Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. V

[Swordguy]

The Cutts Compensator is a sort of muzzle brake related thing, right?

More or less. It's a quad-slit variable-width compensator attached to the end of the barrel, designed to vent gas up and backwards (counteracting both recoil and muzzle climb). It's extremely effective, but was only used on the original Thompson 1928s. The subsequent editions (including the WWII-era M1 SMGs) usually didn't include them.

Crow: I'm looking for that video. I saw it on a History Channel special a few years back, so I'm pretty sure it's accurate (shocked the hell out of me when I saw it). I'll link it back here and PM it to you if I find it.

[Norsesmithy]

Thanks for answering my question. Considering the Mac 10's "phonebooth gun" nick-name, I'm surprised that it was controllable.

One handed, without the suppressor, it is an absolute hose. With the suppressor, holding the front strap, it recoils firmly, but not snappily. The gun rises, but as a unit, not muzzle first.

I also am a fairly fit 220 lbs, and that is definitely a factor.

[Joran]

So, all this talk about cartridges got me somewhat confused when I dived into the murky depths of Wikipedia.

What differentiates between a pistol round and a rifle round? Is it just an arbitrary designation for what the round was designed for? Or is there a fundamental difference between the two?

I know some pistol rounds find their way into carbines, which look like rifles...

P.S. Also, is there a substantial difference between submachine guns and assault rifles other than one fires pistol rounds and the other rifle rounds?

[Storm Bringer]

So, all this talk about cartridges got me somewhat confused when I dived into the murky depths of Wikipedia.

What differentiates between a pistol round and a rifle round? Is it just an arbitrary designation for what the round was designed for? Or is there a fundamental difference between the two?

I know some pistol rounds find their way into carbines, which look like rifles...

P.S. Also, is there a substantial difference between submachine guns and assault rifles other than one fires pistol rounds and the other rifle rounds?

yhea. scale.

this picture shows fairly clearly the difference in the power powder charges between pistol and rifle bullets.

In short, a Rifle round has a much larger power charge and thus has much more power (and recoil).

[Joran]

In short, a Rifle round has a much larger power charge and thus has much more power (and recoil).

Something like a .50 Action Express or a .454 Casull round seem rather powerful for pistol bullets and may carry powder charges in excess of some of the lower powered rifles. But yes, now that you say it, it does seem an obvious distinction.

Another thing, is there a reason that the rifle bullets, for lack of a better term, seem "pointier" than the pistol bullets?

[Storm Bringer]

Something like a .50 Action Express or a .454 Casull round seem rather powerful for pistol bullets and may carry powder charges in excess of some of the lower powered rifles. But yes, now that you say it, it does seem an obvious distinction.

Another thing, is there a reason that the rifle bullets, for lack of a better term, seem "pointier" than the pistol bullets?

sort of.

Partially, it's just to do with the speeds involved, as rifle rounds are often supersonic (5.56 nato gets up to somthing like mach 3), while pistol rounds are mostly not, meaning they can afford to be 'less' aerodynamic.

Also, most rilfe rounds are jacketed (the lead has a sheath of copper on it), which aids armour penatration at the cost of leathality (less energy is transfered, and agianst some targets the bullet with 'over' penatrate and leave the target relatively unharmed). Many pistol rounds however are hollowpoint types that are designed to expand on impact, reducing penatration but increasing damage done.

I'm sure their more reasons, but it's 11pm and I'm not exactly at my brighest at this time.

[Crow]

Swordguy: That vid would be great. I hope you find it =)

To expand on what Storm Bringer said, some pistol cartridges are supersonic (like the 9mm luger, generally using bullets 124 grains and less). There are heavier 9mm rounds that are subsonic too though. One of the big uses for subsonic rounds is suppressed fire.

You see, there are two types of suppression. Complete suppression (suppressor paired with subsonic ammo), and partial suppression (suppressor with supersonic ammo). The latter isn't terribly effective.

Most rifle rounds if slowed to subsonic speeds aren't effective because so much of their energy comes from velocity. If they aren't slowed down, they make too much noise as they bust through the sound barrier. Meanwhile, most pistol rounds are designed to be subsonic anyways, and have enough mass to dump an appreciable amount of energy despite the lower velocity. This makes them perfect for use with suppressors, and and SMG offers good middle ground between a rifle and a pistol in this application.

...Just throwing that out there.

[Dervag]

More or less. It's a quad-slit variable-width compensator attached to the end of the barrel, designed to vent gas up and backwards (counteracting both recoil and muzzle climb). It's extremely effective, but was only used on the original Thompson 1928s. The subsequent editions (including the WWII-era M1 SMGs) usually didn't include them.

