Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Guns and ranges
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 19:22:41 +0100
I'm going to attempt to rewrite the range rules of SR for my group so as to make
it more logical <ie how far you see doesn't depend on what gun you have>.

What I need though is someone to sort of fill in the blanks as I've no
experience firing anything more powerful than an air rifle.

The new system will scrap seperate short, medium, long & extreme distances for
each gun, instead each gun will have a maximum limit as to where the shot cannot
generally be expected to hit providing that the most powerful scopes are in use.

Ie Heavy pistol 500m : Sniper Rifle 3000m : Light Pistol 200m etc...

The next step is to establish a standard set of ranges that can quite happily
overlap the maximum range of a particular gun. The will take the old form
short, medium, long and extreme. Note that these distances should be realistic,
I'm not interested in what sounds good to keep game balance.

Ie Short 10m : Medium 30m : Long : 100m : Extreme 500m

What I'm after here is a set of distances that can be applied to all guns, if
I'm wrong in assuming that you can apply this to all guns let me know.

The next step would be to change the Mag 1,2 3 etc.. into something makes
sense. Ie Mag 1 gives a magnification of up to x10


Now in case all that is complicated, and certainly seems so to me, an example.

Joe Sam has an SMG, SGL and has Op 2 in his eyes.

Firstly : The SMG has been rated that it has a maximum range of 400m
Secondly : Optical 2 has been rated as giving x30 magnification
Thirdly : The standard set of ranges are Short 10m : Medium 30m : Long : 100m
: Extreme 500m all multiplied by 30 due to optical mag 2.

The target is say 150m away, therefore is within the 0-300 m distance for short
range hence gets a TN of 2.

As I say, the numbers need some crunching but I believe the idea is sound.

Ideas, comments and additions ?

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk - University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Message no. 2
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 20:43:18 -0400
On Wed, 31 Aug 1994, The Powerhouse wrote:

> What I'm after here is a set of distances that can be applied to all guns, if
> I'm wrong in assuming that you can apply this to all guns let me know.
<<<<<SNIP>>>>>

Uh, as long as you have different ranges for different classes of
weapons, you should be OK. Like, all heavy pistols have ranges w,x,y,
and z for s/m/l/e. I think that's what you're getting at, but correct me
if I'm wrong.

> The target is say 150m away, therefore is within the 0-300 m distance for short
> range hence gets a TN of 2.

Keep in mind that just because you can see something doesn't mean
you can hit it. There are times when the bullet just doesn't have the
kinetic energy to make it to its target. Also, on something like a
rifle, the scope is sighted in to a specific distance. If you have your
scope sighted in at 200m and you decide to lay your crosshairs over
something at 500m, you will miss. Maybe not by much, depending on the
rifle, but you will miss. This has nothing to do with the magnification
factor of the scope, but the ballistics involved in muzzle energy/bullet
weight/trajectory/raw distance to target/etc. Bullets generally don't even
come close to flying straight.

> As I say, the numbers need some crunching but I believe the idea is sound.
>
> Ideas, comments and additions ?

Sounds like a good idea, and I'll see what I can get as far as
numbers go.

> Phill.

Marc (did you know that if you drop a bullet from the same height as the
muzzle of a gun at the same instance that a bullet is fired, both bullets
will hit the ground simultaneously? Of course, this assumes flat
terrain, level firing arc, lack of aerodynamic lift, and all the other
stuff that makes the world go round.)
Message no. 3
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 11:39:19 -0700
Talk to Ivy Ryan. She has excellent rules in her "Hard World"
game backed up by experience.

