for the gun nuts in the house

for the gun nuts in the house

hobgoblin View Member Profile	Feb 27 2004, 03:05 PM Post #26
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242	hay i didnt say it had any practical use, i just said that there was no need for expensive electronics in the clip itself so that it could fit into the category of disposable :) and the only gun i know of that is both reliable and cheap is the ak. you got to hand it to the old soviets, there where allways thinking simple and working rather then stylish and overdesigned :)

Siege

Feb 27 2004, 05:32 PM

Post #27

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,065
Joined: 16-January 03
From: Fayetteville, NC
Member No.: 3,916

QUOTE (Darkest Angel @ Feb 27 2004, 10:57 AM)

All of which adds unnecessarily to weight, complexity, and cost. Now look at what a soldier wants in a weapon: reliability, simplicity, accuracy, and lightweight. What does the government whos paying for it want? Cheapness.

Electronics like this add to complexity, detract from reliability, make no difference to accuracy, and add weight and expense. The only thing it does add is cinematic coolness. Personally, I'd think they were more a hinderance than a help since they'd get soldiers out of the habit physically checking ammunition, so if the system did break they'd be screwed - as well as it adding an otherwise unnecessary destraction.

Look at it this way, how many times have you installed a new printer cartridge and it's not been registered because the contacts are dirty? The same thing would happen more often with a weapon cartridge outside in the mud. How many times has the counter on your gun at laserquest been defective? That's indoors in a controlled environment, one whack outside and you might as well not bother in the first place. How many times in laserquest do you check your ammo? If it's all the time, then it's destracting, if it's almost never, then why bother with the counter.

After having watched the "History of the M-16" on the History Channel, I gotta disagree.

The Government wants the neatest toys by the lowest bidder. And it depends on who's doing the approving, testing, the acquisition reports, who's sleeping with whom and who knows about it, etc.

I still wonder what might have happened if they'd just copied the damned AK, made a few changes and issued it out?

-Siege

Edit: And how many REMFs with no combat experience or practical knowledge in weapon systems and their implementation have input to procurement?

Req

Feb 27 2004, 05:53 PM

Post #28

Avatar of Mediocrity

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 725
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle, WA (err, UCAS)
Member No.: 277

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

"Roland was a warrior from the land of the midnight sun..."

"With a Thompson gun for hire...Fightin' to be done..."

One of the only songs I know that actually rhymes something with the word "Congolese." :)

Cray74

Feb 27 2004, 06:53 PM

Post #29

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,428
Joined: 9-June 02
Member No.: 2,860

QUOTE (Darkest Angel)

All of which adds unnecessarily to weight, complexity, and cost.

A few metal contacts in a clip to see which bullets are in which position? You're talking additions in terms of milligrams in the clip and a few grams for the LED counter display on the rifle.

QUOTE

The only thing it does add is cinematic coolness.

Actually, it adds at least a couple of additional things:

1) The soldier doesn't have to look away from the enemy to check how many rounds he has in the current magazine.

2) Including a "life time counter" is a useful maintenance tool. It answers the question: how many rounds has this rifle fired?

As the original article said:

QUOTE

About the only improvement my colleagues and I could suggest would involve integrating some type of ammo-level indicator — either a numeric device or a graduated bar — into the optical sight so the shooter would know precisely how much ammo remains in the magazine(s). The clear-sided magazine now makes it possible to do this with a glance, but that requires the shooter to look away from the enemy’s direction.

The Army is considering adding some type of lifetime monitoring system to each weapon, Army Times has learned, so data such as the number of rounds fired during a particular timeframe or over the entire life of a weapon could be retrieved by waving an electronic reader over the weapon. The system might also include the ability to inventory the weapons with an electronic reader.

QUOTE

Look at it this way, how many times have you installed a new printer cartridge and it's not been registered because the contacts are dirty?

You're talking about very fine contacts that involve a lot of data. You could probably count ammo in a clip with two broad, clip-encircling contacts.

