30 2006, 11:38 PM
Post #8


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



What you're describing is basically like the multi-purpose round I mentioned earlier. The Mk 211 Mod 0 penetrates, explodes, ignites and fragments when it hits a rigid target, and it's been around for quite some time now. In itself, this is no big feat.

The problem is that if you do the same in an assault rifle projectile, let alone a handgun projectile, there is not nearly enough volume for the explosive and the incendiary substances. The Mk 211 Mod 0 has 0.84 grams of Composition A-4 explosive and 0.85 grams of an incendiary mixture in it -- downscale that into a 7.62x51mm projectile (at less than 1/4th the mass), and you get an insignificant explosive and substandard incendiary effects, as well as reduced penetration compared to a full-caliber tungsten carbide penetrator.

Here is a diagram of the Mk 211 Mod 0 on Raygun's site. Imagine that at 0.6x the diameter and length, and 0.2x the weight. It'd be a substandard armor piercing round, it'd be a completely ineffective incendiary round, the explosive effect would be worthless, and terminal effect against material or personnel targets would not be increased over what you get with a full-caliber AP round like the M993; yet it would be way more expensive than the M993. And the only way to get over this problem would be to invent new kinds of explosives which outperform the current ones by at least a factor of 2 in terms of equivalent volume for impulse output. At the rate at which better explosives have been developed for the last 150 years, that'd take some 350 more years.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jan 30 2006, 11:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post Jan 30 2006, 11:59 PM
Post #9


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



The main difference between the two round types (and, theoretically, SR's explosive ammo) is that you're only trying for an explosive effect, no incendiary. Half of the combustibles in the round you're referencing are used for the incendiary effect, which probably doesn't contribute nearly as much power as the A-4 being used.

I'm not trying to argue that this round is feasible today. Obviously, it's not. The main change for Shadowrun is the advance of technology by 65 years. Yes, this is a piece of tech which, while you could BUILD it today, wouldn't be effective. SR3 had handheld laser weapons and "cutter" nanotech straight out of The Diamond Age. Explosives which have doubled their mass-to-power ratio don't seem like nearly as much of a stretch.

This post has been edited by Shrike30: Jan 31 2006, 12:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 31 2006, 12:23 AM
Post #10


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Shrike30)
Half of the combustibles in the round you're referencing are used for the incendiary effect, which probably doesn't contribute nearly as much power as the A-4 being used.

Replacing the zirconium mixture with more Comp A-4 would give you a whopping fourth of a gram of explosive, under a third of what's in the Raufoss .50 bullets. That wouldn't help a lot, especially when it's detonating behind a massive 40gr, 0.15" diameter penetrator.

QUOTE (Shrike30)
SR3 had handheld laser weapons and "cutter" nanotech straight out of The Diamond Age. Explosives which have doubled their mass-to-power ratio don't seem like nearly as much of a stretch.

A handheld laser weapon is much more likely to come out in 75 years than überexplosives. Since TNT and dynamite were invented in the 1860s, impulse output per volume in high explosives has not increased by more than some 30% (C-4 has a 1.19 TNT equivalent weight for impulse and about 10% higher density). Of course, a sudden 100% increase is always possible, but it would require an immense breakthrough in this area -- and it would have a huge effect on all kinds of weapon systems, such as grenade launchers and artillery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deadjester
post Jan 31 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 29-January 06
From: Orlando, Florida
Member No.: 8,210



Ok after reading some forums, I have come up with something I want to play test using some house rules I have been talking over with Razorback.

The idea behind them is based off of several factors, logic, what I call the Heroic system and just plane flavor which is very important.

I have made several changes that I hope stay within the system enough it will not have sever effects down the road in other places.

The changes for play test 1 are as follows:

Pistols were changed so that they look like Light 4 DV, Med 5 DV, Hvy 6 DV.
Resist is now a flat 6, Damage boxes are 10 + body
DV from Ammo and various types of burst fire are added after penetration has been established for damage purposes.
Ammo that will be used will be Regular since that is considered standard for balance purpoes.
Armor has been changed in the way that after penitration has been established, a flat automatic resist rate based on half the armors value will be used.
Resist check is no longer based on the body but a factor of 6 ( rolled ) for resistance to be combined with the flat armor auto resist. (This being based on that the sheer of idea of resist being based upon body, is, well lunacy and very limiting in nature. In a earlier version of SR, we had a Troll with a bigger body then a whale in the creatures books. I feel the armor idea of how they do penitration combined with a flat 10 + body opens up the field for man and machine in gaming.