Not surprised; sounds like a big pain to machine.

Has that technology ever been used on other automatic weapons, or only on the Thompson?

[Norsesmithy]

I don't know of Cutts style compensators being used on any particular standard issued weapons, but similar muzzle devices are available for just about every type of firearm.

[Rasilak]

Partially, it's just to do with the speeds involved, as rifle rounds are often supersonic (5.56 nato gets up to somthing like mach 3), while pistol rounds are mostly not, meaning they can afford to be 'less' aerodynamic.

Actually, the aerodynamics at subsonic speeds are quite different to the aerodynamics at supersonic speeds. So the shape of pistol/rifle rounds could just be optimal for their speed. (For subsonic speeds the optimal shape is just like a drop of water, whereas supersonic speed tends to favor "pointier" shapes)
However, the armor piercing vs. hollow point is probably also an issue.

[pendell]

Booby traps. Enemies who want to kill you. Treasure underground. In a labyrinth.

D&D? No. Tunnel Rats in the real world.

Whether you're talking about the Iron Triangle in Vietnam or the Caves of Tora Bora , it's a common feature of modern war that guerrilla insurgencies build bases, hospitals, storerooms, etc. deep, deep, underground. The Russians had them too, or at least they did.

Which means there needs to be a special breed of soldier specially trained to infiltrate these underground complexes, avoid the traps, kill anyone still there, and leave with intelligence (maps, live officers, Osama Bin Laden, you name it).

The Tunnel Rats.

Which sounds suspiciously like a D&D dungeon crawl, if you ask me.

Which raises the following questions:

1) Are there any good real world guides to the way tunnel rats really operate?

2) Has anyone tried to incorporate this sort of thing into a D&D campaign? If so, how does it modify the campaign? Different house rules, modifiers, that sort of thing?

3) Would 'tunnel rat' make a prestige class? I'm thinking it would probably be some kind of fighter/rogue cross.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Thiel]

Booby traps. Enemies who want to kill you. Treasure underground. In a labyrinth.

D&D? No. Tunnel Rats in the real world.

Whether you're talking about the Iron Triangle in Vietnam or the Caves of Tora Bora , it's a common feature of modern war that guerrilla insurgencies build bases, hospitals, storerooms, etc. deep, deep, underground. The Russians had them too, or at least they did.

Which means there needs to be a special breed of soldier specially trained to infiltrate these underground complexes, avoid the traps, kill anyone still there, and leave with intelligence (maps, live officers, Osama Bin Laden, you name it).

The Tunnel Rats.

Which sounds suspiciously like a D&D dungeon crawl, if you ask me.

Which raises the following questions:

1) Are there any good real world guides to the way tunnel rats really operate?

Given the amount of military literature out there, I'd be surprised if there weren't at least one book dealing with the subject.

2) Has anyone tried to incorporate this sort of thing into a D&D campaign? If so, how does it modify the campaign? Different house rules, modifiers, that sort of thing?

3) Would 'tunnel rat' make a prestige class? I'm thinking it would probably be some kind of fighter/rogue cross.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This really isn't the place to ask. Rules related questions aren't allowed.

[Conners]

I was wondering how really thick armour would work. I have a homebrew race of medium-sized warriors (they're physically the same as humans) who I intend to wear very thick armour.

I intended it to be a foot-thick. They're strong enough to take the weight (the meta is stronger and lighter than steel). Would this work?

[Thiel]

It wouldn't. At least not for someone with human-sized limbs. To illustrate why, try holding a shoebox or something similar to your chest and see how much you can move the other arm. And this doesn't take the armour on your arms into account.

[Conners]

It wouldn't. At least not for someone with human-sized limbs. To illustrate why, try holding a shoebox or something similar to your chest and see how much you can move the other arm. And this doesn't take the armour on your arms into account.

I was figuring this would be a problem... How thick could the armour get before it got impossible to move properly?

[Edmund]

I was figuring this would be a problem... How thick could the armour get before it got impossible to move properly?

Well, it all depends on how much coverage you want them to have. For example you could have a very crude breastplate that's a foot thick, provided it was basically just a board on your chest that gave your arms free motion. If you're talking about fitted plate armour we're talking like 2 inches max in the joints, though as thick as you want elsewhere, given normal body proportions etc. Even at 2 inches though, you're talking about armour that's ~ 35 times thicker than 16 gauge steel.

I mean, What have the players got? RPG-27s?

1 foot is thicker than armor on a T-62 (242mm on turret front)

Seriously dude you've basically got guys wearing 200 pound anvils on their arms.

[Fhaolan]

Re: Thickness of armor....

