Modern weapons

[Dominique]

Just out of curiosity, have any of you taken a crack at writing up some sort stats, for some of the new weapon systems currently on the market? Say weapons like Mk-46, Mk-48, HK MP-7, HK-UMP, etc.?

[Rockwolf66]

Yup and let me find my notes and get back to you as I write the stats for Recon, Palladium and Interlock at the same time.

I use Guns, Guns, Guns to calculate the damage although it gets wonky for some things. Basically the MP-7 is definatly not a frontline weapon no matter how much Airsofters like the design.

[Dominique]

Basically the MP-7 is definatly not a frontline weapon no matter how much Airsofters like the design.

Oh, I'm well aware of its limitations, but it is used by some security, law enforcement, and special operations units.

[Aramanthus]

Sounds great! I can't wait to see those stats!

[sasha]

I tend to handle damage by caliber in RECON and other Palladium games with guns.

[Mercalocalypse]

I tend to handle damage by caliber in RECON and other Palladium games with guns.

I do the same. But stats on the "New" calibers would be awesome. Most of my bad guys carry Ak, M-16 or G3 variants. If some bad guy has a 6.8 that could be intel.

[Peacebringer]

I read somewhere that 5.56mm and the like do more damage to a human body than a 7.62mm rounds because the lager rounds tend to go straight through a body whereas a smaller round will bounce round inside a body and do more damage.

5.56mm vs. 7.62mm Question: So a 7.62mm would have a greater chance of penetrating body armor than a 5.56mm round. So, if the armor slows down a 7.62mm enough so it bounces inside, wouldn't the 7.62mm do more damage against armored troops and be an ideal weapon to use against armored troops?

[Jefffar]

The 5.56mm and similar rounds use a ballistic "cheat" as it were. They are smaller, but they are faster, resulting in comperable muzzle energy to the larger counter parts. There are a few benefits from this. At most of the ranges that firefights occur in (ie less than 400 meters) the 5.56 round has comparable lethality to the 7.62 mm (the round's tendancy to tumble creates larger wounds than would be expected) yet generates less felt recoil (very important in controllable automatic fire). The higher velocity also means that the trajectory is flatter and more accurate. Finally the smaller bullet means more ammunition can be carried.

As the range increases, the light weight of the 5.56 mm round means that it doesn't keep it's velocity anyway near as well the heavier 7.62 mm rounds. The 5.56 mm sort of "falls of the table" in terms of lethality, power and accuracy at longer range, giving the 7.62 mm the edge.

The 6.5 mm and 6.8 mm cartridges are designed to fall partway between these two posts. At all ranges they will hit harder than the 5.56 and nearly as hard as the 7.62. They will be more accurate than the 7.62 at short range, though not as accurate as the 5.56. The soldier will be able to carry more 6.5/6.8 mm rounds than 7.62 though less than 5.56.

The big problem in my mind for the 6.5/6.8 rounds is that they are really intended to do part of the job of the 5.56 (ie assault rifles and light machineguns) and part of the job of the 7.62 mm (ie long range rifles and medium machineguns). However the round isn't better for an assault rifle because it's not got a significant advantage at the ranges assault rifles get used. In light machineguns, the 6.5/6.8 might offer some advantage over the 5.56, but the conventional wisedom is that you want your light machineguns and assault rifles to use the same ammunition. The 6.5/6.8 rounds don't out perform the 7.62 in long range weapons or medium machineguns, so there's no reason to replace the 7.62 in those weapons either.

So unless you want the 6.5/6.8 mm round in all your assault rifles, long range rifles, light and medium machineguns,which reduces the capabilities of each of those platforms, nobody is ever going to officially adopted.

[Aramanthus]

That is interesting. I've read some military boards and never saw that info Jefffar. Where did you come upon it?

[Jefffar]

Try this site. The host is one of the editors for Jane's Defence, specifically in the field of ammunition.

[Aramanthus]

Thanks for the link Jefffar! Very cool. I bookmarked it. I have a lot of Jane's guides lying around here that I use for various things.

[Peacebringer]

Wasn't the Imperial Japanese military calibers all 6.5/6.8 mm range?

[Jefffar]

There was a 6.5 mm round used by the Japanese, as well as a 7.7 mm round. That being said, these are not intermediate power rounds like the 5.56 and 6.5/6.6 mm rounds for use in rapidly cycling assault rifles. These were full powered rounds for use in a bolt action rifle, making them much more comparable with a .30-06, .303 or 7.62 NATO ins style.

