Can a Gravatonic Rail gun Fire Anything?

[Greyaxe]

If it uses gravity to fire projectiles could it fire anything, wood, marbles, metals, plastics, rubber. If we assume it creates a gravity well which throws the object at great speeds for relativly short distances (the rifle has a range of 1000' without the sniper attachments). couldn't it fire absolutly anything?

[DhAkael]

If it uses gravity to fire projectiles could it fire anything, wood, marbles, metals, plastics, rubber. If we assume it creates a gravity well which throws the object at great speeds for relativly short distances (the rifle has a range of 1000' without the sniper attachments). couldn't it fire absolutly anything?

As long as the projectile is the right diameter / width, and has at least SOME aerodynamic properties, then yes; a Gravitonic Railgun can fire anything.

[KLM]

It doesn't even need to be aerodynamic.

Thought do not expect full damage from like
loading rubber balls... They might even burn
in midair...

And I expect that there is no recoil.

Adios
KLM

[Braden Campbell]

You are assuming that it is the gun, and not the bullets, that is creating the CG field (and I would agree, since the other way would be waaay too expansive).

If it is the gun that's doing all the "pushing", then yes, you could fire anything.

Having said that, since the science of grvatonics is everywhere, and seems to be a breakthrough that you a) have to make as a species in the Three Galaxies if you are ever going to ammount to anything, and b) is apparently fairly easy to make, then every major race in the game should have their own kind of gravitonic bullet weapons, whther they currently use them or not.

As the power blocs co-mingle and fight each other the past 10,000 years fo history, I would think that there might eventually become one or two "calibres" that are standard (5.556 and 7.62 mm ?).

So I agree with Gadrin: you can't just put some pebbles down the muzzle and squeeze off a 2D6x10 MD burst...areodynamics and rifling still apply here, but the rounds for them should be cheap and plentiful across the 3 G's.

[Greyaxe]

SO you could fire wood silver and other usefull materials through one of these guns making them the most versatile weapons in the 3G, why doesn't everybody use them. I know bray you said everybody does just kidding.

[KLM]

Probably because you cannot reload your CG gun on your
starship, and because most targets in the 3 Galaxies are
vulnerable to "conventional" weapons, like laser, plasma
and particles. Oh, and there are the phase beamers.

However, starships can expect opponents, which are
impervious to energy... And most warships have railguns.

And of course, loading "alternate" ammo, like silver or
wood means problems. I mean a projectile have to have
significant mass, have to withstand heat from air friction,
and finally have to be hard enough for armor piercing
purposes. (reduced range, accuracy or damage without
"proper" ammo).
Also, CG railguns need power besides ammo - incorporated
into their magazines, so one have to modify the gun to load
peebles.

Not to mention, that vampires can easily strap on a
personal force field.

Adios
KLM

[Braden Campbell]

Range?

Since most people like to use energy weapons, it must be that warfare in the 3 G's usually takes place at fantastic ranges, instead of the 200-400 feet of most role-playing fights.

Also, it might be a kind of technological chavanisim; if the major races develop CG "slug-guns" before reliable lasers (as we probably will... bullets are easy to make, but lasers are hard), they might be seen as old fashioned or even obsolete.

[Rallan]

It doesn't even need to be aerodynamic.

Yes, yes it does. Obviously you don't need to worry about its shape or drag at all if you're shooting stuff in outer space, just as long as it can get out of the barrel. You could shoot out projectiles that look like badly lopsided paper cranes and they'd fly straight and true (or curved and true if you're in the gravity well of a star or planet) to their target every time. Hell, the projectiles could actually be real honest to goodness paper cranes and it'd still be just fine*.


But if you're shooting at stuff in an atmosphere, especially at a distance, you want something with low drag a nice, round, symmetrical-around-it's-central-axis shape, and something that'll give it a bit of spin once it gets moving. Otherwise if you're shooting targets at any great distance you'll find that you can't aim with any real degree of precision and the best you can hope for is to fire off a bunch of shots knowing that they'll all be heading for pretty much the same general area.

And of course in space or an atmosphere, you want something with as much mass as possible and as little cross-sectional surface area as possible, which basically means you want it to be long and you don't want it to tumble. A round steel ball a centimetre across running into armor at insane speeds is going to sting a bit. A steel rod a centimetre across and ten centimetres long is going to be more than ten times as massive and impart a lot more whack onto the point of impact.



*unless of course you decide to make technology complicated to make it seem more realistic. Perhaps the acceleration imparted by GR-guns depends on the mass and density of the projectile, in which case a particular size, shape, and mass of projectile would be able to reach far greater acceleration than any other.

[KLM]

Q: exactly how big a gun are we talking about?
A: Not specified. Probably personal weapons,
up to and including PA guns.

Q: Do the projectiles need to be aerodinamic?
A: For the gun to accelerate them, shape is unimportant.
It just have to fit into the barrel, and I suspect, that
there is a force-field incorporated, so projectiles
do not touch the barrel (no friction, no damage).
However after leaving the barrel, the projectiles ARE
subject to physics - so an origami will either burn or
fly for like a few meters, and then drop (like choke form old
muzzleloaders)... probably both.
Of course, if you need something, that can hit a house from
like 50 meters, the projectile does need to be somewhat
aerodynamic. But if you want to just clean a room from
vampires, load up a box of toothpicks and let it rip (and
hope like hell, that none of them are wearing armor ).

Also, this means, a "normal" CG railgun projectile is
probably an MDC needle, maybe spinning, maybe with
fins (and maybe spinning not because of rifling, but
from fins).

Therefore minimum airdrag, maximum weight - and that
means maximum terminal energy.

Adios
KLM

[Aramanthus]

I agree that the CG gun can fire any type of Projectile that can fit thru the barrel.

[Braden Campbell]

I agree that the CG gun can fire any type of Projectile that can fit thru the barrel.

So, you think that if I'm totally out of ammo, with a battle raging all around me, that I could gather up the tiny bits of blasted armour from off the bodies of my dead compatriots, dump them down the barrel of my CG-15AR like it was black powder and buckshot, and squeeze off a burst at the enemy?



All the gun is doing is altering the effect of gravity on the bullet. CG rifles most likely fire a round made of some super-heavy material (like depleted uranium), but one that still requires a chemical explosion to get it going (like gun powder).

The rifle would most likely increase the pull of gravitons around the bullet, slingshoting it out of the barrel (like space probes use the gravity of a planet to increase their speed). The increased speed, coupled with the mass of the round, makes the damage MD.

But areodynamics and barrel rifling are still going to be a "can't-do-without" necessity.

[Greyaxe]

The purpose of the thread was to determine if I could fire wood and silver at a vampire without modifying the rail gun at all. Damage will have to be determined by the GM as well as range, and I expect as previously stated, ammunition will still have to be manufactured for this weapon it can be just about any material type. Just the damage and range will change.

[Braden Campbell]

The purpose of the thread was to determine if I could fire wood and silver at a vampire without modifying the rail gun at all...

Oh. Well then, yes, I agree.

But the title of this thread is very misleading. You can't just fire anything.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I agree that the CG gun can fire any type of Projectile that can fit thru the barrel.

So, you think that if I'm totally out of ammo, with a battle raging all around me, that I could gather up the tiny bits of blasted armour from off the bodies of my dead compatriots, dump them down the barrel of my CG-15AR like it was black powder and buckshot, and squeeze off a burst at the enemy?

At reduced range and damage, of course

All the gun is doing is altering the effect of gravity on the bullet. CG rifles most likely fire a round made of some super-heavy material (like depleted uranium), but one that still requires a chemical explosion to get it going (like gun powder).

A rediculous assumption. It says clearly in the discription they use Gravatonic acceleration to get their speeds. there's no reason to assume that chemical explsoives are necessary. in fact, it's quite illogical to do so.



Now, we're not saying that dumping armor bits down the barrel is going to make for an EFFECTIVE or ACCURATE alternative to standard issue armor. in fact it would be VERY less effective. but it would still hurt, if you manage to hit by some miricle...

[Braden Campbell]

One limiting factor, and the reason most people use lasers, might be cost.

A new, loaded clip for the CG-15AR costs 2000 credits (and gets you 30 rounds). That works out to 66 credits per shot!

[Greyaxe]

I would fire ice but i think it has to be a solid

[Greyaxe]

sure until about 1" past the barrel, totally useless, i mean i guess technically it could fire it but the "round" wouldn't go anywhere

[Aramanthus]

I think the biggest problem would be where the gun draws it's power from. If it draws it from the clip that the ammo is from. Does that clip has more power than it needs? Than you could use any piece of material that could fit thru the barrel.

[KLM]

Actually slugthrowers need less energy to kill, than
energy weapons.

I mean a 75 Joule bullet is considered the minimum
to be lethal.

75 Joule thermal energy is just nuissance
(except maybe in the eyes).

Adios
KLM

[Greyaxe]

I think the biggest problem would be where the gun draws it's power from. If it draws it from the clip that the ammo is from. Does that clip has more power than it needs? Than you could use any piece of material that could fit thru the barrel.

That is a very clever idea, perhaps the clips contain their own energy to power the weapon and that is why they are so expensive. You could theoretically cahrge these clips and manually reload the clip to save money.

Braden. I think the ammunition you mentioned would be specialty ammo. not typical ammo used by the average joe.

[Aramanthus]

I agree that it would be special ammo too.

[KLM]

On an educated guess, I would say 2-10 gramms
(2 gram for the handguns, 3-4 for the assault rifles,
8+ for the PA models), and like 5-8 dekagrams
for one GR-1000 slug, which is the main gun of
the Scorpion and the Battleram. (10.000 rounds are
907 kg - probably with ammo belt or whatever
is used to store the ammo in).

Adios
KLM

[Esckey]

I kinda figured that a CG rifle would also have some electromagnets in it, to impart spin and keep the round away from then inside of the barrel.

[Rallan]

try a generator backpack....

Why a generator backpack? A standard Rifts Earth E-Clip is about the size of a 20th century rifle clip, and let's think about how much juice it's got. A plasma ejector capable of doing 60MDC can get a good ten shots out of one of them puppies. And just as a refresher course, 60MDC is 6,000 SDC, or around one third of what it would take to completely destroy a 20th century battleship.

So yeah, I think it's safe to say the folks of Phase World probably don't need entire backpacks to carry the stuff it takes to power hand-held MDC weapons

[Nekira Sudacne]

so.... what's the difference between a rail gun and a gravitonic gun?

A Rail Gun uses electromagnetic feilds to force object though at incredible speeds. TO work at least the core of the ammo has to be a ferrous metal, either iorn nickel or colbat, which reduces the overall potential weight and thus damage fo the round.

A gravitonic railgun works by manipulating gravatonic feilds inside the barrel itself to attract it steadily forward up the barrel without hitting the insides of it by increasing the gravity at the ends of the barrel--just a nanosecond before it reaches the highest point of gravity at the tip it shuts off and flings it at incredible speeds out the barrel. sinse all matter is affected by gravity it dosn't have to be any particular kind of matter, and thus heavier (and thus more damaging, more mass equals more force) ammo is possible, sinse the core dosn't have to be a relativly lightweight metal.

The downside is that the gun has to be VERY finely tuned to the shape and mass for the gravatonic attraction to work right, and thus while theoretically anything could be fired from it, in actuallity if you just take chunks of armor and shove them down, it'll fire, but not remotely accuratly or damagingly

[KLM]

And probably the most important difference
between EM and CG rail (or coil for that matter)
guns, that EM guns do have recoil.

The above gauss rifle might have cca. twice the recoil
of the M-16, therefore somewhere around the humanly
useable maximum for an automatic weapon.

CG guns do not kick (at least not in the 3 galaxies).

Adios
KLM

[Aramanthus]

That sounds pretty reasonable. I also agree thanks everyone on your opinions! And I was already doing that with the CG and EM rail gun.

[Rallan]

so.... what's the difference between a rail gun and a gravitonic gun?

A Rail Gun uses electromagnetic feilds to force object though at incredible speeds. TO work at least the core of the ammo has to be a ferrous metal, either iorn nickel or colbat, which reduces the overall potential weight and thus damage fo the round.

Um... no.

If you're using a gauss gun, then the projectile needs a ferrous metal in it. The barrel is surrounded by a series of electromagnetic coils which cause your projectile to be accelerated down the barrel, but only if it's magnetic.

In a railgun, the only thing your projectile needs to be able to do is conduct electricity. A railgun gets its name because the gun is basically a pair of parallel rails that the projectile rides on. And I mean it literally rides on 'em, it's in physical contact with both of them as it scoots down the track. When you put a projectile onto the rails it closes the circuit, and since the rails and the projectile now have a current running through them, they're all electromagnets now. And here's where it gets clever. The electromagnetic fields surrounding the rails will impart a force on the projectile that's parallel to the rails, which basically means that it gets accelerated down them until it finally shoots off the end at (hopefully) some impressively fast speeds.

Now admittedly ferrous metals do make better electromagnets than other conductors when you pass a current through them, but at the end of the day you can make your projectile out of pretty much any conductive material at all and a railgun'll fire 'em. Hell, you could shoot graphite if it weren't for the fact that the sheer amount of energy involved in a sci-fi tankbusting rail gun would make the stuff explosively burst into flames before it leaves the rails

[Nekira Sudacne]

so.... what's the difference between a rail gun and a gravitonic gun?

A Rail Gun uses electromagnetic feilds to force object though at incredible speeds. TO work at least the core of the ammo has to be a ferrous metal, either iorn nickel or colbat, which reduces the overall potential weight and thus damage fo the round.

Um... no.

If you're using a gauss gun, then the projectile needs a ferrous metal in it. The barrel is surrounded by a series of electromagnetic coils which cause your projectile to be accelerated down the barrel, but only if it's magnetic.

In a railgun, the only thing your projectile needs to be able to do is conduct electricity. A railgun gets its name because the gun is basically a pair of parallel rails that the projectile rides on. And I mean it literally rides on 'em, it's in physical contact with both of them as it scoots down the track. When you put a projectile onto the rails it closes the circuit, and since the rails and the projectile now have a current running through them, they're all electromagnets now. And here's where it gets clever. The electromagnetic fields surrounding the rails will impart a force on the projectile that's parallel to the rails, which basically means that it gets accelerated down them until it finally shoots off the end at (hopefully) some impressively fast speeds.

Now admittedly ferrous metals do make better electromagnets than other conductors when you pass a current through them, but at the end of the day you can make your projectile out of pretty much any conductive material at all and a railgun'll fire 'em. Hell, you could shoot graphite if it weren't for the fact that the sheer amount of energy involved in a sci-fi tankbusting rail gun would make the stuff explosively burst into flames before it leaves the rails

*ahem*

I'd suggest you read Palladium's definition of a Rail Gun.

Your absolutly right about a Real-Life Rail Gun. However, a palladium Rail Gun is a Gauss Rifle by a different name.

Just like how their Vibro-Knives actually do damage via an energy feild and not a rappidly vibrating blade.

[Greyaxe]

You may be right but we are talking about gravity guns which are neither rail guns or gauss rifles.

[Aramanthus]

That is very true Greyaxe! It's a totally different animal.

[Rallan]

You may be right but we are talking about gravity guns which are neither rail guns or gauss rifles.

No, I was replying to someone else talking about the difference between gravity guns and electromagnetic guns. It helps to try and keep abreast of the conversation

[Greyaxe]

You may be right but we are talking about gravity guns which are neither rail guns or gauss rifles.

No, I was replying to someone else talking about the difference between gravity guns and electromagnetic guns. It helps to try and keep abreast of the conversation

Trying to keep my thread on topic. While comparing different technologies is fun and interesting it doesn't address the subject of the thread.

[Aramanthus]

Now techinically the mass driver could be wither a magnetically driven railgun or a CG based weapon. The problem with the magnetically driven one would have to use nickel/ iron asteroids.

[Aramanthus]

That what I comparing in that last statement I was making.

[KLM]

Actually, wrap a non-magnetic projectile in a spool of
wire, add a small battery and voila' - you have an
electromagnet.

But yeah, CG mass drivers just need a mass to make mess.

Adios
KLM

[Aramanthus]

I know that is true!

[Aramanthus]

I know that is true!

[Aramanthus]

And you could do that with a big enough CG weapon too. And you wouldn't be limited to using iron based asteroids.

[Aramanthus]

I think that would be a lot more accurate than just a pot shot.

[Aramanthus]

I think you are mistaken about a mass driver being a pot shot. It will not be affected by gravity of a planet. It will not be deflected by the atmosphere. It will hit the area it is aimed at. It will destroy the area it is aimed at.

[Aramanthus]

No it doesn't depend on the angle. there isn't much that could deflect a shot like that. I mean you could always throw a battleship in front of the target, that might stop it. That would depend on the size of the projectile.

[KLM]

I think you are mistaken about a mass driver being a pot shot. It will not be affected by gravity of a planet. It will not be deflected by the atmosphere. It will hit the area it is aimed at. It will destroy the area it is aimed at.

So, what is so hard in landing with a space shuttle then?

It is hard, because gravity effects it (after all, it is a ballistic
projectile), atmosphere affects it (as it will affect a bullet from
a rifle too, and can even deflect it, if shot in a low angle -
like a pebble flopping on water).

Furthermore a solid hit on the projectile might shatter it,
so it can be deflected.

But when it hits, it destroy whatever it hits.

Thought do not aim on such tiny and mobile targets as a
modern day aircraft carrier.

Adios
KLM

[KLM]

Just as mass driver projectiles.

What's more... projectiles do not even have aerodinamic
control surfaces (not to mention the pilot or guidance system).

Adios
KLM

[Aramanthus]

If you could make them aerodynamic it would make the projectiles passage thru the atmosphere very slickly.

[KLM]

If you could make them aerodynamic it would make the projectiles passage thru the atmosphere very slickly.

True, but... Well, look at the terminal deviation of
contemporary intercontinental ballistic missiles...

Hundreds of meters in deviation, even with some guidance.

So, hitting a city/airbase? No problem.

Hitting a carrier? Not really (but probably will be caught in
the blast).

Adios
KLM

[Aramanthus]

All you have to do is get close with that sort of firepower!

[KLM]

All you have to do is get close with that sort of firepower!

Actually, I do NOT want to fire a mass driver from "point blank".


On the other hand... Mass drivers are a cheap way to reduce
a continent or a planet to slag, it just takes time (since ammo
in "harvested")...

Therefore, it is understandable that the 3 Gs are wieving
this tech as we wiev chemical weapons.

AdiosKLM

[Aramanthus]

Actually I was talking about the impact point. Not the shooting distance!

[Aramanthus]

Just stay put Darkmax! You'll see the light in a few minutes!