FA+
Shop
842
Views
Views
37
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 628 x 546
File Size 44.6 kB
Report this content
More from baroncoon
This is a small PDW, Personal Defense Weapon, from the Angel and Knight, not the A&K1, universe/ dreamscape. In a world where bigums, never mind the mice, can range in height from 3' to almost 8' it becomes almost impossible for you to build "one size fits all" for people. Like or not the their manufacturing and logistical chain must stay a bit more complex. This is very evident in weapons design and procurement.
What might be a tiny pistol-like firearm for a 7'.5" tall water buffalo maybe an assault rifle for a 3' tall fennec. The weapon shown here is .22 WMR PDW intended individuals in the 3' to 4'.5" height range. PDW's are are not assault rifles or necessarily submachineguns. They're usually issued to troops who's main job is not necessarily to be in combat. Truck drivers, radio/ communication personal, clerks and anyone else who might issued a pistol as their main carry weapon. They're designed to be easier to shoot and to give a better chance for a normal shooter to hit at longer ranges, beyond 7yds, than a pistol would normally provide. Also in some circustances they will provide an increased chance of penetrating body armor. They are intended to be with the soldier at all times.
The biggest trick in designing a weapon for this size settling on a cartridge that is controllable by someone of that small size but will still actually do some damage to a target of potentially radically different size. Various weapons like this exist in this world and their calibers range from .22 LR all the way up to 9x19mm with everthing in between. The two camps on the subject seem to be. One, hit the target with as big of a cartridge as the operator can effectively use and make a few shots really count. Two, hit the target a lot, and mutliple hits will make up for the smaller caliber. Since the caliber is smaller more rounds can be carried and the shooter is not as affected by the recoil and muzzle blast so automatic/ burst fire is possible. This model is in the hit them a lot camp. It is intended to be use liek a large two handed pistol and has no real provision for a shoulder stock. Kind of like the Bushmaster Arm pistol of the 1970/80's or how the Steyr TMP started out.
What might be a tiny pistol-like firearm for a 7'.5" tall water buffalo maybe an assault rifle for a 3' tall fennec. The weapon shown here is .22 WMR PDW intended individuals in the 3' to 4'.5" height range. PDW's are are not assault rifles or necessarily submachineguns. They're usually issued to troops who's main job is not necessarily to be in combat. Truck drivers, radio/ communication personal, clerks and anyone else who might issued a pistol as their main carry weapon. They're designed to be easier to shoot and to give a better chance for a normal shooter to hit at longer ranges, beyond 7yds, than a pistol would normally provide. Also in some circustances they will provide an increased chance of penetrating body armor. They are intended to be with the soldier at all times.
The biggest trick in designing a weapon for this size settling on a cartridge that is controllable by someone of that small size but will still actually do some damage to a target of potentially radically different size. Various weapons like this exist in this world and their calibers range from .22 LR all the way up to 9x19mm with everthing in between. The two camps on the subject seem to be. One, hit the target with as big of a cartridge as the operator can effectively use and make a few shots really count. Two, hit the target a lot, and mutliple hits will make up for the smaller caliber. Since the caliber is smaller more rounds can be carried and the shooter is not as affected by the recoil and muzzle blast so automatic/ burst fire is possible. This model is in the hit them a lot camp. It is intended to be use liek a large two handed pistol and has no real provision for a shoulder stock. Kind of like the Bushmaster Arm pistol of the 1970/80's or how the Steyr TMP started out.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 628 x 546px
File Size 44.6 kB
Very nice design and run through of the sizing as well. Weapon designing is a tough field for the most part, your right though, factoring in different demensions based on the size of the users as well as caliber of ammo to use.
Don't want some small fella getting knocked on his ass from heavy recoil on a gun too large :P
Don't want some small fella getting knocked on his ass from heavy recoil on a gun too large :P
Yeh but at the same time you don't want to give the poor chump something that will just tickle the opposition! At best it is a compromise. At worst it is a nightmare! Fortunately I won't get drug in front of a congressional hearing for my little exercises in weapons brainstorming!
Not as popular is might think. Flechettes have been this great projectile that has always just been around the corner. "In a few years we'll have them in service!" has been the promise of their followers. Problem is that their theoretical promise of fantastic energy dump into the target hinges entirely on them tumbling upon impact with their target. It is the only way of them generating any crush, stretch, temporary wound channel or any of the other ways projectiles generate extra booboos to the target short of the permanent wound channel. If the flechette does not tumble then you create the smallest permanent wound channel in the business, and if you don't hit a critical organ or adrenaline kicks in the target may not even really notice that they are hit. It happens often enough with regular rifle and pistol cartridges and their bullet weight and permanent would channels are vastly larger than a flechette. Finally the flechettes have had accuracy issues in the past.
