Jump to content
XCOMUFO & Xenocide

Revitalizing Firearms


Recommended Posts

regardless of the recoil/kickback being an issue, it can be handled. Putting the "blow-back" or other top end recoil system inplace would be in the best interest of the shooter anyway.

 

if it just happens to result in the handling being equivalent to a .22, then so much the better :D

 

I would suggest a fusion(blaster) /plasma grenade for the grenade launcher (which would reduce the climb, i consider that a positive for an automatic weapon)

but i think that would induce a fatal dose of lactose erm.. i mean xenium :P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest alex the greater

i just think we should stick to conventional firearms, meatl storm guns, and gauss weppons.

no xenium bulits, no alien aloy berals, no frictionless bulits energy wepons are more efishint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just think we should stick to conventional firearms, meatl storm guns, and gauss weppons.

no xenium  bulits, no alien aloy berals, no frictionless bulits energy wepons  are more efishint

 

For a guass weapon to approach the reliability of a normal weapon, it would probably have to have alien alloy barrels.

 

I still fail to see how much better a metal storm gun is. I mean, it has great ROF, but that just means that you run out of bullets that much faster.

 

Conventional firearms tend to lack the firepower and mobility X-Corps would need. While a barret M82 would probably be able to penetrate a terror disk or Morloch's armor, it is far too big to lug around, especially in a highly mobile outfit like X-Corps. To be able to fight against the aliens on equal(er) terms, you have to have powerful and compact weapons. In the original, you stole alien plasma guns. I feel it would be nice to have another option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

centurion, 5 km/s is 5000 m/s. 5000 m/s * 5000m/s is 25 million. 25 million / 1000 is 25000.

 

Why do you have distance as the accelleration times the square of the time divided by 2?

 

You want me to provide sources on heavy versus light bullets? Read up on the arguments that were for and against the induction of the m193 5.56 round into the american army in the 60s.

 

No. A round that loses energy in the air is very light and fast because sonic shockwaves in the air produce many times the drag that would normally be experiences sans the shockwave. A heavier round travelling more slowly loses less energy because it's momentum is greater. This is the reason sniper rifle rounds are large. They are less disturbed by environmental conditions. This is also a premise that may answer some of your doubts about my argument that small bullets are easily disturbed.

 

An illustration of velocity's effect on parasite drag can be found here:

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/High-S...phics/Graph.GIF

 

A lot of this argument depends on a sonic shockwave through the media of the body causing great amounts of tissue damage. I am not a believer. It sounds impressive, but I don't think that it would do much for a few reasons:

 

If a bullet hit the medium of the body at that speed and caused a shockwave to form ahead of the nose of the bullet, the bullet would deform and break up very early. This would cause a shallow wound and would no doubt be a vicious permanent cavity, but the chances that it would be more vicious than a 5.56 breaking up in the body are slim given that there is not much of the bullet to break up.

 

The bullet would not have a chance to travel through the body to cause shockwave damage. Given the high increase in drag and the bullet's VERY low momentum, it's term of supersonic flight through the body would be VERY short (if it survived- I'm anticipating some sort of alien alloy rebuttal).

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just think we should stick to conventional firearms, meatl storm guns, and gauss weppons.

no xenium  bulits, no alien aloy berals, no frictionless bulits energy wepons  are more efishint

 

your probably right m8, but then we would'nt be revitalizing firearms. :)

 

facehugger, from the footage i've seen of the metal storm, it is able to fire all it's barrels at once, 9 - 15 barrels. If my memory serves me correctly, one test was done on an out-house which was disintegrated after the first volly. Not sure if that could be considered practical or not :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was more of a test of a support weapon/technological proof. Metal storm is a technology, it's not a weapon.

 

They have a working electrochemical handgun prototype called the O'Dwyer VLe. These things have a very high rate of fire (theoretically, I haven't read what the handgun does, just what the technology does). In practical use I think it would act similarly to the 1800 rpm burst rate of the AN-94 or the G11- the ability to get very tight groupings of multiple rounds in a 'single shot.'

 

I don't know how powerful it would be, though, especially for the first few shots where the barrel is very short... but you could probably load it with all kinds of stuff, seeing as there is no mechanism to foul, overload or underload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

centurion, 5 km/s is 5000 m/s.  5000 m/s * 5000m/s is 25 million.  25 million / 1000 is 25000.

Darn, kinetic energy is m*v^2/2, sorry for typo.

