Thread: Unofficial TNE errata: small arms

IMHO the two biggies to fix are bipod weight and receiver weight. I'd like to hear some suggestions.

> -----Original Message-----
From: Jake Collins
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2009 1:19 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Unofficial TNE errata: small arms
>
>
> IMHO the two biggies to fix are bipod weight and receiver
> weight. I'd like to hear some suggestions.
>
>
>
What's wrong with requiring a fork lift truck to place your weapons bipod?

Antony

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:18:33 -0000, "Jake Collins"
<> wrote:

>IMHO the two biggies to fix are bipod weight and receiver weight. I'd like to hear some suggestions.

I am no gun nut, so I can't comment on the receiver mass, but I agree
that bipods need to be modified. Their mass should be a fraction of
the weapon mass, not a result from Muzzle Energy.

Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com

>
> >IMHO the two biggies to fix are bipod weight and receiver
> weight. I'd
> >like to hear some suggestions.
>
> I am no gun nut, so I can't comment on the receiver mass, but
> I agree that bipods need to be modified. Their mass should be
> a fraction of the weapon mass, not a result from Muzzle Energy.
>
> Roger Malmstein

There must be examples of bipod weights with the weights of the weapons they
are designed to carry out there. Obviously we would never get an exact match
but a large enough sample would enable some guidelines to be put together.

It does make me wonder how some of the construction rules were put together.

Antony

In FF&S2 for T4, they tried to fix the receiver mass issue by allowing the use of advanced materials rather than just steel. See Table 54: Advanced Receiver Materials on page 90.

In FF&S2 at page 34 they say bipods mass 10 percent of a weapon's empty mass, but at least 0.5kgs.

--- In , "Antony Farrell" <skaran@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > >IMHO the two biggies to fix are bipod weight and receiver
> > weight. I'd
> > >like to hear some suggestions.
> >
> > I am no gun nut, so I can't comment on the receiver mass, but
> > I agree that bipods need to be modified. Their mass should be
> > a fraction of the weapon mass, not a result from Muzzle Energy.
> >
> > Roger Malmstein
>
> There must be examples of bipod weights with the weights of the weapons they
> are designed to carry out there. Obviously we would never get an exact match
> but a large enough sample would enable some guidelines to be put together.
>
> It does make me wonder how some of the construction rules were put together.
>
> Antony
>