And even part-time functionality out of the magazine counter is better than nothing. It's not like having the counter will jam the soldier's ability to check the clip manually when the counter breaks.

Austere Emancipa...

Feb 28 2004, 12:07 AM

Post #30

Great Dragon

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

QUOTE (Cray74)

1) The soldier doesn't have to look away from the enemy to check how many rounds he has in the current magazine.

2) Including a "life time counter" is a useful maintenance tool. It answers the question: how many rounds has this rifle fired?

The second should be pretty easy to do without having any sort of sensors in the magazine itself. If the magazine can count how many rounds it has in it, it should be pretty easy to allow the gun to count how many rounds it has fired without any input from the mag.

For the usual soldiering, having the weapon count the amount of rounds fired since last reload should be almost exactly as useful as having the magazine give this data to the gun. It should be very rare for the magazines to have any other number of rounds in it than the standard (30).

Not saying that smartmags can't/won't happen, just that if you can get pretty much the same advantages with all the important pieces in the weapon itself, then it's probable they'll do that instead. By 2060s, there would mostly likely be a lot of smartmags around, and they might even see a lot of use by armed forces. But for the immediate future, for the M8/M29, having the gun do the counting seems more likely to me.

Kagetenshi View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 12:13 AM Post #31
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802	Actually, not sure if this is what you're saying, but the number of bullets in the magazine doesn't need to be relevant to a total-rounds-fired counter. It could, y'know, increment when a round is fired. ~J

Austere Emancipa...

Feb 28 2004, 01:11 AM

Post #32

Great Dragon

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

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Actually, not sure if this is what you're saying, but the number of bullets in the magazine doesn't need to be relevant to a total-rounds-fired counter. It could, y'know, increment when a round is fired.

I'm so tired that my mind is probably in a place where language and communication work in really weird ways. I looked at this for a while, and I have no idea what it means. Mostly because I kept thinking about the word "relevant" and how it can't possibly mean anything.

Maybe you mean that there could be separate counters: One built into the weapon itself, keeping track of total rounds fired by the weapon; one built into the magazines, keeping track of # of rounds in the magazine. Is that it?

What I'm basically saying is that it might be easier to have just one counter in the weapon which keeps track of # of rounds fired, but with 2 methods of outputting that information. It would have a tiny memory chip that could be read and would show the total # of rounds fired with the weapon in it's lifetime, and it would also show the # of rounds fired since last reload on the weapon's sight.

Am I making any sense at all, or should I just assume that I'm making sense and not give a damn what you say?

Kagetenshi View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 01:23 AM Post #33
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802	As in, you seem to be saying that the total-rounds counter would assume that a clip is full each time, while I'm saying that the total-rounds counter could detect each firing of a bullet rather than working off of clips expended. A relatively minor point, and it may or may not be feasible, I'm not familiar with the mechanics. Otherwise, you were making sense. ~J

KarmaInferno View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 02:25 AM Post #34
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699	Could do both. The gun just pays attention to how many rounds are fired, and every 30 rounds it resets the main readout that's under the rear sight. It could even have a sensor that only gets tripped if the clip reads empty earlier than expected.

moosegod View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 02:29 AM Post #35
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,047 Joined: 12-November 03 From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation. Member No.: 5,818	As far as the whole "hard to look at" thing for the round counter, you could have it on a reflex site, mounted on the barrel or recievier component. Or the Marines from Aliens, although probably not so large (both number and display)

Austere Emancipa...

Feb 28 2004, 02:58 AM

Post #36

Great Dragon

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

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

As in, you seem to be saying that the total-rounds counter would assume that a clip is full each time [...]

Then I have been unclear, because I was trying to say that there really wouldn't be a "total-rounds counter", just a generic counter. For every round fired the counter counts, one is added to the "total rounds fired with weapon". The "rounds fired" display on the sight would be re-zeroed each time the weapon is reloaded -- triggered for example by the magazine leaving the mag well.

Kagetenshi View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 03:20 AM Post #37
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802	Ah, I see. Understood. ~J

Fortune

Feb 28 2004, 05:55 AM

Post #38

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (Req)

QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Feb 27 2004, 02:05 AM)

"Roland was a warrior from the land of the midnight sun..."

"With a Thompson gun for hire...Fightin' to be done..."

R.I.P. Warren Zevon. :(

Kagetenshi View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 05:58 AM Post #39
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802	Requiescat in pace indeed. I'm enjoying every sandwich. ~J

Fortune View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 06:08 AM Post #40
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	He had a few damn good Shadowrun-type songs, such as the afformentioned Roland, and Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Raygun

Feb 28 2004, 07:58 AM

Post #41

Mostly Harmless

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 937
Joined: 26-February 02
From: 44.662,-63.469
Member No.: 176

QUOTE (Arethusa)

I heard rumors about the XM8 being tested for 6.8 SPC and one of the benefits of the XM8 system being that it was relatively easy to refit for different calibers. Is there any substance to that?

Yep, it's true. (Hence the "designed to accomodate" line in my post.) The 6.8x43mm is in use by US Special Operations as we speak in modified M16-based rifles (SPR - Special Purpose Rifle; kind of an urban sniper rifle). However, I don't know how likely it is that the cartridge will be adopted for general issue as a replacement for the 5.56x45mm. There's an awful lot of political and logistical inertia to overcome in order for that kind of thing to happen. Maybe too much.

QUOTE

Also, wouldn't 5.7x28mm be better for comparison to 4.6x30mm?

Yeah, if you're comparing similar platforms (very compact CQB-based weapons), rather than overall target effectiveness. Both cartridges are pretty anemic when it comes to terminal ballistic performance.

Over the past 30 years, there have been innumerable complaints about the effectiveness of the 5.56x45mm. These two cartridges are even poorer performers, terminally speaking, especially if you consider non-fragmenting AP loads. In the case of the 5.7x28mm versus the 5.56x45mm, you're dealing with a bullet that weighs half as much moving 20% slower (P90 to M4). You're not going to get better performance with less mass and less velocity. Period. The 4.6x30mm is even worse. From a practical point of view, it means that you have to hit several times in order to get the desired effect. Fine if you like to spray bullets around. Not real good if you expect one shot to do the trick.

QUOTE (Voran)

Even though its not a real gun, I'm always going to be partial to the M41A pulse rifle from Aliens. Wierd how that seemed so hightechy and impossible to me at the time of the movie, but with today's technology advancements, scifi guns aren't that far away.

If you pick up the Colonial Marines Technical Manual and check out the technical specs the thing is supposed to have, you'll find out in pretty short order that the M41A is still VERY far off. It's supposed to fire a 10mm, 210 grain explosive armor piercing bullet at 840 meters per second (2755 fps). In today's terms, that's up in .300 Winchester Magnum territory. From sheer kinetic effect alone, all modern body armor is pretty much useless in the face of that. Now, a standard M41A is supposed to carry 100 rounds in a magazine. Yeah. Weighing in at 4.9kg (10.8 pounds; heavy!) fully loaded, you're talking about recoil on the order of 17 fpe @ 10 fps. Not unmanageable for a semi-auto, but certainly not easy to control in full auto (@900 rpm!) without some serious recoil compensation (which is explained in a manner somewhat similar to how the G11 works). It's still out there.

QUOTE (Darkest Angel)

Technologically it might not be a problem, but clips = disposable,

In theory, anyway. Magazines are supposed to be cheap to produce so that if one is lost during combat, which happens, the military doesn't get bankrupted. But I can't think of a military around today that just tells their soldiers to throw away mags after 30 rounds go through it. Not real cost-effective and not real smart in a lot of situations.

QUOTE

and can't see most governments being won over by expensive yet rather unnecessary tech - if most governments wont do it, then it wont catch on, what with NATO standards and all. At best it'll be a nice toy for special forces to play with, but given the dependancy on electronics it probably wont catch on with them either.

