TWRL idea - different type off ammo.

sum1 · Jun 11, 2018

NaffNaffBobFace said:
Hello TESTies, I was just thinking about the Recoil mechanics coming into the game and had an idea for TWRL (TEST Weapons Research Lab).

My idea is for a type of ammo with a low muzzle exit vilocity to minimize recoil improving accuracy... Well what use is that? The difference is in the ammo is two-stage, with a micro-rocket motor which activates after the round is free of the barrel accelerating the rounds to powerful Hyper-Velocites!

The hope is LMV-HV (Low Muzzle Velocity - Hyper Velocity) ammo would bring the gains of high accuracy with the damage advantages of hyper velocity rounds. The guns firing them could also be small and light as they don't have to withstand the forces created by high-charge cartridges Hyper Velocity rounds usually need.

Now, I am a Pacifist who doesn't really know that much about Guns 'n Ammo, but considering this would be 900 years in the future does this sound like it would/could work? Does something like this already exist?

:slight_smile:

As a "guns" guy I am not seeing it. for a lot of reason.
1: real guns do not have much recoil. no matter what people say the current .223, or even the .308 are not hard to handle rifles. so by adding this feature, the first thing you are doing is just making it cost more, and will have no real effect on the almost nonexistent recoil of rifles.
2: cost: by adding a rocket you are making a simple unit cost a LOT more. I don't really see it being affordable for massive usage.
3: Effectiveness: I have hit targets at 800m with a 5.56 NATO round out of an M4. Sniper rifles are able to shoot accurately out beyond what a human can effectively use. We are the bottleneck, not the rifles.
4: would it even work? I don't think so, simply by how a barrel guides the bullet, gets it to spiral, like a football, after it leaves the barrel any outside force, like firing a rocket, could and most likely would, greatly decrease accuracy rather than increase it.
5: the simple solution that would be the closest would be a mini-missile with a guidance system, but even that cost so much that you could only use it on a guy you really wanted dead but did not want to kill anyone else there.

TLDR: just not really practical or needed, with greatly increased production costs. with potentially worse results then a current rifle, the best option is a new weapon system and guidance systems for high-precision targets.

maynard · Jun 11, 2018

^^

what he said

Printimus · Jun 11, 2018

wut....

sum1 · Jun 11, 2018

NaffNaffBobFace said:
Thanks for input, back to the drawing board.

The mini-missile idea is interesting, might be worth the extra money per round if they are self-guided heat-seekers that give you a highly accurate kills-per-shot advantage - there was a heatseeker bullet in the game Dredd Vs Death. (Judge Dredd)

It would be better if it was a laser guided, or something similar to that would let you pick a target, whereas something like heat would be hard to pick and hold a target. I would go look up Javelin missile tec It is very similar to what I think you are looking for (but on an Anti-Tank style weapon).

Beerjerker · Jun 11, 2018

Pretty sure I'm not giving away military secrets (taught me this in Basic 20 some years ago),but that's kind of how the AT4 works. When the missile impacts, it triggers an internal, smaller and much denser missile to fire. First missile gets to armored target, second punches through it.

But those are missiles. @sum1 is right on his point 4, but he's only talking about rifling and there's more than just rifling going on. (Disclaimer: I have not been soldiering in many years, and I wasn't an expert at pew-pew stuff when I was. I may not have the most accurate info.) When the round goes off, the expanding gas is contained in the barrel behind the actual bullet, pushing it forward. The longer the barrel, the more force is transferred into accelerating the bullet, the faster and farther the bullet will go.

Set off a round outside a rifle, you won't have much of any control where it's going, it won't go far, and it won't get there fast. Well, as fast. I still wouldn't recommend trying it at home, of course.

Your idea sounds like gun firing a a bullet sized gun (EDIT: No one will be aiming the bullet sized gun when it goes off, unless you're also firing a tiny little snipper too). Could just come up with a sci-fi explanation of why it works, alien micro transpolarizers and etc.

There was a rocket pistol invented for astronauts, designed around minimizing recoil (I guess so the space man wouldn't theoretically be pushed off into outer space), but it's in the dust bin of kewl ideas that didn't work (missile was too slow and I think could be stopped by putting your hand over the barrel):

(Called the Gyrojet Rocket Ball, I think, if you want to look it up.)