Why do you have distance as the accelleration times the square of the time divided by 2?

You start from velocity 0, accelerate linearly to velocity a*t, distance spent accelerating \int_0^t a*x dx = a*t^2/2.

You want me to provide sources on heavy versus light bullets?  Read up on the arguments that were for and against the induction of the m193 5.56 round into the american army in the 60s.

And those can be found where? Sorry, never owned a gun, never looked for guns.

No.  A round that loses energy in the air is very light and fast because sonic shockwaves in the air produce many times the drag that would normally be experiences sans the shockwave.  A heavier round travelling more slowly loses less energy because it's momentum is greater.  This is the reason sniper rifle rounds are large.  They are less disturbed by environmental conditions.  This is also a premise that may answer some of your doubts about my argument that small bullets are easily disturbed.

At supersonic speed you have drag that's quadratic in velocity for our purposes, I don't really understand what do you mean by "drag experienced without the shockwave".

A slower but heavier round loses more energy because drag is proportional to v^2*, so given a fix amount of energy to accelerate the bullet and assuming that the shape of the bullet is also fixed, you get a m^(2/3) dependence on the mass. However, this drag produces divergence from the targeted point proportional to m^(-1/3), so a heavier bullet is more accurate.

 

I don't have doubts about this kind of bullet (light&fast) getting diverted much farther from the point targeted, just want to know how severe is it; is it bad enough to kill the entire idea.

If a bullet hit the medium of the body at that speed and caused a shockwave to form ahead of the nose of the bullet, the bullet would deform and break up very early.  This would cause a shallow wound and would no doubt be a vicious permanent cavity, but the chances that it would be more vicious than a 5.56 breaking up in the body are slim given that there is not much of the bullet to break up. 

 

The bullet would not have a chance to travel through the body to cause shockwave damage.  Given the high increase in drag and the bullet's VERY low momentum, it's term of supersonic flight through the body would be VERY short (if it survived- I'm anticipating some sort of alien alloy rebuttal).

Bullet breakup would kill the whole shockwave, it's a valid point. Barring that, and given the large amount of energy the bullet would carry, I'd find it quite strange if it would decelerate easily in the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Centurion, google it. I google nearly everything that I don't know to construct these posts, mainly things like the surface area of a cone, for instance, or the density of lead.

 

accelleration is d(t^-2)... no 1/2 in there.

 

the equation for drag is D = CD x S x ½rV^2 where D is drag, CD is the coefficient of drag, S is surface area, r is air density and V is velocity.

 

Half of the velocity squared of Tuoppi's round is 12.5 million m^2(s^-2).

 

Half of the velocity squared of the 7.62 russian round is 427 thousand m^2(s^-2).

 

If there was no shockwave drag, the russian round would have to have 30 times the surface area... considering it has only 7.5 times the volume, I find that to be unlikely. (The volume of 1 gram of lead is 0.8818342151675486mm^3 (0.9) determined by the density of lead. The volume of a 7.62mm russian round is 6.6957671957671957mm^3 (6.7)).

 

I'm too tired to calculate the surface area of a bullet, and i don't know calculus so deriving the area of a parabolic bullet is out of my league just now... but you can use the surface area of a cone as an example with the equation: pi * r * (r + (r^2 + h^2)^1/2) if you doubt my reasoning.

 

This is, of course, assuming that the masses are equal to a certain extent. Do not forget that drag is a force, and force accellerate or decellerate mass. Tuoppi's bullet has 1/8th the mass of the russian bullet he compared it to. This would also affect how quickly the bullet slows down.

 

For comparison other bullets, google for them. This site is a little gory if you have a good imagination but at the top of every chart it has the weights and velocities of most of the major bullets about 3/4 down the page.

 

Firearms tactical wounding characteristics information page.

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

accelleration is d(t^-2)... no 1/2 in there.

Source/reasoning?

the equation for drag is D = CD x S x ½rV^2  where D is drag, CD is the coefficient of drag, S is surface area, r is air density and V is velocity.

 

Half of the velocity squared of Tuoppi's round is 12.5 million m^2(s^-2).

 

Half of the velocity squared of the 7.62 russian round is 427 thousand m^2(s^-2). 

 

If there was no shockwave drag, the russian round would have to have 30 times the surface area... considering it has only 7.5 times the volume, I find that to be unlikely. (The volume of 1 gram of lead is 0.8818342151675486mm^3 (0.9) determined by the density of lead.  The volume of a 7.62mm russian round is 6.6957671957671957mm^3 (6.7)). 

