The current state of ammunition

[Zero]

That would make more sense.

[Random_dragon]

[quote=“Zaweri Runewright, post:61, topic:9969”].22 casings for 5.56mm[/quote]That doesn’t make sense to me.

I noticed that too, and assumed it was an error. It’s actually an option to use them for jacketing material, for some reason.

[Kadian]

[quote=“Zero, post:65, topic:9969”][quote=“Zaweri Runewright, post:61, topic:9969”].22 casings for 5.56mm[/quote]That doesn’t make sense to me.

I noticed that too, and assumed it was an error. It’s actually an option to use them for jacketing material, for some reason.[/quote]

ah, as jacketing material, instead of copper tubes? I thought they meant as Casing.

It’s perfectly fine to use .22 casings as material for jacketing. .22 are apparently usually copper-plated. And…rarely brass plated apparently? not sure on that one.

[kevin.granade]

Because Zaweri noticed it’s something people actually do http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=171714 and added it to the game.

[Random_dragon]

Because Zaweri noticed it’s something people actually do http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=171714 and added it to the game.

Ah, I see. Though as I (as well as Zero, now) can attest, it makes most people take one look at “can be used to make…” and assume it’s a recipe typo. 22_casing, 223_casing…

[SteelBlueWolf]

What is the rationale behind handmade rounds having lower stats than factory manufactured ones?

[Zero]

Ah, that makes perfect sense for home-jacketing bullets.

@SteelBlueWolf: I assume that with lower quality controls in the apocalypse factory ammo would perform more reliably.

[Random_dragon]

Exactly. Though you’d think that if you followed the reloading manuals exactly, so long as you had the right tools you could replicate the stats of the basic factory loads.

Then again, it could also be because we’re taking raw lead and such, and may or may not have bullet molds for what we’re reloading for. Though that’s more likely just an abstraction. XP

[SteelBlueWolf]

you'd think that if you followed the reloading manuals exactly, so long as you had the right tools you could replicate the stats of the basic factory loads.

That's what I was thinking. At the fabrication level it takes to reload you would probably be able to get it right for normal ammunition. The only potentially problematic factor is the propellant. "Gunpowder" isn't very descriptive, and judging from the materials needed to craft it the explosive it represents is black powder which is nowhere near as effective as modern single-base smokeless powder. Should this be changed?

[Random_dragon]

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:75, topic:9969”]

you’d think that if you followed the reloading manuals exactly, so long as you had the right tools you could replicate the stats of the basic factory loads.

That’s what I was thinking. At the fabrication level it takes to reload you would probably be able to get it right for normal ammunition. The only potentially problematic factor is the propellant. “Gunpowder” isn’t very descriptive, and judging from the materials needed to craft it the explosive it represents is black powder which is nowhere near as effective as modern single-base smokeless powder. Should this be changed?[/quote]

Blackpowder is already a thing. The recipe for modern cartridge gunpowder did use more modern ingredients, up until they apparently made it uncraftable.

Even then there are different formulations of smokeless powder, but I would assume most reloading manuals specificy the required type.

It’s when you experiment with oddball rounds and such that the quality should be going through the floor.

[kevin.granade]

The only source for modern gunpowder is finding it or harvesting it from existing rounds. If you want to start that discussion up again, please use the search feature and read the dozens of pages of discussion about it we’ve already had first.

As for the handloads, the rationale is tolerances, under the assumption that a typical factory load is going to be more consistent than a typical handload.

[Random_dragon]

Aye, I’m fine with modern gunpowder not being craftable. If anything I wish we could use black powder for the various cartrdges that predate the advent of modern powder. But adding that would require NOT letting those loads be usable in semi-auto firearms, so add that to the list of things ammo type overlap would allow.

I will note that most texts I’ve read pertaining to handloading stress that being consistent about your loads is more a matter of “not having the gun blow up in your face” rather than just getting better accuracy. Your suggestions regarding hazardous failures when crafting, experimentation, etc could obviously be useful for this. X3

[SteelBlueWolf]

Ammo changes

Working on pistol rounds and the rifle rounds I missed last time.

[Sunshine]

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:79, topic:9969”]https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/pull/12988

Working on pistol rounds and the rifle rounds I missed last time.[/quote]

You could also add .357 magnum to the .38 family. It seems strange that it’s not in there when it’s such a common round.

[Random_dragon]

The reason we don’t have .357 Magnum is because most (if not all) of the .38 Special guns already in the game can’t chamber .357, whereas most .357 guns we could likely add WOULD work with either, save for the oddball semi-auto things like old-school Desert Eagles.

Add that to the list of things we need ammo type overlap for.

[SteelBlueWolf]

Ammo changes

Finished and ready to merge. I don’t think I missed any this time.

[Noodles_of_Doom]

Awesome. I’m really glad to see that the powerful handgun cartridges like the .500 S&W magnum now have legit hand-cannon strength like they’ve got are in real life.

[ejseto]

Some ammunition in cata has nonsensical stats, strange descriptions and even stranger applications. An example is the damage difference between 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO. There is only 4 difference (40 vs 44), yet the 7.62 NATO round has disadvantages to compensate for a larger difference. These stats are also unrealistic.

After the rework:

Some ammunition in cata has nonsensical stats, strange descriptions and even stranger applications. An example is the damage difference between 9x19mm JHP and .45 ACP JHP. There is only -1 difference (26 vs 25), yet the .45 ACP round has disadvantages to compensate for a larger difference. These stats are also unrealistic.

Some ammunition in cata has nonsensical stats, strange descriptions and even stranger applications. An example is the damage difference between 10mm Auto and .40 S&W FMJ. There is only 0 difference (24 vs 24), yet the 10mm Auto round has disadvantages (higher dispersion AND recoil, how does that work?) to compensate for a larger difference. These stats are also unrealistic.

Inb4 “well YOU fix it then.” How about revert the whole thing? Was there anything wrong with the previous stats, short of “7.62 only 10% stronger than 5.56”? Cuz now we have .45 ACP only -4% stronger than 9mm, and 10mm Auto only 0% stronger than .40 S&W (short and weak).

[kevin.granade]

yet the .45 ACP round has disadvantages to compensate for a larger difference.

To the best of my knowledge, this was never actually the case. The dispersion values might be arbitrary, but AFAIK they are not adjusted to try to equalize the ammunition types in any way. The damage and dispersion values were simply set to what seemed right to the person setting them.

The new damage and pierce values at least have a rationale (muzzle energy) for why they are set where they are now, which I’ll take over “this round feels like it should do more/less damage” any day.

If you have some problem with the rationale of “higher kinetic energy means more damage” or how it’s applied, feel free to make a case, but “I think it was better before” doesn’t cut it.

[SteelBlueWolf]

If you have a problem with the new values fix them. Standardize values for dispersion, recoil, and terminal performance. You won’t do this because you are only here to whine.