Could happen in a video game though! Don't give up!

Beerjerker · Jun 11, 2018

This guy is gun wizerd:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98c2t_uK5Uo

sum1 · Jun 11, 2018

Beerjerker said:
Pretty sure I'm not giving away military secrets (taught me this in Basic 20 some years ago),but that's kind of how the AT4 works. When the missile impacts, it triggers an internal, smaller and much denser missile to fire. First missile gets to armored target, second punches through it.

But those are missiles. @sum1 is right on his point 4, but he's only talking about rifling and there's more than just rifling going on. (Disclaimer: I have not been soldiering in many years, and I wasn't an expert at pew-pew stuff when I was. I may not have the most accurate info.) When the round goes off, the expanding gas is contained in the barrel behind the actual bullet, pushing it forward. The longer the barrel, the more force is transferred into accelerating the bullet, the faster and farther the bullet will go.

Set off a round outside a rifle, you won't have much of any control where it's going, it won't go far, and it won't get there fast. Well, as fast. I still wouldn't recommend trying it at home, of course.

Your idea sounds like gun firing a a bullet sized gun (EDIT: No one will be aiming the bullet sized gun when it goes off, unless you're also firing a tiny little snipper too). Could just come up with a sci-fi explanation of why it works, alien micro transpolarizers and etc.

There was a rocket pistol invented for astronauts, designed around minimizing recoil (I guess so the space man wouldn't theoretically be pushed off into outer space), but it's in the dust bin of kewl ideas that didn't work (missile was too slow and I think could be stopped by putting your hand over the barrel):
View attachment 9886
(Called the Gyrojet Rocket Ball, I think, if you want to look it up.)

Could happen in a video game though! Don't give up!

Good stuff here, I was just trying to point out that if you are looking for something like what the OP was describing it would be best to dump the gun model altogether and look at it like a rocket, the reason guns are used is they are very good at being both cheap and effective. when you go to a rocket model your ammo cost a lot more. like this...
AK 47: $719.99
7.62x39mm ammo 19¢/rd
Effective Range: 350 m

RPG 7: $900-1,000
a single grenade: $100-200
Effective Range:200 m (rocket would burn out at 500m but would not be able to reliably hit a tank sized target)

I used the AK and RPG because they were both made at the same time, by the same people, and so on. So not 1-1 in comparison but you would have to make a really small rocket, that is going to bring the price up, but you don't have any explosives so that will bring the price down, so we will just call it even. There are other things we could talk about it but I feel most of them would just balance encounter out. So overall you would be paying 500% per rocket, so make it count. and then you still have to do all the R&D just to see if you can get the guidance system that small, and work right, with a near 100% kill rate. and then fix backblast, and then make it affordable to deploy, and durible enough to surive being deployed, and the list goes on.

So overall just no way right now it would be worth it, or effective in any way. If you want to talk sci-fi you can make anything work (because space magic) but Star Citizen is trying to be semi-based on the real world, so they would have to sell it... and I don't see a way to sell it is as effective or easy to use as a gun. the F55 on last weeks ATV was hard enough for me to buy for reasons I will not go into here.

Beerjerker · Jun 11, 2018

Was the F55 the gatling riffle? Pretty silly. Why put sights on it at all if you're going to try to aim something by hand that has motors spinning it around fast enough to look awesome? The new snipper that has the entire barrel on some kind of recoil springs is pretty funny too. Thank goodness for video games.

I'm not overly picky about what they sci-fi up, but I like that they are trying to keep things believable. Please, no magic spells!

Still, I am kind of hoping to see more non-lethal options, especially if death consequences are still planned to have some weight. I think I'd like to dish out some nice guy pwnage for a change. Give me my pump-action net bazooka already, CIG! Give it lots of blinking lights!

