Some TL8-9 weapon ideas & stats

[Nightrider_88]

Hello there.

I find GURPS books a surprisingly nice tool to "test" various fictional weapons. (And I'm not alone I suppose). So I was pondering with idea of advanced traditional weaponry. o, I was trying to write up TL9 version of such typical TL7 battle rifle as FN FAL. I came up with idea of carbon fiber furniture instead of usual plastic one, titanium for reciever and muzzle brake etc. Then barrel itself can be carbon fiber, like one from Proof Research. That would count for heavy barrel for sustained fire purpose, but would weigh as normal steel barrel.
There is still no quad-stack .308 magazines, but for TL9 purposes 40-rounds and 60-rounds mags looks like realistic option. As well as plastic cased-ammo.
So. it would looks like this.
Dmg 7d pi Acc 6+2 Range 1,000/4,200 Wt. 8.5/1.7 RoF 11 Shots 40+1(3) ST10† Bulk -6 Rcl 2
I drop recoil from 3 to 2, deciding, that modern muzzle brake would count as this.
Damage remains the same, but with propellants like Hornady Superperformance (assume this as TL9 gunpowder) and heavier bullet it would be abou 8d with ball ammo, I think. And I don't remember what I count for scope, probably stock Ultra-Tech CTS.

Then I was advised to drop ST to 8† as Rcl has an impact on weapon ST and set the Range to Range would be 1,100/4,700.

Dscription came out as something like this:"In late 2015, after RENAMO took power in Mozambique and after military coup in South Africa, series of events was ended. Military wing of Rhodesian Front, previously posing as private military company, partcipating in those events,, invaded Zimbabwe and overthrew black majority government. In subsequent years, in an effort to combine legacy with new technology, highly modernized variant of FN FAL, based on a on-off custom-built gun, became premier battle rifle of Rhodesian Security Forces. Rifle was built on titanium receiver with carbon-fiber heavy barrel. It also comes with ergonomical pistol grip with waterproof storage space for a spare firing pin and with folding adjustable stock with compartments for a cleaning kit and six XS batteries. Muzzle brake is used to reduce barrel climb and felt recoil..At first, usual TL8 ammo in 20-round plastic magazines (1.4 lbs) and 50-round drums (4 lbs) were used. Later, as new technologies became more affordable, plastic-cased ammo in quad-stack magazines (1.4 lbs for 40-round mag) became standard. Ammo itself switched to newer propellants and heavier bullets to increase power (damage 8d pi) and range (1100|4700 yards)".

And then cames the ammo. I was thinking about reactive material-enhanced projectiles. They got surprisingly low amount of coverage but I was able to collect some data from patents and scientific journals. I would say, they would fit straigth into TL9 APHEX territory. And I suspect that they, much like Mk211 .50 cal would need a hard hit to initiate reaction.
So, deciding that about a gram of RM explosive can be stuffed in .308 rifle bullet, I came up with about 1d+2 cr ex follow-up damage.

I was also thinking about Ultra-Tech rifle grenades. I ended up with coclusion that most sane would be "baseline" TL9 "64mm" hand grenade, that can be fired from slugthrower muzzle in a pinch, most probably with "bullet-thru" design. But here is few possibilities too (for other calibers too).
1) Same reactive materials. According to: https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Shaped_Charge
second RM layer of the liner can be used for enhancing behind-armor effects, but I don't know how to write it. Maybe add triple increase for penetrating damage?
Second is hypercumulative charge.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Jet_Formations
As far I can get it, "hypercumulative" jet moves with much greater speed, and formed from larger part of liner mass, while slug is much smaler. Apparently it would increase damage, but how?

Regards.

[AlexanderHowl]

Within conventional firearms, Rcl is a function of the power of the projectile (more powerful ammunition has greater Rcl), the venting of the gases from the projectile (most gases vent from the front, as it is the gases that are propelling the projectile), and the weight of the firearm (heavier firearms experience less recoil). A lightening of the weapon will increase Rcl. The lightening of the barrel will also increase muzzle lift, which will further increase Rcl.

