Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You'd have to consider that Autoguns would likely be more powerful than today's rifles by default due to being made of more advanced alloys and materials also as they are quoted to roughly be equivalent to lasguns in stopping and penetrating power.

General autoguns are also described as being very heavy and unwieldy due to the large size and weight of their ammo and
I'd also like to point out that large triangular shape sitting just behind and and underneath the barrel is a weight to counter the recoil of the weapon, so they do kick alot.

So I really wouldn't consider an Autogun equivalent to any modern firearm given the massive difference in overall bulk, stopping power and many other factors especially as the size of their ammo seems to be huge

Also this passage from Seige or the Vraks should add some more detail.

Keep in mind that Autoguns do not only come in one single caliber, the designation applies to any and all slug-throwing weapons.

An 8.25mm rifle round is very large, larger than anything used by a major military for their standard service round since IIRC the 1880's, most were 8mm (really 7.92 typically) or smaller, most modern armies use a round that's between 5mm and 6mm (e.g. 5.45x39 in Russia, 5.56x45 for most NATO countries and a few others, 5.8x42 in China)

The closest real life equivalent you'll find to an 8.25mm autogun is probably something shooting 7.62x51mm NATO, like a G3/CETME/FNFAL with a full-auto setting. Not particularly controllable on full auto, a big part of the reason in moving to smaller rounds (in addition to increased ammunition carrying capacity).

 Vaktathi wrote:
Keep in mind that Autoguns do not only come in one single caliber, the designation applies to any and all slug-throwing weapons.

An 8.25mm rifle round is very large, larger than anything used by a major military for their standard service round since IIRC the 1880's, most were 8mm (really 7.92 typically) or smaller, most modern armies use a round that's between 5mm and 6mm (e.g. 5.45x39 in Russia, 5.56x45 for most NATO countries and a few others, 5.8x42 in China)

The closest real life equivalent you'll find to an 8.25mm autogun is probably something shooting 7.62x51mm NATO, like a G3/CETME/FNFAL with a full-auto setting. Not particularly controllable on full auto, a big part of the reason in moving to smaller rounds (in addition to increased ammunition carrying capacity).

I just wish we'd start using flechettes. Those things are awesome and are far superior in killing power, not to mention are just cool in general. Pretty much lawn darts hurled at supersonic speeds, SABOT style.

 Johnson101 wrote:
You'd have to consider that Autoguns would likely be more powerful than today's rifles by default due to being made of more advanced alloys and materials also as they are quoted to roughly be equivalent to lasguns in stopping and penetrating power.

General autoguns are also described as being very heavy and unwieldy due to the large size and weight of their ammo and
I'd also like to point out that large triangular shape sitting just behind and and underneath the barrel is a weight to counter the recoil of the weapon, so they do kick alot.

So I really wouldn't consider an Autogun equivalent to any modern firearm given the massive difference in overall bulk, stopping power and many other factors especially as the size of their ammo seems to be huge

Also this passage from Seige or the Vraks should add some more detail.

Actually judging by that picture that shape you are referring to appears to be a bayonet lug.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Keep in mind that Autoguns do not only come in one single caliber, the designation applies to any and all slug-throwing weapons.

An 8.25mm rifle round is very large, larger than anything used by a major military for their standard service round since IIRC the 1880's, most were 8mm (really 7.92 typically) or smaller, most modern armies use a round that's between 5mm and 6mm (e.g. 5.45x39 in Russia, 5.56x45 for most NATO countries and a few others, 5.8x42 in China)

The closest real life equivalent you'll find to an 8.25mm autogun is probably something shooting 7.62x51mm NATO, like a G3/CETME/FNFAL with a full-auto setting. Not particularly controllable on full auto, a big part of the reason in moving to smaller rounds (in addition to increased ammunition carrying capacity).

I just wish we'd start using flechettes. Those things are awesome and are far superior in killing power, not to mention are just cool in general. Pretty much lawn darts hurled at supersonic speeds, SABOT style.

Supersonic lawn darts sound a bit like the name of a band .

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Keep in mind that Autoguns do not only come in one single caliber, the designation applies to any and all slug-throwing weapons.

