HOME | DD
Spatzik — S.M.A.P Smart Modular Assault Platform
Published: 2012-02-06 01:18:41 +0000 UTC; Views: 4492; Favourites: 72; Downloads: 64
Redirect to original
Description
>Caliber: 9.3x52 Custom>Projectile weight: 230 Grain
>Weight: 3.29 kg (7.3 lb) (Carbine configuration, 368mm Barrel) -- 3.49 kg (7.7 lb) (Designated Marksman Configuration, 489mm Barrel)
>Muzzle velocity: 2,636 ft/s (230 Grain FMJ)
>Maximum effective range (DMR) : 1150 meters
>Maximum effective range (Carbine) : 720 meters
The SMAP, Is Tri-Op's newest concept firearm, and at that, one of the best.
This revolutionary platform was designed by request of the UNN Protectorate, to replace their actual weapon platform, the M4.
Here at TriOptimum, we have gone through years and years of research to find the perfect caliber for our new masterpiece, and after studying the ballistic properties of the 9.3x62 Hunting cartridge, we have designed the 230 grain 9.3x52, with improved penetration capabilities, speed and weight tailor made for the modern battlefield.
Our cartridge comes in four main varieties, Jacketed Hollow Point, Full Metal Jacket, M886 Steel Core Penetrator and our personal favourite... The DU6-AP Depleted uranium based round*
*This round is NOT endorsed by NATO standards, ergo, only limited orders are taken.
Our rifle uses the proven Short stroke piston system for maximum reliability and ease of maintenance, And when compared to the main contenders, outperforms them beautifully.
M4 Platform - 880 Stoppages per 60.000 rounds
Heckler&Koch M416 - 233 Stoppages per 60.000 rounds
FN Herstal SCAR 5.56x45 Variant - 220 Stoppages per 60.000 Rounds
Experimental XM8 Platform - 127 Stoppages per 60.000 Rounds
TriOptimum Corp SMAP - 56 Stoppages per 60.000 Rounds
And not only is the SMAP reliable, hard hitting, lightweight and modular, it also pleases everyone who tests it, And due to it's structural familiarity with the previous M4 platform, It isn't necessary to impose special training procedures to operate it.
Related content
Comments: 71
Fantastic, I'll get on with the barrel exchange procedure then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A couple things you guys should realize here. Assuming that his case is very similar in size/shape/capacity to 7.62x51, all he's done is stick a bigger projectile into it. That's not THAT big a deal. Maybe with a lighter powder charge we'd be looking at a subsonic load (which would actually have less recoil than 7.62x51), but most likely not a ton more recoil than 7.62x51. Certain primers are corrosive and primer size will help burn more power faster, but powder chemistry is probably the biggest factor in all the variables involved with power, pressure, fowling, etc.
The bottom line on the M4 similarities is that his controls are similarly placed and the gun uses a similar grip angle. In the end, that's all that matters. I shouldn't have to point out that the A2 grip (or whatever it's called) on the M4, in my opinion, is about as ergonomic as a brick. It's an uncomfortable turd for me. And that's going to be a big reason most people change them. The Magpul grip is 100 times more comfortable and still isn't as hand forming as this gun's grip appears to be. The M4 isn't all that wonderful IMO, when it comes to grip geometry and ergos.
This gun could easily offer loads with differing projectile weights and powder charges and still be usable as a carbine. It might be a little more futuristic than what some of you other guys had envisioned but I think that a level of artistic license should be allowed here. No need to get upset over it. But, I encourage conversation because there is a lot of time left AND it never hurts to get fresh eyes on your art so that you can reconsider some of your choices and just maybe design something even better. You guys can submit as many as you like! And keep in mind that we have the Killing Machine award - a big nasty cartridge is probably going to get you considered for that award.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
THANK YOU. Finally a comment that makes sense here !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Lol, didn't you know that the Mk14 EBR can fire at a maximum range of 800 metres! ;D
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And your completely irrelevant to this deviation point is ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well 800 metres with optic scope. Here's the link:
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
he means the M14 tops it, I think
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course it tops it. It's not an exchangeable barrel carbine system, it's a weapon designed to be a DMR. And ONLY a DMR. Plus, I don't think you would want to carry a carbine weighing 5kg. They're different weapons.
I just wish people could stop announcing the fucking obvious here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gonna be blunt here. That calibre is way too big for a carbine. It uses custom made ammo and parts, which would probably be pretty expensive. That magazine will not hold 28 rounds of that size unless (correct me if I am wrong) it is a drum magazine of some sort (which it doesn't look like). None of the parts look structurally similar to those of an M4 (Looks more like an AK really). Needs more rails too (side and under barrel mounted). Overall, If I were to test that gun out, I can tell you right now that I would not be happy with it, and certainly would not sign it up for use.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hell yes it's big for a carbine, but it isn't completely unnaceptable. Why ? Because it's a shorter version of the original 9.3x62, and for that it's just about the same size of a 7.62X51. And yes it uses custom ammo. I'm not even treading there, it's expensive but effective. And about the parts, Of course it uses custom made parts, and that is only the stock furniture, it can be changed to accomodate more rails (Which honestly are not that necessary). A magazine of that size would fit 28 rounds of 12.1mm rim diameter casings, the .308 doesn't differ too much from that and SCAR magazines fits 20. This is slightly larger due to a fairly big magazine well (Observe the distance between the bolt and the mag), and it's obviously a double stack.
How are the parts not similar to an M4 ? The grips use the same base layout and fixation methods, the bolt catch is in the same place and the safety selector too. Internally it isn't similar, but for someone used to shooting an M4, it wouldn't require too much of a change in muscle memory actions.
And I'm going to be blunt aswell, you don't look like you have any military experience, so I don't really care if you're not happy or don't approve it. It IS financially, functionally and structurally viable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This pistol grip is much more curved than the standard M4 grip and lacks the front side notch. The M4 also uses a buffer tube for its collapsible stock, to soak up some of the recoil, a feature this gun (appears) not to have. I was mistaken about the cartridge (now you mention it is shorter), but why bother using a cartridge that is slightly wider than an existing and mass produced NATO approved cartridge (The 7.62x51)? The custom made parts also include a scope and (on the DMR) a very large muzzle break (while the carbine lacks on completely). Both of these parts could just as easily be replaced with aftermarket parts (like a Trijicon TR20 and a VC-301 brake; I mean a .50 BMG rifle doesnt need a brake as big as yours). Honestly, I do not see the logic in the majority of this weapon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh no, the custom made parts, such as the scope, muzzle brake and supressor are proprietary, but aftermarket parts can be attached normally, and the buffer tube technology isn't implemented in this because it has a folding stock, and at that it's similar to the LM300. Plus, excuse my wrong wording, the grip angle and layout are proprietary, but fully compatible to older M4 grips, and I don't thin people would have too much trouble with it, since it still is pretty similar. And about the cartridge being marginally different from the 7.62x51, the case truly is almost identical, but the projectile, other case specs and main ballistic capabilities are very different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... And so I imagine the recoil would be considerably higher than the standard 7.62 (which is already fairly powerful). For the DMR that is good, for the carbine... not so good. Burst and automatic fire would be (I imagine) hard to control at best, particularly due to the lack of a muzzle brake. And what exactly makes the cartridge internals different?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, based on what i've seen of the 9.3x62, It doesn't look toooo bad, Check it on youtube, it's pretty amusing.
Also, the cartridge differs from the 7.62 due to projectile shape, amount of powder, type of primer and neck dimensions
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe I am correct in saying you can buy the round with differing grain counts. I don't see how a different primer would affect the power and flight of the round, since it has a minor role in that case. Either way I fear a round like that would result in a slower RPM due to its slightly larger size and weight (I assume it is heavier because it presumably has more powder).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The primer type usually increases or decreases the amount of barrel fouling/unburned powder, and yes, you can get it in different grain counts.
About the RPM, It's an issue, yes, but the cycling speed and lock time of the weapon turn it into a 750RPM slug thrower
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Carbine = Light, highly portable weapon firing an INTERMEDIATE caliber. Honestly, I agree with on the caliber, a 9mm rifle round is retarded, even the 8mms used by the Germans in WWI were too big.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"A 9mm rifle round is retarded"
No sir, you are the retarded specimen here. You ever heard of the 9X39 ? Ever heard about it's superb ballistic capabilities ?
And let me ask you something, how much do you think an M4 weighs ? 3.2 kilograms, not far off from this platform's weight.
How many times do I have to say this ? STATISTICALLY THIS IS A FUCKING INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE. IT IS NOT A SNIPER ROUND, AND IT IS NOT A FUCKING ANTI TANK 105MM HOWITZER PROJECTILE. IT IS USED AS A HUNTING ROUND AND CONSIDERED A SMALL ONE AT THAT. And don't whine about me being an arrogant mad bastard, if you could express your knowledge with politeness, I would too. I don't go to a deviation of yours calling it retarded, do I ? I actually liked your design and could actually give constructive criticism without calling flechette projectiles and coffin magazines retarded on the tin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe retarded is a bit harsh, but I have, and it's crap: effective range is 400 meters (half the required range for the contest, by the way), energy is in the 800 J range, and the muzzle velocity is abysmal at 320 m/s. As opposed to the 6.8 SPC: Velocity is nearly twice that of the 9x39 at 743 m/s and power is more then twice that of the 9mm at 2,297 J, with an effective range of nearly 1000 meters. And the 6.8 only weighs around half as much as the 9, which means soldiers can only carry half as much ammo, and NATO and U.S. Marine Corps research proves that a squad is allways more effective with more ammo. So your round provides no benefit over the 6.8, and huge disadvantages in every sector.
And the M4 is too heavy, one of the requirements of the Individual Carbine project was a lighter weapon, except stupid Colt bribed the government. Anyhow, the FN SCAR is only around 3 kilos, and they're saying that's the next step.
Yeah, a HUNTING round. Actually, it was developed by the Russian military as a subsonic cartridge for use in suppressed weapons, because it's miserable velocity didn't cause a sonic boom. Wether or not it's used for hunting today, it's still a specialized suppressed weapon caliber.
And 9mm, a small hunting round? Yeah, when it's nearly twice the size of the .223 Remington and 2mm bigger then the .308. So yeah, it's small. Also, hunting rounds are usually what would be considered sniper or battle rifle calibers, not intermediate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Think of this round as an improvement over the 9x39. Which is not shit, it's just a completely different type of ammunition, you can't compare it to the general use 6.8 SPC, plus "No benefit over the 6.8 SPC" Is wrong. And you know it. Yes it has disadvantages over the SPC, but it's theoretically better in more than one area, it uses a bigger projectile, hits harder and depending on the load, is faster.
And we're not talking about the 9X39 here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you just said 9X39. And even if you are talking about a totally different round, (did you later say 9x59?) it still has a major problem of weighing a lot more, and being a lot bulkier than the 6.8 SPC, which is a huge disadvantage given NATO and US Marine Corps studies regarding squad ammo load quantities. And it does have no benefit over the 6.8 SPC, it's terminal ballistics are about the same (If we believe in Newton's third law of force equals mass times velocity, your cartridge prefers to increase the mass while the 6.8 perfers velocity (Which by the way means that the 6.8 is going to be more accurate every time)), the only real difference is the actual size of the projectile which is a disadvantage. It can't go faster, that's just not physically possible: a 6.8 mm bullet with a 45 mm case is always going to go faster than a 9 mm bullet with a 59 mm case (Unless you loaded it with a super hot aftermarket load which is going to end up ruining your barrel, And compared it to an SPC with a standard load), do the math for yourself. and as far as hitting harder, tests show that the 6.8 is more than adequate at stopping an armored target, if it does indeed have more power than that, that would just be excessive. And anyway, the maximum lethal range of 400 m is still a huge problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a 9.3x52. Not 59. Not 39.
And you know what ?
I'm done trying to prove a point that won't pierce through your reactive armor plated skull. You're arguing about a drawing like it's a real weapon, and your whining is starting to piss me off. It really seems like you're talking about the 9X39, and it has fucking nothing to do with what we're discussing. I'm really not in the mood for proving terminal ballistics of a fictional drawn cartridge for a guy who takes made up ammo so seriously. You don't like it ? Big deal, you're not the one managing the contest. And even if you were, We're not replacing a weapon. We're just a bunch of dudes who like to draw. Lighten the fuck up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hey, I'm just taking the discussion seriously as you are, and I don't feel that I'm the one who needs to lighten up, given as I'm not desperate enough to resort to swearing. I'd like you to note, that you too were talking about the drawing like it was a real weapon until I started winning the argument. Same thing with taking the fictional cartridge seriously, you were fine with that until I started to win.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What we're having isn't a competition between the two of us. We're just talking about the weapon I drew up. I don't consider this an argument because this isn't based upon opinions, but instead, on scientific facts.
