The Bears Pit: Vanilla Modding

Home » SIRTECH CLASSICS » Jagged Alliance: Unfinished Business » Vanilla Modding » Magazine sizes

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Magazine sizes[message #101290]

Tue, 27 April 2004 01:56

Tyco

Messages:188
Registered:September 2001
Location: Be'er Sheva, Israel

It seems more efficient that the magazine should determine the amount of rounds a rifle can carry rather then the rifle itself. This way, the Glock 18 can accept the 30-round 9mm magazine, as it should be capable of, and machine guns can accept both the normal 30/20 round magazines as well as higher capacity magazines. The M-16 and Commando can also accept such high-capacity magazine (the infamous Beta-C 100 round magazine).

Basicly, all rifles will show a 0/0 value when empty. Once a magazine is inserted, that value changes to represent the magazine's content/max rounds (for example, a 5.56mm 30 round mag will show 30/30 if full, or xx/30 for any other value).

Some types of weapons can't take different sizes of magazines. Semi-auto 9mm handguns, for example, can't accept the 30-round 9mm magazine like the Beretta 93R and Glock 18 (maybe there are exceptions). Some assault rifles can't accept high-capacity magazines. This means that each weapon has a "hidden value" that determins its maximum mag size, but visualy the magazine determins how much shots a weapon can fire before it depletes.

Report message to a moderator

Staff Sergeant

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101291]

Mon, 03 May 2004 07:43

PsyckoSama

Messages:9
Registered:April 2004

I say keep magazine simple except for maybe guns that are well know for useing more than one magazine type, like the SAW whuch should be magazine or belt fed.

Though I do agree some weapons should have extra large mags, what you're recomending is more an attachment. If you attach a drum mag to an assault rifle it should have a MAJOR boost in capability but at the same time it should make reloading a pain.

Report message to a moderator

Private

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101292]

Mon, 03 May 2004 08:08

Kurt

Messages:420
Registered:March 2004

Indeed. In reality the weapon's max ammo capacity is only fixed for revolvers (and shotguns). You could imagine building a 500-round magazine for your pistol; The question is if you are still able to use it after that...
For simplicity's sake we should better settle for a finite amount of different magazine sizes, especially since the user will always go for the biggest he can carry...

I'd like to see some difference concerning belt/magazine feed: If you're using ammunition belts, you can't just grab the gun and shoot. You have to put the weapon down (unless you have 4 hands), feed in the belt, check the belt won't jam (or fix the box), and only then you can pull the trigger.
Of course it only applies to LMGs, that would be only 2-3 weapons; HMGs would be only belt fed (except AA!).

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101293]

Mon, 03 May 2004 08:27

PsyckoSama

Messages:9
Registered:April 2004

Quote:

Indeed. In reality the weapon's max ammo capacity is only fixed for revolvers (and shotguns). You could imagine building a 500-round magazine for your pistol; The question is if you are still able to use it after that...
For simplicity's sake we should better settle for a finite amount of different magazine sizes, especially since the user will always go for the biggest he can carry...

http://www.birdman.org/products/uzimag.htm :ok:

Quote:

I'd like to see some difference concerning belt/magazine feed: If you're using ammunition belts, you can't just grab the gun and shoot. You have to put the weapon down (unless you have 4 hands), feed in the belt, check the belt won't jam (or fix the box), and only then you can pull the trigger.
Of course it only applies to LMGs, that would be only 2-3 weapons; HMGs would be only belt fed (except AA!).

That would be a pain in the ass, but realistic with a LMG...

Report message to a moderator

Private

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101294]

Mon, 03 May 2004 13:07

ADG Wraith

Messages:22
Registered:September 2000
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia

Quote:

I'd like to see some difference concerning belt/magazine feed: If you're using ammunition belts, you can't just grab the gun and shoot. You have to put the weapon down (unless you have 4 hands), feed in the belt, check the belt won't jam (or fix the box), and only then you can pull the trigger.

Bullshit.
Your average LMG will feed the belt in just fine whilst you hold the pistol grip. F89 (or SAW) will also often contain a magazine for link, either 100 or 200 rounds (when they get reasonably old, they can even fit another 50 rounds).

You fire an LMG on a bipod or from the hip. If you're firing from the hip, it's a couple of second burst until you hit the deck, balance the weapon on the bipod and the butt in your shoulder, then crack on another hundered-odd rounds and fire away. Weapons don't really need to be crew served unless they're firing in Sustained Fire Machine Gun (SFMG) role or if they're bigger than 7.62mm. Even then, the gunner just holds teh weapon, the other bloke will load and feed the belt.

Report message to a moderator

Private 1st Class

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101295]

Wed, 05 May 2004 03:10

Kurt

Messages:420
Registered:March 2004

quote:
Originally posted by PsyckoSama:
http://www.birdman.org/products/uzimag.htm :whoknows:
Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101296]

Wed, 05 May 2004 10:51

ADG Wraith

Messages:22
Registered:September 2000
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia

Those boxes are for storage, not actual combat.
Many lighter LMGs (5.45 or 5.56) will have detachable magazines that feed link or rounds into the gun. Loose-belts (like the MAG58) will be held with about 15 rounds hanging off the weapon. By the time you've hit the ground, you're attaching another 50 or 100 to the loose end. Crew-serving a weapon (having a loader) isn't really necessary unless you're firing SFMG (10 round bursts, usually from a tripod).

Report message to a moderator

Private 1st Class

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101297]

Wed, 05 May 2004 14:42

markpoll

Messages:101
Registered:November 2002
Location: sydney

I was in the Australian army in the late 70s and for a while was the guy who got to lug the M60 around, so I'm not ignorant about this issue, at least about the practicalities of operating an LMG in the field. However, my knowledge is ancient history and I haven't kept up to date and it would seem from what I see on TV Wink

that it's quite different now, though Wraith's post suggests it isn't.

I'm not sure you should go too far with realism, but what I'd like to see, if its practical to do this, is to have 2 "mags" and hence firing modes for LMGs. Normal/mobile mode would involve a mag fitted. I'd guess from the pictures I've seen that such mags have a belt in them with at most 100 rounds and probably a lot less. With this you could move normally. Fixed mode would be when you replace the mag with a belt. Here you'd have to be prone and can't move (or maybe have an increased AP cost for moving) but get an increased rate of fire (maybe more bullets per burst, lower AP cost to fire & lower burst penalty?) and maybe area of effect fire would only be available in this mode.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101298]

Wed, 05 May 2004 18:23

tuccy

Messages:19
Registered:June 2003
Location: Czech Republic

Quote:

Originally posted by drop bear:
I was in the Australian army in the late 70s and for a while was the guy who got to lug the M60 around, so I'm not ignorant about this issue, at least about the practicalities of operating an LMG in the field. However, my knowledge is ancient history and I haven't kept up to date and it would seem from what I see on TV that it's quite different now, though Wraith's post suggests it isn't.

I'm not sure you should go too far with realism, but what I'd like to see, if its practical to do this, is to have 2 "mags" and hence firing modes for LMGs. Normal/mobile mode would involve a mag fitted. I'd guess from the pictures I've seen that such mags have a belt in them with at most 100 rounds and probably a lot less. With this you could move normally. Fixed mode would be when you replace the mag with a belt. Here you'd have to be prone and can't move (or maybe have an increased AP cost for moving) but get an increased rate of fire (maybe more bullets per burst, lower AP cost to fire & lower burst penalty?) and maybe area of effect fire would only be available in this mode.

Seems to be a good idea...

AFAIK Czech vz.52 (7.62x45mm), vz.52/57 (7.62x39) and vz.59 (7.62x54mm R) universal machineguns have either calssic belt feeding, if used as SFMG, or a sort of magasine for 50-rounds belt, used in LMG role to easily carry the weapon.

I think something similar is also with PKM

AFAIK Minimi uses regurarily a plastic magasine with 200-rds belt.

Report message to a moderator

Private

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101299]

Sat, 08 May 2004 07:34

tuccy

Messages:19
Registered:June 2003
Location: Czech Republic

While this thread is about magasine sizes, one idea came to my mind:
What about buying ammunition in xx-round boxes, rather than magasines, so fist you have to do to use the weapon is to push the rounds into magasines? I have read an experience of Vietnam veteran and he was writing that every grunt carried for M16 18 magasines, 20rds each, and 300 rounds on stripper clips.

Report message to a moderator

Private

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101300]

Mon, 10 May 2004 09:53

ADG Wraith

Messages:22
Registered:September 2000
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia

As is often the case. I usually carried 5-12 magazines, but then you carry extra bags of loose in your webbing and pack (where necessary). You also carry belts of ammunition for the gun if you're one of the extras.

The two mags Idea could work... maybe have two modes for the weapon- bipod out and bipod up, for when you're down firing or up moving, respectively. then you have a short belt and a long belt, with the short one only able to be used when you're in the "bipod out" condition.

@dropbear- where did you serve? what unit?

Report message to a moderator

Private 1st Class

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101301]

Thu, 13 May 2004 15:53

markpoll

Messages:101
Registered:November 2002
Location: sydney

@Wraith. Duntroon & field engineers (5 Field Squadron), but that's nearly 30 years ago. No combat or overseas postings, but it was not long after Vietnam, so I served with a lot of guys who's seen combat, which made the exercises fairly sharp. BTW carrying the M60 was IMO a far better job than carrying the radio, well the one they used then.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101302]

Thu, 13 May 2004 19:04

Tyco

Messages:188
Registered:September 2001
Location: Be'er Sheva, Israel

Heh. I carried that radio in the service. Damn unsightly thing; heavy, bolky and ugly.

Report message to a moderator

Staff Sergeant

Re: Magazine sizes[message #101303]

Fri, 14 May 2004 15:14

markpoll

Messages:101
Registered:November 2002
Location: sydney

I wasn't a radio operator, so only carried it a few times on "boot camp" exercises. I carried it on a 72 hour patrol one time and found at the end of a long days march I'd lost feeling in both arms (I was too exhausted/entranced to notice that earlier)

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant

Previous Topic:	release
Next Topic:	Tactical Vehicles

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Fri Jan 10 08:03:59 GMT+2 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01803 seconds