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 4
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:51:00 +1000
>
> I'm going to attempt to rewrite the range rules of SR for my group so as to make
> it more logical <ie how far you see doesn't depend on what gun you have>.
>
> What I need though is someone to sort of fill in the blanks as I've no
> experience firing anything more powerful than an air rifle.
>
> The new system will scrap seperate short, medium, long & extreme distances for
> each gun, instead each gun will have a maximum limit as to where the shot cannot
> generally be expected to hit providing that the most powerful scopes are in use.
>
> Ie Heavy pistol 500m : Sniper Rifle 3000m : Light Pistol 200m etc...
>
> The next step is to establish a standard set of ranges that can quite happily
> overlap the maximum range of a particular gun. The will take the old form
> short, medium, long and extreme. Note that these distances should be realistic,
> I'm not interested in what sounds good to keep game balance.
>
> Ie Short 10m : Medium 30m : Long : 100m : Extreme 500m
>
> What I'm after here is a set of distances that can be applied to all guns, if
> I'm wrong in assuming that you can apply this to all guns let me know.
>
> The next step would be to change the Mag 1,2 3 etc.. into something makes
> sense. Ie Mag 1 gives a magnification of up to x10
>
>
> Now in case all that is complicated, and certainly seems so to me, an example.
>
> Joe Sam has an SMG, SGL and has Op 2 in his eyes.
>
> Firstly : The SMG has been rated that it has a maximum range of 400m
> Secondly : Optical 2 has been rated as giving x30 magnification
> Thirdly : The standard set of ranges are Short 10m : Medium 30m : Long : 100m
> : Extreme 500m all multiplied by 30 due to optical mag 2.
>
> The target is say 150m away, therefore is within the 0-300 m distance for short
> range hence gets a TN of 2.
>
> As I say, the numbers need some crunching but I believe the idea is sound.
>
> Ideas, comments and additions ?
>
> Phill.
> --
> Phillip Steele - P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk - University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne
>


--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 5
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 22:31:41 +1000
On Phills gun range ideas:

Well, what you are trying to do seems like this to me:

1) Have a single, standard set of short, medium, long and extreme ranges.
These ranges apply to all weapons.

2) Each weapon has its own maximum range. This range determines the
furtherest distance the weapon can fire, ragardless of the set numbers for
the short, medium, etc. For eg, if the set ranges were 0-10, 11-50, 51-100,
101-500, and I was firing a light pistol, with a maximum of 70, then my
target numbers would be 0-10 - 4, 11-50 - 5, 51-70 - 6.

3) Magnification scopes/eyes multiply the set ranges by some amount, for eg
a mag scope one will multiply the set ranegs by 10, resulting in ranges of
0-100, 110-500, 51-1000, 1010-5000.

Now, the idea seems OK [but I really don't see whats wrong with the current
system - just fiddle some of the ranges to make them more accurate], but I
have a few questions. The things I'm going to ask may be because I am
misinterpreting what you wrote; if so, tell me.

a) If each weapon has it's own maximum range, what happens if that maximum
range exceeds the arbitrary extreme range? Like, say your set vaule for
extreme was 1000m, what happens if I pull out my trusty sniper rifle, rated
up to 3000m?

b) Does the magnification multilply the weapons maximum range too? Like does
my light pistol rated at 70m, fitted with a mag one scope have a new maximum
range of 700m?

c) If the scopes multiply the ranges, what happens to the bits between? Look
at 3) above and you'll see what I mean. There is no range allocation for
101-109 and the other spots. Do these go up or down the catagories? Would
the 101-109 bit end up in short or medium? Or would it be split half way?

Marc (doing a pretty good emulation of Adam) writes:

[Details about how bullets don't travel in straight lines, and about how
scopes are only sighted in for a set distance]

It's not as if Shadowrun takes this into account as it is, except for making
the target numbers higher for the longer ranges. As for the scopes, what you
say is entirely true, but again SR does not take this into consideration.

> Of course, this assumes flat terrain, level firing arc, lack of aerodynamic
> lift, and all the other stuff that makes the world go round.)

So thats what makes the world go round. I always thought it was something to
do with gravity and centrepital force or some such thing. :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 6
From: The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 14:44:07 +0100
In reply to MILLIKEN DAMION A .....

> Well, what you are trying to do seems like this to me:

> 1) Have a single, standard set of short, medium, long and extreme ranges.
> These ranges apply to all weapons.

Yep.

> 2) Each weapon has its own maximum range. This range determines the
> furtherest distance the weapon can fire, ragardless of the set numbers for
> the short, medium, etc. For eg, if the set ranges were 0-10, 11-50, 51-100,
> 101-500, and I was firing a light pistol, with a maximum of 70, then my
> target numbers would be 0-10 - 4, 11-50 - 5, 51-70 - 6.

Yep.

> 3) Magnification scopes/eyes multiply the set ranges by some amount, for eg
> a mag scope one will multiply the set ranegs by 10, resulting in ranges of
> 0-100, 110-500, 51-1000, 1010-5000.