I don't understand what is it you're calculating and how is it connected to the alleged supersonic extra drag ... The formula shows that the drag for Tuoppi's round is roughly 5^(-2/3)*22 = ~7.5 times the drag for the 7.62, so the disturbing acceleration is roughly 40 times more, and since the speed is roughly 5 times the 7.62's, this produces about 8 times greater deviation from the targeted point than the 7.62's. This doesn't sound too bad, does it?

I'm too tired to calculate the surface area of a bullet, and i don't know calculus so deriving the area of a parabolic bullet is out of my league just now... but you can use the surface area of a cone as an example with the equation: pi * r * (r + (r^2 + h^2)^1/2) if you doubt my reasoning.

You use the frontal area of the bullet, not the area of the bullet tip; pi*r^2 should be it (luckily we don't need it if we calculate everything relative to known data).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest alex the greater
facehugger, from the footage i've seen of the metal storm, it is able to fire all it's barrels at once, 9 - 15 barrels. If my memory serves me correctly, one test was done on an out-house which was disintegrated after the first volly. Not sure if that could be considered practical or not  :LOL:

 

well to conserve ammo just fire out of one barrel at a time and give the gun 5 berrels

amed shot and snap shot would only fire one barrel at a time and auto shoot would

fire all the bulits at once compleatly expending the clip to reload simpaly press a bouton and the barrels will slide out of the gun and you just insert new berrels (this combined whith a no moving parts firearm would make for a no mantnce gun but that hardly matters in game turms)

 

For a guass weapon to approach the reliability of a normal weapon, it would probably have to have alien alloy barrels.

 

gauss wepons dount nead barrels the built hovers between to electromag rails

(thats why thay are offten claed raill guns) this also mens no recoill

(the bulit isint touching the raill so the energy doesint transfer*)

also gauss wepons are good at pericing armor (a 2mm bulit going mach5 can do a lot of damige)

 

 

 

*corct me if i am wrong i am not quite shure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL yeah sorry m8 i was viewing it in terms of practical use, ie. putting a beast out of it's misery (you know where such and such gets it's meat) eg. shooting a bull in the head because it trod on it's pizzol. My unsterstanding is that it had a similar feed to the gattling gun, i really don't understand it because it is surplus to my needs here. In all honesty my needs are the minimium provided by my employer, which i consider my maximum in my efforts, hence i don't cost my employer more money than i am worth in his/her eyes. So if you want to get technical, then go for it :rolleyes: Edited by RustedSoul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a guass weapon to approach the reliability of a normal weapon, it would probably have to have alien alloy barrels.

gauss wepons dount nead barrels the built hovers between to electromag rails

(thats why thay are offten claed raill guns) this also mens no recoill

(the bulit isint touching the raill so the energy doesint transfer*)

also gauss wepons are good at pericing armor (a 2mm bulit going mach5 can do a lot of damige)

*corct me if i am wrong i am not quite shure

Gauss weapons still need the inductive rail, and a barrel around it could ease the placement of accelerator pieces.

Recoil IS produced ( :master: momentum conservation), but is carried away by the electromagnetic field (so it's spread quite a bit).

About fast bullets, see above posts :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh... Crap it. Not going to explain the same things over and over again. Check the previous posts if you have interest in my experimental gun. The thing principles work, ask directly if something is not clear. Trust me, and with aerodynamics and kinetics don't argue me. We are talking about same things even if i don't know exact terms, i've probably got enough training for them from work.

 

BTW google lies a LOT, even in official sites. They even base aircraft lift being generated from Bernoulli's law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any physics site on the web will tell you that the derived units for force is kg*ms^-2. Newton's second law of motion defines Force as m*a.

 

Even this dude who calls himself aceventura knows it.

http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/aceventura/chrisb.html

 

Incase you doubt him too, here's a university link.

http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrennan/phy...ics_symbols.htm

 

The units only hint on how force is derived, so here is a link explaning the definition of force.

http://www.fact-index.com/f/fo/force.html

 

In the future, please site your own sources. If you don't understand a concept and my explanations are not sufficient, do your own research. This is what I do when I don't know where you're coming from or I doubt something you say, I don't just refute your premises for the fun of it without assessing them first. Additionally, I'm citing knowledge that I've accumulated over a long time. I'm sorry, I cannot reresearch it for you. I have to spend too much time researching my own arguments to make sure it's cogent. I suggest you do the same.

