Main Military Weapon of Your Country (Mk. II)

[Castleclose]

Not much off the top of my head but I can dig up a lot of info about any main military firearm up to 1945 from 1860 due to the number of books I have lying around.

The majority of us have nothing more than engineering and/or design knowledge and skills, and the immeasurable source of opinionated garbage valuable information that is the internet.

I do have practical knowledge of bolt-actions, lever-actions and muzzle loaders. Black-Powder Rifles and the SMLE a speciality.

Shansi Type 17 (.45 ACP) variant of the Mauser c96 also a favourite.

[The First Awesocracy]

[Old Beringia]

bickering

[Karnei Shomron]

Nice, but since the bullets seem to be shotgun cartridges, it will only be effective at close range.

[Novariea]

Nice, but since the bullets seem to be shotgun cartridges, it will only be effective at close range.

It's a stormbolter from Warhammer 40,000. Therefore, it's probably closer to an automatic grenade launcher.

[Tiamus]

There is an aweful lot that goes into making a viable coil gun for infantry use. Essentially, you need to be able to meet or exceede the amount of energy generated by setting off a cartridge full of gun poweder within a metal tube to propell a bullet from the gun to the target at lethal speeds.

Contrary to popular belief, coil guns (and rail guns) generate just as much recoil as chemical reactive weapons (modern guns). You are still "shooting" a bullet at extremely high velocities at a target. Now, gun powder is used because burning an explosive substance creates an instant and powerful force that can be channeled into something useful. To match that with something like a battery pack, somemagnates and electricity, you will need a lot of electricity.

Bullets remain and become smaller since you don't need shell casings but you get the added weight of a battery pack (or some kind of power pack) to power the magnets. You need lots of either powerful composate materials or metal to hold the gun together (probably non-conductive composates). That means it will be hideously expensive. You need the barrel assembly and the magnates themselves, which will also add to weight. When you start tallying all of those factors in the weapon (even using near-future tech) quickly becomes too big and potentially bulkey to use effectively, not to mention it will be a bitch to maintain in the field.

A weapon needs to be robust enough to survive not only the act of deploying it into a war zone but it also needs to survive the people who will be using it. The M16 is effective because, aside from being extremely accurate within its range, it is light and extremely easy to take apart and clean. Even though it has a tendancy to jam in dusty and tropcial environments, cleaning it is so easy taht a soldier can do it in his or her sleep.

For near-future weapons, I would suggest something like a caseless assault rifle. And by that I mean a weapon that fires caseless ammunition. There is no need for an ejection port because everything that isn't being launched at the enemy will be burned up in the process. It offers the same reliability of a modern rifle but with the weight and space saving plusses of not having to lug around those brass shell casings. You can have more ammo with a lighter gun and no need for super expensive bullshit shorting out because somebody dropped it into water.

[Karnei Shomron]

Nice, but since the bullets seem to be shotgun cartridges, it will only be effective at close range.

It's a stormbolter from Warhammer 40,000. Therefore, it's probably closer to an automatic grenade launcher.

Still, if you use it as a close range weapon, you're dead.

[The First Awesocracy]

Nice, but since the bullets seem to be shotgun cartridges, it will only be effective at close range.

Those aren't shotgun shells. They're gyro-jet cartridge grenades, and are actually more effective at long range that at close.

[Karnei Shomron]

There is an aweful lot that goes into making a viable coil gun for infantry use. Essentially, you need to be able to meet or exceede the amount of energy generated by setting off a cartridge full of gun poweder within a metal tube to propell a bullet from the gun to the target at lethal speeds.

Contrary to popular belief, coil guns (and rail guns) generate just as much recoil as chemical reactive weapons (modern guns). You are still "shooting" a bullet at extremely high velocities at a target. Now, gun powder is used because burning an explosive substance creates an instant and powerful force that can be channeled into something useful. To match that with something like a battery pack, somemagnates and electricity, you will need a lot of electricity.

Bullets remain and become smaller since you don't need shell casings but you get the added weight of a battery pack (or some kind of power pack) to power the magnets. You need lots of either powerful composate materials or metal to hold the gun together (probably non-conductive composates). That means it will be hideously expensive. You need the barrel assembly and the magnates themselves, which will also add to weight. When you start tallying all of those factors in the weapon (even using near-future tech) quickly becomes too big and potentially bulkey to use effectively, not to mention it will be a bitch to maintain in the field.

A weapon needs to be robust enough to survive not only the act of deploying it into a war zone but it also needs to survive the people who will be using it. The M16 is effective because, aside from being extremely accurate within its range, it is light and extremely easy to take apart and clean. Even though it has a tendancy to jam in dusty and tropcial environments, cleaning it is so easy taht a soldier can do it in his or her sleep.

For near-future weapons, I would suggest something like a caseless assault rifle. And by that I mean a weapon that fires caseless ammunition. There is no need for an ejection port because everything that isn't being launched at the enemy will be burned up in the process. It offers the same reliability of a modern rifle but with the weight and space saving plusses of not having to lug around those brass shell casings. You can have more ammo with a lighter gun and no need for super expensive bullshit shorting out because somebody dropped it into water.

Nice, but use a spell checker.

[Tiamus]

Go fuck yourself. You have ignorance as your quirk. I have the ocasional misspelled word. I think that makes us even.

