We're Gonna Need Guns

[gewing]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

Do you post at Tanknet too?

 

Yeah, I tried taping Roughnecks, but they kept shuffling the sequence inside the 2 hour block of cartoons that played starting at 4:00 AM!!

Seemed pretty damn good.

 

 

 

 

I agree with your thoughts on the XM-8, the AR family has been developed into a really nice gun, so of course lets get something new. This does seem to be straying more into something I'd expect to see at tanknet.

 

As for the Starship Troopers reference, heve you seen the animated (computer generated) series? It was a Sat morning kids show that is far superior to the movies (can you believe they made a second one) its caled Roughneck chronicles and is out on DVD (6 or 7 of them), it has some obvious ties to the movies but is much better done and is closer to the book, there were also some bits that I am pretty sure were influenced by other good sci fi, one episode reminds me of some of the Bolo storys.

[Toadmaster]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

I mostly lurk over at Tanknet but I do occasionally post under my secret identity (Aaronw) shhh, don't tell anyone or I'll have to send an elite toad hit squad after you.

 

The Roughnecks are on DVD now, I think there are 7 total, each about 1.5 hours, I got all of mine for about $20 each, Amazon was carrying them at one point, don't know if they still are. There was a pretty good computer game for Starship troopers too (big surprise it was better than the movie as well). Really don't know why it fell of the face of TV, about the only thing I've seen recently that I liked as much has been Samurai Jack which is obviously a slightly differant genre.

[CorpCommander]

DU .50 cal rounds

 

"I haven't seen anything about FIELDED Depleted Uranium rounds for the .50 cal."

 

I spoke last year with a Marine who was using this ammunition and said its a godsend. Extreme penetration capabilities. Does a number on APC's and hard cover. As far as he was concerened hard cover like bricks and earth stop every small calibur bullet out there but the DU .50's could penerate. He was in for over 10 years and had decent experience with a wide variety of weapons.

 

Also, if the Marine Corp is getting it then every armed forces group has it - the Marines are tough but they get the worst junk when it comes to weapons usually. Unless its dangerous/untested - then the Marines get it first. or so I am told. :-)

 

I personally haven't seen it in action but I respect his opinion and he felt was exceptionally effective. YMMV.

 

Oh and on another subject, someone earlier mentioned a M203 GL being used at a range of 7 feet. This has to have been a mistype. The leathal radius for the standard dual purpose round is greater than that and also the round has a mechanism that uses its rotation to figure out how far it has traveled. It won't unsafe until its gone at around 10 meters. There was a famous case of an M203 going off indoors during the 1st Gulf War. It hit a wall and went dud because of this mechanism. Perhaps the subject in question was 27-37 feet away.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

Little Quibble... IMO the xm8 isn't worth the cost of replacing the M-16 and retraining everyone from the grunts to thte armorers.

The basic unit armorers course is one week, it won't take much to retrain people on a new weapon.

 

All we do is train, that is all our job is when we are in garrison. So, again, retraining won't take much.

 

It is a little lighter, and a little easier to clean. Yippee. The standard barrel length is shorter, it will decrease the effective range of the weapon for most troops, and shorten the range at which the bullet performs optimally on impact.

Lighter isn't that big a deal to me, especially when all we're talking about is a pound or two, I'd rather see them start reducing the ridiculous combat load they are requiring light infantry to hump with. It being easier to clean is a big deal for me. As is, the M-16 is a royal pain and if the XM-8 is designed to be easier to clean, bring it on down.

 

Everything I've read has it having variable barrel lengths. As is, we only train to shoot out to 300m (250m with the M-16A1). That is about the limit for me to hit, the sight-post is as wide as the target silouette at that range. But, as I was saying, longer barrels will be available for better range I'm sure, it'll depend on the mission.

 

What I find most appealing about the XM-8 is the ability to rechamber it for 7.62mm, maybe this will usher in the return of rounds that pack a punch and penetrating power.