Now how it looks all broken down.

I will try it in three modes with two types of armor.

In first set it will be a avg joe in skills wearing a Armor Vest 6/4 using a Med pistol and Reg Ammo.

Then I will scale them up as above avg joe and then kick ass joe in skills.

Then start over again using a Armored Jacket 8/6.

Combat will look like:

Avg joe vs avg joe up till the point its avg joe vs kick ass joe.

Combat:

Attack check: Agil + Skill vs Reaction
Armor pen check
If armor is pen, damage will be 5 DV + staging from check + DV from ammo or other factors
Resist damage will be flat 3 if Armor Vest, flat 4 if Armored Jacket ( half the armors value ) + roll a resist of 6 for standard flesh forms (humans, meta humans, animals etc)
After a flat 3 or 4 is added to the rolled resist check of 6 is done, minus it from the DV of the attack and if any is left over apply it to the damage of the victim (max damage able to be taken is 10 + body with with the condition mod now being in box sets of 4 since the damage able to be taken is now bigger)

The idea behind this is two fold, we fell that using body as a resist mod was a weakness in the old system held over to this system and limits it greatly.

Also, from a few play tests of the SR4s system we has seen some results from damage take that we feel can adversly effect the Flavor of combat.

Damage taken in a single round can be tiny to splatter, while realistic could still be harmful to the flavor depending on view.

Damage taken is not just how good the attacker rolls but also how badly the defender rolls and combined, a char that took a few hrs to make could be wiped in meer moments.

By adding a flat resist check from the armor and a various rolled resist of a static 6, the idea is to somwhat even even out the damage so that while it might get nasty, hopefully there will be few splatter effects unless sombody is using a BFG then you just SOL

And if it doesn't work, well time for revision and play test 2 :D

But the idea behind it is hopefully logic combined with flavor to reach a happy medium.

Deadjester
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post Jan 31 2006, 11:30 PM
Post #12


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
A handheld laser weapon is much more likely to come out in 75 years than überexplosives.

Isn't that kind of dependent upon battery technology making amazing leaps forwards, way beyond what most people expect to be feasible in the next 65 years?

Or nano-paste disguises... are these things really going to be so common and so advanced in the next few decades that you're going to be able to buy a *jar* of it in costume shops?

Then there's things like the Matrix, t-birds in private hands, megacorporations having extraterritorial rights within government borders, simsense, augmented reality being an everyday thing...

It seems a little odd to accept a world where all these things have happened, and take issue with explosives being a little more potent than you'd like them to be.

I'm curious... my understanding of some of the theory behind explosives development is that something like C4 wouldn't necessarily have to be extremely potent by mass/volume, due to the fact that a lot of it's uses involve someone carrying it somewhere and placing it, while more advanced explosives (and theoretically more powerful) would be developed for putting into things like missiles, where every cubic centimeter of space and every gram of weight is at a premium. I'm curious... what is the "TNT Equivalent" of some of these more advanced explosives?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Jan 31 2006, 11:57 PM
Post #13


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



The fundemantal problem is that you get about 30:1 conversion of a solid to a gas. This doesn't really change much. The best you can do is get more energy out of the material, and we know fairly well the theoretical limits in chemical bonds. So all we are doing is trying to squeeze a little extra bit out while keeping the explosive material stable until we want it to go boom.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Feb 1 2006, 12:45 AM
Post #14


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Shrike30)
Isn't that kind of dependent upon battery technology making amazing leaps forwards, way beyond what most people expect to be feasible in the next 65 years?

Would you care to compare the development of battery capacity per volume and mass in the last 180 years to the figures I mentioned above about equivalent volume for impulse?

QUOTE (Shrike30)
Or nano-paste disguises... are these things really going to be so common and so advanced in the next few decades that you're going to be able to buy a *jar* of it in costume shops?

Miraculous nanotechnology (like cyber- and biotechnology) is kind of central to the whole Shadowrun world. Plus there is at least some credibility to nanomaterials becoming more common -- though this particular example (which I am unfamiliar with) might indeed be ridiculous.

QUOTE (Shrike30)
Then there's things like the Matrix, t-birds in private hands, megacorporations having extraterritorial rights within government borders, simsense, augmented reality being an everyday thing...

Again, these are central to Shadowrun (apart from t-birds, which really are silly and unrealistic), some of them to the cyberpunk genre in general. Basically, the megacorps, the matrix and augmented reality don't need to make any more sense than magic -- it's central to the whole world, so it has to be there no matter how ridiculous.

Überexplosives don't. Which is not to say they can't be, just that they are very unlikely, and would have implications far beyond just explosive ammunition for handguns.

QUOTE (Shrike30)
I'm curious... my understanding of some of the theory behind explosives development is that something like C4 wouldn't necessarily have to be extremely potent by mass/volume, due to the fact that a lot of it's uses involve someone carrying it somewhere and placing it, while more advanced explosives (and theoretically more powerful) would be developed for putting into things like missiles, where every cubic centimeter of space and every gram of weight is at a premium. I'm curious... what is the "TNT Equivalent" of some of these more advanced explosives?

I have not heard of any "more advanced explosives" for use in missiles or other ranged weaponry. For example, Tritonal, used in several new smart bombs and missiles as a more powerful explosive filler, is just TNT mixed with powdered aluminum and has a lower TNT equivalent volume for impulse than C-4 -- in fact, it generates 4% less impulse per unit of mass than TNT. It has 1.08x the density of TNT, about 1.07 TNT equivalent weight for pressure (C-4 has 1.37) and a lower detonation velocity than TNT, much lower than C-4 (6.5km/s vs 7km/s and ~8km/s, respectively).

I'm not trying to mislead you here. I was pretty surprised myself that after some math C-4 came out on top of the impulse per volume list, beating all the RDX, TNT, PETN and other explosive mixtures I could find these values for. There are a few explosive substances for which I couldn't track down all the relevant attributes which might come close or surpass C-4 -- Composition H-6, for example, has a higher TNT equivalent weight for pressure than C-4 (1.38 vs. 1.37), but it has a worse equivalent weight for impulse and I couldn't find its density anywhere.

In case you're wondering, I'm using impulse as the key here because this kind of explosive round would mostly use the explosion to increase penetration (thus requiring a very fast detonation velocity to push the penetrator) and to cause fragmentation of the projectile (which also requires a very fast detonation). Equivalent volume for pressure output would be more important if we were looking for damage to personnel, material or structures through overpressure or related effects, but that doesn't seem important for a small arms projectile.

You might conflicting values floating around the net. For the record, my values for TNT equivalent weights come from Conrath, E.,J., Krauthammer, T., Marchand, K.A., and Mlakar, P.F., Structural Design for Physical Security, ASCE, 1999.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Galmorez
post Feb 1 2006, 12:47 AM
Post #15


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 1,582



The ammo, armor penetration, and final DV rules for SR4 are particularly wonky.

BaseDamage + Ammo modifiers + Hits VS Body + modified Armor

Increasing the DV is always preferable to AP, because it takes a lot more dice to negate DV. It takes about 4 dice to knock off one DV; taking off 2 dice of armor is only equivalent to half a DV. So, EX ammo is better than APDS in SR4, because to cancel it's effects it takes many more dice. APDS is less effective, because losing a little more armor is less of a problem than resisting a high final damage value. Flechette is much more effective than it used to be, because the bonus dice to damage far outweigh the bonus dice to armor.

The underlying problem is scale. A Ruger Super Warhawk Dirty Harry gun has a base damage and AP of 6P, -2. Put EXEX in there, and you have 8P, -4 without even rolling dice yet. This is very close to a Panther assault cannon, which is 10P, -5AP, and it can't take any fancy ammunition. So, in terms of scale and relating back to "realistic physics", the problem stems from putting super duper nuclear high explosive bullets in a 44 magnum and it does nearly the damage of a 20mm (?) recoiless rifle. So, that right there is the first part of the problem.

The second part of the problem is using dice hits to create a linear modifier to the final DV. Because of DV spiraling up so easily, you can have a streetsam do more damage with a light pistol as an unskilled shmuck with a panther cannon.

So, according to the physics of SR4:
1. A weapon, no matter how tiny, is a death machine in the right hands.
2. Ammuntion that enhances a weapon "in the right hands" is usually more desireable than a more powerful weapon.

