New Automatic Weapon design

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

Here we go, the link below is a pic showing 2 versions of the KBP, the silenced special forces style one and the bog standard PDW version for non-infantry types. I've added a basic shape for the sensor/scope unit I want to fit to them, and the suppressor obviously on the silenced one. The scope unit is mounted by sliding it in from behind on 2 rails mounted on the inside of the top unit, and it's currently about the size and shape I'm thinking of using, although the eyepiece is too small right now and needs sizing up. Comments welcomed on the the general look and shape of the mods, how the fit the look of the weapon, etc. No details or buttons and controls yet, small shit like that is last to go on once we get the basic shape sorted.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/KBPset.jpg

[Howedar]

I'd still make that top rail twice as thick or so.

[Pcm979]

Here we go, the link below is a pic showing 2 versions of the KBP, the silenced special forces style one and the bog standard PDW version for non-infantry types. I've added a basic shape for the sensor/scope unit I want to fit to them, and the suppressor obviously on the silenced one. The scope unit is mounted by sliding it in from behind on 2 rails mounted on the inside of the top unit, and it's currently about the size and shape I'm thinking of using, although the eyepiece is too small right now and needs sizing up. Comments welcomed on the the general look and shape of the mods, how the fit the look of the weapon, etc. No details or buttons and controls yet, small shit like that is last to go on once we get the basic shape sorted.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/KBPset.jpg

I second thickening the rail, it just doesn't look right.
P.S. Anyone else thinking that that would look great as a BB Gun? FAMAS conversion kit perhaps?

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

I must admit it's based on the FAMAS Conversion kit that turns the BB gun into the Seburo M23. I'd quite like to try it at my local airsoft site, but I don't think I'll be making it for real anytime soon. I'll thicken the rail up, I haven't done it yet because I'm putting a laser unit on the underside of it at the front. How about the shape of the scope unit and silencer, that's more what I'm interested in here. Too much, too square, whatever?

[Rob Wilson]

I'm afraid it was made just for a laugh, but it does lead me to think on other things. This 'family' of weapon is going to be used on a friends site in his own fictitous universe called Cold War. It's a future human civilisation that's spread through the nearest star systems but with all the bickering, fighting and such you'd expect from assholes like us. The guy that wrote up the weapons pages though had some very specific ideas and this weapon can fit several of them.

Sounds fun. Has he specified a modular system in his write up?

I'm going to make a scope/sensor unit which will fit between the two uprights on the highest point of the gun. It's going to be a squarish shrouded unit like that on the OICW and will be used in a similar way, being linked to helmet mounted optics or able to feed directly to C3 somewhere else. I've also modeled a power unit which fits inside the handle of the gun, taking care of power for the rifle and the sensors too. WHen it comes to making variants, if this is indeed the carbine then I'll make an assaul version with extended barrel and the furniture you speak of Rob, along with maybe a Bi-pod fitting too.

OK, but remembr that the bipod gets fixed to the Sleeve, not the barrel. And the sleeve doesn't have to be full length, just long enough to offer a lot of ridgidity to the Bipod and to protect the connecting area, where the barrel meets the body (about 10-11" should be fine).

The sight may need a bit more eye relief. Basically you eye is 5-6 inchs infront of your shoulder when you're looking ahead, add to that 2 inches of eye relief and you need between 7-8" of distance between the eye-piece and the buttstock. If you moutn it too high you are damaging it's accuracy over long distances (200m+) as it is too far off the line of the barrel. On the Carbine that doesn't really matter, on the assault rifle/support weapon it will. Remember that the distance from top of a persons shoulder to their eye is between 4-5" and the further forward you put the sight, the more they have to move thier head forward, forcing it down allowing you to mount the sight lower and improving accuracy (one of the few things they got completely right on the ST:First Contact rifles). You'd be better off placing it inside those rails (and shortening the rear of them), rather than on them.

If I were you, I'd have an Assault rifle and a Supprot weapon(with bipod) being different entities, you can have a shorter sleeve on the Rifle barrel, and the Support weapon would have a bigger mag and a noticably thicker, longer barrel, with longer sleeve and Bipod mount. Make sure your Bayonet mount is on the barrel of all verients, behind the flash hider, so that all of the regular varients can have a bayonet fitted (the major oversight on the LSW, among everything else ).

