Forums of the Megaverse®

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 ... iertech.nl

(Linkage above...)

Do any books have this? If not what kind damage would fit?

It's too new to be in any of the books. However, having a 6.8mm rifle cartridge, I'd put it at a category 5 from CWC... about 4D6 damage per round.

whipped4073 wrote:Depends on the damages you use for the 5.56 & 7.62 NATO rounds.

If you use 3d6 & 5d6 SDC (respectively), then it definitely fits into the 4d6 category.

If you use the 5D6 & 1D4x10 SDC (respectively), then it should at least be 6d6 SDC.

Where are these damages from? In Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, the category 8 (1D4*10) is on par with .50 caliber or 12.7mm rounds... clearly a lot more massive than our little 6.8mm. There's one category 7... but it's a .233, which means it must have a fair length to it.

The article says that the 6.8mm round delivers half again as much kinetic energy as the 5.56mm round. I'd say that translates into half again as much damage rpg-wise.

Nightshade37 wrote:The article says that the 6.8mm round delivers half again as much kinetic energy as the 5.56mm round. I'd say that translates into half again as much damage rpg-wise.

That is not quite accurate. It states:

In addition, while the SPC has a slightly lower muzzle velocity than the 5.56mm cartridge, its larger mass makes it ballistically similar to the lighter 5.56mm round (in terms of accuracy and bullet drop), and it delivers half again as much kinetic energy. In real terms, this means that the 6.8mm SPC has the same relative trajectory as the 5.56mm (which allows for the M468 to be fired and treated essentially like a 5.56mm M-16), but with 50% more stopping power, and a bullet speed of 2650 feet per second from a sixteen and one-half inch barrel, delivering 1715 foot-pounds of energy, with a six hundred meter effective range.

Now I did do some research the M-16 has the following characteristics:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m16.htm

Muzzle velocity: 2,800 feet (853 meters) per second

Now if you were going directly by the article - It says it has 50% more stopping power. This if true would indicate that the round is 1.5 times as powerful. So if an M16 did 4D6 the M468 would do 6d6. I don't think that is the case, but it would +2 or 3 to the damage of a normal M-16 round. Damage in RPG's are not necessarily linear - but an extrapolation.

Now I am concerned with the traveling distance. The article I have found states that the maximum effective range is around 460m - I could have sworn it was around 500 in my BRM course. In either case pretty far. Now the M468 has a 600m range - quite a difference. But it definitely states that it has the same characteristics of an M16 - so I would leave the range the same.

I'd say it does 4D6 maybe with a +2 or +3 if you have5.56 NATO do 4D6.

Standard 7.62 NATO is 4D6 or 5D6 depending on book, it's not going to do more than that.

whipped4073 wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

whipped4073 wrote:Depends on the damages you use for the 5.56 & 7.62 NATO rounds.

If you use 3d6 & 5d6 SDC (respectively), then it definitely fits into the 4d6 category.

If you use the 5D6 & 1D4x10 SDC (respectively), then it should at least be 6d6 SDC.

Where are these damages from? In Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, the category 8 (1D4*10) is on par with .50 caliber or 12.7mm rounds... clearly a lot more massive than our little 6.8mm. There's one category 7... but it's a .233, which means it must have a fair length to it.

The 5.56mm rifles (except for maybe 1 or 2) list their base damage as 3d6 SDC, & the 7.62mm rifles list their base damage as 5d6 SDC.

However...

The 5.56mm machine guns (including models like the FN Minimi/M249 SAW, which also use the same magazine & cartridge as the M16/M4) list their base damage as 5d6 SDC, & the 7.62mm machineguns list their base damage as 6d6 SDC.

And that's in the same CCW...

Ahh. I was just looking at the early stuff about cartridge sizes, because I didn't want to mess around in the back.

Zerebus wrote:Also, watch out for things like 7.62mm cartridges, which come in at least two flavors: 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm, but are both called "7.62mm" rounds.

