I did three sketches of rifles for a project. The one I choose must be a remember of our actual rifles but enough different to not be able to say "ey, this is an M4, or this is an AK47....."
The feeling of the gun must be a good rifle capable of overcome all the enviromental changes and situations (maybe like an AK, for example), I mean, a really reliable rifle.
This is the three sketches, I donīt like the number 3 because is too complicated in the design and I wanted something more simple. But maybe you could make me change my opinion. What of these do you like for this purpose??
You should look into more design such as FN FAL, SIG, Sten and H&K, they have very effective design, right now your gun still look too AK or M4, also your aiming ironsight right now is off aligned and dont make sense, the spent case ejecting port is off aligned too.
sb most art copied to page 1
Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
facebook: Alface Killah
Hello guys thank you for your help,
Velocity Kendall, thank you for this great examples of how to create a gun. Well, at the moment I havenīt arrived to this process. I am not looking for a technical advices because these guns I posted were only thumbnails. Maybe I didnīt explain myself well, I was referring to the general form of the guns, which I think in a first place is more important than technical aspects, thatīs the next step for me
Thatīs the kind of advices I was looking for...You should look into more design such as FN FAL, SIG, Sten and H&K, they have very effective design, right now your gun still look too AK or M4
But anyway, this post was a lot helpful because of this images will help me these next days. Thank you !!!
Right now 1) and 3) look like iterations of an M4 and 2) looks like an AK.
You mentioned specifically that you wanted to avoid that. I would suggest you look up some more unique looking guns like the FAMAS and others, and combine various aspects of the different weapons to create a hybrid we wouldn't instantly call an M4 or an AK.
EDIT: So I did research and the rails are for mounting accessories. So how come the pistol has a little section of rails on its sides as well? They are definitely not for mounting accessories, so what for?
Last edited by Pavel Sokov; February 12th, 2013 at 10:52 AM.
Hello again and thank you,
Pavel, are you referring specifically at my rifles sketches or did you mean in general?? Iīm sorry but the language sometimes overcome me and I donīt understand everythingEDIT: So I did research and the rails are for mounting accessories. So how come the pistol has a little section of rails on its sides as well? They are definitely not for mounting accessories, so what for?
Hmm the rails I am talking about are the little grooves at the back of the gun (closest to the user) that run along its two sides. I can see mounting some sort of scope device on there, but a hand grip? What would a hand grip be doing at the top of a gun?
You will see that most of them include similar features such as various Picatinny Rails (a.k.a MIL-STD-1913 rail, STANAG 2324 rail, or tactical rail) that allow to attach several accesories, such as sights, pointers, flashlights, foregrips or even grenade launchers sometimes.
Also, if in any case you want to base your design on older weapons, check how they work. Right now, your "AK" desing is shooting through the gas recovery tube that allows the weapon to recock.
Last edited by Quike Garcia; February 13th, 2013 at 06:33 AM. Reason: Damn typos! & Info added
Hello again guys,
Well, I have a final sketch of my rifle. What I was looking for is a more rustic rifle, for that reason I mentioned the AK and M4 as base. I didnīt explain myself with the word "modern", I was referring to the modern weapons of the last 30 years aprox. not the weapons that are made today. FAMAS and Scars would be an option, but they donīt have these rustic feeling I mentioned.
So here is the sketch. A mix of an AK and M4. Iīm looking for perspective mistakes and this kind of things. And please, now is the time to tell me the technical mistakes for the gun
If that rectangle over the magazine is the exhaust port, it doesn't make any sense. It should be at the same height as the barrell, and usually on the right side of the gun (for right handed shooters) to avoid the shells hitting them in the face.
The magazine is placed too forward. It is usually placed closer to the trigger guard so there is less travel distance from the magazine to the chamber.
The handle and the buttstock are too thin and they don't look too comfortable to use.
Check this: www.giantbomb.com/m4-carbine/93-622/
Hello again !
Ok, Iīm agree. Iīll made a few changes for it but Iīll post it tomorrow because Iīm doing other work at the same time (Oh God !! )
Also, the muzzle is off centre.
Hey, I did some stuff to your stuff this morning.
Like, lets talk about gun design. Guns don't typically drop out of the sky (if only), so they have to come from a place. They have to be manufactured, more specifically. If we're talking about your direct reference, the AK-47, then we're talking about a gun that's made from punched metal and wood, and then assembled by peasants in a cold factory somewhere in Siberia (probably). You've got all of these strange curves in your design that were evidently produced by applying a stroke to a path that you made with the pen tool. From a manufacturing perspective, that's only going to add cost and time to your bottom line. And, speaking of 'fictional' weapons, place yourself in the shoes of the designer in the universe you're creating content for. Let's roleplay, homie. You're an underpaid gun designer in some dismal communist dictatorship, and the hierarchy be up all in your business about drafting a gun that can be produced for next to nothing for two million dirty conscripts by untrained and unskilled factory workers. WHAT DO YOU DO? Well, your gun is definitely not going to have any unnecessary flourishes like a mounted blender, that's for sure. We don't need those. Its got to be the sort of thing a malnourished factory worker with a second grade education can understand, because that's who is building it. "Why", you might ask, "is that the particular narrative I have to roll with". Well, it doesn't have to be, but if you're sourcing the majority of your design from the highly recognizable AK-47, then it pays to at least derive your 'design narrative' from a similar background. Soviet infantry battle doctrine at the time the AK-47 was invented was to send wave after wave of terrified conscripts into a hail of enemy gunfire (very subtle), and AK was designed to fired primarily from the hip. It has sights, yeah, but when you're bum-rushing some dudes in fortified positions, there's no time to stop and take aim. Both the gun and the solider were highly disposable, and the appearance of the AK-47 communicates all of that. Come up with a solid narrative for why your gun is designed the way it is, develop the means of production, and watch your professor (or whoever) bust a nut.
It's also evident that you're operating with a two-dimensional design strategy. It's translating directly to your perspective drawings. They look flat, and it's because you're not thinking about how any of the parts really overlap or interact with each other. If you want to see some good examples of volumetric gun design, check out pretty much anything designed by Hawkprey. His guns are smart, intimidating, and fun to look at. That's the deal. There's also a clear or implicit design language about what everything on the gun is supposed to do. They're not only mechanical (as in, being a cooperation of sundry mechanisms), but are convincing as well. Keep that in mind. A gun is not simply some thing that you develop a silhouette for, but a complex interaction of parts that cause a solid chunk of lead to be propelled out of a barrel at high velocity. Spend more time SKETCHING (not drafting) in the design phase to make sure everything reads well, and you have an idea about how the gun operates and are not simply copying and pasting aesthetic flourishes from this gun or that gun.
Last edited by The Fez; February 14th, 2013 at 10:43 AM.
Hello The Fez. Thank you.
Well I must say first that this is one of the best (and funniest) crits I ever received. In fact, you almost hit on the right story. Itīs not for a Soviet story but the situation is also a bit "similar" : the world has fallen into an apocalypse, and there are few humans who try to defend themselves from the others. They make gangs and try to conquer the places with necessary goods (as gas, food, ammno etc.). The world is all a plain similar to Siberia, but instead of cold, it is a lot hot.
With this and your critique in mind, Iīve tried to imagine what kind of rifles they could wear, and I think itīs similar of what you say: the workers who make the guns are part of these few people who live now, and they donīt know how to make a technological advanced weapon. Instead of this, they try to make the best they can with the materials they found, and convert it into a fire gun in the abandoned factories (yes, maybe this is a bit unreal, but Iīm not a writter). With that in mind we can say that the rifle must be a functional gun in first place, beyond a "pretty design"