Manchurian Military Small Arms
- Thread starter Colin
- Start date
hi
I really think the images provided are really useful, but when I first saw the pdf, I kind of had a similar reaction. Also, the way the magazines curve near the handle on these weapons make me wonder if if might not lead to straps on the weapon or a character's backpack etc getting easily caught/tangled with the weapon.
Additionally, I guess one other thought is that the magazines on these weapons seem to be really far aft on the weapon, and it makes me wonder how the spent cartridges (if there are any) may be ejected and wether or not the eject may be too close to the firer's upper arm or face.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Regards
PF
I really think the images provided are really useful, but when I first saw the pdf, I kind of had a similar reaction. Also, the way the magazines curve near the handle on these weapons make me wonder if if might not lead to straps on the weapon or a character's backpack etc getting easily caught/tangled with the weapon.
Additionally, I guess one other thought is that the magazines on these weapons seem to be really far aft on the weapon, and it makes me wonder how the spent cartridges (if there are any) may be ejected and wether or not the eject may be too close to the firer's upper arm or face.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Regards
PF
Yep, that could be a problem. 
No gun is perfect. Those are large-capacity magazines. Or they should be. Oops and damn. Wrong magazine sizes. All of the Type 100 should be 65 round magazines.
All 2320AD firearms are caseless, binary, or gauss. The Manchurian guns are conventional caseless.
Also, check this out http://world.guns.ru/assault/as39-e.htm
No gun is perfect. Those are large-capacity magazines. Or they should be. Oops and damn. Wrong magazine sizes. All of the Type 100 should be 65 round magazines.All 2320AD firearms are caseless, binary, or gauss. The Manchurian guns are conventional caseless.
Also, check this out http://world.guns.ru/assault/as39-e.htm
Last edited:
Hi
Thanks for the link and the original pdf that you posted. One of the things that originally attracted me to 2300AD was how so much of the tech and equipment seemed so reasonable and realistic, and this new stuff that you have posted (along with the other 2320AD stuff that you have done) really helps continue that.
Regards
PF
Thanks for the link and the original pdf that you posted. One of the things that originally attracted me to 2300AD was how so much of the tech and equipment seemed so reasonable and realistic, and this new stuff that you have posted (along with the other 2320AD stuff that you have done) really helps continue that.
Regards
PF
general_tiu
SOC-8
You used this site?
http://pimpmygun.doctornoob.com/app.html
How epic...At least that saved us drawing more stuff.
http://pimpmygun.doctornoob.com/app.html
How epic...At least that saved us drawing more stuff.
Yep, that could be a problem.
Not trying to be a nitpicker or anything (because I'm loving what's coming out and want more of the same), but with caseless cartridges, you'd have no need for a curved magazine as the cartridges are rectangles, not cylinders with rimmed edges. The only benefit that I can see from the curved magazine is that is protrudes marginally less below the weapon.
The H&K G11 rifle doesn't even have an external magazine, yet it holds 50 rounds. The FN P90 shows yet another way of storing rounds without having an externally protruding magazine.
Anyway, jsut some thoughts, and I am happy to be "shot down".
Lastly there's the old school tubular magazine. No reason it couldn't be set up for quick changeover. Very high capacity potentially if you then put a rotating helical system inside it.
There's a russian SMG with that design. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg08-e.htm
epicenter00
SOC-13
There's a number of odd magazine types - most of them, like the P90 or Calico-style helical are newer designs. But you have Degtyaryov ("DP") machinegun which had a "pan" feed as well.
Your first statement on caseless rounds not needing a curved mag is a good one. One off those double snalehouse mags could hold almost twice as many rounds as in one with casings.
Your remark about the P90 is overtaken by reality. In practice the magazine lying on top of the weapon with a kind of swivel mechanism turning the round through 90 degrees has proven prone to stopages due to wear on the mechanism. It just isn't squaddie proof.
Edited to add: A long time ago I had a friend who was a sport shooter. He had an AR15 chambered for .22 civilian rounds. The ones with a puny powder charge which were almost cilyndrical in shape (Americans on here might know them). He had one 'Holywood Mag' which looked like a smallish 200rd box for a minimi. But instead of linked amo it had a long spring which pushed the rounds out. It held about 50 to 60 rounds and they lay in there like linked amo, but in the vertical instead of horizontal.
