Small Arms Ammunition

[monbvol]

The conversion also assumes that a burst capable weapon is always firing a full burst.

So yes if you fudged the conversion process two different weapons with the same AP and BD if firing a single shot will work out the same.

[RifleMech]

It sounds like you're discussing Reload Factor.  I agree it's odd, but it is part of the conversion.  Disposable weapons get around Reload Factor but must track ammo.  Personally, I think tracking ammo is better than the abstraction of Reload Factor.

Which is weird because if the weapon only fires a single shot, why does it matter how much ammo it has? When used by infantry. Small vehicles track ammo but still, it's only firing a single shot. Not all the rounds.

The conversion also assumes that a burst capable weapon is always firing a full burst.

So yes if you fudged the conversion process two different weapons with the same AP and BD if firing a single shot will work out the same.

That's what I thought but looking in AToW they both had the same AP/BD but the ammo was different. TW gives them different damages.

[Daryk]

Which specific weapons are you looking at? 

[Nicoli]

The Highlighted for emphasis gets this reply: I see BT armor as a combination of deflective and ablative properties. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such high to-hit values in-game.  You'd be rolling location and assigning damage only.  Which means it lasts longer than what you would think it should. 

I found my justification for how I see things working.

Deflective and Ablative properties do not work together because they require competing goals. Lets say you take ablative armor, it is going to be designed to take the force and keep it internal to the armor. Now lets take Rigid armor where deflection is often considered the goal. The idea there is to have as little energy as possible kept. So if you put a layer of Ablative armor on top of rigid armor you end up with effectively a free ballistic cap (a malleable metal cap to grip onto the armor) for your enemies projectile. If you put armor designed to deflect on top it will most likely do nothing though you do run the risk of preventing the ablative armor from properly absorbing the round and dissipating the energy.

Rigid armor also has the issue that once it is attacked by a round that can defeat it, it offers little to no protection. This is why in things like tank design, armor would be designed in steps. If you enemy only has 57mm and 75mm guns, and if 2" would stop a 57mm, and 4" would stop a 75mm. you would never put 3" of armor on a vehicle because while it would still stop the 57mm round it would still fail to stop the 75mm round while just weighing the vehicle down reducing mobility and straining the suspension and engine.

If you really want to assume ultra-accurate predictive targetting systems in the battletech world, then the most likely assumption and is actually backed up by the game mechanics, is that Mechs armor is designed like WWII battleships in an all and nothing scheme. That means most of the outer surface of the mech is not armor but a thin layer of either plastic, composite, or sheet metal that is just used to provide form and keep the weather out. The actual armor is under the "Skin" in most places only covering the stuff that matters.

[Nicoli]

3) I haven't read anything about 5.56 composite rounds, so I'm afraid I can't answer that question definitively, but I believe most current 5.56 rifles have sufficient overengineering to be able to fire at least SOME rounds before requiring replacement.

6) No, not right.  As I explained above, the composite casing absorbs more heat into its mass vice conducting it to its exterior surface, and thus the gun.  When the casing is ejected, it takes all that absorbed heat with it, and that is MORE than the brass carries with it.

I'll answer this as a gunsmith

The heat absorption of the shell casing is a non-factor in firearm design. So many things will fail quite catastrophically in a firearm before breach temperature is ever a concern. For example your going to see a barrel failure due to the combined friction of the rifling and the heat from the propellant burning all the way down the barrel long before the chamber will fail. Also the shell casing provides no containment support to the chamber. We have classically used brass casings because of it's elasticity allowing it to expand during firing consistently onto the walls of the chamber while at the same time returning to it's slightly smaller size to allow for easy in loading a live round and extracting the spent casing.  The reason that we haven't used plastic/composite materials in rifle rounds is that until recently we couldn't produce good cheap plastic/composites that could handle the firing cycle of of a casing, general wear, tear, and abuse, and be reliable. plastic/composites have been used in shotgun shells as the tolerances for failure are much lower then in a rifle especially semi-automatics.

as for composite rounds or specifically bullets, you can shoot most of them out of a rifle with no issue, though they are generally LESS effective not more. This comes from the fact that for a round you generally are looking for firing either more mass out of a barrel or the same mass with more velocity, with the latter generally being the more preferable option. There is no composite that I am aware of that is more dense then it's component parts. That means composite bullets are lighter and as such require a physically larger projectile to get the same effect. You would be better off going for either a sub-caliber projectile with a higher density round fired at high velocity such as modern DU and tungsten penetrators, going with better/more propellant to increase velocity, or going into a specially designed round with some sort of special effect being it passive (hollowpoint) or active (HEAP, HESH, Inc., etc...).

[Daryk]

Have you watched any of Task and Purpose's other videos?  They have a few on this topic...

[monbvol]

Which is weird because if the weapon only fires a single shot, why does it matter how much ammo it has? When used by infantry. Small vehicles track ammo but still, it's only firing a single shot. Not all the rounds.

That's what I thought but looking in AToW they both had the same AP/BD but the ammo was different. TW gives them different damages.

The biggest reason an Autorifle has a different damage than a Bolt Action Rifle as an example since both are AP4 BD4 ballistic weapons does simply come down to the fact that the Autorifle is capable of firing bursts and the conversion process in AToW Companion by default always assumes it is firing full burst.

As to why magazine size matters even for something like a Bolt Action Rifle is to make the distinction between maximum rate of fire(if you never had to stop and reload the weapon even via some sort of autoloader process) and practical rate of fire.  Even single fire weapons akin to the Bolt Action Rifle tend to have a noticeably higher maximum rate of fire versus practical rate of fire.  Situations where everyone is reloading at the same time in even an infantry squad are pretty rare.  As is everyone firing at even full practical rate of fire.  These factors are actually somewhat considered desirable in the field as they do tend to minimize how vulnerable troops are.

That is the other big reason why the Bolt Action Rifle will work out different.

As far as ammo being different, well that makes sense as real world Assault Rifles use a round that has less propellant behind them even if it is as big around in diameter as a full rifle round.

How much this might make a difference in AP and BD terms I'm not enough of an expert on the matter to say with a lot of authority.  Battletech clearly uses different ammunition than the current real world though.

[Nicoli]

As to why magazine size matters even for something like a Bolt Action Rifle is to make the distinction between maximum rate of fire(if you never had to stop and reload the weapon even via some sort of autoloader process) and practical rate of fire.  Even single fire weapons akin to the Bolt Action Rifle tend to have a noticeably higher maximum rate of fire versus practical rate of fire.  Situations where everyone is reloading at the same time in even an infantry squad are pretty rare.  As is everyone firing at even full practical rate of fire.  These factors are actually somewhat considered desirable in the field as they do tend to minimize how vulnerable troops are.

Magazine size is fairly irrelevant to practical rate of fire. Any relatively skilled individual which is what we should expect in these games should be able to swap magazines around on any competently designed firearm at a rate that makes it effectively irrelevant, 1 second or less. Top shooters can swap a magazine so quickly they'll have the next round off before the first magazine hits the ground. If you want to see some real insanity here is Jerry Miculek with a revolver! https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

As far as ammo being different, well that makes sense as real world Assault Rifles use a round that has less propellant behind them even if it is as big around in diameter as a full rifle round.

Uh, no... This is entirely inaccurate. Rifles of all types use standardized ammo. While you can see custom loads for firearms these are done on the small scale normally by individual users for specific reasons. These standards are based on the burn rate of a propellant, barrel length, and Chamber specifications. For example an Ar build firing a .300 blackout round will have a shorter barrel then a standard 5.56. because the propellant in a .300 blackout burns at a faster rate. Modern military rifles use smaller caliber rifle ammunition due to weight and size reasons as it is generally better to have more rounds over less available in combat. Hunters used heavier rounds as we want to prevent an animal from suffering and us being generally lazy and not wanting to having to track a wounded animal down.

How much this might make a difference in AP and BD terms I'm not enough of an expert on the matter to say with a lot of authority.  Battletech clearly uses different ammunition than the current real world though.

Wouldn't make a difference at all. Only thing that would make a difference is Weight of the projectile, aerodynamic drag of the projectile, and muzzle velocity. How you get those would be irrelevant.

