Prev: RE: DS2: Design questions of my own. Next: Re: Jon of Needham and the ORC

[OT] Metalstorm-ish tech from an infantry PoV

From: "Tomb" <tomb@d...>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:29:26 -0500
Subject: [OT] Metalstorm-ish tech from an infantry PoV

Okay, as a former weekend warrior, I have a thought or two on a
Metalstorm technology firearm for use by the infantry. 

Let us compare the two systems:

Min barrel length for accuracy: same, though there is a concern for
accuracy of metalstorm based on varying propellant charges and varying
length of barrel to be traversed (no score)

Min barrel strength to constrain gases: more for metalstorm because it
doesn't have a breech to contain the explosion, it does so in the
barrel. (1 for conventional arms probably) 

ROF: Metalstorm can probably outburst even rotating breech weapons like
the G-11. Whether this is desireable or not in terms of ammo consumption
and efficacy is another matter. (1 for metalstorm)

Ammo weight, slug: Comparable. (no score)

Ammo weight, propellant: Comparable. (no score)

Ammo weight, casing: None for Metalstorm. (1 for metalstorm) Unless we
count caseless weapons like the G-11, then we end up with no score. 

Breech: None for Metalstorm. Fairly significant assembly for
conventional arms. (1 for metalstorm)

Battery: None for conventional weapons, some size of battery (enough to
be reliable under field conditions) required. Replacements required. (1
for conventional weapons). Also, how do batteries operate in very very
cold weather such as Northern Canada? Very badly. I'm going to have to
penalize Metalstorm 1 for having difficulty working in extreme cold
(internal resistance in battery goes up, effective EMF goes down). (-1
metalstorm)

Accuracy: Conventional sighted in weapon, good. Metalstorm? Good
accuracy on 2nd and 3rd rounds in burst. Single shot accuracy may be
comparable or not (unknown). Wear on barrel locking assembly may
increase MOA and reduce accuracy levels. But metalstorms advantage in
2nd and subsequent rounds is eliminated if you use a rotating breech (a
very similar effect is acheived by the G-11 - superior burst RoF means
follow on rounds gone before recoil effects hit). Ability to 'sight in'
metalstorm weapon? Unknown. If you have a site fitted to every barrel,
you're talking something impracticable from both cost of sight system
and weight of carry perspective. So therefore that isn't viable. And as
anyone who tries sniper work knows, sighting in is key. Even for
conventional infantry battle it does matter. With metalstorm, you could
use a few rounds out of every barrel to adjust, but this isn't practical
in combat. 

Ammo Change: Metalstorm involves decoupling a barrel and bringing a new
one into place and locking. Conventional arm involves changing a
magazine. No real difference. (No score)

Ammo Portability: Barrels that will be a minimum of 20" I would guess,
versus (if we consider the G-11) about the same magazine size. Roughly
the same. If we want to pack 30 rounds into a metalstorm barrel and have
the first one hit, I'd imagine you'd have to have At least a 38-30"
barrel. This has to constrain the explosion of the propellant, so it
will not only be longer but heavier than the magazine for the G-11. And
the G-11 magazine itself can be lightweight polymer, so that extra
weight over and above ammo and propellant is minimal. (No score or maybe
even half a point for conventional). Note, your infantry will still
carry about the same weight in ammo and propellant in either case. And
the big ass 30" barrel would be a pain to carry possibly.

Possiblity of deploying multiple ammo types at once (side by side
barrels loaded with different ammo types): Metalstorm can do this with
ease (one barrel for AP, one for Glaser) though sighting may be a
problem. (1 to metalstorm)

Succeptibility to EMP weapons or immersion: Conventional weapons with
well sealed ammo tend to survive short immersions and EMPs and still be
functional. I doubt the battery system on a metalstorm could say the
same. (Perhaps, if sealed right, it might survive the water, but I doubt
it could actually fire underwater like some guns can, and I think an EMP
might cause premature discharge in the metalstorm or burn out the
battern). (-1 metalstorm)

Detectable signature: A conventional weapon with a flash suppressor, low
velocity rounds, and a noise suppressor has no detectable electronic
signature. A metalstorm probably could be picked up by some sci-fi
energy sensors. (-1 metalstorm)

Overall weapon weight: Both will require propellant (for a mags worth of
ammo), slugs (one magsworth) and a barrel (possibly heavier on
metalstorm), a sighting system (same for both), and any other
attachments (stock, etc) required to make the weapon usable. The
conventional weapon will need some sort of a breech. The metalstorm,
OTOH, will need a slightly heavier barrel. Modern ARs tend to weigh in
in the 5-7.5 pound range. Metalstorm might save you a pound off the
bottom end of that estimate, maybe 1.5 pounds off the top end. Not a bad
thing, but certainly not a vast difference. 

Final analysis:

I'd say a modern caseless weapon with a rotating breech made of modern
materials is at least as good an option as metalstorm style weapons. It
has the same or better single shot or short burst characteristics, it
probably is easier to zero for accuracy especially over time (wear and
tear), it has easier to carry magazines that are probably more compact
than metalstorm barrels for the same number of rounds with the same
accuracy, it has a lower EM signature, is not (reasonably) vulnerable to
EMP weapons, has better performance in very wet or very cold conditions,
and logistically requires only magazines, not barrels plus batteries.
The extra ROF afforded by a metalstorm weapon (given human ammo carrying
limits) may actually be a DISadvantage for infantry, and the ability to
deploy multiple ammo types is a benefit of value more to police and a
perhaps some SF applications than it is to standard line soldiery. 

The metalstorm looks really good compares to the old FN. It looks far
less impressive when compared to a modern weapon like the G-11 (or some
subsequent successors in design studios today as the metalstorm is).
Comparing apples and oranges (the metalstorm system vs. old style heavy
cartridge weapons with a reciprocating breech) makes it look better than
it probably is. 

It isn't inviable, I just say its not a panacea and, as a footslogger, I
prefer easy to carry mags (I'm already festooned with too much gear that
isn't easy enough to locate around the body) and to to have a weapon I
can zero and depend on to work (better, even a conventional weapon can
freeze!) in very cold weather and when wet. And the idea of not
generating an EMF to attract sensors in 2183 is mighty appealing too. 

So, that's my take. 

Prev: RE: DS2: Design questions of my own. Next: Re: Jon of Needham and the ORC