Jump to content

Time To Step Up Your Game('s Weapons), De


Recommended Posts

...Because you got IRL competition.


So, we did it. By 'we', I mean the human race. Specifically, I'm referring to Israel (this isn't about Gaza; also, no political hijacking, please).


Lo and behold:




The Gilboa Snake, made by the same guys who invented the CornerShot™ attachment.


Here is a comprehensive article by this Russian guy (turn your ad-blocker on, his site has sooo many ads): http://world.guns.ru/assault/isr/gilboa_snake-e.html


Here is a Youtube video showcasing the "civvy-version" of the Snake:



So, basically, Israel's answer to the modern-day warzone is...MoreDakka™? Seriously? I'll be right out, from a practical standpoint, I'm looking at this thing negatively.


But, for a space-future-opera-sci-fi, something like this is perfect (because who cares!) and I think we need some more multi-barreled gunswag. Tiberon was a great start, so keep it coming. (Assuming the DEvs actually read Off-Topic)


Yeah, I'm gonna do a I-haven't-handled-this-gun-but-here-are-my-first-impressions gun review. I want to. This gun is begging for it. Feel free to just stop reading if you don't care much about guns (or you think what I'm saying is dumb). I won't be offended. I mean, I might go cry in the shower a little, so no one will see the tears.


Now, I'm looking at this gun from a purely for-tactical-military-use perspective.


So, why is this gun a big deal? There have been multi-barreled small-arms before, but most of those are either custom jobs or were prototypes that never made it to production (or are really, really old). The Gilboa Snake is unique in that it is a production model. It is being made and sold (or at least marketed) en masse to military/law-enforcement. Kind of a big deal.


And, the video, the guy is right. When you only get one shot (lol) to take a guy down, why not fire two bullets at the same time? Especially given the increasingly noticeable lack of performance of the 5.56 NATO round on today's battlefield, multiple shots are often necessary to "neutralize" a threat (with the 5.56 NATO round) when you aren't sure where the round is going to hit on a target.


That doesn't mean this is a good answer.


First, let's look at weight:


Barrels are kind of heavy. The 9.5" (241.whatever mm) version of the Snake weighs 9.4 lbs (4.27 kg), while the 10.5" HK417 (another successful attempt by foreigners to make the AR-15 platform better) weighs 7.2 lbs (3.31 kg). So, a gun that is more accurate (going by barrel length), is made by Germans (famous for guns all the time), firing the same round, is 2+lbs lighter. Now, I don't go trekking in backcountry with assault rifles and bazookas in my day pack, but after a few weeks of moving through difficult terrain, you become sensitve to every ounce of weight you are carrying. No joke. So those 2 lbs makes a big difference.


For every inch of barrel on an assault rifle, you are increasing weight ~.05kg (this depends on a lot of things and is very subject to change). And the Snake has two.


Also, you have two mags loaded. A standard 30-round AR-15 mag (those Vietnam-era aluminum ones) weighs ~15oz. loaded. So, there's another 2 lbs.


Next thing, double-ejection ports. Yeah, it has brass deflectors, but you still have hot brass flying near your face, no matter if your righty or lefty. Regardless, it's going to pool on both sides of you, something to consider. Front-ejection would have solved this problem, but they built it on an AR platform, which probably can't do that, ever.


Reading the Russian's article (who probably received his info straight from the manufacturers), it doesn't sound like there is an alternate-between-barrels fire mode. There's semi-auto, which shoots both barrels simultaneously, and there's full-auto, which shoots both barrels simultaneously really fast (The civ-version does have independent barrel control, go figure). In other words, when you're just looking to suppress or take potshots, you're wasting twice the ammo. So, you don't have 60 rounds (I mean, you do, but...), you have 30 shots. In other words, the same as any other un-modded AR carbine. Except you need to carry twice the ammo.


Yes, there is the doubled chance of "incapacitation", but that's assuming you hit. Have you ever tried shooting? Have you ever tried shooting a target at 100+ yards? Are you good at it? Cool. Now, imagine that hot lead is replacing the air around you and you are suddenly, rudely, reminded of the existential-dread-inducing fact that you can die right now. Not that I would know either, but in actual combat your shooting goes to S#&$, says science:  http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/combat.htm


Then there's this side-by-side orientation of the barrels and the placement of the gas piston block between them. This creates a consideration gap between shot placement, which looks to be more than .5", just eyeing the gun (for reference, the 100-yard MOA of acceptably good military/police sniper rifles is usually 0.5"). So, in other words, there's a chance one will hit and the other will miss after physics has had its fun with two bullets exiting the same gun to hit a single target at range, because humans stand up straight. We aren't deer. We're tall, not long. The smart thing to do would have been an over-under configuration (but that causes hard problems for where the magazines go and how it cycles rounds, obviously). 


