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
Oh, fiddlesticks, I forgot to put that up on the description, It's actually a 28 Round magazine, since the base diameter isn't exactly huge (about 12.1mm).
Oh yeah, also, the caliber isn't exactly all that fictional, it was made in extremely small amounts for a special type of semi auto rifle sometime around 1972(?)
I Could throw in another deviation of the barrel exchange process or just put it up in the description, Is another deviation OK with the rules ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah you can submit as many as you want, but putting the barrel change in the description is fine also.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Throw in how the barrel change works and you've got it made. VERY interesting cartridge and a damn cool lookin piece of kit. Nice work. I love all the detail and the sand test results - a really nice touch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think the caliber's a problem though, doesn't look very practical... Isn't a carbine supposed to be intermediate caliber anyway?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a monster for sure. Yeah it probably should be intermediate, but I left it out of the requirements and even put in that we would accept full power cartridges. I think recoil is going to be an issue here, along with cartridge weight and magazine capacity/size but it's still interesting. If Spatzik can show this weapon capable of utilizing a lighter weight, lower recoil cartridge as well as the original design, it would be pretty solid. Obviously, we're talking about a different barrel, and since the original design is a pretty large case (or appears to be) it's going to be larger than anything considered intermediate which will in turn require a different bolt face. So it would probably mean a new "upper" in order to switch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yeah, studys show that a squad with more ammo is more effective, and a cartridge nearly twice the size of the 5.56 is gunna resrict that majorly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Another reason for a SAW/carbine crossover or ultra light weight machine gun. I understand the weight issue but I think there are several arguments that aren't taken into consideration when stats like that are cited. The most important is how much crap a soldier carries that he shouldn't, and how well supported he is. For one thing, there needs to be a solution to carrying stuff that soldiers don't fight with - food and water. A cart, a buggy, "MULE" or whatever the solution might be, carrying 80 pounds of stuff is the single biggest problem soldiers directly deal with that effects their effectiveness IMO. Next, we know 5.56 can often require more rounds to make a kill and soldiers make the mistake of using 5.56 carbines as machine guns which results in wasted ammunition and creates the appearance that more ammo = more effective. Lastly, and probably less importantly, SAW weight is another issue. If more guys could carry one, then jobs better left to a machine gun could be addressed by a machine gun. But, 20lb guns suck to carry and even 5.56 gets heavy after awhile when carried several hundred rounds at a time. This brings me back to carrying pointless equipment. No matter how little the bullets are, they're gonna get heavy when you carry several hundred of them, so the weight savings should come from the SAW and pointless equipment before we go issuing ineffective ammunition just because it's easy to carry around or just so that we can carry more crap that a soldier shouldn't have on his back in the first place. This is just my opinion though. I think this stuff is slightly too in depth for a contest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, all that is extremely true and relevant.
Well, if you look at the secound one down on the left, my weapon actually functions as a SAW.
And actually, I've noticed an even bigger problem with this design when I looked up the ammunition: his cartridge is only lethal up to 400 m, that's half of what the contest requires. Also its impact power is abysmal at only 800 J compared to over 2000 with the 6.8 SPC, not to mention my Cheyenne Defense caliber, and it's top speed is only 375 m/s ( with a 6.8 SPC clocking in at around 900 m/s). So even disregarding the weight, The bullet he's using isn't nearly as effective as Smaller rounds. Then of course there's a decent reason for all this, the caliber was invented by the Russian military for use with silenced guns, hence the low speed, it was designed to go slower than the speed of sound so it wouldn't make the sonic boom of the more powerful cartridge, and thus be easier to suppress.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
My cartridge isn't the 9X39. Jesus christ fuck it's the 9.3X52, It has nothing to do with the russian military and it wasn't developed for suppressed weapons, stop talking about the 9X39 already, that's what made me pissed off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look at the timestamp, this was before you corrected me on that. It's just that you said 9x39 like five times by accident which made me think that's what you were talking about, sorry for not being able to read your mind
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I said 9X39 five times, but I wasn't referring to the cartridge this weapon uses. I was talking about the practical applications a 9MM projectile has.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, you didn't make that very clear. but for the record, according to the data it would appear there are only two uses for 9 mm projectiles: as a small pistol round, or a short range suppressed rifle round. Maybe as a high-grade anti-material round or "elephant gun" too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I thought at first too, and also what made me shorten the case to 52mm. Honestly it wouldn't be so big.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The U.S. considered the 7.62x51mm too big for an assault rifle, hence the 5.56x45 (which is an abysmal cartridge, but only because of the .22 projectile). The Russian cases are even shorter, generally being 39mm. Even without that you have to consider the weight of that huge 9mm round. Also, you're gonna change the performance drastically by editing the case length: for example, adding only 3mm to the whimpy 9mm Para's case turns it into the .38 Super Auto, which hits harder then the .357 Magnum!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's all arm chair quarterbacking at this point. He's changed the case size and the simple solution to lower bullet weight in order to get better range and trajectory, etc. is a sabot round.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
true, but all this feels like going through a lot of trouble and expense to rig motor on a bicycle when you've got a Harley right next to you, if you take my meaning
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know how it goes, you find something cool ... it becomes an obsession for awhile, it eventually fades. Although, he now has essentially a 9mm barrel .... maybe his gun can be switched to 9mm SMG very easily. And it could use common 9mm suppressors. And maybe since he's got such a large bullet to work with he can use explosive rounds or special anti material rounds .... I can picture a big hollow cavity in the nose to get the projectile down to weight which at common fighting distances might be pretty nasty, especially since he'll have room for a penetrator and lots of extra jacket to expand into a flower of death. Then Sabots for long range work. Then heavy projectiles for indoors work with a suppressor. Actually .... I'm starting to like this thing. But ... I get your meaning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, and for a utility rifle that would be a great idea, just seems a little too big for an automatic carbine. I'm thinking of submiting another design with the ability to use pretty much any caliber or type of magazine you care to name, that way you can get all kinds of vesitility out of it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Recoil is not that much of an issue. Something I'm saying just about 10 times a day, is: I picked this cartridge based not based on wether it was cool and hip. I picked this cartridge because it's practical. The MAP chamber pressure for the 9.3x62 marks at about 56600 PSI. And this would be lower, very similar to a 6.8 SPC, And at the same time being a bigger more effective cartridge. The reason why people should finally stop comparing this to a 7.62x51, are terminal velocities, recoil and chamber pressure.
But apparently. that's impossible since the people saying that don't know crap about weapons and just like to bark nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah once I realized it wasn't as big as it might have "appeared" and put some thought into it, I don't think there is a lot of need for more debate. At the end of the day, you're welcome to go about it however you like. While we can talk about what's going to be more practical all day long, it doesn't violate the requirements and I don't think it's going to come in REAL high on the judging scale unless someone comes up with something that is completely unrealistic. Once you start getting up beyond 7.62NATO then you begin to lose the point in a carbine and that will be a factor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |