Case study: The Avenger frame

This chapter is an odd one. The so-called 'Avenger frame' – sometimes inaccurately referred to as the 'Avenger series' – is not so much a weapon as it is a particular assault rifle design framework, and it is something as unusual as a design framework that is not patent protected, partially explaining its ubiquity.

History

To understand the significance and the concept of the Avenger frame, one must understand the history of it. Fortunately, that history is fairly short on a galactic timescale. Arguably, the first Avenger frame weapon was the M-7 Lancer rifle, the Systems Alliance's standard field rifle for two decades before and immediately after the First Contact War. The Lancer was the third generation mass effect-assisted assault rifle fielded by the Alliance, and by far the longest-lived. It is a fairly vanilla construction, and quite bulky by the Council standards of the day, but during the First Contact War it proved itself in battle as a very reliable, low-maintenance, high-capacity, high-stability, fairly accurate assault rifle. Most notably, it was absolutely ubiquitous: Every Alliance soldier had one, they all knew how to use it, they all knew how to repair and maintain them, and how to tune them to their preferred specifications.

Compare this to the Turian model for standard weaponry, where every unit fields different weapons based on their specialities and tactical purposes. The human history of warfare has taught us how logistics can influence outcomes, and in the FCW it allowed the Alliance to push back the numerically and technologically superior Turians in multiple victories on the ground. The FCW brought about many changes to established Hierarchy military doctrine, and rightly so, but of those changes the new analysis of their logistical approach was probably the most significant.

This caught the attention of gunsmiths across the galaxy. What was this gun that made the Turians change their basic approach to their military's standard weapons? Now, historically there has been a trend where new species are discovered, and for a brief time thereafter most new weapons developed will have clear influences from the weaponry of that new species. But not since the Turians has this influence been so strong as with the human M-7 Lancer.

Arms manufacturers were soon in a race to develop and manufacture their own versions of the weapon, to compete with human manufacturers – particularly Hahne-Kedar – who were flooding the market with the already mass-produced Lancer. They soon discovered that the Systems Alliance had a policy of refusing to purchase patent-protected equipment in bulk, which meant that the entire construction of the Lancer was unpatented, and unprotected. Because most other successful frames are patented, that would open up entirely new markets for a lot of manufacturers. Within just a few years, nearly all new assault rifles in Council space were built around the basic Lancer frame, with minor variations. Then Elkoss Combine developed a cheaper and more flexible variation on the rifle that they dubbed the Avenger.

The Avenger solved a few issues with the Lancer frame. Namely, it took away the dependence on human-manufactured components such as a complicated and fairly expensive ammo shaver based around the concept of mass effect field intersection shearing. This shaver was very precise and very fast, and had very low heat generation, but it was also expensive and required a miniaturised integrated mass effect field generator, whereas most modern shavers use the rifle's main generator. Elkoss Combine's design changes allowed them to use two common pistol ammo shavers operating in tandem, which lowered cost without significantly lowering performance.

Crucially, none of the changes EC did were patentable. At the time, it was well-known that the Alliance was looking to replace the aging Lancers, and that they preferred an iterative design change. That is, they wanted a modernisation of the Lancer frame, rather than an entirely new weapon. So over the next few years, many minor changes were made to the various Lancer-frame weapons by various manufacturers. Over time, they changed enough that the frame was renamed to the 'Avenger frame', as Elkoss Combine had been first to make any significant changes. It also made licensing matters easier, as manufacturers discovered that they could attach their Avenger frame variations onto the same CSGR licenses and ranks. Compliance to the Avenger frame standards became a legal shortcut to licensing, dramatically lowering manufacturer cost, effort, and time-to-market.

All of this, when considered together, explains why nearly all assault rifles you see in Council space these days look nearly identical. As explained in previous chapters, manufacturers are largely unwilling to take chances on unproven designs, and all proven designs are quickly patented and locked to single manufacturers or licensed to a few. The arrival of the Avenger frame changed the game, with the internal mechanisms still largely patented but the frame and build proven and mostly license-free. This caused a drop in weapon prices, as well as a homogenisation of popular designs. Of course, the moment you cross the border into the Traverse and the Terminus, said homogenisation disappears.

Until fairly recently, the Alliance had been slowly phasing out the M7 Lancers in favour of a variety of Avenger-frame weapons across different branches to test the various models. The Marines had been assigned Hahne-Kedar's updated Lancer model, which by some metrics was a step down from the M7 model. It wasn't as hard-hitting, it had lower capacity, but it was significantly cheaper and just as reliable. More importantly, it was CSGR compliant, unlike the M7 which was designed and fielded before the First Contact War.

After my company bought out Hahne-Kedar, the first item on our agenda was to re-do that project. Renaming the rifle Avenger A2, we incorporated a wide range of the improvements that other manufacturers had made to the Avenger frame over the years, and added some of our own. To avoid trademark infringement litigation, we signed a manufacturing arrangement with Elkoss-Combine for the civilian A3 model. As we now had the infrastructure in place to manufacture a superior replacement for the Lancer at a cheaper price point than any competitor could even approach, we quickly got the deal with the Alliance to supply them with the Avenger A2 as the new standard assault rifle. Work is ongoing to formalise the spec for the M8 designation, which is set to be completed within two years.

Close Corporation Avenger models

Close Corporation currently markets two different Avenger frame rifles: The mil-spec A2 model and the civilian A3 model. In terms of ranks, the A3 covers ranks 1-4 in the licensing scheme, but are sold in seven ranks (I-VII). The A2 model covers ranks 4-10, but are sold in ten ranks (I-X). As I have said previously: Give up trying to understand the Council rank model, you're not training to be a lawyer or salesman, you are training to be a gunsmith.

In simple terms, both models are licensed together on one rank scale where capabilities are rated against the Avenger Ax IV variant (the lowest available mil-spec edition of the licensed Avenger Ax model), and are sold separately on another (where capabilities are ranked relative to the model's own base spec, that is A2 I and A3 I). So, The Avenger Ax IV is the same as the Avenger A2 I.

The aim of the Avenger Ax project was to create a mil-spec variant of the Avenger frame that would be a true step up, rather than a step down, from the M7 model. We wanted to be the only real contender for the M8 specification, and we achieved this. The Alliance's demands for this were as straightforward as they were difficult to meet: Improvements to every key metric (WDAH), no reductions in reliability, lower material cost, lower maintenance and logistics cost, improved modification flexibility, and adherence to Council regulations for mil-spec weapons, as well as to Systems Alliance military regulations.

This proved to be an extremely challenging task, and it took us the better part of three years to succeed. Certain features of the Lancer that were not CSGR-compliant were directly responsible for its high performance. It was constructed on a framework that, while logical and perfectly acceptable at the time, came in conflict with the Council legal concept of material capability. Specifically, it was impossible to construct a Lancer model with lower material capability than the baseline mil-spec model, in part because the basic mil-spec model was the only model, but also because – according to the CSGR – the weapon had internal variability in material capability. Yes, I am aware that this makes no sense. As I have repeatedly stated: Do not try to understand the rank model. The idea of material capability is one you will eventually learn through practice and experience, but few ever get to a point where they are able to explain it in terms understandable to a non-lawyer.

Attempts by previous contractors to compete for the M8 had been based on the M7, but our first crucial insight was to use the M7 as a relative measure only and go back to the drawing board. We started by designing a bare-bones Avenger frame, as stripped as possible, to use as a baseline. Comparing its performance to the M7 gave us clear targets to work toward, and showed us that we had a lot of development to do. Here are some of the engineering accomplishments and changes that went into the weapon: Changing the ammo block to a common Council standard size, manufacturable with an omni-tool; switching to Elkoss-Combine's ammo shaver assembly, but using better materials and improving the integration between the two shavers; developing a switchable pseudo-permanent magnetic grain filter, simplifying the sorting of ammo from waste, freeing up a lot of space in the frame, and reducing heat production; and developing a serial-cyclical accelerator rail, which increased the rate of fire with a minimal increase in heat production.

We also designed a parallel loading chamber mechanism, which provided improvements to heat management, better performance to the barrel feed which supported the higher RoF, and increased reliability by lowering component stress and providing some redundancy. This also allowed us to use cheaper components without lowering performance. This feature is only available in the mil-spec variant.

And, finally, we redesigned the heat sink assembly from the ground up once most of the spec was finished. This proved to be the greatest challenge, since even with the space we had managed to free up, getting the heat sink to handle enough heat to get up to the necessary M8 specification ranges proved quite challenging. Nearly 20 months of the development of the weapon was purely an exercise in development of the heat sink assembly, and systems related to it.