Shadow Reaper · Jun 11, 2018

Yeah, I was thinking of the gyrojet too. I would note that the statement that "real guns don't recoil much" is only sometimes true. True "assault rifles" like the M16 use tiny bullets specifically so they will not recoil, and the main argument against the AK 47 has always been it recoils too much for sustained fire. Big game hunters like myself are accustomed to trading off power against recoil. So I can tell you in my own Roosevelts Elk hunting in the past, I traded away the superior ballistics of the 300 Win Mag for a 7mm Rem Mag, because I could practice with the latter all day and not have it hurt my shoulder. If you're under 230 lbs and fire a single box of 300 Win Mag on the range, you'll attest that rifle recoils hard, as does any true sniper rifle. That's why they're made so heavy. No one likes to carry a heavy weapon, but weapons with powerful cartridges do benefit greatly from higher weight.

The reasons the gyrojet design failed were essentially two: the projectiles were prohibitively expensive for a handgun, so it could not reach the consumer base, and the weapon was meant for close combat but was ineffective for close combat since the projectile did not obtain enough velocity until it was well away from the gun. Had the principle of the gyrojet been used in a very long range weapon, it might have seen some success, but probably not much since the barrel was not rifled and the projectile was not accurate--something necessary for long range shooting.

Were someone to try this today, with self-guided projectiles, you could see a very long range weapon with light weight--something both Elk hunters and snipers would value.

The real state of the art in carried firearms is still caseless ammo. If someone can master the issue of pre-ignition for liquid monopropellant enough to make it safe, that would certainly sweep the field and change everything about firearms as we know them. Liquid explosives and propellants have much higher volumetric energy than solids. If you could combine that with removing the need for a case, you would have the ultimate evolution of the ballistic firearm. Imagine assault rifles that carry 300 rounds and therefore in most instances, do not need reloading in combat. People have tried and failed, but I'm sure they'll try again until someone succeeds. Until then, most would agree the H&K caseless G11 will remain the most advanced firearm design to date, despite it has not been picked up. It is still ahead of its time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11

Beerjerker · Jun 11, 2018

NaffNaffBobFace said:
Now there is a thing: Reading the comments on the Reddit one person does point out that as the rocket fuel makes its own oxygen as it burns it should be able to be fired under-water too.

I'd expect Energy Weapons to be most powerful in space, slightly weakened in atmosphere and totally useless in water. Ballistics may be fine in space and atmosphere but again they tend not to be any good in water (remember the mythbusters episode where they proved diving in to water may save you from a hail of bullets).

But the rocket bullet starting with a slow velocity and building up may just be the thing that counters all that if indeed it can be fired under water? Under Water is supposed to be coming in the game, maybe this is how they can do it without going all Gas Harpoon?

I'd bet anything that was designed to work well under water would behave drastically different when not under water. Once the slug enters the water, the water will dictate where it goes more than anything else, I think. Unless you give it a propeller and a rudder too, and I doubt those would be very useful in outer space. Probably best to carry a specialized SCUBA boomstick when you're planning a fishing trip on an alien planet.

But I don't even get how energy weapons are supposed to work in game. Or force fields, or gravity generators, or quantum travel mode...

@DarthMatter would probably have some good input. He's like a mad scientist or something. Haven't heard from him in a minute, maybe he turned into a superhero in an experiment gone awry.

maynard · Jun 11, 2018

Beerjerker said:
But I don't even get how energy weapons are supposed to work in game. Or force fields, or gravity generators, or quantum travel mode...
View attachment 9888

it's simple, really

wilful suspension of disbelief

sum1 · Jun 11, 2018

maynard said:
it's simple, really

wilful suspension of disbelief

Ya like I said. Space Magic

Vavrik · Jul 7, 2018

Some bit of TLDR; here too. Read last paragraph to skip. I read the above comments by the way. some good experience and knowledge in TEST.

Most people who study combat physics in space have pretty much decided plain old musket ballistics is likely the best system. That's an unguided, fast moving projectile, aimed at a target. Yeah you could make the projectile rocket propelled, but doing that makes for an expensive weapon system, without a lot of benefit for the cost.

The effect of the spinning bullet has to do with aerodynamics... for which you need a pretty thick atmosphere for it to work properly. In space, there is no air resistance, and barring another force acting on the round, it'll continue on it's orbital trajectory... until forever or it hits something, which ever comes first. So there's no real need for fancy spinning to keep the trajectory straight, unless you're in an atmosphere. In atmosphere too, you need a bullet shape for maximum aerodynamics. In space, you could fire any shape you wanted. Spheres turn out to be the cheapest.

