Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell <jomonbre@***.UPV.ES>
Subject: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:45:05 +0000
I would like to know the opinion about this one. IIRC, gas-venting a
weapon is made to the barrel. What happens if the weapon has multiple
barrels?

--
Monde, who-wishes-to-know-more-about-firearms
Message no. 2
From: Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:35:23 -0500
I think I can elaborate on this one, if a weapon has more than one
barrel like HVAR, and the mini-guns and such. Well for Mini-guns like the
vindicator is set differently then normal barrel weapons and con not have
gas vents, they don't need it, they already have a weird system that does
the same job. As for HVAR and the such with multiple barrels but set up
like normal one barrel weapons they would have to either get three
separate gas vents, which doesn't help concealbilty, but this is an LMG or
better who cares, or you can have a cutomized piece of harware made that
would be smaller than three gas vents but act like three gas vents, bu
this would be rather expensive and very rare. If you want recoil
supression a real easy way to do it is rebuild the stock and put a
hydraulic shock into it, add a shoulder pad on your bod and fire away, the
rebuilt stock should cost from 100% to 200% of the wepon depending who
doing it and what kind of GM you have. I hope that helped much
McKenna


> I would like to know the opinion about this one. IIRC, gas-venting a
> weapon is made to the barrel. What happens if the weapon has multiple
> barrels?
>
> --
> Monde, who-wishes-to-know-more-about-firearms
>

******************************************************************************


Mark W. McKenna Quote:
920 E. Wooster Apt. #4 "Oops I'll call you in a sec..."
Bowling Green, Ohio -the 7 second phone call
43402 <Mr. White>
(419)353-2405 Hobbies:Avid Shdowrun and Rifts RPG player

******************************************************************************
Message no. 3
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:47:21 -0700
Mark McKenna wrote:
|
| I think I can elaborate on this one, if a weapon has more than one
| barrel like HVAR, and the mini-guns and such. Well for Mini-guns like the
|
[snip]
|
| > I would like to know the opinion about this one. IIRC, gas-venting a
| > weapon is made to the barrel. What happens if the weapon has multiple
| > barrels?
| >
| > --
| > Monde, who-wishes-to-know-more-about-firearms

Mark, could you put your replies *after* the post you're
replying to (like I'm doing)? Otherwise it's like hearing
a conversation out of order, and can get really confusing.

Thanks,
-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 4
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:09:04 +0000
On 14 Feb 97 at 13:35, Mark McKenna wrote:
[snip]
> As for HVAR and the such with multiple barrels but set up
> like normal one barrel weapons they would have to either get three
> separate gas vents, which doesn't help concealbilty, but this is an LMG or
> better who cares, or you can have a cutomized piece of harware made that
> would be smaller than three gas vents but act like three gas vents, bu
> this would be rather expensive and very rare.
[snip]
What does give you the idea a HVAR has multiple barrels? The only
weapon I can remember that had 3 barrels were those on the Cybermanced
creatures from "Never Trust an Elf" (RN. Charette).

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |I don't believe in love,|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ |I never have, / I never |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de |will, / I don't believe |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| in love / it's never |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |worth the pain you feel |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----Queensryche-+
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:39:58 +0100
Sascha Pabst said on 17:09/15 Feb 97...

> What does give you the idea a HVAR has multiple barrels?

The picture in Fields of Fire shows a gun that looks like it has three
barrels with a sleeve around the lot, probably to prevent the firer from
trying to hold them...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Watching re-runs on my TV.
-> 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: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:54:27 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
| Sascha Pabst said on 17:09/15 Feb 97...
|
| > What does give you the idea a HVAR has multiple barrels?
|
| The picture in Fields of Fire shows a gun that looks like it has three
| barrels with a sleeve around the lot, probably to prevent the firer from
| trying to hold them...

The HVLMG looks like it has three barrels, while the HVAR
appears to have only two barrels (IMHO).

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 7
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:41:36 +0000
On 15 Feb 97 at 19:39, Gurth wrote:
> Sascha Pabst said on 17:09/15 Feb 97...
> > What does give you the idea a HVAR has multiple barrels?
>
> The picture in Fields of Fire shows a gun that looks like it has three
> barrels with a sleeve around the lot, probably to prevent the firer from
> trying to hold them...
Might be. I always thought the lower muzzle would be the recoil
reduction, especially as the Ingram Supermach (which I thought had the
same tech) obviously has just one muzzle.
Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 8
From: Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:50:58 -0500
Sascha, if you look at the new HVAR in the Fields of Fire source book, you
will see three barrels on the HMG, and Two Barrels for Assult Rifle
version, in order to have that kind of muzzle velocity, you would have to
have multiple barrels, if it were only one barrel at the speed the barrel
would melt, why do you think the Ruger Thunderbolt only shoots a three
round burst instead of making a version to fire at full auto.
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> On 14 Feb 97 at 13:35, Mark McKenna wrote:
> [snip]
> > As for HVAR and the such with multiple barrels but set up
> > like normal one barrel weapons they would have to either get three
> > separate gas vents, which doesn't help concealbilty, but this is an LMG or
> > better who cares, or you can have a cutomized piece of harware made that
> > would be smaller than three gas vents but act like three gas vents, bu
> > this would be rather expensive and very rare.
> [snip]
> What does give you the idea a HVAR has multiple barrels? The only
> weapon I can remember that had 3 barrels were those on the Cybermanced
> creatures from "Never Trust an Elf" (RN. Charette).
>
> Sascha
> --
> +---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
> | / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |I don't believe in love,|
> | / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ |I never have, / I never |
> | \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de |will, / I don't believe |
> |==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| in love / it's never |
> |LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |worth the pain you feel |
> +------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----Queensryche-+
>

******************************************************************************


Mark W. McKenna Quote:
920 E. Wooster Apt. #4 "Oops I'll call you in a sec..."
Bowling Green, Ohio -the 7 second phone call
43402 <Mr. White>
(419)353-2405 Hobbies:Avid Shdowrun and Rifts RPG player

******************************************************************************
Message no. 9
From: Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:06:06 -0500
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> On 15 Feb 97 at 19:39, Gurth wrote:
> > Sascha Pabst said on 17:09/15 Feb 97...
> > > What does give you the idea a HVAR has multiple barrels?
> >
> > The picture in Fields of Fire shows a gun that looks like it has three
> > barrels with a sleeve around the lot, probably to prevent the firer from
> > trying to hold them...
> Might be. I always thought the lower muzzle would be the recoil
> reduction, especially as the Ingram Supermach (which I thought had the
> same tech) obviously has just one muzzle.
> Sascha
I think the supermac and the HVAR and the larger counter part were built
under different configurations, and the larger weapons are suposedly built
to be much faster, so that's why I think there are multiple barrels, as I
said in my last post, the barrel would melt if there was only one, and on
a pure economic view these babies aren't as fast but definately cheaper
than a vindicator, so there is a market for a multibarrel system such as
this one. Well that's the way I see it, I could be wrong and that's what
we are here, isn't it?
McKenna
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:20:44 +0100
David Buehrer said on 11:54/15 Feb 97...

> | The picture in Fields of Fire shows a gun that looks like it has three
> | barrels with a sleeve around the lot, probably to prevent the firer from
> | trying to hold them...
>
> The HVLMG looks like it has three barrels, while the HVAR
> appears to have only two barrels (IMHO).

Yep, I got 'em confused. <save face>Maybe the HVAR has four and so we can
only see two of them in the side view?</save face> :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I could be so jealous of someone like me.
-> 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. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:43:30 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
| David Buehrer said on 11:54/15 Feb 97...
|
| > | The picture in Fields of Fire shows a gun that looks like it has three
| > | barrels with a sleeve around the lot, probably to prevent the firer from
| > | trying to hold them...
| >
| > The HVLMG looks like it has three barrels, while the HVAR
| > appears to have only two barrels (IMHO).
|
| Yep, I got 'em confused. <save face>Maybe the HVAR has four and so we can
| only see two of them in the side view?</save face> :)

<chuckle> I'll keep pointing out your errors as long as
you keep pointing out mine :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 12
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:50:57 +0000
On 16 Feb 97 at 18:50, Mark McKenna wrote:
> Sascha, if you look at the new HVAR in the Fields of Fire source book, you
> will see three barrels on the HMG, and Two Barrels for Assult Rifle
> version, in order to have that kind of muzzle velocity, you would have to
> have multiple barrels, if it were only one barrel at the speed the barrel
> would melt, why do you think the Ruger Thunderbolt only shoots a three
> round burst instead of making a version to fire at full auto.
Yeah, have been pointed to the MG version of the HV weapons before,
thanks, and there are obviously three barrels. There are only two
barrels visible with the HVAR, and just one at the HVSMG (p. 31). Well,
although my question (How one would get the idea the HVAR has three
barrels) has been answered, I am still confused how may barrels the AR
actually has. OTOH, I don't really care... :-)

Oh, btw: a) please write your own statements _below_ the quoted text,
makes getting back to the actual discussion easier, and b) please don't
quote .sigs (although mine is of course very nice to look at :-)
Thanks.
Message no. 13
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:50:58 +0000
On 16 Feb 97 at 19:06, Mark McKenna wrote:
[snip]
> I think the supermac and the HVAR and the larger counter part were built
> under different configurations, and the larger weapons are suposedly built
> to be much faster, so that's why I think there are multiple barrels, as I
> said in my last post, the barrel would melt if there was only one, and on
> a pure economic view these babies aren't as fast but definately cheaper
> than a vindicator, so there is a market for a multibarrel system such as
> this one. Well that's the way I see it, I could be wrong and that's what
> we are here, isn't it?
The Ingram Supermach (FoF, p. 31), the Ares HVAR (FoFp. 34) and the
Ares HV MP-LMG (FoF, p. 38) all fire the same Ammo: Light Pistol
rounds. They have the same ROF (6 for Burst, 15 max). Why would the LMG
need 3 barrels, while the AR functions with two, and the SMG with even
one?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 14
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:41:43 -0700
Sascha Pabst wrote:
|
| The Ingram Supermach (FoF, p. 31), the Ares HVAR (FoFp. 34) and the
| Ares HV MP-LMG (FoF, p. 38) all fire the same Ammo: Light Pistol
| rounds. They have the same ROF (6 for Burst, 15 max). Why would the LMG
| need 3 barrels, while the AR functions with two, and the SMG with even
| one?

Maybe... the longer the barrel the more the barrel heats
up. The short barreled SMG can take the heat, but the
longer barreled HVLMG can't, so the HVLMG requires 3
barrels to handle the heat generated.

I have no idea if this is correct or not. I'm just making
a semi-educated guess. The only other real reason I can
think of is cuz it looks cool :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:20:44 +0100
Sascha Pabst said on 13:41/16 Feb 97...

> Might be. I always thought the lower muzzle would be the recoil
> reduction, especially as the Ingram Supermach (which I thought had the
> same tech) obviously has just one muzzle.

There are (IRL) a number of ways to increase the rate of fire. The
simplest one is to use a lighter bolt (for example, an MG 3 machinegun
does about 1200 rpm with its normal bolt, and with a heavy bolt it's down
to 950 or so IIRC). Many weapons have rate reducers to cut down their rate
of fire; a good example is the Czech Vz61 Skorpion (yes, the one the SR
Black Scorpion was based on) -- it has no mechanism to lock the bolt, and
because it's very light the rate of fire would be tremendous. The delay
mechanism fitted reduces it to about 850 rpm.

Multiple barrels are another way, and it would make sense to use more than
one barrel if you want to increase the ROF by 50% over a normal gun. The
Supermach, since it fires LP rounds, probably has a very simple mechanism,
similar to the Skorpion, but without the ROF reduction.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I could be so jealous of someone like me.
-> 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. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:20:44 +0100
Mark McKenna said on 18:50/16 Feb 97...

> Sascha, if you look at the new HVAR in the Fields of Fire source book, you
> will see three barrels on the HMG, and Two Barrels for Assult Rifle
> version, in order to have that kind of muzzle velocity, you would have to
> have multiple barrels

Single or multiple barrels has nothing to do with the muzzle velocity --
the barrel _length_ matters there.

> if it were only one barrel at the speed the barrel would melt

True, and even for modern miniguns it's the barrel temperature that limits
the ROF to "only" 6,000 rpm or so.

> why do you think the Ruger Thunderbolt only shoots a three round burst
> instead of making a version to fire at full auto.

Because a full-auto pistol hits only the air? Still, IMHO the Thunderbolt
wouldn't work IRL -- the German G3 caseless rifle (now cancelled) could
do this "3 rounds, 1 recoil" trick by making the mechanism recoil in the
gun while the rounds were chambered and fired, and only stopping the
mechnism's rearward movement when the third round left the gun. In a
pistol-sized frame, that would be very hard to achieve.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I could be so jealous of someone like me.
-> 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. 17
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:25:33 -0500
At 03:50 PM 2/17/97 +0000, Sascha Pabst wrote these timeless words:
>The Ingram Supermach (FoF, p. 31), the Ares HVAR (FoFp. 34) and the
>Ares HV MP-LMG (FoF, p. 38) all fire the same Ammo: Light Pistol
>rounds. They have the same ROF (6 for Burst, 15 max). Why would the LMG
>need 3 barrels, while the AR functions with two, and the SMG with even
>one?
>
Because that's the way it was designed? ;-)

Since when does anything that FASA produces HAVE to make sense?? (Sorry,
Mike... It's true... And it should make your life easier:))

Bull
--
Now the Fearless Leader of the New Star Wars Mailing List!

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"I finally find a guy I like, and you got to go and kill him!"
-Kom, "Outlanders"
Message no. 18
From: Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:26:31 -0500
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> On 16 Feb 97 at 19:06, Mark McKenna wrote:
> [snip]
> > I think the supermac and the HVAR and the larger counter part were built
> > under different configurations, and the larger weapons are suposedly built
> > to be much faster, so that's why I think there are multiple barrels, as I
> > said in my last post, the barrel would melt if there was only one, and on
> > a pure economic view these babies aren't as fast but definately cheaper
> > than a vindicator, so there is a market for a multibarrel system such as
> > this one. Well that's the way I see it, I could be wrong and that's what
> > we are here, isn't it?
> The Ingram Supermach (FoF, p. 31), the Ares HVAR (FoFp. 34) and the
> Ares HV MP-LMG (FoF, p. 38) all fire the same Ammo: Light Pistol
> rounds. They have the same ROF (6 for Burst, 15 max). Why would the LMG
> need 3 barrels, while the AR functions with two, and the SMG with even
> one?
>
> Sascha
In reagrds to all of thos weapons the added barrel ads something to the
power, for instances there less recoil when three barrels are used and
that ups the power in the weilder can handle, the higher the power the
faster the weapons needs to fire to have that same set recoil rules for
all three weapons, therefore more barrels are required. And inreagrds to
the SMG itis significantly smaller and less affected by heat than its
larger counter parts, so it can survive with only one barrel. I hope that
helps, if I'm sounding stupid would someone please tell me, I'm just a
tech junkie so I say what i think is right, cool?
McKenna
Message no. 19
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:02:25 +0000
In message <Pine.SUN.3.95.970216185930.1027B-100000@******.bgsu.edu>,
Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU> writes
>I think the supermac and the HVAR and the larger counter part were built
>under different configurations, and the larger weapons are suposedly built
>to be much faster, so that's why I think there are multiple barrels, as I
>said in my last post, the barrel would melt if there was only one,

Why? The barrel of the FN MAG (British Army GPMG) can cope with 400
rounds of sustained fire or 500 rounds of intermittent burst before it
needs to be removed and laid aside to cool down: it can be used for
quite some time on that cycle.