And yeah, I'm taking the discussion seriously, I'm just out of patience really. I am not a very patient person. And let's face it, This is pretty pointless.
And I just straight up like to swear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's the defintion of Argument:
[ahr-gyuh-muhnt]
noun
1.
an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
2.
a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3.
a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
4.
a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5.
an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
#Backpedaling alert!#
Well, if you want smart people to take you seriously you should consider using real english
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Also, after some further research, the maximum range for this cartridge would be much higher, So that needs to be changed indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, Here are some general numbers about this cartridge.
You said the 6.8 SPC was faster and hit harder, well check this out.
The 9.3X52 has a speed of 2,636ft/s, and hits with 4,810 J.
The 6.8 SPC has a speed of 2,460ft/s and hits with 2,186 J
And the 9.3X62 Round, which this was based on has an effective range of about 850 meters off of a 20 inch barrel
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sweet, real numbers! one thing, are these for the '62, or your '52?
That was when I thought you were talking about the 9x39.
Impressive power, but the velocity is less then 200 ft/s faster dispite having a case 7mm longer. I guess it makes up by adding more mass, but with that kind of trade-off accuracy is gunna suffer.
Like I said in the other comment, if adding just 3mm can make the Para more powerful then the .367 Magnum, I imagine removing 10mm is going to do a LOT to change your round.
Here's the deal: it's a cool concept, and if I wanted to stop an elephant or a man in a EOD suit with one shot, it would be my first choice. But most soldiers will never encounter that kind of threat. It's like cutting butter with a katana, sure the katana cuts the butter really well, but that doesn't make it any less impractical and absurd to keep a katana around just to cut butter with, not counting the fact that choping butter with a big ole katana is extremely cumbersome, heavy and tiring.
The issue here is the specification is for a "carbine" rather then a "battle rifle". In the same way that a katana is excellent and exceedingly practical if you want to chop up ninjas, a massive and powerful round is excellent and practical in a battle rifle. But a Carbine (in essence, an even smaller assault rifle) requires a smaller caliber in the same way that a stick of butter requires a smaller knife. A carbine trades the power and accuracy of the battle rifle for maneuverability and the ability to fire on automatic (like a butter knife trades the power of the katana for lighter and easier use on a cutting board and faster, shorter strokes). But automatic fire chews through ammo a lot faster, and the recoil is much more prodigious. This makes big cartridges impractical for two reasons: size and recoil. The first is easy, the bigger and heavier the round the less you can carry. Which is fine when you have the luxury of picking your shots and making each one count, but when you've got an automatic you need to carry as much ammo as possible, because you go through more of it to achieve the same effect. The second is also pretty obvious: heavy recoil is one thing when you can recover after each single shot, but with a fully automatic carbine a heavy recoil will yank you off target really fast. Look at the AKM (most "AK-47"s you see nowadays are actually AKMs, the '47 was an early model replaced in the mid 50s), even when fireing in bursts it is very inaccurate and annoying to shoot because it's heavy recoil causes muzzle climb. Whereas a rile in 5.56, 6.5 or 6.8 can be shot all day without worrying too much about recoil so long as the rate of fire is reasonable.
So which is better, powerful Battle Rifle or automatic Assault Carbine? Whatever the answer is, it's irrelevant here. The contest says carbine, so it's our job to make carbines. Don't get me wrong, I like your concept as a high powered rifle, I'm just trying to help you come up with a better "carbine". You could use the design here with a smaller cartridge, or even go the route of the M110: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
These are actually the '62 values slightly modified to fit the '52 specs.
And regarding the recoil issue, you're right, it would kick like a mule, but when I was drawing it I actually remembered how the AK-10X prototypes had a counter weight system to reduce recoil, at first I thought it was unnecessary and didn't include it in the final project, but now it seems like a good system to incorporate.
And just now it came to me, I didn't think of this weapon to be fit for use in say, Iraq or Afghanistan, where the foes usually aren't using body armor or using advanced weaponry, I thought this out for use against a very well armed enemy force, using advanced body armor which would require such a big caliber at such fast speeds. It really is kind of overkill, and given our current rules of engagement, a round this brutal for use against insurgents would probably be put under the "Too cruel category".
Maybe this could be worked around, seeing as I wouldn't be able to neck the projectile down, I would have to shorten the casing even further, which would require making the projectile lighter to obtain faster speeds, I don't want something subsonic like the 9x39.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
K. You should keep in mind what I said though, 10mm is a lot of cartridge change.
The problem with recoil comp is that it tends to add a lot more parts, and as they say, for every part you add the chance of something breaking increases by a factor of one.
As far as the well equiped enemy force goes, look at small hypersonic rounds like the 5.7x28, it goes through body armor like a chainsaw through rice paper. Or high velocity flechette rounds, same deal (reason I use them, my entry is actually from a universe of mine where ceramic plated combat exoskeletons (think tactical Iron Man, as oposed to stupid wapanese mecha) are the norm for Humans, and the flechettes provide the penetration nessesary). A projectile doesn't have to be huge to do incredible damage, as Nigel Powers said "It's not about size, it's how you use it". And yeah, I think the Geneva Convention would have a fit.
I think the best thing to do is to change the caliber all together. You can retain the idea of a hard-hitting accurate round though, just make it small enough to be manageable in a carbine, maybe a 7x45mm? A little larger then the 5.56 or 6.8, but not overly so. I know Remington has had huge success with 7mm projectiles...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, my first choice for a cartridge was 6x50, But that's a little large too. Maybe an intermediate round could be like a 7.2x47, Big, fast and still won't give the geneva convention a stroke (I can name it something fancy too, like 7.2 HSAP.
I'm still gonna keep the 9.3x52 as a round for this weapon, but instead, I'll place it as an optional feature, like you said, for a M110 or similar platform, this one specially designed for long range situations. I don't need to overthink a carbine.
Actually, Like cityofthesouth said previously, we might already be overthinking this for just a DA contest, But fuck that, we know weapons, let's think about weapons.
And sorry for being an asshole pal, I'm just sour sometimes, you're cool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
a 6 x 50 would be quite impressive as far as velocity goes, 6.5 x 45 Grendel is already damn fast, and you'd be taking off .5 mm of bullet and adding 5 mm of case! yeah, a 7.2 x 47 sounds cool
That seems like a good idea, that way the DMR variant basically just consists of replacing the 7.2 barrel and upper receiver with a 9.3 barrel and upper. Then you just swap it out like the M110. More reliable though, the M. 110 had a nasty habit of getting all gunked up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He's probably right on some level, but where would be the fun in that?
Yeah, my bad too. I can be a little bit stuck up and judgmental at times...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I ended up making a new version for the contest, I just uploaded it and I think I covered pretty much everything I could think of this time around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I saw it, looking good! the "two shot" burst idea is interesting, sort of like an automatic "double tap" (although in technical lingo they are actually called "controlled pairs", but double tap sounds better)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep, I pretty much based it off of the AN-94. Interesting gun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what's particularly interesting to me about the AN94, is that sideways canted mag and the rotary system associated with it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep.
I actually wanted to do that with this gun, but my perspective skills are kind of shitty. The way that gun works is absolutely fascinating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
indeed, but it's a bit overengineered, which is something I would expect from a German weapon rather than a Russian one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol, My thoughts exactly. It's actually kind of hard to find reliable info on the Abakan, The ruskies have the entire thing under wraps kind of.
But I guess the prize of overengineering of the century still goes to the HK G11
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
good old Germans, overengineering guns since the Franco Prussian war
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hotdamn, that thing could be used as a vaulting pole aswell
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, it is a mid-19th century firearm...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh my professor, I stand corrected and bow to you, almighty lord of the english language.
Oh, I see why you're taking me so seriously now, It all makes sense.
Actually, what IS your point with all of this ? What do you expect to accomplish by badmouthing my cartridge choice ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, I'm glad to be considered educated.
I'm actually trying to help, believe it or not. Unlike the others however, you refuse to take critism. I think your cartridge is impractical on many levels, and your design could be improved with a more practical choice
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Also, do you think the pictured magazine is 30 round capacity of your cartridge? It seems short, but maybe I'm over looking something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>