Edit: This is assuming the projectiles don't have any extra effects like some form of explosive or Incendiary capabilities added.

[monbvol]

Magazine size is fairly irrelevant to practical rate of fire. Any relatively skilled individual which is what we should expect in these games should be able to swap magazines around on any competently designed firearm at a rate that makes it effectively irrelevant, 1 second or less. Top shooters can swap a magazine so quickly they'll have the next round off before the first magazine hits the ground. If you want to see some real insanity here is Jerry Miculek with a revolver! https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM
Uh, no... This is entirely inaccurate. Rifles of all types use standardized ammo. While you can see custom loads for firearms these are done on the small scale normally by individual users for specific reasons. These standards are based on the burn rate of a propellant, barrel length, and Chamber specifications. For example an Ar build firing a .300 blackout round will have a shorter barrel then a standard 5.56. because the propellant in a .300 blackout burns at a faster rate. Modern military rifles use smaller caliber rifle ammunition due to weight and size reasons as it is generally better to have more rounds over less available in combat. Hunters used heavier rounds as we want to prevent an animal from suffering and us being generally lazy and not wanting to having to track a wounded animal down.

Wouldn't make a difference at all. Only thing that would make a difference is Weight of the projectile, aerodynamic drag of the projectile, and muzzle velocity. How you get those would be irrelevant.

Edit: This is assuming the projectiles don't have any extra effects like some form of explosive or Incendiary capabilities added.

I have seen that video before and it is certainly impressive but it is not what you can expect under combat conditions carrying combat loads.

Part of what determines if a weapon is an Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle is if it uses an intermediary cartridge or not.  Like AK-47 versus BAR:

AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm rounds.  .30-06, a full size rifle round, is 7.6-7.8mm depending on where you measure and has an overall length of 85mm.

The rest I certainly defer to your expertise.

[CVB]

Part of what determines if a weapon is an Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle is if it uses an intermediary cartridge or not.  Like AK-47 versus BAR:

AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm rounds.  .30-06, a full size rifle round, is 7.6-7.8mm depending on where you measure and has an overall length of 85mm.

It's the case with AK-47/AKM as well as the original assault rifle, the StG44, and the M2 carbine, which all use(d) shorter, full diameter ammunition (compared to their "partners" Mosin-Nagant, Kar98k and M1 Garand). However, these were all early designs from the 1940s. Ever since, assault rifles have used smaller calibers like 5.56 or 5.45, while full power cartridges (typically 7.62x51 NATO) became the domain of battle rifles like the FN-GL, M14, G3 and later HK417, SCAR-H etc.

[monbvol]

It's the case with AK-47/AKM as well as the original assault rifle, the StG44, and the M2 carbine, which all use(d) shorter, full diameter ammunition (compared to their "partners" Mosin-Nagant, Kar98k and M1 Garand). However, these were all early designs from the 1940s. Ever since, assault rifles have used smaller calibers like 5.56 or 5.45, while full power cartridges (typically 7.62x51 NATO) became the domain of battle rifles like the FN-GL, M14, G3 and later HK417, SCAR-H etc.

Which is part of the distinction I am trying to make, obviously rather poorly.

All the more I'll say is I've watched some interesting two gun and even three gun competition matches where practical rate of fire was very much a thing even among the top competitors.  Which is still a far more forgiving environment for such things than real combat.

[RifleMech]

Which specific weapons are you looking at? 

Auto-Pistol (M&G)
Auto-Pistol (Nambu)

Both are 3B/4 and fire single shots but the M&G does .17 and the Nambu .21. I'm guessing the Nambu does more damage because it has more ammo but they're single shot weapons so more ammo shouldn't matter.

[Daryk]

Yes, Reload Factor is exactly what's causing that.  If you multiply 0.21 by 0.8 (8/10), you get 0.17 after rounding.

[RifleMech]

The biggest reason an Autorifle has a different damage than a Bolt Action Rifle as an example since both are AP4 BD4 ballistic weapons does simply come down to the fact that the Autorifle is capable of firing bursts and the conversion process in AToW Companion by default always assumes it is firing full burst.

