Un-Wimpified Trek Weaponry

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-03 08:23pm

Here are a couple designs for some weaponry I made for Trek a while back. They have been previously posted on SCN, but I decided to post them here for your critiques.

Enjoy!

TYPE 3 Mk. 2 LRSP (Long Range Sniper Phaser, High Power)
Stats:
Effective Range - 1400 Meters (Power Setting 9, Full Power); 900 Meters (Power Setting 3)
Rate of Fire - N/A [Semi-Automatic]
Weight - 18 Kg w/ integrated bipod and noise & light suppressor
Power - 20 Pulses Per Power Cell on Intermediate Setting

Errata: The Type 3 Mk. 2 was developed from a need for a long range phaser capable of taking out precise targets and for light armored vehicles. When used in conjunction with a personal cloaking suit, a single sniper can be as effective at holding down enemy troop positions as many more standard troopers. The magazine power cell system gives a sniper the ability to quickly reload without having to recharge the entire weapon. The Mk. 2 sports an advanced telescopic holo-scope capable of VERY high zoom to increase the effective range of the weapon.
Type 3 Mk. 2 LRSP
---------------------------------------------------
TYPE 3 Mk. 3 MRSP (Medium Range Support Phaser, High Power Repeating)
Stats:
Effective Range - 1000 Meters (Power Setting 9, Full Power); 700 Meters (Power Setting 3)
Rate of Fire - 750 Pulses Per Minute at Lowest Power Setting; 400 PPM at Full Power
Weight - 17 Kg w/o tripod; 22 Kg w/ tripod; 28 Kg w/ quadrapod stand
Power: 50 Pulses Per Power Cell (Indefinitely on Portable Micro-Fusion Reactor Power)

The Type 3 Mk. 3 was developed from the need to have a heavy, medium range, support weapon for infantry squads. It is operated by a 2 man team, one spotter and loader, and another gunner. It has a number of differences from the Mk. 2. The most obvious are the heatsinks and vents located in strategic high-heat areas of the weapon to make it able to handle the higher heats of sustained automatic fire. It has a larger magazine, and lacks the high-zoom holoscope in favor of a smaller target aquizition system. It comes with a mounting point for either a tripod mount or a 1 to 1.5 meter tall quadrapod mount. Another difference is its ability to accept an external power source. Namely the Portable Micro-Fusion reactor, which gives it an almost infinite supply of power, as long as the reactor remains undamaged.
Type 3 Mk. 2 MRSP

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-03 11:49pm

Anything I can do to improve them?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-03 11:54pm

Nathan F wrote:Anything I can do to improve them?

Make more.

LOTS.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-04 12:06am

Tripod mount on the support weapon should probably be moved more towards the gun's center of mass than it is. It seems about half as far forward as it should be to be effective. Also, the stocks seem a bit ackward. Probably bring them down just a bit (below the barrel), and get rid of the bits connecting the stock to the trigger handle. It's bound to get in the way more than anything.

Other than that, quite nice.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-04 01:14am

Make Medium Support Phaser have a bigger power cell (go for Minimi sized box - 200 shots) have it have a bipod normally.

Make it attached to the fusion generator (20,000+ shots) when in tripod sustained fire mode.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-04 02:43am

Nathan F wrote:Anything I can do to improve them?

Type III MK II
The rifle itself looks a little awkward. It is hard trying to imagine the scale, but I went off of the trigger assembly. The forward hand guard is right next to the trigger assembly and will have the shooters hands too close together and probably upset the balence of the weapon and make it unweildy.

The bipod seems to fold up and obstruct the forward hand grip and there apears to be no iron sights.

Type III MK III

Mount for the tripod is too far forward. The gunner would have to do a major shift of his/her body to traverse the weapon. There seems to be no T&E mechinism but I guess it could be with the pintel mount. Why would the MK II be more accurate and have a higher range. The whole idea of a tripod mounted weapon is to give it stability to increase accuracy ( and hence effective range ) by giving it a better support structure other than the human body? You should still retain the bipod mount on the MK III in case the tripod becomes unavailable and/or the need to displace rapidly and thus have no time to set up the tripod is needed.

Over all, I like the design though.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-04 09:18am

Knife wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Anything I can do to improve them?

Type III MK II
The rifle itself looks a little awkward. It is hard trying to imagine the scale, but I went off of the trigger assembly. The forward hand guard is right next to the trigger assembly and will have the shooters hands too close together and probably upset the balence of the weapon and make it unweildy.

The bipod seems to fold up and obstruct the forward hand grip and there apears to be no iron sights.

When target shooting, the rifle is held just forward of the trigger guard, maybe 2-6 inches. I went off that, and when using a bypod, the front stock wouldn't even be used. I had planned for the bipod to fold forward or be removable, but, something does need to be done about that.

Most long range rifles do not even have provision for iron sites (no dovetailing in the front of the barrel, for instance).

Type III MK III

Mount for the tripod is too far forward. The gunner would have to do a major shift of his/her body to traverse the weapon. There seems to be no T&E mechinism but I guess it could be with the pintel mount. Why would the MK II be more accurate and have a higher range. The whole idea of a tripod mounted weapon is to give it stability to increase accuracy ( and hence effective range ) by giving it a better support structure other than the human body? You should still retain the bipod mount on the MK III in case the tripod becomes unavailable and/or the need to displace rapidly and thus have no time to set up the tripod is needed.

The Mk. II has different sites systems and a different focusing system. The Mk. III is modified to allow for a greater firing rate and power than the Mk. II. It is like comparing a, say, Remington 700 Sniper Rifle to an M60. Both fire 7.62NATO rounds, but the M60 doesn't have the accuracy and range of the Rem. 700. Bad analogy though, as they have completely different actions. I guess a better would be the M14 to M1 Garand. Garand is semi auto clip fed, while the M14 is full auto, with a removeable magazine, yet the M14 action is based off the Garand.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-04 12:27pm

When target shooting, the rifle is held just forward of the trigger guard, maybe 2-6 inches. I went off that, and when using a bypod, the front stock wouldn't even be used. I had planned for the bipod to fold forward or be removable, but, something does need to be done about that.

Most long range rifles do not even have provision for iron sites (no dovetailing in the front of the barrel, for instance).

One doesn't have to worry about terrain (trees and brush) when target shooting. You also don't have to worry about rounding corners with a short stock position when target shooting. In combat, the grip being to close together, will make in unweildly. Also, if your hands are so close together and there is still a large amount of the weapon extending forward, it will also increase the lack of balence of the weapon. I don't know how the weight distrabution is on the thing and I am sure that using SF materials, you can elleminate alot of that.

On the bipod, I meant when it was not employed, it would be in the way of the forward hand guard. Obviously, when the bipod is employed, the other hand would be up on the stock, supporting the weapons stability.

The Mk. II has different sites systems and a different focusing system. The Mk. III is modified to allow for a greater firing rate and power than the Mk. II. It is like comparing a, say, Remington 700 Sniper Rifle to an M60. Both fire 7.62NATO rounds, but the M60 doesn't have the accuracy and range of the Rem. 700. Bad analogy though, as they have completely different actions. I guess a better would be the M14 to M1 Garand. Garand is semi auto clip fed, while the M14 is full auto, with a removeable magazine, yet the M14 action is based off the Garand.

OK, I think my point should have been the actual range that you do have. Current effective ranges for a machinegun simular in mission to your MKIII is around 1800 to 2000 meters. So with a current day M240G, I could pick off your SF dude 400 meters before he could employ his sniper version of the weapon, according to the effective ranges you gave, let alone the SAW version.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-04 05:57pm

Add a proper sight. that dinky thing just doesnt feel right.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-04-17 12:15am

Needless to say, a phaser is a singlularly poor choice for a sniper weapon, as one can visually track the beam to tell where the shooter is.

One of my biggest problems with ST6, truth be told.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-04-17 03:45am

Very good looking designs anyway..