While I do think that something like this is generally unnecessary, I don't think something like this would really add all that much cost, weight or complexity to individual magazines or rifles if applied with a modicum of ingenuity. It's not like something like this has to be absolutely integral to the weapon's operation, so reliability of the weapon is really not a significant issue. It's a neat idea, but you're right. Pretty much a toy.

Dependency on electronics has already made its way down to squad-level combat in the majority of NATO armies. Tacking on one more thing really isn't going to make a lot of difference, I don't think. I don't much like the idea either, but it's too late. We're already there.

Another, more limited way of going about an electronic ammunition counter.

Arethusa

Feb 28 2004, 10:02 AM

Post #42

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775

QUOTE (Raygun)

Yep, it's true. (Hence the "designed to accomodate" line in my post.) The 6.8x43mm is in use by US Special Operations as we speak in modified M16-based rifles (SPR - Special Purpose Rifle; kind of an urban sniper rifle).

Erp. Completely read over that, somehow.

Also, I thought the SPR was designed for 5.56x45mm?

Raygun View Member Profile	Feb 28 2004, 05:29 PM Post #43
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176	The 6.8x43mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) is part of the Special Purpose Rifle program, which is designed to provide M16-platform weapons with better long-range performance for precision rifle work out to 600 meters. SPRs are chambered in 5.56x45mm (using the mk262 load; 77 grain Matchking) and 6.8x43mm, with the SPR-V (Knight's SR47) being chambered for 7.62x39mm, using "battlefield pickup" AK magazines. The SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle) program is also using the 6.8x43mm.

moosegod

Mar 1 2004, 01:38 AM

Post #44

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,047
Joined: 12-November 03
From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation.
Member No.: 5,818

QUOTE (Darkest Angel @ Feb 27 2004, 04:24 AM)

can't see most governments being won over by expensive yet rather unnecessary tech

*cough*Commanche*cough*
*cough*F-22*cough*
*cough*Crusader*cough*
:P

Raygun View Member Profile	Mar 1 2004, 06:24 AM Post #45
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176	The US Army cancelled the Commanche six days ago. Buying more Black Hawks instead, among other things. Crusader was effectively terminated almost two years ago. The funding is going towards other Future Combat Systems. F-22 is still going, AFAIK. I think we're going to need something to supplement an aging fleet (wing) of F-15s, personally. But that's just me. However, there is a substantial difference between things that cost millions per unit and things that cost hundreds. When you're talking about tacking on maybe another $5-10 per unit, I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Couldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help much, either. shrug

Siege View Member Profile	Mar 1 2004, 01:23 PM Post #46
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916	Highly mobile, easily transportable, "smart" artillery is still a good thing. Unfortunately, the Crusader didn't meet any of the requirements -- and the name choice was unfortunate given the current political climate. -Siege

Req View Member Profile	Mar 1 2004, 07:35 PM Post #47
Avatar of Mediocrity Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 725 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle, WA (err, UCAS) Member No.: 277	...and don't even get me started on the Stryker... Jeezus, what a money sink.

FlakJacket View Member Profile	Mar 1 2004, 07:57 PM Post #48
King of the Hobos Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,117 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 127	V-22 Osprey anyone?

Diesel View Member Profile	Mar 1 2004, 11:19 PM Post #49
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 608 Joined: 9-July 02 From: California Member No.: 2,955	Stryker looks good, I'd say, as a vehicle actually useful in MOUT. The Osprey, despite some horrific crashes, is still in service.

moosegod View Member Profile	Mar 2 2004, 04:11 AM Post #50
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,047 Joined: 12-November 03 From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation. Member No.: 5,818	I have to say I support both of the described vehicles. We're seeing more and more places where we need small vehicles that are quick and agile. We are deep in the age of urbanization after all. And what's wrong with the V-22. We need something that has enough range to actually get where we need to be. That can be a real problem. Iranian Hostage Crisis? And then we need to be able to land an maneuver in tight places. I'm glad the Corps has decided to pursue the program. BTW Raygun, I did know about the cancelations (just so I don't look like a total fool)

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »