Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Having the center of mass close to the body makes the gun easier to swing around, but harder to handle. Like I mentioned above, the ideal place for the center of mass to be is between the shooter’s hands. Conveniently, this is an easy place to fit the center of mass on a rifle.

Personally, I think bullpups are an outdated design. They’re sort of a Cold War artifact, and we’re increasingly moving away from them.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 23rd 2018 at 1:31:37 AM

Laser rifle wouldn't have recoil.

I ask because it would make sense to make standardized batteries that could be fit into a multitude of laser rifles.

Laser weapons do shake a bit as they fire because of the rapid heating of the air around them, it basicly makes like little thunder strikes as they fire... but it is no where near as violent as a normal rifle.

I don't think standardization would be a good idea in this case, since it would be a much better one to maximize the energy storage volume per weapon, soldiers don't normally carry more then one gun (pistols are only really for officers, and things like HMG and Rockets are more like special equipment) so as long as they can all work off the same charger your golden.

Edited by Imca on Sep 23rd 2018 at 3:29:26 AM

Okaaaay

If you want to keep the weight distribution by the hands then you might as well just have a long and thin battery and slot it in through the grip like a pistol with an extended mag. This of course would produce a very long and awkwards battery in order to meet the same volume demands.

Putting the battery in front of the grip actually hurts weight distribution because the front of the gun is needed for the heat sink/radiator. With both of the heavy elements out near the muzzle and nowhere to safely put your hands you'll be way too barrel heavy.

Some food for thought: [[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720813509107 Biomechanical and Performance Implications of Weapon Design:Comparison of Bullpup and Conventional Configurations]]:

"...Results:

The bullpup weapon designs were found to provide a significant advantage in accuracy and shooter stability, while subjects showed considerable preference toward the conventional weapons."

It's just one study, so take with a certain grain of salt, but still, it's one study.

The center of balance for a bullpup design can vary anywhere from near the buttplate all the way up to the firing hand grip, depending on which bullpup one is referring to; for a conventional rifle it's commonly somewhere between the two hands. Which is "better" is probably more a matter of personal preference, training and the purpose of the weapon than anything else.

If it’s meant to be a general issue military weapon you probably don’t want anything long sticking out the bottom. Since there’s no mechanical feed you could probably experiment with some funky placements.

I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that conclusion. The measurement of “stability” they describe seems like a fairly limited way of describing a weapon’s ergonomics, and you’ll note that all shooters preferred the conventional rifles over the bullpups. There are also some more general issues with bullpups that aren’t measured in terms of stability.

Bullpup rifles in military service haven’t exactly stood the test of time, after all.

Also, by nature the center of balance on a bullpup is always further back. Unless you’re adding weights to the forend there’s no way around that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 24th 2018 at 9:34:23 AM

Shooters tend to prefer conventional layout because that's what there used too.

If you talk to shooters that trained on bullpups they prefer them and dislike conventional layouts.

But those studies tend not to include non-us military personal, who are the only ones who's first rifle experience is bullpup.

Human nature is weird and we tend to cling to the first thing we are exposed too.

Edited by Imca on Sep 24th 2018 at 12:50:17 PM

This is where I point out the P-90 bullpup design largely takes care of pretty much all the concerns. It is very well balanced across the weapon.

Military personnel switching from bullpup to conventional tend to like conventional better as well. It’s a more natural motion to manipulate the magazine and controls on a rifle with a conventional layout.

You’ll notice that most militaries fielding bullpup rifles are slowly switching over to a conventional design. The benefits of a conventional design are readily apparent when the two are side by side.

I wonder how a P90 scaled up to a full-sized rifle would turn out. I get the feeling the magazine design would probably have to be altered a little.

I think they would likely have to shift some bits around to maintain balance but I think a design like FN's could work and apply it to a laser weapon might make some sense if you put a power pack in a similar location as Immy mentioned early.

Lasers are kind of odd because they have other requirements. Like the focusing equipment, the parts that do the lasing, any stores of materials like gasses, power supplies, etc. You will ultimately build a laser a bit differently than traditional or even EM rifles.

