Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Lars M Ericson <lericson@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 15:51:19 CST
Just to add my thoughts on the matter:

Muzzle velocities of weapons vary greatly depending on the
length of the barrels, but this does not mean that they strike
targets with more energy. While the velocity, and subsequently the
kinetic energy, do vary upon leaveing the barrel (muzzle velocity),
identical bullets will both have the same amount of powder and will
strike targets with the same power. The only difference between guns
firing the same rounds that have varying barrel lengths are the
accuracies of the guns. The shorter barrel weapon will not allow the
bullet to burn through all of its powder before exiting the gun (ie
smaller muzzle velocity), the remaining powder will still burn
through, propelling the bullet, the bullet will just be more "wild"
because the trajectory is not directed as well.

So, in summary, extended barrels allow guns to fire more
accurately, not with more kinetic energy.

For those interested, check out an independent product called
Guns, Guns, Guns ! or Guns^3. It explains a lot of the mechanics and
steps taken in building and comparing weapons.

--
Lars M Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Team Garotte, Founding Member
Registered Member of a Decadent Society
<lericson@***.edu>
------------------
DISCLAIMER: Any arrogant or conceited comment originating from this
user is the sole result of his super-inflated ego. Please take
appropriate precautions.
------------------
"Who cares if you see us coming?" - Team Garotte Motto
Message no. 2
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 17:08:49 -0500
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:51:19 CST, lericson@***.edu (Lars M Ericson)
>>>>> said:

LME> The only difference between guns firing the same rounds that have
LME> varying barrel lengths are the accuracies of the guns.

I believe my previous post proves this statement to be incorrect, as all
four weapons that I used as examples fire the same 9x19mm NATO round. All
four weapons have different barrel lengths, and each weapon has a different
muzzle energy and a different muzzle velocity compared to the others.

LME> The shorter barrel weapon will not allow the bullet to burn through
LME> all of its powder before exiting the gun (ie smaller muzzle velocity),
LME> the remaining powder will still burn through, propelling the bullet,
LME> the bullet will just be more "wild" because the trajectory is not
LME> directed as well.

This is not quite true, either. The problem of accuracy is due to the
amount of spin imparted to the bullet. The longer barrel provides more
spin than a shorter barrel. The greater the spin (up to a point) the more
accurate the round becomes, just like a gyroscope. Escaping propellant
gasses adding to ``wobble'' is negligible.

|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/USER/ratinox |
| GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+ |
| It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Coca- |
| Cola that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains |
| become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. |
|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
Message no. 3
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Firearms
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:04:19 EST
I have a question for all you GM's and players. If a character has a firearms
skill of 3 how good could he shoot targets. What i'm trying to ask is what
would be the target number for someone to do like competition shooting. For
Example:

Joe has a firearms of 3, and he rolls those die to hit the target. He gets 3
successes and hits the 9 ring, the 8 ring, and the 10 ring.

DRagon Claw
Message no. 4
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:08:45 EST
In a message dated 98-12-19 17:05:10 EST, you write:

> I have a question for all you GM's and players. If a character has a
> firearms
> skill of 3 how good could he shoot targets. What i'm trying to ask is what
> would be the target number for someone to do like competition shooting.
For
> Example:
>
> Joe has a firearms of 3, and he rolls those die to hit the target. He gets
> 3
> successes and hits the 9 ring, the 8 ring, and the 10 ring.
>
> DRagon Claw

Interesting thougts there, Dragon claw.

What I would do is assign the normal TN mondifiers for range, and then an
additional +1 to the TN because the target is smaller than man sized. You
then make a skill roll as normal, and each additional success means that the
shot hit one ring closer to the bull. (I imagine a 5 ring target in this
case). If the rule of one comes into play, clearly the gun jammed or is
otherwise rendered inoperable, possibly disqualifying the charecter. Combat
pool would apply, of course... and since you dont have to worry about people
shooting BACK... Although with the new rules faster chareters still would
have less dice per shot to use than slower charecters, unless they shoot
slower.... but does come close to mimicing the RW without bending the system
unduly. I would imagine that there would be several categories now, with
people with smartlinks in their own category, and those without using regular
iron sights, just to keep the playing field relativly level, so to speak.

