GUNS, GLORIOUS GUNS

[Ryujin]

I forgot to mention that, if someone were crazy enough, he could fire the Tickler's seven barrels simultaneously and unload all 21 grenades in a matter of three volleys (and then explain to the maintenance chief what happened to his MF's firing arm afterwards).

Just spitballing, but if you really wanted it to work like the pic you could say it used a heavy duty casing that was locked into place to complete the breech, and it had a gas piston timed to release the latch and blow the shell out the back.

Basically this. Also a sleeve/trapdoor thingie operated by the same system to feed a new shell into the chamber after the spent one's blown out the back, coupled with a good dose of FUTURE! advances in materials science & manufacturing techniques for the "let's make it sound like it's actually feasible" part.

And I stand corrected. It wasn't Soren but Ryujin here. And when it comes to "official canon" on tech specs for weapons, it doesn't get much more official than Mr. Gan himself. Thanks for peeking in on our little discussion here, Ryujin.

Well, not really; Soren's & Joshua's word always supercede mine. I basically pitch ideas & it's up to them whether to run with it or not.

[Soren]

Well, not really; Soren's & Joshua's word always supercede mine. I basically pitch ideas & it's up to them whether to run with it or not.

I suspect you and I read a lot of the same stuff, and in this case your answers are at least as authoritative as mine would be - if not better, especially regarding things you drew.

Frame-scale automatic weapons are typically revolver cannon in the 25-30mm range, firing conventional cased ammunition at around 450-750 rpm; usually electrically-fired, and sometimes with more exotic propellants than nitrocellulose, but nothing a modern tank armorer couldn't figure out in an afternoon. Simple cheap reliable stuff. Some unguided rocket launchers use gyrojet-style ammunition for simplicity and to achieve a higher rate of fire.

Railguns: I love me a good railgun, but they're support weapons due to rate of fire and power supply issues. The main advantage of a railgun on land is penetration, and there's not much need for that. They're mostly used as long-range artillery and spacecraft weapons.

Coilguns: the biggest advantage to a coilgun is that Free Colony cells with access to a lot of industrial power-switching gear can make weapons that will throw cheap, inert ferrous ammunition. Otherwise, lots of the same problems as railguns for not much advantage.

Caseless ammunition: Atavism has it in one; fractionally beneficial in certain corner cases, big disadvantages in logistics and handling safety. It's easier to cook off caseless ammo during sustained fire, it's harder to keep it shelf-stable or salvage it if it gets wet, it degrades more rapidly over time, it's harder to manufacture, etc. There are probably a few weapons with combustible/consumable casings, disposable weapons or magazines that are factory-packed, but as there's little need for higher rates of fire against land targets and lasers are more effective against aircraft (and where they're not, missiles work just fine), not many of them.

[CmdrRook]

I spoke with Joshua over lunch on Friday, and his response to the topic falls in line with the above reasoning, saying that caseless ammo's advantages in increasing mechanical reliability and lowering weight of ammo and weaponry are over-burdened by CONTEMPORARY limitations and draw-backs, resulting in the weapons being perpetually stuck in the Prototype phase. No telling what the future would hold, though. In his words it seemed "More of a TTM thing," who would have the money and influence to gate their ammo around with them, before adding; "but how many AK-47s were used against the USSR?"

I hadn't thought about it that way. If these weapons fell into Free Colonist hands, and were found to have enough of an advantage to justify converting their tools and manufacturing processes to accommodate them, why wouldn't they? While AKs and their ammo were technically conventional designs based off of the STG-44 concept from Germany, it had a global impact on weapon design, philosophy of use, and availability, with a variety of adaptations and clones from under-equipped countries hoping to close the gap on this- literally- revolutionary weapon. When the USSR introduced the rifle, the rest of armed society scrambled to keep up. Joshua insinuated that something similar could reasonably happen with caseless weapons in the Solar Calender.

[Atavism]

I spoke with Joshua over lunch on Friday, and his response to the topic falls in line with the above reasoning, saying that caseless ammo's advantages in increasing mechanical reliability and lowering weight of ammo and weaponry are over-burdened by CONTEMPORARY limitations and draw-backs, resulting in the weapons being perpetually stuck in the Prototype phase. No telling what the future would hold, though. In his words it seemed "More of a TTM thing," who would have the money and influence to gate their ammo around with them, before adding; "but how many AK-47s were used against the USSR?"

I hadn't thought about it that way. If these weapons fell into Free Colonist hands, and were found to have enough of an advantage to justify converting their tools and manufacturing processes to accommodate them, why wouldn't they? While AKs and their ammo were technically conventional designs based off of the STG-44 concept from Germany, it had a global impact on weapon design, philosophy of use, and availability, with a variety of adaptations and clones from under-equipped countries hoping to close the gap on this- literally- revolutionary weapon. When the USSR introduced the rifle, the rest of armed society scrambled to keep up. Joshua insinuated that something similar could reasonably happen with caseless weapons in the Solar Calender.

I agree that it would be totally reasonable to field units with caseless weapons either captured from enemies or looted from depots, with the caveat that they're on a timed life due to captured parts and ammo availability.

The AK-47 analogy doesn't really work for caseless weapons. The reason the AK is so popular is that it could be manufactured successfully (or at least cloned badly) without the level of close-tolerance machining found in first-world manufacture, so any country with a basic level of modern industry could make them. (Not to mention the huge piles of surplus rifles, and the USSR handing them out to their foreign proxies). The AK is remarkably simple, and ubiquitous, and can continue to function despite poor maintenance and adverse conditions. It is basically the opposite of caseless weapons in every way.

I'd argue that if colonists were able to simply convert their tools and manufacturing process to accommodate reverse-engineered caseless weapons, why doesn't everybody have them anyway?

[CmdrRook]

I agree that it would be totally reasonable to field units with caseless weapons either captured from enemies or looted from depots, with the caveat that they're on a timed life due to captured parts and ammo availability.

The AK-47 analogy doesn't really work for caseless weapons. The reason the AK is so popular is that it could be manufactured successfully (or at least cloned badly) without the level of close-tolerance machining found in first-world manufacture, so any country with a basic level of modern industry could make them. (Not to mention the huge piles of surplus rifles, and the USSR handing them out to their foreign proxies). The AK is remarkably simple, and ubiquitous, and can continue to function despite poor maintenance and adverse conditions. It is basically the opposite of caseless weapons in every way.

I'd argue that if colonists were able to simply convert their tools and manufacturing process to accommodate reverse-engineered caseless weapons, why doesn't everybody have them anyway?

A good series of assertions, but I should point out that one of the goals of developing caseless firearms is to reduce the number of moving parts inside a weapon to create a more reliable platform. Again, modern technology and design has not yet supplied such a system, but in the fictional futuristic setting, who knows? For a combat group who has to gate away from their base of operations and may not return for repairs and refits until the conflict is over, this would be a good option, compounded by a lighter system and ammunition. Alternatively, having the near-universally-available cased ammunition would remove the necessity of having to return home to resupply.

I expanded upon the AK comparison because at the time, it was a huge jump forward in weapons tech that had everyone stumbling to catch up. If, in theory, another huge innovation (such as a polished caseless weapon) were to be introduced, a similar effect, even among the technologically limited outer colonies, might not be unreasonable. Capturing and reverse-engineering a weapon could completely shift the balance of power in a system, altering everyone's priorities to mimicking the technology so that they aren't left behind. A reach of a comparison, but it's the best I have.

[Soren]

If your answer to making your weapon less complex and more reliable is to make your ammunition more complex and less reliable, you haven't made your weapon less complex or more reliable.

[CmdrRook]

If your answer to making your weapon less complex and more reliable is to make your ammunition more complex and less reliable, you haven't made your weapon less complex or more reliable.