An 8.25mm rifle round is very large, larger than anything used by a major military for their standard service round since IIRC the 1880's, most were 8mm (really 7.92 typically) or smaller, most modern armies use a round that's between 5mm and 6mm (e.g. 5.45x39 in Russia, 5.56x45 for most NATO countries and a few others, 5.8x42 in China)

The closest real life equivalent you'll find to an 8.25mm autogun is probably something shooting 7.62x51mm NATO, like a G3/CETME/FNFAL with a full-auto setting. Not particularly controllable on full auto, a big part of the reason in moving to smaller rounds (in addition to increased ammunition carrying capacity).

I just wish we'd start using flechettes. Those things are awesome and are far superior in killing power, not to mention are just cool in general. Pretty much lawn darts hurled at supersonic speeds, SABOT style.

Supersonic lawn darts sound a bit like the name of a band .

No, it's the name of doooom. DOOOOM.

 Awcalaj wrote:
Actually judging by that picture that shape you are referring to appears to be a bayonet lug.

It would make an awful lot of sense if it did both

Yeah, it's for bayonets. See that ring there? That's where the bayonet goes.
Or at least, that's where it would go if the bayonet ring was on the gun and not the knife.

The point of modern military firearms isnt to kill someone, its to wound them. A wounded soldier is a bigger drain on enemy logistics and resources than a dead one. Kill a guy and youve removed a soldier from the battlefield. Wound a guy and youve removed him, several of his squad mates, a medic, and the crew of an ambulance vehicle or helicopter from the battlefield.

The Imperial Answer wrote:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/1/13/Ia6-148-Autogun.jpg

]http://www.armyproperty.com/Equipment-Info/Pictures/HK416.jpg

This variant of auto-gun does have a passing resemblance to the HK.

Maybe, but it's really just the same art they've been using for the Autogun since 1987, lol.

Here's a ganger from Necromunda with it: http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/images/0/09/Escher_with_autogun.jpg

Or, even better, a Space Marine: http://www.peteandkellie.com/images/ebay/space_marine_autogun_medium.jpg


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The point of modern military firearms isnt to kill someone, its to wound them.

This is a myth.

Combat casualties have that side benefit from time to time. The idea of smaller caliber weapons wasn't to reduce lethality, it was simply to allow soldiers to carry more ammunition for the same amount of weight and make sustained rapid fire more accurate with more manageable weaponry. This is one of those things that gets repeated often enough that people start to believe it. You know, like the idea that you can't shoot .50 caliber machineguns at people or that there haven't been plastic Sisters of Battle models because Games Workshop is too stupid to make a profit on an obvious winner.

Certain weapons were developed for their ability to wound people, like the toe-popper mines. But again. a lot of that has to do with weight (they're significantly lighter than regular anti-personal mines so you can carry a lot more of them) and also with the nature of the weapon's employment (area denial).

However, the idea of a wounded enemy consuming resources requires you to fight an enemy who is actually worried about consuming resources to patch up their troops. And the idea that there ]are the resources available to be consumed at any given moment to patch them up.

The reality is that there will always be compromise in weapons development. The transition from 7.62mm (and similar) weapons to 5.56N was one of those.

Yeah, the decrease in caliber had to do with logistics, not altruism.
Another thing to note is that lower-caliber weapons tended to have less recoil, making it easier for new recruits to handle.

Ive heard thr "myth" argument before, personally im not convinced given that there is documentation indicating that the 5.56x54mm round was selected because it was in part less lethal than other alternatives. There is also documentation and quotes from military brass, engineers, and logisticians to support this. In fact, the original US specification for the 5.56 round was rejected because it was too lethal and wounds caused were considered "too severe" and a mpre humane Belgian specification was used instead.

thats why I just shot them a few more times......

Real life equivalent of an autogun: automatic rifle firing a bullet. You really can't get more specific than that, because there can be all kinds of autoweapons, just like there are all kinds of real life slugthrowers. At most you could maybe narrow it down to specific kinds (EG autoguns use low mass/high velocity rounds.. maybe.. and stubbers use high mass/low velocity rounds. Which works fine if you don't get into 'cannon' territory just fine.) The whole 'cased vs caseless' is just one example of the variation possible.

And whether 'big vs small' bullets is more desirable is a whole nother kettle of fish and one not likely to be easily resolved. Even the thread seems to be going that way regardless.

8.25mm caliber alone means nothing... it could be a bullet with 8.25mm but only as big of a cartridge as RL 7,62mm. The bullet could also be very light, meaning that it would loose it's energy fairly fast, and it might have a ballistically sub-optimal shape, which leads ot the same result. Is it really that important though? Those figures only count for the agripinaa pattern anyway. It doesn't say there are no other kinds of autoguns.


Here's my take on an agripinaa pattern autogun, scaled to realistic proportions

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ive heard thr "myth" argument before, personally im not convinced given that there is documentation indicating that the 5.56x54mm round was selected because it was in part less lethal than other alternatives. There is also documentation and quotes from military brass, engineers, and logisticians to support this. In fact, the original US specification for the 5.56 round was rejected because it was too lethal and wounds caused were considered "too severe" and a mpre humane Belgian specification was used instead.

Chaos, I normally agree with you but, not here.

I am not really going to get involved, it is still a myth IMO. Ever hear of the Geneva convention? Yeah. We have to be humane. Besides, when firing, center mass is the way to go. Best target. I think I will leave this part for Vet sergeant though or anyone more versed. I didn't do much in the service.

As for autoguns, well. I would assume a lot can change in 37-38 millenia. I mean you basically have ogres in space to hold these things alongside toughened guard from millions of worlds, right?

 Stormwall wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ive heard thr "myth" argument before, personally im not convinced given that there is documentation indicating that the 5.56x54mm round was selected because it was in part less lethal than other alternatives. There is also documentation and quotes from military brass, engineers, and logisticians to support this. In fact, the original US specification for the 5.56 round was rejected because it was too lethal and wounds caused were considered "too severe" and a mpre humane Belgian specification was used instead.

Chaos, I normally agree with you but, not here.

I am not really going to get involved, it is still a myth IMO. Ever hear of the Geneva convention? Yeah. We have to be humane. Besides, when firing, center mass is the way to go. Best target. I think I will leave this part for Vet sergeant though or anyone more versed. I didn't do much in the service.

As for autoguns, well. I would assume a lot can change in 37-38 millenia. I mean you basically have ogres in space to hold these things alongside toughened guard from millions of worlds, right?

Sort of. The Ogres use over sized shotguns

Auto guns are not solely specified. The design could be any size or type with in reason. There not mass produced on forgeworld but in hives, or underhives even.

Still be perfectly fluffy to equip with ak47 or m16, or any variations on a bullet firing weapon. There could be thousands of unique patterns or even more than that.

Well, technically the AK-47 and M16 would not be autoguns, as autoguns are caseless.

Stub weapons are closer to what we have today. In fact, some stub pistols (or stub guns, confusingly enough) look a lot like today's handguns

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Stub_gun

I wouldn't be surprised if there were an type of kalashnikov autogun though, considering how diverse they are meant to be.
Ak-M40 has a nice ring to it.
I wonder if there are any AK-47 models I can give to Valhallans / Vostroyans...

OK, caseless and slightly more advanced. But not too fancy.

Well a stub rifle then, but still point stands that design or calibre and quality will vary massively.

Yeah, good ring, plus impirium might apecate the sheer rugged design of the ak47/ cheap and reliable with little experience and education needed to operate.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, technically the AK-47 and M16 would not be autoguns, as autoguns are caseless.

No autoguns are not exclusively caseless. This may have been the case in early editions, like the bolter, but it isn't anymore.
Stub Guns do not fire in automatic mode, only Semi automatic at best

6th and 7th seem to have gone back to the fluff of them being caseless, but as is with other stuff in 40K it depends on the sources you look at. some of the artwork of autoguns seems to have them with ejection ports and cased ammo, for example.

And technically macrocannon are supposed to be caseless (they call under the autoweapon category in 6th as I recall) and yet they are depicted with cased ammo as well.

Given the lack of true technological and industrial standardization in the Imperium its likely that you have many different calibers and styles of loading and firing weapons (differences in designs used, materials used, propellant, etc.)

It can also be a matter of tradeoff. Cased ammo has a benefit over caseless in that the hot casings can carry off excess heat from the firing process (acting as a sort of heat sink) - with no casing you'd have to rely on some other means to compensate for that (or accept that your weapon will heat up faster.) In fact, this can blend well with the 'inconsistent tech levels' I mentioned above, as reliable 'caseless' autoguns may rely on a better propellant than cased ammo, or more thermally resilient materials incorporated into the gun, etc.

Keep wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, technically the AK-47 and M16 would not be autoguns, as autoguns are caseless.

No autoguns are not exclusively caseless. This may have been the case in early editions, like the bolter, but it isn't anymore.
Stub Guns do not fire in automatic mode, only Semi automatic at best

Heavy Stubbers, a form of stub guns, say otherwise.

Yeah, you have to assume there are a bajillion forms of autogun, just like flak armor ranges from a helmet and chest plate to a headband and tank top.

There are ofc exceptions, but my old books seem to say stubbers of all sorts are mostly like our cased-ammo guns of today. Maybe with improved ammo. Autoguns are usually described as a bit (not much) more advanced, often firing caseless hyper-velocity rounds.

Things change over time. It used to be in 1st and 2nd that the vast majority of weapons (even 'sniper' weapons like needle rifles) never had stocks. There was even an internal rationalization for it in 1st edition (2m per inch was the distance, and you could get a 10x range modifier for projectile and 5x modifier for energy and certain kinds of other weapons) which mean most 40K weapons had an extreme (as in 'chance to hit something') range limit of a few hundred metres (which you would never reach likely because of the lack of stock anyhow.)

Rogue trader 1st page 6 wrote:Warhammer 40,000 has been designed around a ground scale of 1 tabletop inch = 2 metres of real distance. Tabletop distances are expressed in inches and imperial units within the rules. "real" distances are expressed in metric measurements.

..

The ranges and effectiveness of weapons have been calculated from the basis of individual weapons firing a single shot or blast at a single target. Most of the rules used for historical wargames assume massed ranks of firers blasting away at a massed target. For this reason, ,the ranges and effectiveness of Warhammer 40,000 weapons may seem comparatively low, but we believe that this is reasonably accurate, and it does give a better game.

RT 1st page 68 wrote:..try to remember that the universe of the future is very different from that of today, brute force and fear are the most potent of all weapons. The hand-to-hand fighting reputation of a unit may be in itself sufficient to put down a rebellion. Technology and sophisticated weapons systems have no place in this universe. Equipment must work and, where possible, it must be easy to manufacture on worlds where the only building materials are wood, stone and metal ores. Try to remember that a weapon's combat effectiveness is measured in terms of durability and ease of production as much as its theoretical perforamnce - hence the low-powered laser is the most common weapon. It is true that twentieth century weapons may outrange or even outperform some of the weapons described in the following pages (in theory), but then some of the latest generation of combat rifles and vehicles may be out ranged and (in practice) out performed by older models. For example, the old 303 rifle was desigend to operate at far greater ranges than the modern 'Bullpup', its sighting mechanism and general construction were also much sturdier - not factors included in the performance statistics but vitally important under battlefield conditions.

In the Warhammer 40,000 universe a battle is often decided at close quarters, and the ranges given for the weapons reflect this. Even so, most weapons would be capable of longer range fire than allowed under the rules. The usual explanation for this is that although weapons could be fired at ranges perhaps ten times as far, the chance of scoring a hit at such ranges is negligible.

..

Ranged weapons have a further range band up to ten times the normal maximum range for bolters, autoguns, missile-launchers, and all weapons which fire a physical projectile. Bows, crossbows, slings and energy weapons have a range five times as long as their stated maximum. Note that beamers and grenades have no extended range - the maximum remains as given.

Now, it can maybe elicit a laugh, but I do respect the efforts early on (and even later) by the creators/designers to explain stuff like this in universe (Same was done with the Realms of Chaos material.. its all very well thought out and internally consistent) and to me its a good counter to the idea that 40K is not supposed to make sense or works on some completely arbitrary rules. The fact the setting has evolved over time or that it has become an aggregate of differing points of view/percepton does not change this.

Of course in 1st edition autoguns also had a stated rate of fire far higher than modern weapons (and smaller caliber ammo, so presumably more ammo storage.) Heck we never made caseless weapons as fully reliable as cased (as of yet) so it could be argued they may have an edge over us there, too. So context always matters in these things. In 1st auto and stub weaponry were also largely compared to 'twentieth century' analogues, with autopistols being equal to SMG, heavy stubbers equal to heavy machine guns, autoguns equivalent to automatic rifles, and stub guns equal to 'automatics' (which I take to mean semiautomatic handguns.) Those categories were much more precisely laid out then, but even so there's ample room for ambiguity in all that (do autopistols equal just stuff like uzis or does it include larger SMGS like the H&K MP5? Do autoguns include rifles that use full power and intermediate rounds, or just one or the other? Do stubs include Revolvers?) And even if you restrict it to specific types, chronologically small arms have evollved tremendously over the twentieth century anyhow.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
In 1st auto and stub weaponry were also largely compared to 'twentieth century' analogues, with autopistols being equal to SMG, heavy stubbers equal to heavy machine guns, autoguns equivalent to automatic rifles, and stub guns equal to 'automatics' (which I take to mean semiautomatic handguns.)

I have no evidence that it is any different in recent sources... Autoguns are still assaultrifles, stub guns still mainly pistols (yes revolvers too) but also stub rifles (e.g. bolt action hunting rifles), autopistols still smg, Heavy stubbers still machineguns. Forgeworld confirms this. And the RPG books by FFG also use this theme. Maybe in some BL book they do things radically different (i wouldnt know) but that wouldnt be the first case of some BL authors not doing any research and what fluff is already there in 40k. There are Stub Automatics (semi auto pistols), Stub Revolvers and Stub Rifles in FFG books.

Heavy Stubbers, a form of stub guns, say otherwise.

Heavy Stubbers are not Stub guns. Just like autopistols are not autoguns.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/1/13/Ia6-148-Autogun.jpg

]http://www.armyproperty.com/Equipment-Info/Pictures/HK416.jpg

This variant of auto-gun does have a passing resemblance to the HK.

Maybe, but it's really just the same art they've been using for the Autogun since 1987, lol.

Here's a ganger from Necromunda with it: http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/images/0/09/Escher_with_autogun.jpg

Or, even better, a Space Marine: http://www.peteandkellie.com/images/ebay/space_marine_autogun_medium.jpg


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The point of modern military firearms isnt to kill someone, its to wound them.

This is a myth.

Combat casualties have that side benefit from time to time. The idea of smaller caliber weapons wasn't to reduce lethality, it was simply to allow soldiers to carry more ammunition for the same amount of weight and make sustained rapid fire more accurate with more manageable weaponry. This is one of those things that gets repeated often enough that people start to believe it. You know, like the idea that you can't shoot .50 caliber machineguns at people or that there haven't been plastic Sisters of Battle models because Games Workshop is too stupid to make a profit on an obvious winner.

Certain weapons were developed for their ability to wound people, like the toe-popper mines. But again. a lot of that has to do with weight (they're significantly lighter than regular anti-personal mines so you can carry a lot more of them) and also with the nature of the weapon's employment (area denial).

However, the idea of a wounded enemy consuming resources requires you to fight an enemy who is actually worried about consuming resources to patch up their troops. And the idea that there ]are the resources available to be consumed at any given moment to patch them up.

The reality is that there will always be compromise in weapons development. The transition from 7.62mm (and similar) weapons to 5.56N was one of those.

Actually, this is less of a myth as a misconception; most guns are intended to go THROUGH the target and hit the guy behind him. this also mean penetrating the cover that a guy is using. This is why MW2 has the cover penetration thing for high calibers.

Keep: Stubber is a class of weapon, just like autogun is a class of weapon. The latter may specifically refer to rifles, but can refer to any number of other weapon in the category, like autopistols (which aren't SMGs; they could be classified as machinepistols).

Thus, you have "stub revolver", "stub automatic", "stub gun", "heavy stubber", etc. And you have "autopistol", "autogun", "autocannon", etc.

Stub weapons are generally cheaper and less reliable than auto weapons, aside from the revolvers. Generally speaking, stub weapons are equivalent to modern firearms, while autoweapons are described as superior, military-grade weapons equivalent to a lasgun in general combat effectiveness-- to the point where there's no difference between the two in the stats in tabletop. In Dark Heresy, lasweapons are more reliable and have more ammo, while autoweapons have a better rate of fire. It's up to the metagam eon which is really better (in Only War, lasweapons are better, in Dark Heresy, autoweapons are better).

Especially when you consider special ammunition.