Here check this out. This is a 5 kw cutting laser for use in nuclear decommissioning. That tube and nozzle are almost entirely lasing apparatus with power and the compressed air coming in from an umbilical. Though they put the pistol and foregrip in places much like you would on a firearm. They use a support rig to help hold up the laser for long periods of time so they can cut and to improve stability. You will wind up building a military-style laser rifle a bit differently but ultimately all the points about balance and everything still remain the same as it is about keeping a good center of balance ideally around where you grip the weapon.

Idk called me old fashioned, but when I fired the M4 for range qualification it felt significantly more natural than any bull pup I fired at a gun range. Felt like it could explode in my face at any moment

I think it's not at all unlikely that someone will build a laser bullbup 100 years from now, and they will still be having this exact same debate.

I’m not sure the phrase “bullpup” is really relevant for a laser rifle, at least not in the same way as with a regular rifle.

The question was just about the idea of making a laser rifle with a battery mag stuck in bullpup configuration and whether or not it's a good idea.

Here's another one, standardization is a thing and makes sense for a lot of modern weaponry, such as the modern NATO magazine and how it can be fitted into most guns.

To continue the laser rifle idea, would a standardized laser battery make sense for the gun?

When you talk standard issue military equipment you are also talking about a generalized standard to ensure wide compatibility with other equipment that shares those standards. It makes it easier to supply and maintain a particular set of equipment.

It also makes it easier to train troops to the same standards, easier to supply munitions, easier to get replacements, and overall just easier to deal with.

If you have a standardized set of power packs/batteries/generators you know what to expect from that unit.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Sep 24th 2018 at 6:16:28 AM

At the same time it can hinder performance if your talking battery packs, individual designs would allow a lot of maximization.

But your going to want them to all connect to the same charger.

Maybe a wireless charger in the armory? Charge all the batteries while stored.

Immy: No it wouldn't hinder performance at all. Standardization reinforces and sets an expected baseline and ensures your kit is built to meet performance. Standardized equipment is all built for both compatibility and to ensure it has expected performance parameters. That is the point of standardization.

Standardization like STANAG ^note NATO Standardization Agreement enables certain mandated parameters so that even new equipment is still compatible and you know it offers the required baseline performance. Like STANAG P-Mags. We know what to expect from them as they are built to that standard despite other differences. At a minimum, they operate the exact same way as the generic military issue metal magazines. It is why most NATO equipment is compatible with each other. It is why the US can share their smart weapon stores with allies.

You want a power supply with the better capacity you can build it but standardization means you still need to meet the weapons requirements to hook it up. It is like the difference in a 20 round box mag and 50 round casket mag both built to the same standards of capability in the weapons systems. That means they both fit the mag well and they both work with the mag release and both fit the appropriate caliber of ammo as expected. You still get the improvement but you also get the standardization to make sure it is compatible.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Sep 24th 2018 at 6:38:03 AM

The problem is that for an energy weapon there is no enforced connection point, and for maximum capacity your going to want your battery to run the entire weapons length.

You can't really do that with standardized ones unless you force all guns to be the same length which is kinda dumb.

There is a reason laptop batteries, even removable ones aren't standardized, yet other parts are.

It really eats into your performance to have to comply with set dimensions instead of just using every thing that isn't filled for power storage... and in high performance electonics like say a weaponized laser it isn't worth it any more then standardized fuel tanks are for vehicles.

Conventional guns already work under more design restrictions that makes standardization easier.

@Imca

That's another argument against lengthwise batteries. The first being heat management, what with keeping a hot lasing tube away from a highly energy dense battery.

What about the fact that making standardized laser guns that fit a mold and can accept a standardized battery is something that would likely happen? After all if you have a functioning laser design and can get away with minor tweaks while keeping the same power source on use, wouldn't that be easier to mass produce and outfit people with?

Echo: Yes. You have pretty much hit on the essence of some form standardization. You can create modularity in standaridization. It is more difficult but possible. The modular units all still adhere to some form of standard meaning you know what they will do and how they will work. Kind of like how rail systems on weapons allowed greater component modularity as long as they worked with the rest of the weapon. The M-16A2 and forward pattern rifles are not locked into using the 30 round magazine or even just one make of magazine and have become increasingly modular systems.

Bel: I think I agree on that part. Heat and batteries are seldom good friends.

Immy: You are trying to use some really bizarre logic here. You also really don't understand how common standardization is in damn near everything be it internal standards for products rolling off of a production line, which requires standardization in the first place, to larger and broader requirements for any number of modern made products and equipment. You also don't seem to get how it works.

Yes, there is. There are only so many parts you can connect your power supply to and only so many positions to connect from that are practical. That means standardization and limited points of contact. The wiring will ultimately wind up at the same point. You want to ensure any power supply device will work with the guns connection options. Again standardization. It is not limiting anything it is ensuring that your equipment works with whatever you attach to it.

No that isn't necessarily accurate or true either. That would be both determined by the energy density of what you are using for a power pack or battery as well as the overall shape of the weapon and how well they work with each other. You want what bits fit the shape, ergonomics of the weapon, and what practical designs you can use to power it.

Yeah, you could do it with standardized units, you can do it very easily. You know you need X length of a weapon for lasing gear, focusing equipment, and where the beam leaves the rifle. You design the battery to fit across the top in that space for roughly X number of shots. There done.

Once you start adding to the basic design beyond what you need you are instead creating excessive weight and increasing inefficiency in your design. You will have a set length, overall bulk, and overall mass on any weapon that you will hold too, again standardization. You would know how long your weapon will be and what you have to work with. Again those factors are going to be driven by ergonomics and practicality of design. You don't make your weapon larger to take a bigger magazine you work the magazine to hold more and fit the weapon. Having your common infantry laser the same length because they have the same parts isn't stupid either. You know how much space you have to work with to meet various needs and requirements. You want weapons for specialized roles you create new weapons and they have their own standards.

Actually yes laptop batteries are standardized. You want a new type of battery in the same laptop it has to meet certain standardized parameters to work with it. You take the battery out of the same make and model of laptop and plug it into another, it will work just fine because it is standardized. You buy a third party battery built to work with your laptop. It works because they built it to the same set of standards for minimum performance and compatibility.

You do realize there are also fuel tank standards on vehicles especially vehicle lines. They have to meet various standards in their overall designs before they are considered acceptable for use. Same for high-performance electronics.

In fact, high performance and standardization go hand in hand. You set a standard and stick to it to ensure you are getting the degree of performance you are looking for because excessive unintentional variability causes issues n the design and the more complex the design the less unintentional variability you want in it. The less variability there is the easier it is to create high-performance equipment. The high-performance equipment uses standardization as well and often have much tighter parameters and less tolerance for difference in parts making highly accurate standardization an effective mandatory means to an end.

No, it doesn't eat into your performance at all. You need a weapon for a specific role you design it to a standard so that every last example of that weapon performs the way you want it and need it to or as close as you can get in terms of practicality. Private Smuckatelly and Private Snafu should not be getting variable performance out of the same weapon with the same equipment in the same situation. You shouldn't be expecting an infantryman's laser weapon to meet the same standards of performance as a larger more powerful unit mounted on a vehicle or a unit specialized for highest possible accuracy across the longest distance. You have to design your laser differently for that too.

That is absolutely hilarious especially given the massive variety of firearms, ammo, accessories, and modifications that exist and the massive amount of variability you can find in any number of designs. Standardization means you get a set of weapons whose performance you know and is designed for the task at hand.

Lasers as conventional arms for a military would need standardization to ensure they are getting what they expect in the same regards.

There is no reason to not use standardized equipment meant for mass manufacture and mass issue at all.

A little history lesson on standardization.

Way back before weapons were fully standardized there was a ton of variability in even a single weapon design. Even when guns were first deployed en masse you couldn't reach over and pinch your buddies shot and rods off their weapon or borrow their bullet mold. Why? Because of a lack of standardization. Those pieces of equipment were custom made for every weapon. Calibers could vary by as much as several millimeters between shooters. The only universal were the matches and powder.