Some unusual features were copied from popular modifications to the Lancer, such as a mechanism for automatic adjustment of the distance between the ammo block and the ammo shaver. Waste from the ammo shaving process causes irregularities in the ammo block which can ultimately result in the weapon jamming as the ammo shaver becomes misaligned with the block. Theoretically, the automated adjustment system increases the overall complexity such that it becomes on paper less reliable overall, but we know historically that this isn't the case in practice. Still, the Alliance rejected this particular design on this basis, and as a result it is a feature that is only available in the civilian A3 model.

Specification

Since the Avenger frame is not a specific weapon, but rather a broad group of weapons sharing certain design characteristics, it would be difficult to give a workable specification here. WDAH ratings for Avenger frames range from 2 to 9 in all categories. Therefore, I will here cover two specific Avenger frame assault rifles: The Avenger A2, included here as a reasonable mil-spec baseline, and the Spectre-grade HMWA Mk X 'Master Gear' line assault rifle.

Avenger A2

Fire type: Switchable; semi-automatic, four-round burst, full auto

Switchable fire modes was given as a desired feature for the M8 model rifle, though few of our competitors even made the attempt to implement it. Fact is, the going sentiment in military circles is that the modern assault rifle has made switchable fire modes an obsolete relic of the past. Not really because it wouldn't be practical anymore, more because actually implementing it is… difficult.

Modern weapons are complicated mechanisms that are fine-tuned for their role. The optimal performance settings and calibrations for a semi-automatic DMR are very different than for a regular rifleman's full-auto assault rifle. Thus, switching from one firemode to another either means switching to a sub-optimal setting, or engaging a complicated series of automated recalibrations. It's a daunting engineering challenge, especially if you're working within strict requirements for reliability, but my team and I still decided that we would attempt to develop such a system.

We succeeded: The production rifle has a delay of less than a second on switching firing modes, despite the switch setting in motion a fairly complex series of internal adjustments. Semi-auto mode overcharges the acceleration rails, constricts the barrel and narrows the confinement tunnel generated by the guide rails. It also slightly increases the grain size on the shaver. This results in a significant increase in the Damage metric in WDAH, which highlights a problem with the rating system: It assumes a single firing mode (charge-weapons notwithstanding).

WDAH rating: 4 – 5 – 5 – 8

It is for this reason that the WDAH for the A2 is given based on its full-auto performance. To be more specific, the Damage rating is 5 at full auto, 7 in burst mode, and 9 in semi-auto mode. Again, these ratings are relative to other licensed assault rifles on the market. Even on semi-auto mode, the A2 does not come close to the weakest mil-spec long rifle on the market. It is not competitive in a sniper role, but that was never the intention. The switchable fire modes gives the rifle better flexibility in the field, which reduces the logistical requirements on the Alliance as there is less of a need for specialised weaponry for the bulk of their forces.

Its accuracy ratings are 5 – 5 – 7. Now that may seem like a strange spread, but it has to do with how accuracy is measured: Single shot in the active firing mode. On full-auto, the A2 is calibrated to maintain accuracy within reasonable limits beyond 20 shots. That reduces single-shot accuracy significantly, but allows a rifleman to maintain accurate fire over time. Now, accuracy beyond the first shot is relative to the rifle's kickback, or stability. The active stabilisation mechanism in the A2 works such that it is activated by the first shot, using the recoil to stabilise the weapon. This mechanism puts strict limits on how accurate the weapon can become. However, in semi-automatic mode the mechanism is disabled and you rely entirely on the passive recoil reduction components. This allows for much higher accuracy in semi-auto mode than in either full auto or burst modes, where the latter are effectively no different.

Heat ratings are 8 – 6 – 3. Every adjustment increases heat generation in the weapon, and we can't change its ability to dissipate said heat. The extra jump for semi-auto is because disabling the active stabilisation mechanism actually increases heat generation.

Part of the reason why we developed the switchable fire mode was to replace the now-aging Vindicator frame. The M-15 Vindicator is a newer weapon than the M-7 Lancer, originally a replacement for the even older M-96 Mattock, and is technically a battle rifle rather than an assault rifle. This reflects its use as a designated marksman rifle, with high stopping power and burst fire only. It is meant to be accurate and effective at mid-range engagements, bridging the gap between the short-to-mid-range "spray and pray" assault rifles and the mid-to-long-range sniper rifles. It is a category of weapon that is of questionable use in modern warfare, given that most light sniper rifles, such as the Viper, are best used in a similar role.