So, now what we're left with is a system that is conducive to story telling than to "realistic" combat. When a streetsam shoots a dragon in the eye with his fancy gun, with its fancy ammo: it is very cinematic and cool. When game masters realize this same design is also something they can use too, it becomes significantly less cool... for players at least. Major vililans that can do stuff the players can do is pretty interesting.

We've generally stuck with house ruling the armor penetration check *before* adding dice hits to determine the final DV. Otherwise, the idiot savant with the Red Rider BB gun could get enough hits to blow up police cars and vape spirits with one shot. There are supposed to be some things in shadowrun that the mundane just shouldn't do anything but avoid... An "uber" streetsam player character should not be able to look over a great dragon and think, "I can take him." Our solution to the invincible Red Rider has been to make armor worth a damn. Not perfect, but it's working well enough.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Space Ghost
post Feb 1 2006, 12:53 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 129
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 400



There doesn't really need to be a lot of pow inside a EX round. The focus could be on how the remains of the bullet get dispersed by the explosive. A technological leap in this field doesn't seem implausible after 60 or so more years of violence and war. Let's face it, the necessity to excel in war is not going to stop being relevant. In SR, they even had corporate-sponsored wars for the sole purpose of testing their prototype gear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Feb 1 2006, 12:59 AM
Post #17


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Space Ghost)
The focus could be on how the remains of the bullet get dispersed by the explosive.

Either such technology would make standard deforming ammunition equally better, thus not making explosive ammunition for small arms any better relative to other types of ammunition, or I have no idea what you mean.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Galmorez
post Feb 1 2006, 01:00 AM
Post #18


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 1,582



Double post! :P

I also am pretty sure that some of the super-duper armor piercing ammunition in SR will be entirely common by 2070.

Here's a hypothetical design for APDS pistol ammo:
1. Take a standard pistol bullet, but cut it into a quarter the size.
2. Make that 1/4 size bullet a dart penetrator, but make it out of Osmium or some other massive metal (depleted uranium?). Now it is 1/4th the size, but 1/2 the weight.
3. Put a sabot on your tiny half-weight round so that it fits in a standard cartridge.
4. Propel the projectile with electrothermal technology instead of a cordite chemical explosion. I seem to remember from somewhere, that electrothermal propulsion resulted in much higher velocities than traditional ammunition.

The principle is that you put alcohol or some other liquid in the cartridge with a fairly low vaporization energy. Then, you expose that to a strong electrical discharge similar to a taser. This results in much more energetic and complete vaporization of the propellant, and thus the projectile is inclined to leave at significantly higher velocities. Viola! Teeny little penetrator for piercing armor, and wounding capability is preserved because of hydroshock.

Whatayathink?

(PS, don't use that underwater.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post Feb 1 2006, 01:04 AM
Post #19


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Would you care to compare the development of battery capacity per volume and mass in the last 180 years to the figures I mentioned above about equivalent volume for impulse?


I don't know enough of the science of battery technology to go into it in any great depth. Mostly, I'm drawing from watching the anti-laser arguments on these boards for the last few years, where people much more versed in the science than I have mostly agreed that it's not going to happen. I mostly brought it up to make the point that all sorts of tech seem to have advanced way beyond what we think of as reasonable/feasible now.

QUOTE
Miraculous nanotechnology (like cyber- and biotechnology) is kind of central to the whole Shadowrun world. Plus there is at least some credibility to nanomaterials becoming more common -- though this particular example (which I am unfamiliar with) might indeed be ridiculous.


Granted. Nanopaste disguises are one of the cool espionage gear devices that made it into SR4. Personally, i think they're bizarre, but I'm willing to accept the premise.

QUOTE
Again, these are central to Shadowrun (apart from t-birds, which really are silly and unrealistic), some of them to the cyberpunk genre in general. Basically, the megacorps, the matrix and augmented reality don't need to make any more sense than magic -- it's central to the whole world, so it has to be there no matter how ridiculous.

Überexplosives don't. Which is not to say they can't be, just that they are very unlikely, and would have implications far beyond just explosive ammunition for handguns.


Honestly, I hadn't thought much of the implications beyond ammunition. What kind of things are we talking about?

