View Full Version : Another Hollywood gun discussion
Grand58742
03-29-21, 14:35
I've been watching the Apple+ series "For All Mankind" which is now in it's second season. Without too many spoilers, the US now has armed Marines on the Moon at their permanent outpost. It's an interesting setup of both 21st century tech and older M16 series rifles. Here's a clip of the weapon (and they answer the question of why it's painted white)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ASBVqSVHo
In the first few seconds of the clip, you get a pretty good view of the rifle in question. At first glance, it appears to be an M16A4 style rifle with the 20 inch barrel and a collapsible stock with the old style 4X carry handle optic. However, upon closer examination, it has an A1 style upper (paddle forward assist and old style A1 sights) with an A2 "heavy" barrel. But a major difference is what appears to be a QD point on the M4 style stock with an extended plate for space suit ops. So, kind of a mix of the 90s and 00's. I did like the realism of having the trigger guard dropped since astronauts (Space Marines) would be using bulky gloves. Other than the mix of 90s and 00s items, it appears the weapon in question could be plausible for the time period (1983) even though "miss matched" with a carbine lower, A2 barrel and A1 upper. Being that it's an alternate history, it is believable.
I did think the recoil was a little dramatic. Even in 1/6's Earth's gravity, I don't see a 5.56 knocking someone off balance.
Why is it white? Basically, the reflective properties to keep the heat down with said weapon during the daytime. A nice touch that shows someone put some thought into it.
My question is one of physics. I know firearms are capable of firing in a vacuum. I figure an M-16 FOW would be no different. My question is for cycling the weapon in particular which depends on a specific amount of gas pressure to cycle. The gas tube would be in the vacuum of space when the rifle is fired. Wouldn't the gas having to expand in a vacuum lower the pressure and potentially create cycling issues with the DI type system?
Theoretical question. Sorry if discussed before.
Not a rocket surgeon, but aren't we talking about a delta of ~14psi ambient. I think it should be fine. I'd be more concerned with the touched on temperature extremes that are possible.
In regard to recoil, mass is mass right? The relative gravity should be a non issue to the FORCE of the recoil. Your ability to MANAGE the recoil in low gravity might be an issue though (?). You might very well need different techniques to manage the forces effectively.
Grand58742
03-29-21, 15:03
Not a rocket surgeon, but aren't we talking about a delta of ~14psi ambient. I think it should be fine. I'd be more concerned with the touched on temperature extremes that are possible.
In regard to recoil, mass is mass right? The relative gravity should be a non issue to the FORCE of the recoil. Your ability to MANAGE the recoil in low gravity might be an issue though (?). You might very well need different techniques to manage the forces effectively.
The mass of the shooter is going to be greater since they are in a suit and have a heavy life support pack. Though I might suspect getting thrown off balance because of the rearward pull of the pack could be a concern. "Lean into it."
As for the delta (certainly no rocket scientist here) but I know nature abhors a vacuum and the gas will expand to fill that void. My thought was whether or not having to fill the vacuum (and losing PSI while doing it) would reduce the gas pressure enough to cause cycling issues. I'm probably overthinking it. I figure a nation which figured out how to colonize the moon in the 1970s probably has the thermal and pressure problems licked in regards to weapons in space by 1983.
Not even going to get into the moon dust inside the mags and actions lol
So much to unpack here.
First of all, I’m glad there is some woman around to womansplain theoretical parabolic kinetics in low gravity like that. (Despite the moon being smaller than the Earth, it doesn’t have a gravity well sufficiently strong enough to put a bullet traveling 1500 fps “in orbit”. It will simply keep going on its way until acted upon by opposing force or matter) As well as take umbrage to “Maggies Drawers” while simultaneously being implied to be a superior marksman.
This show is HIPPIE AMERICA HATING BULLSHIT. Even IF the Russians got to the moon first, they wouldn’t have had the money to guard a rock like that nor weaponize it.
Furthermore an M16 would be a terrible weapon in space. I mean this was covered with gyrojet rifles and caseless ammo.
https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/573/11196655/img_7957.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/rifle-square-1-1552502444.jpg
Nobody in space is going to be fighting each other. If you’ve ever read some of the reflections of astronauts or cosmonauts, they both have a common theme; that far away from Earth, they realized how petty and silly any of their conflicts were.
It’s not like ‘Nam where its a 14 hour ride home. It’s days and takes some brilliant men to calculate your landing and re-entry.
Stupid premise, lazy science, more globohomo.
Go watch Firefly or Expanse instead.
See, and I have this weird thing about putting the Iowa class 16 inch guns on a space cruiser. Piss on practicality AND physics. :p
The_War_Wagon
03-29-21, 15:55
I'd be more concerned with the touched on temperature extremes that are possible.
So THAT'S why Storm Poopers are white!
Doesn't do much for THEIR accuracy, though... :rolleyes:
https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--lt533L3h--/t_Resized%20Artwork/c_fit,g_north_west,h_954,w_954/co_000000,e_outline:48/co_000000,e_outline:inner_fill:48/co_ffffff,e_outline:48/co_ffffff,e_outline:inner_fill:48/co_bbbbbb,e_outline:3:1000/c_mpad,g_center,h_1260,w_1260/b_rgb:eeeeee/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1544372602/production/designs/3691574_0.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-29-21, 16:09
Brass should fly further, also there should be more muzzle and ejection port visible gas as the pressure decreases and the unfired propellent gases vent out and cool.
Put a butt plate acceptorlinked to the suit helmet ring to get support and correct eye and sight orientation. Plus closer to center of mass would lead to less torquing.
Heck, a 5.7 minigun would be the bomb, or really self homing drone/rounds. Mini Sidewinders....
My guess is that they’d figure out more mobile suits, fast. That and armour is 1/6 as weight expensive...
Lunar escape velocity is 2300m/s. So even a M193 will fall far short. I don’t know what the ballistics would be at roughly 1/3 escape velocity at 45 degrees in a vacuum. Actually, probably easy to figure out with simple physics if you knew what g was on the moon. That and the rotational effect and sphere shape I guess would make it more complex...
Put a butt plate acceptorlinked to the suit helmet ring to get support and correct eye and sight orientation. Plus closer to center of mass would lead to less torquing.
I'm thinking a LAM, probably just vis. Just shooting in MOP with sights or optics is a PITA.
Grand58742
03-29-21, 18:18
Minor spoiler the clip doesn't show, but they are just yanking his chain about it coming back to him in the series.
I've been watching the Apple+ series "For All Mankind" which is now in it's second season. Without too many spoilers, the US now has armed Marines on the Moon at their permanent outpost. It's an interesting setup of both 21st century tech and older M16 series rifles. Here's a clip of the weapon (and they answer the question of why it's painted white)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ASBVqSVHo
In the first few seconds of the clip, you get a pretty good view of the rifle in question. At first glance, it appears to be an M16A4 style rifle with the 20 inch barrel and a collapsible stock with the old style 4X carry handle optic. However, upon closer examination, it has an A1 style upper (paddle forward assist and old style A1 sights) with an A2 "heavy" barrel. But a major difference is what appears to be a QD point on the M4 style stock with an extended plate for space suit ops. So, kind of a mix of the 90s and 00's. I did like the realism of having the trigger guard dropped since astronauts (Space Marines) would be using bulky gloves. Other than the mix of 90s and 00s items, it appears the weapon in question could be plausible for the time period (1983) even though "miss matched" with a carbine lower, A2 barrel and A1 upper. Being that it's an alternate history, it is believable.
I did think the recoil was a little dramatic. Even in 1/6's Earth's gravity, I don't see a 5.56 knocking someone off balance.
Why is it white? Basically, the reflective properties to keep the heat down with said weapon during the daytime. A nice touch that shows someone put some thought into it.
My question is one of physics. I know firearms are capable of firing in a vacuum. I figure an M-16 FOW would be no different. My question is for cycling the weapon in particular which depends on a specific amount of gas pressure to cycle. The gas tube would be in the vacuum of space when the rifle is fired. Wouldn't the gas having to expand in a vacuum lower the pressure and potentially create cycling issues with the DI type system?
Theoretical question. Sorry if discussed before.
Firearms require oxygen to fire. Period.
Firearms require oxygen to fire. Period.
Firearm propellants contain all of the oygen they need to fire. They need no outside source of oxygen. There is literally no way to get additional oxygen into a chamber during the firing process.
.....
Nobody in space is going to be fighting each other. If you’ve ever read some of the reflections of astronauts or cosmonauts, they both have a common theme; that far away from Earth, they realized how petty and silly any of their conflicts were.
