[SG] Shotguns

I'm not a gun person (mines and artillery being more my style), and I'm
curious--why is a shotgun better in close combat than an assault rifle?
Does it really make sense that it would be more effective against eg powered
armor?

Hehe, I served in the USMC on FAST team 1 for four years and I can tell you
that the shotgun is much much better then your standard assault rifle in CQB.
There are several reasons for this, but primarily because of flexibility with
ammunition types (light loads for indoor work, so you don't hit your buddies
through walls, etc..chees cutters for knocking down wood doors...). With shot
you get a larger spread and can open up the choke to really use it to sweep
hallways and rooms. Plus shotguns tend to be shorter on the whole and more
easily wielded in urban terrain. However I have to question it being better
then an assault rifle against something like powered armor, unless of course
you are using solid slugs
;)

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

--- "Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis)"
> <jabradley@deloitte.com> wrote:

> However I have to question it being better then an

Given the need for greater penetration against it, and the subsequent increase
in the likelihood of overpenetration and the resulting friendly fire problem,
I can imagine that CQP against PA is something that most future troops will
fear even more than now.

> At 11:39 AM -0500 2/14/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:

Given a relatively non armored target, shotguns have a spread of rounds down
range (assuming larger buck shot) that are around.30 caliber. A spreader can
be added that gives a fan shape to the pattern vs a circle.

Shotguns generally have a better chance of hitting a target with multiple
rounds (per shot) vs single shots or auto fire from a Battle or assault rifle.
Its a matter of having a pattern of hits per shot vs a point hit per shot.

They are good for personal defense in the home for exactly this reason
assuming you don't have 'friendlies' behind the target (a problem with any
weapon really). An experienced user with a Shotgun can shift the point of aim
and catch the target in the spread while compensating to not hit undesired
targets unless they're bunched up. In such a situation, you don't really want
to shoot any weapon any how unless you're a master marksman under stressful
situations.

This is funny in it's coming up as I was just talking to a friend at
work about ideal home defense weapons for in-experienced users.

> At 8:47 AM -0800 2/14/03, Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis) wrote:

Solid or Sabot slugs would be excellent against a hardened target up close
(the SAS uses a shotgun to take doors off their hinges). A Shotgun as you
said, tends to be lighter (lower pressured involved) and more handy than a
weapon firing equivalent weight down range.

One could surmise that as materials science advances to improve body armor,
that one could improve the shotgun rounds to defeat such armor. Even today,
with lack of penetration, a shotgun blast can be incapacitating through the
blunt trauma. A slug against the torso or
to the abdominal/hip area should take any man down even if the armor
stops the round overall. The deformation that you'd get (especially in the
lower abdominal area) against soft armor would likely cause serious internal
bleeding and bone damage.

Remember, a shotgun slug or 00 buck load is able to take down a 900 pound
animal with a much thicker chest area and far higher muscle density than a man
is typically able to manifest.

Example rounds  projectile wt   m-Vel   Muzzle Energy
12 Gauge,       28.4 grams      488m/s  3378 joules
12 Gauge 3"     28.4 grams      536m/s  4088 joules
.223            4 grams         945m/s  1786 joules
.308            11.7 grams      754m/s  3319 joules

> However I have to question it being better then an assault rifle

So instead of having, say, d10 Impact, it might be 3 x d4 (each applied
separately) or something similar--still bad news if you're unarmored but
not so much of a problem if you're a walking tank.

> At 9:17 AM -0800 2/14/03, Brian Bilderback wrote:

Assualting a position held by power armor would have to be a task very much
hated unless you could gain a maneuverability or sensor edge. One would expect
that the power armor's increased sensor capability and communications, would
make the task of getting shots against them a challenge, let alone penetrating
shots when in very close terrain with obscured vision and increased noise.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

That assumes that future PA uses soft armor like today's body armor. I was
under the impression that that's what line troops will be using, and PA will
be using some very hsrd stuff. YMMV by background flavor, of course.

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Although on the other hand, I've read at least one background flavor text that
argued that PA will also be much "Noisier" than line infantry (The P in PA
will give off a hotter IR signature, more EM noise from all the electronics,
etc), making the use of "Seeker" ammunition against them quite popular. Again,
YMMV.

> At 12:41 PM -0500 2/14/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:

One would have the ability to fabricate some kind of sabot penetrator fired
out of say, belted 3" magnums even in these days that would have a serious
kick, but also serious penetration. One could turn out, even today, a
tungsten, steel or some other hard penetrator and load it into a shot shell.
There isn't hardly a call for any of that right now, but if armored beasts
were a threat, you can bet it'd turn up. Far more powder cross section and
decreased density. One could even use small HEAT warheads (perhaps a problem
to use close up for the firing soldier).

One has to wonder what off world colonists with beasts not unlike a Cap
Buffalo would turn out for personal weapons. They could have a penetration
edge against PA that would likely give PA users a bit of pause. 800 Nitro
Express for the 2183 period anyone? A heck of a kick, but it'll take down an
elephant. PA shouldn't be a problem.