Lets see off the top of my head:

7.62X25mm(.30 Mauser): does 1D8 damage

7.62 Nagant: unknown damage but similar to .32 caliber rounds so it's about 1D8 as well

7.62X39mm: does 4D6 damage, bullet weights about the same as the 6.8 SPC.

7.62X51mm NATO: does 5D6 damage

7.62X54mm Rimmed: Does 5D6 damage, funny thing is that most of the military surplus that I have encountered is magnetic(copper washed steel jacketed).

the 6.8 SPC is a decent mid ranged round but the problem with it is that over 600m it gets blown around by the wind even more than the lighter 5.56. As far as damage goes running the ballistics through several game damage formula put it in the same damage catigory as the 7.62X39mm. The advantage of the 6.8mm is that it uses better bullet designs and has better long range performance.

Nice...definitely replacing puny NEMA SDC assault rifle with this piece of hardware...

Because the round is too powerful for the gun leading to reliability problems, is too strong for controllable automatic fire from the shoulder leading to accuracy problems and is too big to fit a signifigant quantity in a standard sized magazine leading to running out of ammo problems.

the problem with the .50 Beowolf is that A: you can only fit ten of them into a 30 round M-16 magazine and B: the effective range is only 200M.

I have a .44 Magnum lever action that carries the same number of rounds and can shoot out to 500yards if I do my part. So your not gaining anything by going to the .50 Beowolf.

Zerebus wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Because the round is too powerful for the gun leading to reliability problems, is too strong for controllable automatic fire from the shoulder leading to accuracy problems and is too big to fit a signifigant quantity in a standard sized magazine leading to running out of ammo problems.

Ahem. Apparently Blackwater USA has been fielding these things, though. That and the Grendel AR-15's.

They do have their uses, they are much more portable than a Barrett .50 rifle, and at ranges less than 200 meters, almost as effective.

taalismn wrote:Nice...definitely replacing puny NEMA SDC assault rifle with this piece of hardware...

I picked it because it looked cooler than a standard M-16.

I watch Future Weapons so I saw that...butI'm thinking of putting a few military pages in my Links File.

rat_bastard wrote:what kind of damage would this do?

I'd say 3-4d6 depending on the cartridge size, but most sub-machineguns do 3d6 S.D.C. in the Palladium system.

As for the M16 (discussed in previous posts) I always put the damage at 4d6 for the 5.56mm round and 5d6 for the 7.62mm round.

I've standardized the damage for my games, as I got sick of weapons that use the same ammo doing different damages.

Pistol Rounds:
.22 or 6mm - 2d4
.38 or 9mm - 3d6
.40, .45 or 10mm - 4d6

Rifle Rounds:
.22 - 2d6
5.56mm and 30-30 - 4d6
7.62mm and 30-06 - 5d6
.50 or 12mm - 1d4x10
20mm - 1d6x10

Heavy Rounds/Artillery:
20mm - 1d6x10
25mm - 1d6x10+10
30mm - 2d4x10
40mm - 3d6x10
50mm - 4d6x10
75mm - 1d4x100
90mm - 1d6x100
105mm - 2d4x100
120mm - 2d6x100
155mm - 3d6x100

Now, these are not the only round sizes found in my games (or in the world obviously ), but they are the most common for reasons of ease of play.

rat_bastard wrote:what kind of damage would this do?

Probably the same as an FN-P90

Jefffar wrote:

rat_bastard wrote:what kind of damage would this do?

Probably the same as an FN-P90

ok using Power Factor calculations of W*V/1000=PF

w= weight of bullet in grains
v=Velocity of bullet in feet per second

The 4.7X30mm has a PF of 58.7366

the FN P-90 has a PF of 75.2.

While Power Factor is used in Pistol competitions, it's not quite scientific.

Still looking through my copy of CCW I would put the MP-7 in the 1D8 to 2D6 range.

