Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Today I played with automatic weapons
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > General Gaming
Pages: 1, 2
Wounded Ronin
After many years of tinkeing with them in video games and RPGs today I went to a range and rented some automatic weapons and used them. I operated a Thompson M1A1, a M2 carbine,and a HK G3.

My thoughts:

Thompson M1A1:

The Thompson M1A1 has sights that are pretty imprecise compared to what I'm used to, i.e. modern factory default pistol sights. The rear sight was a huge ring and it seems like it was designed just for quick sight pictures using the front sights. What's more is that it recoiled quite a lot. The range staff member advised me to aim low and even while I had my sights pointed at the bottom of my target paper the actual bullet holes climbed upwards all over the paper. And that's just with me squeezing off bursts of 2-4 rounds and leaning forward to compensate for recoil. I should point out that I'm not a tiny guy; I weight between 190 and 200 pounds, I'm 5'11", and I've been hitting the gym every other day on average.

This is actually pretty different than the impression I'd gained from playing lots of video games. In the first place, I can't imagine anything useful coming from spraying in full auto with the M1A1 for anything more than a 2-4 round burst. I feel that the barrel would just get too off target and you'd end up spraying at everything and nothing in particular at the same time. Secondly, the sights look pretty useless for anything besides for close range shooting. Without tight rear sights to help me align the weapon, I don't feel like I'd be able to hit the black on a 50 foot competition target like I'm able to do with a contemporary pistol with factory default sights if I aim carefully and take like 5+ seconds per shot. In other words, if I were trying to shoot very accurately at a longer distance at this time I'd feel more comfortable with a pistol on account of the sights than I would with the M1A1 even with its longer barrel.



M2 Carbine:

Initially I'd really wanted to try a M1 carbine for a long time so as to get my Vietnam groove on, but the M2 available for rental had full auto fire so I guess that's just a bit of extra value to my shooting experience. The M2 was a lot easier to control than the M1A1 and the sights were better too. I still went all over the paper, though, but to a lesser extent than with the M1A1, and of course the .30 carbine cartridges have smaller bullets than .45 ACP cartridges.

So, basically, even though on the whole written history usually is dealing with how people didn't like carbines in .30, my hunch is that I'd personally feel more capable of hitting something far away with it than I would if I had a M1A1.



HKG3:

My first assault rifle in 7.62 NATO! I fired the first few rounds in semi automatic mode just to get the full experience, and switched to full auto later. My comment was, "Holy moly!" The recoil was a lot worse than the M1A1. It was just insane trying to control it in burst mode. I can now understand why when you read history and war memoirs full auto with the M14 is so maligned. At least from a standing position I can't imagine how full auto in 7.62 can stay remotely on target after the first 3 rounds or so.

Of course, being a HK product this was probably the "best" weapon I handled today. It was the most comfortable to handle, the most erogonomic, had the best sights, and was probably the most accurate.

I'm actually really happy that I finally was able to experience the infamous 7.62-NATO-full-auto-while-standing. smile.gif
Synner667
From what I've read about guns that can fire bursts and on full auto..
..They're not designed to be accurate, relying on many bullets in the air to hit and injure a target - rather than killing.

There seems to have been a change of heart about guns at some point, from weapons that kill to weapons that injure..
..From guns that are accurate at short range to guns that put lots of bullets into the air and only have a short range.


Obviously that's a generalisation, and I'm not well read on guns or gun design.
Counter Weight
How much did you pay? I am curious as to how ranges in your area-as I recall you mentioned being in Micronesia in another area of the board (Whether this is your permanent residence or just a transient residence I have no idea.) and wondered how prices compare.