The introduction of a muzzle break may reduce felt recoil, but it also increases muzzle blast for the user, so the impact on Rcl in minimal (felt recoil is decresed, but accuracy during rapid fire will decline as users are afflicted by muzzle blast). In addition, sabot rounds tend to fragment within muzzle breaks, not a good situation, so I would have Malf at 15+ when using any sabot rounds. Finally, they will make shooters easier to find (the gases kick up dust) and the muzzle blast seriously interferes with hearing perception, with potential permanent hearing damage (a +2 to detect the shooter and a -4 to shooter Hearing rolls for one minute per shot fire [if the duration reaches an hour, make a HT+4 roll to avoid permanently acquiring Hard of Hearing]).

At TL9, superior machining actually makes a muzzle break unnecessary, especially since shock absorbing elements are introduction throughout the weapon built to reduce felt recoil. Even so, the impact on Rcl is negligible, as comparable weapons still have Rcl 3 (the Storm Carbine). I am not quite sure you can really improve much on the FN FAL design without caseless ammunition.

[Nightrider_88]

Thank for the reply.
Well, anyway there is a certain point, when you can't really improve older design and must wait for new TL advancements to intrdouce. Or at least I believe so.

As for comparable UT weapons, well, I was looking for Assault Carbine as reference, as its 6d of damage match shorter-barreled 7.62 rifles, it got a 7lbs of weight and got Rcl 2.
On the other hand, 10mm Storm Rifle had Rcl 3, but closest equivalent of 10mm CLR would be somewhere in .375 Raptor area. And that thing is damn powerful.
So naturally I assumed that on average recoil value would drop down.
But yes, tradeoff of Rcl versus increased blast and sound is very reasonable thing.

I also pondered with idea of heavy rifle grenade in syle of Brunswick RAW, as a choice to increase squad-level capabilities. For TL9 I came up ith such stats of damage: HE - 6dx7 cr ex [6d]; HEDP 6dx12(10)cr ex, 6dx3[6d], Thermobaric 6dx13 cr ex inc
Grenade itself, of course, can't be any lighter, but it's mount probably can. And it still got much less weight that 100mm TML, at expense of short range.

P.S.
And I'm still not sure if TL9 gun care products can increase reliability.

[AlexanderHowl]

UT gives the specs on various grenades, including Thermobaric. A 64mm deals 6d×5 and a 100mm deals 6d×10, so your numbers conflict with RAW. As for the rest, they are also too damaging when compared to RAW. Remember explosive power increases by the square root of the mass of the explosive, not linearly with the mass if the explosive.

[Nightrider_88]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

UT gives the specs on various grenades, including Thermobaric. A 64mm deals 6d×5 and a 100mm deals 6d×10, so your numbers conflict with RAW. As for the rest, they are also too damaging when compared to RAW. Remember explosive power increases by the square root of the mass of the explosive, not linearly with the mass if the explosive.

I was using this formula for thermobaric: "Blast effect goes up by square root (warhead weight)×148.5. Divide the product by 3.5 to get dice of damage".
I found the warhead weight by: (Diameter in mm)3×0.000002 lbs.
Real RAW was 140mm in diameter, but i got too high number, so i "size it down" to 120mm and got 3.4lbs.

[clu2415]

Rifle grenades have universally fallen out of favor. What would renew interest in them? And why would your rifle have a titanium frame if you’re worried about saving money? An infantry missile launcher is the same weight as a TL7 underbarrel grenade launcher and would give you more range and precision. Real world TL8 has guided missiles fired from 40mm grenade launchers. IMLs weigh less than the TL7 M72 LAW, so it’s likely that nearly every soldier will have one. No need for rifle grenades.

[Nightrider_88]

Originally Posted by clu2415

Rifle grenades have universally fallen out of favor. What would renew interest in them? And why would your rifle have a titanium frame if you’re worried about saving money? An infantry missile launcher is the same weight as a TL7 underbarrel grenade launcher and would give you more range and precision. Real world TL8 has guided missiles fired from 40mm grenade launchers. IMLs weigh less than the TL7 M72 LAW, so it’s likely that nearly every soldier will have one. No need for rifle grenades.