Nothing but the cold, hard truth. A bit of a limited mind-set for an IP that demands a suspension of disbelief in terms of FTL travel, though. It'd be much simpler to create a waterproof, heat-resistant compound with enough reactive properties to propel a hunk of misc at super-sonic speeds than to push any amount of mass super-luminal.

[Atavism]

If your answer to making your weapon less complex and more reliable is to make your ammunition more complex and less reliable, you haven't made your weapon less complex or more reliable.

Nothing but the cold, hard truth. A bit of a limited mind-set for an IP that demands a suspension of disbelief in terms of FTL travel, though. It'd be much simpler to create a waterproof, heat-resistant compound with enough reactive properties to propel a hunk of misc at super-sonic speeds than to push any amount of mass super-luminal.

I'm all for "the future is wonderful" answers to any sort of sci-fi tech stuff. I think, though, that there is a difference between this sort of hand-waving for big physics-intensive stuff like FTL travel and little stuff like guns and cars- especially in universes like Mf0 which are, in my understanding, still pretty mechanically constrained despite some advances in high-energy fields like the gates and anti-grav. Transit gates are plot tools that need to function a specific way to inform how things work in the universe, but the day-to-day stuff is kept real and limited so the world feels authentic.

I think if you wanted to write-in caseless stuff nobody would call shenanigans, but at the same time if you want to discuss logistical and technical implications of firearms technology in a real(ish) way it's kind of rude to turn around and point at the transit gate and ask for a pass.

[Mantisking]

If your answer to making your weapon less complex and more reliable is to make your ammunition more complex and less reliable, you haven't made your weapon less complex or more reliable.

Nothing but the cold, hard truth. A bit of a limited mind-set for an IP that demands a suspension of disbelief in terms of FTL travel, though. It'd be much simpler to create a waterproof, heat-resistant compound with enough reactive properties to propel a hunk of misc at super-sonic speeds than to push any amount of mass super-luminal.

CmdrRook, consider this a warning. Attack the argument, not the person.

[CmdrRook]

CmdrRook, consider this a warning. Attack the argument, not the person.

I can insist that my intention was neither, but instead I'll just apologize for being insensitive.

[MoronicCinamun]

Apologies for not responding much to my own thread, but I have been appreciating and soaking in the vast quantity of info and insight here.

I guess at the end of the day, the answer is "it's made of bloody lego who cares"; I see stuff like "laser railguns" and such that are pretty much sci-fi techno-babble jargon. but I am seeing cased rounds in a better light now. I guess I just wanted to be unique and special, and relive my Aliens fantasies *shrugs*

this does lead me to a sort of similar question though: What caliber are these weapons, on average? I guess I could math it out by measuring the legos by plates and comparing that to size of the average man (I believe that is what "7p" is in reference to). I understand a lot of creative license is to be used, since lego parts don't really come in large variety of diameters; I main one that comes to mind is the thickness of a rod/pole/stick. I do not know too much about such measuerments, but I would assume by necessity the "stud end" hole of a round 1x1 brick would be ever so slightly larger. I guess the size of your standard "technic hole" is probably worth knowing too.
I ask because I certainly want some realism of scale, even if what's coming out of the hole is nonsense
I see measurements around the forum from 45mm for a cylinder hole to 105mm for about 'rod' thickness (though to be fair, they may have been using different scales, but I assume if no scale is given it's probably 7p).

[Soren]

There's no reason you can't; it'd be unusual, but we have crazier stuff. I have opinions about the plausibility of lots of things, but those aren't binding if you have a cool-looking idea and you want to run with it.

I generally assume it's anywhere from 12.7mm machine guns up to the 75mm pack-howitzer / 81mm mortar range; you can measure and come up with (insane) figures, but I go for whatever shape looks best and justify it later, and I assume other people will do the same. At 7p/4p scale most options that look good are out of scale (although this part is handy if you want a really tiny barrel on something).

(I bit back a nastygram re; Mr. 'limited mindset' up there - don't mistake my unwillingness to gnaw on your bones in public for a win, kid.)