 

Also, they've run test ranges where they shot upwards of 15,000 rounds without cleaning without suffering a single jam. That is something to speak in the weapons favor and makes it leap quite a bit over the M-16 IMO.

 

As to cost, this is the Army were speaking about here. They can afford this and it'll most likely be spaced out of a period of years. We still have guard units that are still fielding M16A1s for crying out loud.

 

If they had gone to more of a bullpup with little bit of stock length adjustment for fitting with or without body armor, I would have been more excited.

I don't see the advantage to having a bullpup design. I see it as creating a great difficulty reloading from the prone while under fire.

 

If they want to cut weight, they could go to the Carbon Fiber receivers from Bushmaster on the M-16. If they want to make it easier to clean, HK also has started manufacturing a new upper that is piston, rather than direct gas impingement operated.

Both of these options would entail costs. Costs that don't strike me as being all that much different then just replacing the M16 as a whole.

 

I REALLY don't see what is so special about the XM-8, unless you want the troops to look like they are out of "starship troopers the abomination"

I doubt the current plastic outer coverings will last all that long. They strike me as unneeded and just wasted material (extra weight). The underlying weapon I'm sure does not look that different from a standard military rifle.

 

TB

[Toadmaster]

Re: DU .50 cal rounds

 

Oh and on another subject' date=' someone earlier mentioned a M203 GL being used at a range of 7 feet. This has to have been a mistype. The leathal radius for the standard dual purpose round is greater than that and also the round has a mechanism that uses its rotation to figure out how far it has traveled. It won't unsafe until its gone at around 10 meters. There was a famous case of an M203 going off indoors during the 1st Gulf War. It hit a wall and went dud because of this mechanism. Perhaps the subject in question was 27-37 feet away.[/quote']

 

I didn't see where the 7 foot reference was but early on the 40mm HE came in two types the M381 with a 3 meter minimum range and the M406 with a 14 meter minimum range. The M381 was intended for use in urban areas where 14 meters might be too far, but I don't think it lasted long since as you mentioned 3 meters is still dangerous to the shooter. Or it might have been a typo .

[CorpCommander]

grenades

 

I didn't see where the 7 foot reference was but early on the 40mm HE came in two types the M381 with a 3 meter minimum range and the M406 with a 14 meter minimum range. The M381 was intended for use in urban areas where 14 meters might be too far' date=' but I don't think it lasted long since as you mentioned 3 meters is still dangerous to the shooter. Or it might have been a typo .[/quote']

 

3 meters? Holy Crap. They aren't fire crackers if you've ever seen one go off. 14 meters sounds familiar. Often times you are in one part of a building, firing through and apeture at another part of the building, something in the street or into a building across the way. The problem is when you accidentally strike the apperature. Also there is the problem of the itchy trigger finger (which happens on my mouse hand all the time for some wierd reason.) You don't want an accidental firing to make for a bad day in your platoon. I recently read about a guy in Iraq that had his grenades prepped for easy pulling off of his gear (theres a little more to it than just pulling the pin as you can imagine.) Anyway he accidentally knocked one off of his vest. What can you do? He had to jump on it.

 

My only experience with grenades was in Paintball - thankfully - and both times I hated it. One resulted in 2 Friendly Fire casualties and the other was when an enemy grenade ended up in my trench. My "buddy" used me as a stepping ladder to get out whilst yelling "Grenade!". Turns out the grenade wasn't fully armed at the time and I managed to set it right and let it go back at the enemy. We shot them on the run as they aborted and dodged the round! I do understand that trained usage of grenades in real life produces better results.

[gewing]

Re: DU .50 cal rounds

 

I would BET CASH that there has been no Fielded DU ammo. DS (discarding sabot)is used in the SLAP round, a 330 grain (iirc) tungsten .30 caliber slug screaming out of the barrel at over 4400 fps, will punch something like 3/4 inch at a 45 degree angle at 850meters. The normal API will do that at maybe 100meters.