My local handgun range is pretty cheap-15 dollars for a half hour, renting various frames from 9 to 12 dollars, including a small assortment of shotguns and rifles. I also shoot for work, which is obviously "free" (Well I suppose paid by the tax payers is more appropriate), but while I get more rounds, and time, is less open to playing with various weapons.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Counter Weight @ Mar 12 2008, 06:23 PM) *
How much did you pay? I am curious as to how ranges in your area-as I recall you mentioned being in Micronesia in another area of the board (Whether this is your permanent residence or just a transient residence I have no idea.) and wondered how prices compare.

My local handgun range is pretty cheap-15 dollars for a half hour, renting various frames from 9 to 12 dollars, including a small assortment of shotguns and rifles. I also shoot for work, which is obviously "free" (Well I suppose paid by the tax payers is more appropriate), but while I get more rounds, and time, is less open to playing with various weapons.


Well, I'm back in the USA now, in Las Vegas, and I went to a place called Discount Firearms where the cost to play with automatic weapons was about a dollar a round.
Counter Weight
That's not bad. I'll have to figure out what we pay, at Silver Bullet, overall. With a reloading table, and reloads it lowers the cost (Ammunition) significantly. If you had to purchase ammunition it'd jack the price way up. I take a friend of mine there for his birthday every year, as he works in a clerical field-but loves playing with weapons when he can. We have a lot of fun.
mfb
haha, congrats, WR. i wish more people would actually go out and try things.
cREbralFIX
A HK MP5 in 10mm fired in two round burst mode was interesting. When I started, there was about 12" of distance between shots. I was able to knock this down to about 6" with two mags of practice.

Mostly, though, full auto fired offhand just sucks (not crew served weapon in a fortified position or vehicle). On foot, I'd rather do 1-4 rounds per second and be able to maintain control.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (mfb @ Mar 12 2008, 09:07 PM) *
haha, congrats, WR. i wish more people would actually go out and try things.


I agree. Most people are extremely reluctant to have new experiences and that's ridiculous. As my mom always told me it's just as difficult to have an ordinary life as it is to have an extraordinary one so you might as well strive to do unusual and exciting things instead of sticking with the routine which merely feels safe but isn't any easier.
Synner667
QUOTE (cREbralFIX @ Mar 13 2008, 02:32 AM) *
A HK MP5 in 10mm fired in two round burst mode was interesting. When I started, there was about 12" of distance between shots. I was able to knock this down to about 6" with two mags of practice.

Mostly, though, full auto fired offhand just sucks (not crew served weapon in a fortified position or vehicle). On foot, I'd rather do 1-4 rounds per second and be able to maintain control.


"Short, controlled bursts, Sergeant Benton !!"
Fuchs
Rapid aimed fire (or semi-aimed fire), or burst fire (3 rounds per burst) was the norm in my training. We did some full auto shooting in the army, but it was more for show. That was with a SIG Stgw90, calibre was GP90 (5.6mm), so the sights and the weapon itself was very precise.

Shooting the M2 was fun though, longer bursts, and you get to see the .50 BMG tracer rounds bounce around the target at around 800 to 1 km. But the barrels get so hot, drop one end in a stream after you shot 400 to 500 rounds and changed the barrel, and you got a geysir of steam coming out the other end (I almost got scalded once, and a fellow coroporal almost lost a MG barrel in the snow - it melted over 1 m down to the grund, then rolled away underneath until it cooled enough. That was some digging).

Mandatory military service has the advantage that most players over here have experience with automatics and grenades, which adds a lot to Shadowrun.
DocTaotsu
Even shooting rapid semi-auto on an M14 is a pain in the ass. It's big, heavy as hell, and if you don't have it tucked in perfectly it kicks like it's cool. I can't even imagine shooting burst from anything other than the prone.

You didn't try out the much maligned M16 and it's stubby cousin the M4?

eidolon
QUOTE (Fuchs)
experience with automatics and grenades, which adds a lot to Shadowrun.


