IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> New XM8 Assault Rifle
Siege
post Aug 28 2004, 05:12 PM
Post #101


Dragon
********

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



The cool factor can help recruitment - it's easier to sign up if you think you'll look good.

It's harder if you think you're gonna look like you lost a bet.

-Siege
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chance359
post Aug 28 2004, 05:19 PM
Post #102


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 993
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 313



KillaJ, the Air Force in its infinite wisdom has always been more about image than functionality (or common sense).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 15 2005, 03:37 AM
Post #103


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
AR base damage is 8M, and you can just take a look at these two if you feel the world is making too much sense.

[Edit]And maybe even check these out, if you have no respect for your sanity.[/Edit]

[Edit #2]The point being that there's a whole lot more to terminal effectivity than caliber and kinetic energy. SR cannot really handle that sort of stuff, because of the level of abstractness and the difficulty of fine tuning caused by the use of D6s. On the other hand, one could argue that no RPG should delve into that stuff -- very few people know it happens, a small fraction of that knows why and how it happens, and I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly how such things affect the terminal effectivity of small arms in actual combat.[/Edit #2]

Dude, people keep linking to those pictures, but I have no idea what they mean. I realize that they're showing the cavities caused through human bodies by various types of ammunition, but I don't understand the significance of one of those pictures versus the other. Which outcome is "better"? What are the implications for the usefulness of each cartridge treated?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 15 2005, 03:52 AM
Post #104


Great Dragon
*********

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



What they really show are cavities caused by the projectile in ballistic gelatin, a calibrated gelatin which performs very much like human tissue.

Normally, against humans, you'll want to but a cavity of significant size at least up to 12"/30cm of depth. The diameter of the cavity is of obvious importance, and the 30cm mark is important because from many angles you will need to penetrate at least that much tissue to get to the large arteries in the thoracic cavity, as explained here.

Because arms and less important often covers the first 4"-8" of the tissue encountered by the projectile, it might be better to get a straight, 1.5cm/0.6" diameter hole through to 18"/40cm (such as some controlled expansion handgun rounds provide) than it would be to get a huge cavity at 2"-6" and very little at 10"+ (such as provided by some light, frangible bullets for smaller caliber rifles). It is certainly better to get the former than it would be to get a very large cavity at 2"-6" and none deeper than that (such as provided by glaser rounds), as explained in depth in the article linked above.

It's probably a good idea to go through the whole of this page and read some of the linked articles. And, in case you haven't read through it yet, this site has plenty of useful information.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jan 15 2005, 03:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Panzergeist
post Jan 15 2005, 07:48 AM
Post #105


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 3-October 03
From: Poway, San Diego County, CA, USA
Member No.: 5,676



Obviously, the rifle would be painted differently when it's not a prototype. I would expect that to be obvious. As for the OICW, it was not heavy at all. The whole gun, unloaded, weighed 7 or 8 pounds. The grenade launcher might have had heavy ammo, but the rifle used the same stuff as an M16. The real issue was that it was monstrously expensive and loaded with coomplex gadgets of dubious value, like the fiber optic camera. The army can't afford a $20,000 assault rifle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Arethusa
post Jan 15 2005, 08:36 AM
Post #106


Runner
******

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



Where did you read 7 or 8 pounds? That's not right at all. Even the target weight that was never reached wasn't that low. The real 'issues' with the rifle were far more numerous than simple cost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FrostyNSO
post Jan 15 2005, 10:05 AM
Post #107


Resident Legionnaire
*****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,136
Joined: 8-August 04
From: Usually Work
Member No.: 6,550



The OICW was an ungainly bitch. Hardly manueverable enough for outdoor ops and if you were forced to go indoors for any reason you were just screwed.

7 or 8 lbs??? 7 or 8 kg was more like it, but loaded it felt like lugging around a SAW.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 15 2005, 11:30 AM
Post #108


Great Dragon
*********

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



The target weight, loaded, was 14lbs/6.35kg, which means around 11.2lbs/5.1kg unloaded. The last prototypes weighed somewhere around 18lbs/8kg loaded. The comparison to a SAW is certainly justified, since the M249 weighs 15.6lbs/7.1kg empty.

While the price of the prototypes was closer to $20,000, the target price was around $10,000. Still pretty steep, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raygun
post Jan 15 2005, 06:43 PM
Post #109


Mostly Harmless
**

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



QUOTE (Panzergeist)
Obviously, the rifle would be painted differently when it's not a prototype.  I would expect that to be obvious.

Well, molded in different colors, anyway. Normally it would look like this (minus the you'll-shoot-your-eye-out laser warning stickers on the sighting unit). Though it would certainly be possible to mold rifles in other colors to better match specific environments (tan for desert, white for arctic, etc...).

QUOTE
The grenade launcher might have had heavy ammo, but the rifle used the same stuff as an M16. The real issue was that it was monstrously expensive and loaded with coomplex gadgets of dubious value, like the fiber optic camera. The army can't afford a $20,000 assault rifle.