Finally, you have two automatic guns, machined together, firing at the same time. One of the reasons many armies are still issuing bolt-action rifles over semi-auto rifles as standard for their snipers, is that the action of a semi-auto rifle cycling its rounds interferes with the accuracy of the gun, while a bolt-action simply shoots. Unless Gilboa worked some serious gun magic, this gun it going to have accuracy issues, countering the intent of fast-reaction, instant incapacitation they were going for, unless this gun is strictly used for CQB (Close Quarters Battle). I mean, maybe that the bullets are exiting at the same time means that they escape the forces exerted on one another. But you still have twice the forces being exerted on the gun and the subsequent bullets exiting the gun. I mean, just look at those crazy muzzlebreaks, no doubt to keep the recoil reasonable. But who can say (Gilboa probably won't). All I know is more moving parts means more chance for error.


I feel like this gun is highlighting the limitations of the 5.56 NATO round, which Superpowered militaries have been trying to replace for the last decade (6.8 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, etc.). We need two bullets in one shot now for a gun to do what we want to do, so this gun was made. Hardly sounds like the solution 


The biggest issue is that they put it on the AR platform. The AR, while very light with its current skeletonized, minimalist set up, is a failing platform, with lots of limitations. The AR-15 and its derivatives are, simply, (semi-)automatic guns. They shoot bullets, eject brass, cycle the next round, repeat. There's nothing too special to them, and thus it's difficult to expand the system. Really, they should have built this from the ground up as something completely different. Also, what they were going for (placing multiple shots on a target in a very small instant) was already achieved by several other guns with just one barrel (HK G11, AN-94, etc.). The only improvement over the vanilla AR-15 Gilboa has made is moving the return spring into the upper receiver, instead of sticking out of the back, behind the grip (which has also been done before). This allows the fitting of detachable/folding stocks for compactness.


Oh, it looks fun as monkeys, don't get me wrong. It's just kind of a dumb gun. It's an easy solution to a military problem and those always have consequences (carpet bombing, chemical warfare, cluster bombs, etc. [granted, the scale of these is much greater than a gun with two barrels). The point is, if you want to evolve the military complex, to solve its increasingly prolific efficiency problems, you gotta spend the time/money/creativity to do it.


MoreDakka™ isn't the answer.

Edited by Go4tfi5h
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civvies are gonna have no idea what you're talking about at least once in that post :3


Basicly a lighter version of an AR -15 that fires faster and is more versatile right? Even though they should have went with their own design from the start and not a simple rifle like this?


I'm also assuming that this is menant for perhaps police or SWAT use rather than military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That guy in the vid above says they're "exploring applications" (accompanied by nervous chuckling) after the interviewer flatout says "so, not very tactical". 


And no, this review is not intended for someone who doesn't know much about guns.


It's not that it's lighter. This base model is just a compact, proof-of-concept/production. It's compact probably because that 16" civ-version he's talking about is going to have the mobility of a 15th-century arquebus (more jargon!).


A vanilla AR-15 of the same barrel length and same upper/lower receiver is going to weigh less, always. That's the point I'm making. And it isn't any more versatile then any other AR-15 derivative (unless MoreDakka™ is considered versatility).


Simply, it's a liability and dead weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While as a combat veteran I can appreciate a fine weapon here and there, I really don't see this as a remotely good idea either in real life or in Warframe. That being said, if you want a great multi-barreled weapon, nothing gives you a rush like firing a black powder duckfoot. The more technology, the lower the reliability.


If you need more than one barrel to hit the target, you need more practice. 


Also, DE if you do put an AR based weapon in the game, please for the love of god give it the same jam and failure rating so those CoD people realize what a pile of junk it is. 

Edited by (PS4)Kamranos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While as a combat veteran I can appreciate a fine weapon here and there, what relevance does this have to Warframe even in the slightest bit? I could understand if it was a discussion about a in-game weapon concept, but this seems way out of left field. That being said, if you want a great multi-barreled weapon, nothing gives you a rush like firing a black powder duckfoot. The more technology, the lower the reliability. If you need more than one barrel to hit the target, you need more practice. 


That's why it's in Off-Topic :P


In terms of relevance to Warframe, we (Tenno) have all these multi-barreled guns with multi-shot. Now, suddenly, IRL is catching up to Warframe's ridiculous approach to small arms. That's the relevance.


Also, duckfoots sound kind of expensive, being antiques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If RL was even remotely catching up to Warframe, why are we still stuck on this solitary rock in space? And you hit the nail on the head with 'ridiculous'. Sci-Fi weapons and real life usable weapons are more often than not, worlds apart and for good reason. The only relevance to Warframe is in the OP saying to step up weapons in the game, to which I say they are already infinitely better than what firearms companies could think of creating today. Any half a meatball can stick two ARs together and call it a new gun. Once RL comes up with weapons that can hurl nail and impale people to walls or arch electricity 30m away, then it will be catching up to Warframe. I'll stick to my Boltor Prime in Warframe and my SCAR-L in real life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...