Agreed. Playing a game with my Army buddies was a much different experience than playing with (most) civilians that I've played with.
Shadow
In my experience full auto is best left for crew served implaced weapons. I could tear a target up at 600 meters with a M-60 on full auto. Thats with a bypod and sand bags. The same target with my M-16 I would have to aim carefully. No way would I hit it on full auto.

Modern weapons (M-16a2, G36's etc) are designed to be accurate and deadly. No one designs a fire arm to wound, they are all made to kill. Soldiers trained en masse are trained to shoot center mass, not for the head or arms, center mass. The older automatic fire ars are just not designed as well as modern automatics.

Now older semi auto or single shots are incredibly accuate(assuming htey were designed well). My SKS was made in 1973 and I can hit a 20 centimeter target at 200 meters with a snap shot.

If they have them I recomend some SMG's, MP5, UMP, anything like that. It's a distinct difference from a battle rifle. A lot less weight to reduce recoil, and shorter barrels are less accurate. Most combat in SR sees to take place with pistols and SMG's.
jago668
QUOTE (eidolon @ Mar 13 2008, 10:49 AM) *
Agreed. Playing a game with my Army buddies was a much different experience than playing with (most) civilians that I've played with.


Agreed. Two of my friends were in the military for a couple terms and they play different now than they did before. Only a slight difference seeing as how they both played in another guys game with a gentleman that had been in some form of special forces. (Never met the guy to ask which) However it is a marked difference from playing with people that have no experience with either the military or firearms in general.
WearzManySkins
I have fired M-14, seven digit serial numbered .45's, M-60's, and M79's.

My favorite one to "fire" was a 20mm CIWS with a "unauthorized" TDT mod courtesy of a library in GD, Pomona. grinbig.gif Talk about metal storm. The only weapon system projectiles, my radar could track as a outbound target, B-scan just showed a wave, in the outbound portion of the display.

But a dollar a bullet at full auto rates? Sound like I would reload a batch prior to going out there and play lets make a deal.

WMS
Ed_209a
QUOTE (jago668 @ Mar 13 2008, 02:57 PM) *
Only a slight difference seeing as how they both played in another guys game with a gentleman that had been in some form of special forces.

It would be very interesting to play SR with a former Green Beret, since the rest of us would be combat newbies, and Special Forces' focus is on turning combat newbies into light infantry.

I think a former SEAL or Ranger would be more likely to tell us to get out of his way and stop slowing him down.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (WearzManySkins @ Mar 13 2008, 03:16 PM) *
I have fired M-14, seven digit serial numbered .45's, M-60's, and M79's.

My favorite one to "fire" was a 20mm CIWS with a "unauthorized" TDT mod courtesy of a library in GD, Pomona. grinbig.gif Talk about metal storm. The only weapon system projectiles, my radar could track as a outbound target, B-scan just showed a wave, in the outbound portion of the display.

But a dollar a bullet at full auto rates? Sound like I would reload a batch prior to going out there and play lets make a deal.

WMS


That price was including range fees; it was a package deal.
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (jago668)
Agreed. Two of my friends were in the military for a couple terms and they play different now than they did before.


I'm curious, what were some of the specific differences?
Fuchs
In our case, after military service, a lot of the "my character carries everything in the gear section but the kitchen sink, and enough ammo and rations to fight WW3" mentality was gone in favor of "primary weapon, sidearm, knife, some grenades". We tended to use less "that's best according to the rules" and more "that's how it's done in the army" tactics too.
And we changed the firearms rules to use actual cartridge weights and more plausible ranges (SR2).
Synner667
Things were the same for me and my friends after we did some Live Action Role Playing..
..Forget carrying loads of gear, carry just what you need [and maybe a few other bits] is a lesson you quickly learn after you have to spend time digging through packs to find things, you trip over and break things, you only ever use one weapon anyway, etc.

I imagine it must be similar for people who do Paintballing.

I spent some time with some re-enactment people, and that was worse than LARP, because the gear is heavier [to be authentic] and more cumbersome.

