Well of Souls Forums

Pardon, the hanger/banger description might be a bit niche. Its meant as wall hanger versus shooter, something to look at or a conversation piece rather than a working weapon. Standard firearms are described this way, with wall hangers usually either being faulty from use or poor design. Its nothing to do with the sound itself per se. A weapon with a built in silencer would still qualify as a "banger" if it functioned well.

Any rocket projectile is more complicated in actual use than it looks on paper. First up is the cost to put lead down range. One cannot understate how important cheap ammo is if you want practice time. Then there are the basic issues covered above; dead zone close in, wild variance due to windage or unsteady grip etc. all complicated by the lack of practice. A standard firearm is a simple point and click interface out to a hundred or so yards. Past that some small measure of hold over is required to combat bullet drop.

Conversely, sitting behind my desk within arms reach I have a spam can of $0.22 a round Cold War 7.62x54r for my 1943 Mosin-Nagant that works right as rain. Berdan primed ammunition like that will outlive transuranics. Just sight and shoot. And that matters. Big time. People stay away from manufacturers with reputations for unreliability, like Hi-Point or Cobra. Its the reason revolvers are still made at all, too many things can go wrong with an automatic. For a carry weapon, a proper side arm, you need to trust it will work just by pointing and pulling. Anywhere, anytime, any reason.

hi hi

I would posit that if history had gone differently, we could be having this conversation in reverse. The infrastructure exists for conventional weapons, pretty much by definition. Just because Betamax was superior to VHS, doesn't mean it was destined to be used, and just because the F-22 is an incredible piece of technology doesn't mean that it is going to proliferate. It is best not to conflate logistical arguments with technical arguments.

Rocket ammo is technically complicated, which means the logistics are always going to fall one way.

hi hi

With proper machining, there really isn't a significant difference. In fact, there are bullets today that are more complex than the gyrojet's mini rocket. Some of them are a lot more complex.

Now Now. Thats not exactly apples to apples is it. You can do similar things with guided munitions and rockets, with similar added costs, complexities, failure rates etc. The proper machining, propellents, quality control levels will always favor the simpler bullet.

hi hi

Rocks and slings are simpler than bullets, yet are not always favored.

icekatze wrote:Rocks and slings are simpler than bullets, yet are not always favored.

Bullets are much more effective than rocks. Rocket bullets are not much more effective than conventional bullets.

And actually, slings are much, much more complicated to use than guns.

The Gyrojet is a weapon that is more expensive and less reliable and accurate than the weapon it's mean to replace, without any significant advantages (it's lighter and has less recoil -- that's it). It's not hard to see why it failed.

hi hi

Don't conflate simplicity of use with simplicity of construction. The argument was construction simplicity always being favored.

Your average gun has massive cost reductions due to the scale of its production. There are approximately 10 - 12 billion bullets manufactured in the USA each year. That is estimated to be about 39% of the entire world's production of bullets. It is not hard to understand why bullets are inexpensive.

As I said, the logistical realities are a separate issue. It is also not hard to see why a first generation weapon would not hold up to weapons that had decades of development and countless iterations to advance the design, especially a first generation weapon that was designed by a nuclear weapons researcher and not an established manufacturer.

icekatze wrote:hi hi

Don't conflate simplicity of use with simplicity of construction. The argument was construction simplicity always being favored.

Of course! After all, its only rocket science. If we are going to ignore the complexity of the round itself then all you really need is a length of PVC pipe. Sadly, mass manufacturing rockets is not a simple thing. Even the slightest variance in the process will end in drastically different results. The complexity of construction directly impacts the complexity of use and cost.

A 1/2a rocket motor costs about $2 a pop and lifts about 2 ounces. A gyro stabilized round requiring four perfectly matched thrusting forces and much sharper peak thrust and total impulse per unit of mass would require extensively more demanding manufacturing and quality controls. That puts $2 a pop at the low end estimate. Very low. And for that increase in cost and complexity you wind up with a weapon that is less capable.


Like I said, call Congress, its right up their alley.



edit: come to think of it, its a bit like a turbine versus an ICE. One is less complicated on draft paper, one is less complicated in reality.

icekatze wrote:hi hi

Rocks and slings are simpler than bullets, yet are not always favored.

if we are talking about logistic and pratical use.

At the early age of firearm, arrow were more accurate at long range, faster to reload and cheaper while gun were innacurate until point blank, quite expensive, bulking, long to reload, and unreliable (aka burned face, not firing, exploding?)

So with all logic, bow and arrow were better than firearm, but yet firearm outclassed the bow, simply because it noise was scarry.

So with all logic, bow and arrow were better than firearm, but yet firearm outclassed the bow, simply because it noise was scarry.

That and its much easier to train someone to point the hollow end of a stick at a target and light the fuse, than to train someone to use a longbow in combat.

hi hi

I think the $2 estimate is low. A 50. cal round weighs less than 2 ounces, and those rounds will go for over $3 a pop.

Suederwind wrote:

So with all logic, bow and arrow were better than firearm, but yet firearm outclassed the bow, simply because it noise was scarry.

That and its much easier to train someone to point the hollow end of a stick at a target and light the fuse, than to train someone to use a longbow in combat.

Well... I tend to reject the premise itself. We tend to equate bows and guns as functional equivalents as ranged weapons, but looking at the role they played in formation war I'd suggest the gun replaced the sword and the cannon replaced the bow. Well, maybe not so much replaced as repositioned as they just stuck swords to the end and called them bayonets


And, yes, $2 is a vast underestimate. And, yes, even granting that low a value it still makes no sense to replace standard cartridges with under performing rockets.

Nemo wrote:Now Now. Thats not exactly apples to apples is it. You can do similar things with guided munitions and rockets, with similar added costs, complexities, failure rates etc. The proper machining, propellents, quality control levels will always favor the simpler bullet.

Pretty much. Kinda telling that the form hasn't changed that much for your basic rifle or pistol round in quite some time, since it serves it's function quite well for an affordable cost.

Used to own a Nagant, BTW. T'was among my favorites along with a Mauser 98, .30-40 Krag-Jorgensson carbine, and a S&W Model 19 as a favored defensive carry piece. I can't say anything bad about my current Glock, but the good ol' revolver still had a one up in terms of mechanical simplicity and reliability over any auto by default.

on the subject of the rocket gun being 'little better', in most cases, no, it would be significantly worse.
but however, for the long range sniper it actually makes sense if guided, due to the projectile actually going FASTER the longer it goes, well as long as the fuel lasts anyway.

everything under....500 meters or so, a conventional gun will carry the day due to simplicity and rugged efficiency, between 500-1000m there might be question, over 1000m(and out to several km) the guided rocket munition would be superior in just about every way.
why you ask?

riddle me this, 100g rocket is not unheard of, lets say a three second burn with smart guidance lock on, that would give it a guided range of about 4km and a terminal velocity of damn near 3000m/s which is much higher than just about any gun short of a light gas gun.
the preferred range would probably be around 3km using such munition, for the wiggle room in munition burn time, at these velocities the projectile does not need much mass to be very deadly, the technology to do this is old hat to anti tank weapons and all that is needed is to make it smaller, so it would probably work.

Senanthes wrote:Used to own a Nagant, BTW. T'was among my favorites along with a Mauser 98, .30-40 Krag-Jorgensson carbine, and a S&W Model 19 as a favored defensive carry piece. I can't say anything bad about my current Glock, but the good ol' revolver still had a one up in terms of mechanical simplicity and reliability over any auto by default.

Heard ya. Getting a .357 Ruger LCR next month. The range rental in .38 has been outstanding, but the sights worry me a bit. The front can be replaced with a decent tritium but the rear ramp well, thinking of painting it for contrast or something. Have been thinking about getting a Steyr, though I can't find one to rent.

riddle me this, 100g rocket is not unheard of, lets say a three second burn with smart guidance lock on, that would give it a guided range of about 4km and a terminal velocity of damn near 3000m/s which is much higher than just about any gun short of a light gas gun.

Work from the other way in. Decide on the Terminal Ballistics performance you need then the penetrator and propellent needed to make that happen. 3000m/s at sea level would be nearly Mach 9. That is simply not happening.

nemo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_%28missile%29 <---- well this kinda did, not at sea level admittedly but still.
and yes, i put up somewhat silly numbers but i did so to prove a point, those numbers were probably close to doable, or might actually BE doable and the only 'regular guns' that could get even close is a light gas gun or rail gun, both of which tend to be VERY large and in the second case require quite a lot of energy, neither very suitable for man portable weapon systems.

just saying such a system would have some advantages in this specific use, that is to say extreme range sniping.

Nemo wrote:

Senanthes wrote:Used to own a Nagant, BTW. T'was among my favorites along with a Mauser 98, .30-40 Krag-Jorgensson carbine, and a S&W Model 19 as a favored defensive carry piece. I can't say anything bad about my current Glock, but the good ol' revolver still had a one up in terms of mechanical simplicity and reliability over any auto by default.

Heard ya. Getting a .357 Ruger LCR next month. The range rental in .38 has been outstanding, but the sights worry me a bit. The front can be replaced with a decent tritium but the rear ramp well, thinking of painting it for contrast or something. Have been thinking about getting a Steyr, though I can't find one to rent.

Lemee know if you do find a Steyr, as my curiosity has been piqued. And I agree with painting for contrast, if you feel it's an issue. My dad owned said Smith before me, and had done the same with a little "hunter orange" on the back of the ramp. Also can't complain about the Trijicon on my Glock.

As for the rocket sniper idea... I can think of two major stumbling blocks. Exhaust plume and size. One shot, long before it gets anywhere, and everyone with eyes will know where the sniper is, and it will be far too large to be fired from anything like a rifle of realistic size, owing to fuel needs. A shoulder fired missile, mayhaps, but not a bullet analogue. This ignores what Nemo said about the nature of actually GETTING the projectile up to speed. Airframe heating will be murderous, the thrust to weight requirements, obscene, and kiss guidance goodbye from the ionization effects.

sen: dude, all the parts of this was created and put into use over 40 years ago(sprint missile proving that 100g accel missile is possible in service 1972, guided anti tank missiles since the fifties), it's nothing new, just make it SMALLER.

and no, the obscene accel and top speeds are not what makes the system viable, it is long range accuracy, obscene accel and top speed would be a nice bonus though.

To be fair, the scenario you are proposing for this weapon isn't covered by firearms in modern warfare. If I want to assassinate someone these days I do it with a Hellfire equipped UAV. Then call it something else when my PR guys brag about our success on twitter.


To that end, the proposed weapon has to compete with the Hellfire drones; the Reaper, Predator, and Avenger. Together with the launch platform, these weapon systems give you more reach, target flexibility, and better intelligence gathering simultaneously and at less risk.