 

I have heard that the 40mm grenade launcher causes HORRIFIC wounds if it hits a person before it arms. 40mm holes through the person.

 

there was a Ranger who survived a hit from an RPG 7 during Grenada. It hit his body armor, was a dud, and knocked him through a wall. He did live though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I spoke last year with a Marine who was using this ammunition and said its a godsend. Extreme penetration capabilities. Does a number on APC's and hard cover. As far as he was concerened hard cover like bricks and earth stop every small calibur bullet out there but the DU .50's could penerate. He was in for over 10 years and had decent experience with a wide variety of weapons.

 

Also, if the Marine Corp is getting it then every armed forces group has it - the Marines are tough but they get the worst junk when it comes to weapons usually. Unless its dangerous/untested - then the Marines get it first. or so I am told. :-)

 

I personally haven't seen it in action but I respect his opinion and he felt was exceptionally effective. YMMV.

 

Oh and on another subject, someone earlier mentioned a M203 GL being used at a range of 7 feet. This has to have been a mistype. The leathal radius for the standard dual purpose round is greater than that and also the round has a mechanism that uses its rotation to figure out how far it has traveled. It won't unsafe until its gone at around 10 meters. There was a famous case of an M203 going off indoors during the 1st Gulf War. It hit a wall and went dud because of this mechanism. Perhaps the subject in question was 27-37 feet away.

[gewing]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

We shot out to 350 meters in the Army back in basic in 83.

 

Remember the 7.62 it can be chambered for is 7.62x39.

 

 

 

 

 

The basic

unit armorers course is one week, it won't take much to retrain people on a new weapon.

 

All we do is train, that is all our job is when we are in garrison. So, again, retraining won't take much.

 

Lighter isn't that big a deal to me, especially when all we're talking about is a pound or two, I'd rather see them start reducing the ridiculous combat load they are requiring light infantry to hump with. It being easier to clean is a big deal for me. As is, the M-16 is a royal pain and if the XM-8 is designed to be easier to clean, bring it on down.

 

Everything I've read has it having variable barrel lengths. As is, we only train to shoot out to 300m (250m with the M-16A1). That is about the limit for me to hit, the sight-post is as wide as the target silouette at that range. But, as I was saying, longer barrels will be available for better range I'm sure, it'll depend on the mission.

 

What I find most appealing about the XM-8 is the ability to rechamber it for 7.62mm, maybe this will usher in the return of rounds that pack a punch and penetrating power.

 

Also, they've run test ranges where they shot upwards of 15,000 rounds without cleaning without suffering a single jam. That is something to speak in the weapons favor and makes it leap quite a bit over the M-16 IMO.

 

As to cost, this is the Army were speaking about here. They can afford this and it'll most likely be spaced out of a period of years. We still have guard units that are still fielding M16A1s for crying out loud.

 

I don't see the advantage to having a bullpup design. I see it as creating a great difficulty reloading from the prone while under fire.

 

Both of these options would entail costs. Costs that don't strike me as being all that much different then just replacing the M16 as a whole.

 

I doubt the current plastic outer coverings will last all that long. They strike me as unneeded and just wasted material (extra weight). The underlying weapon I'm sure does not look that different from a standard military rifle.

 

TB

[CorpCommander]

DU rounds

 

Lets be specific. DU rounds are those utilizing U-238 (aka Uranium Hexafloride, aka UF6.)

 

Several watchdog groups have been complaining about the environmental impact of DU. I was surprised to see that there is a 7.62 DU round! They also come in 20, 25, 30, 105 and 120mm sizes.

 

I would not be surprised if these small calibur rounds have an 'X' designation in front of them. The flechete round for the M-79 was widely deployed in Vietnam and retained the 'X' designation for several years. The difference between it being "offically" deployed or not was really a matter of paperwork. According to DoD at the time it was in field tests. Some field test when you are shipping tons of munitions over to a combat zone!