My bad. I was mean TML, of course.

Then as for rifle grenades. While they are out of favor, that's don't mean that they are completely pointless. As I see it too, the real issue is sustained dedicated fire support versus individual Soldier capability. If you want Grenadiers to support the riflemen with sustained, accurate fire as they close with the enemy, then the 40mm is probably the better solution. If you want
to give lots of troops an individual capability to deal with special situations (e.g., close-in antitank), then the various rifle grenades are better. The advantage of rifle grenades are all at the squad level. Calling in mortars when you make contact takes time. LAWs are bulkier and heavier. The rifle grenade can do direct fire, cover dead ground, fire obscuration and Anti tank. That's versatility at very little cost and eliminates a squad leader trying to employ weapons systems that are not organic to the squad and therefore not under his direct control.
At TL9, it would be possible to use rifle/hand grenades based on typical TL9 64mm warhead. And that would not eliminate postion of dedicated 40mm or anti-tank grenadier in squad.

But, of course, main answer is "why the hell not?")))

[Jack Sawyer]

Rifle grenades may still be viable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Modern_use

Today, there is a return to the concept of the rifle grenade, such as the SIMON breach grenade, the IMI Refaim, FN Herstal Telgren and the Japanese Type 06 advance grenades. These grenades were designed to be used by ordinary riflemen as opposed to specially trained grenadiers. For example, the MECAR rifle grenades are equipped with simple ballistic sights and have an effective range of 300 meters.[20]

And apparently France is quite fond of them too. It’s what you consider acceptable tradeoffs: An UBGL adds weight to a rifle and requires reloading. A dedicated grenadier is one less rifle.

Originally Posted by Nightrider_88

So I was pondering with idea of advanced traditional weaponry. o, I was trying to write up TL9 version of such typical TL7 battle rifle as FN FAL. I came up with idea of carbon fiber furniture instead of usual plastic one, titanium for reciever and muzzle brake etc. Then barrel itself can be carbon fiber, like one from Proof Research. That would count for heavy barrel for sustained fire purpose, but would weigh as normal steel barrel.

Why a battle rifle? Full power rounds usually are heavier than intermediate. That means not only more recoil but fewer carried rounds. Besides performance isn't necessarily tied to the ‘power’ of the round either (7.62mm M80 ammo is worse than 5.56mm M193/M855 in terms of terminal effects IRL.) As far as a lighter rifle, it depends. Alexander made good points but it could also depend on how many gizmos you hang off your weapon and their weight. And a heavier rifle is more a burden to carry/wield (esp with attachments) than a lighter one for any length of time, so fatigue is also a consideration.

There is still no quad-stack .308 magazines, but for TL9 purposes 40-rounds and 60-rounds mags looks like realistic option. As well as plastic cased-ammo.

I hear mixed things about reliability bigger mags (especially coffin mags) and drums are even worse.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ffin-magazine/
That's why 30 round mags are still a thing. Capacity will be even lower with a bigger round, unless you accept a proportionally larger/heavier mag in exchange. And if you want soldiers to fire this weapon prone or from cover, the size/dimensions of the magazine will affect that.

Damage remains the same, but with propellants like Hornady Superperformance (assume this as TL9 gunpowder) and heavier bullet it would be abou 8d with ball ammo, I think. And I don't remember what I count for scope, probably stock Ultra-Tech CTS.

Superperformance IIRC gets its improvement from being highly optimized ammo for particular calibers if not rifles. There's nothing novel in that (the st Marks Powder used in M855A1/M80 is optimized too) That's important but its not really cutting-edge futuretech (Superperformance has been around since 2010 and isn't a game changer.) If you want ‘futuristic’ there are other options depending on how flexible your suspension of disbelief is and/or how 'realistic' you want to go. IRL we're moving to higher pressure ammunition (approaching tank gun levels) even with the drawbacks that brings. And something like Textron's CT rifle allegedly gets improved thermodynamic performance (something like 20% less propellant I've heard.)

