Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:59:54 -0400
Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy pistols are too
heavy. Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
anyone?

My ideas so far are:
-Reduce the power (maybe as much as by 3, ie: 9M -> 6M, which would allow a
7M SMG to use heavy pistol ammo)
-Reduce the level (to L, ie 9M -> 9L)
-Increase the power of everything else (not something I want to do)

My reasoning is based on the fact that light rifle ammo (5.56mmNATO,
7.62x39mm, 30-30Win) creates an equally or more damaging wound (contrary to
some popular media claims) than a .44Mag.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."








From u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk
Message no. 2
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:55:38 +1000
At 09:59 7/06/99 -0400 IronRaven wrote
>Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy pistols are too
>heavy.

No. Not at all.

>Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
>anyone?

I'm not sure about that but if it's been done
then someone on the list has likely done it.

>My ideas so far are: Reduce the power (maybe as much as
>by 3, ie: 9M -> 6M, which would allow a
>7M SMG to use heavy pistol ammo)

Why would you want to do that?
In Shadowrun a SMG uses SMG ammo.
I fail to see the point of having an
SMG use Heavy Pistol ammo.

The whole SR ballistics issue gets
real ugly when people try to make
real life comparisons to SR ammos.

Personally I wouldn't want to lower the
power of Heavy Pistols (the main weapon
in my games) below their current values.
Once one lowers the value of a HP damage
to say 6M then a standard armour jacket
(5/3) will deflect almost every round thrown
at it. The last thing that I want to do is make
HP's inneffctual so that players have to rely
on BF/FA weapons. It has taken my players
a loooong time to learn that you don't need
to pack 27 different BF/FA guns to do the job.

>-Reduce the level (to L, ie 9M -> 9L)
>-Increase the power of everything else (not something I want to do)

If this works for your games then fine,
go for it. I prefer things as published.

> My reasoning is based on the fact that light rifle ammo (5.56mmNATO,
>7.62x39mm, 30-30Win) creates an equally or more damaging wound (contrary to
>some popular media claims) than a .44Mag.
>CyberRaven Kevin Dole

And a small bullet can kill just as easily as
a big one as well. When it comes to lead
allergies then humans are rather succeptible
to the debilitating effects of such nasties :)

What you say may very well be true with
regard to wounds but like I said before
it gets very convoluted when we bring in
real life ballistics and comparisons to a RPG.

Manx
timburke@*******.com.au
Brisbane, Australia.
__________________________________
"In a Cat's eye, all things belong to Cats."
- English Proverb
__________________________________










From renouf@********.com Mon, 7
Message no. 3
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, IronRaven wrote:

> Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy pistols are too
> heavy. Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
> anyone?

Nope. No need.

> My reasoning is based on the fact that light rifle ammo (5.56mmNATO,
> 7.62x39mm, 30-30Win) creates an equally or more damaging wound (contrary to
> some popular media claims) than a .44Mag.

Well, I'm not sure I buy this. Yes, rifle ammo tends to have
*much* more kinetic energy than a pistol round, but in many cases the
target's body doesn't stop the round (i.e. the round over-penetrates),
meaning that not all of the round's kinetic energy is tranferred to the
target. So yes, it's a faster bullet, but does it *really* do more
damage?
Myth and rumor aside, the interaction between bullets and bodies
is *not* a well-understood science. The theory of "hydrostatic shock" has
been debunked, as have the myths of "tumbling rounds." Further, two
identical rounds travelling at identical speeds can cause vastly different
wound characteristics depending on what part of the body they hit.
Ballistic gelatin makes for an extremely poor analog to the human body (as
it is homogenous and has no internal air-spaces or bones), so it's very
difficult to model exactly what happens when a bullet enters the body.
Since rifle rounds tend to travel at high speeds, and since they
tend to be jacketed, they generally do not deform much in the body (there
are rounds designed to do so, but aren't as common in "military"
applications). If they hit something solid however (like a conveniently
placed bone) they may carom wildly (since they don't deform) and may make
a large wound channel in a whole new direction. If not, they may pass
through the body, having imparted little energy to the target. Pistol
rounds travel much slower, but are quite often designed to deform on
impact, greatly increasing kinetic energy transfer. This is especially
true of frangible and hollow-point rounds. Rifles poke holes like a foil.
Pistols smash tissue like a hammer. Poke a hole in the right place, and
you're dead. Smash the head with a hammer, and you're dead. Pick your
poison.
But look at the range table. A Rifle sustains its damaging
capacity out to hundreds of meters, far beyond the effective range of a
pistol. At point-blank range, both are roughly equally likely to kill you
dead. This is more or less realistic.

Where your thinking is 100% correct, however, is in the area of
armor penetration. Since penetration is figured off a weapon's Power
Level, a Ruger Super Warhawk is a better armor penetrator than an AK-97.

Wrong.

How do you fix this? Not sure. At a guess, I'd call all rifle
ammunition armor-piercing (though not to the degree that APDS is
armor-piercing). Maybe give fully jacketed rifle ammo a -2 to the
target's armor. This would keep the damage roughly equivalent between
rifles and pistols, but would make rifles better at defeating armor.
Or you could just not worry about it and say that radical advances
in pistol ammunition have given it much better armor-penetration
capabilities. It's pretty much a GM call at that point.

Marc






From SHODAN+@***.EDU Mon, 7 Jun
Message no. 4
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes:
> Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy
> pistols are too
> heavy. Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
> anyone?
>
> My ideas so far are:
> -Reduce the power (maybe as much as by 3, ie: 9M -> 6M, which would allow a
> 7M SMG to use heavy pistol ammo)

You could extrapolate a little bit from SSC1. Claim that
Heavy Pistols do 6M damage, but special "Firepower" ammo exists that
increase the damage to 9M. This should prevent people from packing EX
Explosive or APDS rounds to further boost the 9M damage.

I've found that 9M damage doesn't unbalance the game, and in
fact gives the GM something convenient to shoot PCs with. :) It does
start to get annoying when the sammies consistently do 11M, 12S, or
14S with their Heavy Pistols.

Mark




From timburke@*******.com.au Tue
Message no. 5
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 02:35:31 +1000
At 11:29 7/06/99 -0400 Mark A Shieh wrote
> I've found that 9M damage doesn't unbalance the game, and in
>fact gives the GM something convenient to shoot PCs with. :) It does
>start to get annoying when the sammies consistently do 11M, 12S, or
>14S with their Heavy Pistols.
>
>Mark
>

Excuse my ignorance but HTF can a sam do a
base damage of 14S with a heavy pistol???

Unless of course you mean a Savalette Guardian
with EX-Explosive on burst fire....

If that's the case the GM needs to throw a
fireball at the guy to "cook off" his bullets....
and of course his flesh.

Manx
______________________________________
"Thousands of years ago Cats were worshipped
as gods. Cats have never forgotten this."
- Manx, Cat Shaman
timburke@*******.com.au | Brisbane, Australia
______________________________________






From ljvance@*******.edu Mon, 07
Message no. 6
From: Lehlan Decker DeckerL@******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:44:35 -0400
>"Thousands of years ago Cats were worshipped
>as gods. Cats have never forgotten this."
>- Manx, Cat Shaman

"Today dogs eat cats. Dogs haven't forgotten this."
- Lupus, Dog Shaman

:)





From SHODAN+@***.EDU Mon, 7 Jun
Message no. 7
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:59:31 -0400 (EDT)
Manx <timburke@*******.com.au> writes:
> At 11:29 7/06/99 -0400 Mark A Shieh wrote
> > I've found that 9M damage doesn't unbalance the game, and in
> >fact gives the GM something convenient to shoot PCs with. :) It does
> >start to get annoying when the sammies consistently do 11M, 12S, or
> >14S with their Heavy Pistols.
> >
> base damage of 14S with a heavy pistol???
>
> Unless of course you mean a Savalette Guardian
> with EX-Explosive on burst fire....

That's the first thing that springs to mind, yeah. Or, the
Thunderbolt, which is not a cop-only gun if you're playing after
2054?.
I'm still not real thrilled about the Guardian... It has a
concelability of 5 or so, which can be boosted up to something
difficult to spot with the usual help. I've had to cross it off of so
several of my character sheets because I tend to reflexively purchase
it before really going through and buying equipment properly.

> If that's the case the GM needs to throw a
> fireball at the guy to "cook off" his bullets....
> and of course his flesh.

That works for Explosive, but EX Explosive doesn't go wrong
any more than normal ammo. Besides, the 12S you get from normal
rounds and burst fire is still pretty painful.

I prefer to just not let them buy 20 boxes of the stuff at
character creation, and them let them scrounge around for EX Explosive
clips from their contacts after blowing through the clips they had.

Mark




From gurth@******.nl Mon, 7 Jun 1
Message no. 8
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:36:47 +0200
According to IronRaven, at 9:59 on 7 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy pistols are too
> heavy. Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
> anyone?
>
> My ideas so far are:
> -Reduce the power (maybe as much as by 3, ie: 9M -> 6M, which would allow a
> 7M SMG to use heavy pistol ammo)

I've been using this as a house rule for several years now. I just
subtract 3 from all heavy pistol Power Levels, so that for example an Ares
Predator is a 6M weapon in my game (actually, a 6M2 weapon :) and a Ruger
Super Warhawk does 7M. However, I still stick to the different weapon
classes when it comes to exchanging ammo -- an SMG cannot fire heavy
pistol rounds in my game. (Before anyone tells me "But both fire 9 mm
round IRL!" please understand that I know that, and have made the
conscious decision to limit the interchangeability of ammunition for game
reasons.)

> -Reduce the level (to L, ie 9M -> 9L)
> -Increase the power of everything else (not something I want to do)

Simply reducing heavy pistols is the easier option, especially because if
you increase the Power Level of everything else, the game becomes
exceedingly deadly.

> My reasoning is based on the fact that light rifle ammo (5.56mmNATO,
> 7.62x39mm, 30-30Win) creates an equally or more damaging wound (contrary to
> some popular media claims) than a .44Mag.

Wound ballistics is a bit complicated, I'm afraid...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here I am, still intact, and I should give myself credit for that
-- Tilt, "Unravel"
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998




From gurth@******.nl Mon, 7 Jun 1
Message no. 9
From: Tony Glinka porthos@*******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:38:55 -0700
>
> Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy pistols are too
> heavy. Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
> anyone?
>

I have the list set on digest, so if this point has been discussed to
death, please pardon me. :) And yes, I am sticking my head out from
the safety of my lurking status. :)

In our game (which is run by Loki with players such as Caric and Rookie
among others for those that know them), we have made the house rule that
heavy pistols have a base damage of 6M. We have been using this rule
for a LONG time and it works really well. We tried to convince the DLOH
to put it into 3rd edition, but he didn't buy it though. :)
I myself am not an expert on handguns and/or bullet-proof vests and
what-not, but there are a few guys in our game that are, and they think
that this change puts heavy pistols in line with the armor rules in SR.
My suggestion is to try this rule for a few sessions and see if you
like it. If you do, use it. If you don't, don't use it. :)


Hey, if this mail looks really bad, as in it's format is tweaked, it's
in HTML, or other serious breach of list etiquette, let me know in
private. I got a new mailer running and though it seems to be working
properly with all of my checks, knowing Murphy's Law, it will have gone
screwy and pasted the list with serious errors. I have the lines set at
72 columns, so if that is screwed up let me know post-haste.
Okay, back to lurking......

Tony
--
Porthos@*******.com -- http://fly.to/porthos
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Every Grim Legionnaire dies. Not every Grim Legionnaire
truly lives." -- Gwalchavad Stormfist, Troll Warrior
+-----------------------------------------------------------+




From knight_errant30@*******.com
Message no. 10
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 06:06:13 +1000
At 12:44 7/06/99 -0400 Lehlan Decker wrote
>>"Thousands of years ago Cats were worshipped
>>as gods. Cats have never forgotten this."
>>- Manx, Cat Shaman
>
>"Today dogs eat cats. Dogs haven't forgotten this."
>- Lupus, Dog Shaman
>
>:)

"Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get
eight cats to pull a sled through snow."
- Manx, Cat Shaman

:)





From ljvance@*******.edu Mon, 07
Message no. 11
From: Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 13:54:51
At 06:06 AM 6/8/99 +1000, you wrote:
>At 12:44 7/06/99 -0400 Lehlan Decker wrote
>>>"Thousands of years ago Cats were worshipped
>>>as gods. Cats have never forgotten this."
>>>- Manx, Cat Shaman
>>
>>"Today dogs eat cats. Dogs haven't forgotten this."
>>- Lupus, Dog Shaman
>>
>>:)
>
>"Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get
>eight cats to pull a sled through snow."
>- Manx, Cat Shaman
>
>:)


"Both taste great with BBQ sauce."
- Grant, Troll Decker




From DeckerL@******.com Mon, 07 J
Message no. 12
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:45:37 +1000
> At 06:06 AM 6/8/99 +1000, you wrote:
> >At 12:44 7/06/99 -0400 Lehlan Decker wrote
> >>>"Thousands of years ago Cats were worshipped
> >>>as gods. Cats have never forgotten this."
> >>>- Manx, Cat Shaman
> >>
> >>"Today dogs eat cats. Dogs haven't forgotten this."
> >>- Lupus, Dog Shaman
> >>
> >>:)
> >
> >"Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get
> >eight cats to pull a sled through snow."
> >- Manx, Cat Shaman
> >
> >:)
>
> "Both taste great with BBQ sauce."
> - Grant, Troll Decker

Hey no fair! I almost choked when you got my laughing. (eating at the
time).