 

Anyway that said, I actually can't find *any* ammo designation even for the experimental version of the ammo in question. My conclusion is it isn't as wide spread as I had believed before I looked into it. I couldn't even find anything official on the Barrett having a DU round. The 'watchdog' groups mentioned above lost me with thier screaming rhetoric so now I am begining to doubt them as well. I will go back to my source and see what he has to say on the subject matter.

[Metaphysician]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

I hope the "watchdogs" at least aren't complaining about radioactivity. DU is about as hot as lead, to the best of my knowledge.

 

Now, it is *toxic*. . .

[Barton]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

I hope the "watchdogs" at least aren't complaining about radioactivity. DU is about as hot as lead, to the best of my knowledge.

 

Now, it is *toxic*. . .

DU is very mildly radioactive, for all practical purposes it is not "radioactive" in a radiation hazard sense. Urianium is toxic, how toxic is a matter of debate. My college training was in biochemistry and radiobiology. DU is not a radiation hazard and it is UNCLEAR that it is an eviromental hazard.

[Toadmaster]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

Hey, here's one for those that think the .50 cal is too whimpy

 

Found it here

 

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htweap

 

to make it easy I copied it below

 

 

WEAPONS OF THE WORLD: The 25mm Sniper Rifle

 

August 12, 2004: For some long-range sniper missions, a .50 caliber (12.7mm) round just isn’t big enough. Barrett, the evangelists of the modern .50 caliber sniper rifle, have built a 25mm sniper rifle (although shoulder cannon may be a more precise term), the XM109. Ten prototype weapons are being made available for testing this month. Designed to destroy light armor, the XM109 is a semi-automatic 25mm rifle that has a 17.6 inch long barrel and an overall length of 46 inches. It weighs in at 46 pounds and has a 5 round magazine. In comparison, the Barrett M107 .50 caliber sniper rifle in general use today has a 29 inch barrel, overall length of 57 inches, and weighs in at a mere 32 pounds, with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds.

 

A spiked bipod is included to steady the XM109 for firing and it has a standard M1319 accessory rail for scopes and other accessories. Barrett will either sell a complete rifle or supply upgrade kits to convert the M107 .50 sniper rifle over to the 25mm configuration, replacing the bolt, upper receiver, and magazine.

 

To complement this “rifle” is a computerized sight called the BORS (Barrett Optical Ranging Sighting System). BORS is specifically designed for long-range shooting at 1,000 meters and longer distances, measuring and compensating for air pressure, temperature, and the angle of the weapon in relation to the target. Precisely compensating for all these factors and successfully hitting the target on the first shot is possible, but difficult. BORS is designed to take all the sweat-math work out of first-round shots, leaving the operator with simply dialing in the distance to target, selecting the ammunition type, and putting the cross-hairs on the target. Future versions of BORS will incorporate a rangefinder, and night vision capability.

 

Effective distance armor piercing “lethality” for the rifle is listed at 2000 meters. The 25mm round is derivative design from the AH-64 Apache helicopter’s M789 high-explosive dual purpose (good against armor and personnel) 30mm ammunition and will penetrate at least 50 millimeters of armor plating, making it capable of destroying light armored vehicles, SCUD launchers, and other equipment. According to the ammunition manufacturer, the 25mm round is 2.5 times more effective at destroying targets than a .50 caliber armor-piercing round. At some point the system will also be integrated to use 25mm airburst ammunition designed for the OCWS.

 

One drawback to the weapon is the heavy recoil of the round. Barrett is working on reducing the recoil. Finally, a company slide describes the weapon as a “payload rifle” and also alludes to the ability to remove the muzzle break and replace it with a sound suppressor.

[CorpCommander]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

Wow, Toadmaster. Sounds like we are going back to the age of the Anti-tank Rifle! The current Barret is lighter than the LMG they are using now. M240 I think. This 25mm Payload Rifle ought to be mighty big. Might require a crew if it ends up with a heavy tripod.

 

They are just a few miles from here. I wonder if they have a public relations office.