[CmdrRook]

Apologies for not responding much to my own thread, but I have been appreciating and soaking in the vast quantity of info and insight here.

I guess at the end of the day, the answer is "it's made of bloody lego who cares"; I see stuff like "laser railguns" and such that are pretty much sci-fi techno-babble jargon. but I am seeing cased rounds in a better light now. I guess I just wanted to be unique and special, and relive my Aliens fantasies *shrugs*

this does lead me to a sort of similar question though: What caliber are these weapons, on average? I guess I could math it out by measuring the legos by plates and comparing that to size of the average man (I believe that is what "7p" is in reference to). I understand a lot of creative license is to be used, since lego parts don't really come in large variety of diameters; I main one that comes to mind is the thickness of a rod/pole/stick. I do not know too much about such measuerments, but I would assume by necessity the "stud end" hole of a round 1x1 brick would be ever so slightly larger. I guess the size of your standard "technic hole" is probably worth knowing too.
I ask because I certainly want some realism of scale, even if what's coming out of the hole is nonsense
I see measurements around the forum from 45mm for a cylinder hole to 105mm for about 'rod' thickness (though to be fair, they may have been using different scales, but I assume if no scale is given it's probably 7p).

I can only give insight to my own process for scaling and calibers. I shoot for an end-goal in my project, such as a minigun/ auto-cannon/ tank main gun; and use pieces that seem to be appropriately-sized for the frame I am featuring them on. Smaller, high-speed weapons fall into the 20-30mm range in my head-canon. Medium-bore cannons fall between the 40-60mm range. Artillery pieces generally size 80+mm. Hell, my frame-sized RPG-7 knock-off's warhead was 30cm, a scale closer to a guided bomb than a rocket-propelled grenade.

I'd say the latter example sits on the extreme end of a 1x1 round brick's potential diameter, and possibly outside it all-together. Smaller cannons are a bit harder for me to narrow down. I use stud-to-technic-rod connectors as flash-hiders on my 35mm cannons, but that's specifically exaggerated to make it look more dangerous. Technic Sticks are a favorite of mine to use as artillery, but a majority of the piece is a shaft's thickness, assuredly placing it's maximum caliber well below 100mm in 7p scale. The closest I think I've gotten to actual scale is using a minifig slotted screwdriver as the barrel and muzzle-break for a 20mm cannon on an IFV, which necks down to sub-shaft diameter before flaring back out.

I'd say using math to break down the 7p into actual units of measurement is the closest thing you'll get to determining a "true" sense of scale, but lego resolution is so finicky to begin with, you'll have to make some sacrifices when it comes to sizing out a weapon piece.

Soren: I appreciate your expertise, candor, and grace in the face of my moody comments. Thank you for sparing my dignity any further damage than what I've already done.

[Sovietshadow]

You can really use whatever size you want, but i follow a (mostly) set path:
Technic "+" rod (as a gatling): .50 cal-20mm
Rod: 30mm-39mm
technic connector (also the same size as the top of round bricks): 40mm-50mm
Technic "+" rod (as artillery): 60mm-70mm
technic "+" rod-to-rod connector: 80mm-90mm
bottom of round brick: 100mm+

[MoronicCinamun]

I can only give insight to my own process for scaling and calibers. I shoot for an end-goal in my project, such as a minigun/ auto-cannon/ tank main gun; and use pieces that seem to be appropriately-sized for the frame I am featuring them on.

That is basically what I have been doing I guess. Build what looks "cool' and easy to distinguish on the battlefield (which is what really matters I'd argue ). I don't have actual measurements, just "vague terms" like "this is a small caliber, high RoF minigun" or "this is a moderate caliber standard slug throwing MG" or "this is high caliber grenade launcher" etc. etc.

As was said, we can't really be "Realistic" since the parts don't really come that way.

Also, I'm not too sure what you guys mean with the "using a technic rod as an artillery piece", I think some pics would help for that
I tend to not use "+" shafts for barrels as they just feel too weird, although I do use it for very small caliber high RoF miniguns (like I and others mentioned above!), an idea I certainly stole from others here.