 

For calculating drag, you use the entire surface area of the object. Calculating drag coefficients in aeroplanes commonly use the entire wing area, as the fuselage is typically being washed by the propeller. For jetplanes you use the entire skin of the airplane. Since bullets are boat-tailed, the very end would have little contribution to th SA as calculated for drag but it produces an area of low pressure behind the bullet that 'sucks' it backwards.. I don't know how to account for that but my assumption that using the rear SA for calculating the parasite drag cannot hurt.

 

The argument was meant to illustrate that small bullets slow down faster. The hidden premise was that if the small bullet is pushing a sonic shockwave it would slow down even FASTER than my simple calculations described.

 

Gauss weapons use coils, not rails. You're thinking of a railgun. A guass-gun is to a railgun what a Toyota Camry is to a ferrari- weak, primitive and slow but most likely more reliable (there is a problem with rail corrosion in railguns caused by high voltage arcs).

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any physics site on the web will tell you that the derived units for force is kg*ms^-2.  Newton's second law of motion defines Force as m*a.

 

Even this dude who calls himself aceventura knows it.

http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/aceventura/chrisb.html

 

Incase you doubt him too, here's a university link.

http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrennan/phy...ics_symbols.htm

 

The units only hint on how force is derived, so here is a link explaning the definition of force.

http://www.fact-index.com/f/fo/force.html

 

In the future, please site your own sources.  If you don't understand a concept and my explanations are not sufficient, do your own research.  This is what I do when I don't  know where you're coming from or I doubt something you say, I don't just refute your premises for the fun of it without assessing them first.  Additionally, I'm citing knowledge that I've accumulated over a long time.  I'm sorry, I cannot reresearch it for you.  I have to spend too much time researching my own arguments to make sure it's cogent.  I suggest you do the same.

*reads back into the thread and finds no confusion over the definition of force*

*counts to 10*

What is this supposed to support?

For calculating drag, you use the entire surface area of the object.  Calculating drag coefficients in aeroplanes commonly use the entire wing area, as the fuselage is typically being washed by the propeller.  For jetplanes you use the entire skin of the airplane.  Since bullets are boat-tailed, the very end would have little contribution to th SA as calculated for drag but it produces an area of low pressure behind the bullet that 'sucks' it backwards.. I don't know how to account for that but my assumption that using the rear SA for calculating the parasite drag cannot hurt.

Well, the only difference is in the dimensionless coefficients, here they teach the version with frontal area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon some reflection while I took a break from the discussion, I think that if the bullet was made of traditional materials that it would break up upon impact... it would create a larger than normal permanent cavity (larger than the bullet would produce whole), but how much larger I cannot even begin to guess. On the plus side it has a lot of energy, on the minus side is that there isn't much of it to go around.

 

If it was to creating a sonic shockwave in flesh would just expediate the destruction of the bullet, as a shockwave is the reaction of the media not being able to transmit the energy created by particles being rammed by the surface of the projectile faster than the movement of the projectile itself. I think such a wave would be so instananeously dense that it would be like hitting a brick wall for the projectile, forcing what remained of it to slow down to subsonic (in the media of flesh) speeds finitecimally fast. How much more damage this would do in the face of a one gram splinter exploding inside your body is anyone's guess... If I were to, I would be inclined to think that it would not be much more.

 

If the bullet was made of 'indestructible' materials, I think that it would slow down extremely fast due to the forces I mentioned earlier. Since a .22lr 40 grain can penetrate nearly 40 centimeters, such an intact bullet would probably exit the body.. but how much damage it would do in its passing is anyone's guess- even non-frangible rifle rounds fired by the ak47 create wounds no more severe than a 9mm handgun when they produce an uncomplicated leg wound. If they hit near the surface, apparently the outward force it exerts splays the flesh in a manner that it looks like a 'tomato explodes' out of the skin of the victim, in the words of an american GI (he was describing his comrade being hit in the arm).

 

The idea of the small, superfast round is a good one, though. It is not easily debunked. I think that if such a round was envisioned to be useful by experts, that we would see them being tested-perhaps the forceable returns diminish as the mass of the round is decreased.