QUOTE
a fairly detailed study of a variety of explosives


I guess this raises the question of "Why use anything but C4?" since it seems to outperform most other explosive types? Admittedly, I don't know enough about explosives to know why, if you're trying to destroy something, you'd want a slower detonation velocity, but that's a pretty interesting discrepancy.

QUOTE (Space Ghost)
The focus could be on how the remains of the bullet get dispersed by the explosive


DIKOTE HOLLOWPOINTS. :lick: :P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Feb 1 2006, 01:25 AM
Post #20


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Galmorez)
4. Propel the projectile with electrothermal technology instead of a cordite chemical explosion. I seem to remember from somewhere, that electrothermal propulsion resulted in much higher velocities than traditional ammunition.

Is there any mention of such projectile propulsion for small arms in any SR literature?

Raygun can give the full story on why APDS for handguns and most shoulder arms is pointless, but here are a few clues: propellant volume problems with long and deep-seated penetrators, worse terminal effect, worse accuracy, loading problems in automatic firearms.

Tungsten carbide is a "massive metal" at 15.7g/cm^3 -- DU stands at 19.1g/cm^3. It is widely used in modern armor piercing ammunition. It does not solve any of the problems mentioned. DU, let alone osmium, is not optimal for small arms ammunition for obvious reasons.

For reference, the smallest successful APDS ammunition design, the .50 BMG M903 SLAP, fires a 7.7mm, 355gr tungsten carbide penetrator at 4000fps -- that's 0.6x the diameter, about the same length, and about half the weight. Reduced terminal effectiveness against personnel is not a serious problem for this round, because you've got so much effectiveness to start with. ;) The US military discarded the idea of smaller APDS rounds ages ago, finding the same principle in 7.62x51mm platforms completely pointless.

QUOTE (Galmorez)
Teeny little penetrator for piercing armor, and wounding capability is preserved because of hydroshock.

What do you mean by "hydroschock"? I hope you don't mean "hydrostatic shock"... If you do, I suggest you read this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Feb 1 2006, 01:33 AM
Post #21


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Shrike30)
I guess this raises the question of "Why use anything but C4?" since it seems to outperform most other explosive types? Admittedly, I don't know enough about explosives to know why, if you're trying to destroy something, you'd want a slower detonation velocity, but that's a pretty interesting discrepancy.

I know just enough about explosives to realize I don't really understand them. AFAICT different applications of high explosives demand different attributes from the explosive: Sometimes you want more stability, sometimes you want less. Sometimes you need a higher peak pressure, sometimes you want a lower pressure range for a longer duration. And so on. What are the exact attributes weapons designers look for for missile vs demolition charge fillers, I haven't a clue.

QUOTE (Shrike30)
I don't know enough of the science of battery technology to go into it in any great depth. Mostly, I'm drawing from watching the anti-laser arguments on these boards for the last few years, where people much more versed in the science than I have mostly agreed that it's not going to happen.

I'd do it myself if I were just a bit more OCD, even though I realize it would contribute nothing to the thread. You may be right, I don't know anything about the field either, and if Cray74 has said something about the matter then I wouldn't dare try to contradict him.

QUOTE (Shrike30)
What kind of things are we talking about?

If we made a high explosive projectile feasible at 1/4th the scale it is now, then we'd be making all high explosive applications at the same scale 4 times as effective. 40mm grenade launchers could penetrate armor as well as LAWs, hand grenades could use thermobaric payloads with massive casualty causing radii, LAWs could use demolition warheads capable of bringing down large concrete buildings, and along with smart airbursting submunitions artillery would just be insanely effective. That sort of thing.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Feb 1 2006, 01:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 1 2006, 04:42 AM
Post #22


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Jan 31 2006, 08:25 PM)
DU, let alone osmium, is not optimal for small arms ammunition for obvious reasons.

You mean for toxicity issues? Sure just a tiny bit of osmium tetroxide if the osmium gets air born will cause oxidizer burns and eventually lung cancer, so there are short and long term effects if it becomes air borne. And DU has some nasty effects too. Both being heavy metals makes them toxic in that way, and there are radiation problems. I'm not sure about osmium, but DU tends to start burning on impact with other hard substances so exposure in close combat is nearly enevitable.