From docwagon101@*****.com Mon, 7
Message no. 13
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:08:21 +1000
Manx wrote:

> At 11:29 7/06/99 -0400 Mark A Shieh wrote
> > I've found that 9M damage doesn't unbalance the game, and in
> >fact gives the GM something convenient to shoot PCs with. :) It does
> >start to get annoying when the sammies consistently do 11M, 12S, or
> >14S with their Heavy Pistols.
> >
> >Mark
> >
>
> Excuse my ignorance but HTF can a sam do a
> base damage of 14S with a heavy pistol???
>
> Unless of course you mean a Savalette Guardian
> with EX-Explosive on burst fire....
>
> If that's the case the GM needs to throw a
> fireball at the guy to "cook off" his bullets....
> and of course his flesh.

i think mark means that they roll so many successes they raise the damage
by a few due to "more than Deadly damage" type stuff.

GreyWolf





From sparrow@***.net.au Tue, 08 J
Message no. 14
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:36:05 +0200
> Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that the heavy pistols are too
>heavy. Has there ever been a house rule to reduce the damage tested by
>anyone?


Well, I always thought it strange that there were Heavy Pistols (well
into the 12mm range) and light pistols (which I consider to be .22 and
.32 caliber weapons), but no .38 or 9mm pistols, being some of the most
popular firearms today. So... taddaaa...

We introduced 9mm pistols and ammo, having a damage code of 6M and being
the most popular sidearm in our gaming group (ranges as for Heavy
Pistols). Heavy Pistols are Heavy Hitters only someone who really
expects armored targets usually uses.

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun
Message no. 15
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:42:18 +0200
>>My ideas so far are: Reduce the power (maybe as much as
>>by 3, ie: 9M -> 6M, which would allow a
>>7M SMG to use heavy pistol ammo)
>
>Why would you want to do that?
>In Shadowrun a SMG uses SMG ammo.
>I fail to see the point of having an
>SMG use Heavy Pistol ammo.
>
>The whole SR ballistics issue gets
>real ugly when people try to make
>real life comparisons to SR ammos.


Well, you just need a general consensus within your gaming group. As
long as all of your players are either only partly informed (best option
IMO :-) or accept certain idiocies as neccessary, you can have your
characters talk about calibers and round sizes, which is by WORLDS more
interesting than "Heavy Pistol Ammo" - which somehow sounds like a
gamer's term. Oh, and with an Uzi using 9mm ammo similar to that used by
9mm pistols, exchanging ammo there would make sense.

>Personally I wouldn't want to lower the
>power of Heavy Pistols (the main weapon
>in my games) below their current values.
>Once one lowers the value of a HP damage
>to say 6M then a standard armour jacket
>(5/3) will deflect almost every round thrown
>at it. The last thing that I want to do is make
>HP's inneffctual so that players have to rely
>on BF/FA weapons. It has taken my players
>a loooong time to learn that you don't need
>to pack 27 different BF/FA guns to do the job.


Hm. What do you think does a standard issue police armored vest do to a
bullet? It stops it cold. That's the reason why it is really okay for a
Armor Jacket (which shouldn't really be standard when a character isn't
expecting heavy combat, BTW) to stop a standard issue pistol bullet dead
cold. The advantage of those folks who can choose the time of the
battle - they can wear armor, and have the right weapons.

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun
Message no. 16
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 20:39:17 CST
>Hm. What do you think does a standard issue police armored vest do to a
>bullet? It stops it cold. That's the reason why it is really okay for a
>Armor Jacket (which shouldn't really be standard when a character isn't
>expecting heavy combat, BTW) to stop a standard issue pistol bullet
Sure it can! Depends on what it looks like! An amroured "Biker's" jacket
can certainly be worn on the streets. A full flak jacket may get you some
looks tho' :)

>dead
>cold. The advantage of those folks who can choose the time of the
>battle - they can wear armor, and have the right weapons.
>
>--- Karsten


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com




From Schizi@***.com Mon, 7 Jun 19
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
> >Hm. What do you think does a standard issue police armored vest do
to a bullet? It stops it cold. That's the reason why it is really okay
for a Armor Jacket (which shouldn't really be standard when a character
isn't expecting heavy combat, BTW) to stop a standard issue pistol
bullet dead cold. The advantage of those folks who can choose the time
of the battle - they can wear armor, and have the right weapons.
> >--- Karsten

Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a .44
round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?

Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
balanced for your average Shadowrun game.
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From Schizi@***.com Mon, 7 Jun 19
Message no. 18
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:06:26 +1000
> Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a .44
> round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
> round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
> big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
> wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?

a .44 mag round will cause significant bruise and contousion damage to the
wearer. a 9mm slug isnt going to penetrate unless there is something
special about it and usually (note "usually") wont do much bruising either
thru a decent vest.


> Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
> point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
> balanced for your average Shadowrun game.

A-rifles which have base damage of 7M or so can do SA/BF/FA damage codes.
This SIGNIFICANTLY increases their damage capability. if you upped the
rifle base damage this would amke thier finaly damage codes go out the
window. (and thru the roof!).

single shot rifles like the remington 950 have a pretty good damage code in
and of themselves and they are made for "sniping" type jobs not front line
house to house jobs. Pistols and shotguns are. A-rifles are for supression
or heavy hitting (using FA or BF modes). Each gun has its own arena of
expertise.

GreyWolf





From cpenta@*****.com Mon, 07 Jun
Message no. 19
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:09:32 -0500
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?

----- Original Message -----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?


> > >Hm. What do you think does a standard issue police armored vest do
> to a bullet? It stops it cold. That's the reason why it is really okay
> for a Armor Jacket (which shouldn't really be standard when a character
> isn't expecting heavy combat, BTW) to stop a standard issue pistol
> bullet dead cold. The advantage of those folks who can choose the time
> of the battle - they can wear armor, and have the right weapons.
> > >--- Karsten
>
> Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a .44
> round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
> round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
> big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
> wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?
Military issue Bullet proof vest will cold stop an 7.62 mm ASSULT rifle
round. Sure it will hurt and put you on your rear end. But it will stop
them. <Friend was shot and his stopped one.> so as to a 44 yes. Remember
the larger rounds generally are not supersonic and theirfor have less
penetration <that is what matters on the armor> but they do more tissue
damage because the round is less likely to punch a pretty hole in someone.

> Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
> point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
> balanced for your average Shadowrun game.

But it IS fun.

> ==> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)
>
> .sig Sauer

Grimlakin

Josh





From robert.watkins@******.com Tue,
Message no. 20
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
> > Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a
.44 round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre
pistol round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and
other big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the
vest wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?

> Military issue Bullet proof vest will cold stop an 7.62 mm ASSULT
rifle round. Sure it will hurt and put you on your rear end. But it
will stop them. <Friend was shot and his stopped one.> so as to a 44
yes. Remember the larger rounds generally are not supersonic and
theirfor have less penetration <that is what matters on the armor> but
they do more tissue damage because the round is less likely to punch a
pretty hole in someone.

Not military issue - cop issue. :) That's what I see an armoured jacket
as. As GreyWolf pointed out, though, even if it STOPS the bullet, a
round like a .44 is large enough and has enough kinetic energy to cause
extensive bruising (stun damage at the very least in SR terms). At
close enough range, you could probably suffer broken ribs from being
shot, couldn't you?

> > Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from
FASA's point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol
is NOT balanced for your average Shadowrun game.
>
> But it IS fun.
> Grimlakin

Tell me, how exactly is it fun?

GM: Your heavy pistol rounds bounce off his armour jacket.

PC: <frown> As usual.

GM: My turn. The security guard pulls out his shotgun and...oh, I'm
sorry - you're dead.

PC: Whoopee.

Game balance is there for a reason. If you WANT to reduce power and
still be balanced and fun (IMO) you'll need to reduce power across the
board. Then you can have people jumping around and shooting and taking
bullets in the head and chest and not even slowing down - just like a
B-grade action movie. :)

*Doc' puts on his inflatable muscle man suit and flexes away. "Just
call me...Action Traction..."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From alvion@****.uni2.dk Tue, 08 Jun
Message no. 21
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:19:06 +1000
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?

At 20:00 7/06/99 -0700 Rand Ratinac wrote
>Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a .44
>round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
>round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
>big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
>wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?

Um I don't know where people are getting this
assumption that SR Heavy Pistols are the
equivalent of .44's (maybe I missed some
obscure sourcebook reference) but I certainly
think of a 9mm as a heavy pistol. The Glock 17
that my friendly neighbourhood cop was
waving around the other day sure looked big and
menacing to me. (Let's just say *I* wouldn't
f*&k with it) and vest or no vest it is still
going to hurt.

>Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
>point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
>balanced for your average Shadowrun game.
>==>Doc'

That's exactly right there Doc. You can't draw comparisons
to real life weapons and the firearms categories of
a role playing game.

For me personally the idea of reducing the power of
heavy pistols is just going to drive the players into
bigger and nastier weapons as their 6M heavy pistols
are rendered ineffectual at every turn by the crappiest
body armour available.

______________________________________
"Managing Street Samurai is like herding Cats."
- Manx, Cat Shaman.
timburke@*******.com.au || Brisbane, Australia.
______________________________________





From moe@*******.com Tue, 08 Jun 199
Message no. 22
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:49:08 +0100
In article <19990608030006.19863.rocketmail@******.mail.yahoo.com>,
Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> writes
>Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a .44
>round?

Not unless the vest's at least Threat Level IIIA or better. And that's a heavy
vest to wear all day: you're talking lots of fibre, ceramic inserts, and a
trauma shield behind it.

+++++begin include
However, the standard threats defined in the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) Standard 0101-03 are widely known, widely quoted and widely
understood, and for this reason it has been used in the following pages,
unless stated otherwise. The basic threat levels are defined below:

Level I
Protects against .22 long rifle high-velocity lead bullets of 2.6 g with an
impact velocity of 320 m/s or less, and .38 Special round nose lead bullets
of 10.2 g with an impact velocity of 259 m/s or less. It also provides
protection against most 6.35 mm and 7.65 mm pistol rounds.

Level II-A
Protects against .357 magnum JSP bullets of 10.2 g and an impact velocity
of 381 m/s or less, and 9 mm FMJ bullets of 8 g with an impact velocity of
332 m/s or less. It also provides protection against threats such as .45
ACP, .38 Special +P and some other factory loads in .357 magnum and 9
mm, as well as the threats covered in Level I.

Level II
Protects against .357 magnum JSP bullets of 10.2 g and an impact velocity
of 425 m/s or less, and 9 mm FMJ bullets of 8 g and impact velocity of
358 m/s or less. It also provides protection against most other factory
loads in .357 magnum and 9 mm calibres, as well as the threats covered in
Levels I and II-A.

Level III-A
Protects against .44 magnum lead SWC bullets, with gas checks, of 15.55
g and impact velocity of 426 m/s or less, and 9 mm FMJ bullets of 8 g
with impact velocity of 426 m/s or less. It also provides protection against
most hand gun threats as well as those threats defined in Levels I, II-A and
II.

Level III
Protects against 7.62 mm FMJ rifle bullets (US 7.62 x 51 mm M80) of 9.7
g and with an impact velocity of 838 m/s or less. It also provides
protection against 5.56 x 45 mm FMJ, .30 Carbine FMJ and 12-gauge
rifled slugs, as well as the threats defined in Levels I, II-A, II and III-A.

Level IV
Protects against .30-06 AP bullets (US .30-06 AP M2) of 10.8 g weight and
impact velocity of 868 m/s or less. It also provides at least single-hit
protection against those threats defined in Levels I, II-A, III, III-A and III.
+++++end include

Now, bear in mind this vest's only covering your torso: I'd say a .44
Magnum in the thigh, for instance, would be seriously debilitating if not
fatal (hit the thighbone and you'll get explosive fragmentation of the
femur, likely to cut the femoral artery)

> A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
>round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
>big guns, not 9mm's)

Where do you get this from?

If you get a chance, get your hands on a H&K Mark 23. The US Special
Forces' 'Offensive Handgun'. It looks and feels like something Robocop
should carry. It's a .45ACP.

Find _any_ military force that issues .44 Magnum pistols. I don't think any
police forces do. Remember, heavy pistols are _general issue_ weapons,
not big Desert Eagle-type handguns for use by burly enthusiasts, they need
to be managable and controllable by Joe and Jane Average.

Recall one reason the US military went to 9mm handguns was that so
many people found .45ACP difficult to shoot? (Some swear by it, others at
it...) What do you think happens to marksmanship when you make .44
Magnum your basic cartridge?

>be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
>wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?

Definitely so. Plus there's all that body sticking out of the vest: the head
and four limbs, all full of tender tissue that reacts badly to being shot.

>Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
>point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
>balanced for your average Shadowrun game.

Agreed. It's logically unsound that pistols do 9M while SMGs do 6/7M and
assault rifles only 8M, but making it "realistic" means that nobody with a
pistol has a chance in a firefight.

That's true, but not fun, and it encourages a style of play I don't like, so I
stick with the rules as written. YMMV.


--
Paul J. Adam




From Paul@********.demon.co.uk Tue, 8 J
Message no. 23
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:47:12 -0400
Karsten--

>Well, I always thought it strange that there were Heavy Pistols
>(well into the 12mm range) and light pistols (which I consider to
>be .22 and .32 caliber weapons), but no .38 or 9mm pistols, being
>some of the most popular firearms today. So... taddaaa...

Actually, Shadowrun's two pistol categories remind me very
much of the two IPSC categories of ammunition. There's the IPSC Major
category; this contains the .45, some 9mm ammo, .357 magnum, .44
Special (maybe this one's in IPSC Minor) and .44 Magnum, .454 Casull,
.50 AE, and similar rounds. Then there's the IPSC Minor category; .22
LR, .22 WMR, .25, .32, .38 Special, .38+P, .40 S&W, some 9mm ammo, etc.
I forget what are the actual qualifications that put a
particular round into a particular category, but I'm pretty sure that
they're available out there on the Web somewheres.
Granted, 6L is a little light for some of the rounds in the
IPSC Minor category, but 9M is a little heavy, too.

Shadowmage




From Tarek_Okail@**********.com Tue, 8
Message no. 24
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:47:11 -0400
Doc--

>Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead"
>a .44 round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large
>calibre pistol round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents
>of .44s and other big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do
>some damage to the vest wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?

No bullet-resistant vest will "stop dead" any round from
any firearm. It's not vehicle armor, here. <g> The whole point of
a bullet-resistant vest is to slow down the bullet and spread the
energy of impact across a large area, without letting the bullet
penetrate the body.
The general policy for "police-issue" bullet-resistant
vests is to issue a vest which will stop rounds from the police-
issued firearm; a police department which issues 9mm firearms will
issue a vest rated to stop 9mm ammo. This applies only in those depts.
that actually issue vests; you would be surprised at the number of
police departments that don't issue them.
Vests that protect against .357 magnum/.44 magnum rounds are
popular with some police departments, and unpopular with others. This
is partly political and partly climatic; The further north you go, the
more tolerable the heavier vests become.
Protection vs. weight/comfort/heat is also an issue with
these things. The more protective the vest, the heavier/bulkier/hotter
it gets. You can get a vest that will protect against .308 caliber
rifle ammo very effectively; but you WILL NOT be wearing it most of
the time if you value mobility. I saw this one demonstrated. It is
very bulky, but still surprisingly compact compared to other designs
rated against rifle ammunition. If you were shot with a rifle while
wearing it, it would hurt. A lot. You might have internal injuries,
but the rifle round would not break the skin.
With most vests, if someone shoots you with a firearm against
which the vest is rated, at worst you're going to get a bruise. Even
against more powerful firearms the vest still helps protect you, but
the round is likely to break the skin.
Most current bullet-resistant vests can't stand up to most
rifle rounds. The shape of the bullet and the speed at which it's
going will generally defeat the vest design. Interestingly, the small
caliber pistol rounds are also notorious for ripping through vests;
even those rated against "the big boys." That's part of the reason
why most vests have a small pocket in the front for a "trauma plate."
This is not a built-in medkit <g>; it is a piece of steel, about 3"
by 5", that covers the heart.

Now, add 50 or 60 years of development to current issue vests.
Remember that vest that I was talking about that could stop .308 cal.
rifle rounds? In 2061 it's the size and weight of a 1990's vest. You
can't really shrink it down much more than that; part of the absorbing
ability it has is due to bulk. It's lighter than its predecessors, and
works well against most kinds of standard ammunition fired from most
kinds of firearms. This, by default, becomes the "standard-issue"
bullet-resistant vest. It's capable of reducing damage from rifle
rounds to mere bruises, and it gives a decent chance of survival even
if hit by the big guns. Of course, firearms technology has also kept
pace, and bullet designs and materials have changed, thereby keeping
things even between the defensive and offensive aspects; a 2061 vest
would be absolutely wiz against today's .45 ACP, but it's only moder-
ately effective against a Predator II firing 9mm "Fireball" rounds.

Of course, the worst problem that vests have, protection-wise,
is that they don't cover everything. The worst thing that our Congress
critters have ever done to our police forces was reveal on national
TV, while attempting to "help" the police ban a "police-use only"
round, that our police forces actually were using bullet-resistant
vests. Head-shot fatalities among police officers rose 30% the year
after the idiots made that announcement. It doesn't matter if the vest
actually does stop a 20mm round "cold," if the poor guy wearing it was
hit in the head, or the armpit, or the leg...
And that's why, no matter how good the protection you're using,
it's going to hurt if you don't roll enough successes on your dodge or
body tests to offset the attacker's successes. Heck, it may still hurt
even if you do offset the attacker's successes.

Shadowmage




From remo@***.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 06:55
Message no. 25
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 13:12:18 -0400
>target. So yes, it's a faster bullet, but does it *really* do more
>damage?

Below a certain point, both velocity and mass wise, I'd say no, but once
you go above that certain point, I'd say yes. Based off of the deer and
bear I've hunted (I do check out the wound channels), and the speed at
which the wild dog's I've tagged stopped, I would say that a .44 (240gr
semi-jacket hollowpoints, loaded at standerd pressure, fired out of a 6"
barrels) is barely equal, and probably inferior, to 5.56mm (55gr SJP at
standerd pressure from a 18.5" barrel). When the .44 is fired from a
handgun, the results are even more noticable. I'm not using anything like
the Taylor KO theories or similiar mathematical mumbo-jumbo. I'm basing
this off of incidents involving feral dogs of roughly the same size and
weight, all of which were on the attack and were struck broadside.

>is *not* a well-understood science. The theory of "hydrostatic shock" has
>been debunked, as have the myths of "tumbling rounds." Further, two

Tumbling rounds, yes. However, I would be interested in seeing any
scientific proof against the effects of hydrostatic shock. In my
experince, it does appear to exist.
While agree that mathematic similuations are bunk, actual shooting data
isn't, so long as the research is impartial and is carried out
professionally. I've not seen FSS percentages for rifle ammo, but I would
be willing to accept that as effective data.

>tend to be jacketed, they generally do not deform much in the body (there
>are rounds designed to do so, but aren't as common in "military"

Uh, what about the air cavity in the older 5.45x39mm rounds. That caused
them to deform very nicely, regaurdless of your test media or how many
bones it hit on the way through. The light ball ammo in 5.56 has about a
50/50 chance of snapping in half when it hits tissue.

> But look at the range table. A Rifle sustains its damaging
>capacity out to hundreds of meters, far beyond the effective range of a

I'm not making that argueement at all. I know that.

> Or you could just not worry about it and say that radical advances
>in pistol ammunition have given it much better armor-penetration

NOT the 224 Boz. I'm not even about to introduce that level of insantiy
into any game, no way, no how.
CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."








From cyberraven@********.net Tue, 08 Ju
Message no. 26
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:35:29 -0400
At 00.55 06-08-99 +1000, you wrote:
>I'm not sure about that but if it's been done
>then someone on the list has likely done it.

Why else would I ask?

>Why would you want to do that?

Lets see... Maybe, it is because a SUBMACHINEGUN is defined as a
selective fire, shoulderstocked weapon desgned to fire PISTOL AMMUNITION.
(Yes, I know I am ignoring the FN P90. No one knows how to classify that
thing yet anyways, I think it came before it's time.)

>In Shadowrun a SMG uses SMG ammo.

This determination was made by the same veg head that decided that (a) a
pocket pistol and a duty-sized pistol have the same range, (b) that
"sniper" rifles have a 400m max range (I shoot out to 500m with iron sights
on a lot of my rifles), and (c) that an LMG has the same effective range as
an SMG. (I hope they've changed these things in SR3.)
I'm not a believer in really detailed damage systems in games, they are
too slow. However, I do want basic realism. While I don't need it with
the group I play with at college, if folks are at home when I am, I want to
to be roughly realistic with my old gaming group.

>I fail to see the point of having an
>SMG use Heavy Pistol ammo.

There is more than SMGs involved. I'd love to see a character who carries
single-action revolvers and a lever action carbine in the same caliber,
just for style. It may not be the best in combat, but for roleplaying, it
would be a lot of fun.
Also, I know a number of people who hunt with
rifles/carbines/whatchamacallits that fire pistol ammo. I can see this
being a readily available, legal weapon.

>Personally I wouldn't want to lower the
>power of Heavy Pistols (the main weapon

Then don't. My game, not yours, is why I'm asking.

>And a small bullet can kill just as easily as
>a big one as well. When it comes to lead

Laddy, I've been shooting since we had Republicans in the White house, the
Senate and the Housre. I know this.

>it gets very convoluted when we bring in
>real life ballistics and comparisons to a RPG.

I didn't say otherwise. I hate systems that do that. But I do what it to
be roughly accurate.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."








From iscottw@*****.nb.ca Tue, 08 Jun 19
Message no. 27
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:30:25 -0400
At 02.09 06-08-99 -0500, you wrote:
>Military issue Bullet proof vest will cold stop an 7.62 mm ASSULT rifle
>round. Sure it will hurt and put you on your rear end. But it will stop

That's interesting. I was under the impression that military armour was
designed to stop shrapnel and richochetts more than a dirrect hit. They
use the PASGAT helmet a penetration test for concept military rifle rounds
(the bullet has to go out the other side for UK and US apporval).
If you are refeering to 7.62x39, there are body armour that can stop it,
yes. But will to more than just knock you down- it will break a shitloada
ribs. And that is IF you are hit on the plate, rather than fromt he side
or under the plate, resulting in a gut wound. If you are talking the big
7.62s (7.62 NATO/.308 Whinchester, 7.62x54mmR), then forget it. You can
get armour that will stop it, but you cant move when you are wearing that
stuff. You can get soft armour that will keep from penatrating, but the
energy transfeered olone can break your neck or stop your heart or rupture
your kidneys or.... Well, you get the idea.

>them. <Friend was shot and his stopped one.> so as to a 44 yes. Remember

I'd want to see the vest, and the projectile. It just doesn't jive with
the data I'm seeing. It may have been a richochette, or it may have been
fire through brush (leaves will slow a bullet down surprisingly well), but
I stongly doubt it was a direct hit, unless we are talking about the kinds
of plates used to issue to doorgunners on helicopters..

>the larger rounds generally are not supersonic and theirfor have less

Really? Then is every cannon and rifle round (with exception of very
special application ammo) in the NATO and for ComBlock inventories supersonic?


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."








From cyberraven@********.net Tue, 08 Ju
Message no. 28
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:30:30 -0400
At 11.49 06-08-99 +0100, you wrote:
>If you get a chance, get your hands on a H&K Mark 23. The US Special

Designed to stop a target when struck twice in the head. The reason they
wanted the .45 is beacause it doesn't loose terminal effectiveness when
suppressed, and because of the slighly reduced probability of overpenetration.
Also remember that the Mk23 is NOT a standerd sidearm. It is to used in
situtations where an SMG would be inconvienant (ie, clearing the guts of
an oil platform), or as a "hushpuppy" (where it replasing a mix of
suppressed .22s and 9mm's, neither one of which is at it's best subsonic).
Most of the operators that I know

>Forces' 'Offensive Handgun'. It looks and feels like something Robocop
>should carry. It's a .45ACP.