Fast forward to when flintlocks were becoming the most common arm. They still had those problems but brought them under control by using patterning. That added a specific standard based on a few weapons and meant much greater uniformity in weapons. Go further into the future still. Anyone can pick up one common issue military assault rifle and expect it to operate like an identical model. You could share ammo, parts, equipment, and logistics was simplified. Even better the British had found a way to maintain a standardized powder grain size which helped them have some of the best quality powder for their weapons for the era.

Even more, telling is one of the key hallmarks of successful industrialization which enabled mass manufacturing and the vastly improved logistics was the ability to standardize damn near everything.

Standardization is a given in anything resembling modern or future warfare, especially in high-performance equipment. Standardized equipment can have variability but that boils down to how you set your standards and where you choose to have flexibility. The Standards for an M-40A5 Sniper rifle are very specific despite being custom fitted to a shooter. They still meet the baseline for the rifles high degree of expected performance. Same for their ammo and optics. The M-16 has looser standards because of what they decided they could give on. There are a lot more mounting options and custom kit that can be fitted but the standardized weapon is still just that standardized. The core of the weapon is the standard and everything else is built to be compatible with it.

No matter how you try and look it standardization is actually essential for any successful military body.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Sep 24th 2018 at 8:13:59 AM

lol could you imagine how much of a shitshow appropriations would be for the Department of Defense if shit wasn't standardized across the board?

Are you trying to give me nightmares? I wouldn't want to imagine that further down the line as an armorer.

The things your pointing out for standardization though are all for the same line of product which makes sense, there is no reason NOT to standardize the batterys for your laser assault rifle.

What I am saying is that there is no reason for your Laser Sniper Rifle to use the same battery as your Laser SMG, or as your Laser Assault Rifle.

Nor is there a reason for the X-203 Assault Lasing system with its 1 meter length, and cool operating temperature to use the same battery pack as the X-102 and with its .75 meter length with its high power output, but blistering operating temperature.

Each of those is going to have different requirements and trying to feed them off the same unit is hamstringing yourself, there are much more requirements then "This magizine works in every thing that fires 5.56"

Edited by Imca on Sep 24th 2018 at 7:00:15 AM

Immy: Then you aren't getting what standardization is. The vast majority of the military is going to be using one form of weapon and whatever supplies it needs to shoot. That is standardization. Unless we start talking specialist weapons then yes a standardized ammo source is ideal. Which last I checked that was the question. Echo's question was for laser rifles in the generic sense, not the Laser Devastator Cannon MK XXII, the LLMG Type 50, or other specialized weapons.

It would be like trying to design a new type of magazine for every variant of NATO standard 5.56mm assault rifle out there when one does the same job for all the varieties of standardized weapons. There are plenty of variations in weapons but they can all use the same magazine. I can take that STANAG magazine and slap it in the mag well of either an old A2 or into the mag well of the M-27 and expect the same thing. The M-27 is looking to be a better weapon overall but that standardization isn't hurting it at all. Hell, you can do it with any STANAG compatible AR rifle in NATO regardless of other properties.

Doing the same thing with a battery pack is trivial and just like the STANAG magazines beneficial for a large body with some variability in weapons that may have to share a logistics pool. If "Space Nation of the Super-Apes" has a standardization agreement for compatible battery packs with their allied neighbors "The Hive of the Communal Lizard People" then it doesn't matter what the differing performance and general design parameters of their laser rifles are they can use each other's battery packs. When they do joint ops they can pool resources and make logistics easier for both. There is a significant amount of advantage to be gained by such arrangements especially between groups or allies and even military branches expecting to work together on a regular basis. In many ways power packs/batteries, even power generators are a lot more forgiving. The laser isn't going to give three shits where its power supply comes from. It won't jam from the wrong caliber or cartridge difference. If it is underpowered it can likely still shoot it just won't be as effective.

Again that same kind of standardization allows the US to share munitions with the majority of the different tanks, IFV/AFV, and aircraft in NATO inventory even if they normally use the different kit. The US can also use a good chunk of the same kit from their side to ours.

That is what standardization does and allows. It is way more flexible then you are trying to make it out to be.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Sep 24th 2018 at 10:51:06 AM