Of course, surviving the return fire would be the hard part. Colonists would
get a shot or two before they were a mist. Still, having the state of mind to
drop a large scary beast charging you out of the brush can't be all that
different from having steely nerve when assaulted by power armor. Perhaps
there's a modifier for confidence tests when the militia has experience with
big mean nasty
Cape-Lizards.

> At 9:52 AM -0800 2/14/03, Brian Bilderback wrote:

Oh, granted, I'm thinking soft armor for lighter equipped troops here. Even
today, Body armor is great, but it's not a panacea.
Armoring the lower abdomen/hip area is a challenge if you want to
maintain any kind of mobility or heat dispersion. mostly it involves a plate
that hangs down yet still manages to flap around as you walk or run. A solid
blast there should cause serious damage however.

Against PA, well, you have to break the shell. Not hard for the right shotgun
slug I think. It'd likely let the magic smoke out. A blast to the head is also
a seriously hard thing to deal with.

***
Although on the other hand, I've read at least one background flavor text that
argued that PA will also be much "Noisier" than line infantry (The P in PA
will give off a hotter IR signature, more EM noise from all the electronics,
etc), making the use of "Seeker" ammunition against them quite popular. Again,
YMMV.
***

Meanwhile, non-PA would be able to carry SOMETHING that would do sensor
duty; just as with naked ape, the A.P.E. will have to pay for everything
added. Heavier sensor gear will need heavier p for the a, heavier signature
for the heavier p, heavier a to cover the gear, etc.

As with walkers and transformers, you have to watch the FM quality so that it
doesn't blind you to the price.

Anyway, can you make a shaped charge the size of a shotgun shell?

The_Beast

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> One would have the ability to fabricate some kind of

I was thinking some kind of mini-HESH....

> One has to wonder what off world colonists with

The germans used 2 different AntiTank rifles in WWII
-- one used an 8mm round with an obscenely huge amount
of powder behind it. The other was a bolt action 20mm, the round was HE and
looked very much like a modern Autocannon round. Gives one pause...

> Of course, surviving the return fire would be the

I read a sci fi novel (Mistwalker, IIRC) once about a guy stuck on a planet
that only allowed the use of "green" technology, to the extent that everything
was made from organic material. At one point, the hero's being chased by this
very nasty predator. he knows his weapon won't penetrate it's hide, so he
waits until it opens it's mouth to bite him, sticks his gun in it's jaws, and
pulls the trigger.

> Anyway, can you make a shaped charge the size of a shotgun shell?

er, ah, slug...

The_Beast

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:55:38PM -0500, Ryan M Gill wrote:

> Of course, surviving the return fire would be the hard part.

Well... one of the things that always throws me slightly about the GZG
version of power armour is that it isn't _that_ much more heavily armed
than the regular infantry - most of the heavy stuff is for anti-vehicle
work. So being shot at (rather than close-assaulted) won't be that much
worse than being shot at by regular infantry...

> --- devans@nebraska.edu wrote:

Precisely.

> Anyway, can you make a shaped charge the size of a

Dunno. And even if you can't now, maybe by then you can.....

The answer is yes.  The next question is - is it useful?

The answer: maybe. In general a shaped charge will penetrate at least as much
RHA as it's diameter. Advanced explosives, metals and shaping patterns can
vastly improve on this. So a 20mm HEAT will penetrate
roughly 20mm RHA.  With mixed ceramic/metal armors (Chobham)
shaped-charge warheads are much less effective, which is why tank guns
usually use APFSDS and AT missiles have big (8" wide) diameters and now,
double HEAT charges.

You might be able to squeeze an APFSDS into a shotgun shell, although to get
the velocity necessary you'd have one heck of a kick.

You might also try one of the taper-bore "squeeze" guns, basically an
early form of sabot ammo where you have a tungsten core surrounded with a lead
"skirt". You fire the round (say 12.7mm at the start) and the bore gets
skinnier towards the end. As the bullet passes down the narrowing bore, the
lead skirt compresses and maintains the seal and you maintain higher barrel
pressure for a longer time, imparting more energy. The final bullet is only
7.62 but has a much higher velocity than normal.

Has anyone seen the SLAP round for the.50 Barrett? I saw a Marine
Sniper School training video once and they demonstrated the SLAP round -
at 100m it went though both sides (front and back) of a commercial safe. Don't
think you can armor a guy enough to stop that kind of penetration.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
<<SNIP>>
> Anyway, can you make a shaped charge the size of a shotgun shell?

> Against PA, well, you have to break the shell. Not hard for the right

Speaking of blast to the head... Even if there was no penetration, what about
concussive force? And let's not rule out stunning effects... Knocking around
the brain in the brain case isn't known for good effects, and I can't, and
don't want, to imagine the sound from inside some P.A. of a shotgun slug
bouncing off your helmet... Or the headache to follow.

Rand.

> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> Well... one of the things that always throws me

Hmmmm.... maybe in certain settings there should be varying levels of PA that
fall somewhwere between PA nad a class 1 walker... might be easier to do in SG
than DS, given the granularity.

> So instead of having, say, d10 Impact, it might be 3 x d4 (each

Impact should be range dependent, in choke dependant. Note that a choke ideal
for use in buildings <10m is terrible for ranged use, >30m. Why? Because the
pattern of the pellets will literally allow you to aim dead on and miss. The
pattern of pellets will be all around the target, but none in
it...

"The pattern of pellets will be all around the target, but none in
it..."

That isn't necessarily true, first of all it depends on how far your target is
from you, and the other is that the patterns disperse randomly...

"Speaking of blast to the head... Even if there was no penetration, what about
concussive force? And let's not rule out stunning effects... Knocking around
the brain in the brain case isn't known for good effects, and I can't, and
don't want, to imagine the sound from inside some P.A. of a shotgun slug
bouncing off your helmet... Or the headache to follow."

Good points but I think those things would probably be generally covered. In a
full suit of powered armor I would assume that concussive noise and damage has
been somehow worked out and is integral to the deign of the armor. Why build
armor that can resist the full blast from an assault rifle but has to be
rinsed out later because the guys head popped? This message (including any
attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
 If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any
action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

> At 12:04 PM -0600 2/14/03, devans@nebraska.edu wrote:

Why not, it'll penetrate as much as it has width in steel. The only thing is a
detonator. With micro detonators...again, why not. Take HE, make Shotgun shell
mold or cylinder with a cone. Pack the HE into the cylinder against the copper
cone. Add Detonator on the front.

> At 11:26 AM -0700 2/14/03, B Lin wrote:

SLAP is great, but I've heard the sabots hang up on the muzzle brake on the
end of the sniper rifles every so often. Not a good thing to have happen.

Don't forget that if you are making a shaped charge for a game, say a scifi
game, the energy conversion might be much more efficient now allowing greater
penetration then today.

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> SLAP is great, but I've heard the sabots hang up on

Let's assume for game's sake that they have that little bug worked out by the
time of SG.....

> I was thinking some kind of mini-HESH....

Just use Californium 252 and be done with it...

> "Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis)" wrote:

I think it's safe to say that there will be a range at which it is very hard
not to place the pattern over the target but very, very unlikely that even a
single pellet will actually strike it. At this range your game designer should
be saying that a shotgun is completely ineffective.

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

This reminds me of a question I've been unable to answer by Googling. The 20mm
OICW grenade has, so I've read, a mass of about 100g, but I cannot find it's
proposed muzzle velocity. Does anybody recall reading one?

The 25mm OCSW grenade is supposedly thrown at around 400m/s. If
the OICW is similar it would be the equivalent of about a 4 gauge shotgun.

David, agreed.

Jason

[quoted original message omitted]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:28:20 -0500 Randall L Joiner
> <rljoiner@mindspring.com> writes:

Much like stopping the vaulting runner with your helmet in football (The
american kind...), it works, but at a price. Concussion reduces your ability
to react (or even act) dramatically. Been there...

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:58:59 -0500 Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 9:52 AM -0800 2/14/03, Brian Bilderback wrote:

I was a chiurgeon in my old SCA days (did some fighting too) along with a15
years in Nursing before this job and you could always tell when the
'soft' head of a simulated mace had been a little too effective - the
1000 yard stare looks the same behind a visor... and the 'where am I" body
language...

And shock from the wound (blast, penetrating, blunt) kills most people if
their death is not instantaneous. The biggest improvement for the grunts has
been sanitation and medical care. Much higher survival rates.

A few comments to Binhan Lin's post:

> The answer is yes. The next question is - is it useful?

You seem to have forgotten the "can vastly improve on this" bit you
mentioned in the previous sentence :-/ In an explosives course I
attended
some years back I hand-made a 1" diameter HEAT warhead which managed an
RHA penetration of almost 40 mm when we tested it... and I certainly didn't
use any very advanced explosives etc. <g>

As a rule of thumb modern HEAT warheads today have an RHA penetration
around 5-7 diameters; the best I've heard of penetrate ~8 diameters, and

recent research suggests that 10 diameters should be quite achievable
within the not-too-distant future. (The abstracts for those research
reports are open source, so I'm not disclosing any secrets here <g>)

> With mixed ceramic/metal armors (Chobham)

Chobham is one specific type of composite armour, but there are lots of others
as well.

> shaped-charge warheads are much less effective, which is why tank guns

While the composite armours are very effective against HEAT, the tanks' use
of APFSDS has at least as much to do with accuracy as with penetration -

the APFSDS is much faster, with a much flatter trajectory, so hit better at
medium ranges.

> and AT missiles have big (8" wide) diameters and now, double HEAT

Tandem charges are there to defeat reactive armours, not composites.

> You might be able to squeeze an APFSDS into a shotgun shell, although

Depends on how heavy the round is and how fast you want it to go, though
-
the 1500+ m/s muzzle velocity isn't part of the definition of APFSDS :-/

Later,