 

--Pete

[gewing]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

I have a problem with the payload rifle. The OCSW 25 mm full auto will only weigh 35 lbs, has been tested with a bipod and shoulder stock, iirc. That is about the same weight as the Barrett M-2 with a NORMAL scope, not a thermal imaging laser ranging fire control sytem. therefore, the point is????

 

Wow, Toadmaster. Sounds like we are going back to the age of the Anti-tank Rifle! The current Barret is lighter than the LMG they are using now. M240 I think. This 25mm Payload Rifle ought to be mighty big. Might require a crew if it ends up with a heavy tripod.

 

They are just a few miles from here. I wonder if they have a public relations office.

 

--Pete

[CorpCommander]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

The OCSW 25 mm full auto will only weigh 35 lbs therefore' date=' the point is???? [/quote']

 

The Barrett has field experience and the OCSW is a lab experiment, so perhaps its the differene between evolution and revolution. The Barrett has a clearer legacy to objective transition path. However, when the M307 comes out people are going to go "Barrett who?" if it performs up to snuff!

 

I just found out they make an even lighter version of the Barrett .50 that can carry 5 shots and is bolt action. What good is that?

 

Stats and pic for the OCWS can be found here.

 

Put that sucker on a jeep with extra tins of ammo and YOU HAVE A PARTY!

[gewing]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

Check THIS out. http://www.safetyharborfirearms.com/

 

I saw them at the SHOT show, nice stuff, much lighter than most .50s.

 

The problem is, the shorter barrels would create HUGE muzzle flashes, and cut ballistic performance. the 29 inch barrel, at 18.5 LBS!!!! might be... Frightening.

 

They had 2 guns that gave me a FUN idea, though. They had a version of their basic rifle chambered in .50 Caliber SPOTTING round. This was a shortened . 50 Browning, according to the specs for an Indian version of the round, it was an 818 grain bullet (versus 600-650 for .50 BMG) at about 1712 fps versus 2900 fps for BMG. This is a MUCH more controllable energy level.

 

They also had a prototype of a SEMI AUTO version of their gun, the total weight was within 1/2 lb iirc of the bolt action...

 

COmbine the 2, and you could have a semi auto gun that weighed only about 16 lbs (22 inch barrel), but had performance that was quite effective for many uses. If it were fully developed, the cartridge could be "improved" a little, and a lighter bullet at about 600 fps should give about 2200 fps, a 500 grain should get 2400 or more. Not FLATshooting, but... Then a saboted AP bullet could still hit 3400 fps or so...

 

 

OTOH, for 18.5 lbs, I think the full .50 BMG would be awesome, but I don't know whether it would really be tolerable to shoot.

 

 

 

The Barrett has field experience and the OCSW is a lab experiment, so perhaps its the differene between evolution and revolution. The Barrett has a clearer legacy to objective transition path. However, when the M307 comes out people are going to go "Barrett who?" if it performs up to snuff!

 

I just found out they make an even lighter version of the Barrett .50 that can carry 5 shots and is bolt action. What good is that?

 

Stats and pic for the OCWS can be found here.

 

Put that sucker on a jeep with extra tins of ammo and YOU HAVE A PARTY!

[Remjin]

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

 

Don't ask me if this is pertinent, or even if it makes sense... but the whole gun subject is always fun. Here are some of my thoughts.. just person thoughts and preferences, I guess... not sure how it would pertain to the game. =)

 

Maybe I'm just amongst the minority... but I've never had that fascination for overly huge super uber caliber weapons that can shoot out to 1000+ yards. I also don't find them that much fun in a game. Its always interesting to read and talk about, but I just don't have a jones to own one. I haven't shot much with scopes, really hardly at all, except for a few rounds through a Ruger 10/22. I learned iron sights, mostly standard notch and post stuff, no target sights, just plain jane basics.