Now my character's gear is more based on "where is it", than "carry everything upto my weight limit" smile.gif
Synner667
QUOTE (Shadow @ Mar 13 2008, 03:49 PM) *
In my experience full auto is best left for crew served implaced weapons. I could tear a target up at 600 meters with a M-60 on full auto. Thats with a bypod and sand bags. The same target with my M-16 I would have to aim carefully. No way would I hit it on full auto.

Modern weapons (M-16a2, G36's etc) are designed to be accurate and deadly. No one designs a fire arm to wound, they are all made to kill. Soldiers trained en masse are trained to shoot center mass, not for the head or arms, center mass. The older automatic fire ars are just not designed as well as modern automatics.

Now older semi auto or single shots are incredibly accuate(assuming htey were designed well). My SKS was made in 1973 and I can hit a 20 centimeter target at 200 meters with a snap shot.

If they have them I recomend some SMG's, MP5, UMP, anything like that. It's a distinct difference from a battle rifle. A lot less weight to reduce recoil, and shorter barrels are less accurate. Most combat in SR sees to take place with pistols and SMG's.


All combat weapons are designed to kill, per se, because lumps of metal travelling a high speed always have the right of way and will do terrible things to anything enroute..
..But I remember reading that the combat-of-the-future philosophy would be to injure, rather than kill - which is why grenades are steel wire wrapped around a charge or brittle cases [rather than being big bombs], why bullets are generally small calibre [else everyone would being using shotguns], why the development for lasers was to blind [rather than turn people into charred corpses], etc

Simply because 1 injured combatant = 2+ people out of action [1 injured, 1+ carer], 1 dead combatant = 1+ extra person to shoot at you.


From what I've read, most gun combat is quite short range [less than 100m, I think] because of the ranges that you encounter the enemy [as you say, pistols and SMGs].
I was just reading recently, that the British Arms has just bought a stack of new sniper rifles for overwatch duties in places like Afghanistan, but doesn't actually have enough snipers to use them !!
DocTaotsu
Oddly enough I've found that all the games I've run in the military work best when they generally ignore military concepts. Something about playing a simulation of their daily life just made everyone bitter and uninterested in playing smile.gif

It is nice to play with military folk because we can gloss over a lot of the tactical details that I've seen other groups get hung up on. No one has to spend 10 minutes every combat describing how they "cut the pie" around corners and arguing that I should give them some sort of bonus because "that's how it's done in real life". Of course I also play with players who rarely if ever make former military character backgrounds which I find intensely amusing. My favorite explanation for why his character has a 5 in long arms is that he was "An Alaskan (insert appropriate tribe here) game warden".

Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Mar 14 2008, 06:00 AM) *
In our case, after military service, a lot of the "my character carries everything in the gear section but the kitchen sink, and enough ammo and rations to fight WW3" mentality was gone in favor of "primary weapon, sidearm, knife, some grenades". We tended to use less "that's best according to the rules" and more "that's how it's done in the army" tactics too.
And we changed the firearms rules to use actual cartridge weights and more plausible ranges (SR2).


I always felt that the game would simultaneously more realistic and more immersive if players had to specify how they were carrying their gear. Not just "I have 3 SMGs, 1 sniper rifle, a katana, and a thousand rounds of ammunition", but rather exactly how each one was carried. If the way the stuff was carried was obviously silly or awkard the GM might assign penalties to Athletics or something like that.
jago668
QUOTE (fistandantilus4.0 @ Mar 13 2008, 06:21 PM) *
I'm curious, what were some of the specific differences?


