Akmr

[jester]

Actually, the bullet in the M1943 7.62mmx39.00mm weighs 7.9g, and the bullet in the Mosin-Nagant 7.62mmx54.00mm(R) weighs 11.9g. They're considerably different.

It is quite true the projectiles are different, however, the machinery to ream and drill the lands and grooves in the barrel would be the same. The difference would be in the chamber in the barrel. However, without a 7.62X54 round to compare I am wondering if this could be easily altered by simply reducing the depth of the reamer. Which is as simple. So, that could actualy reduce their need for retooling as far as the barrel making process goes.

[ChalkLine]

It is quite true the projectiles are different, however, the machinery to ream and drill the lands and grooves in the barrel would be the same. The difference would be in the chamber in the barrel. However, without a 7.62X54 round to compare I am wondering if this could be easily altered by simply reducing the depth of the reamer. Which is as simple. So, that could actualy reduce their need for retooling as far as the barrel making process goes.

Yep, and in an emergency you can just put your M-N rounds into a miller and take off a bit of the base to bring them down to the requisite weight for an M1943 round.

An interesting ammunition would be M1943 ammo firing M-N slugs; shit range but heavy stopping power.

[jester]

Yep, and in an emergency you can just put your M-N rounds into a miller and take off a bit of the base to bring them down to the requisite weight for an M1943 round.

An interesting ammunition would be M1943 ammo firing M-N slugs; shit range but heavy stopping power.

Why waste a good heavy bullet. Simply adjust the reloading die so the projectile sits deeper so it meets the overall length so it can fit in the magazine and chamber and fire. The end result is one heck of a round with some nice knockdown power.

Some examples are some 30 caliber bullets I loaded that were 220 grains a good 40 grains heavier than a standard 180 grain projectile.

And the perfect example was the old Webley/Enfield in .38 the origianal cartridge was the same as the old .38 S&W which was a weak cartridge. But, when the British loaded a 200 grain bullet in it well then it had some nice stopping power. Not much on velocity mind you but it did take a man down.

Then, in the T2K world I would see a return to the older bolt, lever and pump action weapons as sources of smokeless powder became more scarce which is another scenario we really should look at, a world with limited amounts of traditional smokeless ammo that allows modern semi auto and auto weapons to run with infrequent jams.

[ChalkLine]

Of course, we're talking about a gas operated weapon here, and we're likely to get a gas spike into your piston while the bullet is laboriously making its way out the barrel. That sort of overpressure usually says shit like 'catastrophic failure', and even the notoriously rugged AKM may have trouble getting the bullet out that's about 20% heavier while cutting down on the propellant charge. And while there's no real danger of the world running out of M1943 ammo in the next gazillion years, it's probably best if we put that big slug in the M-N round where it belongs

[ChalkLine]

While we're at it, the Russians are making the AK-47 again as the AK-103, and it's very popular for it's no-bullshit ammunition that blows through body armour. In this case, it's likely that no one will be rechambering AKMs due to ammo constraints, and there's little reason to do otherwise.

[kcdusk]

I'm no gun-smith. But all this talk about modifying bullets/weapons worries me. Most people (perhaps even most military people) who knew enough of the theory might not be able to make some of these things work in practice, where i thought a failure would see some sort of self inflicted wound. It all sounds risky.

[pmulcahy11b]

Why waste a good heavy bullet. Simply adjust the reloading die so the projectile sits deeper so it meets the overall length so it can fit in the magazine and chamber and fire. The end result is one heck of a round with some nice knockdown power.

Some examples are some 30 caliber bullets I loaded that were 220 grains a good 40 grains heavier than a standard 180 grain projectile.

And the perfect example was the old Webley/Enfield in .38 the origianal cartridge was the same as the old .38 S&W which was a weak cartridge. But, when the British loaded a 200 grain bullet in it well then it had some nice stopping power. Not much on velocity mind you but it did take a man down.

This is one of those things that T2K doesn't handle well: things like sub-loaded rounds, hot-loaded rounds, heavier or lighter bullets, etc. I often find myself jury-rigging rules for this sort of thing, as well as during vehicle design.

[Raellus]

I'm on a roller coaster here. The more I read here and the more I think about it, the less I like the AKMR concept. I mean the concept is good but putting into practice...

It seems like it would be far easier and more efficient to continue to manufacture 7.62mm x39 S ammunition and distribute it to units armed with the millions of AK-47 and AKM variants already out there than it would be to recall all of those weapons and rechamber them/redistribute them.