There is a practical limit to the thickness of armor due to the nature of articulation. Let's use two examples, 'soft' armors like maille, padded, etc., and 'hard' armors like full plate.

With flexible armors, you always have the problem of bunching. Say your arm is covered in normal cloth, such as with a shirt sleeve. Bend your elbow. See the folding of cloth there? Now, put on a winter coat that has much thicker cloth. See how there is more material bunched up in your bent elbow? The same effect happens with maille, padded armor, and such, but those materials are far more bulky than normal cloth. The thicker the materials, the more they bunch, and the less you can bend your arms, all the way up to being completely immobile.

With hard armors you still have the 'bunching' effect but it shows up differently. In order to fold your arm at the elbow, the armor has to be cut away on the inside of the elbow, so that the metal plates only contact each other once your arm is bent. Otherwise, you can't bend your arm properly. The thicker the plates, the more has to be cut away, or the less you can bend your arm. Say your forearm is 1' long (just pulling a number out a hat, I've not actually measured my forearm to see how long it is), and you decide that you can cope with only being able to bend your elbow 90 degrees. With 1' thick armor plates, the only way to make a 90 degree bend is to cut away all the armor from the wrist back to the elbow. Meaning, no armor at all on the inside of your arm.

[Swordguy]

Got an odd firearm problem here. I've just had something happen that I've NEVER experienced or heard of before.

I'm shooting my Glock 19, and I pull the trigger. I get the distinct "pop" of the primer firing, but no "bang". Turns out there's NO POWDER inside the cartridge (factory cartridge, btw, not a reloaded one) - but the force of the primer was enough to send the slug about 1/3rd of the way down the barrel, engage the rifling, and...get stuck. I can't tamp it out with even a large amount of force.

So...what now? Gunsmith?

[Crow]

Yep, you're in line for a trip to the gunsmith =) If you have a vise, you can use a piece of steel barstock down the barrel, and vise the two together. The bullet will reach the end of the barrel, and then you can work it the rest of the way.

[Dervag]

Would anyone care to give an order of magnitude estimate for the likelihood of something like this happening?

[Swordguy]

Would anyone care to give an order of magnitude estimate for the likelihood of something like this happening?

One in "big-fragging-number", approximately. I dunno - how many bullets are manufactured in the US per year? Probably something like 4-5 in that number.

OK. Gunsmith on Monday. Wanted to be sure there wasn't something I hadn't thought of.

[Crow]

The chances go up quite a bit if you continue using ammunition from the same lot as the the powderless cartridge. =) Check the lot number and toss out any other stuff you have from the same lot.

[xPANCAKEx]

and write a letter of complaint to the manufacturer too - even if you don't get anything but a corporate appology, at least they might recall a batch and save the same thing from happening to someone else

[Thiel]

I've tried the same thing with a Finnbear rifle firing 30-06 Springfield. Luckily for me, the store paid the repair bill.

[Neftren]

A question referring to blades. More specifically, fencing blades.

What would you call a Rapier or Epee... if you removed the crossguard and basket hilt? I'm kind of stumped as to what I would call it, hence why I'm asking what you guys would think. Any ideas?

[Tsotha-lanti]

A question referring to blades. More specifically, fencing blades.

What would you call a Rapier or Epee... if you removed the crossguard and basket hilt? I'm kind of stumped as to what I would call it, hence why I'm asking what you guys would think. Any ideas?

A pointed metal stick?

Useless?

Pointless? (Hurhur.)

A canesword without a cane?

There's no name for such a weapon, since there's no good reason to take away the guard from a sword.

[Thiel]

Possibly a super-sized stiletto. Not that it would be very useful.

[Spiryt]

I think I have seen something almost without guard somewhere... but I can't find. Anyway, rapier without guard would be wicked acurate thruster, maybe even slighty better than normal rapier, but it would be quite handicapped when in classic rapier play.

[Neftren]

There's no name for such a weapon, since there's no good reason to take away the guard from a sword.

Not true. Depending on the size and make of the weapon, removing the crossguard or basket hilt from a weapon would significantly reduce the weight of the weapon.

With some internal weighting techniques, you could rebalance the weapon and cut down on the weight. With a lighter weapon, you can swing faster and perform more efficient strikes that are less tiring.

[Thiel]

Not true. Depending on the size and make of the weapon, removing the crossguard or basket hilt from a weapon would significantly reduce the weight of the weapon.

With some internal weighting techniques, you could rebalance the weapon and cut down on the weight. With a lighter weapon, you can swing faster and perform more efficient strikes that are less tiring.

Not really. Leaving aside the fact that your hand will be awfully exposed, you'd end up with a sword that either weighs the same (assuming you don't want to extend the handle) or a sword with a shorter and/or weaker blade.