This would be a little more in keeping with the way I see skills working in
SR, rather than your original suggestion. Of course, some of the great old
ones on this list probobly have better ideas.

--
Starrngr -- Now with an UPDATED webpage:
Ranger HQ
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm">;
HTTP://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm</A>;

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they call
you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.
Message no. 5
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:55:00 EST
In a message dated 12/19/98 2:05:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
DragonC147@***.COM writes:

> Joe has a firearms of 3, and he rolls those die to hit the target. He gets
3
> successes and hits the 9 ring, the 8 ring, and the 10 ring.
>
well maybe if he were firing thre shots :-)
IMO this is also a good place for an open test.
Set a chart of what the highest die is equal to, and that is it for the shot.
(if that made sense)
Message no. 6
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:53:41 -0600
:> Joe has a firearms of 3, and he rolls those die to hit the target. He
gets
:3
:> successes and hits the 9 ring, the 8 ring, and the 10 ring.
:>
:well maybe if he were firing thre shots :-)
:IMO this is also a good place for an open test.
:Set a chart of what the highest die is equal to, and that is it for the
shot.
:(if that made sense)

That would seem logical, as its not a resisted test, but it leads to a
question; if a good single result (on said open test) puts a bullet into
the brainpan of a cardboard silhouette, why doesn't it do the same for a
real target (when you roll the same numbers as a ranged attack)?
The targets I've seen are either human sized (with no legs = partial
cover), or about 8" diameter (called shot). You could treat them as such,
and have each success move the bullet closer to bulls-eye. Beginners will
never get bulls eye (unrealistic), but it fits the ranged combat rules.
If you just want a general index of competence for various skill
values, SR3 has a decent one. Find out what the normal score for a person
with the described level of competence is and use that, plus or minus a
few.

Mongoose
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:17:34 +0100
According to Andrew Spurgeon, at 17:04 on 19 Dec 98, the word on
the street was...

> I have a question for all you GM's and players. If a character has a firearms
> skill of 3 how good could he shoot targets. What i'm trying to ask is what
> would be the target number for someone to do like competition shooting. For
> Example:
>
> Joe has a firearms of 3, and he rolls those die to hit the target. He gets 3
> successes and hits the 9 ring, the 8 ring, and the 10 ring.

I'd probably do this by rolling a skill test against the base TN for the
range. Then, see by how much the roll beats the TN, and the hit lands
within the area of the ring with the same number. No successes means the
whole target is missed, of course.

For example, if tit's Medium range and there are no other modifiers (let's
assume this is an indoor shooting range), the TN is 5. If the character
roll 3, 5, and 8, the shot lands in the 3-ring (8 - 5 = 3); OTOH if the
rolls are 3, 5, and 19, the bullet hits the 10-ring (19 - 5 = 14, which
counts as 10).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What do you mean, "let it"? How can you stop it?
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: "Hatchetman, GUV" <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:18:55 -0800
> That would seem logical, as its not a resisted test, but it leads to
a
> question; if a good single result (on said open test) puts a bullet into
> the brainpan of a cardboard silhouette, why doesn't it do the same for a
> real target (when you roll the same numbers as a ranged attack)?
> The targets I've seen are either human sized (with no legs = partial
> cover), or about 8" diameter (called shot). You could treat them as
such,
> and have each success move the bullet closer to bulls-eye. Beginners
will
> never get bulls eye (unrealistic), but it fits the ranged combat rules.
> If you just want a general index of competence for various skill
> values, SR3 has a decent one. Find out what the normal score for a
person
> with the described level of competence is and use that, plus or minus a
> few.

Humans move ^_^ Of course, if you're shooting from ambush, that makes
perfect sense then. Hey, beginners can get the 10 ring if they aim long
enough.

Hatchetman, GUV.
Message no. 9
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:13:36 -0600
:Humans move ^_^ Of course, if you're shooting from ambush, that makes
:perfect sense then. Hey, beginners can get the 10 ring if they aim long
:enough.


Somebody using a firearms skill of 1 can't , BTB, use a heavy pistol to
kill a stationary target from ambush with one shot- no matter how long
they aim, or how good the result on their 2 dice is. So it's odd that
they could get "on spot" at a range. That's all I meant. Maybe with a
(really) low skill, you don't know enough to aim for the head / heart?

Mongoose
Message no. 10
From: "Hatchetman, GUV" <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:08:10 -0800
> Somebody using a firearms skill of 1 can't , BTB, use a heavy pistol
to
> kill a stationary target from ambush with one shot- no matter how long
> they aim, or how good the result on their 2 dice is. So it's odd that
> they could get "on spot" at a range. That's all I meant. Maybe with a
> (really) low skill, you don't know enough to aim for the head / heart?

Yes, ok, but what if they've got a _huge_ karma pool to burn? ^_^ No, they
couldn't, but I was thinking theoretically. I've never seen anyone new to
shooting use a handgun right away. That's how I sort of look at weapon
skills. When you've got low skill, you just kind of generally shoot "at
them" but as you get better, you learn what spots to aim for that will take
them down faster. But, going that way, someone who understands the human
body and central nervous system would have a fairly high chance of killing.
Hmmm, well, maybe any doctors who are shooting should get a bonus or
something. :) arg. I'm being a goof today, ignore me.

Hatchetman, GUV.
Message no. 11
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:18:52 EST
In a message dated 98-12-20 16:00:42 EST, you write:

> Somebody using a firearms skill of 1 can't , BTB, use a heavy pistol to
> kill a stationary target from ambush with one shot- no matter how long
> they aim, or how good the result on their 2 dice is. So it's odd that
> they could get "on spot" at a range. That's all I meant. Maybe with a
> (really) low skill, you don't know enough to aim for the head / heart?
>
> Mongoose

Thats sort of the way I tend to see it now, especially with the skill levels
as listed in the book. At skill level 1 about all you know is you keep the
end with the hole pointed AWAY from you, and if you squeeze the trigger (and
rememberd to take off the saftey) you get a big bang. Figuring out how to use
the sights starts at about 2 and up....
Message no. 12
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:52:18 EST
In a message dated 12/19/98 11:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> That would seem logical, as its not a resisted test, but it leads to a
> question; if a good single result (on said open test) puts a bullet into
> the brainpan of a cardboard silhouette, why doesn't it do the same for a
> real target (when you roll the same numbers as a ranged attack)?
I would say the difference is the variables of combat. There are a lot of
differences between range and combat, and the high roll on the open test would
just represent a luckier shot.

"I got a 2cm group!"
"Yea, but its two meters from the target!"
Message no. 13
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:02:00 EST
In a message dated 12/20/98 1:00:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> Somebody using a firearms skill of 1 can't , BTB, use a heavy pistol to
> kill a stationary target from ambush with one shot- no matter how long
> they aim, or how good the result on their 2 dice is. So it's odd that
> they could get "on spot" at a range. That's all I meant. Maybe with a
> (really) low skill, you don't know enough to aim for the head / heart?

Depends on the combat pool doesn't it? :-)
without combat pool to bump a Moderate damage to deadly is 4 successes. That
means most times a person with 4 skill could not do it (he would need all
successes)
Geez, its not that hard to kill people with a handgun IRL.

"Remember police agencies count officer suicides as 1-shot stops, to improve
their percentages."
Message no. 14
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:58:57 -0500
On 12/20/98 7:52 PM, Michael vanHulst said:

>In a message dated 12/19/98 11:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:
>
>> That would seem logical, as its not a resisted test, but it leads to a
>> question; if a good single result (on said open test) puts a bullet into
>> the brainpan of a cardboard silhouette, why doesn't it do the same for a
>> real target (when you roll the same numbers as a ranged attack)?
>I would say the difference is the variables of combat. There are a lot of
>differences between range and combat, and the high roll on the open test
>would
>just represent a luckier shot.
>
>"I got a 2cm group!"
>"Yea, but its two meters from the target!"
>

Sort of like when I was on the rifle range in Basic Training I had a
beautiful 4 inch group except for 4 shots (out of 40) the only problem
was that it was centered about 8 inches from the 10 ring. I ended up
scoring a 39 out of a possible 400, it's a good thing it was the Air
Force and not one of the other services where you actually have to
qualify. This was the first time I had ever fired a rifle before and I
rested my head across the stock causing me to be looking at the bottom
left side of one sight and the top right side of the other, pushing my
aim point high and right. The 4 other shots were the ones I knew I
screwed up on but actually ended up getting me 30 of my 39 points :).

Steve
Message no. 15
From: "Hatchetman, GUV" <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:00:15 -0800
> Sort of like when I was on the rifle range in Basic Training I had a
> beautiful 4 inch group except for 4 shots (out of 40) the only problem
> was that it was centered about 8 inches from the 10 ring. I ended up
> scoring a 39 out of a possible 400, it's a good thing it was the Air
> Force and not one of the other services where you actually have to
> qualify. This was the first time I had ever fired a rifle before and I
> rested my head across the stock causing me to be looking at the bottom
> left side of one sight and the top right side of the other, pushing my
> aim point high and right. The 4 other shots were the ones I knew I
> screwed up on but actually ended up getting me 30 of my 39 points :).

What was the range you were shooting at? I've seen a lot of people do some
wierd stuff the first time they pick up a gun. And especially people who've
never fired a semi-auto before. I must have come with an ingrained
familiarity with guns, nobody ever taught me how, but first time I fired a
gun when I was 12 or so, it just seemed perfectly natural how I should
stand and hold it. 39 out of 400? Using real 10-ring targets now too, how
long ago was that? They use ones similar to the FBI now, a silhouette with
the CNS outlined.

Hatchetman, GUV.
Message no. 16
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:19:09 -0600
:. When you've got low skill, you just kind of generally shoot "at
:them" but as you get better, you learn what spots to aim for that will
take
:them down faster. But, going that way, someone who understands the human
:body and central nervous system would have a fairly high chance of
killing.
:Hmmm, well, maybe any doctors who are shooting should get a bonus or
:something. :) arg. I'm being a goof today, ignore me.


That's not at all goofy. I made the same point in one of our games about
vehicles; they are really big, and to stop them, you need to know WHERE to
shoot as much as HOW to shoot.
You could used vehicle B/R (and biotech) as complimentary skills, but that
just piles on MORE damage (and dice) :( . I guess its just assumed that
people learning weapon skills learn what parts of a broad variety of
targets are best to hit...

Mongoose
Message no. 17
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:24:49 -0600
:> Somebody using a firearms skill of 1 can't , BTB, use a heavy pistol
to
:> kill a stationary target from ambush with one shot- no matter how long
:> they aim, or how good the result on their 2 dice is.

:Depends on the combat pool doesn't it? :-)

No, it does not. That's why I said "using a skill of 1"- you'd be limited
to 1 pool die (karma or combat).

:Geez, its not that hard to kill people with a handgun IRL.

Yes and no. In gang fights, people do get shot multiple times and live.
On the other hand, and execution style killing takes almost no (gun)
skill.

