What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

[Infantry Weapon] R30 Modular Weapons System

K

Kevyn

Inactive Member
Producer Information:

Designer: Alekander Fairbanks
Manufacturer: Godwin Armories
(Suggested) Price: 3500ks for full system.
Cost Per Component:
Core assembly: 1700 ks
Rifle coil assembly: 35ks
DMR coil assembly: 40ks
SAW coil assembly: 55ks
Carbine coil assembly: 30ks
Standard magazine: 20ks
DMR magazine: 12ks
Drum magazine: 30ks
Battery (rechargeable): 100ks
Power leads (replacement): 15ks
Heat shield (replacement): 20ks
100 rounds: 40ks
Refex sight: 150ks
4x sight: 300ks
Average Kit Costs:
Service Rifle: 2005ks
Carbine: 2000ks
Designated Marksman Rifle: 2152ks
Squad Automatic Weapon: 2035ks


Nomenclature Information:

Name: GA R30 Modular Weapons System
Type: Gauss
Model: R30
Role: Military Service Rifle/Carbine/Designated Marksman Rifle/Squad Automatic Weapon
Layout: Bullpup
Length:
Service Rifle: 760mm (barrel length: 500mm)
Carbine: 710mm (barrel length: 450mm)
Designated Marksman Rifle: 860mm (barrel length: 600mm)
Squad Automatic Weapon: 860mm (barrel length: 600mm)
Weight:
Service Rifle: 3.6 Kilograms
Carbine: 3.3 Kilograms
Designated Marksman Rifle: 3.75 Kilograms
Squad Automatic Weapon: 3.9 Kilograms

Discharge Information:

Projection/ammo type: Solid
Firing Mechanism: Coil-type Linear Accelerator
Caliber: 11x55mm
Cartage: 8x40mm bullet, with 11x55mm base-type cylindrical sabot.
Effective Range:
Service Rifle: 900 meters
Carbine: 600 meters
Designated Marksman Rifle: 1400 meters
Squad Automatic Weapon: 1400 meters
Maximum Range: 2600 meters
Minimum Range: 10m for sabot to disengage, retains lethality with sabot attached.
Muzzle Velocity: 1300 m/s
Muzzle Blast: None, sabot discarded within ten meters.
Rate of Fire: 2000r/m in burst fire, artificially limited to 600r/m in automatic fire.
Firing Mode(s): Semi automatic, three round burst, fully automatic.
Recoil: Medium recoil.

Ammo Description:

Name: 11x55mm saboted bullets.
General Description: Boat tail bullet encased in a base-type sabot. Cylindrical in shape, with a large ‘scoop’ on the forward components of the sabot to allow air resistance to disengage the sabots outward from the penetrator in flight.
Ammo: 45 round box magazine, 20 round box magazine (standard with DMR), 75 round drum magazine
Bullet Description: Boat tail bullet with three small equidistant spines running the length of the bullet, for stabilization. Tungsten penetrator cap with copper jacketed steel core.

Weapon Mechanisms:

Safety: Disengages feed mechanism and power supply, incorporated into fire selector.
Fire mode selector: Four position fire selector: Safe, Semi, 3, Auto
Weapon Sight:
Service Rifle, Carbine: Iron sights, marks for 200, 400 and 600 meters, refex sight mounted on top rail as standard.
Designated Marksman Rifle: Iron sights, marks for 200, 400, 600 and 800 meters, 4x magnifying scope mounted on top rail as standard.
Squad Automatic: Iron sights, marks for 200, 400, 600 and 800 meters, refex sight mounted on top rail as standard.
Attachment Hard points: Picatinny rail system on top of weapon, with additional rails forward of heat shield.
SAW version mounts a bipod as standard

Maintenance Information:

Field Maintenance Procedure:

Clear and safe weapon.
Remove power cell and magazine.
Open top of heat shield/coil assembly and remove accelerator coils.
Check coils for obvious defects and clean any obstructions.
Open check panel and ensure that power leads are not compromised.
Clean contacts of battery and ensure that there is not corrosion.
Reinsert accelerator coils and close and lock heat shield/coil assembly.
Replace battery.
Ensure that weapon still cycles.
Replace magazine.

Replaceable Parts and components:

Accelerator coils, power leads, heat shields

History:

The R30 Modular Weapons System is an attempt to standardize the weapons and ammunition used by light infantry and security forces. All components of the R30 fully interchangeable between versions, and any one version of the system can be changed to another with the correct parts and one minute's work.

In initial testing, the rectangular three element base-type sabot was found to be problematic. Several instances of the sabot spot welding itself to the coils were documented, mostly during automatic fire. In addition, feed issues were found with the proposed drum style magazine for the Squad Automatic Weapon configuration.

The rectangular round was replaced with a slightly more complicated but less problematic cylindrical four element base-type sabot. Though this round exhibited occasional instances of spot welding, they were within the specified tolerances of the program.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: [Infantry Weapon] NAM R30 Modular Weapons System

A new Nepleslian Arms and Munitions submission, eh?

