[HT] 2-Bore machine carbine

[Green-Neck]

Greetings hivemind.
I'm hoping to stat up a steampunk weapon based on the Cutts-Maudslay in William Gibson and Bruce Sterling's The Difference Engine novel. However this version will be for a SM+1 humanoid with 16-20? ST.

"One of them carried a spring-wind Cutts-Maudslay of a model familiar to Mallory, the Wyoming expedition having been provided with six of them. Though the Cheyenne had regarded the stubby Birmingham-made machine-carbine with a useful awe. Mallory knew that it was temperamental to the point of unreliability. Inaccurate to the point of uselessness as well, unless one were popping off the entire thirty rounds into a pack of pursuers -- something Mallory himself had once done from the aft firing-position of the expedition's steam-fortress."



TL5+1 Cutts-Maudslay 2 bore clockwork machine carbine – 2 bore.

TL Weapon Damage Acc Range

5+1 Cutts-Maudslay 2 bore ? 2 ?

Weight RoF Shots ST Bulk Rcl Cost LC

60 9 27+1(5) 20 -7 ? ? ?


Perhaps based on the Auto Ordinance M1921 (Tommy gun) stats (ish…), with a Malf of 13?

Thanks for any thoughts/calculations offered.

Notes:
Two bore data

Bullet weight/type 3,500 gr (230 g) Brass FN
Velocity 1,500 ft/s (460 m/s)
Energy 17,487 ft•lbf (23,709 J)

10 drackm’s of powder (137 grains of black powder).

[mlangsdorf]

It's probably closer to a Nordenfeldt or a Hotchkiss 1 pdr (from High Tech 128). I'd estimate the damage at around 7d pi++, Blk -5, Rcl 2 or maybe 3 at most.

Your suggested Bulk of -7 doesn't jibe with the Nordenfeldt's Bulk of -6.

[lexington]

I get 7d+2 pi++ for a solid slug.

Also a 2-bore carbine with thirty rounds? The magazine alone would weigh twice as much as an M14.

Recoil would be insane if it was supposed to be carried by a man. But this might be better represented by an absurd ST and no M rather than high Rcl.

Shots are obviously 30 not 27+1.

RoF should probably top out at 4 like automatic shotguns.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

It's probably closer to a Nordenfeldt or a Hotchkiss 1 pdr (from High Tech 128). I'd estimate the damage at around 7d pi++, Blk -5, Rcl 2 or maybe 3 at most.

Your suggested Bulk of -7 doesn't jibe with the Nordenfeldt's Bulk of -6.

Why the Nodenfeldt? It fires a much smaller round and is only a fraction the weight.

[Green-Neck]

thanks for your replies.

Yeah -7 might be too high for bulk - but I was working from the basic set idea that -5 is a battle rifle, and -6 is a heavy sniper rifle [B200].

I envisage this weapon to only usable by a SM+1 person with 20 ST [or there abouts]. recoil should be low-ish due to the weapon weight [40 lbs est. and a clip would be at least 20 lbs!].

I picked the number of shots just to try and moderate the weapon somewhat - scaling up a Cutts-Maudslay to 2-bore would be a huge thing.

Given the original was said to be uncontrolable, and given its a machine-carbine, i think the original would be chambered in the rifle round of .450 Martini Henry.

I wanted to keep the rof up at 9 because the book desribes the weapon being emptied in a few seconds. I see it as more of a oversize smg than an long barreled auto-cannon.

I am also curious to find out what the round would have as a wound modifyer using the Douglas Cole method.

[Sam Cade]

Oddly enough, I'm reading the book for the first time right now.
I'm only about half-way through so no spoilers :-)

Why are you figuring it as a 2-bore? That is HUGE. More than an inch and a quarter, almost twice the bore diameter as a 12 gauge. A single ball sized to fit the bore would weigh a half a pound.

The fact that it is called a carbine would imply that it is of rifle caliber or smaller.

This far the only repeating firearms I've seen in the book have been pepperbox revolvers, presumably something like an Allen and Thurber.
http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/f102.html

I figured Mick had a Lefaucheux.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cheux_tula.JPG



I pictured the Cutts-Maudslay as something like this but stocked and spring loaded for revolving and cocking of the hammer.
http://www.collectorebooks.com/gregg01/Lot-111.htm
or
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_59GYpEVAu0..._pepperbox.jpg

[Green-Neck]

The 2-bore decision was to make a low velocity heavy bullet smg for a SM+1 humanoid [10' high broadly built] with 16-20 ST.

Because the TL is 5+1 I thought the cutts-maudslay would be a good starting point. If it's just too powerful, a subsonic load of the same cartridge may better emulated the 'scale approprate' version of a .45 acp.

I like your thoughts of the books guns, but I see the Cutts-Maudslay as either a TL 5 version of the Manville gas gun, or a TL 5+1 smg that relies on a spring to give motive force to the breech block and the ammunition feed.

There are many TL6 technologies in the book [no spoilers!], so a clockwork M1921 comes to mind.

I got the feeling it was a cartridge gun, so the .450 MH came to mind, but .450 adams is also plausable.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Green-Neck

The 2-bore decision was to make a low velocity heavy bullet smg for a SM+1 humanoid [10' high broadly built] with 16-20 ST.

Because the TL is 5+1 I thought the cutts-maudslay would be a good starting point. If it's just too powerful, a subsonic load of the same cartridge may better emulated the 'scale approprate' version of a .45 acp.

The problem with a 2bore rifle isn't that it's too powerful, it's that it's insanely heavy and not powerful on the same scale. 30 rounds will weigh around 25 pounds and give you less damage that much lighter bullets.

If you want a "scaled up" Tommy Gun a 12 gauge might be a better place to start or just the .450 MH, like you suggest. There's simply no practical reason to ever use a 2 bore.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by lexington

If you want a "scaled up" Tommy Gun a 12 gauge might be a better place to start or just the .450 MH, like you suggest. There's simply no practical reason to ever use a 2 bore.

Just to clarify, a "2 bore" is a nominally-2-inch-diameter bore? (like the .450 is nominally 0.45 inches)

That's a cannon, really. A small one, but a cannon nonetheless. if that's the diameter, then it's 65.44 mL - out of iron thats 0.539 kg or 1.2 pounds, not a half pound. Iron, because it's a blasted cannon ball :)
If it's a lead ball, that's 0.778 kg instead (about 1.7 pounds)

If it's a shell instead of a ball, that's more mass.

An automatic cannon would be um... for taking down aircraft? Armored ones? Dragons, perhaps?

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Just to clarify, a "2 bore" is a nominally-2-inch-diameter bore? (like the .450 is nominally 0.45 inches)

It's another way of saying 2 gauge, 1.3 inch diameter bore. That 3500 grain slug is half a pound.

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Just to clarify, a "2 bore" is a nominally-2-inch-diameter bore?

_-Bore is synonymous with _-Gauge in firearms. Its the number of round lead balls sized to the bore that can be made from one pound of lead.

So 12 gauge, 12 balls from one pound etc.