No, the real issue was that the 20mm air-bursting ammunition, which was the entire basis of the project, did not have the target effect that justified the cost or bulk of the weapon system. I think they would gladly have paid $20k/unit if it all worked as planned, considering that they were paying very nearly that for the full SOPMOD package. Keep in mind that the OICW was never intended to replace every infantry rifle in the field, but was to be issued at, IIRC, two units per squad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Panzergeist
post Jan 16 2005, 09:02 AM
Post #110


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 3-October 03
From: Poway, San Diego County, CA, USA
Member No.: 5,676



I could have sworn that it was supposed to be 8 pounds or so. That's what I read, anyway, but I'm not surprised to find out they were unable to make that. Also, I thought they were hoping to have 4 in each squad. Or maybe it was 4 rifles, and 2 combos, or 2 rifles and 2 combos.

As for the grenades not working well enough, you may have noticed in my last post I reffered to "complex gadgets of dubious value." The minigrenades are one of those. I never said cost was the only issue, only that it was the biggest. It shouldn't have taken research to tell them that 20mm grenades would be a lot less powerful than 40mm ones.

So, if this new thing, which looks like a simple evolution of the g36, is going to replace the rifle component of the OICW, what about the grenade launcher? Is the new grenade launcher going to be 20mm or 40mm, and will it have that fancy airbursting function?

Also, how does a SOPMOD m4 carbine cost almost as much as the OICW? What SOPMOD items are there that cost that much? There are laser designators, suppresors, bipods, grenade launchers, ACOG scopes, aimpoints, and night vision and infrared variants of the scope. Am I missing something, or are the night vision and infrared scopes just a hell of a lot more expensive than I thought?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 16 2005, 09:27 AM
Post #111


Great Dragon
*********

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



QUOTE (Panzergeist)
Is the new grenade launcher going to be 20mm or 40mm, and will it have that fancy airbursting function?

This is currently under development. A more official site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Panzergeist
post Jan 16 2005, 10:43 AM
Post #112


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 3-October 03
From: Poway, San Diego County, CA, USA
Member No.: 5,676



Wow, I was way off about the weight of the OICW. So, 25mm smart shells, with an integral scope and range finder. Sounds pretty good. They'll probably be able to make the new fuse types work using a combination of laser rangefinding and inertial timing, so the main challenges are weight and the lethality of fragmentation against body armor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 16 2005, 10:55 AM
Post #113


Great Dragon
*********

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



From experiences with the 20mm grenades, I assume they figure they can't have fragments that penetrate modern body armor and have sufficient terminal effect, so they'll just go with whatever increases casualty radius against unprotected troops. But you never know...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Doggbert_*
post Jan 16 2005, 11:26 AM
Post #114





Guests






You people know entirely too much of the science of killing ppl. Really.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 16 2005, 07:16 PM
Post #115


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
What they really show are cavities caused by the projectile in ballistic gelatin, a calibrated gelatin which performs very much like human tissue.

Normally, against humans, you'll want to but a cavity of significant size at least up to 12"/30cm of depth. The diameter of the cavity is of obvious importance, and the 30cm mark is important because from many angles you will need to penetrate at least that much tissue to get to the large arteries in the thoracic cavity, as explained here.

Because arms and less important often covers the first 4"-8" of the tissue encountered by the projectile, it might be better to get a straight, 1.5cm/0.6" diameter hole through to 18"/40cm (such as some controlled expansion handgun rounds provide) than it would be to get a huge cavity at 2"-6" and very little at 10"+ (such as provided by some light, frangible bullets for smaller caliber rifles). It is certainly better to get the former than it would be to get a very large cavity at 2"-6" and none deeper than that (such as provided by glaser rounds), as explained in depth in the article linked above.

It's probably a good idea to go through the whole of this page and read some of the linked articles. And, in case you haven't read through it yet, this site has plenty of useful information.

Thanks for the info.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clyde
post Jan 17 2005, 04:27 AM
Post #116


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 458
Joined: 12-April 04
From: Lacey, Washington
Member No.: 6,237



The SOPMOD M4 is expensive mainly for night scope. Don't be fooled by the lower prices you might find for some of the night vision equipment that is commercially available. That's mostly old first generation technology. The US is on 3rd gen night vision I believe, which is significantly more expensive. Also, the ACOG sights aren't exactly cheap, either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Panzergeist
post Jan 17 2005, 05:18 AM
Post #117


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 3-October 03
From: Poway, San Diego County, CA, USA
Member No.: 5,676



Doggbert, it's not like we are killer psychopaths or something. Think of me as a killing enthusiast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kevyn668
post Jan 17 2005, 05:22 AM
Post #118


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,751
Joined: 8-August 03
From: Neighbor of the Beast
Member No.: 5,375



Clever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fix-it
post Jan 17 2005, 05:56 AM
Post #119


Creating a god with his own hands
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,405
Joined: 30-September 02
From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
Member No.: 3,364



Yeah! it's a lot of fun really, we sing songs, make sm'ores around the campfire, trade lethal wounds...
You might like it; you should try it sometime. :grinbig:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusher Bob
post Jan 17 2005, 07:37 AM
Post #120


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,598
Joined: 15-March 03
From: Hong Kong
Member No.: 4,253



Yep, you should have been at our last get together, where we had a grat contest of who could stick the most live grenades into our mouths and live to tell the tale. Of course, we were goverened by a diferent ruleset back then. You new guys have it easy :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 4th May 2026 - 01:20 AM

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.