As to why magazine size matters even for something like a Bolt Action Rifle is to make the distinction between maximum rate of fire(if you never had to stop and reload the weapon even via some sort of autoloader process) and practical rate of fire.  Even single fire weapons akin to the Bolt Action Rifle tend to have a noticeably higher maximum rate of fire versus practical rate of fire.  Situations where everyone is reloading at the same time in even an infantry squad are pretty rare.  As is everyone firing at even full practical rate of fire.  These factors are actually somewhat considered desirable in the field as they do tend to minimize how vulnerable troops are.

That is the other big reason why the Bolt Action Rifle will work out different.

As far as ammo being different, well that makes sense as real world Assault Rifles use a round that has less propellant behind them even if it is as big around in diameter as a full rifle round.

How much this might make a difference in AP and BD terms I'm not enough of an expert on the matter to say with a lot of authority.  Battletech clearly uses different ammunition than the current real world though.

I understand that bursts are going to do more damage it's the single shots I'm looking at. I get that not everyone will be reloading and firing at the same time but with 1 shot every 10 seconds that's a lot of time for other troops to be doing things. Its even weirder for small support vehicles. They're still firing single shots. That one has more ammo just means it can fire more turns. It shouldn't do more damage.

Yes, Reload Factor is exactly what's causing that.  If you multiply 0.21 by 0.8 (8/10), you get 0.17 after rounding.

Thought so! Thanks.   Which of course leads to why when only one shot is being fired?


And if I understood the rest a hunting rifle will do more damage per round but the assault rifle does more damage overall because more rounds are fired. Which makes sense to me. What I'm wondering, still, is about older rounds. I get that they might not have the armor penetration, maybe, but the rounds   

If my math is right, the muzzle velocity of the Brown Bess is 26% less than the AK-47 but the round fired is 2.3 times bigger. Surely that's going to give the person on the receiving end a very bad day. And that doesn't get into alternative loads either.

[Daryk]

Kinetic energy is proportional to the mass of the projectile, but the square of its velocity.  This is why muzzle velocity is more important.

[Nicoli]

I have seen that video before and it is certainly impressive but it is not what you can expect under combat conditions carrying combat loads.

Part of what determines if a weapon is an Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle is if it uses an intermediary cartridge or not.  Like AK-47 versus BAR:

AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm rounds.  .30-06, a full size rifle round, is 7.6-7.8mm depending on where you measure and has an overall length of 85mm.

The rest I certainly defer to your expertise.

Yeah, he is an obvious outlier. But a most soldier can do a magazine swap in between targets.

The 7.62x39mm like most other combat rounds are selected for ammunition capacity first. With the days of bolt action weapons gone the tactic of fire and maneuver the size of the total round became more important then any other characteristic. More ammo was being used to suppress targets compared to actually kill them. So any round that can get the job done in a smaller package is better. The difference between a 7.62x39 and say the 7.62x54r at the practical combat ranges is negligible, but the weight difference is not.

One of the things, that sadly is the fault of movies, new media, and politicians is that there is no real difference between an Automatic Rifle and an Assualt Rifle. They are terms tossed around but are mostly just used as a refinement of an Idea. A BAR for example would for all intents and purposes be an assault rifle, yet is called an automatic rifle. There is nothing preventing a modern assault rifle from using a larger round, just no real point to it from a tactical perspective. So if anything you can say an Automatic rifle is the predecessor of the Assault Rifle.

And if I understood the rest a hunting rifle will do more damage per round but the assault rifle does more damage overall because more rounds are fired. Which makes sense to me. What I'm wondering, still, is about older rounds. I get that they might not have the armor penetration, maybe, but the rounds   

If my math is right, the muzzle velocity of the Brown Bess is 26% less than the AK-47 but the round fired is 2.3 times bigger. Surely that's going to give the person on the receiving end a very bad day. And that doesn't get into alternative loads either.