There's also the problem of having enough flechettes to make a significant difference compared to a normal round. A standard 00 buckshot round already has many of the advantages of a flechette round, without the greatest of the disadvantages. They've repeatedly tried to make a viable flechette round for shotguns, but they never perform well enough in the field to bother with a sweeping change. The fact that you can pack more penetrators into the same sized shell is an advantage, but not if (as has been known to happen) they can be deflected by raindrops and do minute amounts of damage. The added range is very advantageous, but it means little if the round doesn't do enough damage.
However, they work superbly when used in large volumes (generally with rockets) against personal and light vehicles. A single 70 mm rocket can carry 2500 1.8 gram flechettes or 1180 3.8 gram flechettes. That is more than enough to shred infantry columns, especially since a standard rocket pod can carry 19 rockets.
However, they work superbly when used in large volumes (generally with rockets) against personal and light vehicles. A single 70 mm rocket can carry 2500 1.8 gram flechettes or 1180 3.8 gram flechettes. That is more than enough to shred infantry columns, especially since a standard rocket pod can carry 19 rockets.
Yes and don't forget Beehive rounds from the Vietnam war era. Of course the problem with Beehive rounds is that they are line of sight weapons and artillery usualy like their enemies far away and not charging their position. It is my understanding that is why artillery has moved to using submunition rounds instead which have indirect fire.
The big problem with flechettes in shotguns is that flechettes are all about velocity. The faster you're going the more likely you'll get the classic tumble and energy dump that on paper the flechette can deliver. Problem is shotguns are not high velocity critters by nature. What the US. Army found out in the 60's and 70's was that a flechette needs to be traveling at least 2,000 fps for it to have any good chance of tumbling on impact with the target. Most of the experimental rounds tested by them could not deliver that kind of projectile velocity out past buckshot range.
Out of all their tests the one thing the Army discovered was that the only consistent thing that created damage from flechettes was the fins of the flechette itself. So they decided to make a flechette, although airfoil might be a better term, that was all fin. Effectively they made aerodynamic razor blades and packed those into a shotgun shell. The results were much more promising but by then the Vietnam War was winding down and there still was much doubt about whether flechettes were really that much better, or was it just better to go on smacking folks with hunks of jacketed lead.
All of this is irrevelant in context to the small, light PDW since the cartridge size rules it out for the mission profile.
The big problem with flechettes in shotguns is that flechettes are all about velocity. The faster you're going the more likely you'll get the classic tumble and energy dump that on paper the flechette can deliver. Problem is shotguns are not high velocity critters by nature. What the US. Army found out in the 60's and 70's was that a flechette needs to be traveling at least 2,000 fps for it to have any good chance of tumbling on impact with the target. Most of the experimental rounds tested by them could not deliver that kind of projectile velocity out past buckshot range.
Out of all their tests the one thing the Army discovered was that the only consistent thing that created damage from flechettes was the fins of the flechette itself. So they decided to make a flechette, although airfoil might be a better term, that was all fin. Effectively they made aerodynamic razor blades and packed those into a shotgun shell. The results were much more promising but by then the Vietnam War was winding down and there still was much doubt about whether flechettes were really that much better, or was it just better to go on smacking folks with hunks of jacketed lead.
All of this is irrevelant in context to the small, light PDW since the cartridge size rules it out for the mission profile.
Artillery always like to use indirect fire. But I have to admit that a 105mm beehive full of 8,000 flechettes has some definite appeal. If I'm not mistaken they are trying to regain this capability for use in MBTs so that unsupported tanks can standup against infantry better. The APAM is an interesting derivation, though it looks a complex for what we get from it.
Yep. Flechettes need that extra punch that a handheld weapon just can't deliver. That may change in the future, but I think that it will be a while until it works on such a small scale. Bigger is better definitely applies to flechettes.
Flechettes are definitely irrelevant in this context, but they sure are a cool concept to talk about. :P
Yep. Flechettes need that extra punch that a handheld weapon just can't deliver. That may change in the future, but I think that it will be a while until it works on such a small scale. Bigger is better definitely applies to flechettes.
Flechettes are definitely irrelevant in this context, but they sure are a cool concept to talk about. :P
Yeah it is interesting how weapons and procurement goes in the US. I find it interesting that some folks in olive drab are making a real case for going back to 7.62x51mm NATO in semi-auto. It gets really interesting in the area of pistol cartridges. As of mid 2006 the Navy had apparently decided to keep 9mm for it is pistol while the Coast Guard and Air Force decided to adopt the 40 S&W. Big Army was looking at 40 S&W and Little Army wanted the 45ACP. The Marines apparently is decided to go with just 45ACP and screw everyone else! So much for interchangability!