It’s not like ‘Nam where its a 14 hour ride home. It’s days and takes some brilliant men to calculate your landing and re-entry.
Stupid premise, lazy science, more globohomo.
Go watch Firefly or Expanse instead.
I don't know man... you forget how crazy the cold war day were, considering a lot of the serious plans involving major nation on nation conflict (at least in an EU theatre) were "nuke everything then roll tanks".
So I think if it got this far back then, us Vs the ivans, yeah, someone would be trying to figure out how to fight in space, and spending ungodly amounts of money on all sorts of top secret projects to ensure their guys on the moon could kick the other guys' ass.
NOW... would the astronauts actually fight each other if ordered....
Would the guys at the missile silos turn the keys if ordered to go all-out first-strike?
Who knows.
See, and I have this weird thing about putting the Iowa class 16 inch guns on a space cruiser. Piss on practicality AND physics. :p
I hear ya mate... :cool:
https://www.legaliondesetoiles.com/photo/gal/pic/gal-3372742.jpg?v=1444635170
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo-iV4T-lrc
Space drilling
https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/332877-forgotten-weapons-soviet-space-pistols
Grand58742
03-30-21, 06:46
Firearms require oxygen to fire. Period.
You're right. Luckily, the ammo has an oxidizer in the powder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9fA
Firearm propellants contain all of the oygen they need to fire. They need no outside source of oxygen. There is literally no way to get additional oxygen into a chamber during the firing process.
Wow... I learned something new today. I had no idea. My apologies for my ignorance. That is very cool to find out!
“I say we take off and nuke the the entire site from orbit....only way to be sure.”
“I say we take off and nuke the the entire site from orbit....only way to be sure.”
“This moon has a substantial cash value”
“This moon has a substantial cash value”
If only. They promised me MOON BASES when I grew up. And flying cars.
Yes I know you were continuing a Aliens reference, but I want my moon bases and flying cars. Instead we got streaming TV which has a shittier picture, freezes and you pay for it. WTAF. Seriously.
I did think the recoil was a little dramatic. Even in 1/6's Earth's gravity, I don't see a 5.56 knocking someone off balance.
The mass of the gun is the same, Moon or Earth. I do not see how the downward pull of the moon changes F=ma.
If only. They promised me MOON BASES when I grew up. And flying cars.
.
Song for that short coming around 7:55.
https://youtu.be/ikb8CtEK1qQ
If only. They promised me MOON BASES when I grew up. And flying cars.
Yes I know you were continuing a Aliens reference, but I want my moon bases and flying cars. Instead we got streaming TV which has a shittier picture, freezes and you pay for it. WTAF. Seriously.
OK except for the moon base and the flying cars, we're living in the Jetson's man. We got robots, video phone, you name it.
Cooling during heavy use would be an issue, since there is no air.
Grand58742
03-31-21, 10:40
Cooling during heavy use would be an issue, since there is no air.
Are you saying they should bring back the water cooled M1917 units?
Adrenaline_6
03-31-21, 14:04
Cooling during heavy use would be an issue, since there is no air.
True. Also barrel lengths, current bullet shape and even rifling requirements would be different in the vacuum of space and zero or low gravity.
Cooling during heavy use would be an issue, since there is no air.
well, the baseline temp. in outer space is −454.81 °F. I think you'd be fine for at least a while.
Adrenaline_6
03-31-21, 15:01
well, the baseline temp. in outer space is −454.81 °F. I think you'd be fine for at least a while.
Not really. In a vacuum, the only real cooling mechanism is radiation. Conduction and convection no longer worky. In other words, if the sun is also hitting it in space, it might be getting more energy than it is radiating and heating up without doing anything.
Grand58742
03-31-21, 17:50
True. Also barrel lengths, current bullet shape and even rifling requirements would be different in the vacuum of space and zero or low gravity.
How so?
kaiservontexas
03-31-21, 20:49
Not really. In a vacuum, the only real cooling mechanism is radiation. Conduction and convection no longer worky. In other words, if the sun is also hitting it in space, it might be getting more energy than it is radiating and heating up without doing anything.
This would be a major problem that painting it white would not solve. It would have to have some capacity to radiate away the heat. Think tie fighter and the panels it as on either side of it. Those are actually for cooling the space fighter. Other sci fi shows and books have tackled that issue in other ways, but radiating away the heat is indeed a major engineering issue with regards to having some sort of firearm for space.
So how about a 203? Seems like it would become a direct fire weapon, no more lobbing it in. Lots of frag to rip open space suits.
kaiservontexas
04-01-21, 08:54
Turns out that the Russians have armed their cosmonauts, but for survival after landing.
I know the Soviets made a gun for underwater; so, I decided to see if they made one for space. There is nothing specifically made for space, which is how I came across the fact they packed one for survival situations. They feared landing in the wilderness of Siberia.
Sadly some idiot is happy to have banned guns in space.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/how-i-stop-cosmonauts-carrying-guns
Adrenaline_6
04-01-21, 09:07
How so?
You could actually use a round ball in a vacuum and it wouldn't matter. Aerodynamics don't matter.
*edit* The barrel could be square...triangle...hexagon...torx shaped...it wouldn't matter. The projectile would fly the same distance and at the same velocity as anything else with the same mass.
Grand58742
04-01-21, 13:07
You could actually use a round ball in a vacuum and it wouldn't matter. Aerodynamics don't matter.
*edit* The barrel could be square...triangle...hexagon...torx shaped...it wouldn't matter. The projectile would fly the same distance and at the same velocity as anything else with the same mass.
I was thinking stability wise though (keyholing and such) though I guess such a thing wouldn't be a big deal if you're just trying to tear holes in the opponents spacesuit at a minimum.
Adrenaline_6
04-01-21, 14:20
I was thinking stability wise though (keyholing and such) though I guess such a thing wouldn't be a big deal if you're just trying to tear holes in the opponents spacesuit at a minimum.
Gotcha...but the stability is caused by the bullet traveling through the air and the bullet shape, etc. Without the atmosphere...all that stuff that mattered and provided stability now does not.
Grand58742
04-01-21, 15:27
Gotcha...but the stability is caused by the bullet traveling through the air and the bullet shape, etc. Without the atmosphere...all that stuff that mattered and provided stability now does not.
I'm glad you're the class nerd.
Adrenaline_6
04-01-21, 19:08
I'm glad you're the class nerd.
Lol...that's not the first time I've been called that. It doesn't bother me at all.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-21, 21:43
Gotcha...but the stability is caused by the bullet traveling through the air and the bullet shape, etc. Without the atmosphere...all that stuff that mattered and provided stability now does not.
Yes and no? I rotating body will inherently have a gyroscopic effect on stability. Granted, you aren't worried about yaw and its effect on aerodynamic drag. It seems that when they launch satellites from the bay of the shuttle, they are often spinning. I would assume that is be design and not random and has something to do with control.
It seems like an electomagentic propulsion of a semi-guided seeker head would be the bees knees. A mortar with a thermal/spectral imager guidance with a blast radius proximity warhead....
Grand58742
04-02-21, 06:29
Lol...that's not the first time I've been called that. It doesn't bother me at all.
It was meant in an entire loving way.
militarymoron
04-02-21, 08:45
It seems that when they launch satellites from the bay of the shuttle, they are often spinning. I would assume that is be design and not random and has something to do with control.
Yes, it's by design. If the satellites were round, they'd most likely be the spin-stabilized ones, which have to spin about their longitudinal axis. The ones that look like cubes don't spin, but they do have momentum/reaction wheels inside the body like spinning tops, which stabilize them.
Adrenaline_6
04-02-21, 09:10
Yes and no? I rotating body will inherently have a gyroscopic effect on stability. Granted, you aren't worried about yaw and its effect on aerodynamic drag. It seems that when they launch satellites from the bay of the shuttle, they are often spinning. I would assume that is be design and not random and has something to do with control.
It seems like an electomagentic propulsion of a semi-guided seeker head would be the bees knees. A mortar with a thermal/spectral imager guidance with a blast radius proximity warhead....
Correct about gyroscopic effect. It was a broad brush that I was painting with. Down here, design is more about aerodynamics.
A rail gun type propulsion would be cool, once they figure out the compact power problem.
Grand58742
04-02-21, 17:51
A rail gun type propulsion would be cool, once they figure out the compact power problem.
And the overheating if I'm not mistaken.
Adrenaline_6
04-03-21, 15:13
And the overheating if I'm not mistaken.
You are correct.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.