Mongoose
Message no. 18
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:12:41 -0500
On 12/21/98 6:00 PM, Hatchetman, GUV said:

>
>What was the range you were shooting at? I've seen a lot of people do some
>wierd stuff the first time they pick up a gun. And especially people who've
>never fired a semi-auto before. I must have come with an ingrained
>familiarity with guns, nobody ever taught me how, but first time I fired a
>gun when I was 12 or so, it just seemed perfectly natural how I should
>stand and hold it. 39 out of 400? Using real 10-ring targets now too, how
>long ago was that? They use ones similar to the FBI now, a silhouette with
>the CNS outlined.
>
> Hatchetman, GUV.
>
This would have been in Air Force Basic Training in 1988. I know that Air
Force uses a very different qualifying procedure from everybody else
since almost no one ever see's a weapon after basic. It went like this we
were given 50 rounds of .22LR ammo to fire out of modified M-16's (That's
right .22LR). The first 10 were fired for practice at a 50 Meter Match
Pistol Target placed 50 Meters away. Of the rest of the 40 rounds that
counted for score 20 were fired from a standing position, 10 were fired
from a sitting position, and 10 were fired from a prone position. My
shooting was not bad in terms of consistancy but I just aimed at the
wrond place without knowing it. The funny part was that if we got a
misfire we were not alowed to touch the charging handle but had to ask a
Drill Instructor clear the bad round for us. Now the Guy next to me got
chewed out for literaly shooting the 10 ring out of the target. The DI
assumed he pushed it out with his finger after we got to our targets for
inspection.

Steve
Message no. 19
From: "Hatchetman, GUV" <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:13:16 -0800
> That's not at all goofy. I made the same point in one of our games about
> vehicles; they are really big, and to stop them, you need to know WHERE
to
> shoot as much as HOW to shoot.
> You could used vehicle B/R (and biotech) as complimentary skills, but
that
> just piles on MORE damage (and dice) :( . I guess its just assumed that
> people learning weapon skills learn what parts of a broad variety of
> targets are best to hit...

Ok, chalk up another moment of clarity from extreme lack of sleep. But I
know a few people who are considered to be the best shooters in the area.
One of them even won the nationals, a contest that is virtually always won
by one of the RCMP officers who compete, and they'd have to rely on the
sheer power of their weapon to take something down.

Hatchetman, GUV
Message no. 20
From: "Hatchetman, GUV" <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Firearms
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:20:13 -0800
> This would have been in Air Force Basic Training in 1988. I know that Air
> Force uses a very different qualifying procedure from everybody else
> since almost no one ever see's a weapon after basic. It went like this we
> were given 50 rounds of .22LR ammo to fire out of modified M-16's (That's
> right .22LR). The first 10 were fired for practice at a 50 Meter Match
> Pistol Target placed 50 Meters away. Of the rest of the 40 rounds that
> counted for score 20 were fired from a standing position, 10 were fired
> from a sitting position, and 10 were fired from a prone position. My
> shooting was not bad in terms of consistancy but I just aimed at the
> wrond place without knowing it. The funny part was that if we got a
> misfire we were not alowed to touch the charging handle but had to ask a
> Drill Instructor clear the bad round for us. Now the Guy next to me got
> chewed out for literaly shooting the 10 ring out of the target. The DI
> assumed he pushed it out with his finger after we got to our targets for
> inspection.

Yeah, I've seen all kinds of guns converted to .22LR. Not military though,
that's quite odd. Well, your shooting was consistent, so you shoot stable
enough, just your posture was wrong. How well did you shoot after you knew
how to line the sights right? Hmm, an interesting thought, but I could
shoot the center out of a 10-ring with 40 rounds, but the DI should have
gone out and got the targets himself if he was so worried about people
cheating. Or maby he should have been watching everyone shoot. Of course, I
practice to obsessiveness. I don't do that well in prone though, I had to
get a bipod, I can't stay steady without it, my knee is screwed up, makes
that kind of thing hard.

Hatchetman, GUV.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Firearms, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!