Thats what happens when politicians/accountants make such decisions about procurement. They always get changed eventually once the people in the field actually scream loud and long enough that it isn't what they want.
I think that its pretty telling that the people who are most likely to need to use their pistols want to get a larger round. The more combat they are expected to see the larger the round they want!
I think that its pretty telling that the people who are most likely to need to use their pistols want to get a larger round. The more combat they are expected to see the larger the round they want!
It's a tad heavy for a sidearm, but otherwise good. :P
A 7.62 would be at the top end of usability, but I have no doubt that it would still be doable and maintain its effectiveness. I think the bigger challenge would actually be the weight of the gun and ammo. This might be countered by the increased strength per pound of smaller critters, but there is no real way for me to tell.
A 7.62 would be at the top end of usability, but I have no doubt that it would still be doable and maintain its effectiveness. I think the bigger challenge would actually be the weight of the gun and ammo. This might be countered by the increased strength per pound of smaller critters, but there is no real way for me to tell.
I was just trying to point out that we were talking about pistols and sidearms before you mentioned the 7.62x39. The imagery this generated was pretty amusing to me.
They could probably handle the 7.62 in weapons smaller than GPMGs. The child soldiers prevalent in Africa certainly have to deal with it, and they should be about the same size as fennec. It would also mean that they could still do some serious damage to larger creatures.
They could probably handle the 7.62 in weapons smaller than GPMGs. The child soldiers prevalent in Africa certainly have to deal with it, and they should be about the same size as fennec. It would also mean that they could still do some serious damage to larger creatures.
Isn't it very unusual for PDWs to lack shoulder stocks? At the very least a folding wire stock would greatly improve accuracy and allow shooters to hit targets at a longer range. The Steyr doesn't have a stock, but it is closer to a SMG or MP than PDW. I'd also think that a stock would make it easier to have increased flexibility of use between different sized users.
Actually the TMP was not originally designed with a stock. Nor was the Colt SCAMP or the Bushmaster Arm pistol or Finnish Jati. Even small SMG's like the Czech Vz61 or the Polish Pm63 the shoulder stocks were rather vestigal things. Many pictures I've seen so soldiers using the shoulder stocks more as forearm braces than their original intent. Personally, I think shoulder stocks are a very good idea, but I don't force my subconscious to abide by my view of the universe when I'm sleeping.
Thats because the Steyr is a Tactical Machine Pistol, not a PDW. All of the examples you give here are some form of pistol with "extra features" that make them better than normal. My understanding of a PDW is that it is supposed to be a considerable step above a pistol but smaller than a carbine.
I'm just trying to find out why you are doing things the way you are. Design issues are always interesting things to talk about because I get to discover all kinds of new stuff.
I'm just trying to find out why you are doing things the way you are. Design issues are always interesting things to talk about because I get to discover all kinds of new stuff.
Well first remember this is from sleep so to a certain extent it what floats to the surface of subconscious. If was to look for an explaination in my awaken state I reply that some of the machine pistols have been used in the PDW role. PDW is a role that probably gets more debt since it bleeds back and forth over several different catergories, pistol, submachinegun, and carbine/ rifle. Depending on where the designer/ tacticians decide where the starting point is can result in a radically result. examples:
The Czech decided that something more akin to a machine-pistol was in order for their tankers and developed the Vz61 chambering the 32ACP round.
The US. Army created what would become a proto-PDW decided a light semi-auto rifle chambering a modified 32 Winchester round to replace the Colt 1911A1 and built the M1 Carbine. Recent efforts seem to revolve around trying to develop something that can use the existing AR receiver and existing stock of 5.56mm ammo.
The US Airforce in the 1960/70's looking for light weapon that their pilots could carry in holster but would have more range experimented with the Colt SCAMP which was .22 caliber pistol with burst capability. The other being the Bushmaster Arm pistol.
The Germans, Belgians, and Peoples Republic of China seeing a rise in body armor in the 1980's, all set out primarily to build weapons that would have a high chance of penetrating personal armor. These resulted in the FN90, HK MP7, and Type 05. All these developed specific rounds for the task.
Getting back to the design of this weapon I guess what I was wrestling with how to get sufficient barrel length so I could get enough powder burn for velocity and not so much muzzle flash that the operator's fur would catch on fire! Since the operators were short, 3ft to 4.5ft. I wanted a weapon that would not be too cumbersome. Roughly I wanted weapon that was no wider than the width of the operators chest so geting into and out vehicles would not be hard when the weapon was slung across the chest. Also I wanted to explore a design that would have an ambi method of cocking and clearing jams. Just grab the slide and yank it back! Hope this was not too long of a reply,
The Czech decided that something more akin to a machine-pistol was in order for their tankers and developed the Vz61 chambering the 32ACP round.
The US. Army created what would become a proto-PDW decided a light semi-auto rifle chambering a modified 32 Winchester round to replace the Colt 1911A1 and built the M1 Carbine. Recent efforts seem to revolve around trying to develop something that can use the existing AR receiver and existing stock of 5.56mm ammo.
The US Airforce in the 1960/70's looking for light weapon that their pilots could carry in holster but would have more range experimented with the Colt SCAMP which was .22 caliber pistol with burst capability. The other being the Bushmaster Arm pistol.
The Germans, Belgians, and Peoples Republic of China seeing a rise in body armor in the 1980's, all set out primarily to build weapons that would have a high chance of penetrating personal armor. These resulted in the FN90, HK MP7, and Type 05. All these developed specific rounds for the task.
Getting back to the design of this weapon I guess what I was wrestling with how to get sufficient barrel length so I could get enough powder burn for velocity and not so much muzzle flash that the operator's fur would catch on fire! Since the operators were short, 3ft to 4.5ft. I wanted a weapon that would not be too cumbersome. Roughly I wanted weapon that was no wider than the width of the operators chest so geting into and out vehicles would not be hard when the weapon was slung across the chest. Also I wanted to explore a design that would have an ambi method of cocking and clearing jams. Just grab the slide and yank it back! Hope this was not too long of a reply,
It isn't a long reply unless its over 3 pages of text, and it doesn't get excessive until it starts to approach 10 pages. I prefer long, detailed, replies that give the I do excessive replies all the time on certain subjects, so this is no problem. :P
The fact that you have entire detailed worlds some to you in your sleep is impressive all on its own. This just gives me another peak. ;)
Not to drive a point too much, but the M1 has a stock and was quite successful. The SCAMP and Arm were both basically failures (without stocks) that were never made standard. The Germans, Belgians, and PRoC guns all have stocks and are quite popular. I'm not going to say that a stockless gun can't be successful, since the Steyr is pretty damn good, but in the PDW market there is a definite trend towards stocks. The flexibility and accuracy they provide are just too useful.
That description instantly makes me think of the FNP90 (probably too big) and the MP5K. In your design, you certainly have all the necessary concepts to fit your purpose. Its just that the absence of a stock, or some other rest, on a PDW rubs me the wrong way. You won't be able to get the accuracy a PDW needs without some kind of brace, and without the tactical grip its basically an automatic pistol.
The fact that you have entire detailed worlds some to you in your sleep is impressive all on its own. This just gives me another peak. ;)
Not to drive a point too much, but the M1 has a stock and was quite successful. The SCAMP and Arm were both basically failures (without stocks) that were never made standard. The Germans, Belgians, and PRoC guns all have stocks and are quite popular. I'm not going to say that a stockless gun can't be successful, since the Steyr is pretty damn good, but in the PDW market there is a definite trend towards stocks. The flexibility and accuracy they provide are just too useful.
That description instantly makes me think of the FNP90 (probably too big) and the MP5K. In your design, you certainly have all the necessary concepts to fit your purpose. Its just that the absence of a stock, or some other rest, on a PDW rubs me the wrong way. You won't be able to get the accuracy a PDW needs without some kind of brace, and without the tactical grip its basically an automatic pistol.
So you don't believe in the forearm bracing technique that was used for the Bushmaster Arm Pistol. I have not fired one personally but from a couple accounts of people I've met, and respect on this subjects, hits out to 100yds were fairly easy on man-sized targets in the chest area. Yes I know in my world that doesn't mean as much with the size differences, but these would be ranges that most people would not be able to easily do with a pistol under stress. Note they were shooting what would now be known as a three gun range course. Past 100yds and it got iffy for them.