Now, with a credit card sized computer, and some servo motors, you can fire a round at hyper velocity, and it can pop out fins and accelerate toward it's target steering as it goes, steering itself. In space, that's a lot harder. Missiles and rockets have the same kind of problem space ships have. If you want to turn, you need to add power the direction you want to go in, and cancel the motion in the direction you were originally traveling in. So. Guided missiles burn one hell of a lot of fuel to be guided in space. You have a serious trade-off between warhead size, and guidance.

Now rail guns. You fire a depleted uranium U shaped projectile along a rail. The energy required is pretty high, but you can get some really good velocities from a battery that fits in the trunk of your car. If you have a capitol ship, or space station, mount a rail gun along it's spine. Fire big projectiles, and achieve velocities in the sub relativistic range (0.01 - 0.05 % C is still incredibly fast). Since you have fusion reactors, you don't care about energy consumption, or the supply of depleted uranium. If you've mastered fusion, you just make more. Some cool planetary bombardment capabilities here too if the thing is large enough, or you can get into the low relativistic range (10-20% C)

Nukes: Yeah well. Problem is that's the warhead of the missile that got downsized for the guidance system.

Laser beam weapons are still pretty much in the realm of Sci fi. Problem is, you destroy something by heating it up that way, with coherent light. So a mirror is as good a shield as they get, and cheaper than the laser. It's interesting though, because you shoot, and your target has no warning that it's coming. None whatsoever. They notice it, only it's because it's hitting them, you can track you no matter what they try to get out of the way of the beam within a good fraction of a light second. Except if they deploy a mirror. Then things can literally backfire.

But there's a related technology. Plasma weapons. Straight line, musket style, not a lot of mass, but incredible amounts of energy. Take a musket ball, and turn it into a fast moving ball of plasma. If it hits you, you know it even if it's slow, even if it hits your mirror.

The TLDR;
So. Stick with musket ballistics in space, which can be literally dirt cheap, but includes rail guns and plasma weapons on the expensive side. Leave lasers for mining. In atmosphere, use rifled ballistic weapons or guided weapons. This gives you the best bang for your money.

Vavrik · Jul 7, 2018

Beerjerker said:
But I don't even get how energy weapons are supposed to work in game. Or force fields, or gravity generators, or quantum travel mode...

maynard said:
it's simple, really

wilful suspension of disbelief

So you know how I'm always after CIG for non-Newtonian Newtonian Physics. THEY said it was Newtonian. I called B.S. on that, not even first.

So energy weapons aren't laser beams. Read issue with lasers above. I think they should be particle weapons of some kind. The shots are too dang slow to be light beams.
Force Fields... suspension of belief, yep that does it pretty well.
Gravity Generators are theoretically possible, like in a kind of theoretical mathematical sense, but whatever the solution is we need to know more about what gravity actually is. It's going to be far cheaper in reality to do spin simulated gravity.
Quantum Travel... Now this is something we actually have the math for, and you'd need one powerful fusion reactor to do. We have the math, not the means... Anyway what you do is generate an artificial quantum singularity in front of your ship, say 50,000 Gravities. You, and your ship will begin to fall into the singularity. You'd be essentially in free fall, so would not experience any odd G forces. Then you turn the singularity off before you hit the event horizon, and back on very fast, like a strobe. You'd be traveling at 20%C in very short order, somewhat sped up in the game but they even have the idea of the visible ball in front of your ship. AND if you notice, when you come out of QT in SC, you see the energy ball continue onward. That would actually occur. It's a ball of space dust that was stuck in the event horizon of the singularity being released.
- The only problem is, if they had Newtonian Physics, the acceleration model would be exactly the same as the model they depict in game, except without the complex math to figure it out. They did a video on the math once. My eyes rolled into the back of my head.

TWRL idea - different type off ammo.

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Grand Admiral

Grand Admiral

Space Marshal

Grand Admiral

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Grand Admiral

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal