Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Legion and Chelle <legion@******.COM>
Subject: Firearms, etc.
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:51:09 -0800
Hi there. I'm a new poster to the list, and I saw a couple of things that
I just had to comment on...

First, there is a large, popular misconception about silencers and what
they do. Y'see, when you fire a gun, there are actually *two* noises you
hear: the gunshot is the obvious one, caused by the explosion of the
gunpowder of the cartridge. The *other* noise is the 'crack' the bullet
makes as it goes through the sound barrier. What a silencer is meant to
do is diffuse the noise of the gunshot itself. Although this minor
venting does slow the bullet down a little, it will generally not slow it
to subsonic speeds, and as a result A SILENCER DOES NOT ELIMINATE ALL
SOUND FROM FIRING THE GUN!! So, you're asking yourself, 'So what the hell
good is it, anyway?' Good question. The answer: The sound of the sonic
'mini-boom' the bullet makes comes not from the gun you're holding, but
travels along with the bullet itself. What this means is that, although
your target *will* know he's being shot at, it is simply impossible for
unaugmented human ears to determine from the 'crack' *where* the shots
are coming from(I'm thinking ultrasonic targeting cyber-ears might help
here, but little else would). Today, IRL, you can buy subsonic ammo in most
pistol calibers (not sure if they make SS rifle rounds), and a few calibers,
notably the .45 automatic, just happen to *be* subsonic. Naturally, with
a slower bullet, it doesn't hit quite as hard, so I'd penalize the damage
by -1 or -2 power, but using subsonic rounds with a silenced weapon
would, in fact, make the gun inaudible beyond a few feet.

Second, about shotguns ang gas-vents. Someone (I forget who) posted
saying that this is impossible because of the damage the pellets would do
to the vent & barrel. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not only possible, but
it's done today IRL. My old roommate is the proud (mighty proud) owner of
a Benelli M3 12-guage, and it has been ported for several months now, and
had over 100 rounds though it, and the venting works like a dream. I can
only guess that, since the pellets are packed pretty tightly in the
shell, when the round is fired, the pressure of the gas keeps the pellets
'in-line' and away from the interior side of the vent...

If your brain doesn't hurt yet, ask real nice, and I'll explain to our
european contributors the difference between a silencer and a
suppressor... :-)

legion
lead paint

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| I shall stomp upon all who oppose me. The stomping
legion@******.com | shall be swift. The stomping shall be painful. And
| I shall show no mercy in all of my stomping. Amen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-O-O-O-O High Priest of the Church of the Easily Amused O-O-O-O-
Message no. 2
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:49:10 +0000
Legion and Chelle wrote,

> a Benelli M3 12-guage, and it has been ported for several months now, and
> had over 100 rounds though it, and the venting works like a dream. I can
> only guess that, since the pellets are packed pretty tightly in the
> shell, when the round is fired, the pressure of the gas keeps the pellets
> 'in-line' and away from the interior side of the vent...

Really? I'd think that the venting would act just like a silencer
does and suck up the shot. Unless, the venting is significantly smaller
than the shot he uses?


--Droopy
droopy@**.net
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:39:07 +0000
In message <Pine.3.89.9612060923.A6425-0100000@********>, Legion and
Chelle <legion@******.COM> writes
>Naturally, with
>a slower bullet, it doesn't hit quite as hard, so I'd penalize the damage
>by -1 or -2 power,

What if it was already a subsonic? Like a .45ACP? You surely aren't
saying a 200-grain .45ACP JHP lacks stopping power? <bseg>

>but using subsonic rounds with a silenced weapon
>would, in fact, make the gun inaudible beyond a few feet.

Nope, unless you lock the action too. Otherwise you have the quite loud
(in some circumstances) clackety-clack of the action cycling.

>If your brain doesn't hurt yet, ask real nice, and I'll explain to our
>european contributors the difference between a silencer and a
>suppressor... :-)

Gee whiz, Firearm Certificate holder for years, former Territorial Army,
I know just a little bit about guns even if I am forced to live in Yerp.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 4
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 06:54:09 -0500
<SNIP subsonic stuff>

>>but using subsonic rounds with a silenced weapon
>>would, in fact, make the gun inaudible beyond a few feet.
>
>Nope, unless you lock the action too. Otherwise you have the quite loud
>(in some circumstances) clackety-clack of the action cycling.

OK, for those of us for whom the concept of guns doesn't go much
beyond the "Bang-bang, you're dead!" games of youth, what exactly does
"locking the action" mean?



Peace and Long Life,
Scott
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:54:01 +0100
Sight Unseen said on 6:54/ 7 Dec 96...

> >Nope, unless you lock the action too. Otherwise you have the quite loud
> >(in some circumstances) clackety-clack of the action cycling.
>
> OK, for those of us for whom the concept of guns doesn't go much
> beyond the "Bang-bang, you're dead!" games of youth, what exactly does
> "locking the action" mean?

Self-loading weapons have lots of stuff moving around inside them when a
shot gets fired, to remove the empty casing from the gun, put an unfired
round into the chamber (or in reverse order), and generally make the gun
ready to fire again. Locking the action means all this won't happen,
because the firer applies a catch that prevents the whole lot from moving.
As a result, there is very little mechanical noise: the clacks of pieces
of metal hitting other pieces of metal is elminated, so the weapon is very
hard to hear even at close range.

Naturally, there's no point in doing this unless you also prevent the
round itself from making noise (by means of sound suppresser and possibly
silenced ammo).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Laat het los.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 6
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:25:46 +0000
In message <3.0.16.19961207025156.2c37f8bc@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes

>>Nope, unless you lock the action too. Otherwise you have the quite loud
>>(in some circumstances) clackety-clack of the action cycling.
>
> OK, for those of us for whom the concept of guns doesn't go much
>beyond the "Bang-bang, you're dead!" games of youth, what exactly does
>"locking the action" mean?

When you fire a semi-automatic weapon (like an automatic pistol) the
slide recoils to eject the fired case, then moves forward to chamber the
next one. Even in a caseless weapon you have to get the next round in
the chamber somehow.

This makes a fairly loud and distinctive mechanical noise, which you
might want to eliminate (on a quiet night you can clearly hear a weapon
being cocked at four hundred yards).

So, you lock the slide in place, making the gun into a single-shot
weapon but making less noise when you fire.

Only necessary if you have a good enough silencer, of course.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 7
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:26:23 EST
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:51:09 -0800 Legion and Chelle <legion@******.COM>
writes:
<snip hello>
>First, there is a large, popular misconception about silencers and
>what
>they do. Y'see, when you fire a gun, there are actually *two* noises
>you
>hear: the gunshot is the obvious one, caused by the explosion of the
>gunpowder of the cartridge. The *other* noise is the 'crack' the
>bullet
>makes as it goes through the sound barrier. What a silencer is meant
>to
>do is diffuse the noise of the gunshot itself. Although this minor
>venting does slow the bullet down a little, it will generally not slow
>it
>to subsonic speeds, and as a result A SILENCER DOES NOT ELIMINATE ALL
>SOUND FROM FIRING THE GUN!! So, you're asking yourself, 'So what the
>hell
>good is it, anyway?' Good question. The answer: The sound of the sonic
>'mini-boom' the bullet makes comes not from the gun you're holding,
>but
>travels along with the bullet itself. What this means is that,
>although
>your target *will* know he's being shot at, it is simply impossible
>for
>unaugmented human ears to determine from the 'crack' *where* the shots
>are coming from(I'm thinking ultrasonic targeting cyber-ears might
>help
>here, but little else would). Today, IRL, you can buy subsonic ammo in
<snip subsonic ammo>
Yeah, but if the victim is far enough away from the gun, he's not going
to hear the explosion of the gunpowder (either he's being sniped or
someone's using a silenced weapon under cover). You're half-right: the
sonic crack of the bullet DOES travel with the bullet, but since the
bullet is moving at super-sonic speeds, it will get there before the
sound would, silencer or no:) I'll admit that I don't know enough about
firearms to do much more than figure out how to fire one (and that none
too well:), so take my opinions on them with a grain of salt, but, I do
now that a super-sonic object will be traveling _ahead_ of the sonic
boom-so the target wouldn't here the sound until after the bullet was
past them (it doesn't make much difference when the bullet isn't
traveling at, say Mach 2, but it is a subtle difference in how quickly
the target can figure things out)
<snip shotgusn and gos vents>
>If your brain doesn't hurt yet, ask real nice, and I'll explain to our
>european contributors the difference between a silencer and a
>suppressor... :-)
How about explaining them to me? As I understand it, the suppressor
bleeds of the gas to prevent muzzle flash and noise, while a silencer
slws it down to below the speed of sound (cooling and muffling it in the
process)

John Pederson "God is dead"
lobo1@****.com -Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 to
1900)
I don't know where my home page is! "Nietzsche is dead"
Only dead fish swim with the stream -God (everlasting to everlasting)
Message no. 8
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:57:39 +0000
In message <19961208.202618.22287.0.lobo1@****.com>, John E Pederson
<lobo1@****.COM> writes
>Yeah, but if the victim is far enough away from the gun, he's not going
>to hear the explosion of the gunpowder (either he's being sniped or
>someone's using a silenced weapon under cover).

How far is "far enough"? It's clearly audible through ear defenders even
with a shooter 400 yards away. Rifle fire sounds like <CRACK>...<thump>
when it goes overhead: there's about a second between the crack and
thump per 300 yards from the shooter, it's useful for range estimation
of "how far away is that sniper?"

>You're half-right: the
>sonic crack of the bullet DOES travel with the bullet, but since the
>bullet is moving at super-sonic speeds, it will get there before the
>sound would, silencer or no:)
<snip>
>-so the target wouldn't here the sound until after the bullet was
>past them (it doesn't make much difference when the bullet isn't
>traveling at, say Mach 2, but it is a subtle difference in how quickly
>the target can figure things out)

Or the target's sniper locator system. Nice little array of five
microphones, which detect the N-wave (the crack of the supersonic
bullet) and work out a bearing to within ten degrees and a range within
about twenty per cent from wave front curvature (This is 1980s tech: SR
should do better).

This might be the reason sniper rifles are subsonic :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 9
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:43:12 EST
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:57:39 +0000 "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes:
>In message <19961208.202618.22287.0.lobo1@****.com>, John E Pederson
><lobo1@****.COM> writes
>>Yeah, but if the victim is far enough away from the gun, he's not
>going
>>to hear the explosion of the gunpowder (either he's being sniped or
>>someone's using a silenced weapon under cover).
>
>How far is "far enough"? It's clearly audible through ear defenders
>even
>with a shooter 400 yards away. Rifle fire sounds like
><CRACK>...<thump>

Well, I didn't know that (as I've said before, firearms aren't my area of
expertise, or even close to it). 'Sides, when you've only shot something
heavier than a BB gun a relatively few times, there's a lot you don't
know:) So, that's my fault:(, but I think it's an understandable mistake
under my circumstances:/ This is why I usually stay out these
discussions:(

>when it goes overhead: there's about a second between the crack and
>thump per 300 yards from the shooter, it's useful for range estimation
>of "how far away is that sniper?"
>
>>You're half-right: the
>>sonic crack of the bullet DOES travel with the bullet, but since the
>>bullet is moving at super-sonic speeds, it will get there before the
>>sound would, silencer or no:)
><snip>
>>-so the target wouldn't here the sound until after the bullet was
>>past them (it doesn't make much difference when the bullet isn't
>>traveling at, say Mach 2, but it is a subtle difference in how
>quickly
>>the target can figure things out)
>
>Or the target's sniper locator system. Nice little array of five
>microphones, which detect the N-wave (the crack of the supersonic
>bullet) and work out a bearing to within ten degrees and a range
>within
>about twenty per cent from wave front curvature (This is 1980s tech:
>SR
>should do better).

I've never even heard of that item...are there stats for the SR
equivalent? If not, I'll just have to fudge it (I hate having to do
that:(

>This might be the reason sniper rifles are subsonic :)

Could be:)

<snip .sig>

John Pederson "God is dead"
lobo1@****.com -Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 to
1900)
I don't know where my home page is! "Nietzsche is dead"
Only dead fish swim with the stream -God (everlasting to everlasting)
Message no. 10
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:20:33 +0000
In message <19961209.174203.19007.0.lobo1@****.com>, John E Pederson
<lobo1@****.COM> writes
>On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:57:39 +0000 "Paul J. Adam"
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes:
>>Or the target's sniper locator system. Nice little array of five
>>microphones, which detect the N-wave (the crack of the supersonic
>>bullet) and work out a bearing to within ten degrees and a range
>>within
>>about twenty per cent from wave front curvature (This is 1980s tech:
>>SR
>>should do better).
>
>I've never even heard of that item...are there stats for the SR
>equivalent? If not, I'll just have to fudge it (I hate having to do
>that:(

I'd say weight 2kg, cost Y10,000, main problem is size (imagine a flat
crucifix with each arm a yard long, and a third arm eighteen inches long
rising from the centre: microphones on each. Or vehicle-mount it, one on
each side and one on the roof). Accuracy is virtually precise in azimuth
and equal to 2d6-7% of range (e.g. roll 7, dead on: roll 2, -5%: roll
12, +5%). Can be BattleTac linked to the security detail, or to the
mortar platoon ;)

Not effective on pistols, shotguns, SMGs or sniper rifles. Or bows,
grenade launchers, etc.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: Legion and Chelle <legion@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 05:40:33 -0800
Paul wrote

>>Naturally, with
>a slower bullet, it doesn't hit quite as hard, so I'd penalize the damage
>by -1 or -2 power,
>
>What if it was already a subsonic? Like a .45ACP? You surely aren't
>saying a 200-grain .45ACP JHP lacks stopping power? <bseg>

Certainly not, but imagine what sort of stopping power a .45 slug going
better than 1000 fps would have compared to what it has at the
(relatively) leisurely ~750 fps it gets normally. Of course, the amount
of powder that would require would put you easily into the carbine class
of weapons, but hey...

>
>>but using subsonic rounds with a silenced weapon
>>would, in fact, make the gun inaudible beyond a few feet.
>
>Nope, unless you lock the action too. Otherwise you have the quite loud
>(in some circumstances) clackety-clack of the action cycling.

Whoops, you got me on that one; I forgot about the mechanicals...

legion
silencers golden

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| I shall stomp upon all who oppose me. The stomping
legion@******.com | shall be swift. The stomping shall be painful. And
| I shall show no mercy in all of my stomping. Amen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-O-O-O-O High Priest of the Church of the Easily Amused O-O-O-O-
Message no. 12
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:45:44 +0000
In message <Pine.3.89.9612100516.A4076-0100000@********>, Legion and
Chelle <legion@******.COM> writes
>Paul wrote
>>What if it was already a subsonic? Like a .45ACP? You surely aren't
>>saying a 200-grain .45ACP JHP lacks stopping power? <bseg>
>
>Certainly not, but imagine what sort of stopping power a .45 slug going
>better than 1000 fps would have compared to what it has at the
>(relatively) leisurely ~750 fps it gets normally. Of course, the amount
>of powder that would require would put you easily into the carbine class
>of weapons, but hey...

Sure, but then what if you get a 4750 fps .125in bullet? Is that going
to do more or less damage? And my .45s are flying at 900fps, got to make
that Major power factor :)

And some of my friends shoot 180-grain .45s at 1100fps, though only at
paper targets so we have no idea about effectiveness at anything except
making Major in Practical Pistol ;)

Remember the 10mm Lesson: a large, high-velocity round with lots and
lots of stopping power, that was too abrupt for many people to shoot and
also was very harsh on the guns it was fired from. Reducing the velocity
and lightening the bullet made it more controllable, but also less
effective. You need to balance velocity and round size/weight: 230-grain
.45 is too heavy and slow IMHO, but 200-grain is an excellent compromise
between size and velocity.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 13
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Firearms, etc.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:46:29 EST
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:20:33 +0000 "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes:
>In message <19961209.174203.19007.0.lobo1@****.com>, John E Pederson
><lobo1@****.COM> writes
>>On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:57:39 +0000 "Paul J. Adam"
>><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes:
>>>Or the target's sniper locator system. Nice little array of five
>>>microphones, which detect the N-wave (the crack of the supersonic
>>>bullet) and work out a bearing to within ten degrees and a range
>>>within
>>>about twenty per cent from wave front curvature (This is 1980s tech:
>>>SR
>>>should do better).
>>
>>I've never even heard of that item...are there stats for the SR
>>equivalent? If not, I'll just have to fudge it (I hate having to do
>>that:(
>
>I'd say weight 2kg, cost Y10,000, main problem is size (imagine a flat
>crucifix with each arm a yard long, and a third arm eighteen inches
>long
>rising from the centre: microphones on each. Or vehicle-mount it, one
>on
>each side and one on the roof). Accuracy is virtually precise in
>azimuth
>and equal to 2d6-7% of range (e.g. roll 7, dead on: roll 2, -5%: roll
>12, +5%). Can be BattleTac linked to the security detail, or to the
>mortar platoon ;)
Could be fun if any of my players decide to be snipers:)
>
>Not effective on pistols, shotguns, SMGs or sniper rifles. Or bows,
>grenade launchers, etc.
So it wouldn't be useful for one of the players unless they're a
rigger...good:)
<snip .sig>

John Pederson "God is dead"
lobo1@****.com -Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 to
1900)
I don't know where my home page is! "Nietzsche is dead"
Only dead fish swim with the stream -God (everlasting to everlasting)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Firearms, etc., 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!