Bushmaster's lack of success seems to have been as much an issue of quality control, timing in market, and suffering curse of looking different. Both shooters who I talked said that the arm pistols could be very finicky but they chalked that up to a design that was still "in the rough" that needed refinement. The market was not there because the Vietnam War was winding down and no large orders were placed by the government. That might have given some more credence to the concept in general civilian market. Also it suffered from the " neither fish nor fowl" problem. At the time it came out no one had seen anything like that. It wasn't a rifle nor was it a true pistol. I don't know how old you are Pixman but if you didn't grow up amongst US. shooters in the 1970's it is hard to imagine a more conservative group. I remember when the Sig P220 started showing up at the local gun shop. Many people eyeballed it like it a raygun from Mars just because its appearance. If looked different it took a heap of convincing to get them to buy. Also as civilian shooters they had different requirements than military personal, for them accuracy or concealabilty or accepted appearance was everything. Tech-geek shooters were still in their infancy, and 1970's ho-hum quality control didn't help the issue.
In the end weapons like this end up being compromises that no one usually completely happy with the final outcome, and that is something that most civilian shooters don't have to accept. Unless they live in California. If you want a rifle with maximum accuracy or cartridge performance it is simply a matter of what your budget will permit. Same goes for pistols and shotguns. Military weapons end up having to do often variety of contradicting tasks. One might be figuring out how to strap a 5.56mm weapon to a pilot's leg.
I have stated this was as much an intellectual exercise as nothing else. FYI. give me a choice and I'll take rifle stock too, but I this does not mean I won't let my subconscious play around with new flavors of the week. By the way you and the other folks who have posted to this have much more civilized than some of the people on the gun forums I've posted to before. Wee! Talk about egos!
Bushmaster's lack of success seems to have been as much an issue of quality control, timing in market, and suffering curse of looking different. Both shooters who I talked said that the arm pistols could be very finicky but they chalked that up to a design that was still "in the rough" that needed refinement. The market was not there because the Vietnam War was winding down and no large orders were placed by the government. That might have given some more credence to the concept in general civilian market. Also it suffered from the " neither fish nor fowl" problem. At the time it came out no one had seen anything like that. It wasn't a rifle nor was it a true pistol. I don't know how old you are Pixman but if you didn't grow up amongst US. shooters in the 1970's it is hard to imagine a more conservative group. I remember when the Sig P220 started showing up at the local gun shop. Many people eyeballed it like it a raygun from Mars just because its appearance. If looked different it took a heap of convincing to get them to buy. Also as civilian shooters they had different requirements than military personal, for them accuracy or concealabilty or accepted appearance was everything. Tech-geek shooters were still in their infancy, and 1970's ho-hum quality control didn't help the issue.
In the end weapons like this end up being compromises that no one usually completely happy with the final outcome, and that is something that most civilian shooters don't have to accept. Unless they live in California. If you want a rifle with maximum accuracy or cartridge performance it is simply a matter of what your budget will permit. Same goes for pistols and shotguns. Military weapons end up having to do often variety of contradicting tasks. One might be figuring out how to strap a 5.56mm weapon to a pilot's leg.
I have stated this was as much an intellectual exercise as nothing else. FYI. give me a choice and I'll take rifle stock too, but I this does not mean I won't let my subconscious play around with new flavors of the week. By the way you and the other folks who have posted to this have much more civilized than some of the people on the gun forums I've posted to before. Wee! Talk about egos!
My understanding of the bracing technique used for the BAP (now that I've looked into it a little :D ) is that the receiver will function as a stock when held against the shooter's forearm. I can understand how that might work, but without some better literature there is no way for me to tell how well it actually worked. The fact that the BAP has the ability to be braced, even if it's a little weird, actually supports the point I've been trying to make.
I haven't seen anyone else praise the accuracy of the BAP, and I have seen several others condemn it rather strenuously. I could easily be running up against a bunch of people who dislike things that are different, which the BAP has in spades, but the dearth of confirmations and lack of debate was fairly striking to me. I'd really like to know how such striking differences have developed over a weapon that was produced in such limited quantities.
The BAP might have had a bad history of quality control and manufacturing, but that is rarely enough to kill an entire concept. Yet, as far as I can tell, the concept in deader than hydrogen filled blimps. If it was good enough people wouldn't care about appearance. There are always some who disagree, and hang on until the bitter end, but function beats form nine times out of ten. Compared to the alternatives, I'm not surprised that the BAP got the fate it did. I'd need to do more research to find out how much of it was actually deserved, but thats for another day.
Thats life (and guns) for ya. Funny how well it works with California. California (gun) laws: making the rest of the country's (gun) laws look good.
The discussion is more civil here because we are only seeing the people who actively want to participate in a discussion that doesn't interest 90% of the people who will see this picture. That means that the number of trolls and clueless are kept to a minimum. There also isn't a need for posturing or other such foolishness in a small group over limited material. Change the topic to a broader generality and the trolls will return. Heck, the intellectual exercise is why I keep coming back. These long replies draw me in every time. :P
PS. I'm old enough to know better, but young enough to do it anyway.