Saw alot more setting up of combat. Less go in guns blazing and more worried about okay we need to do this, and security will probably respond this way so be ready for it. Much more taking cover than previously. Saw a switch from pistols as main weapons to rifles and smgs. Use of grenades and suppressive fire went up also. As someone else mentioned the amount of gear carried when way down. More like armor, main weapon, backup weapon, couple reloads, and few grenades. Then the various assorted gear like radios stayed. However the 4 pistols, combat axe, 16 extra magazines per weapon, so on and so forth went away. In general less junk carried and more trying to control the way a fight might go.
eidolon
Not the only difference, but my favorite difference when playing with people that actually have experience with weapons and stuff is that they don't have utterly effing ridiculous ideas as to what a weapon can or can't, or does or doesn't do.

Wounded Ronin
That's why I feel it's best to have simulationistic and detailed rules, by the way. It's more interesting if things are realistic and require a lot of proper planning than if instead things are playing out like a four color comic book.
Shadow
I know I played way different after I got out of the Army than before. As I get older and study ore of the tactics I learned the big diff I notice between me and non military people is the gun blazing. I like to plan everything, have contngencies for my contigencies. So when it al goes sideways, I am already heading in that direction.
DocTaotsu
@Wounded Ronin. I hate you for getting to shoot a CIWS, I can only take pleasure in knowing that it was probably the earlier model that didn't allow for direct operator aiming. Was this CIWS on a ship? I've heard they have some version of them guarding gates in Iraq but I don't know how true that is.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (DocTaotsu @ Mar 20 2008, 04:13 AM) *
@Wounded Ronin. I hate you for getting to shoot a CIWS, I can only take pleasure in knowing that it was probably the earlier model that didn't allow for direct operator aiming. Was this CIWS on a ship? I've heard they have some version of them guarding gates in Iraq but I don't know how true that is.

*cough cough*
The CIWS I fired was one of two mounted on board a ship. I fired it from a TDT due to "unauthorized" mod provided from a source in General Dynamics. I was trained on CIWS in GD's factory there in CA. Actually a TDT firing CIWS makes sense that is the reason why the USN did not officially have the mod. smile.gif

As for guarding the gates in IRAQ? It would look impressive and sound impressive but I would rather mount other weapons there, ie miniguns, and several Bushmaster II Mark 46 Mod 1's or Bushmaster II's.

WMS
DocTaotsu
Like I said I have no idea if those reports were true, if they did mount it I'm sure it was just the weapon and not the whole radar and so forth.

TDT?
Daddy's Little Ninja
My husband was in the army and he , in character and rl, is always contemptous of full auto/lead streams as a "waste of time and ammo ." He usually does not bring up his army days but anything more than burst fire, unless we wanted a noisy distraction, usually got a snort out of him. If he was feeling particularly ornery he would mutter something like "Great I'm running the bloody Somme again."

A dollar a bullet? Are you allow to bring your own? I know from him and Snow Fox that pistol rounds go for about $20 for a box of 50.
Fix-it
QUOTE (DocTaotsu @ Mar 20 2008, 08:03 AM) *
Like I said I have no idea if those reports were true, if they did mount it I'm sure it was just the weapon and not the whole radar and so forth.

TDT?



I've seen stuff like this. they mount it on a tractor-trailer, and use it against mortar shells, unguided rockets, etc.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Daddy's Little Ninja @ Mar 20 2008, 10:59 AM) *
A dollar a bullet? Are you allow to bring your own? I know from him and Snow Fox that pistol rounds go for about $20 for a box of 50.


Like I said, that includes range fees and use of the weapon. So the price is a little inflated but that's a package deal.

Certainly after trying those weapons I'm not sure if it would affect my RPG playing style but if I were ever in a situation where I had to fire an automatic weapon at someone who is trying to kill me I'd do my best to not spray and pray, seeing as I now know that I probably wouldn't hit if that were what I was doing.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (DocTaotsu @ Mar 20 2008, 09:03 AM) *
Like I said I have no idea if those reports were true, if they did mount it I'm sure it was just the weapon and not the whole radar and so forth.

TDT?

TDT was a system/method of aiming the Mk 86 (GFCS) Gun Fire Control System Mark 45 5 inch gun mounts. Normally the Mk 86 system took care of all the firing solutions for the ship, the TDT was a backup system in case the Mk 86 system was down.

