MD Snipers

[csbioborg]

you guys are almost all talking about mobility kills
breaking track is easy
you could do it with a 50 cal or a 203 if you are lucky
hell you could just pull the red lever on the side of the tank that activates the fire control which effectively kills the engine
some tank got mobility kills and the crew had o abandon them
or a rpg to the engine form behind
destorying the hull is a whoile different matter
the bottom of the tank is the weakest spot on the tank
you can kill it with heavy expllsivesw
however defeating the front slope is a whole diffferent matter
that is feet of depluted uranium armor encased in lead you need to defeat that takes a missles
or another american tank round

[jaymz]

The guys earlier were talking about that. I was just talking about for snipers in general

Though i do belevie an Abrams track can't be taken out by a 50 cal.....

[Shadow Wyrm]

The guys earlier were talking about that. I was just talking about for snipers in general

Though i do belevie an Abrams track can't be taken out by a 50 cal.....

A .50 BMG AP round has a very good chance at breaking a track. It's just not very common for a 50 cal. round to hit a track.

[Killer Cyborg]

On a side note I always wondered why the sniper rifles were so underpowered overall.

They're not.
Average laser rifle inflicts 2d6 MD per single shot.
Average laser sniper rifle inflicts 3d6-4d6 MD per single shot.
That's superior firepower.

Where is the heavy rail rifle sniper weapon akin to a barret?

The Barrett sniper rifle uses a .50 caliber BMG round.
That's the equivalent of using a single railgun round.
The Rifts equivalent of a Barret sniper riper would inflict 1d4 MD.

I designed the best sniper rifle that I feel the tech on Rifts Earth should be capable of, and started a thread on it a while back:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=104044
Even then, normal humans are going to need a tripod.

Here's a sniper laser rifle I wrote up:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=103926

[jaymz]

Ok granted there are some laser weapons that are morepowerful BUT do not really have any better range. Aside from the JA-11. However there are sevral rifles that do the same damage as the sniper riofle you mention as well.

Using the single railgun round as a comparison to the barret isn't right either since a Barret is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than any standard rifle round and a Railgun round is not when compared to a single blast round from any typical weapon.

The only thing comparable in the way of being a superior heavy railgun round in the game itself is from the Archie 3 article in Rifter number 4 which does 4d6 per round and is a single round shooting weapon. If using that kind of round then you can compare it to a Barret since that is more powerful than a typical single rifle blast. Problem is that particular weapon is more of a really heavy railgun pistol without the range.

The modified C-40RS i described above used the same principle as the one from teh Rifter. Larger heavier round doing more damage, since the point is to take out or disable what you are shooting at. 1d4 just wont do that unles hitting unarmoured squishies. Thus since my mod is a rifle I upped the damage to above that of the rifter gun and allowed it to use the missile AP rules from RUE. Voila deadly sniper weapon.

[Killer Cyborg]

Using the single railgun round as a comparison to the barret isn't right either since a Barret is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than any standard rifle round and a Railgun round is not when compared to a single blast round from any typical weapon.

As I said, the barret uses the .50 BMG round, same as the .50 caliber machinegun.
Railguns are the Rifts equivalent of a .50 cal machinegun, NOT a "standard rifle."
Railguns are already about as powerful as Rifts technology can make them, and that's 1d4 MD per round in most cases. 1d6 for the really heavy cases.

The modified C-40RS i described above used the same principle as the one from teh Rifter. Larger heavier round doing more damage, since the point is to take out or disable what you are shooting at.

The recoil increase would be stupendous, and the round would have to be huge to inflict that kind of damage.
High Explosive mini-missiles are the size of a coke can (IIRC), and they inflict the same kind of damage you're talking about. Armor Piercing mini-missiles only inflict a bit more.
If it works for you, that's cool- but I don't buy it.

1d4 just wont do that unless hitting unarmoured squishies.

The problem is that you're letting your desire dictate your reality.
You WANT a railgun that can inflict enough damage in a single round to be a large threat to armored soldiers, so you write one up- regardless of whether it fits the precedents and physics of the game.

I want a derringer that can pose a threat to Splyncryth, but that doesn't mean I should write one up, because it simply doesn't fit.

[jaymz]

Using the single railgun round as a comparison to the barret isn't right either since a Barret is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than any standard rifle round and a Railgun round is not when compared to a single blast round from any typical weapon.

As I said, the barret uses the .50 BMG round, same as the .50 caliber machinegun.
Railguns are the Rifts equivalent of a .50 cal machinegun, NOT a "standard rifle."
Railguns are already about as powerful as Rifts technology can make them, and that's 1d4 MD per round in most cases. 1d6 for the really heavy cases.

The modified C-40RS i described above used the same principle as the one from teh Rifter. Larger heavier round doing more damage, since the point is to take out or disable what you are shooting at.

The recoil increase would be stupendous, and the round would have to be huge to inflict that kind of damage.
High Explosive mini-missiles are the size of a coke can (IIRC), and they inflict the same kind of damage you're talking about. Armor Piercing mini-missiles only inflict a bit more.
If it works for you, that's cool- but I don't buy it.

1d4 just wont do that unless hitting unarmoured squishies.

The problem is that you're letting your desire dictate your reality.
You WANT a railgun that can inflict enough damage in a single round to be a large threat to armored soldiers, so you write one up- regardless of whether it fits the precedents and physics of the game.

I want a derringer that can pose a threat to Splyncryth, but that doesn't mean I should write one up, because it simply doesn't fit.

The problem is comparing a railgun to a 50 cal mg would be akin to comparing hte c-12 to an m-16. Problem is they don't equate accordingly.

A .50 cal round is more powerful than a 5.56 so logic woudl dictate that a railgun round shoudl be more powerful than a laser blast from a typical rifle.

My desire has nothing to do with it. I am trying to have a weapon that is directly comparable and your comparables don't work. It's not that you are wrong because technically you are right. The problemis that they don't directly corolate properly.

Also the weapon I created for what I thought was needed is based on an official weapon out an article in Rifter #4, Archie 3 vs the world. Its official material and very much along the lines of what i was looking for. A single shot rail gun using a heavy larger round. And it can be used by a person. I just extrapolated it to a rifle. Is it that hard to think with the tech levels the way they are that a weapon can be built to negate enough of the recoil to allow it to be fired. You can't exactley fire Barret standing up or on the run and nor should you be able to.

Also I am not looking for overkill, my weapon does 5d6 damage. The offical weapon in the rifter does 4d6. I myself think railguns as a whole should use the missile ap rules since by thier very nature they are needle like slugs moving at hyper velocities. Thats just me. Is all that unplausible for such an weapon to exist and be used in the manner I am describing?

[jaymz]

I have to say your wrong about this. There is no reason in the physics of the game that says you can't have a railgun that shoots one round better than forty. I fact it makes perfect sense to make a railgun that shoots one powerful round at a time rather than 40 lite rounds. It would take alot of energy to fire all 40 rd. from a C-40. Why not take part or all of that energy and put it in to one good shot from the railgun, and damn the recoil.

