Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Question about a gun...
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 21:49:35 -0600
>I'd have to disagree. The difference in damage codes for the
>weapon implies that it uses LMG Ammo for the LMG combination,
>SMG Ammo for the SMG combination, and Rifle Ammo for the AR and
>Carbine configurations, and hence a different chamber to
>accommodate differing round sizes.

Actually, I'd say they indicate differing levels of power and
accuracy from the same rounds as a result of varied barrel length
and stability. Note also the little blurb in SSC about Wedge
mounting the wrong combination of barrel and stock - if it took
a different chamber, would the barrel be the major factor?

>Completely aside from that, the fact that the Rifle config
>does not have full-auto capability shows that the feed and
>firing mechanisms are different.

Or it could show that the SMG and sport rifle stocks can't
handle full-auto (also follows from Wedge's experience) or that
the SMG and sport rifle barrels can't handle the heat generated
by full-auto fire.

>It probably has a selection of stocks, a selection of firing
>mechanisms, and a selection of barrels that can be swapped in
>and out of a single casing as sub-assemblies.

Hmm... Separate barrel, stock, and firing mechanism for each
configuration, eh? So what's being reused from one to the next?
Your version sounds like it's just a collection of 4 guns which
happen to come from the same company and can all be disassembled.

>It's too bad the LMG config can't be modified to accept belted
>ammo, though.

Another piece of evidence for all configurations firing from the
same chamber and feed.

esper@***.umn.edu

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.