Well, part of the issue is that there is a threshold where putting more kinetic energy into a round actually does less damage in practice. This is a big issue with things like Railguns and why they most likely won't be shooting much faster then ballistic weapons in direct fire cases. The more kinetic energy a projectile has the tougher the target has to be to do any real damage. For example shoot a .50 BMG into a paper target and it makes a hole about 1-1.5in across. Put into some clay and watch it split the clay block. This is because the block of clay is substantial enough to provide resistance to the bullet which allows for kinetic energy to transfer to it from the bullet. It's another reason modern militarys went to smaller lighter rounds because there just wasn't a significant benefit to the extra kinetic energy.

[monbvol]

Yeah, he is an obvious outlier. But a most soldier can do a magazine swap in between targets.

Like I said I've seen plenty of two or three gun match videos where having to actually reload under far more stressful conditions than presented in that video, find/identify your target, and actually having to move about carrying your ammo with you made the practical rate of fire show up and be a real consideration.

The 7.62x39mm like most other combat rounds are selected for ammunition capacity first. With the days of bolt action weapons gone the tactic of fire and maneuver the size of the total round became more important then any other characteristic. More ammo was being used to suppress targets compared to actually kill them. So any round that can get the job done in a smaller package is better. The difference between a 7.62x39 and say the 7.62x54r at the practical combat ranges is negligible, but the weight difference is not.

One of the things, that sadly is the fault of movies, new media, and politicians is that there is no real difference between an Automatic Rifle and an Assualt Rifle. They are terms tossed around but are mostly just used as a refinement of an Idea. A BAR for example would for all intents and purposes be an assault rifle, yet is called an automatic rifle. There is nothing preventing a modern assault rifle from using a larger round, just no real point to it from a tactical perspective. So if anything you can say an Automatic rifle is the predecessor of the Assault Rifle.

That's exactly why part of the definition in a lot of circles includes using an intermediary round to be considered an Assault Rifle.

Well, part of the issue is that there is a threshold where putting more kinetic energy into a round actually does less damage in practice. This is a big issue with things like Railguns and why they most likely won't be shooting much faster then ballistic weapons in direct fire cases. The more kinetic energy a projectile has the tougher the target has to be to do any real damage. For example shoot a .50 BMG into a paper target and it makes a hole about 1-1.5in across. Put into some clay and watch it split the clay block. This is because the block of clay is substantial enough to provide resistance to the bullet which allows for kinetic energy to transfer to it from the bullet. It's another reason modern militarys went to smaller lighter rounds because there just wasn't a significant benefit to the extra kinetic energy.

Oh yeah I completely understand all of that.  The concept of over-penetration is something I actually quite understand.  As well as yes weight was an important part of the consideration of why intermediary rounds started becoming more popular.  Another contributing factor was that when nations really looked into it they found most combat just really did not require something effective beyond 500 meters.

Another interesting video from I think it was Inrange on youtube was Ian from Forgotten Weapons and his host talking about how accurate even Designated Marksman Rifles are even zeroed and put on rests and what the accuracy standards of WW2 or so were.  It was really quite interesting.

[SlightlyIrritatedCat]

Also when talking about damage in pre-smokeless firearms versus smokeless firearms there is a huge gulf due to changes in bullet manufacture and design to account for the different qualities of a smokeless cartridge.  For example nearly all the various rifles and carbines with pre-1886 centerfire brass were at between 1100 and 1600 fps.  1600fps was considered a very hot load.  Remember pre-smokeless you needed a big bore round in a service rifle to prevent fouling from causing problems even during a single battle.  Lack of velocity meant typically you were firing 10-13mm unjacketed round-nosed lead bullets somewhere between 300-500 grains.  Big soft slow moving bullets that would expand and mushroom like crazy.  For example a family trick when hunting hogs and bears is to put civil-war era style minie balls into shotgun shells with a rifled choke.  I've personally seen those type of rounds remove limbs, punch exit holes the size of a snack plate, and fling chunks of internal organs that weight two or three pounds out the other side of a hog or bear.  The old unjacketed lead blackpowder service rifles had very different terminal ballistics than a modern jacketed spitzer round, let alone the various steel-jacket or steel-core rounds you see.

[RifleMech]

Kinetic energy is proportional to the mass of the projectile, but the square of its velocity.  This is why muzzle velocity is more important.