Yes except a mistake you made which you notice later on. When you multiply
the ranges there is no missing distances, Ie multiplying 0-10 and 11-50 by 10
doesn't give 0-100 and 110-500, just look at what it is you're trying to
acheive and modify appropiately. Ie these ranges should be 0-100 and
101-500, of course the same argument can be made here in that you have a
missing meter, what happens if the range is 100.5, the answer is you've just
got to apply common sense.

> Now, the idea seems OK [but I really don't see whats wrong with the current
> system - just fiddle some of the ranges to make them more accurate], but I
> have a few questions. The things I'm going to ask may be because I am
> misinterpreting what you wrote; if so, tell me.

The reason I'm looking at modifying things is twofold. Firstly I don't see
why a target number for distance should be different for two different guns
if the target is within the maximum range of each gun. Ie just because a
taser weapon has a low range why should it have a base TN of 9 to shoot
something maybe 20 meters away when the same disatnce for a heavy pistol might
give a base TN of 4.

The second reason is the completley screwed way that optical magnification is
dealt with. The fact that optical magnification works is fine in my books,
but to require mag 3 to bring the extreme range distances of a light psitol
< or something similar > into short range is screwy when you compare what
mag 2 does for things at long range on weapons such as a sniper rifle.

> a) If each weapon has it's own maximum range, what happens if that maximum
> range exceeds the arbitrary extreme range? Like, say your set vaule for
> extreme was 1000m, what happens if I pull out my trusty sniper rifle, rated
> up to 3000m?

Well the simple fact is that unless you had maginification devices to aid you
and bring the target into sight and hence move the extreme range value, I
would rule that the play was having a hell of a time even trying to see the
target, never mind place an accurate shot and increase the target number
appropiately.

> b) Does the magnification multilply the weapons maximum range too? Like does
> my light pistol rated at 70m, fitted with a mag one scope have a new maximum
> range of 700m?

No, just the ranges which determine what your base target number will be.

> c) If the scopes multiply the ranges, what happens to the bits between? Look
> at 3) above and you'll see what I mean. There is no range allocation for
> 101-109 and the other spots. Do these go up or down the catagories? Would
> the 101-109 bit end up in short or medium? Or would it be split half way?

See the explanation above.

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk - University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Message no. 7
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 10:59:21 -0400
On Tue, 6 Sep 1994, The Powerhouse wrote:

> The reason I'm looking at modifying things is twofold. Firstly I don't see
> why a target number for distance should be different for two different guns
> if the target is within the maximum range of each gun. Ie just because a
> taser weapon has a low range why should it have a base TN of 9 to shoot
> something maybe 20 meters away when the same disatnce for a heavy pistol might
> give a base TN of 4.

It's because a taser is intrinsically less stable in flight than
a .44 magnum round out of a heavy pistol. The point you seem to be
missing is that what you can hit depends on what gun you have. Things
like barrel length, smooth operation, type of round fired etc. all go
together to determine what you can hit with regular accuracy.
Take as an example the .50 cal IMI Desert Eagle and the Beretta M92
(9mm). The Desert Eagle is definitely a heavy pistol, whereas the
smaller 9mm round generally falls into the light pistol category. In
Shadowrun terms, the Beretta should have a shorter range, but its
round/barrel length ratio and smooth slide/ejection operation make it
highly accurate. Thus, you have weapons like the Hammerli 610 (from
FoF) that are light pistols with heavy pistol ranges.
Regardless of what you see in films, pistols are woefully
inaccurate. Without being extremely skilled, you can't expect to hit
anything outside of about thirty feet (9 meters) with any regularity. This
becomes even less if the target is moving. By the same token, thirty
feet is an easy shot with a rifle. It has a longer barrel and a bullet
with a flatter trajectory, so the bullet is more apt to go where you
point the muzzle of the gun.

> The second reason is the completley screwed way that optical magnification is
> dealt with. The fact that optical magnification works is fine in my books,
> but to require mag 3 to bring the extreme range distances of a light psitol
> < or something similar > into short range is screwy when you compare what
> mag 2 does for things at long range on weapons such as a sniper rifle.

I see what you mean here, but remember what I said before, just
because you can see something doesn't mean you can hit it. Also remember
that scopes are set for a specific range.

> Phill.
> --
> Phillip Steele - P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk - University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne

I see that you are from Great Britain. I don't know how much
experience you have with firearms, but I've heard that British gun
control laws are fairly Draconian. If you want more information on the
topic of firearm accuracy vs. range, there are gobs of studies and books
I could refer you to so that you will have source material for your new
range tables.