Cost is a bit of an issue too. Pure osmium is insanely expensive, and DU would be too if you could go buy. :) These also tend to be very hard metals, so the weapon barrel would need to be constructed to stand up to that.

But if you have money to burn, literally, and walk around combat in an environmental suit? It would be the solid gold toilet on your private jet ammunition. Doesn't really help the turds go down, but what style! :love:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 1 2006, 05:22 AM
Post #23


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



If you replaced the core of the slug with DU, or better yet osmium, you could greatly increase the mass for a given caliber without increasing the slug length. So say a 180gr .308 slug would come in around 250 or 260gr. If you have the powder to push it and the firearm to manage that extra push I don't see why penetration of body armour and light vehicle armour wouldn't improve.

At the very least this sort of round could help give even better performance to subsonic rounds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Feb 1 2006, 05:50 AM
Post #24


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



The enviromental problems are minor compared to the ballistic problems. Exotic heavy metal slugs have poor rage and accuracy compared to standard amunition.

There are potentially ways t make an explosive-cored handgun bullet far more damaging that a similar deforming handgun bullet athough they would certainly be dificult to implement.

Consider, for example, a bullets that a rolled from a single sheet instead of molded around a slow-burning explosive core. Upon penetration, the explosive causes the rolled bullet to unfurl, dramatically increasing wound diameter. Yes, I know it is an insane idea with will probably be show unfeasable by experimental data. Untill I see such data I'm sticking with the idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Feb 1 2006, 10:16 AM
Post #25


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Brahm)
These also tend to be very hard metals, so the weapon barrel would need to be constructed to stand up to that.

Nope. DU has a Mohs hardness of 6, osmium has 7, tungsten carbide has 9. The steel which non-tungsten small arms armor piercing ammunition uses is harder than either DU or osmium. Projectile jackets FTW.

QUOTE (Brahm)
You mean for toxicity issues?

That would be one important reason. With osmium it's not an "if", it will get airborne whenever it hits something hard, and as you know osmium tetroxide is highly toxic -- enough so that nobody would ever make ammunition out of it because it lacks any redeeming qualities apart from density. With DU there is both the toxicity and the incendiary effect you mentioned which make it less than optimal for small arms. Osmium is also very expensive, at $100 per gram, which alone is enough to guarantee that small arms ammunition using it would be several hundred $ per cartridge.

Another good clue is that nobody has ever even bothered to try it. There are some apocryphal stories of .50 BMG rounds, but (unsurprisingly) these can only be found on sites for organizations which vehemently oppose the use of DU and include lots of other bullshit "facts" about the material.

QUOTE (Brahm)
If you have the powder to push it and the firearm to manage that extra push I don't see why penetration of body armour and light vehicle armour wouldn't improve.

In small arms, armor piercing ammunition is usually (there are exceptions) made lighter than FMJ ammunition to increase velocity. Having much heavier projectiles for an AP rounds would not make sense -- you'd lose velocity, which means you lose a lot of range and accuracy, and probably also penetration. When using heavier metals, like tungsten carbide, for armor piercing small arms projectiles, the penetrator generally does not fill the jacket completely. You can see the size of the penetrator inside 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm M995 and M993 armor piercing rounds on this page. This allows for similar external ballistics as with standard ammunition. The M993 has a 13.3% lighter projectile than standard 7.62x51mm FMJ rounds, the M995 has 16.1% lighter projectile than standard 5.56x45mm FMJ rounds.

With DU the self-sharpening property of the matter would likely improve the overall armor penetration capability over steel armor piercing ammunition. Whether it fares better than tungsten carbide in small arms applications, I don't know -- the self-sharpening ability is very important in penetrating thick, rigid vehicle armor with long rod flechettes, but it's much less useful when penetrating the kinds of thin ceramic or metal plates rifle rounds are likely to encounter.

Again, though, you'd actually have to convince someone (ie. the military) to actually make/order such rounds. Since nobody ever has, and tungsten carbide has so completely taken over this application, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Upon penetration, the explosive causes the rolled bullet to unfurl, dramatically increasing wound diameter.

If you allow for such tricks with explosive projectiles, then the same will be possible with conventional deforming projectiles. It is much simpler to create ballistic point ammunition that is designed to deform to an optimal shape and diameter for the best possible penetration of tissue vs. size of wound cavity than it is to make a round such as you described.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 07:15 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.