Which is realistically only a slight bit better than a supersonic 9mm
round of similiar design. (Let us compair ball to ball and JHP to JHP.
None of this "lets use the figures for 230gr, full-velocity hollow points
for the .45, and subsonic, military ball loads for the 9mm" comparision.)

>Find _any_ military force that issues .44 Magnum pistols. I don't think any

Issue, or carry? I know a one guy who carried a S&W 29 while stuck in El
Salvedor, and my brother carries his .45 with him (it has been modified to
handle .45 Super- a much hotter round, in the .41 Mag/low-end .44 Mag
territory). While these are both private purchase weapons, these are both
members of the US military, both in "special operations".
You should also remember that in the eyes of the military majority, a
pistol is weapon of next last resort (only before a knife) issued to
tankers, flyers, artillerymen and REMFs as safety blanket, becuase the
infantry will always be there to protect them. In theory.

>to be managable and controllable by Joe and Jane Average.

Average Joe and Jane aren't armed, or only carry a hold out.

>Recall one reason the US military went to 9mm handguns was that so
>many people found .45ACP difficult to shoot? (Some swear by it, others at

Yep. And there are people who aren't that "berly" who chugg through both
of those, and the lighter "magnum"-class rounds (low-end .44Mag, 357Mag)
without a problem. The perceived recoil issue was due to a lack of hearing
protection and worn-out recoil springs.

>it...) What do you think happens to marksmanship when you make .44
>Magnum your basic cartridge?

Lets see... I can hit six out of six 3x5 index cards at 50m in about 1.20
seconds (0.2 seconds per shot), using a 4" S&W 629 (a .44Mag to the
uninitiated) loaded with 240gr Federal JHPs at full pressure. I do the
same stunt with 7 cards and mostly stock (very minor trigger job, new
sights, bevelled magazine well and a heavier recoil spring) 1911 (a .45
with a 5" barrel) in 1.35 seconds (0.19 seconds and change per round) using
standerd pressure (subsonic), 230gr JHPs. Run the drill with a Browning
Hi-Power (13-shot 9mm, ~4.7" barrel; mine has new sights, and smoothed out
trigger. The other mods don't effect accuracy or speed) against 13 cards
at the same range, using 124gr, hi-pressure JHPs, in seconds 1.95 seconds
(call it 0.15 secs per round). That was this morning, with my sister
timing my drills starting with the first shot.
I ain't the tool. It is the person using it.

>assault rifles only 8M, but making it "realistic" means that nobody with a
>pistol has a chance in a firefight.

Har-mpf.
Happyness is a headshot. Besides, players aren't supposed to win in
shootouts with cops. The way I see it, if the guns come out, and it
something you didn't plan on, you are screwed, unless your rigger is about
to show up.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."








From cmpetro@*********.com Tue, 8 Jun 1
Message no. 29
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:38:19 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990607131218.007c6e20@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
> Tumbling rounds, yes. However, I would be interested in seeing any
>scientific proof against the effects of hydrostatic shock. In my
>experince, it does appear to exist.

There's a medical device called a lithotriptor that uses sound waves -
hydrostatic shock waves - to break up kidney stones. Each shock wave is
several times more powerful than that produced by a 7.62mm NATO
round, and a typical treatment is 2,000 such waves.

Fatalities from kidney stone treatments are rare, though... :)

> Uh, what about the air cavity in the older 5.45x39mm rounds. That
>caused
>them to deform very nicely, regaurdless of your test media or how many
>bones it hit on the way through. The light ball ammo in 5.56 has about a
>50/50 chance of snapping in half when it hits tissue.

And European 7.62mm NATO ball had a thinner jacket than the US
standard, which also tended to cause it to break up while yawing with
rather catastrophic results for the target.

>> Or you could just not worry about it and say that radical advances
>>in pistol ammunition have given it much better armor-penetration
>
> NOT the 224 Boz. I'm not even about to introduce that level of insantiy
>into any game, no way, no how.

9mm Gyurza would fit the bill nicely, though.

"Moreover, the 9x21mm Russian round was designed from the outset to
defeat both soft body armor and car bodies. (Criminals in Russia often
wear body armor and drive high-powered automobiles.) The nose of the
9x21mm Russian bullet has a steel penetrator protruding from the gilding
metal jacket. According to Russian literature, this can penetrate 30 layers
of Kevlar and two 1.2mm thick titanium plates at a range of 50m. During
the tests the Gurza bullets fired into National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Level IIIA (.44 Magnum protection level) body armor at 50m were cleanly
penetrated, with the bullet passing deep into a heavy rubber mannequin
over which the protective vest was placed."

(from International Defence Review)

--
Paul J. Adam




From Paul@********.demon.co.uk Tue, 8 J
Message no. 30
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:30:32 +0100
In article <199906080747_MC2-7894-8EBB@**********.com>, Tarek Okail
<Tarek_Okail@**********.com> writes
> Actually, Shadowrun's two pistol categories remind me very
>much of the two IPSC categories of ammunition.

Nah :) I used to shoot IPSC...

I see Heavy Pistol as being IPSC-rated weapons, and Light Pistols as being
the .32 / 7.65mm / .380 -class weapons, FWIW. Doesn't really fit the
rules, but it's playable.

>There's the IPSC Major
>category; this contains the .45, some 9mm ammo, .357 magnum, .44
>Special (maybe this one's in IPSC Minor) and .44 Magnum, .454 Casull,
>.50 AE, and similar rounds. Then there's the IPSC Minor category; .22
>LR, .22 WMR, .25, .32, .38 Special, .38+P, .40 S&W, some 9mm ammo, etc.

Nope. Not in a while, anyway...

> I forget what are the actual qualifications that put a
>particular round into a particular category, but I'm pretty sure that
>they're available out there on the Web somewheres.

IPSC Minor had to be at least 9mm diameter. Other than that, you took
bullet weight in grains, muzzle velocity in feet per second, multiplied
together and divided by 1000 to derive the "Power Factor" (just the
bullet's momentum). If your Power Factor was over 180 and your calibre
was 10mm/.40 or larger, you were shooting Major.

Some rounds - .45ACP, .40 S&W - hovered right on the borderline
depending on how you loaded them (I liked .45ACP firing 200-grain LSWs
at ~920 feet per second, personally)


Prior to that rule change, "minor" was an open category and "major"
was
based purely on power factor, so a lot of .38 Super raceguns were around
- by careful handloading it could be tweaked into Major, and still cram 18
rounds into a double-stack magazine.


--
Paul J. Adam




From m0ng005e@*********.com Tue, 8 Jun
Message no. 31
From: Damian Robinson max.robinson@**.net.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 03:39:15 +1000
</lurk>
I've had a few thoughts on all of this, and actually wrote it all out
once. And I'm sure that all this has been sadi in the past as well.
But here is my ¥2 for what it's worth.

Here is My opinion on damage and class (for range), for the common
rounds from today, arranging by class & power

Holdout
.22LR 4L
.22 Magnum 5L
.25 ACP 4L

Light Pistol
.32 ACP 6L
.32 H&R Magnum 6L
.38 Special (2in Barrel) 7L


Medium Pistol (optional, Range as for HP)
9mm short 6M
9mm x18/19 7M
.38 Special (4+in Barrel) 7M

Heavy Pistol/SMG (revised) (+1 power for SMG’s due to longer barrel)
(range for HP add, 5, 10, 15, 20 to each range in order, especilly if
using Meduim pistols)
9mm x21/23 9M
.357sig 9M
.357 Magnum 9M
.40 S&W 9M
.45ACP 9M
10mm 10M
.41 Magnum 10M
.45 Super 10M
.44 Magnum 11M
.454 Cassul 12M

Specialist rounds
(+1 power if used in SMG, due to longer barrel)

Normally found in specialist Heavy pistols, or special
Supermachinguns. Highly illegal, and very,very traceable! The Star
will be chasing you for sure, as will the Feds, and the Military,
and...
Not available in caseless versions.

.224 BOZ 10L (AP as std) Avail 18/21 days

Based on a 10mm case necked down to .22 calibre, and using special AP
projectiles. While reloading it would be possible, if they could get
some Dies made up, the projectiles wouldn’t be as good as the
original, and the loading would be a bit iffy, due to a lack of
accurate loading data.

5.7 FN Std 8L (AP as Std (1/2 armour)) Avail 16/18 days
Hv 7M (Imp AP (1/3 armour)) Avail 20/30 days
Subs 6L (Quiet, Still AP though!) Avail 17/18 days

This is a totally new round unlike any other in production today. It
is a case unlike any other, so home reloading is out of the question,
due to a lack of cases, accurate Dies and no loading data. It was
designed to enter a NATO competition that didn’t end up in an order.
It had been purchased by as many as 14 countries, but FN and the
countries are not saying who has it. Peru is a definite though, as it
was used in the recapture of the Japanese embassy a few years ago.

The small rounds have great Pen, but not much wounding ability, due to
small size.
Same cal (roughly) as 5.56N, but smaller case does not allow for
velocity to reach such speeds to cause hydrostatic shock effects as
great as 5.56N. They tend to penetrate the whole body, without doing
fatal damage. Spec Ops avoid this with burst fire, and head shots!
(called shot increases damage one level, plus a burst???
OUCH! 16D from the Five seveN! don’t want to think about the Boz!)

Assault Rifle
5.45x39mm 7M
5.56(.223) 8M
5.56x45mm 8M
(both are the same round)

7.62x39mm 9S

Battle Rifle (Range as for sporting rifle?)
7.62 x51mm Nato 10S
7.62 x54mm Russian 11S
7.62 x64mm 30-06 Garand 11S

Shotgun (Solid Shot)
10 guage 12D
12 guage 10S
20 guage 8S
.410 guage 7S

Heavy Sniper (range as for Assault cannon?)
8.60x70mm(.338lapua) 10D (14D)
.50BMG 14D (18+D)

.338 is said to have similar range and power to the .50 BMG, but with
reduced armour penetration. I’m taking the Barret 121 as using .50
BMG, and have reduced damage to the book level.
The other option is that the 121 used .338 Lapua, and the assault
cannons use .50 BMG or a derivitive. Possibly something based of the
Short .50 used for spottting rifles on 106mm RCL’s, with the Raudfoss
type of ammo (Explosive) being a common load.

Please take all of this with a pinch of salt, as I've not tested it at
all, not even in my game! (Kinda forgot all about it!)
Any feedback would be good.

--
Cheers
Damian

Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/
pay a visit, and please don't forget the Guestbook...

ICQ?
#14030875




From max.robinson@**.net.au Wed, 09 Jun 1999 03
Message no. 32
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:53:53 -0700
> Tumbling rounds, yes. However, I would be interested in seeing any
>scientific proof against the effects of hydrostatic shock. In my
>experince, it does appear to exist.

Simple physics. A 9 mm Parabellum round, hot loaded, has about 500 Joules
of energy. This translates into ~106 calories, enough heat to raise the
temperature of a quarter pound of water one degree Celsius.

By definition, a shock wave is an acoustic wave propagating through a media
at greater than the speed of sound in that media. The speed of sound
through water (which is mostly what tissue is comprised of) is ~ 5 times
that of air. A shock wave requires significant energy transference and high
energy densities, and as I've shown by a relatively simple calculation,
converting all of the bullets' kinetic energy does not yield enough energy
to produce such a transverse disturbance.

The energy level is important in exceeding the minimum work function to cut
through flesh, but once that level is reached, the shot placement and wound
channels are far more important determinations of wounding.

There are so many FAQs that cover this subject that a simple search on
http://www.google.com should be enough to find reams of them.

> Uh, what about the air cavity in the older 5.45x39mm rounds. That
>caused
>them to deform very nicely, regaurdless of your test media or how many
>bones it hit on the way through. The light ball ammo in 5.56 has about a
>50/50 chance of snapping in half when it hits tissue.

The "air cavity" in Soviet 5.45x39 mm being an advanced hollowpoint is a
myth. It was actually a result of poor quality control in bullet
manufacture.

> NOT the 224 Boz. I'm not even about to introduce that level of
>insantiy
>into any game, no way, no how.

Another case of real life leaving Shadowrun behind. My players haven't run
into "milspec" sidearms yet, but when they do ....

>CyberRaven Kevin Dole

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu




From tarot0@*******.com Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:52:
Message no. 33
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:37:14 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990608113030.007a8510@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 11.49 06-08-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>If you get a chance, get your hands on a H&K Mark 23. The US Special

> Also remember that the Mk23 is NOT a standerd sidearm.

No, for the US 'standard' is a M9 9mm, for us a Browning GP35.

>>Find _any_ military force that issues .44 Magnum pistols. I don't think any
>
> Issue, or carry?