 

With the laser creating a plasma tunnel through which the bullet can pass is an interesting addition and solves a lot of the problems... but the laser would have to be pointed in exactly the same path as the bullet takes, which I think would be impossible... if that technicality is worked around and the weapon 'just is,' the weapon system would be extremely complex- which is something that xenocide has traditionally been trying to avoid in order to preserve a sense of utilitarianism in its weapon systems.

 

I think the 'cheapest' re: least creative and thereby least refutable ways of revitalizing firearms would be to go the caseless ammo route, the electrochemical route, or explore all the things that are excluded by the geneva convention, ie, explosive tipped bullets, maiming rounds, lethal poisons, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the laser beam is 1 cm wide from the starting point down, a 5 km/s round would be within it for almost 250 meters (if we only take into account gravity as disturbing force); since I doubt that the aforementioned friction reduction would enhance the precision of the bullet more than twice, the role of the weapon would be a "long-range" shotgun, capable of delivering acceptable levels of damage to targets within, say, 50 m (here should be the range at which the 7.62 round deviates .125 cm from the straight flight path).

I think the 'cheapest' re: least creative and thereby least refutable ways of revitalizing firearms would be to go the caseless ammo route, the electrochemical route, or explore all the things that are excluded by the geneva convention, ie, explosive tipped bullets, maiming rounds, lethal poisons, etc.

*signs*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the laser beam is 1 cm wide from the starting point down, a 5 km/s round would be within it for almost 250 meters (if we only take into account gravity as disturbing force); since I doubt that the aforementioned friction reduction would enhance the precision of the bullet more than twice, the role of the weapon would be a "long-range" shotgun, capable of delivering acceptable levels of damage to targets within, say, 50 m (here should be the range at which the 7.62 round deviates .125 cm from the straight flight path).

 

Are we talking realism here or game-real? Shotgun ranges aren't that short. With slugs they are out past 50 m for sure. With shot they vary, but they don't spread much more than one inch per meter of range.. which would make them like throwing a handful of rocks at 50m, but you get the point. I guess, with ranges like those seen in the xcom battlescape, that ranges beyond 50m are pretty much moot anyways.

 

If your objective is a gaping wound, why not just load the tails or heads of the bullets you're firing with shaped explosives and skip the lasers, advanced propellants, alien alloys and R&D? You could even R&D human based chemical compounds that are suitable for causing seering holes through fleshy bodies. I think this would mark an interesting episode in human tech development for the war against the aliens when they pull out all their contraband weapon technologies in a fight for the species.

 

I think the 'cheapest' re: least creative and thereby least refutable ways of revitalizing firearms would be to go the caseless ammo route, the electrochemical route, or explore all the things that are excluded by the geneva convention, ie, explosive tipped bullets, maiming rounds, lethal poisons, etc.

*signs*

 

heck gyeah...

 

uh...

 

what are you signing?

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the laser beam is 1 cm wide from the starting point down, a 5 km/s round would be within it for almost 250 meters (if we only take into account gravity as disturbing force); since I doubt that the aforementioned friction reduction would enhance the precision of the bullet more than twice, the role of the weapon would be a "long-range" shotgun, capable of delivering acceptable levels of damage to targets within, say, 50 m (here should be the range at which the 7.62 round deviates .125 cm from the straight flight path).

 

Are we talking realism here or game-real? Shotgun ranges aren't that short. With slugs they are out past 50 m for sure. With shot they vary, but they don't spread much more than one inch per meter of range.. which would make them like throwing a handful of rocks at 50m, but you get the point. I guess, with ranges like those seen in the xcom battlescape, that ranges beyond 50m are pretty much moot anyways.

I meant effective range, 1 inch/1 m of range looks like 10 m effective range for me.

I think the 'cheapest' re: least creative and thereby least refutable ways of revitalizing firearms would be to go the caseless ammo route, the electrochemical route, or explore all the things that are excluded by the geneva convention, ie, explosive tipped bullets, maiming rounds, lethal poisons, etc.

*signs*

 

heck gyeah...

 

uh...

 

what are you signing?

The Geneva convention, ermm, I mean, that those are ways of enhancing firearms that nobody would dare call too fictional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, looks like the two of you are even more ballistics afficionados than I dared imagine :D

Btw, military bullets are slim and long, made to go right through armor if possible (causing damage by shockwave), simply because a dead soldier immobilises one man, a wounded soldier immobilises ten (to protect, first-aid, bring back, heal, etc.), and demoralises even more than the dead, because his painfull screams are constant...

It's inhuman, but hey, war always is... (therefore as humans we should be above that by now... *sigh*)

 

On the other hand, Police bullets are designed to spread (and possibly fragment), causing maximum widespread damage against lightly armored people, to stop them immediately.

 

I'm not sure wich ones would be best against aliens, since they don't suffer from morale that much (especially if they are merely wounded, they don't seem to bleed). Some are weakly armored, but others are realy tough (think Muton, or *gasp* Lobstermen :o )...

Edited by Paladin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't cause freaking damage by freaking shockwave! >:(

 

heh.. a little aquired indignance... we already discussed the shockwaves in this thread.. and I'm still a little raw from doing all that research.

 

But yeah, you're on the right track with the concepts of the difference between pistol and rifle rounds. ;)

 

I dunno if we're bullet officianados so much as closet or amateur scientists. Our number crunching is all way off and the math models we're using are probably horribly flawed, but it gives the brain muscle some excercise.

 

The bullet wouldn't lose effectiveness as soon as it got outside of the plasma but it would lost it quickly afterwards. If your ionized air stream isn't wide enough to slide the bullet along farther than 100 meters, I would say that the equipment is probably better off without it. It'd probably still pack a punch at a football field's length.. although, nothing like it would coming out of the barrel.

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your shockwave explanation, just pointing out that some bullets are designed to fragment inside...

 

Then again, I also agree that all we're doing here is Brain-exercise :D

(especially with your avatar logo, fuxOr :LOL:)

 

Not sure I understand you correctly with the plasma though...

Edited by Paladin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your shockwave explanation, just pointing out that some bullets are designed to fragment inside...

 

Then again, I also agree that all we're doing here is Brain-exercise :D

(especially with your avatar logo, fuxOr :LOL:)

 

Not sure I understand you correctly with the plasma though...

 

My plasma thing was directed at centurion et al.

 

To my knowledge, no bullets are designed to fragment inside, although some do. The only real military example of this is the various incarnations of the 5.56 nato round. It fragments by virtue of a crimp on the neck of the bullet that is designed to hold the bullet inside (the brass what they call a cannelure). Most bullets tumble through flesh, or at least turn around backwards because of their shape. When the 5.56 turns sideways on its way to going backwards, it breaks in half because of the weakness of the cannelure. When the steel jacket is torn, the bullet just kind of disintegrates from the stress of rocketting through flesh at the speed of sound.

 

This all happens by accident. It wasn't 'discovered' until after the vietnam war by the americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you may want to take a look at some hunting rounds

 

namely for the .223 and .243

 

Softpoint ammo is banned by the geneva convention. All (read: most) softpoint rifle rounds fragment on impact... although I don't know if that's a design feature so much as the reality of having a bullet that won't go through a tree, two car doors and your buddy's head if an accident should occur.

 

But yeah, softpoint ammo would be nice against aliens who don't have armoured skin. There would be sectoid guts and brains everwhere.

 

Off topic.. Speaking of hunting accidents, I once saw a story about a turkey that shot a man in the leg with a shotgun through his car trunk. He shot the bird, piled it into his trunk with his loaded shotgun.. and when he went to take it out it was still alive and it grabbed ahold of the trigger with its feet.

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My plasma thing was directed at centurion et al.

*deflects plasma*

 

Extending the range by something like 200 meters is not enough to warrant a 2 cm diameter laser burst with duration of 40 μs? I would disagree.

Edited by centurion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My plasma thing was directed at centurion et al.

*deflects plasma*

 

Extending the range by something like 200 meters is not enough to warrant a 2 cm diameter laser burst with duration of 40 μs? I would disagree.

 

As a sniper's weapon, perhaps. The ranges that xcom engages at wouldn't warrant such a device in the infantry role. Maybe for the designated sharp shooters.

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL ok m8, it's just that Bambi's not covered by the convention and i did'nt really think the greys were either.

 

never heard that turkey thing before, still, that would suck for both parties.

 

i'm pretty sure that the bullets were actually designed that way so the "trophy" did'nt run for a mile afterwards. probably does'nt really matter as far as the game goes though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My plasma thing was directed at centurion et al.

*deflects plasma*

 

Extending the range by something like 200 meters is not enough to warrant a 2 cm diameter laser burst with duration of 40 μs? I would disagree.

 

If your entire team was comprised of snipers, perhaps.

Also, it gives pretty good accuracy within those first 200 meters as well, which is not only a sniper's dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, sorry, you replied while I was rewording the post to be more descriptive.