In the meantime, older AK models would continue to be replaced with new AK-74 variants and whatever's left over would continue to receive issue of the 7.62mm S ammo.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm on a roller coaster here. The more I read here and the more I think about it, the less I like the AKMR concept. I mean the concept is good but putting into practice...

It seems like it would be far easier and more efficient to continue to manufacture 7.62mm x39 S ammunition and distribute it to units armed with the millions of AK-47 and AKM variants already out there than it would be to recall all of those weapons and rechamber them/redistribute them.

In the meantime, older AK models would continue to be replaced with new AK-74 variants and whatever's left over would continue to receive issue of the 7.62mm S ammo.

I agree with you there -- the idea is silly, if you think about it logically. But it's still a good "flavoring" element.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree with you there -- the idea is silly, if you think about it logically. But it's still a good "flavoring" element.

I agree on both points. The AKMR was included I think, due to flawed logic. At the time the game was made the Soviets were changing from 7.62mm to 5.45mm, nobody thought they would keep using the older round for as long as they did let alone Russia actively going back to it. The AKMR makes sense in view of the lack of information that GDW would have had but with hindsight we can now see that they were, like everyone else, misinformed and the AKMR seems a silly idea.

[kcdusk]

Thread hijack
Most sub machine guns have a damage rating of "2". What is different about the M177 that it has a damage rating of "3"

[TiggerCCW UK]

I think its just a calibre thing - most smg's are firing a 9mm or .45 pistol round, with an increased damage due to the longer barrel and higher velocity, hence the 2 damage. The M177 is a carbine/short rifle using a 5.56mm rifle round, hence the 3 damage.

[pmulcahy11b]

Thread hijack
Most sub machine guns have a damage rating of "2". What is different about the M177 that it has a damage rating of "3"

Well, the M-177 is firing a rifle bullet as opposed to the pistol round of submachineguns. But I do give it a damage rating of 2 -- but the penetration is 1-Nil, while most submachineguns have a penetration of Nil. Using that short barrel to fire a rifle bullet has a high cost on the muzzle velocity of the round. (Technically, the M-177 is a "short-barreled assault rifle" instead of a submachinegun.)

Here's another wrinkle to firing a rifle round in a short-barreled weapon -- it will leave behind a ton of unburned propellant as well as carbon in the barrel and muzzle device. Not sure how to handle this T2K-wise (other than assign a higher chance of misfire to a dirty weapon).

[Raellus]

The same would be true for the AKS-74U. It is more of a carbine than an SMG. The v2.2 don't really make that distinction.

And, I don't know if this is true of other "submachineguns" that fire full-powered rifle rounds but the AKS-74U has a b*tch of a muzzle blast/firing signature. I haven't seen quite the same in footage of the M4 (basically the M117 of v2.2) firing.

[pmulcahy11b]

The same would be true for the AKS-74U. It is more of a carbine than an SMG. The v2.2 don't really make that distinction.

And, I don't know if this is true of other "submachineguns" that fire full-powered rifle rounds but the AKS-74U has a b*tch of a muzzle blast/firing signature. I haven't seen quite the same in footage of the M4 (basically the M117 of v2.2) firing.

T2K doesn't make a distinction between short-barreled assault rifles and submachineguns, but most of the Western firearms experts do. A short-barreled rifle fires a rifle round, while a true submachinegun fires a pistol round. That said, there are many weapons that straddle the line -- and in many countries (particularly in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China), even assault rifles are considered to be submachineguns. Some also consider some assault rifles or short-barreled rifles to be assault rifles, while other such weapons are considered to be submachineguns. There's plenty of room to muddy the waters. I adhere to the Western firearms experts most of the time -- but then again, you have weapons that have versions that fire pistol rounds or rifle rounds, and some of these need only a few parts to be changed to switch calibers. And then, there's always the argument about what constitutes a carbine and what doesn't. Discussions like that are always lots of fun!

The M-4 has more muzzle blast than the M-16, but not as much as one would think. Not nearly the same muzzle blast as the M-177, because of the barrel -- the M-4 has a roughly 14.5-inch barrel, while the M-177's is about 10. (Eugene Stoner felt a 10-inch barrel was about the minimum required for reliable cycling of an unmodified version of his operating system -- and that has pretty much turned out to be true.)