[green.nova343]

There was a 6.5 mm round used by the Japanese, as well as a 7.7 mm round. That being said, these are not intermediate power rounds like the 5.56 and 6.5/6.6 mm rounds for use in rapidly cycling assault rifles. These were full powered rounds for use in a bolt action rifle, making them much more comparable with a .30-06, .303 or 7.62 NATO ins style.

6.5mm Arisaka (6.5x50mm): 139-grain/9.0g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,500fps/770mps. Muzzle energy 1,929ft-lbsf/2.615kJ, momentum 49.643 English / 6.93 metric system. For use with the Type 30 Rifle & Carbine, Type 35 Rifle, Type 38 Rifle & Carbine, Type 44 Cavalry Carbine, Type 11 & 96 LMGs (with reduced charge), and Type 97 sniper rifle (also with reduced charge).

7.7mm Arisaka (7.7x58mm): 174-grain/11.3g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,400fps/730mps. Muzzle energy 2,218 ft-lbsf/3.007kJ, momentum 59.657 English/8.249 metric system. Meant to replace the 6.5mm, but wasn't finished by the end of WW2. Bullet was copied directly from the British .303 round. For use with the Type 99 Rifle.

For comparison's sake:
.30-06 Springfield:

• M1906 round: 150-grain/9.7g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,700fps/820mps. Muzzle energy 2,444 ft-lbsf/3.261kJ, momentum 57.857 English/7.954 metric system.
• M1 Ball (1926): 174-grain/11.3g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,640fps/800mps. Muzzle energy 2,684 ft-lbsf/3.638kJ, momentum 65.623 English/9.04 metric system.
• M2 Ball (1938): 152-grain/9.8g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,805fps/855mps. Muzzle energy 2,673 ft-lbsf/3.582kJ, momentum 60.909 English/8.379 metric system.

7.62mm NATO (7.62x51mm): 146.6-grain/9.5g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,756fps/840mps. Muzzle energy 2,472 ft-lbsf/3,352kJ, momentum 57.719 English/7.98 metric system.
7.62mm Soviet/M43 (7.62x39mm): 123-grain/8.0g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,329fps/710mps. Muzzle energy 1,467 ft-lbsf/2.01kJ, momentum 40.924 English/5.68 metric system. Sources seem to indicate that the round is so stable, & so resistant to fragmentation, that unless you're hit in a vital organ the wound track resembles a pistol wound.
5.56mm NATO (5.56x45mm), SS109: 62-grain/4g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 3,100fps/940mps. Muzzle energy 1,303 ft-lbsf/1.767kJ, momentum 27.457 English/3.76 metric system.

Basically puts the 7.7mm Arisaka as comparable in performance & damage to the .30-06 & 7.62mm NATO cartridges. The 6.5mm Arisaka would fall more into the "intermediate" range, comparable roughly to the 7.62mm Soviet M43 (& more powerful than the 5.56mm NATO).

[Beatmeclever]

There was a 6.5 mm round used by the Japanese, as well as a 7.7 mm round. That being said, these are not intermediate power rounds like the 5.56 and 6.5/6.6 mm rounds for use in rapidly cycling assault rifles. These were full powered rounds for use in a bolt action rifle, making them much more comparable with a .30-06, .303 or 7.62 NATO ins style.

6.5mm Arisaka (6.5x50mm): 139-grain/9.0g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,500fps/770mps. Muzzle energy 1,929ft-lbsf/2.615kJ, momentum 49.643 English / 6.93 metric system. For use with the Type 30 Rifle & Carbine, Type 35 Rifle, Type 38 Rifle & Carbine, Type 44 Cavalry Carbine, Type 11 & 96 LMGs (with reduced charge), and Type 97 sniper rifle (also with reduced charge).

7.7mm Arisaka (7.7x58mm): 174-grain/11.3g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,400fps/730mps. Muzzle energy 2,218 ft-lbsf/3.007kJ, momentum 59.657 English/8.249 metric system. Meant to replace the 6.5mm, but wasn't finished by the end of WW2. Bullet was copied directly from the British .303 round. For use with the Type 99 Rifle.

For comparison's sake:
.30-06 Springfield:

• M1906 round: 150-grain/9.7g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,700fps/820mps. Muzzle energy 2,444 ft-lbsf/3.261kJ, momentum 57.857 English/7.954 metric system.
• M1 Ball (1926): 174-grain/11.3g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,640fps/800mps. Muzzle energy 2,684 ft-lbsf/3.638kJ, momentum 65.623 English/9.04 metric system.
• M2 Ball (1938): 152-grain/9.8g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,805fps/855mps. Muzzle energy 2,673 ft-lbsf/3.582kJ, momentum 60.909 English/8.379 metric system.

7.62mm NATO (7.62x51mm): 146.6-grain/9.5g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,756fps/840mps. Muzzle energy 2,472 ft-lbsf/3,352kJ, momentum 57.719 English/7.98 metric system.
7.62mm Soviet/M43 (7.62x39mm): 123-grain/8.0g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,329fps/710mps. Muzzle energy 1,467 ft-lbsf/2.01kJ, momentum 40.924 English/5.68 metric system. Sources seem to indicate that the round is so stable, & so resistant to fragmentation, that unless you're hit in a vital organ the wound track resembles a pistol wound.
5.56mm NATO (5.56x45mm), SS109: 62-grain/4g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 3,100fps/940mps. Muzzle energy 1,303 ft-lbsf/1.767kJ, momentum 27.457 English/3.76 metric system.

Basically puts the 7.7mm Arisaka as comparable in performance & damage to the .30-06 & 7.62mm NATO cartridges. The 6.5mm Arisaka would fall more into the "intermediate" range, comparable roughly to the 7.62mm Soviet M43 (& more powerful than the 5.56mm NATO).

So, the 6.5mm and the 7.7mm would be useful after all should a group desire to use non-standard (and thereby, not usable by the enemy in your AoA) ammunition. Nothing wrong with the ammunition; its just not what we are used to in the modern world of corporate and governmental conformity to abstract standards.

In fact, during WWII, the problem the Japanese had with their firearms was that the weapons were obsolete, not the ammunition.

[Jefffar]

There was a 6.5 mm round used by the Japanese, as well as a 7.7 mm round. That being said, these are not intermediate power rounds like the 5.56 and 6.5/6.6 mm rounds for use in rapidly cycling assault rifles. These were full powered rounds for use in a bolt action rifle, making them much more comparable with a .30-06, .303 or 7.62 NATO in sstyle.

6.5mm Arisaka (6.5x50mm): 139-grain/9.0g FMJ round, muzzle velocity 2,500fps/770mps. Muzzle energy 1,929ft-lbsf/2.615kJ, momentum 49.643 English / 6.93 metric system. For use with the Type 30 Rifle & Carbine, Type 35 Rifle, Type 38 Rifle & Carbine, Type 44 Cavalry Carbine, Type 11 & 96 LMGs (with reduced charge), and Type 97 sniper rifle (also with reduced charge).

. . .

Basically puts the 7.7mm Arisaka as comparable in performance & damage to the .30-06 & 7.62mm NATO cartridges. The 6.5mm Arisaka would fall more into the "intermediate" range, comparable roughly to the 7.62mm Soviet M43 (& more powerful than the 5.56mm NATO).

Edited for length and emphasis added.

Yes the 6.5 is closer to the more modern intermediate cartridges in dimensions, but notice how they had to use a reduced charge in the LMGs. The round was still a bit too much for controlled full automatic fire in a lightweight infantry weapon, and the excessive recoil energy and gas pressures caused problems with the gin's mechanisms. This is because the round was not intended for such duties, it was intended for long range, single shot weapons favoured in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The reduced power intermediate cartridges only really caught on during WWII when it was discovered close range fighting was the norm and controllable full auto weapons were the best for that. That's why the .30 Carbine, 7.62mm M1943 and 7.92mm Kurtz were developed. The 6.5 mm Japanese (there were also Italian 6.5mm weapons to) was still a full power round, it just happened to be smaller than a lot of the other full power rounds.

So while there may be some similarity in performance to modern intermediate powered rounds, the 6.5 Japanese is actually an under powered example of a full powered rifle round. Incidentally, unhappy with the performance of the 6.5, the Japanese were upgrading to 7.7 mm when the war started, but were unable to complete the changeover fully.

An interesting side note, when the Japanese went to 7.62 NATO they developed a reduced power version for use in their automatic rifles because the difficulties of controlling them in fully automatic fire, especially in a nation that tended to produce people smaller than the average westerner. The Japanese 7.62 mm rifle had a selector switch for the gas regulator allowing it to cycle with the reduced powered rounds or with 7.62 NATO rounds so that the Japanese could use whichever ammunition was available.

[Mantisking]

I use Guns, Guns, Guns to calculate the damage although it gets wonky for some things.

Yeah, it doesn't model slow, heavy rounds very well.

[Desert Rat]

One thing you have to do is look at the weapon system as a whole, not just the individual components.

The 5.56mm round got its label as a "tumbling round" during the Vietnam Conflict. The original M16 rifle had a 1:14 inch rifling twist and the ballistics led to a slightly unstable flight path which facilitated the round tumbling upon the slightest contact with a surface. Over time, in an effort to improve accuracy rifling patterns changed with the M16A1 to 1:12 and then to the M16A2 onward to 1:7. This dramatically increased the maximum effective range from 300 meters to 550 meters by adding a tighter spiral of the round through its flight path. Additionally, the adoption of the tungsten core round facilitated a cleaner path through the target. In today's conflicts you will hear of soldiers talking about the inadequacy of the 5.56mm round because it punches right through the target like a hot needle rather then tumble through the body. Those special units which have a choice will often go with the 77 grain round as opposed to the 62 grain round to get a little extra punch.

While the AK-47 may seem to be more preferred, especially in the gaming world, for its increased damage capabilities, it too has its limitations. The weapon was designed to handle all means of battlefield environments. You can drop the thing in the mud, pull it out and it will still shoot. This is because the weapon is built with very loose tolerances and when you shake it, it rattles. The trade off is a substantially reduced maximum effective range somewhere around 200 meters.

These are the 2 most common rifles found on today's battlefield. One, the M16, is a far superior rifle with respect to accuracy and maximum effective range. The other, the AK-47, is much better in harsh combat environments and lethality.

[Aramanthus]

I saw that special on the MIlitary channel where they looked at both of those and compared them. They both had advantages and disadvantages. It was an excellent show.

[Dominique]

Moved

[Jefffar]

6D6 or 1D4x10 - on target effect isn't considerably greater than a 7.62 NATO - but it can do it from much farther away.

[Jefffar]

But a .50 BMG does 1D6x10, so 1D4x10+10 means that the .338 has on target effects that are almost identical to the .50 and has a lower minimum damage.

[Jefffar]

Just pointing out - we need to either re-jig a lot of things or fit the new into the existing.

[Devari]

weapon dmg is super low for some guns , about right for the middle of the pack and a bit to low for the upper end of the weapons.

probly a revision of all of them is my opion but oh well...

Actually, I find that the existing damage scale from 1D6 (.22) up to 1D6x10 (.50 BMG) actually works quite well when you take into account the other game stats such as effective range, ammunition capacity and body armor penetration. For example, let's take some common cartridges and see how their stats work in the Palladium rules:

Pistols:
9 mm Parabellum (120 gr, 360 m/s): 2D6 damage, 50 m range.
.45 ACP (240 gr, 240 m/s): 4D6 damage, 50 m range.
.357 Magnum (160 gr, 420 m/s): 4D6 damage, 50 m range.
.44 Magnum (300 gr, 420 m/s): 5D6 damage, 50 m range.
.50 AE (300 gr, 470 m/s): 6D6 damage, 50 m range.

Looking at the pistols the stats seem reasonable. Palladium tends to set all pistols at 50 m effective range and most body armor capable of stopping rifle rounds will stop any pistol rounds so range and armor penetration aren't major factors with most pistol rounds. What tends to balance the pistol rounds is that the more powerful cartridges tend to have proportionally lower ammuniton capacities. Choosing a 9 mm pistol with 2D6 damage and 15 rounds vs. a .45 ACP pistol with 4D6 damage and 8 rounds vs. a .44 magnum revolver with 5D6 damage and 6 rounds all tend to be roughly balanced in terms of game stats.

Rifles:
5.56 mm NATO (60 gr, 940 m/s): 3D6 damge, 500 m range.
7.62 mm x 39 (120 gr, 750 m/s): 4D6 damage, 300 m range.
7.62 mm NATO (150 gr, 850 m/s): 5D6 damage, 800 m range
.30-06 Springfield (150 gr, 880 m/s): 5D6 damage, 1000 m range.
.50 BMG (700 gr, 900 m/s): 1D6x10 damage, 1500 m range.

With rifles we see the opposite emphasis. The difference between damage is noticeable but we actually see a much larger difference when looking at the ranges. For example, 7.62 mm x 39 might do more damage than 5.56 mm NATO (4D6 vs. 3D6) but the 5.56 mm NATO round has nearly twice the effective range (500 meters vs. 300 meters), which evens this out. Similarly, 7.62 mm NATO has only slightly more damage than 7.62 mm x 39 (5D6 vs. 4D6) but has nearly three times the effective range and thus is far more effective on the battlefileld. So if you just look at damage you might think the 7.62 mm NATO catridge is "underpowered" but it actually inflicts more damage than the 7.62 mm x 39 catridge and also has nearly 3x the effective range. Similarly, you might think the .50 BMG is "underpowered" at 1D6x10 damage for such a large bullet but it has an effective range of around 1500 m, so it inflicts 2.5x the damage of the 7.62 mm x 39 round at 5x the range, which makes the round around ten times as effective in game terms. The Palladium rules have large penalties for trying to shoot past the effective range of a weapon and so this is a much larger issue than you might think in game terms. The Compendium of Contemporary weapons allows weapons to be fired at targets 10-20% beyond the effective range but assesses a penalty of -6 to strike and considers the attack to be shooting wild.

However, another very important point with rifles that many people ignore is the issue of body armor. For some reaon many players forget about this point but it has a dramatic effect on how firearms work in the Palladium system. The Palladium rules for body armor vary depending on the specific Palladium system you're using (Ninjas and Superspies, Compendium of Contemporary Weapons or Systems Failure) but all of the Palladium systems indicate the rounds that a given type of armor is effective against. The most effective body armor available (class IV) protects against rounds up to and including the .30-06 Springfield catridge. This means that a .338 Lapua round would ignore the body amor and treat the target as if it were unarmored in game terms. So even if a character is using heavy body armor equivalent to what soldiers are currently wearing in Iraq they would still be vulnerable to high-powered rounds such as the .338 Lapua and .50 BMG rounds. So these rounds are much more effective in game terms than you might expect if you were to just look at their damage ratings. In fact, the issue of body armor is exactly why modern militaries are starting to use rounds such as the .338 Lapua because they fill an important gap between the ligher 7.62 mm NATO and the heavier .50 BMG rounds. Sniper rifles chambered in 7.62 mm NATO can be defeated by level IV body armor and rifles chambered in .50 BMG are simply too heavy and cumbersome to be well-suited for the anti-personnel role, while the .338 Lapua round has the ability to defeat body armor but is also much easier to use than the .50 BMG round. In fact, if it weren't for the issue of body armor the .338 Lapua round probably wouldn't have been developed for use as a military catridge, since the 7.62 mm NATO round has more than sufficient lethality and range to serve in the anti-personnel sniper role against an unarmored or lightly armored target.

I would like to know what damage people would assign the .338 Lapua round. I'm using a Sako TRG-42 in that caliber for a character in my HU2 campaign (Chemically enhanced Supersoldier who is a sniper/assassin)

Based on a comparison with the stats of the other cartridges a good starting point for the .338 Lapua round would be:

.338 Lapua (250 gr, 900 m/s): 6D6 damage, 1200 m range.

You could change these stats somewhat depending on exactly how you want to translate the .338 Lapua round into game terms, and setting a damage rating of either 6D6, 7D6 or 1D4x10 would be reasonable. You could also adjust the effective range to anywhere between 1200-1500 meters, but I wouldn't increase the damage beyond a maximum of 1D4x10 or the effective range beyond 1500 meters to ensure that you keep the round balanced in comparison with the Palladium stats for other cartridges. Although it might seem "underpowered" to have the .338 Lapua round doing 6D6 damage when the 7.62 mm NATO round does 5D6 damage, when you compare the effective range of around 1200 meters vs. 800 meters this means that you can fire the .338 Lapua round 50% farther than 7.62 mm NATO. The combination of increased damage and increased effective range makes the .338 Lapua round around 2x more effective overall compared to 7.62 mm NATO in game terms even though the damage rating is not dramatically higher. Also, as I described above, the ability to penetrate body armor is another major issue and when you take this into account the .338 Lapua round is far more effective against targets wearing body armor than the 7.62 mm NATO round, which makes the .338 Lapua 4-5x more effective in game terms when you combine the effects of the increased damage, effective range and body armor penetration. So a damage rating between 6D6 and 1D4x10 is actually a very reasonable translation of higher powered sniper rifle rounds such as .338 Lapua (or the 9.3 mm x 64 round used in the SVDK, a higher-powered variant of the Dragunov) when you take into account all of the game stats. The biggest advantages of the .338 Lapua round (and similar rounds such as 9.3 mm x 64) are the longer effective range and the ability to penetrate body armor so it isn't necessary to give the round a dramatically higher damage rating in comparison with 7.62 mm NATO rounds.

The point here is that if you take into account effective range and body armor penetration you'll find that the Palladium damage system and stats are actually a very good way of representing these weapons in game terms. Part of the issue is that most players tend to ignore effective range (which is a huge factor in game terms) and also don't consider the issue of body armor penetration (which is also a major factor since the best body armor available won't stop anything above .30-06 Springfield). This is what can make some of the larger rifle rounds seem "underpowered" when you just look at their damage rating without looking at the other game stats for effective range and body armor penetration.

[Devari]

i still say they are a bit low , espicaly for the pistols...while in range to use game terms.
the impact of a 9mm round should do more than double that of a .22, and a .22 should do more than a bare foot kick , more people have been killed with .22's than the round is credited with by arm chair comando's.

Keep in mind that damage in the game is an abstract concept and is scaled so that the damage stats are balanced for multiple attacks, burst rules, and so on. Getting shot four times with a .22 at 1D6 damage, twice with a 9 mm at 2D6 damage or once with a .45 ACP or .357 magnum at 4D6 are close enough in terms of overall effects to have the same total damage in the game. It's the same as how getting stabbed twice with a knife inflicting 1D6 damage in the game is equivalent to getting slashed once with a 2D6 longsword. Technically there's much more damage potential when using a sword but getting stabbed twice inflicts two wounds instead of one, which is why they have the same total damage. Try thinking of it in terms of adding up multiple wounds, you're not just calculating the muzzle energy of two .22 rounds together and putting that on par with a 9 mm, you're comparing two separate wounds from one cartridge with a single wound from a more powerful cartridge.

a .9mm and the .45 acp's gaps a bit large if your talking ball ammo, not to mention you take a pistol like the springfield xd 45 with a high capcity clip it still holds over 14 rounds and the 9 version holds 20, yeah i got 6 shots more but by your math i should be verry hampered by my choice of the 9mm.

The issue here is that you're looking at things entirely from an RPG persepctive which is why you'd obviously choose the high-capacity .45 ACP pistol because the pistol's size, weight, concealability, etc., don't affect you in the game. You're not taking into account the real-world reasons that someone would choose a smaller pistol. A pistol with high-capacity .45 ACP magazines usually has a wider grip and isn't as easy to conceal, etc., and .45 ACP ballistics are relatively poor compared to a higher-velocity cartridge. If all you're looking at is damage and ammunition capacity in an RPG setting, then yes, I'd rather have the high-capacity .45 ACP pistol. But in the real world there are many other factors that aren't taken into account by the game rules and sometimes a pistol chambered in 9 mm or .40 S&W has certain advantages. Personally I'd want to include range and accuracy modifiers for pistol cartridges (i.e., a bonus to strike for the higher-velocity pistol rounds), provide bonuses or penalties to the ability to conceal the weapon, and so on, but the system just isn't complex enough to include these as standard rules in the game (although the GM could obviously take these things into account).

as for rifle rounds and pentration yes a .50 bmg is not going to be stoped in the slightest by modern body armor, its going through and probly out the back if its a silver tip bullet or even an AP combusting round, but 1d6x10 is still to low for this massive chuck of metal that comes flying at you , a frag grenade does from between 2d4x10 and 2d6x10, yes thats to an area but a dirrect hit from 50. bmg shot is going to kill more often than being in 10 feet of a frag, and thats a high kill ratio range for a nade.
so for a single shot of matrial destroying power that is the .50 bmg round from a direct hit, in range, in a mil spec round, it should do more than 1d6x10, it should do more like 2d6x10 or 1d6x10+20.

I'd still argue that the main advantage of the .50 BMG round is the accuracy, range and amor penetration. Modern military body armor can potentially stop grenade fragments and so your armor could absorb a lot of the fragments from the grenade but wouldn't do anything to the .50 BMG bullet, so 1D6x10 damage going straight through body armor at 1500 m is going to hurt plenty in the game. Technically though there are some Palladium stats that use 1D6x10+10 for the .50 BMG round, so you could use a higher damage if you really want but the problem is then you really need to adjust the damage of the other rounds as well. I find it's easiest to just keep .50 BMG at 1D6x10 since it scales well with the existing stats for the 20 mm and 30 mm rounds. Another issue here is that the damage needs to scale well with the burst rules, and if you set the damage too high for .50 BMG then it becomes too effective vs. vehicles.

a strong person should not be able to do more lethal killing force with there fist than a 9mm bullet. (ps 21, 1d4+6 vs 2d6 , the fist will deal more sdc's more often than the gun)

This is where the S.D.C./H.P. and optional bleeding rules from the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons can be used to reflect the increased lethality of firearms. Personally I find the bleeding rules too complicated to be worthwhile most of the time and so instead I apply lethal damage from bullets, blades, etc., directly to H.P. while fists, kicks, falls, etc., is applied first to S.D.C. and then to H.P. Really though what you're describing isn't so much a problem with the firearm damage system, it's really a problem with S.D.C. being used against bullets in the standard Palladium rules.

[Devari]

the size argument would be acurect if it was a single stack magazine, but hold up a 1911 45acp pistol ( the most reconizable id say) to todays modern double stack maged pistols and you see there about the same dimnsions , a full size glock in .45 is neglagently thicker than the 1911, both have about the same barrel legnth both are extremely acurret and one is just dated , thats a fact of the modern tech and all.
But this is true with modern ammo, no one who isnt itching for a law suit, carry's ball ammo in the pistol if there using it for a carry peice, a hollow point 45 vs hp 9mm, the wound path is deeper with the 9mm, the wound is larger with the 45, when it comes to talking about armor very few people on the streets criminal or citzen wears even class I body armor. let alone class 4 or IIIA, its unherd of to see that sort of thing, cops, security guards, despret gunman, sure. but me and you probly not.... I pack 90% of the time and own body armor. Ive worn that armor 2 times in my life when i walked out my door, both were cuase i was about to make some bad choice in my life....and thats not even the norm , thats way above the norm for times on the street in kevlar and plate armor....id say massive vast swaths of the public have never touched let alone worn any armor.
so pentration start really going toward how many people and things you hit on the other side of your target, not a will it go through scenario.

I agree with this for urban settings, but most of what I've been discussing also takes into account military use as well. If you're walking around a city where you're only going to get into a short-range firefight against unarmored targets then .45 ACP is probably one of the best rounds you can use. If you're special forces you might want a high-velocity pistol to have some chance of getting thorugh body armor (the Russians have a 7N21 high-velocity 9 mm x 19 round with an armor-piercing tip and manufacture 9 mm pistols that can handle the increased pressure). On the other hand if you're out in the wilderness and need to stop a bear then I'd want a .41 or .44 magnum revolver. It really depends on what you need to use the pistol for.

a burst from a 50bmg that hits should kill any non super hero char...and i mean no chance of survial

In most modern Palladium games a .50 BMG burst would kill virtually any character from the total damage even if you decided to make the rolls, but the GM would proably rule that it was automatic death anyways (similar to point-blank attacks with explosives).

[slade the sniper]

One thing you have to do is look at the weapon system as a whole, not just the individual components.

The 5.56mm round got its label as a "tumbling round" during the Vietnam Conflict. The original M16 rifle had a 1:14 inch rifling twist and the ballistics led to a slightly unstable flight path which facilitated the round tumbling upon the slightest contact with a surface. Over time, in an effort to improve accuracy rifling patterns changed with the M16A1 to 1:12 and then to the M16A2 onward to 1:7. This dramatically increased the maximum effective range from 300 meters to 550 meters by adding a tighter spiral of the round through its flight path. Additionally, the adoption of the tungsten core round facilitated a cleaner path through the target. In today's conflicts you will hear of soldiers talking about the inadequacy of the 5.56mm round because it punches right through the target like a hot needle rather then tumble through the body. Those special units which have a choice will often go with the 77 grain round as opposed to the 62 grain round to get a little extra punch.

While the AK-47 may seem to be more preferred, especially in the gaming world, for its increased damage capabilities, it too has its limitations. The weapon was designed to handle all means of battlefield environments. You can drop the thing in the mud, pull it out and it will still shoot. This is because the weapon is built with very loose tolerances and when you shake it, it rattles. The trade off is a substantially reduced maximum effective range somewhere around 200 meters.

These are the 2 most common rifles found on today's battlefield. One, the M16, is a far superior rifle with respect to accuracy and maximum effective range. The other, the AK-47, is much better in harsh combat environments and lethality.

Desert Rat,

Good analysis. I am glad that you pointed out the effect that the rifling of the original M16 had on bullet performance. This is often overlooked in game terms, where the caliber is easily known, but the weapon itself has some effect on performance, such as the shorter barrel length on the M4 compared to the M16A2 that reduces it's range.

-STS

[Alrik Vas]

Don't the russians usually use the 5.54 now? The AK-74 and variants do if i'm not mistaken.

[Jefffar]

Yeah. The standard Assault Rifle and LMG cartridge for the Russian Army is 5.45mm. Their standard Rifle and GPMG cartridge is the same 7.62x54R they've used since before WW1.

7.62x39mm is still in use by police, internal security and special forces units. Additionally those units sometimes use a 9x39mm round designed for use in silenced weapons and urban combat. They claim its a rifle round, but really it's pretty much a .357 Magnum being used in submachine-guns and extended barrel carbines if you want to understand how it performs.

The Soviets did some experiments with a 6mm 'universal' round back in the day and there is some talk of the Russians creating one in 6.5mm that would extend the range and killing power of assault rifles and LMGs while reducing the ammo weight for Rifles and GPMGs. No word if it will become a reality.

Edited to add: The Russians also have been using a 9.3mm version of the SVD sniper rifle. The round was chosen to increase penetration of body armour. Ther are also a flood of new pistol rounds in use too, including high pressure loadings of 9mm that approach the effectiveness of a 10mm or .357.

[Alrik Vas]

Naturally they still use a wide variety of ammunition. So does basically everyone else. Though i like the idea of the 9mm that's almost like a .357.

[Jefffar]

They also have some pretty nice armour piercing rounds. Basically the core of the bullet is a tool grade steel penetrator surrounded by normal led and such. They open up the tip of the bullet so the steel core is exposed. If the bullet hits body armour the outer part of the bullet turns into a doughnut like structure and the armour piecing core does its thing but without the extra drag. If it hits flesh, it acts like a normal bullet except that the core and the outer piece will typically separate, and then outer section acts like a hollow point while the core goes deep.

Nasty, nasty bullets.

[Alrik Vas]

Yeah, I think that kind of stuff is great. I also like the expanding type rounds, they work kind of like that but without the core, just massive tissue damage as they bloom out on contact. Hunters use them so a smaller rifle round can take down bigger game.

I'm also a fan of the .50 rounds on the .45 base.

[ArmySGT.]

The 5.56mm round got its label as a "tumbling round" during the Vietnam Conflict. The original M16 rifle had a 1:14 inch rifling twist and the ballistics led to a slightly unstable flight path which facilitated the round tumbling upon the slightest contact with a surface. Over time, in an effort to improve accuracy rifling patterns changed with the M16A1 to 1:12 and then to the M16A2 onward to 1:7. This dramatically increased the maximum effective range from 300 meters to 550 meters by adding a tighter spiral of the round through its flight path. Additionally, the adoption of the tungsten core round facilitated a cleaner path through the target. In today's conflicts you will hear of soldiers talking about the inadequacy of the 5.56mm round because it punches right through the target like a hot needle rather then tumble through the body. Those special units which have a choice will often go with the 77 grain round as opposed to the 62 grain round to get a little extra punch.

Actually, No. No, not at all. The nickname "tumbling round", which I have never heard of or seen in any literature, would reference the effect on the permanent wound cavity.

Bullets on impact create damage from the solid projectile and the hydrostatic (water-not moving) shock. What doesn't compress, force it to move and it will destroy things in its way.

The tumbling effect seen in firearms is two kinds...... Bullets that tumble in flight, either because there was insufficient rifling to spin the bullet, affecting a gyroscopic stabilization, or because the bullet has slowed down after traveling a great distance, thus loses gyroscopic stabilization, tumbles because of uneven wind resistance.

The tumbling seen in wounds is seen mostly in rifle bullets, though hollow points and other deforming bullets may also. The reason for this is the long thin bullet is lighter in the nose than the tail. The nose being lighter and with less mass decelerates much more rapidly than the tail which is going the same speed at impact, except with greater mass. The result is the bullet turns end for end.

Rifling and bullet weight are integrally linked. Light bullets have less rifling. Heavy bullets have more rifling. The M193, 55 grain bullet for the M16A1 has less rifling due to lighter weight and higher muzzle velocity. The M855, 62 grain bullet has more rifling because it is heavier and less velocity.

If you fire M193 ammunition from an M16A2 meant for M855 you will have poor results. The over stabilized bullet can shed the copper jacket and disintegrated as it travels down range. Firing M855 from an M16A1 has the effect of the understabilized bullet loosing accuracy dramatically. Moving far outside the accepted 4 Minutes of Angle for a service rifle.

The Greenhill formula is used to determine the proper rifling for a chosen cartridge, or to help you purchase the correct ammunition for your rifle.
http://kwk.us/twist.html

[Gilbert]

The M16 family of weapons:

The modern M16 rifle got its start in 1956, when inventor Eugene Stoner tested its predecessor, the AR-15, at the Infantry School at Fort Benning. The rifle would not enter U.S. service for another four years, and then with the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Army would jump on the M16 bandwagon in 1965, with the U.S. Marines following in 1966.

The original AR-15 was a reliable, innovative rifle, but a last-minute change of gunpowder and misconceptions about the rifle’s need to be cleaned contributed to a poor reliability rate in Vietnam. Exacerbating the problem was the M16’s direct impingement self-loading system, in which gasses and carbon residue created when gunpowder is burned are cycled back into the weapon’s internal mechanism.