 

For a rifle give me a nice, reasonable round like the .308/7.62x39mm for a rifle, or even the venerable .30-06. Heck, make it in .270 or 7mm, I'm not that picky. Make it semi-automatic, forget all the magnums and fifteen rails added to every side of the weapon to attach a million peripherals. Give it a good set of iron sights, preferably of the ghost/peep type for me, with a nice low profile rail for quick-detach rings. Make the whole thing tough, the kind of rifle I can drop in the mud, use as a camp tool to pound in stakes, and still hit nice tight groups at reasonable ranges. Give it a good sized magazine, nothing crazy, and keep it semi-automatic... maybe with a burst mode. Light is dandy, but I'd rather have the weight if it'll make it stronger. Make a carbine version. Skip the folding stocks, but keep the pistol grip or pistol grip stock. I don't want a thumb hole, I want a big freakin' space to tuck my hand in. I don't want the butt to break if I actually have to butt-stroke someone. If I'm gonna sling something under the rifle, I'd really rather have a shotgun. Just seems more useful. The Springfield M1A seems like a nice fit.. except I can't afford it right now. =)

 

What would be even better sometimes? A pistol caliber carbine... not many of those around anymore, but oh so useful. Something short, handy, with a large magazine of like 30 rounds. Best thing about this type of weapon is the lack of recoil compared to a full-caliber rifle. Even if you never really use it, probably the most fun to take to the range, and you can shoot it at any range.. because it just uses pistol ammunition. For me, make it a .45 ACP. Somebody make the tommy gun of the modern age, please? And make one in semi-automatic, so I can own it faster. I'll do the paperwork for the spray-and-laugh version later. Give me the fully automatic option, some ghost rings, an intergal flashlight with one of those fancy xenon lights from SureFire with the ridiculous lumens (250?? *drool*). I want a portable spotlight on my freakin' gun. Its fun. It encourages not pointing the dangerous end at ur face... (sad, scarey story at the range.. along with the girl who felt she needed to cover me with her muzzle while talking to her father... falling off a stool onto concrete = not fun) Again, a shotgun round or two under it would be fun, but probably unlikely. Call me a dork. I love shotguns, nothing better in close quarters as far as I'm concerned.

 

I love shotguns for two reasons... big, fat ammunition makes me happy; and a high power factor at close ranges is my most likely scenario. Only time I'd have a long gun in general would be in my house or out hunting. I haven't hunted since I was out with my dad back in highschool. Not sure how that's pertinent. Anyway, back to the shotgun thing.. Its familiar, it has tradition, it has "cool factor" for games. Its loud, its grossly destructive, it takes the guesswork out of shot placement. Make mine a semi-auto, with an intergal light, with ghost sights (I know, I just love those sights... so easy to use.) Give it a short barrel to the tune of 18" and a full tube. A sidesaddle is always good, a solid stock, and let's keep it black. OD green may be popular, but it makes a shotgun look funny to me. Quality wood and blueing is nice, and very beautiful... and expensive. I'll stick to the standard, maybe pop for something harder. Starting with a Remington 1100 would be good. 2 3/4" shells are enough, Hevi-Shot No. 4 Buck would be best, and some nice rifled HP slugs just in case. If not a semi, pump shotguns are hard to beat for reliability... an 870 would be perfect, set up the same as the 1100.

 

With pistols I have two loves... both of which I own. A S&W 629 V-comp is a beautiful revolver, and revolvers feel so good in my hands. Of course, it helps that its a tack-driver. There's also a beauty to revolvers in general, I think, compared to the semi-automatics out there. Yet, there is something to be said about semi-automatics. My current personal favorite? A wide-body Springfield 1911A1 Loaded. It feels good in the hand, is more accurate than I can currently shoot, and has 14+1 rounds of .45 ACP if I should need them. Good times and good guns.

 

Now as for the game request, obviously it can't make it into Dark Champions since its just come out... but really, what would I like to see? I don't know. There's so much out there already, I'm not really interested in lists so much as the rules to make whatever catches someone's fancy.

 

I apologize for the long, rambling, completely random and lost patterns of my post... I just felt like posting. =)