It is/was a device that you mounted a set of binoculars to, and looked thru the binoculars, at each hand you had a control with buttons. When the buttons were activated the firing solution was calculated and the guns laid to bear on that target. You could fire the Mk 45 5 inch guns from the TDT.

The mod allowed the CIWS system to be fired and aimed the same way as the Mk 45 gun mounts. But using the TDT and CIWS you had to wear two layers of hearing protection, ie yellow sponges and mickey mouse ears. The TDT was mounted amid ships so the 5 inch guns did not much hearing issues, but the CIWS mounts were alot closer.

As for waste of ammo..... grinbig.gif Your husband must not have heard of the results of "Puff The Magic Dragon" in Viet Nam, or the Spooky gunships now the Spectre Gunships.

That is why the Bushmaster and minguns would be ideal for protecting the gates, no radars etc. The 30-40 mm shells would take care of most vehicles armored or not, tanks I think they would wear there way in eventually. But the factions over there have yet to have used any tanks against facilities. With the ATGM systems available tanks would not be much of a issue.

@Fix-it
Fired at incoming mortar shells etc? maybe you are thinking of counter battery radar/gun system?

WMS
PBTHHHHT
QUOTE (WearzManySkins @ Mar 20 2008, 12:10 PM) *
@Fix-it
Fired at incoming mortar shells etc? maybe you are thinking of counter battery radar/gun system?


Yeah, they modded a CIWS, phalanx, to shoot down mortars and the like from what I've seen, a friend of mine was a Raytheon engineer who worked on the software to allow for it to work on land and he mentioned to me about that. Pretty cool.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (PBTHHHHT @ Mar 20 2008, 02:20 PM) *
Yeah, they modded a CIWS, phalanx, to shoot down mortars and the like from what I've seen, a friend of mine was a Raytheon engineer who worked on the software to allow for it to work on land and he mentioned to me about that. Pretty cool.

Well they would not have to have modded it much at all. Since part of the testing was firing at 8 inch artillery rounds being fired over a CIWS that was barge mounted. It fired at them as incoming and outgoing. Recovered inert shells were most interesting, solid steel shells with the front and rear portions chewed off.

Typically you had to "break engage" when firing or CIWS kept firing at the pieces of the destroyed target, still inbound.

But again the MilThink process is, lets spend more money because we can. The only issues I can see if the limited amount of ammunition carried and the extreme rate of fire. IIRC if timed correctly it could fire at five targets before having to be reloaded, but was with ~990 round magazine and 20 mm projos.

My issue is that it has or had no B-Scan displays, if it was activated in a mode, you came within the engagement envelope, boom you got shot at.

Firing at incoming mortar and rockets from a land based version, well I hope there are a large battery of CIWS weapons to fire, relying on the mortars and rockets to come in singles and twos, is not something I would like to have.

WMS
Fix-it
I'm just glad they are replacing them with a missle-based system that can engage multiple targets simultaneously.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (Fix-it @ Mar 20 2008, 03:53 PM) *
I'm just glad they are replacing them with a missle-based system that can engage multiple targets simultaneously.

*shudders*
Remember a Elephant is a mouse built to military standards.
Well maybe they are using or going to be using the RAM system or something like a FOG-M. But it sounds like the missiles will be fired from a box launcher, which limits the number of targets engaged.

WMS
WearzManySkins
here is link
CIWS in IRAQ link
EQ-36 Radar
LCMR Link

Just remember the Sergeant York Air Defense System aka the "Gun that could not shoot straight".

WMS
Fix-it
QUOTE (WearzManySkins @ Mar 20 2008, 03:07 PM) *
*shudders*
Remember a Elephant is a mouse built to military standards.
Well maybe they are using or going to be using the RAM system or something like a FOG-M. But it sounds like the missiles will be fired from a box launcher, which limits the number of targets engaged.