Marc
Message no. 8
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 12:04:13 -0400
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
writes:

[...]

I'd put the 9mm Parabellum in the medium category myself, along with the
.45ACP, leaving the light category to include .22S, .22LR, .25ACP, etc.

Marc> Regardless of what you see in films, pistols are woefully
Marc> inaccurate. Without being extremely skilled, you can't expect to hit
Marc> anything outside of about thirty feet (9 meters) with any regularity.

More like about 25 feet maximum for most handguns, upwards of 35 feet for
the .22LR (which due to balistic quirks is one of the most accurate rounds
in existance, next to the .50 Browning). Up that by about 20% if you're
using an accuratized target shooting pistol, but that's not going to stay
accurate for very long under heavy use. But a Beretta Olympic can put a
.22LR through the 10-ring at up to 50 feet.

Most gunfights that result in injury occour at about 7 feet; most that
result in a fatality are at about 3 feet. Thus the police mantra: "three
rounds, three feet, three seconds" to describe most gunfights.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 9
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 17:19:41 +0100
The handgun and most short barrel SMGs have an operating range
of about 5m. anything over that and you're pushing your luck.

If you are skilled, have a well maintained target optimised
pistol with proper sights and you are aiming in quiet relaxing
conbitions, then longer shots are easy
But in SR, you wish!

Rifle ranges are a little short in SR, and should be increased i
think by 150 to 200%

If you want results, take the time to put a scope on a . 50 HMG
and snipe with that. That'll put em down everytime.
(the Barret .50 sniper rifle was made to fill this gap, but its
still usefull to be able to go to Full Auto and spray the target
area just in case...)

Anyone got any ideas how to rules manage fast aquisition combat
sights like guttersnipes or triluxes? they simply help you aim
the gun fast on a rapid target shift or quick draw.

CHOPPER
Do not Taunt the happy fun ball
if happy fun ball starts to smoke , run away
Message no. 10
From: John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 22:58:57 -0600
On Tue, 6 Sep 1994, The Powerhouse wrote:
> The reason I'm looking at modifying things is twofold. Firstly I don't see
> why a target number for distance should be different for two different guns
> if the target is within the maximum range of each gun. Ie just because a
> taser weapon has a low range why should it have a base TN of 9 to shoot
> something maybe 20 meters away when the same disatnce for a heavy pistol might
> give a base TN of 4.

Well, on this taser example, a taser shoots two little coiled-up wires.
Number one, you've got to be able to coil up 66 ft. of wire in a little
gun, and Number two, there's air resistance. With other guns, there's
things like bore, shell size, etc., etc. They've just tried to simplify
an already complex game.

> The second reason is the completley screwed way that optical magnification is
> dealt with. The fact that optical magnification works is fine in my books,
> but to require mag 3 to bring the extreme range distances of a light psitol
> < or something similar > into short range is screwy when you compare what
> mag 2 does for things at long range on weapons such as a sniper rifle.

I agree on this issue, however. Scopes are magnificative (is that a
word? Oh, well). They should multiply the range category values
appropriately, not stage them down. The cap should be kept on max range,
however.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// //
// I'm a dyslexic atheist. There is no dog. //
// //
// John Moeller <John.Moeller@*.cc.utah.edu> //
// //
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Message no. 11
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Guns and ranges
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 20:58:34 +1000
Phill writes:

[Stuff on ranges & guns]

I see what your trying to do now. You want a single range table based on the
capabilities of the human being - in as far as sight, calculating ability,
and the probablilty that a person will hit something at any particular range
goes, and then you want a maximum effective range for each and every weapon.
When a person fires, they use the master range table, but it cuts out at the
max range of the weapon they are using, regardless of if it is in short or
extreme.

Hmmm, at first it sounds Ok, but like other people have said, theres more to
it than that. I feel it would be better just to redo the ranges the book
has, changing them to suit the real ranges better.

> The second reason is the completley screwed way that optical magnification is
> dealt with. The fact that optical magnification works is fine in my books,
> but to require mag 3 to bring the extreme range distances of a light psitol
> < or something similar > into short range is screwy when you compare what
> mag 2 does for things at long range on weapons such as a sniper rifle.

As for this, I agree it needs fixing. But do you have any ideas other than
re-writing the ranges section in the way you are going to?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+) !tv(--)@ b++ D+ B?
e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Guns and ranges, 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.