Issues as its standard sidearm. I know if you look you'll find all manner of
privately-owned weapons in all sorts of places, but I'm talking about the
Government buying a few thousand and parcelling them out to people who
may only fire enough rounds with the weapon to "qualify" once a year.

> You should also remember that in the eyes of the military majority, a
>pistol is weapon of next last resort (only before a knife) issued to
>tankers, flyers, artillerymen and REMFs as safety blanket, becuase the
>infantry will always be there to protect them. In theory.

Yeah, if I'd got my REME commission my personal weapon would have
been... a pistol. Marks you out as an ossifer, drawing fire while being
useless for returning it.

In the field, one tries to acuire a rifle, even if you don't intend to use it.

>>to be managable and controllable by Joe and Jane Average.
>
> Average Joe and Jane aren't armed, or only carry a hold out.

I'm talking all those rear-echelon commandos, beat cops, police station
crew, security riggers et al who get issued pistols as personal weapons
because "it's all you'll need / it's all you've room for" or the other assorted
reasons. They tend to span the physical spectrum rather.

>What do you think happens to marksmanship when you make .44
>>Magnum your basic cartridge?
>
> Lets see... I can hit six out of six 3x5 index cards at 50m in about 1.20
> seconds (0.2 seconds per shot), using a 4" S&W 629 (a .44Mag to the
>uninitiated) loaded with 240gr Federal JHPs at full pressure.

How often do you fire that weapon? I'd respectfully suggest you get
through more ammunition in a week than your _typical_ pistol-wielding
soldier gets in a year.

I knew someone who could regularly hit a Figure 11 target at 200 metres
with a Browning High-Power. But then, he was both exceptionally skilled,
and exceptionally practied. I could manage the same trick at 25 metres. I
knew people who could barely hit the same target at ten yards.

> I ain't the tool. It is the person using it.

Yep. Problem is, how many "typical" pistol users get the training and
practice they'd need to get the best out of their weapons?
>
>>assault rifles only 8M, but making it "realistic" means that nobody with
a
>>pistol has a chance in a firefight.
>
> Har-mpf.
> Happyness is a headshot.

Headshots are only an extra damage level in Shadowrun - 9S instead of 9M
by standard rules. Same problem - lethal headshots sound great for the
players, until they run into a sniper with a Smartlink II who uses the same
rules to slaughter half the team.

>Besides, players aren't supposed to win in
>shootouts with cops. The way I see it, if the guns come out, and it
>something you didn't plan on, you are screwed, unless your rigger is about
>to show up.

Horses for courses. For a typical campaign I like a group of shadowrunners
to be able to overwhelm a police patrol. If they can, maybe someone will
be stupid enough to try it :)
--
Paul J. Adam




From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:02:39
Message no. 34
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:02:39 +0200
>>Hm. What do you think does a standard issue police armored vest do to
a
>>bullet? It stops it cold. That's the reason why it is really okay for
a
>>Armor Jacket (which shouldn't really be standard when a character
isn't
>>expecting heavy combat, BTW) to stop a standard issue pistol bullet

>
>Sure it can! Depends on what it looks like! An amroured "Biker's"
jacket
>can certainly be worn on the streets. A full flak jacket may get you
some
>looks tho' :)


Sheesh, complicated question - my take is that the 5/3 Armor Jacket
actually IS a full flak jacket. There is a protection value for natural
leather in the book - and of THAT I think as the biker's jacket.

I guess the real reason behind my position is the fact that our combat
style is heavily influenced by John Woo, and in cineastic combat like
that, your characters hop around, jump away, and won't be hit because
they are dodging bullets, not because he is wearing armor. For that
reason, characters in our world only wear serious armor (the Jacket)
when they expect combat (on a building assault, heavy guard duty etc.)

So, to give a chance to a character who is hit anyway to come out with a
serious wound instead of dead, we use those 9mm. After all, it's as much
a question of style as everything else. ;-)

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:12:49
Message no. 35
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:12:49 +0200
>> > Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from
>FASA's point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol
>is NOT balanced for your average Shadowrun game.
>>
>> But it IS fun.
>> Grimlakin
>
>Tell me, how exactly is it fun?
>
>GM: Your heavy pistol rounds bounce off his armour jacket.
>
>PC: <frown> As usual.
>
>GM: My turn. The security guard pulls out his shotgun and...oh, I'm
>sorry - you're dead.
>
>PC: Whoopee.
>
>Game balance is there for a reason. If you WANT to reduce power and
>still be balanced and fun (IMO) you'll need to reduce power across the
>board. Then you can have people jumping around and shooting and taking
>bullets in the head and chest and not even slowing down - just like a
>B-grade action movie. :)


Well, if the PC went into a corporate compound where he expected heavy
combat to appear and brought only a 9mm pistol, he DESERVES to die. If
my opponents can be expected to be armored, I should prepare by bringing
a weapon which can still stop and/or kill those opponents. If I didn't
expect combat, probably I wasn't prepared enough, or I was surprised and
am in a worse position and should try to escape.

If, on the other hand, everybody used to carry around 9M heavy pistols,
you could go almost nowhere without armor, since every single hit will
immediately kill you - even if you are an ork (trolls may be a different
thing...). So we make extensive use of 9mm and .32 pistols with 6M and
4L damage codes, which are used in more casual situations. That makes
the whole thing fun.

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:57:44
Message no. 36
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:57:44 +0200
>Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead" a .44
>round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
>round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
>big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
>wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?


Well, it HAS a damage code of 9M, hasn't it? So it won't be stopped,
just slowed down by a lot, and impact with a 4M damage code, meaning
that it will pretty much deal Moderate Damage or more to most persons.
In such cases, I mostly guess it didn't penetrate, but cause internal
injury and such, just like you pointed out.

>Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
>point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
>balanced for your average Shadowrun game.


Okay - as I said, we retained the heavy pistols of 9M and just added the
6M 9mm, so I guess we can agree here.

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:15:04
Message no. 37
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:22:48 +0200
>Um I don't know where people are getting this
>assumption that SR Heavy Pistols are the
>equivalent of .44's (maybe I missed some
>obscure sourcebook reference) but I certainly
>think of a 9mm as a heavy pistol. The Glock 17
>that my friendly neighbourhood cop was
>waving around the other day sure looked big and
>menacing to me. (Let's just say *I* wouldn't
>f*&k with it) and vest or no vest it is still
>going to hurt.


Well, the Ruger Super Warhawk is the new version of the heavy revolver,
and that is the .44 Magnum category. In several Shadorun books I have
seen, the Ares Predator is called a 12mm pistol (I'll look for
references, and give them to you).

The Glock 17 indeed looks big and menacing - but to be honest, even if
you carried a .22 pistols, I wouldn't f*&k with you at all, because
every weapon looks really dangerous from the business end if you know it
is a real one... but have you ever seen two weapons like, say, a .38
Special Revolver and a .44 Magnum Revolver or a Glock and a Desert Eagle
lying next to each other? I tell you, you can immediately pick the
"Heavy Pistol" there!

It is always going to hurt, but the idea behind police armor vests is
that you can be hit by those standard 9mm rounds and survive with
bruises and several days of hurting...

>For me personally the idea of reducing the power of
>heavy pistols is just going to drive the players into
>bigger and nastier weapons as their 6M heavy pistols
>are rendered ineffectual at every turn by the crappiest
>body armour available.


Depending on style. As I said before, I don't think that everyone would
wear body armor all the time. You prepare, you put on that thing.
Otherwise, you could as well say "I don't trust you!" to everyone you
meet. :-)

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:30:08
Message no. 38
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:30:08 +0200
>> A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre pistol
>>round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and other
>>big guns, not 9mm's)
>
>Where do you get this from?


The mention of the Predator being a 12mm pistol, and the "Heavy
Revolver" Ruger Super Warhawk, again.

>Find _any_ military force that issues .44 Magnum pistols. I don't think
any
>police forces do. Remember, heavy pistols are _general issue_ weapons,
>not big Desert Eagle-type handguns for use by burly enthusiasts, they
need
>to be managable and controllable by Joe and Jane Average.

>
>Recall one reason the US military went to 9mm handguns was that so
>many people found .45ACP difficult to shoot? (Some swear by it, others
at
>it...) What do you think happens to marksmanship when you make .44
>Magnum your basic cartridge?


That's why I advocate the 9mm pistols at 6M. If the Ares Predator is
indeed that 12mm beastie, it has all the problems you mentioned here.

>>be powerful enough to do some damage to the vest
>>wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?
>
>Definitely so. Plus there's all that body sticking out of the vest: the
head
>and four limbs, all full of tender tissue that reacts badly to being
shot.


We talked about an Armor Jacket. And since there is no damage system in
Shadowrun that tells you where you hit, you have two options:

a) Have your PC's make aimed shots to circumvent armor (funny, but
stupid after a time)
b) model the place where they hit on the amount of final damage. Light?
"Hey, you hit him in the middle of his breast, but the vest he wears
stopped the bullet cold" (some bruises amount to Light damage). Serious?
"Hey, wow, you hit him against the head! But he still seems to be
moving... probably just a graze." Deadly? "Directly through the armpit.
That should have got him."

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:39:19
Message no. 39
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:14:47 -0700
>
>
>Depending on style. As I said before, I don't think that everyone would
>wear body armor all the time. You prepare, you put on that thing.
>Otherwise, you could as well say "I don't trust you!" to everyone you
>meet. :-)

In several books ( i think the Neo-Archanist Guide to NA was one of them)
They made special mention of the fact that heavier armors attract attention
and can be a negative in social sitautions. Walking around in that flak
jacket will 1. make ppl think your a loony or looking for trouble. 2. Make
the cops wonder why you like to walk around in heavier armor.

Some armor jackets can be disguised, and in some cases can be fashinable in
some places. But like always if you look like your dressed to rock n roll,
trouble will find you, be it a ganger trying to prove his manhood, a cop
with a nervous twich or that Johnson thinking your the perfect patsy since
you show little sense in walking around in that damn heavy piece of armor.

Dress for the situation and you should be fine..heh.

--Larry

"All dressed up an noplace to go"





From redmen@*****.com Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:36:52
Message no. 40
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:51:40 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?


> > > Errr...would a standard issue bulletproof vest REALLY "stop dead"
a
> .44 round? A 9mm, yes, I can see that, but wouldn't a large calibre
> pistol round (remember, heavy pistols are the equivalents of .44s and
> other big guns, not 9mm's) be powerful enough to do some damage to the
> vest wearer, even if it doesn't penetrate?
>
> > Military issue Bullet proof vest will cold stop an 7.62 mm ASSULT
> rifle round. Sure it will hurt and put you on your rear end. But it
> will stop them. <Friend was shot and his stopped one.> so as to a 44
> yes. Remember the larger rounds generally are not supersonic and
> theirfor have less penetration <that is what matters on the armor> but
> they do more tissue damage because the round is less likely to punch a
> pretty hole in someone.
>
> Not military issue - cop issue. :) That's what I see an armoured jacket
> as. As GreyWolf pointed out, though, even if it STOPS the bullet, a
> round like a .44 is large enough and has enough kinetic energy to cause
> extensive bruising (stun damage at the very least in SR terms). At
> close enough range, you could probably suffer broken ribs from being
> shot, couldn't you?

Well the unstated is the Military of today is invariably the civilain of
tomorrow. :) <unless we are talking tanks>

> > But it IS fun.
> > Grimlakin
>
> Tell me, how exactly is it fun?

Becuase big guns do big damage.

>
> GM: Your heavy pistol rounds bounce off his armour jacket.

Not if you have any skill or a three round burst.

>
> PC: <frown> As usual.
>
> GM: My turn. The security guard pulls out his shotgun and...oh, I'm
> sorry - you're dead.

Doubtful. Pc's can try to dodge. Now if that guard is useing buckshot..
and the PC is wearing an armored jacket.. talking base successes... 3d
damage.. easy enuff to stage down. Sure it will hurt.. but it IS a
shotgun.

> PC: Whoopee.