Logistically, reducing the overall number of different weapons handled by Alliance logistics would be beneficial so long as it does not negatively impact operational efficiencies. The A2 accomplishes this, by bridging the mid-range gap nearly as well as the Vindicator does. This, however, does not mean that Vindicator frame weapons are ineffective, useless, or outdated. They are still quite popular around the galaxy, as are the older Mattock models that are particularly common in colonial militias and on the second-hand civilian market as a hunting rifle. They are also much more popular – and useful – in the Terminus, where their greater stopping power makes them more effective against the thicker armour you encounter out there.

Additionally, the Vindicator is the primary 'competitor' to the Avenger frame for dominance in assault rifle design. It's a very clear second, but many high-end rifles use this design rather than the Avenger. My own subsidiary Rosenkov Materials has an assault rifle model, the Kovalyov, based on the Vindicator frame.

Spectre HMWA Mk VIII 'Advanced Gear'

Fire type: Full auto

WDAH rating: 3 – 9 – 7 – 8

First things first: I am not delusional, and will readily admit that Spectre gear blows anything and everything my company produces out of the water. If this wasn't the case, then Close Corporation would immediately become the new manufacturer of Spectre gear.

It is worth noting that the HMW Master Gear series is technically illegal in Council space. That is, it is not licensed per the CSGR. This is entirely on purpose; only Spectres are supposed to have these weapons, and Spectres are literally above the law. It was never the intention that the CSGR would become a way for Spectre gear to always be better than the best weapons available on the market, but that was nevertheless a consequence of the regulation.

The HMWA Mk VIII, as the top-of-the-line variant of the HMWA Advanced line, is made from premium materials that does wonders for both weight and heat dissipation. Very few people have ever been allowed to work on one of these rifles, much less disassemble one to see its construction, but it has been tested, so we know its WDAH. It outperforms any other assault rifle on the market on both damage and accuracy. It has the same accuracy rating on the first shot in full-auto as the A2 has for its semi-auto calibrated single shot, which – if I'm quite honest – blows my mind. Most likely this is because the rifle's guide rails are somehow able to maintain a very narrow confinement tunnel through the barrel without impacting its rate of fire or reliability, which is normally a very well-established trade-off.

Notably, the next step up on the HMWA ladder swaps the Avenger frame for a Vindicator frame weapon, the Spectre HMWA Mk X 'Master Gear'. Rated at 2 – 10 – 10 – 9, it is a hugely impressive piece of engineering. Rosenkov Materials' Kovalyov variant of the Vindicator is the second best weapon in this design frame, and the best of the licensed models, but it is nowhere near the HMWA Mk X. Still, as the Alliance has decided to keep the M-15 in their stock, this does mean that my company will get the chance to work on the next developments in that frame as well.

...

Author's notes: I do not own Mass Effect.

This is mostly an attempt to make sense of the differences between ME1-era weapons and the weapons of ME2 and later, beyond the obvious thermal clip design change. Ever notice that there are only two designs for assault rifles in ME1? Well, apart from the Geth rifles, that is. It's true! They all look like either the Lancer/Avenger, or like the Vindicator that we know from ME2 onwards. Hopefully this should explain how that's possible. And keep in mind, throughout the first game we never cross into the Terminus. The closest we get is Hoc (Virmire), which is still in the Traverse. Now, we probably should see some Terminus-design weapons in the Traverse, but we never do. This has to do with cost, reliability, and sourcing: The only enemies we come across that aren't either Geth or organised pirates, are, well, disorganised pirates whose prey are largely in the Traverse and the border regions with the Council. Which means most of their weapons would be from those areas as well.

With the upheaval in weapons design between the first and second game, this status quo will change as the less flexible Council-compliant manufacturers struggle to restructure and the much more agile Terminus manufacturers turn around much quicker and are able to standardise much more easily and readily with the design simplifications that come from the introduction of thermal clips.

RadioPoisoning: The flechettes are not (necessarily) solid chunks of material. They are nanostructured, so you get a lot of structural volume out of a small omni-gel volume. Simplistically put, it's like a balloon; when you blow it up, you change its size but not the amount of material making it up. And no, Javelin likely won't show up... at least not for a while ;) I love that gun, though, so I really want to cover it. We'll see if I can sneak in something in the main fic to justify it here!

Thanks everyone for reviewing! It makes my day! :D