Battle Rifle - Incompatible Magazine Size

[Rajko]

Hi,

first post so please don't slaughter me...has anyone else noticed an inconsistency between the size of the Magazine well in the Battle Rifle and the size the magazine would have to actually be to hold the number and calibre of rounds it is supposed to?

What I mean is:

1) the round fired by the BR is the M634 9.5x40mm (NB 9.5mm calibre x 40mm length of cartridge casing). Allowing for a proportionately sized/shaped bullet, total length of the whole round will be something like not the whole round - so allowing for the bullet too, the whole round would be maybe 55 to 60mm overall.

2) BR Magazine holds 36 rounds. Even if each round is the same calibre as the bullet itself (i.e. 9.5mm) then a double-stack magazine will be at least 171mm high. Given that cartridge casings for rifles are usually bigger in diameter than the bullet they fire (e.g. the 5.56x45mm round fired by the M16 or the 7.62x51mm round fired by the FN FAL, G3, HK 417 etc) then the magazine will need to be even deeper.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO to see what I'm talking about in (1) and (2)

3) The rifle will work by the returning bolt stripping a fresh round from the top of the magazine and pushing it into the chamber of the barrel, therefore the top of the magazine cannot be higher than the top of the barrel itself.

4) Do some measurements and the top of the barrel down to the bottom of the magazine well on the BR is no more than approximately 130mm - much less than the minimum size of the magazine.

5) I've never seen anything to indicate that the magazine is triple-stacked, not that I know of any such thing existing in today's technology; but even if it was triple stacked on the BR, it would then be too wide for the Magazine well!

Put simply, the magazine needs to be far bigger than the space allowed for it on the BR.

Anyone else spotted this or have an explanation for it?

Regards,

Rajko

 

[djhoot213]

Hi,

first post so please don't slaughter me...has anyone else noticed an inconsistency between the size of the Magazine well in the Battle Rifle and the size the magazine would have to actually be to hold the number and calibre of rounds it is supposed to?

What I mean is:

1) the round fired by the BR is the M634 9.5x40mm (NB 9.5mm calibre x 40mm length of cartridge casing). Allowing for a proportionately sized/shaped bullet, total length of the whole round will be something like not the whole round - so allowing for the bullet too, the whole round would be maybe 55 to 60mm overall.

2) BR Magazine holds 36 rounds. Even if each round is the same calibre as the bullet itself (i.e. 9.5mm) then a double-stack magazine will be at least 171mm high. Given that cartridge casings for rifles are usually bigger in diameter than the bullet they fire (e.g. the 5.56x45mm round fired by the M16 or the 7.62x51mm round fired by the FN FAL, G3, HK 417 etc) then the magazine will need to be even deeper.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO to see what I'm talking about in (1) and (2)

3) The rifle will work by the returning bolt stripping a fresh round from the top of the magazine and pushing it into the chamber of the barrel, therefore the top of the magazine cannot be higher than the top of the barrel itself.

4) Do some measurements and the top of the barrel down to the bottom of the magazine well on the BR is no more than approximately 130mm - much less than the minimum size of the magazine.

5) I've never seen anything to indicate that the magazine is triple-stacked, not that I know of any such thing existing in today's technology; but even if it was triple stacked on the BR, it would then be too wide for the Magazine well!

Put simply, the magazine needs to be far bigger than the space allowed for it on the BR.

Anyone else spotted this or have an explanation for it?

Regards,

Rajko

Ive got a good explanation...
First one which could be somewhat logical...halo takes place in the land of the future where anything is possible

Second...and this is just a bit more of a basic reason...
ITS A GAME!

Just my two cents

 

[Xtreme TACTICS 101]

Most weapons of today are made from sheet metal, so mabey the weapons of the 26th centary are the same. The shell of the bullet is 1.1cm in diameter, this meaning by multiplying by 36 rounds and you get about 40cm right? Wrong. Rounds sit almost side by side in the mag, so the mag would end up being shorter than 40cm. According to my estiments, its about 25cm long. The battle rifle in game's stock measures about 20cm from the top of the cheek plate to the bottem of the mag. This means that although its close, its not accurate. Trust me, I've stressed over this for a long time while making my weapons and wanting them to be 100% logical and also in-game accurate at the same time. Its impossible unless you scale the weapon up.

The battle rifle is about 3.6cm wide at the butt of the stock. By taking away about 1cm for the mag walls and the side of the BR, the mag is about 2.0 cm thick. This means that about 35 rounds can fit into the mag, but I guess 36 just has a bad@$$ quality to it.

CHEERS!

 

[BFDesigns]

If you look at the movie Aliens, you'll notice a similar discrepancy, the Marines' Pulse Rifles fire 10mm rounds and the magazine definitely does not look like it's any longer than about the size of an extended MP5 clip. Their solution? 10mm [Explosive Tip] Caseless ammunition. Basically you're packing 95rds of 10mm rifle ammo into a very small package by removing the propellant casing that houses the round. Seeing as the movie is set in something like 2400 AD you would assume that there have been enough advancements in firing systems that they no longer need the shell (if you also notice, there's no ejection port on the side of the gun either!).

This may not be the same in Halo as I think there are still shells on the BR ammo. However, by refining ballistics technology and incorporating some stable form of Nitro-Glycerin based propellant (like they do with supersonic 7.62 ammo) and enclosing a small amount in a smaller shell, you will magnify the explosive force enough that you'll only need to use a round that has a shell equivalent in diameter to the round itself. Kinda like putting an M80 in a film capsule, sealing the capsule, and throwing it in a mailbox. The explosion gets magnified by 5 times so instead of getting a 1/4 stick of dynamite explosion like you do with the M80, you get an explosion the size of 1-1/4 sticks.

The battle rifle is about 3.6cm wide at the butt of the stock. By taking away about 1cm for the mag walls and the side of the BR, the mag is about 2.0 cm thick. This means that about 35 rounds can fit into the mag, but I guess 36 just has a bad@$$ quality to it.

If you've ever looked at pistols, they are usually quoted with having their mag capacity +1. This means if you were to chamber a round and the eject the mag, you would be able to add a round to the mag and slide it back into the gun. This effectively gives you an extra round in the gun. I don't know how exactly that computes in Halo but also take into account that the 36th round will probably stick up slightly above the top of the mag like it would on most of the guns of todays world militaries (i.e.: AK-47, M4, HK-471, M16-A3, etcetera ad nauseum).

 

[HeavyGunner]

Wow way to be observant! I always thought that the battle rifle was just a little larger in the game than you would assume, like it would be pretty big on the marines, but like a toy to a spartan. Kinda like on the cover of the H2 game box where the chief is holding the smg's and he can only fit two fingers on the actual grip of the gun!

So unless I measurd the scale wrong, the battle rifle is actually larger than you would assume.

Unless of course, bungie just made up some random ammunition specifications cause they ran out of time making the game!

 

[pacbury]

maybe metric measurements get changed in the future...
for instance if the pelican was built to scale it would be almost the size of a jumbo jet even though it looks no where near that big in the game.