To kill or not is up to the GM.
>
> Game balance is there for a reason. If you WANT to reduce power and
> still be balanced and fun (IMO) you'll need to reduce power across the
> board. Then you can have people jumping around and shooting and taking
> bullets in the head and chest and not even slowing down - just like a
> B-grade action movie. :)

Hey that is just like Cyberpunk Solo's. <read as walking tanks and small
rounds do nothing.>
>
> *Doc' puts on his inflatable muscle man suit and flexes away. "Just
> call me...Action Traction..."*
> ==> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)
>
> .sig Sauer


Grimlakin
Josh





From zmjett@*********.com Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:00
Message no. 41
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:16:56 CST
>Sheesh, complicated question - my take is that the 5/3 Armor Jacket
>actually IS a full flak jacket. There is a protection value for natural
>leather in the book - and of THAT I think as the biker's jacket.
>

I think that the description in SR2 said that these jeckts took on a number
of styles. (Or am I out to lunch?) :)

>I guess the real reason behind my position is the fact that our combat
>style is heavily influenced by John Woo, and in cineastic combat like
>that, your characters hop around, jump away, and won't be hit because
>they are dodging bullets, not because he is wearing armor. For that
>reason, characters in our world only wear serious armor (the Jacket)
>when they expect combat (on a building assault, heavy guard duty etc.)
>

Different strokes for different folks then. :)

>So, to give a chance to a character who is hit anyway to come out with a
>serious wound instead of dead, we use those 9mm. After all, it's as much
>a question of style as everything else. ;-)
>
>--- Karsten

Isn't everything though??? :D


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com




From knight_errant30@*******.com Tue, 08 Jun 199
Message no. 42
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:22:18 CST
>Well, the Ruger Super Warhawk is the new version of the heavy revolver,
>and that is the .44 Magnum category. In several Shadorun books I have
>seen, the Ares Predator is called a 12mm pistol (I'll look for
>references, and give them to you).

In "2XS" the Colt manhunter is called a .45!!!

>
>The Glock 17 indeed looks big and menacing - but to be honest, even if
>you carried a .22 pistols, I wouldn't f*&k with you at all, because
>every weapon looks really dangerous from the business end if you know >it
>is a real one... but have you ever seen two weapons like, say, a >.38
>Special Revolver and a .44 Magnum Revolver or a Glock and a >Desert Eagle
>lying next to each other? I tell you, you can >immediately pick the "Heavy
>Pistol" there!

The Desrt Eagle though comes in 3-4 different calibres (including .50 -
shudder).

>
>Depending on style. As I said before, I don't think that everyone would
>wear body armor all the time. You prepare, you put on that thing.
>Otherwise, you could as well say "I don't trust you!" to everyone you
>meet. :-)

Isn't that the attitude of your typical runner tho?? :)

Seriously, there are those who WANT to be prepared for anything (it's the
boy scout in them). After all, you never know if you will run into a gang
fight, syndicate turf war, fleeing shadowrunners, berserk dragon, etc. :)

>
>--- Karsten

Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com




From razrzedge@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:29:3
Message no. 43
From: AndMat3@***.com AndMat3@***.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:57:17 EDT
In a message dated 6/8/99, 4:25:01 PM, shadowrn@*********.org writes:
<<In several books ( i think the Neo-Archanist Guide to NA was one of them)
They made special mention of the fact that heavier armors attract attention
and can be a negative in social sitautions. Walking around in that flak
jacket will 1. make ppl think your a loony or looking for trouble. 2. Make
the cops wonder why you like to walk around in heavier armor.

Some armor jackets can be disguised, and in some cases can be fashinable in
some places. But like always if you look like your dressed to rock n roll,
trouble will find you, be it a ganger trying to prove his manhood, a cop
with a nervous twich or that Johnson thinking your the perfect patsy since
you show little sense in walking around in that damn heavy piece of armor.

Dress for the situation and you should be fine..heh.>>

it seems to me that almost anything can be done with the right amount of
nuyen. If you made more concealable, tailored 'full flack' armor cost more
(say x2 or x3 even tres chic costs) you'd have some sort of limiting factor.

andy




From ljvance@*******.edu Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:08:
Message no. 44
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Well the unstated is the Military of today is invariably the civilain
of tomorrow. :) <unless we are talking tanks>

Sure. But these are 2061 pistols. If you're going to say that the
civilian armour in 2061 is as good or as better as current military
armour, then I'd say that weapons technology has likewise improved,
even if it isn't explicitly stated. After all, does it make sense for
people to keep developing new and better types of armour, but not new
and better types of guns?

> Becuase big guns do big damage.

Yes, and IMO, heavy pistols are and should be big guns.

> > GM: Your heavy pistol rounds bounce off his armour
> jacket.
>
> Not if you have any skill or a three round burst.

No offense intended, Josh, but bullSHIT!!! Skill doesn't count for much
unless you're rolling ten or more dice and he's got an absolutely
useless body and has blown most, if not all, of his combat pool. When
he's rolling against target number 1 (effectively 2), he's going to
resist a hell of a lot of damage. On the other hand, burst fire is not,
nor should be, a standard feature of heavy pistols. Why? Because a)
heavy pistols aren't supposed to be assault weapons, and b) the legal
implications are awful. The punishment for carrying, not to mention
using, automatic weapons are IIRC five or more times as bad as the
equivalent punishment for a pistol. Then there's the fact that cops are
more likely to hassle you if you're carrying a Savalette Guardian, let
alone a Ruger Thunderbolt, than if you're just packing a Predator. You
should NOT have to carry big guns just for self defense.

> > GM: My turn. The security guard pulls out his shotgun and...oh, I'm
sorry - you're dead.
>
> Doubtful. Pc's can try to dodge. Now if that guard is useing
buckshot.. and the PC is wearing an armored jacket.. talking base
successes... 3d damage.. easy enuff to stage down. Sure it will
hurt.. but it IS a shotgun.

Extreme example, perhaps, but the point was that, with heavy pistols
doing 6M damage, if you want to be able to compete, you're going to
have to take to carrying SMGs or shotguns as standard weaponry
yourself.

> > PC: Whoopee.
>
> To kill or not is up to the GM.

Again, bullshit. Yeah, you can fudge this to an extent, but after a
while it starts getting ridiculous. It's the act of an idiot to keep
killing PCs or NPCs and then saving them because the game is
unbalanced. Much better to have a balanced game in the first place.

> Hey that is just like Cyberpunk Solo's. <read as walking tanks and
small rounds do nothing.>
> Grimlakin
> Josh

Which, IMNSHO, is one of the stupidest character constructs I've ever
come across in a game. If you want to have a chance of surviving in
combat for any real amount of time in Cyberpunk, you HAVE to be a Solo.
Sure, you could be another character type and orient yourself towards
combat, but you're going to spend the majority of your time in hospital
- or dead.

They've taken that kind of thing away in Shadowrun by changing the
initiative and dice pool rules and, on the whole, I'm glad about that.

Hmmm...getting OT. Never mind, that's never stopped me before.

Anyway, the point is you can either have an incredibly realistic game
system which is often totally unbalanced and not much fun to play due
to the weight of rules (I keep hearing talk about a game called Phoenix
Command?), or you can have a slightly unrealistic game that works. I
know which one I'd rather play.

Of course, you can have realism AND a working game, but then you have
to set certain standards and EVERYONE has to agree to them. Karsten
sounds like he has that kind of game - they've lowered the power of
heavy pistols and they have huge, blazing gunfights - but everyone
wears light or no armour. If one of the PCs (or even worse, a bunch of
the GM's NPCs) turns up with a PAC and wearing heavy military armour,
that'll totally skew the game even more so than it would in a standard
game - plus it's likely to generate a lot of ill-feeling. Not good.

So, as always, it's a trade-off. I don't think the added realism is
worth it. (Btw, if you REALLY want to be realistic, heavy pistols
should change from 9M to 6S - they don't punch through armour so well,
but they're designed to cause massive amounts of tissue damage - yes, a
rifle bullet can kill you just as dead as a pistol bullet if it hits
you in the right spot, but, on average, a pistol bullet will do more
damage to an unarmoured person.)

*Doc' apologises for getting preachy...NOT!!! :) *
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From Schizi@***.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:30:52 EDT
Message no. 45
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:29:42 EDT
In a message dated 6/8/99 9:13:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

> (Btw, if you REALLY want to be realistic, heavy pistols
> should change from 9M to 6S - they don't punch through armour so well,
> but they're designed to cause massive amounts of tissue damage - yes, a
> rifle bullet can kill you just as dead as a pistol bullet if it hits
> you in the right spot, but, on average, a pistol bullet will do more
> damage to an unarmoured person.)

One of my variant rules, is that some firearms do +1 power level vs.
unarmored targets. It makes even minimal armor a litlte more important, and
also has the nice effect of killing more innocent civilians when rounds are
being sprayed all about. Hold-outs don't, but have a modifier to the healing
T# (sicne they are harder to treat) and some rifles have a semi-APDS,
reducing armor by 1/4 (to 3/4) which keeps their power low, yet still gives
them more punch versus armors.




From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:52
Message no. 46
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
<Snippage(TM)>
> >Recall one reason the US military went to 9mm handguns was that so
many people found .45ACP difficult to shoot? (Some swear by it, others
at it...) What do you think happens to marksmanship when you make .44
>Magnum your basic cartridge?
>
> That's why I advocate the 9mm pistols at 6M. If the Ares Predator is
indeed that 12mm beastie, it has all the problems you mentioned here.

Recall, shadowrunners aren't your 'average joe' - usually. Anyway,
since when is a 9mm considered a 'heavy pistol'? If you really want 6M
9mm pistols, I'd advocate creating a 'medium pistol' range and working
up new, realistic stats - otherwise you have a 9mm pistol that's only
as concealable as a medium SMG. Yeah, bloody right. Damage isn't the
ONLY thing you need to take into account.

> >Definitely so. Plus there's all that body sticking out of the vest:
the head and four limbs, all full of tender tissue that reacts badly to
being shot.

Oh, yeah, THAT really helps. Your average guy has a better chance of
hurting someone shooting through his armoured jacket with a 6M pistol
than he does if he goes for the head shot (6S damage, but +4 to target
number - THAT's gonna happen).

For instance, my first ever Shadowrun character was an ALMOST street
samurai type, but with class ( :) ). We were on an aeroplane and I
sneaked a light pistol on board. Hijacking, blah blah, blah blah.
Anyway, the crux of the matter is that at one point, a bad guy with a
parachute on his back ran past me. I tried to shoot him, but I decided
to go for a called shot to his head (and he didn't have a helmet) to
avoid putting a hole in the 'chute. 6 skill dice, 6 combat pool dice,
short range, smartlink - but it was a called shot. I did NO damage at
all and I didn't roll particularly badly. Called shots are NOT a
reasonable alternative, I'm afraid.

*Doc' sticks a pistol in his ear and squeezes the trigger - but because
it's a called shot to his head, the target number is increased by four
and he misses cleanly...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From remo@***.net Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:56:49 -0500
Message no. 47
From: Scott Wheelock iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:13:20 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Rand Ratinac."
] *Doc' sticks a pistol in his ear and squeezes the trigger - but because
] it's a called shot to his head, the target number is increased by four
] and he misses cleanly...*

I'd love to help you out with that, Doc', but since I have no
firearms skill, I'll have to default to Quickness; therefore my 10
round burst at point-blank range will likely just hit a ton of innocent
bystanders (like maybe all those folks who keep bringing up converting
weapon calibres every month... ;)

-Murder of One




From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:22
Message no. 48
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
> >Anyway, the issue isn't entirely realism (at least, not from FASA's
point of view). It's also game balance - and a 6M heavy pistol is NOT
balanced for your average Shadowrun game.
>
>
> Okay - as I said, we retained the heavy pistols of 9M and just added
the 6M 9mm, so I guess we can agree here.
> --- Karsten

Ahhhh...to that I'd have no objections at all. I misunderstood you,
Karsten. I thought you were saying "heavy pistols now only do 6M (or 7M
for the Super Warhawk) damage".

Karsten, did you create all new stats for your 9mm pistols? I wouldn't
mind seeing them if you had.

*Doc' twiddles his thumbs innocently..."So I made a mistake! So what?"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From iscottw@*****.nb.ca Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:23:
Message no. 49
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:27:08 -0500
> Karsten, did you create all new stats for your 9mm pistols? I wouldn't
> mind seeing them if you had.

I threw one out some months ago; if there's a call for it, I'll re-post it.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.






From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:00
Message no. 50
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
<BigSnip(TM)>
> Of course, the worst problem that vests have,
protection-wise, is that they don't cover everything. The worst thing
that our Congress critters have ever done to our police forces was
reveal on national TV, while attempting to "help" the police ban a
"police-use only" round, that our police forces actually were using
bullet-resistant vests. Head-shot fatalities among police officers rose
30% the year after the idiots made that announcement.
<Snipples(TM)>

The above statement has forced me to SERIOUSLY revise my estimation of
the brainpower of the average criminal. They needed it pointed out to
them before they started going for headshots???

Intelligence 2. 1 for the really stupid ones. 3 for exceptional
specimens.

> And that's why, no matter how good the protection you're
using, it's going to hurt if you don't roll enough successes on your
dodge or body tests to offset the attacker's successes. Heck, it may
still hurt even if you do offset the attacker's successes.
> Shadowmage

Which bears out the 9M Heavy Pistol theory.

*Doc' wonders if ShadowRN has created another term for 'carping'
(carping, to carp, carp a deum) to eliminate confusion...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From iridios@*********.com Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:1
Message no. 51
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
> NOT the 224 Boz. I'm not even about to introduce
> that level of insantiy
> into any game, no way, no how.
> CyberRaven Kevin Dole

Oh? Do tell - what's the Boz and why is it insane? Oh, and would you
happen to have created Shadowrun stats for it? :)
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From robert.watkins@******.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 1
Message no. 52
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:27:56 +1000
Rand writes:
> The above statement has forced me to SERIOUSLY revise my estimation of
> the brainpower of the average criminal. They needed it pointed out to
> them before they started going for headshots???

No... you're assuming that they wanted to kill the cops. That's not a
certainty. If you shoot a cop, that's one thing. Even with a solid chest
shot, the cop's got a good chance of living, and if he/she has a partner,
they'd probably stop to tend the injured one, increasing your chances of
getting away. If you kill a cop, you're going to make a lot of other cops
mad at you, and guarantee that they'll keep looking for you. In many cases,
I'd imagine that the crooks just want to put the cop down, so they can get
away. In addition, crooks typically panic, and panic shots tend to be aimed
for the centre of the target.

Following the general announcement that cops routinely wear body armour, the
crooks started shooting at heads due to an over-estimate of how effective
the body armour is. They probably believed that the bullets would just
bounce off, ala Superman.

> Intelligence 2. 1 for the really stupid ones. 3 for exceptional
> specimens.

Agreed, the criminal sector is largely stupid, and frequently lazy. The life
of a crook isn't a bed of roses... there's usually a lot of work, a lot of
danger, and not all that much in the way of reward. But it's the easier
path. With a bit more smarts, they can see that it's actually a lot easier
to get through life more or less legally.

But there are some quite intelligent crooks out there. But don't look in the
gaols for them. By and large, the smarter crooks don't get caught, nor get
put into situations where they'd have to shoot at a cop, anyway.

And, of course, there are terrorists, which are a different kettle of fish
altogether.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com





From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:32
Message no. 53
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
> > NOT the 224 Boz. I'm not even about to introduce
> > that level of insantiy
> > into any game, no way, no how.
> > CyberRaven Kevin Dole
>
> Oh? Do tell - what's the Boz and why is it insane?
> Oh, and would you
> happen to have created Shadowrun stats for it? :)
> ==> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of
> Tomorrow)
>
> .sig Sauer

Oops, sorry - this was supposed to be a private post.
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:41
Message no. 54
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
> > The above statement has forced me to SERIOUSLY revise my estimation
of the brainpower of the average criminal. They needed it pointed out
to them before they started going for headshots???
>
> No... you're assuming that they wanted to kill the cops.

Yes, that was my assumption. If I wanted him dead, I'd go for a head
shot IF I was fairly certain he was wearing a vest.

> That's not a certainty. If you shoot a cop, that's one thing. Even
with a solid chest shot, the cop's got a good chance of living, and if
he/she has a partner, they'd probably stop to tend the injured one,
increasing your chances of getting away. If you kill a cop, you're
going to make a lot of other cops mad at you, and guarantee that
they'll keep looking for you.

Yeah, so? Who's ever accused criminals of being geniuses? :)

> In many cases, I'd imagine that the crooks just want to put the cop
down, so they can get away. In addition, crooks typically panic, and
panic shots tend to be aimed for the centre of the target.

That would make sense, in which case they need to learn a) not to panic
and b) to shoot for the legs. Fairly big target and not hard to hit as
long as the cop isn't chasing you - in which case it's practically
impossible to hit anything anyway as you're probably running too, and
firing backwards.

See, as I see it, unless you want to kill a guy, the leg shot should be
the method of choice for both cops and criminals. As you said, Robert,
it's bad news for a crook if he kills a cop so it's best just to stop
him. Much easier to get away from him if he's got a bullet in the leg.
As for cops - well, I don't know about in America, but over here,
whenever a cop kills someone, they tend to go on about it in the news
for ages, usually because that person didn't have a gun, or was
severely outnumbered or whatever. The cops are trained to shoot for the
centre of mass, but that just gets them into trouble, because they
usually end up getting all jumpy and pumping a few shots into the crook
and killing him. If you shoot him in the leg, though, he has a much
better chance of surviving, plus it'll probably slow him down enough
that if he keeps coming after you, you'll have plenty of time to put a
bullet into his chest or head.

Why is that so hard to do, huh?

Of course, if the crook's got a gun, shoot to kill. :)

> > Intelligence 2. 1 for the really stupid ones. 3 for exceptional
specimens.
>
> Agreed, the criminal sector is largely stupid, and frequently lazy.
The life of a crook isn't a bed of roses... there's usually a lot of
work, a lot of danger, and not all that much in the way of reward. But
it's the easier path. With a bit more smarts, they can see that it's
actually a lot easier to get through life more or less legally.
>
> But there are some quite intelligent crooks out there. But don't look
in the gaols for them. By and large, the smarter crooks don't get
caught, nor get put into situations where they'd have to shoot at a
cop, anyway.

Lordy, you actually spell it GAOLS? :)

Anyway, the smart crooks aren't usually the ones pulling hold-ups on
corner stores. They're the white-collar criminals or the big-note crime
bosses.

I'm talking your average crook on the street who'd have reason to shoot
at a cop.

And I wasn't being entirely serious. :)

*Doc' creates a bullet that homes in on feet. "Now THAT'LL stop 'em!"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:46
Message no. 55
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:10:47 +1000
Rand writes:
> Lordy, you actually spell it GAOLS? :)

Yes. That's the way the word is spelt. Jails is an Americanism, as bad as
dropping the 'u' out of colour. :)

> *Doc' creates a bullet that homes in on feet. "Now THAT'LL stop 'em!"*

Hollywood has beaten you to it. Case in point:

Picture a movie scene of someone running away, being chased by baddies
shooting at them with assault weapons. Now, regardless of wether or not the
baddies are higher than the good guy, there will be dust whipping up around
the feet of the good guy from the bullets being fired at him.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com





From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:10
Message no. 56
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
> ] *Doc' sticks a pistol in his ear and squeezes the trigger - but
because it's a called shot to his head, the target number is increased
by four and he misses cleanly...*
>
> I'd love to help you out with that, Doc', but since I have no
firearms skill, I'll have to default to Quickness; therefore my 10
round burst at point-blank range will likely just hit a ton of innocent
bystanders (like maybe all those folks who keep bringing up converting
weapon calibres every month... ;)
>
> -Murder of One

Oh, I can do that too - I don't know about this "accidental" guff
though.

*Doc' smiles sweetly at the 'conversion' crew...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:19
Message no. 57
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
> > Lordy, you actually spell it GAOLS? :)
>
> Yes. That's the way the word is spelt. Jails is an Americanism, as
bad as dropping the 'u' out of colour. :)

No, not that bad. And an Americanism it may be, but gaols is a stupid
word - jails is much better.

> > *Doc' creates a bullet that homes in on feet. "Now THAT'LL stop
'em!"*
>
> Hollywood has beaten you to it. Case in point:
>
> Picture a movie scene of someone running away, being chased by
baddies shooting at them with assault weapons. Now, regardless of
wether or not the baddies are higher than the good guy, there will be
dust whipping up around the feet of the good guy from the bullets being
fired at him.
> Robert Watkins

Yes, but my bullets will HIT.

*Doc' kicks a gaol and is arrested and sent to goal...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From sprite@***.com Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:46:52 -05
Message no. 58
From: David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:51:03 -0700
Date sent: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
To: shadowrn@*********.org
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org


> The above statement has forced me to SERIOUSLY revise my estimation of
> the brainpower of the average criminal. They needed it pointed out to
> them before they started going for headshots???
>
> Intelligence 2. 1 for the really stupid ones. 3 for exceptional
> specimens.

Just heard a stupid crook story that might cause to revise those figures.

Seems this crook entered a liquor store and at gun point demanded that the
clerk put all the money in a bag. He then asked for a bottle of scotch. The
clerk looked at him and said I am sorry but I can't do that. The crook asked
why. The clerk replied that the crook did not look twenty-one and that he was
not permited by law to provide liquor to any one under twenty-one. But if you
have ID that shows you are over twenty-one I will be happy to give it to you.
Yep you guessed it the crook pulled out his wallet and showed his ID to the
clerk. He was also quite suprised when the police showed up at his door.

Then there are the two clowns who wrapped a chain around a safe and
dragged it home behind thier truck in day light. Or the mugger that took a
check. Or the counterfitter who made nickles (US 5 cent pieces) only cost
him 60 cents each.

Then there was the observation by a FBI agent assigned to the LA bank
robbery detail to the effect that it took area bank robbers almost 6 weeks to
notice that banks were open on Saturday.

Now are you sure you want to use so high a rating sceme?





David G. Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
------------------------------------------------
"No passion in the world is equal to the passion
to alter someone else's draft"
H.G. Wells




From gurth@******.nl Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:18:28 +0200
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:18:28 +0200
From: Gurth gurt
Message no. 59
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:44:40 EDT
In a message dated 6/8/1999 11:12:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

> > I'd love to help you out with that, Doc', but since I have no
> firearms skill, I'll have to default to Quickness; therefore my 10
> round burst at point-blank range will likely just hit a ton of innocent
> bystanders (like maybe all those folks who keep bringing up converting
> weapon calibres every month... ;)

<K wonders for a second, and then decides that given the repetitive nature of
those people...they would *hardly* qualify as innocent ;-) >




From Ereskanti@***.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:52:32 EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:52:32 EDT
From: Ereskanti@**
Message no. 60
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:39:30 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?


> >them. <Friend was shot and his stopped one.> so as to a 44 yes.
Remember
>
> I'd want to see the vest, and the projectile. It just doesn't jive with
> the data I'm seeing. It may have been a richochette, or it may have been
> fire through brush (leaves will slow a bullet down surprisingly well), but
> I stongly doubt it was a direct hit, unless we are talking about the kinds
> of plates used to issue to doorgunners on helicopters..

Actually that would be pretty cool. And it was a snipe job froma building.
He happend to stand up at the right time. As far as broken ribs I didn't
ask but he did say he had one hell of a bruise for a long time. Then again
he is a big man.. works out and stays in exellent shape so that might have
helped. And yes it did nail his second chance plate.
>
> >the larger rounds generally are not supersonic and theirfor have less
>
> Really? Then is every cannon and rifle round (with exception of very
> special application ammo) in the NATO and for ComBlock inventories
supersonic?

Sorry larger rounds such as the 38 compared to the 9mm in handgun home
defense kind of weapons. I do not know the speeds of other such weapons.

Yea I do know that armor piercing 7.62 rounds <uhh maby I was told but am
trying to remember if this is the round type> <length I don't know> can
puncture the walls on a bradly. But that is about all I know about that.

> CyberRaven Kevin Dole

Grimlakin
Josh






From cmpetro@*********.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:15:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:15:28 -0500
From: cmpe
Message no. 61
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:55:15 +0200
>Of course, you can have realism AND a working game, but then you have
>to set certain standards and EVERYONE has to agree to them. Karsten
>sounds like he has that kind of game - they've lowered the power of
>heavy pistols and they have huge, blazing gunfights - but everyone
>wears light or no armour. If one of the PCs (or even worse, a bunch of
>the GM's NPCs) turns up with a PAC and wearing heavy military armour,
>that'll totally skew the game even more so than it would in a standard
>game - plus it's likely to generate a lot of ill-feeling. Not good.


Actually, I have much less realism in my game than most others I know
have. As I said, John Woo's combat style has influenced what we use...
And if someome appears with military armament, that means no
ill-feeling, but that may be the reason of a really strong consent in
our group. If I get a new Player, I advise him not to use a character
with too much of those military goodies unless we play a campaign on
that level, meaning a mercenary campaign or such. And if the opponents
have them, my player characters know something is REALLY wrong and they
should try to deal with the problem - sometimes even by getting some of
that stuff for themselves, at least until the current job is over.

--- Karsten





From karsten@****.net Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:44:53 +0200
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:44:53 +0200
From: =?iso-885
Message no. 62
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:20:50 -0400
At 20.29 06-08-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Oh? Do tell - what's the Boz and why is it insane? Oh, and would you
>happen to have created Shadowrun stats for it? :)

It is a special pistol round created by the Brits. It starts off as a
10mm auto case, then it gets modified. I won't go into a tenth of data
that is publically available, other than to say in it's hottest loading
with steel core rounds, it will defeat the side armour on a Bradley. For
obvious reasons, the Brits have said that they will never, ever, ever
realese it to the civilian market.
And for once, I have to agree with the British government on the matter of
civilian arms possession.