This is a 1950s-vintage weapon, a century of technology should extend
this greatly (just chrome plating the bore and using "Swedish additive"
in the propellant can increase life by a factor of ten).

>and on
>a pure economic view these babies aren't as fast but definately cheaper
>than a vindicator, so there is a market for a multibarrel system such as
>this one.

If these are multibarrel weapons, where's the barrel spinup/spindown
time, and where's the battery for the electric drive?

The rate of fire limit for a single-barreled weapon seems to hover at
around 2000rpm, mostly rotary-chamber aircraft cannon or the H&K G11.
(By comparison conventional weapons have fire rates of 450-800 rpm, with
a few exceptions up and down)

This gives you a theoretical rate of 100 rounds per 3-second Combat
Turn, or nearly seven Action's worth of fire: a six-round burst is out
of the barrel and gone in 0.2 seconds.

>Well that's the way I see it, I could be wrong and that's what
>we are here, isn't it?
>McKenna

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 20
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:14:20 +0000
In message <Pine.SUN.3.95.970216184721.1027A-100000@******.bgsu.edu>,
Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU> writes
>Sascha, if you look at the new HVAR in the Fields of Fire source book, you
>will see three barrels on the HMG, and Two Barrels for Assult Rifle
>version, in order to have that kind of muzzle velocity, you would have to
>have multiple barrels,

Muzzle velocity has very to do with it: that's the speed of the bullet
as it exits the barrel (the fastest point in its flight). You may mean
rate of fire.

And I gave up on using the FASA pictures for much information: they tend
to be glitchy.

For instance, the HVAR, Warrior-10, and MP-LMG all have "cocking
handles" borrowed from the H&K G11 design (the circular item with the
hinged flap). That cylinder rotates through a 90-degree arc (vertical to
feed, horizontal to seal the breech and fire) and is the key to the
mechanism.

If there are multiple barrels, each needs its own breech: the load-and-
fire cycle is the limitation on rate of fire, not the barrel itself. Or
you'd have one barrel and several chambers, or several barrel
_assemblies_ each with its own breech.

>if it were only one barrel at the speed the barrel
>would melt, why do you think the Ruger Thunderbolt only shoots a three
>round burst instead of making a version to fire at full auto.

Controllability? Barrel heating is a problem with heavy weapons in
sustained fire, not usually SMGs, and tends to be measured in hundreds
of rounds. Recoil, especially in a pistol, is the main problem with
automatic fire: real-life machine pistols always end up putting rounds
in the ceiling.

I speak from experience of a runaway Para-Ordnance .38 Special that
snapped its disconnector and was, for a few heady minutes, being
"tested" with various types of ammunition to "confirm it was a
mechanical fault and not duff rounds": even with a two-chamber
compensator, bursts of more than three or four rounds were pointless,
and the ceiling of the range looked decidedly chewed upon. And it didn't
damage the barrel, either, despite about eighty rounds of Major-factor
handloads being fired in the space of a few minutes.

Remember also that the HVAR-series fire Light Pistol rounds, not rifle
cartridges, with consequently lower muzzle velocity and barrel
wear/heating.


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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: Guardian <s777317@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:45:30 +1000
[snip]

> The rate of fire limit for a single-barreled weapon seems to hover at
> around 2000rpm, mostly rotary-chamber aircraft cannon or the H&K G11.

[snip]

A few years ago at the Australian Military & Commercial Arms show (or
something like that) a newly developed weapon was put on display. It
fired around 1,000,000 bullets per minute (No, I don't know how, and no,
it's not the one-shot wonder of multiple bullets in multiple barrels.)

Anyway, apparently it was on display for less than 15 minutes before the
US (I think) Army came in, bought up all the rights, and shut down the
display.

I'm not sure just how accurate this is, but I got it from a pretty
reliable source. Anyway, thought you ppl might want to know. If it's
true, I don't wanna be a shadowrunner anymore... :P

Guardian
Message no. 22
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:13:34 +0000
In message <199702171019.LAA09475@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Mark McKenna said on 18:50/16 Feb 97...
>> why do you think the Ruger Thunderbolt only shoots a three round burst
>> instead of making a version to fire at full auto.
>
>Because a full-auto pistol hits only the air? Still, IMHO the Thunderbolt
>wouldn't work IRL -- the German G3 caseless rifle (now cancelled) could
>do this "3 rounds, 1 recoil" trick by making the mechanism recoil in the
>gun while the rounds were chambered and fired, and only stopping the
>mechnism's rearward movement when the third round left the gun. In a
>pistol-sized frame, that would be very hard to achieve.

Three side-by-side barrels firing simultaneously? Manageable in a
delayed-blowback mechanism, if reliability were high enough.

Bit of a nightmare to engineer, for instance to feed ammunition from:
many shooters find double-stack magazines bulky in the hand, let alone a
triple-stack, but if it was easy everyone would do it :)

It would explain where the (IIRC) "no recoil for first burst, +4 for the
second" recoil modifier came from: this would be a real wrist-ache and
no mistake :)

OBTW, for modern near-equivalents of the Thunderbolt and Guardian,
investigate the Glock 18, the Beretta 93 (seen in Broken Arrow at
least), the Heckler and Koch VP70 and the Stechkin. Burst limiters, or
controlled rates of fire plus good muzzle breaks (such as in the Glock)
seem to be the key to effectiveness.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 23
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:21:49 +0000
In message <Pine.SUN.3.95.970217162129.1946D-100000@******.bgsu.edu>,
Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU> writes
>In reagrds to all of thos weapons the added barrel ads something to the
>power, for instances there less recoil when three barrels are used and
>that ups the power in the weilder can handle, the higher the power the
>faster the weapons needs to fire to have that same set recoil rules for
>all three weapons, therefore more barrels are required.

No: the miniguns do the same base damage as their equivalents
(Vindicator = LMG, Vengeance = MMG, Vanquisher = HMG) but only have a
higher ROF.

The _longer_ barrels of the rifles mean that those Light Pistol bullets
come shuffling out at rather higher velocity, hence do more damage.

There is no less recoil when three barrels are used. Recoil is a
function of momentum: more, faster bullets = higher recoil. You might
_feel_ less recoil because the weapon is heavier, but that's just
Newton's Third Law.

>And inreagrds to
>the SMG itis significantly smaller and less affected by heat than its
>larger counter parts, so it can survive with only one barrel. I hope that
>helps, if I'm sounding stupid would someone please tell me, I'm just a
>tech junkie so I say what i think is right, cool?

As long as you don't mind me saying what _I_ think is right :)

"Lighter" = "_more_ affected by heat." If you look at machine guns
compared to rifles firing the same ammunition, for instance a M-16 and a
M-240 or a L1A1 SLR to a GPMG, you'll see the machinegun has a much
heavier, thicker-walled barrel. This is to allow it to absorb more heat
for any given temperature rise.

For instance, firing a rifle, a hundred rounds of steady, aimed, single
shots was enough to make the barrel hot enough to burn exposed flesh and
make rainwater hiss when it hit. Firing the GPMG (24lb compared to the
rifle's 9lb) in short bursts, over twice as many rounds were needed to
get it that hot.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 24
From: Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:12:57 -0500
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In message <Pine.SUN.3.95.970217162129.1946D-100000@******.bgsu.edu>,
> Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU> writes
> >In reagrds to all of thos weapons the added barrel ads something to the
> >power, for instances there less recoil when three barrels are used and
> >that ups the power in the weilder can handle, the higher the power the
> >faster the weapons needs to fire to have that same set recoil rules for
> >all three weapons, therefore more barrels are required.
>
> No: the miniguns do the same base damage as their equivalents
> (Vindicator = LMG, Vengeance = MMG, Vanquisher = HMG) but only have a
> higher ROF.
>
> The _longer_ barrels of the rifles mean that those Light Pistol bullets
> come shuffling out at rather higher velocity, hence do more damage.
>
> There is no less recoil when three barrels are used. Recoil is a
> function of momentum: more, faster bullets = higher recoil. You might
> _feel_ less recoil because the weapon is heavier, but that's just
> Newton's Third Law.
>
> >And inreagrds to
> >the SMG itis significantly smaller and less affected by heat than its
> >larger counter parts, so it can survive with only one barrel. I hope that
> >helps, if I'm sounding stupid would someone please tell me, I'm just a
> >tech junkie so I say what i think is right, cool?
>
> As long as you don't mind me saying what _I_ think is right :)
>
> "Lighter" = "_more_ affected by heat." If you look at machine
guns
> compared to rifles firing the same ammunition, for instance a M-16 and a
> M-240 or a L1A1 SLR to a GPMG, you'll see the machinegun has a much
> heavier, thicker-walled barrel. This is to allow it to absorb more heat
> for any given temperature rise.
>
> For instance, firing a rifle, a hundred rounds of steady, aimed, single
> shots was enough to make the barrel hot enough to burn exposed flesh and
> make rainwater hiss when it hit. Firing the GPMG (24lb compared to the
> rifle's 9lb) in short bursts, over twice as many rounds were needed to
> get it that hot.
>
> --
> There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
> praiseworthy...
>
> Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
>
Well Pual you have a lot to say, and I appreciate it, for I was just
saying what i thought was logical, that's what this list is for to make
things more realistic and natural to play, but those wepaons of the future
are set up in a way to defy what we know and how we see things, so may be
ares did come up with a system to use three barrels and only have one
clip, but I never said they fire at the same time, I think it would be
more logical if the wepaon fired cyclical but with no rotating barrels.
But I don't know, I never use such a large weapon in the game, it would be
too much attention where I am at in the game, Right BULL! Hell you are
correct, so let's play!!!!! :)

******************************************************************************


Mark W. McKenna Quote:
920 E. Wooster Apt. #4 "Oops I'll call you in a sec..."
Bowling Green, Ohio -the 7 second phone call
43402 <Mr. White>
(419)353-2405 Hobbies:Avid Shdowrun and Rifts RPG player

******************************************************************************
Message no. 25
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:42:46 +0000
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.970218094006.12367B-100000@*****.student.gu.ed
u.au>, Guardian <s777317@*******.GU.EDU.AU> writes
>[snip]
>> The rate of fire limit for a single-barreled weapon seems to hover at
>> around 2000rpm, mostly rotary-chamber aircraft cannon or the H&K G11.
>[snip]
>A few years ago at the Australian Military & Commercial Arms show (or
>something like that) a newly developed weapon was put on display. It
>fired around 1,000,000 bullets per minute (No, I don't know how, and no,
>it's not the one-shot wonder of multiple bullets in multiple barrels.)

You sure? Sounds like the Metalstorm prototype, currently being
evaluated as a countermeasure for - among other things - tanks against
guided missiles.

>Anyway, apparently it was on display for less than 15 minutes before the
>US (I think) Army came in, bought up all the rights, and shut down the
>display.

Not sure if it was that dramatic, it's since made it to reports in
Armada and IDR.

>I'm not sure just how accurate this is, but I got it from a pretty
>reliable source. Anyway, thought you ppl might want to know. If it's
>true, I don't wanna be a shadowrunner anymore... :P

Think recoil, controllability, and resupply...

Let's face it, the first bullet kills you, do you really care about the
rest? If you let them find you and shoot at you with their newest and
best weapons, you deserve whatever happened to you ;)

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 26
From: Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:16:01 EST
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU> writes:

>Well Pual you have a lot to say, and I appreciate it, for I was just
>saying what i thought was logical, that's what this list is for to make
>things more realistic and natural to play, but those wepaons of the
future
>are set up in a way to defy what we know and how we see things, so may
be
>ares did come up with a system to use three barrels and only have one
>clip, but I never said they fire at the same time, I think it would be
>more logical if the wepaon fired cyclical but with no rotating barrels.

Wait a minute...<reads that last sentence again - ok, not the _whole_
"sentence" but that last line/statement>... How do you manage that!

>But I don't know, I never use such a large weapon in the game, it would
be
>too much attention where I am at in the game, Right BULL! Hell you are
>correct, so let's play!!!!! :)
>
>Mark W. McKenna Quote:

~Tim
Message no. 27
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:19:41 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:43/17 Feb 97...

> <chuckle> I'll keep pointing out your errors as long as you keep
> pointing out mine :)

A mutually beneficial arrangement, except that that looks like it will
give me a lot more work than it gives you :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh, paradise... on my TV...
-> 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. 28
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:30:45 +0100
Mark McKenna said on 16:26/17 Feb 97...

> In reagrds to all of thos weapons the added barrel ads something to the
> power, for instances there less recoil when three barrels are used

The only recoil-reducing factor that three barrels have is because of the
extra mass on the weapon -- a light weapon has a harder recoil than a
heavier one that fires the same round. An extra barrel adds some mass, and
thereby reduces recoil.

> and that ups the power in the weilder can handle

A lot more is involved in recoil and power of a weapon than just the
barrel. Things like the energy of the round, the barrel length, weapon
mass, rate of fire, layout of the weapon, the wielder's strength, and
more.

> the higher the power the faster the weapons needs to fire to have that
> same set recoil rules for all three weapons

This sounds like you're looking for a reason the designers of an actual
weapon would try to make it fit in with a set of game rules :)

> therefore more barrels are required. And inreagrds to the SMG itis
> significantly smaller and less affected by heat than its larger counter
> parts, so it can survive with only one barrel.

It would be the other way around -- a smaller weapon has less mass with
which to absorb heat than a large one. The reason SMGs overheat less than
GPMGs is that GPMGs are belt-fed, allowing virtually continuous fire for
as long as you keep clipping belts together, whereas with an SMG you have
to change magazines every 30 rounds or so (or 60 in the case of the
Supermach), giving the weapon some time to cool down.

> I hope that helps, if I'm sounding stupid would someone please tell me,
> I'm just a tech junkie so I say what i think is right, cool?

I suggest you read up on firearms a bit...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh, paradise... on my TV...
-> 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. 29
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:30:45 +0100
Paul J. Adam said on 18:02/17 Feb 97...

> If these are multibarrel weapons, where's the barrel spinup/spindown
> time, and where's the battery for the electric drive?

Wouldn't it be possible to design a recoil- or gas-operated mechanism for
spinning the barrels? It would probably jam or break down a lot, but it
looks like a possibility to me.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh, paradise... on my TV...
-> 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. 30
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:30:45 +0100
Tim P Cooper said on 23:16/17 Feb 97...

> >ares did come up with a system to use three barrels and only have one
> >clip, but I never said they fire at the same time, I think it would be
> >more logical if the wepaon fired cyclical but with no rotating barrels.
>
> Wait a minute...<reads that last sentence again - ok, not the _whole_
> "sentence" but that last line/statement>... How do you manage that!

Put a chamber behind each barrel, and load them in turn. The barrels can
remain fixed, and you still get the ROF of a multi-barrel weapon. This
principle has been used mostly in two-barrel guns, where the recoil of one
barrel is used to chamber a round in the other.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh, paradise... on my TV...
-> 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. 31
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:30:45 +0100
Paul J. Adam said on 1:13/18 Feb 97...

> >Because a full-auto pistol hits only the air? Still, IMHO the Thunderbolt
> >wouldn't work IRL -- the German G3 caseless rifle (now cancelled) could

G11, not G3 (what was I thinking about?)

> Three side-by-side barrels firing simultaneously? Manageable in a
> delayed-blowback mechanism, if reliability were high enough.

There is a picture in Lone Star, page116, and it shows a gun with a very
futuristic shape and what looks like only one barrel, though it's very
thick.

> Bit of a nightmare to engineer, for instance to feed ammunition from:
> many shooters find double-stack magazines bulky in the hand, let alone a
> triple-stack, but if it was easy everyone would do it :)

Double-row magazine, and placing one barrel higher than the others? It
would require careful loading of the magazine (like with the M1 Garand --
it feeds better if the first round in the magazine is on the left IIRC)
but it might be possible to design a way to strip three rounds for the
magazine that way.

> OBTW, for modern near-equivalents of the Thunderbolt and Guardian,
> investigate the Glock 18, the Beretta 93 (seen in Broken Arrow at
> least)

The Beretta 93 can also be seen Nikita (La Femme Nikita in some
countries), when she gets the first firearms training after being
"recruited" for the assassin course.
And let's not forget Robocop, though the 93 there has lots of stuff added
onto it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh, paradise... on my TV...
-> 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. 32
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:49:43 -0800
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Gurth wrote:

> Tim P Cooper said on 23:16/17 Feb 97...
>
> > >ares did come up with a system to use three barrels and only have one
> > >clip, but I never said they fire at the same time, I think it would be
> > >more logical if the wepaon fired cyclical but with no rotating barrels.
> >
> > Wait a minute...<reads that last sentence again - ok, not the _whole_
> > "sentence" but that last line/statement>... How do you manage
that!
>
> Put a chamber behind each barrel, and load them in turn. The barrels can
> remain fixed, and you still get the ROF of a multi-barrel weapon. This
> principle has been used mostly in two-barrel guns, where the recoil of one
> barrel is used to chamber a round in the other.

[remember that I know virtually nil about real firearms]

But doesn't that make for a fairly complex "loading mechanism", especially
if your trying to go for something on the order of a mini-gun?

>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

~Tim
Message no. 33
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:28:06 +0000
In message <199702181029.LAA04325@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Paul J. Adam said on 18:02/17 Feb 97...
>> If these are multibarrel weapons, where's the barrel spinup/spindown
>> time, and where's the battery for the electric drive?
>
>Wouldn't it be possible to design a recoil- or gas-operated mechanism for
>spinning the barrels? It would probably jam or break down a lot, but it
>looks like a possibility to me.

Some exist: ISTR one version of the SUU-23 (a podded 20mm Vulcan cannon)
uses a ram-air turbine to generate electric power, while another uses
recoil energy. The problem is that the mechanism is large and heavy
compared to electrics: and you still have spinup time, because it takes
a finite amount of time to get the barrels up to speed and (especially)
the ammunition feed moving.

For high-rate-of-fire Gatling-type weapons, "short bursts" are 30-50
rounds, not six :)

Can't use gas: no way to tap it off (breech is stationary, barrels are
spinning).

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 34
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:47:10 -0500
At 04:26 PM 2/17/97 -0500, Mark McKenna wrote these timeless words:
if I'm sounding stupid would someone please tell me, I'm just a
>tech junkie so I say what i think is right, cool?
>McKenna
>
I'll second that sebitiment... This boy pretty much has every piece of
tech crap memorized... Munchy all the way, and he's finally satrting to
embrace it...:)

And yes, Mark, you do sound stupid...:):):)

Bull-the-"teasing-his-friend-Mark"-Ork-Decker

--
Now the Fearless Leader of the New Star Wars Mailing List!

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"I finally find a guy I like, and you got to go and kill him!"
-Kom, "Outlanders"
Message no. 35
From: "Mike Mulvihill (FASA)" <FASAMike@***.COM>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:06:34 -0500
In a message dated 2/17/97 07:26:06 PM, Bull wrote:

>Because that's the way it was designed? ;-)
>
>Since when does anything that FASA produces HAVE to make sense?? (Sorry,
>Mike... It's true... And it should make your life easier:))

I HAVE TO MAKE SENSE, TOO! Damn, I thought this job sounded too good to be
true!

Have Fun!
Play Games!
Making Sense Well Into the 21st Century!

Mike Mulvihill
Shadowrun Line Developer
FASA
www.fasa.com
Message no. 36
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:37:24 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
| David Buehrer said on 8:43/17 Feb 97...
|
| > <chuckle> I'll keep pointing out your errors as long as you keep
| > pointing out mine :)
|
| A mutually beneficial arrangement, except that that looks like it will
| give me a lot more work than it gives you :)

LOL

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 37
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:09:44 -0500
At 04:06 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Mike Mulvihill (FASA) wrote these timeless words:
>In a message dated 2/17/97 07:26:06 PM, Bull wrote:
>
>>Because that's the way it was designed? ;-)
>>
>>Since when does anything that FASA produces HAVE to make sense?? (Sorry,
>>Mike... It's true... And it should make your life easier:))
>
>I HAVE TO MAKE SENSE, TOO! Damn, I thought this job sounded too good to be
>true!
>
No MIke, I was saying that you DON'T have to make sense... If I can
suspend my belief in reality enough to believe in Ork Decker and Coyote
Shamans... I think I can handle guns taht just work, even if tehy can't in
real life...:)

Keep putting out quality products, Mike, and I'll play them, regardless of
whether or not they make much sense...:)

Bull
--
Now the Fearless Leader of the New Star Wars Mailing List!

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"I finally find a guy I like, and you got to go and kill him!"
-Kom, "Outlanders"
Message no. 38
From: "M. Gotthard" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:10:29 +1000
> > why do you think the Ruger Thunderbolt only shoots a three round burst
> > instead of making a version to fire at full auto.
>
> Because a full-auto pistol hits only the air? Still, IMHO the Thunderbolt
> wouldn't work IRL -- the German G3 caseless rifle (now cancelled) could
> do this "3 rounds, 1 recoil" trick by making the mechanism recoil in the
> gun while the rounds were chambered and fired, and only stopping the
> mechnism's rearward movement when the third round left the gun. In a
> pistol-sized frame, that would be very hard to achieve.
>

Perhaps instead, think game balance. Think of a 19D attack coming from a
heavy pistol sized gun..... Not something pleasant to have to deal with as
a GM.... And please don't mention recoil; I know from experience that
players will find a way to eliminate the recoil on almost any gun.... or
use Karma to actually score a 'lucky' hit.

Bleach
Message no. 39
From: "M. Gotthard" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:17:24 +1000
> >A few years ago at the Australian Military & Commercial Arms show (or
> >something like that) a newly developed weapon was put on display. It
> >fired around 1,000,000 bullets per minute (No, I don't know how, and no,
> >it's not the one-shot wonder of multiple bullets in multiple barrels.)
>
> You sure? Sounds like the Metalstorm prototype, currently being
> evaluated as a countermeasure for - among other things - tanks against
> guided missiles.
>

Sounds like it to me, to..... A bit like a phalanx gun with attitude.

> >Anyway, apparently it was on display for less than 15 minutes before the
> >US (I think) Army came in, bought up all the rights, and shut down the
> >display.
>
> Not sure if it was that dramatic, it's since made it to reports in
> Armada and IDR.
>

Hell, it made it to our local news, with visual footage of a 3x3 barrel
demo model.... The weapon in its prototype stage is sure as hell not
portable. Definitely needs to be mounted on some kind of installation or
vehicle, and then there's the problem of reloading.

> Let's face it, the first bullet kills you, do you really care about the
> rest? If you let them find you and shoot at you with their newest and
> best weapons, you deserve whatever happened to you ;)
>

It's not the bullet with my name on it that I'm worried about, it's the
one addresses "To Whom It May Concern"

(BTW This thread needs a name change soon; We're going OT)

Bleach.
Message no. 40
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 02:19:56 +0000
On 18 Feb 97 at 16:06, Mike Mulvihill (FASA) wrote:
[snip]
> >Since when does anything that FASA produces HAVE to make sense?? (Sorry,
> >Mike... It's true... And it should make your life easier:))
>
> I HAVE TO MAKE SENSE, TOO! Damn, I thought this job sounded too good to be
> true!
No, no, Mike, no need to make sense (else my players might expect it
from me too (*shudder*)). Just keep making good stories, plots, and
sourcebook, and stay by your saying one can't ground through
quickenenings (which makes sense :-)
Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 41
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:54:29 EST
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:16:01 EST Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM> writes:
>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 Mark McKenna <mmckenn@*****.BGSU.EDU> writes:
<snip>
>>more logical if the wepaon fired cyclical but with no rotating
>barrels.
>
>Wait a minute...<reads that last sentence again - ok, not the _whole_
>"sentence" but that last line/statement>... How do you manage that!
<snip>

Easy! You've got a rotating clip (of course, it's going to be flying
around whacking you in the face, arm, torso, etc:) Or perhaps a
triple-feed mechanism...three clips, each feeding a separate
barrel/chamber assembly, which fire in a series.

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 42
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gas-venting the Vindicator
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:56:46 +0000
In message <Pine.GSO.3.93.970218114453.10188A-100000@****>, Tim Cooper
<tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU> writes
>On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Gurth wrote:
>> Put a chamber behind each barrel, and load them in turn. The barrels can
>> remain fixed, and you still get the ROF of a multi-barrel weapon. This
>> principle has been used mostly in two-barrel guns, where the recoil of one
>> barrel is used to chamber a round in the other.
>
>But doesn't that make for a fairly complex "loading mechanism", especially
>if your trying to go for something on the order of a mini-gun?

Yep. But your loading mechanism is not that much more complex than that
of a minigun, while you only need one barrel instead of several. It's
also easier to make the weapon self-contained, since it can be gas-
operated and the working parts have much less inertia.

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about gas-venting the Vindicator, 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!