Personally in my games I use the burst damage as the damage and make the weapon single shot weapons. Then again in my games I use a 10-1 ratio for sdc-mdc so that you can use cheap "old" weapons in pinch to get the job done with a .50 cal mg doing 3d6+3 md on a 10 shot burst. (using the damage listed for it in the modern weapons compendium at 1d6x10+10 sdc converting to 1d6+1 md per round with x3 short burst damage multiplier)

but again thats in my private games.

[Natasha]

The problem is that you're letting your desire dictate your reality.
You WANT a railgun that can inflict enough damage in a single round to be a large threat to armored soldiers, so you write one up- regardless of whether it fits the precedents and physics of the game.

I have to say your wrong about this. There is no reason in the physics of the game that says you can't have a railgun that shoots one round better than forty. I fact it makes perfect sense to make a railgun that shoots one powerful round at a time rather than 40 lite rounds. It would take alot of energy to fire all 40 rd. from a C-40. Why not take part or all of that energy and put it in to one good shot from the railgun, and damn the recoil.

In Rifts there is no logic and there is no physics and power creep is the precedent.

You've gone and did something logical, physically plausible, and all without power creep. What the hell is wrong with you?

[Shark_Force]

if you want a precedent, take a look at the shemarrian rail guns.

[jaymz]

Oddly enough lookng into rail guns, the majority of them in rifts aren't. They are more akin to coil guns And from what i've read so far they dont really have any recoil per se. That woudl seem to indicate the need of a high ps is for hte actual carrying and useage not to compensate for any recoil.

As for logic, yeah logic shouldn't typically be allowed in a RPG that being saids its ice to have an at least plausible reason for things.

[Shark_Force]

Oddly enough lookng into rail guns, the majority of them in rifts aren't. They are more akin to coil guns And from what i've read so far they dont really have any recoil per se. That woudl seem to indicate the need of a high ps is for hte actual carrying and useage not to compensate for any recoil.

As for logic, yeah logic shouldn't typically be allowed in a RPG that being saids its ice to have an at least plausible reason for things.

nope, there's an explicit statement (in phase world i think?) that railguns do in fact have recoil. or maybe it's in the conversion book or sourcebook one, whichever has the answers to a bunch of questions.

but basically, to sum it up: in general, supertechnology cannot just negate recoil (the exception being the megaversal legion, which has technology that just tells inertia to shut it's mouth and don't bother them again until they call for it). it is a simple principle of how the gun works. in order for B to apply force to A, A must apply a force to B. you can't just design the gun to make that not happen. you *can* design the gun to minimize it in some cases (for example, in firearms you can channel the gasses to reduce the recoil caused by the gas jetting out the front of the barrel, but that doesn't mean you can reduce it to 0 recoil) but when it comes to railguns, there aren't really any rapidly expanding gasses (or at least, there probably shouldn't be). the recoil is caused entirely by the fact that you are accelerating something else, and if that something else wasn't applying equal force to you, well... you'd pretty much just pass right through it. if it's not pushing back on you, you've got nothing to 'grip' the object with, basically. now, this is not to say you cannot diminish the effect of recoil. for example, simply making the gun heavier means it gets accelerated less (same force, more massive object, means less acceleration). you can also increase the surface area of the stock (or whatever the gun is pressing up against the wielder with). this will reduce pressure (pressure = force / area, so if you increase the area, you decrease the pressure) but will still leave you with the same amount of force, and ultimately there is only so much area available to spread the force over (this is essentially the way modern non-rigid bulletproof vests work, by the way... spreading the force of the impact over a larger area). this is good for keeping the recoil from breaking bones or causing the weapon to break the wielder's skin, but not necessarily so useful for keeping the gun on target, if i'm not mistaken.

about the only way to reduce the recoil i can think of would be to apply an equal force in the direct opposite direction the slug is being propelled. for the record, this has some fairly significant drawbacks (not least of which is potentially shooting yourself in the shoulder or hip every time you fire the weapon).

for these reasons, it actually makes a lot of sense that railguns require a great big hulking brute made of MDC steel or equivalent with robotic or greater strength to wield without a weapon mount. not only do they need to handle the recoil, but they need to be able to handle the gun that is designed to be heavy enough that they can handle the recoil even *with* their strength. can you imagine trying to hold steady a 50 pound rifle with no support but your hands? never mind hauling around the 100+ pound power supply (presumably built into man-portable designs). it also means there's a reason sniper lasers are the standard, and not sniper railguns; you can pack a lot of punch into them, without having to worry about the recoil. the bullet doesn't drop over long distances, it just keeps going in a more-or-less straight line. there's no need to lead the target unless it's travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to you. the beam is largely uneffected by the wind. it means you can have the sniper spend a lot less time doing math before each shot.

[jaymz]

Phaseworld uses gravity guns, a variationon railguns. What I meant was while i was reading about them in a non rpg context the factthey are accelerated by magnets theyessentially do not cause cause the opposed force you are talking about that is similar to the gases/propulsive forces caused by firing a bullet. To me the reason teh high PS is needed is beacause the weapons are large heavy and unwieldly not due to teh recoil.

Again uing hte modern day equivalent of what i am wanting, the barret. It weighs 30+ lbs. Now I would not try to use it standing or runing but once in position and set up on a bipod or sumsuch then an average person can certainly use it. Youstillhave to be fairly strong to lug it around with a fullpak and whatnot and the size of the weapon is about 5 feet so not exactley easy to weild when holding it about either way.

THAT is what i am trying to get here a Rifts railgun barret equivalent. Now if the railgun does in fact have recoil, it can't be very much since again there is no or very little opposing force be pushed against the shooter. If anything the way a coilgun works (which is probably the more appropriate description of the rifts railguns) you may get pulled forward.

[Shark_Force]

Phaseworld uses gravity guns, a variationon railguns. What I meant was while i was reading about them in a non rpg context the factthey are accelerated by magnets theyessentially do not cause cause the opposed force you are talking about that is similar to the gases/propulsive forces caused by firing a bullet. To me the reason teh high PS is needed is beacause the weapons are large heavy and unwieldly not due to teh recoil.

the person who told you that railguns don't cause recoil has no idea what they are talking about then. seriously, the claim is completely absurd. you'll notice that they teach in school that for any given applied force, there is an applied force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. you will further note that they don't have any disclaimers such as "unless there are magnets involved".

you *cannot* apply a force on a slug without that slug applying the *exact* same amount of force back on you. if you are throwing a slug with sufficient force to destroy a car, then the slug is applying the same amount of force back on you. granted, recoil may not be the main reason why you need to be superhumanly strong to use a railgun, but to claim that a railgun doesn't cause recoil is nonsense. i'm not sure there is even a theory of how we might go about altering that law, let alone a solid proposed method of building a device that could accomplish the effect.

[Natasha]

Increasing area increases body contact, which decreases accuracy. But borgs probably don't have heaving chests and shaky shoulders anyways....

Sounds like they deserve at least a +1 to Strike just before being a benchrest.

[jaymz]

Phaseworld uses gravity guns, a variationon railguns. What I meant was while i was reading about them in a non rpg context the factthey are accelerated by magnets theyessentially do not cause cause the opposed force you are talking about that is similar to the gases/propulsive forces caused by firing a bullet. To me the reason teh high PS is needed is beacause the weapons are large heavy and unwieldly not due to teh recoil.

the person who told you that railguns don't cause recoil has no idea what they are talking about then. seriously, the claim is completely absurd. you'll notice that they teach in school that for any given applied force, there is an applied force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. you will further note that they don't have any disclaimers such as "unless there are magnets involved".

you *cannot* apply a force on a slug without that slug applying the *exact* same amount of force back on you. if you are throwing a slug with sufficient force to destroy a car, then the slug is applying the same amount of force back on you. granted, recoil may not be the main reason why you need to be superhumanly strong to use a railgun, but to claim that a railgun doesn't cause recoil is nonsense. i'm not sure there is even a theory of how we might go about altering that law, let alone a solid proposed method of building a device that could accomplish the effect.

Then precisely how does a magnet work? It pulls the object without applying any other force on any other object except the object it is pulling. Last I checked railgun etc using magnets to do the accelreating of the slug. If thatis the case, just where is this other force coming from and how is it being applied to anything? The only force being applied is from teh magnet pulling the slug thru the barrel. Try using a magnet. I dont get pulled by the magnet, and ht table the object I point it at isnt pushing on the tableit is sitting on. So again where precisely is this additonal force coming from.

It cant be applying it to ME because I am not applyting force to IT. The magnets in the gun are. You are talking about applying a literal physical force to something which magents do not generally do in the same manner you are talking about. now todays bullets are that way because the propellants in teh shell have no where to go forward against the slug, and backwards againts the interior of the weapon. That is recoil. In a Railgun the magnets line the barrel of hte weapon and PULL the slug down its length. It does not get PUSHED. That is why I said if anythign you may get pulled forward not pushed backward. Again I also reiterate that the weapons in Rifst are not really railguns. Look at them they are coil guns, a different style of electromagnetic weapon using similar priciples. Railgun just sounds better than coilgun.

As for a railun sniper weapon, why woudl it even give more recoil with the heavier slug than a traditional? If anything it would be less because I would imagine the recoil from firing 40 rounds is WAY more than firing 1. Much like a singel round from a barret in comparis to .50 cal mg. Whihc has more recoil? I bet an M-16 has as much recoil to it as a barret firing single rounds as well.

I still think the need of a high ps has more to do with the size and weight of hte weapon than anything to do with recoil.

[Shark_Force]

Then precisely how does a magnet work? It pulls the object without applying any other force on any other object except the object it is pulling. Last I checked railgun etc using magnets to do the accelreating of the slug. If thatis the case, just where is this other force coming from and how is it being applied to anything? The only force being applied is from teh magnet pulling the slug thru the barrel. Try using a magnet. I dont get pulled by the magnet, and ht table the object I point it at isnt pushing on the tableit is sitting on. So again where precisely is this additonal force coming from.

try using a magnet. please, actually do. take two magnets of equal size, put them close to each other, and watch. do both magnets move towards/away from each other, or does one of them sit there while the other moves towards/away from it? try doing the same thing with a magnet of approximately similar weight as a nail, and that nail (ferrous, of course). do they both move, or just one?

the reason YOU don't feel anything when you use a magnet is that you aren't using a pair of magnets with sufficient force. of course YOU don't notice the tiny force. you are thousands of times as massive, most likely (or at the very least, hundreds). it is for much the same reason that i can jump all i want, and it won't have a visible (to me) effect on the course of the planet through space. that doesn't mean the force isn't there, it means you don't notice it because it is too small. the difference is that when you start applying a large force (such as that sufficient to accelerate a slug to high velocities), you WILL feel it, because suddenly the force is no longer insignificant compared to your mass. this applies no matter how the force is applied, be it via explosion or via magnetic attraction/repulsion forces. and whoever told you otherwise has no clue what they're talking about.

likewise, with the gun, it doesn't matter whether it's a push or a pull in one direction. there will be a force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. if the slug applies 500 Newtons of force to the gun, and that gun is moving into you, then the result is that the gun will apply (approximately, there is some loss due to sound, deformation, air resistance, etc) 500 Newtons of force to you, and you will subsequently apply 500 Newtons of force to the gun. admittedly the bullet itself is not applying the force to you, but that force is still going to make it's way to you.

[Natasha]

I would think that most of the force is going into the rails, not into the shooter (and that realistically the rails would not be able to handle more than 5 shots or so before warping or melting away). Rifts rail guns may not have a lot of recoil or at least not a lot of felt recoil since you have to be monstrously strong to shoot them anyways.

[Elthbert]

Anything which pushes matter out one end is going to push back. We call this recoil. Shark force is right you are not going to be able to push something one way without being pushed back no matter what you are pushing it with.

On another thread I was discussing this issue with someone who claimed that in fact the recoil would be so great that no suit of power armour would be able to stand up to the recoil. That of course is also incorrect. The figure of Mach 10 for a glitterboy gun is from his post, but as I had thought a glitterboy shoots at about mach 5.

http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=108978 Here is a link to that thread if you would like to see it in its entirety.

THe most relivent are these:

Now if we looked at a bullet about the size of a 7.62 soviet bullet, 120 grains and zipped it up to say mach 8, 8800 ft per second it would have 20,639ftlbs of energy.

A 750 grain .50 cal Browning has about 11050 ft lbs at about 2600 ft per second, In Rifts a .50 cal ramjet round hits for 1d4 MD just like a rail gun round. Now Ramjets only work up to about mach 6 so we can assume that the ramjet round cannot be going faster than that but they work best about mach 3 . Since that is only about 3300 ft per second I figure we can splitthe differance and say about mach 4.5 a 750 grain bullet would leave the muzzle with about 40000 ft-lbs. I would say that is a good ideaof the energy needed for a 1d4 md projectile, though I assume material makes a lot of differance here, the .50 is an sdc lead bullet the rail gun is not, I assume that no more than that is required. Assuming that a CR-40 is shooting at about Mach 8 (since the glitterboys MAch 10 is notable) I would guess a CR -40's ammo is about 235 grains or around the size of a .45 ACP bullet. that means that 2000 rounds of ammo would weigh about 67lbs, however, an ammo drum weighs 190lbs (CWC 114) assuming a full third of this is the actual drum that still puts the ammo at about 470 grains
which means the gun only needs to fire at about 6200 fps ( Mach 5.6) in order to get a full 40,000 ftlbs out of it. If indeed the projectiles are MDC material then it might not even have to fire that fast.

there is my analysis of Rail gun projectial mass and speed. Feel free to correct me if you see an error in my Math.

oops forgot one.

just for completeness

a C-40R is 92lbs, if it is indeed firing a 470 grain projectile at 6200 ft per second it wouldhave a recoil of about 29 ft lbs and a recoil speed of 4 ft per second.

to give you some comparisons a 30-06 shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2900 feet per second in a 6.5 lb gun has a recoil of about 13 ft-lbs and 11 ft per second.
a 12 gauge shotgun shooting a ounce slug at 1760 ft per second (3 inch shell) has a recoil of about 24ftlbs and a recoil seed 14 ft per second.

Shot per shot it would hit about like a 12 gauge and the recoil itself would be a lot less sharp. (I remember now why I prefer 2 3/4 inch shells for slugs). While a high rate of fire at this kind of recoil would be a problem for a human, I don't se why a robotic suit of powered armour couldn't handle it fine.
A 50 cal M2 machine gun weighs in at about 83 lbs and would have arecoil ( withthe ammo given in the abouve post ) of about 18ftlbs at 3 ft per second. so the C-40R whas about a third agian as much recoil as a M2 machine gun. even at a reall high rate of fire this should be handleable by a suit of PA.

Natasha
Does that include all the recoil dampening you can you do?

There's two components to recoil - the explosion in the casing and the bullet escaping the barrel.

I answered :

No it includes no recoil dampining at all, just a strait recoil calculation.

Yes I know. However this is figured only concidering the projectile speed (with a standard amount of powder.), mass, and the mass of the gun. I was thinking about the fact that the rail gun would not have a powder charge. However a 7.5 lb 12 gauge with 25. grains of powder would have a recoil of 30 ftlbs at 16 ft per second, heavier recoil than a C-40R

.


No one ever did question my math so I assume it is all pretty much correct.

[Shark_Force]

I would think that most of the force is going into the rails, not into the shooter (and that realistically the rails would not be able to handle more than 5 shots or so before warping or melting away). Rifts rail guns may not have a lot of recoil or at least not a lot of felt recoil since you have to be monstrously strong to shoot them anyways.

it can't just go into the rails and then magically disappear anymore than it can just magically disappear to begin with. arguing for the force going into the rails and disappearing is like saying that an explosion can only damage what it directly contacts because otherwise it just goes into the air. however, as we should all be aware, while the explosion does go into the air, it is then transmitted through the air, and can most certainly kill or otherwise harm people at a range greater than mere contact (and in some cases at ranges of hundreds or even thousands of feet)

[Elthbert]

I would think that most of the force is going into the rails, not into the shooter (and that realistically the rails would not be able to handle more than 5 shots or so before warping or melting away). Rifts rail guns may not have a lot of recoil or at least not a lot of felt recoil since you have to be monstrously strong to shoot them anyways.

If it is an actual rail gun the recoil is going to be massive, because one is moving the rails too. but assuming it is coil gun the above figures should be accurate.

[Natasha]

Anything which pushes matter out one end is going to push back. We call this recoil. Shark force is right you are not going to be able to push something one way without being pushed back no matter what you are pushing it with.

Is it pushing? I think most likely it would twist out of your hands. The force is perpendicular to the current and the current is perpendicular to the shooter. Right?

And I don't really know anything about real railguns; I'm just trying to imagine how they'd work.

But as you have to be quite strong to use these weapons, the forces - whatever they are - are manageable.

[Elthbert]

Anything which pushes matter out one end is going to push back. We call this recoil. Shark force is right you are not going to be able to push something one way without being pushed back no matter what you are pushing it with.

Is it pushing? I think most likely it would twist out of your hands. The force is perpendicular to the current and the current is perpendicular to the shooter. Right?

And I don't really know anything about real railguns; I'm just trying to imagine how they'd work.

But as you have to be quite strong to use these weapons, the forces - whatever they are - are manageable.

It is no more twisting, than a rifle bullet in the rifling grooves. The projectile is moving out of the end of the barrel, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is just how it is. The projectile leaves at speed and the gun gets pushed back in the direction the projectile is traveling with equal force.

[jaymz]

Anything which pushes matter out one end is going to push back. We call this recoil. Shark force is right you are not going to be able to push something one way without being pushed back no matter what you are pushing it with.

On another thread I was discussing this issue with someone who claimed that in fact the recoil would be so great that no suit of power armour would be able to stand up to the recoil. That of course is also incorrect. The figure of Mach 10 for a glitterboy gun is from his post, but as I had thought a glitterboy shoots at about mach 5.

http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=108978 Here is a link to that thread if you would like to see it in its entirety.

THe most relivent are these:

Now if we looked at a bullet about the size of a 7.62 soviet bullet, 120 grains and zipped it up to say mach 8, 8800 ft per second it would have 20,639ftlbs of energy.

A 750 grain .50 cal Browning has about 11050 ft lbs at about 2600 ft per second, In Rifts a .50 cal ramjet round hits for 1d4 MD just like a rail gun round. Now Ramjets only work up to about mach 6 so we can assume that the ramjet round cannot be going faster than that but they work best about mach 3 . Since that is only about 3300 ft per second I figure we can splitthe differance and say about mach 4.5 a 750 grain bullet would leave the muzzle with about 40000 ft-lbs. I would say that is a good ideaof the energy needed for a 1d4 md projectile, though I assume material makes a lot of differance here, the .50 is an sdc lead bullet the rail gun is not, I assume that no more than that is required. Assuming that a CR-40 is shooting at about Mach 8 (since the glitterboys MAch 10 is notable) I would guess a CR -40's ammo is about 235 grains or around the size of a .45 ACP bullet. that means that 2000 rounds of ammo would weigh about 67lbs, however, an ammo drum weighs 190lbs (CWC 114) assuming a full third of this is the actual drum that still puts the ammo at about 470 grains
which means the gun only needs to fire at about 6200 fps ( Mach 5.6) in order to get a full 40,000 ftlbs out of it. If indeed the projectiles are MDC material then it might not even have to fire that fast.

there is my analysis of Rail gun projectial mass and speed. Feel free to correct me if you see an error in my Math.

oops forgot one.

just for completeness

a C-40R is 92lbs, if it is indeed firing a 470 grain projectile at 6200 ft per second it wouldhave a recoil of about 29 ft lbs and a recoil speed of 4 ft per second.

to give you some comparisons a 30-06 shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2900 feet per second in a 6.5 lb gun has a recoil of about 13 ft-lbs and 11 ft per second.
a 12 gauge shotgun shooting a ounce slug at 1760 ft per second (3 inch shell) has a recoil of about 24ftlbs and a recoil seed 14 ft per second.

Shot per shot it would hit about like a 12 gauge and the recoil itself would be a lot less sharp. (I remember now why I prefer 2 3/4 inch shells for slugs). While a high rate of fire at this kind of recoil would be a problem for a human, I don't se why a robotic suit of powered armour couldn't handle it fine.
A 50 cal M2 machine gun weighs in at about 83 lbs and would have arecoil ( withthe ammo given in the abouve post ) of about 18ftlbs at 3 ft per second. so the C-40R whas about a third agian as much recoil as a M2 machine gun. even at a reall high rate of fire this should be handleable by a suit of PA.

Natasha
Does that include all the recoil dampening you can you do?

There's two components to recoil - the explosion in the casing and the bullet escaping the barrel.

I answered :

No it includes no recoil dampining at all, just a strait recoil calculation.

Yes I know. However this is figured only concidering the projectile speed (with a standard amount of powder.), mass, and the mass of the gun. I was thinking about the fact that the rail gun would not have a powder charge. However a 7.5 lb 12 gauge with 25. grains of powder would have a recoil of 30 ftlbs at 16 ft per second, heavier recoil than a C-40R

.


No one ever did question my math so I assume it is all pretty much correct.

See this is my point. I said earlier I think it would have no or very little recoil. The ps issue is the size and weight of hte weapon more than it is the recoil.

[Natasha]

Anything which pushes matter out one end is going to push back. We call this recoil. Shark force is right you are not going to be able to push something one way without being pushed back no matter what you are pushing it with.

Is it pushing? I think most likely it would twist out of your hands. The force is perpendicular to the current and the current is perpendicular to the shooter. Right?

And I don't really know anything about real railguns; I'm just trying to imagine how they'd work.

But as you have to be quite strong to use these weapons, the forces - whatever they are - are manageable.

It is no more twisting, than a rifle bullet in the rifling grooves. The projectile is moving out of the end of the barrel, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is just how it is. The projectile leaves at speed and the gun gets pushed back in the direction the projectile is traveling with equal force.

Can you explain what force is behind the projectile?

I'm using the right hand rule.

[jaymz]

Then precisely how does a magnet work? It pulls the object without applying any other force on any other object except the object it is pulling. Last I checked railgun etc using magnets to do the accelreating of the slug. If thatis the case, just where is this other force coming from and how is it being applied to anything? The only force being applied is from teh magnet pulling the slug thru the barrel. Try using a magnet. I dont get pulled by the magnet, and ht table the object I point it at isnt pushing on the tableit is sitting on. So again where precisely is this additonal force coming from.

try using a magnet. please, actually do. take two magnets of equal size, put them close to each other, and watch. do both magnets move towards/away from each other, or does one of them sit there while the other moves towards/away from it? try doing the same thing with a magnet of approximately similar weight as a nail, and that nail (ferrous, of course). do they both move, or just one?

the reason YOU don't feel anything when you use a magnet is that you aren't using a pair of magnets with sufficient force. of course YOU don't notice the tiny force. you are thousands of times as massive, most likely (or at the very least, hundreds). it is for much the same reason that i can jump all i want, and it won't have a visible (to me) effect on the course of the planet through space. that doesn't mean the force isn't there, it means you don't notice it because it is too small. the difference is that when you start applying a large force (such as that sufficient to accelerate a slug to high velocities), you WILL feel it, because suddenly the force is no longer insignificant compared to your mass. this applies no matter how the force is applied, be it via explosion or via magnetic attraction/repulsion forces. and whoever told you otherwise has no clue what they're talking about.

likewise, with the gun, it doesn't matter whether it's a push or a pull in one direction. there will be a force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. if the slug applies 500 Newtons of force to the gun, and that gun is moving into you, then the result is that the gun will apply (approximately, there is some loss due to sound, deformation, air resistance, etc) 500 Newtons of force to you, and you will subsequently apply 500 Newtons of force to the gun. admittedly the bullet itself is not applying the force to you, but that force is still going to make it's way to you.

My example stands. You are assuming the that force used int eh weapon is not enough to be compensates when put against the shoulder of a person. I have said previousll that I think there would be no or very little recoil. I never said anythig dissappears. To be hte recoil is negligible. You own example shows they move towards each other. Is that not what th railgun woudl do? The slug would move towards hte magents? If so then as i said the force is not being applied to the shooter thus essentially no reoil since the force you are talking about is being apllied between the magnets and the slug.

[jaymz]

Just to reiterate -

quote frmo Shark - of course YOU don't notice the tiny force. you are thousands of times as massive, most likely (or at the very least, hundreds).


Why could this not be the same as a railgun? The gun as well as the magnets woudl be SIGNIFICANTLY heavier/more massive by comparison to firing a single slug thus causing the slug to move thru the barrel. If that is the case why woudl I feel in recoil at all? I f I don't feel the object being pulled to the magnet I am holding because of my siugnificantly higher mass holding the magnet in place, why can this not be the case with a railgun? It would go a long way to explaining why railguns are so large and heavy. And woudl fit perfectly with how a coilgun works, which I still say is the actual definition of a Rifts railgun judging by how they look and are used.

A proper Railgun was demonstrated in Transformers 2 near the end during hte final battle. A large pair of rails firing a projectile between them.

[Elthbert]

Just to reiterate -

quote frmo Shark - of course YOU don't notice the tiny force. you are thousands of times as massive, most likely (or at the very least, hundreds).


Why could this not be the same as a railgun? The gun as well as the magnets woudl be SIGNIFICANTLY heavier/more massive by comparison to firing a single slug thus causing the slug to move thru the barrel. If that is the case why woudl I feel in recoil at all? I f I don't feel the object being pulled to the magnet I am holding because of my siugnificantly higher mass holding the magnet in place, why can this not be the case with a railgun? It would go a long way to explaining why railguns are so large and heavy. And woudl fit perfectly with how a coilgun works, which I still say is the actual definition of a Rifts railgun judging by how they look and are used.

A proper Railgun was demonstrated in Transformers 2 near the end during hte final battle. A large pair of rails firing a projectile between them.

Well I had a long response to this but cyberspace ate it.

Anyway the long and short of it is that a 92lb gun would have about as much recoil as a 12 gauge shotgun shooting a 3 inch shell. ANd that is shooting a reasonably large ( over an ounce ) projectile at high speed and generating a force of about 40,000 ft-lbs. You want a projectile which hits with something like 300,000 ft-lbs of energy, and not from a 92 lb gun. Do you really not see why that is not possible?

[jaymz]

Just to reiterate -

quote frmo Shark - of course YOU don't notice the tiny force. you are thousands of times as massive, most likely (or at the very least, hundreds).


Why could this not be the same as a railgun? The gun as well as the magnets woudl be SIGNIFICANTLY heavier/more massive by comparison to firing a single slug thus causing the slug to move thru the barrel. If that is the case why woudl I feel in recoil at all? I f I don't feel the object being pulled to the magnet I am holding because of my siugnificantly higher mass holding the magnet in place, why can this not be the case with a railgun? It would go a long way to explaining why railguns are so large and heavy. And woudl fit perfectly with how a coilgun works, which I still say is the actual definition of a Rifts railgun judging by how they look and are used.

A proper Railgun was demonstrated in Transformers 2 near the end during hte final battle. A large pair of rails firing a projectile between them.

Well I had a long response to this but cyberspace ate it.

Anyway the long and short of it is that a 92lb gun would have about as much recoil as a 12 gauge shotgun shooting a 3 inch shell. ANd that is shooting a reasonably large ( over an ounce ) projectile at high speed and generating a force of about 40,000 ft-lbs. You want a projectile which hits with something like 300,000 ft-lbs of energy, and not from a 92 lb gun. Do you really not see why that is not possible?

Actually to be honest no I don't see why since there is already an offical railgun in a submachinegun size that does it or is relatively close doing 4d6 per slug it fires. It only fires single slugs. It says you need a PS of 20 to handle it properly but like all railguns is it rather heavy and akward for the size it is to fire. Now is that supposed to be recoil or is it in fact because of the weight of the and awkwardness weapon. PS isn't all that strong and thats a regular PS of 20 not Augmented or robotic either.

Going on that weapon I honestly cannot see why the sniper weapon I am describing isn't possible. Not to mention the weapon I am describing woud be used like a typical sniper rifle, not fired on the run the like the weapon above can be.

The weapon in question is the NG-R50 Mini-railgun out of the articel Archie 3 vs the world from Rifter #4. It is official material for Rifts.

[Shark_Force]

ok, look. it doesn't matter if the force is being exerted initially on the magnets, because hey, guess what, the force doesn't just disappear into nowhere from that point. it gets transferred into the gun. the gun then moves, and generally will hit the person using the gun (or at least push against them, if it was against them to begin with). thus, recoil. furthermore, the recoil is going to move the gun, not just in a straight back motion, but because of how you're holding it, it will move off target as well.

and the difference between a railgun and a regular magnet is the energy involved. do a little bit of searching; you're looking at megajoules of energy for most railguns. the forces involved in railguns are so much larger than the forces involved in the two small magnets you can't compare them as if they were the same. that would be like me putting a black cat firecracker into a tube with a slug placed there, lighting it, and claiming that since the recoil of my makeshift gun is tiny, so is the recoil of a .50 caliber machinegun.

yes, a railgun slug is tiny. but it's being accelerated extremely rapidly to an extremely high velocity. there is a lot of force involved, even with that tiny little slug, because it accelerates so much. we're talking about a projectile that will typically hit a car and rip it in half. it has an absurd amount of energy behind it, and a huge amount of force. that force, even when transferred to the gun, is still going to eventually be applied to the person firing the gun. a heavier gun will keep the gun from being knocked off target as much, because it will be accelerated less, but it isn't going to reduce the actual amount of energy or force involved. that force/energy is still going to be transferred to the person firing, and they had better be able to handle it. to some extent this means PS, but also PE. weight is also useful here, because that means the individual is also going to be accelerated less (which is good, because if you accelerated at the same rate as the slug you're launching, you'd probably die instantly). yes, you need the strength to simply hold the railgun up and carry it around, but you also need the strength to hold it on target. perhaps the strength is more necessary for carrying it around, even, but for the most part, a juicer of a given strength can carry more than a 'borg or PA of a given strength, yet the juicer will not be able to use a railgun that the 'borg or power armor can. why? because it isn't just weightlifting ability, it's also your strength in holding the weapon on target.

[Elthbert]

a 1350gr projectile traveling at 6600ft per second from a 40 lb gun would generate 628lbs of reoil at a very sharp 31ft per second. and this projectile would still only have about 130,000 ftlbs of energy or , judging from Rifts tech, do about 3d4 damage. To get teh type of weapon you want you would have to have a 3100 grain projectile ( thats about 7 ounces) moving 6600 feet per second. From a 40 lb gun this would put out a massive 3316ft- lbs recoil at a velocity of 73 ft per second. This is massive recoil, it would move backward like a car. THis is a round for a cannon, not a gun.

[Elthbert]

Just to reiterate -

quote frmo Shark - of course YOU don't notice the tiny force. you are thousands of times as massive, most likely (or at the very least, hundreds).


Why could this not be the same as a railgun? The gun as well as the magnets woudl be SIGNIFICANTLY heavier/more massive by comparison to firing a single slug thus causing the slug to move thru the barrel. If that is the case why woudl I feel in recoil at all? I f I don't feel the object being pulled to the magnet I am holding because of my siugnificantly higher mass holding the magnet in place, why can this not be the case with a railgun? It would go a long way to explaining why railguns are so large and heavy. And woudl fit perfectly with how a coilgun works, which I still say is the actual definition of a Rifts railgun judging by how they look and are used.

A proper Railgun was demonstrated in Transformers 2 near the end during hte final battle. A large pair of rails firing a projectile between them.

Well I had a long response to this but cyberspace ate it.

Anyway the long and short of it is that a 92lb gun would have about as much recoil as a 12 gauge shotgun shooting a 3 inch shell. ANd that is shooting a reasonably large ( over an ounce ) projectile at high speed and generating a force of about 40,000 ft-lbs. You want a projectile which hits with something like 300,000 ft-lbs of energy, and not from a 92 lb gun. Do you really not see why that is not possible?

Actually to be honest no I don't see why since there is already an offical railgun in a submachinegun size that does it or is relatively close doing 4d6 per slug it fires. It only fires single slugs. It says you need a PS of 20 to handle it properly but like all railguns is it rather heavy and akward for the size it is to fire. Now is that supposed to be recoil or is it in fact because of the weight of the and awkwardness weapon. PS isn't all that strong and thats a regular PS of 20 not Augmented or robotic either.

Going on that weapon I honestly cannot see why the sniper weapon I am describing isn't possible. Not to mention the weapon I am describing woud be used like a typical sniper rifle, not fired on the run the like the weapon above can be.

The weapon in question is the NG-R50 Mini-railgun out of the articel Archie 3 vs the world from Rifter #4. It is official material for Rifts.

well I will have to go back and look at that copy of the RIfter ( I actually have that one), but nothing in the Rifter is Canon. I would never alow this weapon as it is simply silly. for the reasons I said in my last post.

[Elthbert]

ok, look. it doesn't matter if the force is being exerted initially on the magnets, because hey, guess what, the force doesn't just disappear into nowhere from that point. it gets transferred into the gun. the gun then moves, and generally will hit the person using the gun (or at least push against them, if it was against them to begin with). thus, recoil. furthermore, the recoil is going to move the gun, not just in a straight back motion, but because of how you're holding it, it will move off target as well.

and the difference between a railgun and a regular magnet is the energy involved. do a little bit of searching; you're looking at megajoules of energy for most railguns. the forces involved in railguns are so much larger than the forces involved in the two small magnets you can't compare them as if they were the same. that would be like me putting a black cat firecracker into a tube with a slug placed there, lighting it, and claiming that since the recoil of my makeshift gun is tiny, so is the recoil of a .50 caliber machinegun.

yes, a railgun slug is tiny. but it's being accelerated extremely rapidly to an extremely high velocity. there is a lot of force involved, even with that tiny little slug, because it accelerates so much. we're talking about a projectile that will typically hit a car and rip it in half. it has an absurd amount of energy behind it, and a huge amount of force. that force, even when transferred to the gun, is still going to eventually be applied to the person firing the gun. a heavier gun will keep the gun from being knocked off target as much, because it will be accelerated less, but it isn't going to reduce the actual amount of energy or force involved. that force/energy is still going to be transferred to the person firing, and they had better be able to handle it. to some extent this means PS, but also PE. weight is also useful here, because that means the individual is also going to be accelerated less (which is good, because if you accelerated at the same rate as the slug you're launching, you'd probably die instantly). yes, you need the strength to simply hold the railgun up and carry it around, but you also need the strength to hold it on target. perhaps the strength is more necessary for carrying it around, even, but for the most part, a juicer of a given strength can carry more than a 'borg or PA of a given strength, yet the juicer will not be able to use a railgun that the 'borg or power armor can. why? because it isn't just weightlifting ability, it's also your strength in holding the weapon on target.

My only disagreement here is the Idea that the rail gun slugs are small, they seem to start at rifle bullet size and move up. The C-40R round seems to weigh in at over an ounce.

everything else I agree with whole heartedly.

[Natasha]

Yea, I didn't say the force disappeared, just that the bulk of it wasn't perpendicular to the shooter, since it's perpendicular to the rails; instead the recoil as it were is not into the shoulder.

I used the right hand rule for this.

And then asked for clarification why this thinking is incorrect.

Sometimes Rifter material is canon but it's marked as such.

[jaymz]

The article in question is in fact official canon Rifts material.

[Shark_Force]

Yea, I didn't say the force disappeared, just that the bulk of it wasn't perpendicular to the shooter, since it's perpendicular to the rails; instead the recoil as it were is not into the shoulder.

I used the right hand rule for this.

And then asked for clarification why this thinking is incorrect.

Sometimes Rifter material is canon but it's marked as such.

ok, let's try this again.

the bullet moves forward, right? we can agree on that? (well, forward being arbitrarily defined as 'down the barrel towards the end opposite the person firing).

now, if the bullet is being accelerated in a given direction, the direction of that acceleration must be the direction of the force.

since the bullet is moving down the barrel away from the person firing, the acceleration is also in that direction, and so is the force.

the reaction force is in the opposite direction; that is, along the barrel but towards the person firing the gun. agreed?


as to why, it's because the current goes up one rail and back the other, so that the two fields push against each other. the rails, if they were not held securely, would simply be launched out to the sides. the interaction of their fields generates an acceleration and therefore force along the rails in the direction away from the person firing. the reaction force of this is in the opposite direction, towards the firer)

(note: this all assumes the person firing is using the gun in a conventional manner, of course. in the event that they're pointing the open end of the barrel at themselves, clearly this changes the situation, and the direction which previously was assumed to be away from the firer would quite suddenly become towards the firer, for example)

@ elthbert re: slug size. i was stating that they are small relative to the mass of the person firing, not that they are small relative to normal bullets. i apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

[Elthbert]

Yea, I didn't say the force disappeared, just that the bulk of it wasn't perpendicular to the shooter, since it's perpendicular to the rails; instead the recoil as it were is not into the shoulder.

I used the right hand rule for this.

And then asked for clarification why this thinking is incorrect.

Sometimes Rifter material is canon but it's marked as such.

The force in a classical railgun is parallel to the rails. The projectile is actually forced down the rails like a train, and the parts carrying the slug don't fly off the rail but stop abruptly at the end. THis I suppose might actually be able to be designed to dampen recoil slightly, but the projectile is being force in a straight line at massive speed, there is no way around the force being parallel to the rails.

[glitterboy2098]

actually in the classical railgun there is no "part" carrying the slug at all. by completing a circit between the two charged rails, the slug is propelled by the lorentz force perpendicular ot the path of electrical flow. which happens to be between the rails. the slug basically "slides" down the rails, accellerating all the way, until it leaves the end of the rails.
this is why true railguns have such issues with wear on the rails. the slug literally strips away the surface of the rail a few layers at a time.

[Elthbert]

actually in the classical railgun there is no "part" carrying the slug at all. by completing a circit between the two charged rails, the slug is propelled by the lorentz force perpendicular ot the path of electrical flow. which happens to be between the rails. the slug basically "slides" down the rails, accellerating all the way, until it leaves the end of the rails.
this is why true railguns have such issues with wear on the rails. the slug literally strips away the surface of the rail a few layers at a time.

You are correct in that no part is needed, however there are rail guns in which the projectile sits on pieces which travel down the rail. I have seen rail guns that work exactly this way. However I doubt it would have any effect on rail wear as these peices were sliding down the rails as well. I will see if I can find a film of what I am talking about.

[Elthbert]

The article in question is in fact official canon Rifts material.

well I can't find number 4 right now so I cannot speak to that at this time.

[Natasha]

Gah!

It finally clicked. I had the directions of things all twisted up in my head. That's why nothing was adding up.

[glitterboy2098]

actually in the classical railgun there is no "part" carrying the slug at all. by completing a circit between the two charged rails, the slug is propelled by the lorentz force perpendicular ot the path of electrical flow. which happens to be between the rails. the slug basically "slides" down the rails, accellerating all the way, until it leaves the end of the rails.
this is why true railguns have such issues with wear on the rails. the slug literally strips away the surface of the rail a few layers at a time.

You are correct in that no part is needed, however there are rail guns in which the projectile sits on pieces which travel down the rail. I have seen rail guns that work exactly this way. However I doubt it would have any effect on rail wear as these peices were sliding down the rails as well. I will see if I can find a film of what I am talking about.

some prototypes use a Sabot and conductive plug around the projectile, allowing for a better shape on the projectile. the sabot peices don't stop at the end of the barrel, they fly out and away amid the blast of eroded rail material.

[jaymz]

as to why, it's because the current goes up one rail and back the other, so that the two fields push against each other. the rails, if they were not held securely, would simply be launched out to the sides. the interaction of their fields generates an acceleration and therefore force along the rails in the direction away from the person firing. the reaction force of this is in the opposite direction, towards the firer)

Thats assuming it is a railgun as you describe it. I see them more as a coil gun which does not work that way. The coil gun essentially creates a magnetic pull in one direcetion only, away from the firer pulling hte slug along with it.

[jaymz]

The article in question is in fact official canon Rifts material.

well I can't find number 4 right now so I cannot speak to that at this time.

There is nothing to speak to about the officiality of the article. They list it as such in the index on these very forums not to mention right in the issue in question.

[Shark_Force]

as to why, it's because the current goes up one rail and back the other, so that the two fields push against each other. the rails, if they were not held securely, would simply be launched out to the sides. the interaction of their fields generates an acceleration and therefore force along the rails in the direction away from the person firing. the reaction force of this is in the opposite direction, towards the firer)

Thats assuming it is a railgun as you describe it. I see them more as a coil gun which does not work that way. The coil gun essentially creates a magnetic pull in one direcetion only, away from the firer pulling hte slug along with it.

that wasn't to your question. you never asked about the field going perpindicular to the rails, or the right hand rule.

it doesn't particularly matter whether it's a railgun or a coilgun. projectile goes one way, that direction is the direction of the 'action' force. the 'reaction' force goes in the opposite direction and is of the same magnitude. it's one of the most basic laws of physics we have, and it isn't violated just because someone pulls out a magnet. you want to argue this, go take an actual physics course and have that discussion with your teacher. i don't have time to teach you basic physics, and it isn't my job to do so; and if you have no understanding of the physics involved, then you needn't step in and announce that things don't work the way they do just because you don't understand how that can be. every force has a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to it generated at the same time. this was true before newton understood it, it was true after newton understood it, and it is still true now even though you don't understand it.

[jaymz]

Ok first of there is no need for you to be condescending. And to correct something else it wasn't me who asked about the field on the rail or the right hand rule.

I am not disputing you out right I am going by what I have read on the subject. So if you like to explain to me where the recoil is coming from, I'll listen, but from all things I have read on coild guns they are not sending any force at the firer of the weapon as you say it is doing. It shows no force whatsoever ever being sent to the rear of the weapon. The only force is the current moving forward pulling the slug with it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mation.gif

So if you can explain to me where this recoil is coming from then I'll listen.

Again as i said before i based the weapon on a similar weapon that is official and exists. If the one weapon exists I am trying to understand why the sniper weapon I am describing cannot exist.

And yes the weapon is official and canon since the article is canon.

[Shark_Force]

so let me get this straight... your basis for coilguns not having recoil is that you've found a diagram explaining the basic function of the gun, and it doesn't show the reaction force?

forget it. i'm not explaining this to you again. go learn something about basic physics, then i'll consider explaining it to you again.

[jaymz]

No that is NOT the entire basis on my assumption. It''s the simplest was to describe what I keep referring too. The articles I have read do not discuss the reaction force you keep talking about. I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer it you can at least be polite about it and not the way you have been.

I do have a basic knowledge of physics and understand what you are saying about action having an oposite and equal reaction. I just want you explain me where it is in what I am talking about which you still have not done. I have looked at the articles again and still not found the reaction force you refer too.

[Killer Cyborg]

The problem is comparing a railgun to a 50 cal mg would be akin to comparing hte c-12 to an m-16. Problem is they don't equate accordingly.

A .50 cal round is more powerful than a 5.56 so logic woudl dictate that a railgun round shoudl be more powerful than a laser blast from a typical rifle.

Logic would dictate that energy weapons work differently from slugthrowers.
There's a limit to how much damage can be accomplished with each in the game world, and the limit for energy weapon is much, much higher by gun size.

My desire has nothing to do with it. I am trying to have a weapon that is directly comparable and your comparables don't work.

Comparable to what? The Barrett?
My comparison is the only on that makes sense.

You're equating tripod and vehicle mounted railguns with light assault rifles.

Also the weapon I created for what I thought was needed is based on an official weapon out an article in Rifter #4, Archie 3 vs the world. Its official material and very much along the lines of what i was looking for. A single shot rail gun using a heavy larger round. And it can be used by a person. I just extrapolated it to a rifle. Is it that hard to think with the tech levels the way they are that a weapon can be built to negate enough of the recoil to allow it to be fired. You can't exactley fire Barret standing up or on the run and nor should you be able to.

For 5d6 damage, yeah, I think that it's hard to think that it's supported by the tech levels.
Archie might be able to build something like that, because he's got some of the best (or arguably THE best) railgun technology on the planet, but that's the exception, not the rule.

If it were reasonably possible using standard Rifts technology to make a "single big round" firing railgun that drastically out-performed the normal burst-firing railguns, there would already be a bunch of those in existence.

Also I am not looking for overkill, my weapon does 5d6 damage. The offical weapon in the rifter does 4d6.

So you're only 25% more powerful than the best railgun of that type that the best railgun creator on the planet can do?
And nearly 5x more powerful than the standard technology produces.
Nevermind then- I thought you were going overboard.

I myself think railguns as a whole should use the missile ap rules since by thier very nature they are needle like slugs moving at hyper velocities. Thats just me.

It's not just you. I've had the same thought myself, although I'm not sure I'd actually implement it..
It's something they should consider for Rifts 3.0, though.

Is all that unplausible for such an weapon to exist and be used in the manner I am describing?

I think that you could certainly make a railgun that fires one large round instead of a series of smaller rounds.
I don't think that you could retool a CR-40 or similar railgun into doing the job though, not without such drastic changes that it would be much easier to simply build a new weapon from scratch.
The recoil on a normal railgun is pretty heavy

Spoiler:

Rifts, 225 "The down side to the rail guns are their size, weight, kick, loudness and expenseive and potentially dangerous power source.
Rifts, 226 "The size, weight, and kick of the massive gun is unavoidable and is why the weapon is restricted to power armor, robots and vehicles."

, and increasing the mass of the round that significantly would increase the kick proportionately.
I don't think that a railgun with a larger round would inflict 5d6 MD unless the round were VERY large, producing an amount of recoil more comparable to the Boom Gun than to standard rail guns, and the gun would have to be very large as well.
5d6 damage is not that bad for overall damage, but it IS bad for a single railgun round, unless you have a really huge gun with very nasty recoil.

[Shark_Force]

No that is NOT the entire basis on my assumption. It''s the simplest was to describe what I keep referring too. The articles I have read do not discuss the reaction force you keep talking about. I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer it you can at least be polite about it and not the way you have been.

I do have a basic knowledge of physics and understand what you are saying about action having an oposite and equal reaction. I just want you explain me where it is in what I am talking about which you still have not done. I have looked at the articles again and still not found the reaction force you refer too.

ok, if you have a basic knowledge of physics, then you should be able to give the reaction force for the following (hint: you have shown repeatedly that you don't believe this force exists)

action: coil pushes (or pulls, it doesn't really matter) on slug
reaction: _______________________ (fill in the blank)

if you can get that part, the rest should be easy. but here's a few hints:

action: coil pushes on gun
reaction: gun pushes on coil

action: gun pushes on wielder's hand/shoulder/whatever
reaction: wielder's hand/shoulder/whatever pushes on gun