Last edited:
I was trying to talk in inches. Shouldn't do that as a European...
Thanks for your observation. I think what I saw was the .22 Long Rifle. I've just looked them up on the internet, though I can't remember seeing a rim at the bottom of the round. But then again I was very, very drunk...
I've never actually handled a weapon with caseless ammunition. Do they actually exist?
Thanks for your observation. I think what I saw was the .22 Long Rifle. I've just looked them up on the internet, though I can't remember seeing a rim at the bottom of the round. But then again I was very, very drunk...
I've never actually handled a weapon with caseless ammunition. Do they actually exist?
Yes. In three forms.
One is the ammo brick; the round is affixed to the propellant, which is strongly self-bound, and weakly bound to other rounds. The action strips a round, chambers it, and when the trigger is pulled, the chamber contains the explosion firing the projectile and working the action.
Two is the "projectile contained propellant round". The chamber is full bore, and the round long (usually 10:1 L
); the propellant is actually in a cup on the back of the projectile. This was originally developed in the 19th C, based upon the late 18th C mine-ball. It only became practical recently, with electric igniters. The first versions were for percussion cap weapons, and I don't believe they made it into service, but a few blackpowder enthusiasts are using them at present. Current versions are not in military service, and use electric ignition.three is the separate propellant system. Primarily used on Naval ship's guns, the propellant loads separately. Currently, not in military small arms use, but some experimentals are using injected liquid propellant and electric ignition. An action (usually electric) loads.
Hello Aramis,
The second type you mention, the "projectile contained propellant round" sounds like something that could (and should!) work in 2300AD. It makes your ammo much lighter. No disposable brass to carry around. You'll probably be able to carry more rounds. And, not something to disregard: No picking up the brass on the ranges!
The third type, with a separate propellant sounds unpractical for small arms. You'd need a tank of propellant somewhere on you. It would make everyone a potential flamethrower operator! It might be a solution for HMG's though, when fired from a tripod or a vehicle a propellant tank wouldn't be such a problem. Think of systems like the XM307 and XM109 which fire 25mm or .50 ammunition.
The second type you mention, the "projectile contained propellant round" sounds like something that could (and should!) work in 2300AD. It makes your ammo much lighter. No disposable brass to carry around. You'll probably be able to carry more rounds. And, not something to disregard: No picking up the brass on the ranges!
The third type, with a separate propellant sounds unpractical for small arms. You'd need a tank of propellant somewhere on you. It would make everyone a potential flamethrower operator! It might be a solution for HMG's though, when fired from a tripod or a vehicle a propellant tank wouldn't be such a problem. Think of systems like the XM307 and XM109 which fire 25mm or .50 ammunition.
The projectile contained propellant round really isn't that reliable. Further, it has MAJOR issues with the ignition. It expands the round into the chamber, and in blackpowder weapons, that's not too bad, but in modern tight-tolerance design systems, it's a major source of problems. Additionally, duds are much less safe to reload... and it means heavier, slower projectiles and less powder to boot, further slowing the projectile.
The liquid propellant puts the tank with the clip of bullets in most designs. Actually, it's highly reliable, and is used with separate tank and bullet routinely: paintball, BB and Pellet guns! Admittedly, no explosion, but it's the same basic issues of ammo vs propellant.
The liquid propellant puts the tank with the clip of bullets in most designs. Actually, it's highly reliable, and is used with separate tank and bullet routinely: paintball, BB and Pellet guns! Admittedly, no explosion, but it's the same basic issues of ammo vs propellant.
2300AD's "conventional" weapons are discarding sabot caseless rounds, military and civilian. They follow the basic pattern of the bullet embedded in a block of propellant. Most of the block is simply stabilizer to hold everything together.
2300AD's "binary" weapons use two bottles, one of propellant, and one of oxidizer. Inert when separate, they explode when combined. Very compact, as the stabilizer is not required. Ammo consists of the two bottles, and a box-type magazine, loaded with bullets which are often large caliber (7mm-9mm) and explosive.
2300AD's "binary" weapons use two bottles, one of propellant, and one of oxidizer. Inert when separate, they explode when combined. Very compact, as the stabilizer is not required. Ammo consists of the two bottles, and a box-type magazine, loaded with bullets which are often large caliber (7mm-9mm) and explosive.