[Red_Robot]

If the end-all-be-all of gun tech is to reduce the number of moving parts...then everyone would just use lasers, right? Depending on what you're using as a focusing aperture you're going to have few to no moving parts. No ammo to tote around, or to worry about pushing through a transit gate. Laser guns solve a lot of problems. But of course, like with most technology, those solutions come with a whole new set of problems: power sources, cooling issues, and advanced manufacturing and technical expertise. Circumstances often dictate what is the best solution.

this does lead me to a sort of similar question though: What caliber are these weapons, on average? I guess I could math it out by measuring the legos by plates and comparing that to size of the average man (I believe that is what "7p" is in reference to). I understand a lot of creative license is to be used, since lego parts don't really come in large variety of diameters...

Any time you get into miniatures you start dealing with certain distortions of scale. This is why most fantasy and historical minis wield spears that at 1:1 scale would be the thickness of fence posts. Techniques and materials limit what can be accomplished. Building with LEGO is a bit like drawing with pixels. We're going for suggestions of things really more than precise scale representations. The medium is both limiting and forgiving in this way. It's like impressionist art.

I guess at the end of the day, the answer is "it's made of bloody lego who cares"; I see stuff like "laser railguns" and such that are pretty much sci-fi techno-babble jargon. but I am seeing cased rounds in a better light now. I guess I just wanted to be unique and special, and relive my Aliens fantasies *shrugs*

In my Ijad faction, I have an artillery scrambler that uses a linear photonic array. In my head, it's like a particle accelerator that uses photons. How is this different from a laser? I don't know. Would it even work? I don't know. But I do know I like glowie transparent neon green and aliens.

I have an original frame that is meant to fill a high-end milspec role. It carries a weapon for space combat that is basically a needle rifle. It has a bin of inert sabotted bolts that are fired by ignition of a separate liquid fuel. It can also fire little rockets or gyrojet rounds in appropriate atmosphere. In principle, it works like a glorified spud gun. I doubt very much anyone else looking at my toys would discern this, beyond knowing "it's a robot with a gun."

If you want James Cameron space marines in Masamune Shirow inspired mecha lit dramatically by the muzzle flashes of their screaming assault rifles...then do that. Heck, I'd like to see that. I doubt very much anyone would kick you out of the Solar Calendar for it. Play with your toys how you want.

[MoronicCinamun]

Any time you get into miniatures you start dealing with certain distortions of scale. This is why most fantasy and historical minis wield spears that at 1:1 scale would be the thickness of fence posts. Techniques and materials limit what can be accomplished. Building with LEGO is a bit like drawing with pixels. We're going for suggestions of things really more than precise scale representations. The medium is both limiting and forgiving in this way. It's like impressionist art.

That is an excellent point I never really noticed. Not with the spears and such at least, but it does explain why in 40k for example a Heavy Bolter is 1 (or in some sources .998) caliber, but other sources, as well as most depictions and the miniatures themselves, describe/show the bolts as "fist sized", and I guarantee that a fist, even a normal not augmented power armored first, has a "diameter" greater than one inch. I guess it's mainly the miniatures, like you said, don't quite match the scale, while most art and such is based on the actual miniatures, not fluffy writing.

I have an original frame that is meant to fill a high-end milspec role. It carries a weapon for space combat that is basically a needle rifle. It has a bin of inert sabotted bolts that are fired by ignition of a separate liquid fuel. It can also fire little rockets or gyrojet rounds in appropriate atmosphere. In principle, it works like a glorified spud gun. I doubt very much anyone else looking at my toys would discern this, beyond knowing "it's a robot with a gun."

Do you mean like a 40k Needle gun? Because that's what it sounds like, rather than a Halo-needle gun. That does make sense though, I linked earlier in here "light gas guns", which use gases such as hydrogen in a separate tank much like a spud gun, since the faster rate of combustion allows for higher max velocities than powder.
Of course, normal guns do for the most part work in space, but I can certainly dig that you'd want a higher velocity due to the extreme amount of SPACE between you and the target.

[CmdrRook]

Also, I'm not too sure what you guys mean with the "using a technic rod as an artillery piece", I think some pics would help for that

These bad-boys. Pictured here with aforementioned stud-to-rod connectors featured once-again as flash-hiders.



Ah, laser weapons. According to Joshua, his favorite gun in the lore is the Re-purposed Industrial Laser. They are, by all means, the most adaptable and fool-proof weapon available. They work the same in space as they do in atmo, certain wave-lengths can even be used effectively underwater. They have no moving parts. However, they are extremely energy intensive. Even the most powerful cutting lasers we posses require lots of time on-target to melt through plastics and metals. The "Mobile" Tactical High Energy Laser requires a separate vehicle dedicated to powering the thing. Pulse-lasers and capacitors are quickly closing the gap between what we have, and the sci-fi weapons of tomorrow, luckily. What a time to be alive.

[Edit: used a URL instead of an IMG tag. Fixed.]

[MoronicCinamun]

Also, I'm not too sure what you guys mean with the "using a technic rod as an artillery piece", I think some pics would help for that

These bad-boys. Pictured here with aforementioned stud-to-rod connectors featured once-again as flash-hiders.



Ah, laser weapons. According to Joshua, his favorite gun in the lore is the Re-purposed Industrial Laser. They are, by all means, the most adaptable and fool-proof weapon available. They work the same in space as they do in atmo, certain wave-lengths can even be used effectively underwater. They have no moving parts. However, they are extremely energy intensive. Even the most powerful cutting lasers we posses require lots of time on-target to melt through plastics and metals. The "Mobile" Tactical High Energy Laser requires a separate vehicle dedicated to powering the thing. Pulse-lasers and capacitors are quickly closing the gap between what we have, and the sci-fi weapons of tomorrow, luckily. What a time to be alive.

[Edit: used a URL instead of an IMG tag. Fixed.]

Oh those, yes I love those although I find them to be TOO big for most things I want to use them for
And yes, the lasers. I've done lots of research on laser weapons, most recently on Atomic Rockets; I seriously recommend this site for realistic scifi techy stuff.
The current "sustained beam to slowly heat/cut target" type weapons are definitely the lowest tier of laser weaponry. A constant micro-second pulsed beam is even better.
I'm not sure if it will actually be better, but I tend (fluff wise) towards shorter, higher energy pulses; it certainly makes intuitive sense that having the same amount of energy coming out in a shorter period of time will lead to greater damage, plus it makes it more like a modern "rifle" in terms of "rate of fire", making them sensible . Of course, what I see as the best laser weapon to use as a system is something akin to a 40k Lascannon or Halo Spartan Laser

[Hackjob]

I keep meaning to post on this thread, so I hope I'm not throwing gas on a fire that was going out. I'm suprised how many people don't think caseless ammunition would be readily available hundreds of years in the future. Especially since it already exists now, sure it's not pofitable to make yet, but way ahead of current weaponized lasers. The advances of firearm technology in the last 200 years have been staggering. Untill the 1820's flintlocks were the norm for military issue, when the pecussion cap made guns more reliable. Cartidges as we know them didn't even exist untill the mid 1800's. Ironically some of the first self-contained cartridges were paper and burned up upon firing making them "semi-caseless" ammunition! In fact I feel a more modern approach to semi-caseless with a destroyed/disposable polymer case could possibly be the most common. If you factor in Moore's "law" to computing power (used in chemistry and design developmnet) I don't see how caseless ammunition would not be feasable. Now I will admit the look and sound of brass pouring out of a machinegun is pretty neat. There is a scene in the movie Blackhawk Down where a minigun fires from a helicopter and rains spent shells down on the friendlies under it. So if this floats your boat, go for it!
(Frame by Soren)

But don't tell me caseless ammo wouldn't be around, 'cause it totally would.

And on the subject of "what would bullets look like" DPU ammo is extra-killy.