I also need to make a version with built in noise suppresion, so expect something like the front end of an MP5-SD or similar silenced weapon. Pictures of some of this should be ready tonight hopefully, I have to finish all the modeleing for the end of the month to get it entered into the competition in time.

noise suppression only makes sense on Sub-sonic rounds! The whole thing is defeated if the rounds are constantly cracking the Sound Barrier. you'de need to note they use less powerful ammo (you don't have to change the feed mechanism for the different rounds, as you only need to switch the gas plug from 'L' to 'H' so more power is bled off to work the mechanism. And for Special Forces Op's you don't want too many protrusions sticking up (another reason to sink the telo into the rails.).

[Rob Wilson]

Here we go, the link below is a pic showing 2 versions of the KBP, the silenced special forces style one and the bog standard PDW version for non-infantry types. I've added a basic shape for the sensor/scope unit I want to fit to them, and the suppressor obviously on the silenced one. The scope unit is mounted by sliding it in from behind on 2 rails mounted on the inside of the top unit, and it's currently about the size and shape I'm thinking of using, although the eyepiece is too small right now and needs sizing up. Comments welcomed on the the general look and shape of the mods, how the fit the look of the weapon, etc. No details or buttons and controls yet, small shit like that is last to go on once we get the basic shape sorted.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/KBPset.jpg

Looks good, that Sight is horribly exposed and offline up there though. Se my other post concerning it's placement. The rails can actually be lenghtened forwards, so they are even with the end of the bar under the carry handle. That way the telo can be placed in the rails, and the back of the rails can be shortened slightly.

Give the carry handle a slightly curved underside so it can be used comfortably. The Foresight mounted on the Carry handle is none adjustable and placed in such a position that the Carry handle can't be used. You can place the iron sights, under the Telo and through the front of the carry handle, like so, you'd just have to raise the height of the sides of the rail slightly.

If push comes to shove, the Laser dot can be fitted to that tiny finger guard at the front of the foregrip.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

Ah, now... I don't get a lot of that I'm afraid, sorry.

The open sight will be a direct copy of the unit on the G36 when it's finished, basically I'll add a circluar tube around the open blade sight at the end of the rail so no one hurts their ickle hands on it carrying it around. I'll thicken up the handle and mount the laser unit somewhere forwards near the barrel line, either in the top of the front upper section or mounted below the barrel near the forward trigger. I'm also toying with the idea of placing it ina small housing on top of the forward section directly in front of the rail/handle, but I'll have to see how that looks.

The setup for the scope and sights is pretty much what I have here, the scope slides in nicely and leaves a small gap above the existing iron sights for them to still operate should you need them. I don't really understand how I can mount it lower and still have this, it would mean a radical redesign if I'm picking you up correctly (which I'm probably not). I don't think the scopes to high right now, not when you look at the overall size of the weapon. I always try and picture myself holding it and what would feel comfortable to look through in that position, and when you look at other short weapons like the the G36 Carbine or P90 their rails and scopes are mounted pretty much the same height as this things.

The eyepiece on the scope unit needs to be much larger, I pictured something similar to the OICW unit or a PSG1 style protector, and the one that's on it is too damn small. Maybe with a larger eye rubber it'll look more in proportion, but without actually building this thing in real life we'll never be completely sure how comfortable it would be to use. I didn't want to make the scope a built in thing anyway, purely an add-on if you needed it or had the extra cash. I wanted it to have iron sights and lots of rail space for upgrades, but to be essentially self contained out the box.

If I make another version it'll be similar to that which you describe. This was originally designed as a PDW and not a combat rifle, but a longer barrelled, more rugged version might finish off the set nicely. As you say it'll need some structure over the extended barrel, a larger mag and possible a bipod, but I think it'd really qualify for a fixed stock too if that were the case. Speaking for myself I LOVE silencers like the one on the SD version, which is probably why i bought an MP5-SD6 rather than a standard MP5-A5 when i had the choice. They're just sexier.

[Rob Wilson]

Ah, now... I don't get a lot of that I'm afraid, sorry.

My famous drawing skills again. Basically they are the front and rear of the sights, the Fore sight blade is mounted in the front of the carry handle, and the telo/night/electronic sight sits above that.

The open sight will be a direct copy of the unit on the G36 when it's finished, basically I'll add a circluar tube around the open blade sight at the end of the rail so no one hurts their ickle hands on it carrying it around. I'll thicken up the handle and mount the laser unit somewhere forwards near the barrel line, either in the top of the front upper section or mounted below the barrel near the forward trigger. I'm also toying with the idea of placing it ina small housing on top of the forward section directly in front of the rail/handle, but I'll have to see how that looks.