 

For urban conflicts, the average range of engagement is under one hundred meters, with snipers seldomly engaging beyond 300. I don't know if the expense would be worth it.

 

source:

http://www.coldsteelinfantry.com/iraqi%20freedom%202.htm

 

I remember a better one, but when I was searching for it I couldn't find it and had to settle for this one. The original one was regarding the rationale regarding Eugene Stoner's decision to develop a .22 calibre war rifle.

 

Interestingly enough, the americans are disatisfied with the performance of the 5.56 shot from a short barrel so they are developing a 6.8mm round. I think the original xcom rifle shot bullets of a size similar to this. Interesting.

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, without the beam the projetile is pretty inaccurate according to our estimates; so every little bit should help, and since we already have those lasers ready, why not use them for this end? Might be impractical indeed if it's the agents' own accuracy (hand steadiness, timing, whatever) that's the narrow cross-section (or what is the English expression for this).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Weakest link' is all I can think of. I think the technical term would be 'overriding causal factor.'

 

My original complaint about the lasers that I don't think transfered over is that, in order to have a laser cut a path for the bullet, you would have to have a laser lense behind the chamber.. and well behind it because of the high pressure moving parts (VERY high pressure in this rifle). Then, the laser beam could be no thicker than the barrel itself.. otherwise you would have to have a laserbeam aimed downwards at an angle (I chose downwards because the ultimate angle of the projectile in gravity would be downwards.)

 

I think this would have to be before they have laser weapon technology.. or else I think it would just be easier to use the laser weapons.

 

My argument about practicality is that many-a-good ideas never made it to the battlefield because the machines were too delicate or complicated to use. Flying jeeps are an example of this.

 

Narrow cross section. I like that expression. What language is it translated from?

 

Check this site out. It has an exciting story and a video about blended-metal bullets. I can't believe they wasted a good roast on the demo!

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My original complaint about the lasers that I don't think transfered over is that, in order to have a laser cut a path for the bullet, you would have to have a laser lense behind the chamber..  and well behind it because of the high pressure moving parts (VERY high pressure in this rifle).  Then, the laser beam could be no thicker than the barrel itself..  otherwise you would have to have a laserbeam aimed downwards at an angle (I chose downwards because the ultimate angle of the projectile in gravity would be downwards.)

A laser beam from above the barrel, pointing downwards, would provide plasma for most of the flight path; I don't think a laser behind the chamber would be feasible at all.

[...]My argument about practicality is that many-a-good ideas never made it to the battlefield because the machines were too delicate or complicated to use.  Flying jeeps are an example of this.

Flying tanks are the opposite example (well, they didn't make it to serial production, so maybe this isn't a good example). But that's why we are here, munching on the topic to see whether there are problems that cannot be fudged about.

[...]What language is it translated from?

Hungarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saw somthing about a laser guided bullet on discovery, which might fit in nice with this. went and looked for some articles to make sure i was'nt going mad :LOL:

 

http://www.arocket.org/archive/1998/Sep98.txt

http://legendboy1.tripod.com/id40.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, even a simple Laser sight would give a HUGE boost to accuracy for our sniper guys, the kind of thing that was annoyingly frustrating with the original XCOM...

PLEASE!! Let us have cool (and efficient) laser Sights!!

(and let's graft some on the plasma guns too!!) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laser sites are more for CQB where you're aiming without looking through the sites. It allows for very quick target aquisition. I think a better mod for long distance shooting would be an optical site.. and for medium range and CQB applications, a reflex site would be good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, my point is that it would be cool to have the in-game effect of *seing* the little red dot accros the screen, even the red line more in smoke!!

And the snap shot accuracy should reflect that as well, give the human weapons better accuracy at close and aimed range...

Autofire would only be more accurate on laser Weapons, because they have absolutely no recoil :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I'd like to add to this thread, although I haven't read all of it:

 

I believe there should be, if not super powerful weapons or even tradeoffs as you explained above, more specialized weapons to start with in X-Com

 

Pistol = Normal pistol. (probably similar to the .45)

Rifle = Normal Rifle (probably similar to the M4)

Heavy Cannon = Same as xcom

Auto Cannon = Same as xcom

Chain gun = Only capable of auto fire, very inaccurate but capable of firing autofire more times with less time units, and powerful rounds

Sniper rifle = 1 shot, super high damage, aimed fire only, lots of TU's.