I haven't seen anyone else praise the accuracy of the BAP, and I have seen several others condemn it rather strenuously. I could easily be running up against a bunch of people who dislike things that are different, which the BAP has in spades, but the dearth of confirmations and lack of debate was fairly striking to me. I'd really like to know how such striking differences have developed over a weapon that was produced in such limited quantities.
The BAP might have had a bad history of quality control and manufacturing, but that is rarely enough to kill an entire concept. Yet, as far as I can tell, the concept in deader than hydrogen filled blimps. If it was good enough people wouldn't care about appearance. There are always some who disagree, and hang on until the bitter end, but function beats form nine times out of ten. Compared to the alternatives, I'm not surprised that the BAP got the fate it did. I'd need to do more research to find out how much of it was actually deserved, but thats for another day.
Thats life (and guns) for ya. Funny how well it works with California. California (gun) laws: making the rest of the country's (gun) laws look good.
The discussion is more civil here because we are only seeing the people who actively want to participate in a discussion that doesn't interest 90% of the people who will see this picture. That means that the number of trolls and clueless are kept to a minimum. There also isn't a need for posturing or other such foolishness in a small group over limited material. Change the topic to a broader generality and the trolls will return. Heck, the intellectual exercise is why I keep coming back. These long replies draw me in every time. :P
PS. I'm old enough to know better, but young enough to do it anyway.
Look at the size of the grip, though.
You wouldn't shoulder the weapon at all. Unless the hands of the users are ridiculously huge compared to our proportions, I'd think the clip on that gun would be resting a bit short of mid-forearm when held.
It's a stretched pistol, not a shortened rifle. It's just that it's stretched backwards.
You wouldn't shoulder the weapon at all. Unless the hands of the users are ridiculously huge compared to our proportions, I'd think the clip on that gun would be resting a bit short of mid-forearm when held.
It's a stretched pistol, not a shortened rifle. It's just that it's stretched backwards.
Nah, I don't think you are looking at it right. If it was to be held like a pistol then the clip would get in the way of holding the weapon properly. You would have to awkwardly grip it from the side. And the gun is in a bullpup design, clearly meant for the most stable firing with shouldering the weapon. You put the loaded clip mounted at the rear of the gun and try to fire this like a pistol and you can bet you'll have an inaccurate back heavy weapon.
If it were me I would just get rid of the idea that the weapon has a slide and just say that there is an ejection port for the rounds, that way you can still shoulder the weapon without worrying about the slide messing up your shots.
Pistols you line up with your arm, with this gun the clip would get in the way. As with other PDW's like the MP7 and P90, i agree its doable to fire with one hand but just not a good idea.
If it were me I would just get rid of the idea that the weapon has a slide and just say that there is an ejection port for the rounds, that way you can still shoulder the weapon without worrying about the slide messing up your shots.
Pistols you line up with your arm, with this gun the clip would get in the way. As with other PDW's like the MP7 and P90, i agree its doable to fire with one hand but just not a good idea.
Actually...
Just holding my own arm out in front of myself, with and without a gun in my hand, I notice that the shape of forearm and hand leave plenty of room for that clip.
Backheavy, perhaps. But it's definately not meant as a shouldered weapon. I mean, take a good look at the size of your hand, your forearm, and the shape and size of the grip and the gun pictured. There's just not enough length in that thing for it to be pulled up against your shoulder, unless there's a clip-on stock like the Mauser or VP70.
And of course, we dunno about accuracy unless somebody actually built the thing.
Just holding my own arm out in front of myself, with and without a gun in my hand, I notice that the shape of forearm and hand leave plenty of room for that clip.
Backheavy, perhaps. But it's definately not meant as a shouldered weapon. I mean, take a good look at the size of your hand, your forearm, and the shape and size of the grip and the gun pictured. There's just not enough length in that thing for it to be pulled up against your shoulder, unless there's a clip-on stock like the Mauser or VP70.
And of course, we dunno about accuracy unless somebody actually built the thing.
I believe it would be pointless on my part to argue any further. If you believe this is a pistol type weapon I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. If the clip had simply been mounted inside the grip, I probably would've found nothing wrong with this being a two handed submachine gun, something along the lines of the Steyr TMP.
I was wondering the same thing myself, especially something designed for smaller-bodied individuals, you'd think they'd be apt to shoulder the thing for stability. Not to mention even if they aimed it two-handed without shouldering, with the slide cocking back it seems like it'd rattle your aim more than a standard SMG-style ejection port.
Pretty cool design I must say though, something about bullpup guns always makes them eye-catching.
Pretty cool design I must say though, something about bullpup guns always makes them eye-catching.
It's an interesting design, lots of Shirow Massamune (sp?) to be seen there, but the ejection port seems far too forward for the location of the magazine and the amount of 'throw' the slide has. Assuming it doesn't have something VERY exotic in-between, with the bolt fully to the rear, there's no way to pick up a round from the magazine, as the bolt-face will still be behind the forwardmost part of the magazine.
That being said, some years ago, I saw an AMT Lightning converted to a gun much like this. Full-auto and meant to be fired one-handed, you could pretty much write your name with it, the recoil was so low.
That being said, some years ago, I saw an AMT Lightning converted to a gun much like this. Full-auto and meant to be fired one-handed, you could pretty much write your name with it, the recoil was so low.
No, it could definately work.
The angles look a smidgen off, to be sure; Adding a bit more curveature to the mag, or straightening it out, so a straight stick mag would pop in at the same entry point...
But if you think of the design not as a rifle, but like a big automatic pistol, it's quite workable. I mean, pistols that take the mag through the grip basically have the same layout for the magazine, slide, ejection port, etc, relative to the ultimate rear end of the pistol. It's just that this design has stripped the grip and trigger off the magazine and moved it forward.
He is ignoring the whole hammer or striker assembly, though; There'd be a bit of a bulge behind where the magazine feeds into the body, like the butt lump on a pistol. It'd work, if the magazine pictured was suddenly vertical once it entered the body, but as is, the curves would have the feed lips at the immediate rear.
Basically... Rework the magazine well. The way it curves and clips onto the butt of the pistol grip could work, but for the moment, it IS a smidgen too far back.
The angles look a smidgen off, to be sure; Adding a bit more curveature to the mag, or straightening it out, so a straight stick mag would pop in at the same entry point...
But if you think of the design not as a rifle, but like a big automatic pistol, it's quite workable. I mean, pistols that take the mag through the grip basically have the same layout for the magazine, slide, ejection port, etc, relative to the ultimate rear end of the pistol. It's just that this design has stripped the grip and trigger off the magazine and moved it forward.
He is ignoring the whole hammer or striker assembly, though; There'd be a bit of a bulge behind where the magazine feeds into the body, like the butt lump on a pistol. It'd work, if the magazine pictured was suddenly vertical once it entered the body, but as is, the curves would have the feed lips at the immediate rear.
Basically... Rework the magazine well. The way it curves and clips onto the butt of the pistol grip could work, but for the moment, it IS a smidgen too far back.
Yes it is more like a large pistol than a rifle. It is not a subsitute for a rifle or for that matter a SMG. It intended to be a weapon that is to be carried at all times and be used by non-com personal who are 4.5 ft or less and need a emergency weapon to be generally used at ranges of less than 100yds.
Your general point on design are worth noting but please remember I got about five minutes in the dream of people discussing and examining the weapon at the range, and 30 minutes to put the idea down on paper one night.
Your general point on design are worth noting but please remember I got about five minutes in the dream of people discussing and examining the weapon at the range, and 30 minutes to put the idea down on paper one night.
Oh, since Shirow is one of my heroes I'm not surprised that my subconscious dredge up some similar design elements when I had the dream. I've also seen Ruger 10/22's chopped down to MAC-10 size objects and made full-auto. They sound more like power tools and do just about as good of a job drilling things!
at ranges inside of 100 meters, the .22 WMR is a lethal round to unarmoured personnel. You can drop a deer with it, or any other man-sized target. The 5.56 (or .223 Remington) round is just a WMR with a little more velocity at further range. So it's not at all unusual to have a PDW in .22 WMR.
Actually, this design as Baroncoon has drawn it could be easily built as a real weapon. If I had the machine tools, I could make a working prototype.
Actually, this design as Baroncoon has drawn it could be easily built as a real weapon. If I had the machine tools, I could make a working prototype.
Not confusing it at all. I've hunted coyotes and small game with this round for years. It's a one-shot instant kill out of a carbine. Velocity is greatly improved from a 20" barrel with no gas loss between chamber and barrel over a revolver that loses energy from a shorter barrel and gas pressure loss between cylinder and bore.
No even 22LR is not something to sneeze at especially at ranges of 100yds or less which is where most PDW's are meant to operate in. Yes it is not a 5.56x45mm or a 7.62x39mm but if you are not wearing armor and you get smacked suddenly by six rounds in the chest it will mess up your day. Also when you are dealing with individuals who weigh less than 75lbs, you sometimes are just limited by the size of cartridge they can use.