As per our new regulatory rules, the Nep GMs will hold a quick little meeting to discuss the submission. Should have a result tonight.
 
Re: [Infantry Weapon] NAM R30 Modular Weapons System

2 mm?

That's practically a needle. A hard needle at that. The target has personal armor or lightly armored vehicles ... and the speed of the round is up there.

I don't know how the spines would help with the damage, but this really seems like it needs a bigger caliber (and I'm not even a fan of larger caliber weapons). It doesn't have to be huge, but if the spines get the caliber technically up to 5 mm (.19-caliber), I argue you should have at least .22-caliber for the actual diameter of the tip itself.

Not that 2 mm (.07-caliber) isn't lethal ... but you can get a .22-caliber ball round up to that speed without much trouble, and I think it'd be more effective in killing personnel, at least.
 
Re: [Infantry Weapon] NAM R30 Modular Weapons System

Mkay.

Biggest problem that we took notice to was that Nepleslia doesn't really have "Light Infantry". If we're going to send good soldiers out on the battlefield, they're going to be in powered armor. That's probably why NAM seems 'light' on light infantry weapons...it's not a niche NAM is planning on filling.

We can see this weapon, however, being created by an independent company. That way if it proves useful, the Star Military of Nepleslia could always purchase them and outfight their armored soldiers with them, while they would still be available to other parties whom have more interest in lighter weapons that don't require the user to haul three hundred pounds of equipment to use.
 
Re: [Infantry Weapon] NAM R30 Modular Weapons System

Okay. Any suggestions about companies liable to manufacture it?

Hm... perhaps marketed toward corporate security and rear echelon applications?
 
Re: [Infantry Weapon] NAM R30 Modular Weapons System

Doshii Jun said:
2 mm?

That's practically a needle. A hard needle at that. The target has personal armor or lightly armored vehicles ... and the speed of the round is up there.

I don't know how the spines would help with the damage, but this really seems like it needs a bigger caliber (and I'm not even a fan of larger caliber weapons). It doesn't have to be huge, but if the spines get the caliber technically up to 5 mm (.19-caliber), I argue you should have at least .22-caliber for the actual diameter of the tip itself.

Not that 2 mm (.07-caliber) isn't lethal ... but you can get a .22-caliber ball round up to that speed without much trouble, and I think it'd be more effective in killing personnel, at least.
Click to expand...

The spines aren't intended to do damage, they're intended to provide stabilization in flight. Perhaps 'ridges' would have been a more apt term for them. It also now occurs to me that there should be four, to make sabot separation easier. Either that or make the sabot have three segments (four with the base)

As the the damage dealt, most of it is intended to be from the kinetic energy imparted on the round. The muzzle velocity is already approaching that of a modern tank-fired KP... Maybe the muzzle velocity should be higher? It could theoretically go as far a 3000 m/s, but that would make it hard to control even in semi auto. Maybe If I were to do a rough doubling of the round, keeping MV lower...

Would a 4mm rod-penetrator with a 9mm sabot, fired at 1800 m/s, sound like a more fearsome weapon? I'll admit I'm a little rusty with my coilgun mechanics.

Hm, I'll have to increase ranges if I do that too...

Wow, that was really stream of consciousness.
 
A round that small, that fast, and that hard ... the energy that it imparts is going to be small, I think. The fins would stabilize it inside the body, wouldn't it? Or it would just go too fast ... I dunno; I admit I'm not good with wound ballistics yet.

It sounds like a great armor killer. But a crappy flesh-killer, if that helps. I don't feel like you have to go to such an extreme in terms of projectile design to defeat personnel armor. I think you should choose what kind of target you want to defeat, honestly. (If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of 5.7 x 28 mm FN.)
 
I'm not sure what the exact calculations are, but I am given to the understanding that even a 4mm wide by 8cm (another thing I need to clarify in the specs) long sliver propelled at several Machs is going to to impart a significant release of energy when it strikes.

I know some physics and math grad students. I'll ask them if they could figure out the energy release relative to something like a 7.62mm round. It it turns out that it wouldn't be a useful, I'll just go for a, well, 7.62 cartage with a reduced propellant load, al la the Howa Type 64.
 
HOLY SHIT. You're firing a 4-inch-long round? Jesus!

That's a different kettle of fish entirely. You're essentially hurling a goddamn dart into them that's REEEEALLY thin. I personally think the fins/ridges will make a difference in the wound channel ... but I don't know for sure.

The energy it imparts isn't going to be what kills them, though. Or even stops them, though something like that must make some difference. It's the wound you really need to figure out, right? Which you can't ...

*scratches head* I guess you might as well roll with it. Maybe just determine damage-type beforehand.
 
Doshii Jun said:
HOLY SHIT. You're firing a 4-inch-long round? Jesus!
Click to expand...

You see, this is why I really need to get one of my illustration programs working again.

It's always been my understanding that KPs, especially rod-types, are significantly longer then a conventional round of the same diameter. If nothing else, for the same size cartage, you can have a round that's much longer, as you don't need to muss with propellant.

And I agree that the fins, or whatever I end up calling them, will have an impact on the wound path. That's just ancillary to their stabilizing effect.
 
I won't approve new guns if they don't have artwork.
 
Okay. Any suggestions about companies liable to manufacture it?

Hm... perhaps marketed toward corporate security and rear echelon applications?
Click to expand...

At this point, any kind of NPC company you can think of would do fine. We haven't really made any official non-military organizations outside of Nepleslian Arms and Munitions, so you're welcome to name it yourself if you wish.
 
I'm not a fan of all-in-one weapons simply because they add confusion from a roleplayer's perspective, and they commonly lack the level of detail that dedicated weapons have. I think you need a lot more description on the four variants of the weapon, because at the moment the only differences I see in the writeup is how long the barrel is and how big the clip is. If you want to create what is effectively four weapon systems, it requires an equal level of attention to detail.

Also keep in mind actual KPs are far denser and heavier. The reason modern militaries never developed flechettes or darts is because unlike their vastly heavier anti-tank cousins they were far more susceptible to being blown off course by wind. Lack of rifling means the round is much less stable in itself, but added to that is a much higher surface-area-to-volume ratio meaning more wind can hit the round at a given time. These things will make excellent submachine gun rounds, and possibly squad support rounds, doubtful rifle rounds, but I don't think there's any way they could be used for marksman ship (at long ranges).

Oh, and something else to note: I think they may shatter or ricochet on impact with armor, so may not be that effective against vehicles or any kind of metal plating. Armor piercing anti-tank rounds typically having a ballistic cap to prevent shattering for this reason while normal bullets simply use dulled tips to help prevent this (I think). However against armor a needle would have far less integrity than either, so I don't think would have the driving power to break through.
 
Bear in mind that this is essentially the guass version of the Steyr AUG. The only real difference between the different versions is the barrel and the magazine. The internals are all identical between the models. I might need to rethink the multiple fire selector groups, but otherwise...

As to the ammunition, a lot of the issues with modern experimentation had to do with the simple fact that you can get rod-type penetrators moving fast enough to be stable with anything less then a tank-sized propellant charge using chemical propellants. As it stands, the R30 already has a higher muzzle velocity then the main gun on a modern MBT. At muzzle velocity, they reach the listed maximum effective range in a second. (that should be higher...).
 
Don't confuse speed with energy; you may be able to throw a small rock at 50 mph, but try that with a 17-pound artillery shell. The tank shot may go slower, but it has a lot more mass behind it which gives it higher inertia and energy than a smaller round. That's why pistol rounds often have higher muzzle velocities than rifle rounds...even matching the muzzle velocities of main battle tanks; pistol rounds are lighter, so can accelerate much faster than heavier rifle rounds in spite of them being less powerful/deadly/accurate.

* * *

Assuming titanium weighs .163 pounds per cubic inch: A perfect 2mm by 4 inch cylinder would weigh about 1.44 grams, which weighs likely more than yours due to the needle's sloping. Now, by using your gun's muzzle velocity to determine energy, we can compare them to modern rounds...

7.62x51mm NATO rounds are commonly used by sniper rifles and machine guns.
  • 3,352 joules of energy are typically carried by these rounds.

5.56x45mm NATO rounds are commonly used by assault rifles such as the M16.
  • 1,770 joules of energy are typically carried by these rounds.

Your round, a hypothetical 2x102mm cylinder (102mm = 4 inches) at your weapon's dimensions is far less.
  • 1,215 joules of energy are typically carried by these rounds.
Click to expand...

Once you factor in the aerodynamics/ballistics issues such as lack of rifling and higher surface area making the rounds more vulnerable to wind and being deflected, they will be ineffectual as marksman or long-range rounds. You can increase velocities to higher extremes to help compensate for this (the 2x101mm titanium rounds moving 2350 m/s would carry 4000 joules of energy), but wind issue will still remain due to the inherent design. Therefore, their use for sniping still remains questionable.

Additionally these rounds will still be ineffective against metal armor or other hard surfaces due since their thinness almost guarantees they will shatter on impact. Again unshielded infantry they should work fine, though.

>> EDIT: Whoops, I just noticed you reduced the length to 80 mm instead of the older value of 102 mm. But I think you still get the overall picture on the the issue of flechette rounds.
 
Against soft targets, I'd think they'd actually cause less damage than regular bullets due to overpenetration.
 
Wes said:
Against soft targets, I'd think they'd actually cause less damage than regular bullets due to overpenetration.
Click to expand...

That would be my guess, too.

To be fair, however, there doesn't have to be a lack of rifling. Sabots CAN have rifling, though your fins would have to have a different shape, so they could help stabilize and spin too.
 
Alright, so any advise for improving the damage? Either in the design of the weapon the round?

Also, remember that there's a difference between a Designated Marksman and a Sniper. DMs are intended to engage at ranges of out to ~800 meters and operate as part of a squad.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top