[L3 Communications]

There is an aweful lot that goes into making a viable coil gun for infantry use. Essentially, you need to be able to meet or exceede the amount of energy generated by setting off a cartridge full of gun poweder within a metal tube to propell a bullet from the gun to the target at lethal speeds.

Contrary to popular belief, coil guns (and rail guns) generate just as much recoil as chemical reactive weapons (modern guns). You are still "shooting" a bullet at extremely high velocities at a target. Now, gun powder is used because burning an explosive substance creates an instant and powerful force that can be channeled into something useful. To match that with something like a battery pack, somemagnates and electricity, you will need a lot of electricity.

Bullets remain and become smaller since you don't need shell casings but you get the added weight of a battery pack (or some kind of power pack) to power the magnets. You need lots of either powerful composate materials or metal to hold the gun together (probably non-conductive composates). That means it will be hideously expensive. You need the barrel assembly and the magnates themselves, which will also add to weight. When you start tallying all of those factors in the weapon (even using near-future tech) quickly becomes too big and potentially bulkey to use effectively, not to mention it will be a bitch to maintain in the field.

A weapon needs to be robust enough to survive not only the act of deploying it into a war zone but it also needs to survive the people who will be using it. The M16 is effective because, aside from being extremely accurate within its range, it is light and extremely easy to take apart and clean. Even though it has a tendancy to jam in dusty and tropcial environments, cleaning it is so easy taht a soldier can do it in his or her sleep.

For near-future weapons, I would suggest something like a caseless assault rifle. And by that I mean a weapon that fires caseless ammunition. There is no need for an ejection port because everything that isn't being launched at the enemy will be burned up in the process. It offers the same reliability of a modern rifle but with the weight and space saving plusses of not having to lug around those brass shell casings. You can have more ammo with a lighter gun and no need for super expensive bullshit shorting out because somebody dropped it into water.

Nice, but use a spell checker.

He's outlined only obvious and very well-known things, and forgot that the G11 has an ejection port.

So he's only giving you a rudimentary understanding of the very basic basics, and was wrong in some cases. Long post != good post.

Use Firefox' inbuilt spellchecker, too.

[Tiamus]

The G11 was also cancelled.

[Itailian Maifias]

Go fuck yourself. You have ignorance as your quirk. I have the ocasional misspelled word. I think that makes us even.

He was rude, but the flame wasn't needed

That said, I didn't see a misspelled word

[L3 Communications]

The G11 was also cancelled.

Cool.

It was also completed, and several weapons were completed in LRIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eSZTj2W40

Also it's "canceled".

[Tiamus]

The G11 was also cancelled.

Cool.

It was also completed, and several weapons were completed in LRIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eSZTj2W40

Also it's "canceled".

I direct you to my above reply to Karnei Shomron on the same matter.

[Karnei Shomron]

Go fuck yourself. You have ignorance as your quirk. I have the ocasional misspelled word. I think that makes us even.

Excuse me for helping!

[L3 Communications]

Cool.

It was also completed, and several weapons were completed in LRIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eSZTj2W40

Also it's "canceled".

I direct you to my above reply to Karnei Shomron on the same matter.

Why so angry? I'm trying to help.

I screwed up canceled too before I used Firefox's spellchecker like 9001 times. |:

EDIT: Even the American LSAT has an ejection port for it's caseless ammo.

[Castleclose]

The G11 was also cancelled.

Cool.

It was also completed, and several weapons were completed in LRIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eSZTj2W40

Also it's "canceled".

Nope it's cancelled.

[Senestrum]

Go fuck yourself. You have ignorance as your quirk. I have the ocasional misspelled word. I think that makes us even.

He was rude, but the flame wasn't needed

That said, I didn't see a misspelled word

I counted at least six misspelled words, and the post is riddled with grammatical errors.

[Karnei Shomron]

He was rude, but the flame wasn't needed

That said, I didn't see a misspelled word

I counted at least six misspelled words, and the post is riddled with grammatical errors.

Thank you.

[L3 Communications]

Cool.

It was also completed, and several weapons were completed in LRIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eSZTj2W40

Also it's "canceled".

Nope it's cancelled.

Nope, it's canceled.

[Castleclose]

Nope it's cancelled.

Nope, it's canceled.

I'm using Firefox spellcheck too and your canceled is coming up wrong.

Cancelled however is correct.

[Tiamus]

I'll give you both the benefit of the doubt on this one and apologize for my outburst. But I could care less for spelling mistakes. I go onto forums for recreation, not for spelling lessons and attitude.

And just because I said something that is obvious to you it does not mean it is obvious to somebody who, say, was thinking about using rail/coil guns as a viable infantry weapon. I posted that for the fellow who was asking about it as a way to help him see some of the practical and mechanical hurdles that need to be overcome.

If you wanted to argue on the substance of my post then you should have picked something out and started there. Pointing and yelling "lol you spelled it wrong" as your only reply is stupid.

[L3 Communications]

Nope, it's canceled.

I'm using Firefox spellcheck too and your canceled is coming up wrong.

Cancelled however is correct.

My Firefox spell check says cancelled is wrong, but canceled is correct.

It also says spellcheck is wrong.

So where does this leave us?

[Senestrum]

ffs guys

It can be either, depending on whether or not you use American English or the queen's English.