Also if you wonder if the 22LR has any application in a defense/ combat scenario remember the American Arms 180 was originally developed for use inside of prisons where ricochets had to be keep to a minimum but targets had to be stopped quick. Apparently a fire hose of 22LR will do the job.
Also if you wonder if the 22LR has any application in a defense/ combat scenario remember the American Arms 180 was originally developed for use inside of prisons where ricochets had to be keep to a minimum but targets had to be stopped quick. Apparently a fire hose of 22LR will do the job.
Ah yes this is one area where ammo designers pull their figurative hair out. There can be wildly conflicting information concerning how effective a round maybe. One person gets hit and down he goes. Another gets hit by the same round, in maybe the same location, and not only lives to see another day but does not seem to adversly effected by it?
The biggest thing I had to deal with in this design was how to get cartridge, any cartridge, that had at least a fighting chance of putting down an opponent, but was still something a person under 75lbs might be able to handle quickly and effectively under stress. This is why in this world .221 Fireball, .22 Hornet, .22WMR. 5.7mm FN, and .224 Boz are much more popular.
The biggest thing I had to deal with in this design was how to get cartridge, any cartridge, that had at least a fighting chance of putting down an opponent, but was still something a person under 75lbs might be able to handle quickly and effectively under stress. This is why in this world .221 Fireball, .22 Hornet, .22WMR. 5.7mm FN, and .224 Boz are much more popular.
oh wow, thats very cool. Id imagine that the rate of fire on this is extremely high(1000+ rounds per. min?). it reminds me a lot of this http://flickr.com/photos/donsolo/1178800570/
Not really, actually it is a bit smaller dimension-wise than the P90, and cartridge is not quite as zippy as the 5.7mm FN round. Now in this world there has been a push to develop better rimfire ammo so you are not just stuck with copperwashed lead round bullets that will give you grief when start trying load them in full auto mode.
Wow. It's... It's an oversize bullpup machine pistol. If you could keep the long linkage from trigger to sear nice and tight, I think that'd actually work.
I mean, if you think of it like a normal pistol, instead of a rifle, it all fits together.
If I'd make one change, though, it'd be this: The iron sights look ridiculously close together. I know, it's meant as a short range PDW, not a rifle, but still, I'd be more comfortable with the rear sight shifted back off the P90 'flying bridge' rail and onto the butt of the slide.
That, or go with a guttersnipe or integral reflex on that bridge, instead of the aftermarket-looking one.
I mean, if you think of it like a normal pistol, instead of a rifle, it all fits together.
If I'd make one change, though, it'd be this: The iron sights look ridiculously close together. I know, it's meant as a short range PDW, not a rifle, but still, I'd be more comfortable with the rear sight shifted back off the P90 'flying bridge' rail and onto the butt of the slide.
That, or go with a guttersnipe or integral reflex on that bridge, instead of the aftermarket-looking one.
Er... hadn't read the very bottom of the description about lack of a stock.
Anyways, the thing I was mainly worried about was that the slide could come back and injure the user when fired. Not normally an issue with a pistol because of the way it's held. With this though there's a chance that the slide could strike the forearm if used one handed.
Anyways, the thing I was mainly worried about was that the slide could come back and injure the user when fired. Not normally an issue with a pistol because of the way it's held. With this though there's a chance that the slide could strike the forearm if used one handed.
Yes it could be done. in fact then if one did want to install a folding stock it would present very little problem. Especially since they make the 10/22 in 22WMR now.
I only experimented with pistol slide idea so I could get ambidexterous method of cocking that would lay the weapon flat against the body on either side, and would require no folding cocking lever or a top or bottom lever. another method would have been to install a trombone, pump, action that could used to load and clear the weapon. Also I wanted a method of cocking that would also incorporate the many of the bang, tap, clear drill motions into it.
I only experimented with pistol slide idea so I could get ambidexterous method of cocking that would lay the weapon flat against the body on either side, and would require no folding cocking lever or a top or bottom lever. another method would have been to install a trombone, pump, action that could used to load and clear the weapon. Also I wanted a method of cocking that would also incorporate the many of the bang, tap, clear drill motions into it.
Some kind of attachable or folding stock would help I think. Looking at the firing positions, it seems kind of cumbersome. Holding any sort of automatic that far from your body decreases your leverage with it and makes it a lot less accurate. I realize it's more of a spray-n-pray weapon, but even smaller SMGs like the Uzi and Skorpion have that option.
This design reminds me a lot of the Soviet PP-2000 though, which seems to do alright for itself.
This design reminds me a lot of the Soviet PP-2000 though, which seems to do alright for itself.
Comments