Yeah that's a bit beyond me. Plus I don't know the weight of the rounds so I couldn't do the math anyway but we've got the vintage auto-pistol doing 3B/3 while a Gatling is doing 2B/3. That just seems wrong to me. Of course we don't know how vintage is vintage but still, is the C-93 really going to have better penetration than a Gatling Gun from the same time period or a Springfield Rifle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borchardt_C-93
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield

[CVB]

To make it really confusing, TW charging and throwing rules seem to indicate that (at least kinetic) BT damage against magical armor doesn't depend on energy, but momentum (damage=distance travelled times weight divided by ten).

[RifleMech]

Well, part of the issue is that there is a threshold where putting more kinetic energy into a round actually does less damage in practice. This is a big issue with things like Railguns and why they most likely won't be shooting much faster then ballistic weapons in direct fire cases. The more kinetic energy a projectile has the tougher the target has to be to do any real damage. For example shoot a .50 BMG into a paper target and it makes a hole about 1-1.5in across. Put into some clay and watch it split the clay block. This is because the block of clay is substantial enough to provide resistance to the bullet which allows for kinetic energy to transfer to it from the bullet. It's another reason modern militarys went to smaller lighter rounds because there just wasn't a significant benefit to the extra kinetic energy.

I get all that but how does a .30-06 round fired from Springfield Rifle compare to a 5.56mm round from a M16? How does a round from a Brown Bess compare?

Again a big issue is how vintage is vintage? Reading the wiki entry for the Elephant Gun is the one listed in TW the Nitro Express Rifle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_gun If yes, how would the older versions compare? And can we use that to figure out other similar weapons?

Also when talking about damage in pre-smokeless firearms versus smokeless firearms there is a huge gulf due to changes in bullet manufacture and design to account for the different qualities of a smokeless cartridge.  For example nearly all the various rifles and carbines with pre-1886 centerfire brass were at between 1100 and 1600 fps.  1600fps was considered a very hot load.  Remember pre-smokeless you needed a big bore round in a service rifle to prevent fouling from causing problems even during a single battle.  Lack of velocity meant typically you were firing 10-13mm unjacketed round-nosed lead bullets somewhere between 300-500 grains.  Big soft slow moving bullets that would expand and mushroom like crazy.  For example a family trick when hunting hogs and bears is to put civil-war era style minie balls into shotgun shells with a rifled choke.  I've personally seen those type of rounds remove limbs, punch exit holes the size of a snack plate, and fling chunks of internal organs that weight two or three pounds out the other side of a hog or bear.  The old unjacketed lead blackpowder service rifles had very different terminal ballistics than a modern jacketed spitzer round, let alone the various steel-jacket or steel-core rounds you see.

That is why I would love to have stats for these old weapons. Sure, they may not do as well against an armored target but the softer ones will know they were hit. Plus there's other ammo loads besides the ball.

To make it really confusing, TW charging and throwing rules seem to indicate that (at least kinetic) BT damage against magical armor doesn't depend on energy, but momentum (damage=distance travelled times weight divided by ten).

Yeah. There's that too. I know I'm confused.

[Daryk]

Once you understand the conversion formula, you should be able to make reasonable assumptions about what older weapons stats could be.  Generally:

More AP, more TW damage.
More BD, more TW damage.
Higher Burst value, more TW damage.
Incendiary effects, more TW damage.
Splash damage, more TW damage.
Reload factor can only reduce TW damage, and is one way to easily make older weapons "worse" (see the "Rifle (Makeshift)").

[SlightlyIrritatedCat]

That is why I would love to have stats for these old weapons. Sure, they may not do as well against an armored target but the softer ones will know they were hit. Plus there's other ammo loads besides the ball.

Basically the thing is that those differences get rather more granular than even AToW is meant for and are pretty hard to numerically quantify.  If I were trying to put numbers on old style unjacketed lead ball or hollowpoint I'd reduce AP by one and increase BD by one to account for the fact they do terrible damage to flesh and bone but tend to flatten and fragment on even fairly primitive anti-ballistic armor.  I'm not terribly familiar with AToW, but maybe add non-lethal "bruising" type damage when a character's body armor stops such a round. 

Honestly when it comes to BT I would assume that the old Hague accords are basically a historical curiousity.  We have examples of service rifles firing explosive rounds after all.  So I'd assume that their squad GPMG equivalents are going to be rocking a lot more than standard jacketed ball.  They're probably running belts that are something like (steelcore/hollowpoint/hollowpoint/infra-red tracer) or (hollowpoint/AP/explosive/tracer)

[RifleMech]

Once you understand the conversion formula, you should be able to make reasonable assumptions about what older weapons stats could be.  Generally:

More AP, more TW damage.
More BD, more TW damage.
Higher Burst value, more TW damage.
Incendiary effects, more TW damage.
Splash damage, more TW damage.
Reload factor can only reduce TW damage, and is one way to easily make older weapons "worse" (see the "Rifle (Makeshift)").

It's the Reload Factor I'm getting hung up on. It only makes sense if the guns are emptying their entire payload during the turn. In which case, why bother with bursts?  It's like dropping the vehicle scale machine gun's damage in half when it only has a half a ton of ammo.

The makeshift rifle is also a problem. It's improvised. Not something carefully crafted yet it does more damage than older precision made weapons? I'd swap the AP/BD for the Makeshift Rifle for the Gatling or something.

Basically the thing is that those differences get rather more granular than even AToW is meant for and are pretty hard to numerically quantify.  If I were trying to put numbers on old style unjacketed lead ball or hollowpoint I'd reduce AP by one and increase BD by one to account for the fact they do terrible damage to flesh and bone but tend to flatten and fragment on even fairly primitive anti-ballistic armor.  I'm not terribly familiar with AToW, but maybe add non-lethal "bruising" type damage when a character's body armor stops such a round. 

Honestly when it comes to BT I would assume that the old Hague accords are basically a historical curiousity.  We have examples of service rifles firing explosive rounds after all.  So I'd assume that their squad GPMG equivalents are going to be rocking a lot more than standard jacketed ball.  They're probably running belts that are something like (steelcore/hollowpoint/hollowpoint/infra-red tracer) or (hollowpoint/AP/explosive/tracer)

That's what I would have thought they'd do only "Vintage" weapons get worse as they get older. I think it's because older weapons are vastly underrated because they're old and often have a slower rate of fire. They forget how damaging the weapons are.

We do have various ammo types for weapons in AToW but they're mostly either ignored or averaged together. Both of which I think is wrong.
 

[Daryk]

I don't much like Reload Factor myself (as I've said before).  I would much rather just track ammo.  But it is part of the rule system, at least for now.

[SlightlyIrritatedCat]

I don't much like Reload Factor myself (as I've said before).  I would much rather just track ammo.  But it is part of the rule system, at least for now.

It's honestly why one of my House Rules whenever possible is that small arms just plain don't damage mech scale armor at all.  I split infantry unit attack values so they have an anti-infantry attack using their small arms, and a completely separate mech-scale attack calculated using JUST their heavy weapons.  Because there is a limit to ablativeness beyond which it becomes farcical.

[Daryk]

I think the AP vs. BAR system works fine outside of Reload Factor.  It's not actually that easy for an individual weapon to get to the magical 0.5 of TW damage.  The Auto-Rifle is literally an edge case.

[idea weenie]

I don't much like Reload Factor myself (as I've said before).  I would much rather just track ammo.  But it is part of the rule system, at least for now.

How about making it where weapons do different damage based on shots fired?  But reduce the average damage per bullet when more shots are fired?  This would be for TW Battlemech-scale combat, not for infantry-scale combat.

So using an assault rifle as an example:
you get the most damage per bullet when firing single shot, and the trooper has the lightest ammo load
you get the most damage per turn when firing in full-auto mode, but you have to carry a lot of ammo
3-shot burst provides an average between the two

Using the following numbers as examples (i.e. not actual numbers, just to show the hypothetical difference)
Single shot: does 1 pt of damage per turn (the shooter can take extra time to aim properly)
Triple-shot: does 1.5 damage per turn (some careful aiming, the second and third rounds are likely to miss)
10-round full-auto: 3-4 pts damage per turn (spray & pray, not all rounds will hit, and not all will hit the right spot, but there is still a lot of shots going down range)

Assuming clips store 30 bullets, and you want 60 turns of infantry fire*:
Single shot: carry the assault rifle and 2 clips
Triple shot: carry the assault rifle and 6 clips
10-round full auto: carry the assault rifle and 20 clips

Carrying more clips will mean less available kilogrammage for carrying other stuff (i.e. better body armor, better sensors, infantry TAG, etc)

* turns of infantry fire would be part of the Infantry platoon construction rules, where whichever main weapon is selected for the platoon, you take the value '60', multiply that by the ammunition consumption rate, then divide that by the magazine/clip/battery/flask capacity, round up, and that is how many magazine/clip/battery/flask each infantryman needs to carry.  So if they are armed with pistols having clips carrying 11 shots each, and want to use single-shot, that is 60 * 1 / 11 = 60 / 11 = 6 clips.  If they had wanted to double-tap, that would be 11 clips of ammo.  This value of '60' can be changed to whatever TPTB decide is appropriate.  I figured it was a good value for an infantry unit able to fight 2 battles of 30 turns each, firing each turn.

For weapons that need multiple turns to reload (i.e. muskets), they would technically fire at a slower rate (2-3 rounds per minute), you could set the whole unit as firing at the same time, or take an average for the damage.  So if the musket unit took 3 turns to reload and did .3 damage per musket, then each musket could be treated as doing .1 damage.  Or you could set the musket unit as needing 2 turns of not firing before it can fire again, but each musket would do .3 damage.  Switching freely between the two during a BT-scale battle or tracking individual reload times would not be recommended.  (actual numbers will vary, I just wanted to make the math easy)

[Daryk]

The current conversion actually already does the "less damage per bullet" trick.  A single shot 4P/4BD weapon (with a 1 Reload Factor) does 0.28 TW damage.  The 15-round burst of an Auto-Rifle does 0.52, which is only 0.035 per bullet.  A 3-round burst would be 0.36. and 10 would be 0.44.  My point here is that the damage spread is much narrower than your example.  Going from 1 round to 15 gets you a bit less than twice the damage.

As for basic load vs. combat load, 7 magazines seems to be a typical modern basic load, but combat loads tend to be more (and vary widely).

[RifleMech]

I don't much like Reload Factor myself (as I've said before).  I would much rather just track ammo.  But it is part of the rule system, at least for now.

   I'd rather track ammo.

It's honestly why one of my House Rules whenever possible is that small arms just plain don't damage mech scale armor at all.  I split infantry unit attack values so they have an anti-infantry attack using their small arms, and a completely separate mech-scale attack calculated using JUST their heavy weapons.  Because there is a limit to ablativeness beyond which it becomes farcical.

That sounds good but saying no mech-scale attacks means anything with armor is immune to standard infantry weapons. Including the family car.

How about making it where weapons do different damage based on shots fired?  But reduce the average damage per bullet when more shots are fired?  This would be for TW Battlemech-scale combat, not for infantry-scale combat.

(snip)

Damage should be based on shots fired. The issue is determining shots fired. Unless infantry are going to have more than one attack per turn then we're limited to a single shot or burst per turn. Which is fine.

Tacking ammo is also fine. If you need to reload either don't shoot that turn or roll for a fumble. Successful roll, and your shooting the same turn. Fumble and you can't shoot that turn. Hits and fumbles can be rolled on the cluster chart. Reload turn and the platoon has 4 fumbles. The other 24 troopers keep firing and 16 hit for X damage. The issue with this is tracking ammo. Do we do it per trooper or the whole platoon? Whole platoon is easier. Troopers who fumbled just reload anyway. Better to have a full magazine, than a half empty one. Just in case. But tracking per trooper is possible too. We'd be doing that for support weapons anyway.

And that's for weapons that are easy to reload. I'm totally okay with some weapons needing a turn in between to reload. I don't think muzzle loaders can fire better than 3 rounds a minute anyway. Unless of course they're doubling up or using buck and ball, and other such loads.

And I do think there should be multiple attacks. Physical Weapons shouldn't be hitting at rifle range.