Like in this, the G36C? I was working from the G36 and G36K/KE (see links below)

The setup for the scope and sights is pretty much what I have here, the scope slides in nicely and leaves a small gap above the existing iron sights for them to still operate should you need them. I don't really understand how I can mount it lower and still have this, it would mean a radical redesign if I'm picking you up correctly (which I'm probably not). I don't think the scopes to high right now, not when you look at the overall size of the weapon. I always try and picture myself holding it and what would feel comfortable to look through in that position, and when you look at other short weapons like the the G36 Carbine or P90 their rails and scopes are mounted pretty much the same height as this things.

The bottom of the eye piece on most modern weapons is 1.5-2" from the top of the Body, and the Sight I was thinking of would require the top of the rails to be raised maybe an extra inch. I was working from this and this where the iron sights are looking through the carrying handle (with the fore sight mounted in the front of the carrying handle, and rather than the red eye sight they have above it, I went for a telo/night/electric sight. You'll note that the Iron sights are 1.5" above the body and the Redeye sight is 1" above that. Basically it should be about half the pistol grip length above the body and yours is a full pistol grip length.

The eyepiece on the scope unit needs to be much larger, I pictured something similar to the OICW unit or a PSG1 style protector, and the one that's on it is too damn small. Maybe with a larger eye rubber it'll look more in proportion, but without actually building this thing in real life we'll never be completely sure how comfortable it would be to use. I didn't want to make the scope a built in thing anyway, purely an add-on if you needed it or had the extra cash. I wanted it to have iron sights and lots of rail space for upgrades, but to be essentially self contained out the box.

Fair enough, though it means having extra bits to go with the Barrel kits if they want to change the weapons (not a drama as it's done at base rather than in the middle of a patrol). I'd have thought building it in made more sense on a futuristic weapon, but it's not my call.

If I make another version it'll be similar to that which you describe. This was originally designed as a PDW and not a combat rifle, but a longer barrelled, more rugged version might finish off the set nicely. As you say it'll need some structure over the extended barrel, a larger mag and possible a bipod, but I think it'd really qualify for a fixed stock too if that were the case. Speaking for myself I LOVE silencers like the one on the SD version, which is probably why i bought an MP5-SD6 rather than a standard MP5-A5 when i had the choice. They're just sexier.

They do look nicer, and like I said there's no reason they can't use it on here, they just need a differnt ammo (sub-sonic), and to set the gas plug to 'H', and they're laughing. the other reason you don't use Supersonic ammo in a silenced weapon (apart from it being a waste of time) is that it wears out the baffles super quick (10-20 rounds), it's why I laugh when I see films with Silenced CAR-15's or M-4's, they look nice but are a waste of time. As long as the guy you are designing them for, knows to change the ammo for the silenced weapon, there's no problems I can think of.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

It's a bit late now to change the shape of the upper parts of the weapon without lousing up the looks, this things got to be ready to rock by the end of the month and I've too much else to do. The electronic sight might be a little high, but I'm 6'2" and it looks like it would be ideal for me, so screw everyone else, they can use the iron sights mounted below.

I love the look of the G36K, very nice indeed. Currently the only one available to me as an airsoft player however is the G36C, which I intend to buy as soon as I've had a quick fondle of one at the next skirmish on 5th April. If it's as good as they say I'll have to invest the £250 for one. The guy who wrote up the specs for the supressed version seems to know his stuff ok, I assume he knows they need special ammo as well. I've heard the difference it makes when out hunting with a standard .22 bullet rifle, the sub-sonic rounds were quieter than an air-rifle and when we switched back to normal ammo it sounded like a feckin rocket launcher.

[Alyeska]

Very nice design Kenny_10_Bellys. I have a few quips but they are mostly covered. However I have to get this off my chest. You are designing this as a assault rifle rather then a close combat weapon? In that case your stock is WAY to short. Its very hard to properly fire at long range When your stock is that small. Just look at the FAMAS or the Steyr Aug and look how close the scope/sight and pistol grip/trigger is from the stock. Unless your stock is not fully extended, you need to increase it somewhat.

HOWEVER, I love the design. It makes a perfect close combat weapon and it looks great.

[Alyeska]

Make it a bullpup design and add a longer barrel.
It's nice otherwise.

Just by the way the P-90 is a bad design in many regards.

One thing is the magazine: if you have a partially full magazine and drop the gun the rounds will fly around in the magazine and jam the action.

As pdw maybe, but the P-90 is not suitable for combat.

The magazine also is prone to jamming in the weapon while being changed, and the feed system often jams during automatic fire. The weapon is also lightly built and suitable only for rear area troops who don't use them on a regular basis. Though it was never really intedned for front line personal. That's why only a few nations bought the piece of crap and at least one is already scrapping them.

The P90 is not a piece of shit. It is designed for certain situations and it is not the fault of the weapon when people misuse the design. It is ideal for SWAT teams as well as Special Operations or rear echelon (PDW) uses. Its firepower and clip size combined with relatively small size makes for a decent weapon. Its got problems with jamming but that comes from misuse. Its not designed as an infantry weapon and as such shouldn't be judged like one.

[Pcm979]

Stupid computer stopped me from heaping praise upon you, Kenny. And about the conversion kit, I was just dreaming

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

Stick a fork in it, it's done!

Have spent most of today refining, modeling, texturing and rendering to get to these 2 pictures below. They show the finished product sent in for judging by the punters at Spacebattles forum, the KBP4 PDW and it's derivatives. I might have been kicking the arse out of it a little with the sniper version but i couldn't resist a little fun. You can download the pictures at...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/kenny1.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/kenny2.jpg

Both are around 100k in size and show the finished article in all it's glory, explaining some of the finer details and thanking you guys for your input. I might refine it a bit more later, but dont hold your breath. Now they're finished I have to do a few renders for my pals website and send him the models too. A guys work is never done...

[Hotfoot]

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD!!!!

[Warspite]

OK, two words...



FUCKING AWESOME!

(Can I get one to go? )

[Howedar]

Looks great!

But, IMHO you should:
1. Flip over the flash supressor on the PDW.
2. Lengthen the iron sights; they seem pretty useless right now.
3. Probably add a scope to the AR.
4. Add triggers
5. Make the rounds remaining thing less bright: in a dark environment, it'd be pretty stupid to have this glowing red thingy to show where you were.

[Rob Wilson]

Stick a fork in it, it's done!

Have spent most of today refining, modeling, texturing and rendering to get to these 2 pictures below. They show the finished product sent in for judging by the punters at Spacebattles forum, the KBP4 PDW and it's derivatives. I might have been kicking the arse out of it a little with the sniper version but i couldn't resist a little fun. You can download the pictures at...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/kenny1.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/kenny2.jpg

Both are around 100k in size and show the finished article in all it's glory, explaining some of the finer details and thanking you guys for your input. I might refine it a bit more later, but dont hold your breath. Now they're finished I have to do a few renders for my pals website and send him the models too. A guys work is never done...

Looks good as a sci-fi weapon, I especially like the colour scheme on the SD2 (speaking of which, that bright round's remaining display on that model, kind of defeats the purpose ). Incidentally, I like the moulding underneath the carry-handle - nice touch.

The AR and PDW need to swap which one has the scope (the PDW needs it less than the AR). I presume the Ejection port is there to clear stoppages (excellent); can you put a Bipod on the SG and give it large box mag as it is better suited as a Support weapon rather than a Sniper weapon (hey, SG could be Support Gun ). Are you going to put the selector switch on both sides of the weapon?

Once again though, Cool looking sci-fi weapon. Very cool looking.

[Hotfoot]

For the record, I'm quite fond of the Palm-style black-on-green displays similar to Splinter Cell, rather than the alarm clock you can see from across the room sort of thing.

Besides which, who is going to look at that display anyway? Only lefties would be able to take a look unless it's on both sides, and even then, you couldn't look while you were firing. Something near the back, behind the ironsights/scope would probably be best.

Also, the magazine looks like it's backwards. As a further nitpick, despite all the guns having different magazine sizes, they all read "60" on the ammo counter.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

Hi again, let's see now...

Howedar - the suppressor WAS the other way up, but I got slagged for having flash cover the field of view while recoil was damped only slightly, so I flipped it over. I've been looking at real weapons and frankly it seems to be personal preference what you go for, the difference is minimal to each aspect and the trade-offs are minor. You get slightly more stable fire but more flash, or vice-versa, or go with a straight one and get half of each but it doesn't look good. The iron sights are pretty much the same as the G36 so call H&K and warn them, quick! You can add any kind of scope to any of the guns, I just picked what might be the bog standard configurations of each out of the crate. There are triggers, but they're almost the same colour as the background so they've blended in. my fault there. Finally, the display had to be brightened up for the 'photo-shoot' otherwise it became very difficult to see under the bright lights. I think there's a brightness switch there, so no worries.

Rob - answered some of yours above, buy a scope if you like it, maybe get one cheap if you buy it at the same time as the weapon (in the future of course) but don't blame me if you're a cheapskate. The SG nearly got a bipod, but I thought it a bit much in the end. I'm getting flamed for not making a support variant now on the airsoft forum so I might make the bipod/long barrel/box mag variant you want sometime soon to keep the punters happy. As for left versus right handed, I went right handed but with interchangable sections. Once you stick the ejection port on a specific side you've pretty much commited yourself, so as 9 out of 10 people are right handed... I imagine it'd be a short conversion job to move everything over if you buy the appropriate plug-in parts, just see your local armourer for details.

The magazine is not backwards, it's a U feed powered by the gun and the slant is not to accomodate bullets/spring but the motor system that feeds the bullets into the weapon. The display is not on the back because that would be annoying as hell, even if not very bright, and you'd need to crane your neck back and squint to see it. I can't make the mag transparent, you can't see through the gun, so I went with a display. It takes the same movement to read the display as it does to see a transparent mag, so no loss there. It also has the advantage of being more accurate, although as you point out they all read 60 because I'm too lazy to make seperate counters right now.

[Rob Wilson]

Rob - answered some of yours above, buy a scope if you like it, maybe get one cheap if you buy it at the same time as the weapon (in the future of course) but don't blame me if you're a cheapskate. The SG nearly got a bipod, but I thought it a bit much in the end. I'm getting flamed for not making a support variant now on the airsoft forum so I might make the bipod/long barrel/box mag variant you want sometime soon to keep the punters happy. As for left versus right handed, I went right handed but with interchangable sections. Once you stick the ejection port on a specific side you've pretty much commited yourself, so as 9 out of 10 people are right handed... I imagine it'd be a short conversion job to move everything over if you buy the appropriate plug-in parts, just see your local armourer for details.

Ah, I thought you were having the PDW come with a scope as standard, and the SR without for some reason. As to the support weapon, just stick the bipod on the SG along with the bigger mag and you're sorted.
In the original design spec you were going to have everything Ambi-dextrous so I thought you had forgotten to add the Selector on the other side (you had made the butt and mag releases ambi-dextrous so i thought you'd just forgotten a detail there). The ejector cover could be a simple cover plate with allan Key securers, that way the soldier can change it in the field if he needs to (afterall it's never going to be used during firing, only if he has a stoppage).

[Rob Wilson]

Besides which, who is going to look at that display anyway? Only lefties would be able to take a look unless it's on both sides, and even then, you couldn't look while you were firing. Something near the back, behind the ironsights/scope would probably be best.

Also, the magazine looks like it's backwards.

Read through the thread, I've been over all that with him before (including having the ammo count in the sight display).
It's a design aesthetic choice for him over practicality, and as it's his design, it's his choice.

[Hotfoot]

Read through the thread, I've been over all that with him before (including having the ammo count in the sight display).
It's a design aesthetic choice for him over practicality, and as it's his design, it's his choice.

As for the palm-style display I described, that's the point, it's not bright. In fact, it's not lit at all, unless you back-light it.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

AAAARGH!!!!!

It's not merely the design aesthetics, trust me on this, I think it's a valid design choice. The weapon is electronic/digital in nature and a digital counter is simply an extension of this. Putting it at the back doesn't give you the room to view it properly, just look how far forward you have to put a scope to be able to see it comfortably. Likewise I can't go with the current trend and put a semi-transparent magazine in, the main body of the weapon negates that option right away. If I stick a little digital counter on your side of choice however, you instantly have a highly accurate guage of rounds remaining for the same movement as looking at a transparent mag. I also have the rounds remaining displayed in the scope of the SD version, or the others too if you stick that scope on it, since it links into the guns electronics for targeting and power. Honestly, get with the 22nd century you guys!

[Rob Wilson]

AAAARGH!!!!!

It's not merely the design aesthetics, trust me on this, I think it's a valid design choice. The weapon is electronic/digital in nature and a digital counter is simply an extension of this. Putting it at the back doesn't give you the room to view it properly, just look how far forward you have to put a scope to be able to see it comfortably. Likewise I can't go with the current trend and put a semi-transparent magazine in, the main body of the weapon negates that option right away. If I stick a little digital counter on your side of choice however, you instantly have a highly accurate guage of rounds remaining for the same movement as looking at a transparent mag. I also have the rounds remaining displayed in the scope of the SD version, or the others too if you stick that scope on it, since it links into the guns electronics for targeting and power. Honestly, get with the 22nd century you guys!

Which is why I'vew been saying incorporate it into the sight and have the sight a standard fit, to me, having it mounted on the side makes no sense at all (the only reason the semi-transparent mag exists is because there's no ay to make a round counter that works at the moment so you have to have some way of knowing).

That way, you never have to look away from the sight picture at any time (which is the best possible design for a weapon). Again it's your design so go with what you want, yo don't have to justify it to us, if it's what you really want.

[Hotfoot]

Honestly, get with the 22nd century you guys!

Bah. I'm already with the 62nd century, thank you very much.