WMS


limits the total number, yes. but the CIWS doesn't exactly have endless amounts of ammunition either.
Snow_Fox
DLN's right, her husband, normally a pretty mellow guy, would make lots of noise about full auto fire.

I've only fired hand guns and bolt action rifles. I've seen a BAR and Chauchat fired.
kzt
QUOTE (Synner667 @ Mar 14 2008, 03:39 AM) *
which is why grenades are steel wire wrapped around a charge or brittle cases [rather than being big bombs], why bullets are generally small calibre [else everyone would being using shotguns], why the development for lasers was to blind [rather than turn people into charred corpses], etc

No, the steel wire produces a cloud of lethal fragments that will predictable kill everyone close and doesn't produce pieces that go hundred of yards like the old pineapple. Having someone put 40 holes in your body tends to be quite lethal.

Small calibers are because you can carry more ammo, and they actually do more damage than larger FMJ bullets. Look a the wound tracks someday. Shotguns are great, as long as you can assure the bad guys are all within 35 meters. At 250 meters you might as well just throw the shells at him.

Low power lasers are easier to make than high powered lasers. Nobody has a field reliable sold state 150 KW laser. The Chinese have had eye poppers for years.
Ed_209a
QUOTE (kzt @ Mar 24 2008, 02:34 PM) *
Small calibers are because you can carry more ammo, and they actually do more damage than larger FMJ bullets. Look a the wound tracks someday.

Big bullets (ie 7.62mm NATO) and small bullets (ie 5.56mm NATO) do similar damage if you assume human targets and military FMJ ammo. At typical engagement ranges, under 200m, 7.62 FMJ has the mass and speed to go straight through a person with barely a wobble. 5.56mm FMJ will typically tumble after a few inches travel through flesh. This makes the FMJ act more like a hollowpoint. It frequently breaks into several pieces too.

If you assume expanding ammo, like in big game hunting, there is no comparison, because expanding ammo lets the larger 7.62 round use more of it's energy damaging the target.

QUOTE (kzt @ Mar 24 2008, 02:34 PM) *
Low power lasers are easier to make than high powered lasers. Nobody has a field reliable sold state 150 KW laser. The Chinese have had eye poppers for years.

It will be a sad day for infantry when someone does have a 150kW laser suitable for battle. I imagine a computer-controlled laser firing a hundred 150kW pulses a second into a mass of infantry... Very few misses, plenty of steam explosion injuries to go around. That is what really happens when you are hit by a laser. No clean, cauterized holes. Your body's water turns to steam faster than the steam can escape, and it is like setting off a firecracker in your belly button...
WearzManySkins
Seems IRL there is a movement towards heavier rounds for Assault Rifles

Barrett M468 Assault Rifle Wiki
Barrett M468 YouTube Video
6.5 mm Grendel Link

WMS
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Ed_209a @ Mar 24 2008, 04:58 PM) *
It will be a sad day for infantry when someone does have a 150kW laser suitable for battle. I imagine a computer-controlled laser firing a hundred 150kW pulses a second into a mass of infantry... Very few misses, plenty of steam explosion injuries to go around. That is what really happens when you are hit by a laser. No clean, cauterized holes. Your body's water turns to steam faster than the steam can escape, and it is like setting off a firecracker in your belly button...


That would make the Geneva Convention's ban on hollow point rounds seem really quaint by comparison.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Mar 24 2008, 07:29 PM) *
That would make the Geneva Convention's ban on hollow point rounds seem really quaint by comparison.

Condi? Is that you?
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (Ed_209a @ Mar 24 2008, 03:58 PM) *
It will be a sad day for infantry when someone does have a 150kW laser suitable for battle. I imagine a computer-controlled laser firing a hundred 150kW pulses a second into a mass of infantry... Very few misses, plenty of steam explosion injuries to go around. That is what really happens when you are hit by a laser. No clean, cauterized holes. Your body's water turns to steam faster than the steam can escape, and it is like setting off a firecracker in your belly button...