Then I was advised to drop ST to 8† as Rcl has an impact on weapon ST and set the Range to Range would be 1,100/4,700.

meters? That would be desginated marksman to sniper range. At those ranges other factors come into play that will virtually demand some sort of computer-assisted smart targting as standard. And even then you might need to take a stable firing position (meaning you're static. Not good for all roles/purposes like military where mobility is desirable) It's not even that clear ranges over a km would be viable/necessary for any infantry role. The US Army's 'OVERMATCH' is a mere 600m for the NGSW for example, and that will likely include an actual fire control system in the rifle.

And then cames the ammo. I was thinking about reactive material-enhanced projectiles. They got surprisingly low amount of coverage but I was able to collect some data from patents and scientific journals. I would say, they would fit straigth into TL9 APHEX territory. And I suspect that they, much like Mk211 .50 cal would need a hard hit to initiate reaction.
So, deciding that about a gram of RM explosive can be stuffed in .308 rifle bullet, I came up with about 1d+2 cr ex follow-up damage.

If you’re thinking ‘exploding’ bullets, IIRC HDRMs are incendiary, not explosive. There's also the matter of their density. Low density materials tend to be bad for bullets because it reduces sectional density which can affect penetration and external ballistics something fierce (light, fast bullets lose velocity faster than slower, heavier rounds.) And I'm not sure Raufoss can be miniaturized even ignoring that it’s a multipurpose/antimeterial round for bigger guns. Packing all that in means you can't put in as hard/heavy an AP core as you might otherwise (degrading its effectiveness against armor) and less mass for fragmentation (limiting its wounding potential.) Plus sectional density.

A longer bullet is possible, but spin-stabilized bullets have aspect ratio limits (6:1 usually. Rifle rounds can easily hit 4:1-5:1 today) so unless you switch to a flechette/APFDS fin-stabilized flechette or similar that won’t fix sectional density. Longer bullets also need a faster rifle twist to stabilize properly.

'Typical' ball ammo is going to follow something like the US EPR rounds or perhaps something like the Anthena PPI's AP round: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.or...artridge/15180 Those are more like WW2 APCR concept - APDS that didn't lose the sabot. You might see some move towards APDS if the parasitic mass of th sabot is minimized, but around 1 km/s you start reaching diminishing returns for rigid penetrators unless you are intentionally transitioning to a eroding-penetration APFSDS-style projectile and the tradeoffs that bring.

1) Same reactive materials. According to: https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Shaped_Charge
second RM layer of the liner can be used for enhancing behind-armor effects, but I don't know how to write it. Maybe add triple increase for penetrating damage?

Reactive metal liners are possible. I believe aluminum is because aluminum is quite reactive/energetic. But not all liners (reactive or not) are good for shaped charges and things like penetration may suffer (aluminum IIRC penetrate worse than copper.) You really have to research these things to find a balance of qualities you want because it can be pretty complex.

Second is hypercumulative charge.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Jet_Formations
As far I can get it, "hypercumulative" jet moves with much greater speed, and formed from larger part of liner mass, while slug is much smaller. Apparently it would increase damage, but how?

I'm still a layperson on such things so bear that in mind buuuut.... The jet penetrates armor & creates 'behind armor' effects like spalling. The slug is too slow to add to that. So having more of the liner mass go into the jet means - assuming you don't have significant velocity loss - the jet becomes better at penetration and more behind armor effect. Which is not minor - IIRC 90% of the mass ends up in the slug and only around 10% or so ends up in the jet. Shaped charge jets are by nature low mass/high velocity hydrodynamic penetrators.

Their idea tho isn't a true shaped charge but some new 'kind' of super-efficient Munroe-effect munition that combines the best of high end EFPs, Shaped charges and possibly kinetic penetrators due to a novel liner which will produce all the claimed effects. Sounds nifty but... I'm not really sure how plausible it is and it sounds a bit too.. sensationalist? It promises the moon in a way that should be revolutionary, and yet this idea has been around for almost a decade and apparently not gone anywhere. For example I know that when you use a different/denser liner in a shaped charge its velocity can go down (more mass in the jet for a given energy/momentum means less velocity) but what they propose seems to completely bypass that... somehow.

Also WRT shaped charges: more velocity may not be desirable. Optimum hydrodynamic effects in EFP and APFSDS is around 3-4 km/s for almost any material, and beyond that penetration suffers because its making the hole much wider than deeper. A denser/heavier jet at a lower velocity (more like an 'ideal' APFSDS in other words) might actually be better from a penetration perspective. And shaped charges are finicky by nature - they're easier to disrupt than APFSDS which makes it easier to armor vehicles against them (angle, bar/slat armor, spaced armor, having the charge go off too close or too far away from the target, etc.) and there's no way to tell how that would apply to this idea. Indeed, it hard to make predictions from this though since it all seems theoretical and based largely on the work of one person/group producing all the papers on the topic.

It seems very fringe-tech and the sort of thing that probably requires handwaving to work. Sorta like MIMs/metallic hydrogen ‘super explosives’ or 4th Gen nuclear weapons (similar to proposals like this) May work, take with a grain of salt.

[Nightrider_88]

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Rifle grenades may still be viable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Modern_use

And apparently France is quite fond of them too.

And Poland.
http://dezamet.com.pl/rifle-grenades,28,en.html
And Spain. just a bit.
http://instalaza.com/producto/granada-ftv/?lang=en

So, I really thought, that 64mm warhead-based rifle grenade would be ince addition to Ultra-Tech.

Why a battle rifle?

Why not? ) Well, let's just say, that I had rationale for it "in-universe", but my English not so good to formulate it properly. Need it for a setting needs, anyways.

I hear mixed things about reliability bigger mags (especially coffin mags) and drums are even worse.

I've heard that X-product drums are good enough, but yes, I know that coffin mags still not worked out, so I mention them mostly as later possibility.

meters?

Yards) But increased range is not a demand, I think there was suggeston that improved ballistics would affect it.

If you’re thinking ‘exploding’ bullets, IIRC HDRMs are incendiary, not explosive. There's also the matter of their density. Low density materials tend to be bad for bullets because it reduces sectional density which can affect penetration and external ballistics something fierce (light, fast bullets lose velocity faster than slower, heavier rounds.) And I'm not sure Raufoss can be miniaturized even ignoring that it’s a multipurpose/antimeterial round for bigger guns. Packing all that in means you can't put in as hard/heavy an AP core as you might otherwise (degrading its effectiveness against armor) and less mass for fragmentation (limiting its wounding potential.) Plus sectional density.

So far only RM ammo demonstrated were that one,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68C7-8u5O0
And I still waiting for Lehigh Defense promotional video (they promised to include this one in it: .338)

And what was I able to find, taken from research papers.
https://i.postimg.cc/3xCRxNgK/1-s2-0...17-fx1-lrg.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/DfHmCtvK/1-s2-0...03617-gr13.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/Mpycfd8J/1-s2-0...306698-gr5.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/PxFNn71Y/1-s2-0...306698-gr6.jpg

Reactive metal liners are possible. I believe aluminum is because aluminum is quite reactive/energetic. But not all liners (reactive or not) are good for shaped charges and things like penetration may suffer (aluminum IIRC penetrate worse than copper.) You really have to research these things to find a balance of qualities you want because it can be pretty complex.

There was whole point of dual layer - first one should penetrate armor, as it does, that reactive jet comes via penetrted hole and... do the damage. I believe there is whole paper:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/17/2768/pdf
To quote:"Experimental results showed that, compared with the single reactive liner shaped charge jet, a deeper penetration depth was produced by the reactive material-copper jet, whereas the penetration performance and reactive material mass entering the penetrated target strongly depended on the reactive liner thickness and standoff".

It seems very fringe-tech and the sort of thing that probably requires handwaving to work. Sorta like MIMs/metallic hydrogen ‘super explosives’ or 4th Gen nuclear weapons (similar to proposals like this) May work, take with a grain of salt.

Agreed. I would like to see more about it, and this technology isn't my preferred bet. And I still have no idea how to put it in dice))

Thanks for the reply!

[Kale]

Step 1: Convince any contemporary military to adopt a 6.x mm intermediate round. :)