Using actual scientific measurements of bullet performance doesn't work so well in Palladium. Let's compare actual muzzle energies for real cartriges to the damage ranges said cartridges have been given by Palladium

.22 LR Muzzle Energy: 142 Joules Damage: 1D8
5.56 NATO Muzzle Energy: 1708 Joules Damage: 3D6 to 4D6
7.62 M1943 Muzzle Energy: 2010 Joules Damage: 4D6 to 5D6
7.62 NATO Muzzle Energy: 4008 Joules Damage: 4D6 to 6D6
9 mm Parabellum Muzzle Energy: 584 Joules Damage: 2D6 to 3D6
.357 Magnum Muzzle Energy: 972 Joules Damage: 4D6 to 5D6
.45 ACP Muzzle Energy: 474 Joules Damage: 4D6
.50 BMG Muzzle Energy: 16 000+ Joules. Damage: 7D6 to 1D6x10

Let me know if you see a pattern in there.

call it at 1D4x100 and make it a day!

whipped4073 wrote:The .45 ACP is the only one this seems to fail on, as it is normally shown having a higher damage value. However, I can think of a few reasons for this:

With the .45ACP one should remember that it was ment for officer's and cavalry. while with officer's the pistol is more of a symbol of office, Cavalry used handguns for fighting. So not only did the M-1911 have to stop people but stop horses as well. With handguns the larger the bullet the greater the damage done to a target. The reason is that most pistols fire a round that is going fast enough to tumble and fragment. The .45ACP will make holes in someone that are about the same size as those made by my .44 magnum. the .45acp just runs out of energy faster and doesn't penatrate as deeply.

As far as the .45ACP's reputation goes I know of men who have carried .22's into situations that might have ended up deadly. while yes their .22 was leathal, the 9mm or the .45 makes much bigger holes.

here is a 9mm wound channel:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg

and a .45acp:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg

note that both rounds are of the same bullet type. In arguments about caliber this is important as one should try to remove as many variables as possible.

There is debate over how much effect the temporary wound channel has on the human body.

The permenant cavity (which is slightly wider for the .45, slightly longer for the 9 mm) definitely plays a key role though.

Rimmerdal wrote:http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

(Linkage above...)

Do any books have this? If not what kind damage would fit?

meh... I much prefer the H&K 416, (like the Barett M468, also featured on Future Weapons). It's a next gen rifle in the M-16 family that incorporates the best parts of the G-36. Guaranteed to shoot reliably in all conditions and never die, jam, or overheat. Super sweet weapon there.

As for the 6.8mm SPC, it just a matter of chambering. I bet H&K already has a few made in that chambering so they can have them on hand if the US Military wants to hold a competition for new weapons utilizing that caliber. Ever since the XM-8 program got indefinitely shelved, they've been doing all they can to be ready the very next time that kind of lucrative US Government contract rolls around. My guess is they'll make their bid using the 416 in the tried and true 5.56mm given the military's typical resistance to change.

I like ray guns.

Seriously, I know a lot of you give Palladium crap about using lots of 1980's weapons, but please do consider that, as far in the future as this setting is, most soldiers may well regard firearms of the early 21st century the same way we regard the bolt-action rifle of the early 20th century, or the muzzle loaders of the 19th.

That said, the best crew-served weapon in the U.S. Army is the M2 50 caliber machine gun, which was designed back in World War I, and many people prefer the old Model 1911 Colt .45 pistol over the M9 Beretta.

Wow, I guess I don't really have a point. But I still like ray guns.

Zerebus wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:

Rimmerdal wrote:http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

(Linkage above...)

Do any books have this? If not what kind damage would fit?

meh... I much prefer the H&K 416, (like the Barett M468, also featured on Future Weapons). It's a next gen rifle in the M-16 family that incorporates the best parts of the G-36. Guaranteed to shoot reliably in all conditions and never die, jam, or overheat. Super sweet weapon there.

Have you looked at LWRC's rifles? Almost identical technology for a fraction of the price... and made in the USA!

Interesting... looks like you didn't exagerate even a little. "Clean, cool, self regulating short stroke piston operations..." (LWRC) That's how the innards of the 416 work as well. And it's already available in the 6.8mm SPC too. If they can get their manufacturing capacity up enough, they may give H&K a run for their money in the next competition the military holds for next gen rifles.