Well hate to rain on your parade, but the steam will keep the laser from penetrating that deep. That is why in Surgical use of YAG/Dye lasers their is a device called a smoke evacuator.

You would get surface steam explosions but no deep penetration. Also the cutting edge in todays lasers is not solid state, more along the lines of very toxic chemicals.

WMS
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Arethusa @ Mar 24 2008, 07:48 PM) *
Condi? Is that you?


I'm Rumsfeld, dumbass. rotfl.gif cyber.gif
Shrike30
Having seen wounds from both 5.56 and 7.62, I'm going to argue on the side of 7.62 doing a hell of a lot more damage in a "single round hits a dude" kind of situation. 5.56, if it has enough velocity when it hits, can fragment and do similar amounts of damage... but frequently it doesn't, be it because it's being fired from a short-barrel weapon or because the target was engaged at a few hundred yards. It's a lot easier to use 5.56 in a firefight, however... lighter guns, less recoil, more rounds in the mag, more controllable weapon.

I think there's going to be a compromise somewhere in the middle, that'll work out pretty well. Some of the experimentation in the 6.5-6.8mm range built on an AR-15 platform seems the most promising. Not a massive increase in recoil, similar magazine capacities, and the slugs are heavy enough to penetrate cover and stay intact better than 5.56.
MYST1C
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Mar 12 2008, 11:29 PM) *
After many years of tinkeing with them in video games and RPGs today I went to a range and rented some automatic weapons and used them. I operated a Thompson M1A1, a M2 carbine,and a HK G3.

I thought I'd join the gun tales - my experience all comes from my army time (10 months in the German Bundeswehr as a conscript, left as Private 1st Class).
  • P1 - Known to civillians as Walther P38 (slightly modified though, the P1 is part aluminum where the P38 is all steel). The grip fits your hand really well as it is quite slim (single-stack 8 rounds magazine). Loads of recoil - then again, it does fire 9mm NATO rounds and weighs only 890g (1.96lbs) fully loaded.
  • P8 - Known to civillians as Heckler & Koch USP 9mm. More compact but heavier than P1 (950g, 2.09lbs), bigger magazine (15 rounds). Good fit despite wider grip. Less recoil (more total weight, different mechanism) with the same ammo (9mm NATO).
  • MP2A1 - Known to civillians as IMI Uzi (with folding metal buttstock). Unfortunately, I never got to fire it in full-auto but I can say this: There is no (felt) recoil when firing single 9mm rounds from a gun weighing 4.5kg (9.92lbs)!
  • G3A3 - Heckler & Koch G3. I never fired it in full auto but the kick it gives in semi is enough to convince me that it'd be totally uncontrollable. For this reason the British L1A1 (license-build of the Belgian FN FAL), firing the same 7.62mm NATO ammo, never had a full-auto mode.


And now for some heavy stuff - I used to be gunner on a Leopard 1A5 MBT so I didn't play with handguns only. grinbig.gif
  • L7A3 - 105mm (4.13") main cannon. Fully stabilized, with laser range-finder, firing APFSDS-T (Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot - Tracer) and HEAT-T (High Explosive Anti-Tank - Tracer) ammo. Really fun to shoot! The whole tank shakes and the gun recoils about 28cm (11"). What I found interesting: While the cannon causes a quite enormous "BOOM" inside the tank you hardly notice it. To me the metallic sound of the spent casing dropping out of the breech was more audible.
  • MG3 - coaxial 7.62mm NATO machine gun, derivative of WW2's MG42. Using that gun was like playing a video game! No recoil, just find the target, measure the distance and pull the trigger. When firing at distances greater than 800m you could actually count the sconds till impact and see the arched ballistic flight path of the tracers really well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012