Shotgun/Street sweeper/Riot gun = high damage, close range, spread shot, high TU's, high stopping power, capable of auto fire.

 

Another thing I would like to see is 2 forms of ammunition.

 

Hollow point = high stopping power (damage), no penetration

Armor Piercing = Less stopping power, but can pass through walls and flesh, damaging objects/targets behind it

 

As you can imagine this would be extremely fun for spraying down the sides of buildings and killing aliens on the inside.. or if aliens are lined up, dealing damage to his buddy behind him.

 

I would also like to see laser trip mines, remotely detonated charges, better coded proximity mines, and land mines, which would be similar to proximity mines but would have to be "placed" on a target, then walked over to explode, dealing the damage similar to an alien grenade. IC grenades (napalm/molotav) would be cool as well.

 

Door charges would be cool for breaching doorways. (walk next to door, select weapon, "use", charge is placed on door with timer. Walk away. Small explosion, door is gone.)

 

Flashbangs could be fun/interesting.. Breach a door, throw a flashbang in.. All the aliens looking in the direction of the flashbang at the time of explosion would be "blind" (including your teammates) for 1 turn (can you say panic?).

 

Anothing thing I think they took out of Xcom, is hand to hand combat.. You should be able to thump aliens with the butt of your gun.. Or better yet, lance them with a bayonnet.

 

Some equipment should be added as well.. A few things like this maybe:

 

Night vision goggles - Allows units to see "almost" normally during night missions.

Thermal vision - See heat through walls !

Gas mask - be uneffected by stun bombs, and smoke

Bonoculars - Extend the range of vision temporarily.

Personal gauss kits - 1 must be used on self for each fatal wound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just reading up a bit and figured I'd add this, to settle what seems like some confusion:

 

There are rounds that were designed to fragment upon hitting flesh.. They were called Black Talons. They were banned in the US after somebody loaded 2 sub-machine guns with them, walked into an office building, and mowed down 30 civilians back in the mid 90's.

 

Conventionally there are quite a few different round types:

 

FMJ (Full metal jacket) - Pointed for high penetration and velocity, flat headed for smaller calibur stopping power.

 

Hollow point - A small hole in the end, for stopping power as opposed to penetration. Does more external damage. (Leaves a bigger hole)

 

Scatter shot - A plastic tip filled with pellets/bb's.. Used mostly for hunting, although I have known a few gun fanatics who mix them in with hollow point and FMJ's in their .38's.

 

Here's some others that the military uses in their assualt rifles:

 

http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/garand/ammo.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that for xenocide v1, the pistol will be modelled after the hk mk23 and for the rifle we're taking the general shape of the hk g36. For the autocannon we're looking at a clip fed, semi-automatic grenade launcher similar to those proposed for the OICW. For the heavy cannon we're considering a very heavy, 20mm anti-material rifle that is similar in function to the M82 only much heavier.

 

As for now, xenocide is trying to keep all of the xcorps weapons as believable as possible, so I don't think that you'll be seeing the chaingun in the arsenal. I think it would be neat for xcom to have a SAW..although, using the gameplay system in xcom, it would be impossible to emulate suppressing fire. The m249 has an insanely fast fire rate (although games never seem to model it) and would fit a chaingun type of role very well.

 

edit:

 

For the ammo types, you should check out the link I linked to a few posts above regarding blended metal bullets. They are armour piercing but also expasive frangible. They are truly disgusting.

Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very cool ideas, although the proliferation of firearms might not be necessary, I agree that there should be different kinds of Amno for firearms...

I especially like the IC grenade idea :D

And the Night vision googles/Flashbangs are VERY cool too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
As a filler in a harder shell, maybe; otherwise the handling would be difficult and not much speed could be given to the poor thing (it's really soft).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just that it is very light, lighter than water actually. A good and original idea though. It requires some special vulnerability to really function, just filling with explosives, cyanid or bare lead is more useful otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than reinvent a lot of weapons for earth to use, I think Paladin had a good point (think it was another thread if not this one)...Keep the weapons relatively the same, but change its ammo to reflect this increase in power how ever it comes about. Maybe some kind of alien alloy/kevlar hybrid or something can be introduced for stuff requiring things along the lines of bullet ammo. Perhaps something similar could likewise be used to make a more efficient (in terms of weight anyway) grenade round that's mounted to a rifle weapon. Just add a dash of TNT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...