As for SR stats, I wouldn't even know how to begin.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"You have two options- ask for my opinion, or don't. But don't complain if
my opinion isn't favorable"







From Ereskanti@***.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:32:34 EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:32:34 EDT
From: Ereskanti@***
Message no. 63
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:29:17 -0400
At 02.39 06-09-99 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually that would be pretty cool. And it was a snipe job froma building.

Who was he with at the time, and what was his mission profile? I'm asking
becuase I think someone is getting snowed here. While there are vests that
can take a direct hit from a rifle, there aren't many, and most folks don't
were them if they can help it.

>Sorry larger rounds such as the 38 compared to the 9mm in handgun home

Son, you obviously don't know jack about firearms, otherwise you would
know that .38=9mm (+/- a few thousands of an inch, but close enough)

>Yea I do know that armor piercing 7.62 rounds <uhh maby I was told but am

The mini-Ruefus, steel cores, tungsten cores (I know, it is a kind of
steel, but I believe that it has a different sectional density than the
stuff the Corp and Isrealies use, and thus splatters differently)? 7.62
NATO, 30-06, 7.62Tok/7.63Mauser, the short russian stuff, the long russian
stuff, .300 Pheonix, .300 WinMag?
CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"You have two options- ask for my opinion, or don't. But don't complain if
my opinion isn't favorable"







From alvion@****.uni2.dk Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:26:58 +0100
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:26:58 +0100
From: Carst
Message no. 64
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:01:16 +1000
At 20:37 8/06/99 +0100 Paul J. Adam wrote
>I knew someone who could regularly hit a Figure 11 target at 200 metres
>with a Browning High-Power. But then, he was both exceptionally skilled,
>and exceptionally practied. I could manage the same trick at 25 metres. I
>knew people who could barely hit the same target at ten yards.

Nah your friend wasn't gifted he just had a Smartlink :)

__________________________________
Manx + timburke@*******.com.au + #950
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt
and then it's just hilarious." - Faith No More
__________________________________





From timburke@*******.com.au Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:08:41 +1000
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:08:41 +1000
From: M
Message no. 65
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:08:41 +1000
>Some armor jackets can be disguised, and in some cases can be fashinable in
>some places. But like always if you look like your dressed to rock n roll,
>trouble will find you, be it a ganger trying to prove his manhood, a cop
>with a nervous twich or that Johnson thinking your the perfect patsy since
>you show little sense in walking around in that damn heavy piece of armor.
>
>Dress for the situation and you should be fine..heh.
>
>--Larry

And that is why my Cat Shaman is rather fond
of wearing his armour and casting a "Fashion" spell
on it to look like he is wearing a nice slick stylish non
armoured ensemble. The cut, colour and style may
change but the protective qualities remain...

__________________________________
Manx // timburke@*******.com.au // #950
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt
and then it's just hilarious." - Faith No More
__________________________________







From d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:36:52 +0200
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:36:5
Message no. 66
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:44:59 +1000
> Son, you obviously don't know jack about firearms, otherwise you would
>know that .38=9mm (+/- a few thousands of an inch, but close enough)

I don't think that it is an issue of not knowing anything
about firearms, more likely not knowing about this great
new thing that is taking the world by storm.....

The Metric System.

One day the USA will conform, it may not be for
2,745 years but one day they will wake up and
realise that the world has left them behind in
the stone age.

Viva la Metric!!

__________________________________
Manx // timburke@*******.com.au // #950
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt
and then it's just hilarious." - Faith No More
__________________________________





From d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:59:59 +0200
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:59:5
Message no. 67
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:43:11 -0500
> At 02.39 06-09-99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Actually that would be pretty cool. And it was a snipe job froma building.
>
> Who was he with at the time, and what was his mission profile? I'm asking
> becuase I think someone is getting snowed here. While there are vests that
> can take a direct hit from a rifle, there aren't many, and most folks don't
> were them if they can help it.
>
> >Sorry larger rounds such as the 38 compared to the 9mm in handgun home
>
> Son, you obviously don't know jack about firearms, otherwise you would
> know that .38=9mm (+/- a few thousands of an inch, but close enough)
>
> >Yea I do know that armor piercing 7.62 rounds <uhh maby I was told but am
>
> The mini-Ruefus, steel cores, tungsten cores (I know, it is a kind of
> steel, but I believe that it has a different sectional density than the
> stuff the Corp and Isrealies use, and thus splatters differently)? 7.62
> NATO, 30-06, 7.62Tok/7.63Mauser, the short russian stuff, the long russian
> stuff, .300 Pheonix, .300 WinMag?
> CyberRaven Kevin Dole

Ok point made.I bow down to your superior ballistic knowledge. Your powder obviously
burns faster. Uhh... you have the bigger barrell, uhh... Your slug is better
shaped, uhhh... I dunno some gun related flattery of some sort.


Josh
<whom doesn't even own a gun just go's from what he hears.> This is why I prefaced
what I said with word of mouth. sigh.. just read the parts you want to.





From knight_errant30@*******.com Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:16:41 CST
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:16:41 CST
From: Geof
Message no. 68
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:06:01 -0400
At 11.43 06-10-99 -0500, you wrote:
>Ok point made.I bow down to your superior ballistic knowledge. Your powder

Don't bow before me, I am neither royalty nor Japanese.

I figured that you didn't know a lot about weapon. Most humans don't, and
I've long since given up holding that against them. I snapped at you about
the .38 comment because you either (a) were thinking that when folks said
"thirty-eight" they were talking about a 38mm (common sense would rule that
out of the picture), or (b) you hadn't converted metric to imperial for 9mm.
The reason why I was asking you what kind of .30/7.62mm you were refeering
to is that some rounds, even you use a machined chunk of depleted uranioum
aren't going to do much, but some of the bigger .30s (like the Pheonix)
have some real potential when it comes to the use of hardened cores for
anit-material sniping, and was asking as to what context you were using the
reference about AP rounds in. By offering suggestions, I was attempting to
provide you with a list of possible memory-refreshers.
The reason why I ask you about who your friend was with and what he was
doing is because there ARE times where you can and should use super heavy
armours. They are rare, but they do happen.

>what I said with word of mouth. sigh.. just read the parts you want to.

If you have questionable data, ask for confirm/deny from folks who would
know. I don't know everything about weapons, but I've been studying and
training in thier usage since... Well, it's a helluva long time. And when
I am wrong on a factual item, I accept the correction when I can find a
second source and ammend my data from there. (Theoreticals are a different
matters. It is still debatable.) But I don't pout about it. (Unless I
just invested a large sum of money on something that I thought, based off
the data I had at the time, would work, if fails miserably.)
As for reading the part I want to, I do. And what I read is everything,
including the routing and origion information in the headers, in any
message that I open.




CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"You have two options- ask for my opinion, or don't. But don't complain if
my opinion isn't favorable"







From knight_errant30@*******.com Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:18:38 CST
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:18:38 CST
From: Geoffr
Message no. 69
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:26:38 -0500
> As for reading the part I want to, I do. And what I read is everything,
> including the routing and origion information in the headers, in any
> message that I open.

Ok this is completely ot buuut.. How can you read all of that routing information
AAAND have time to study weapons? :)

>
>
> CyberRaven Kevin Dole

Grimlakin
Josh





From grimlakin@****.com Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:41:25 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:41:25 -0500
From: Josh grimla
Message no. 70
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:18:52 -0400
At 14.26 06-11-99 -0500, you wrote:
>Ok this is completely ot buuut.. How can you read all of that routing
information
>AAAND have time to study weapons? :)

I am a speed reader with a near photograde memory (I look at a page of
text once to get the basics and to store it, then go over the data at a
later time when it is more convent within the next day or so, before the
data starts to degrade). (Don't ask how I do it- I was about thirteen when
I realised that most folks can't even begin to try to do that. But it
comes in handy.) I also need very little sleep (about three hours most
days), am single and watch very little TV (News, the occasional WB cartoon,
and anamie about once a week).
Besides, I don't read all of the messages that end up in my mail. Some of
the threads (like anything concerning Otaku (sp), which I would never allow
in my games) I don't read.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"You have two options- ask for my opinion, or don't. But don't complain if
my opinion isn't favorable"







From wraith@************.com Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:42:16 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:42:16 -0500
From: JAD wr
Message no. 71
From: Bob Tockley arkham@*******.com.au
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:12:49 +1000
> I am a speed reader with a near photograde memory (I look at a page of
>text once to get the basics and to store it, then go over the data at a
>later time when it is more convent within the next day or so, before the
>data starts to degrade). (Don't ask how I do it- I was about thirteen when
>I realised that most folks can't even begin to try to do that. But it
>comes in handy.) I also need very little sleep (about three hours most
>days), am single and watch very little TV (News, the occasional WB cartoon,
>and anamie about once a week).
> Besides, I don't read all of the messages that end up in my mail. Some of
>the threads (like anything concerning Otaku (sp), which I would never allow
>in my games) I don't read.
a>

*wonders why he has posted his personal information under a different name*

(>) ARKHAM
"T'sze na; tji m'chiir-na. K'raet-me cha'i'm tji."




From dghost@****.com Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:05:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:05:32 -0500
From: dghost@****.co
Message no. 72
From: Lady Jestyr jestyr@*********.html.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:02:26 +1000
>> I am a speed reader with a near photograde memory (I look at a page of
>>text once to get the basics and to store it, then go over the data at a
<snip>
>
>*wonders why he has posted his personal information under a different name*
>
>(>) ARKHAM

Oh, now there's a delightful thought. More Arkhams in the world. Huzzah...

*runs away scared*

:-)

Lady Jestyr

Work like you don't need the money. | It might look like I'm doing
Love like you've never been hurt. | nothing, but at the cellular
Dance like nobody's watching. | level I'm really quite busy.

* jestyr@*****.com | URL: http://www.geocities.com/~jestyr *




From Kelson@****.net Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:35:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:35:03 -0500
From: Kelson Kelson@
Message no. 73
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:11:32 +0200
Kevin Dole (IronRaven) wrote:
> As for reading the part I want to, I do. And what I read is
everything,
>including the routing and origion information in the headers, in any
>message that I open.

Hey, being a weapons fan is really okay with me, but this sentence...
You read the ROUTING INFORMATION? Seems to be a tough case of terminal
boredom, if you ask me...

--- Karsten







From karsten@****.net Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:12:39 +0200
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:12:39 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?
Message no. 74
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:06:17 +0100
In article <19990609015221.13922.rocketmail@******.mail.yahoo.com>,
Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> writes
><Snippage(TM)>
>> >Recall one reason the US military went to 9mm handguns was that so
>many people found .45ACP difficult to shoot? (Some swear by it, others
>at it...) What do you think happens to marksmanship when you make .44
>>Magnum your basic cartridge?
>
>Recall, shadowrunners aren't your 'average joe' - usually.

Most "heavy pistols" are issued to police/security/military who span a
rather wide range of physique or ability.

>Anyway,
>since when is a 9mm considered a 'heavy pistol'?

All the British police forces issuing 9mm handguns think so (some still use
.38 Special revolvers, but there's an increasing move off pistols to 9mm
carbines - more accurate, more controllable)

Ditto the Army. We issue the 9mm Browning. A few specialist units prefer
the SIG-Sauer P226. Nothing heavier than 9mm in sight, though...

>> >Definitely so. Plus there's all that body sticking out of the vest:
>the head and four limbs, all full of tender tissue that reacts badly to
>being shot.
>
>Oh, yeah, THAT really helps. Your average guy has a better chance of
>hurting someone shooting through his armoured jacket with a 6M pistol
>than he does if he goes for the head shot (6S damage, but +4 to target
>number - THAT's gonna happen).

No hit location system in Shadowrun, remember. (Ever see the fantasy
caricature of the 'Barbarian Shieldmaiden' wearing just a skimpy chainmail
bikini, bristling with arrows?) Just because you can't get a bullet through
the torso, doesn't mean the target's bulletproof - a flechette or explosive
round through the thigh could kill in a few seconds too.

The problem is, either you make pistols do "realistic" damage in which
case nobody sane uses them (compact SMGs and shotguns are popular, but
9M pistols mean they still have some value) or you accept FASA's tradeoff
of realism vs. cinematics and playability.

I _like_ the image of a pistol-wielding hero surviving a firefight against
enemies with somewhat heavier weapons. It's entirely unrealistic, but it's
fun to play. Others may differ...

--
Paul J. Adam




From Paul@********.demon.co.uk Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:53:53 +0100
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:53:53 +0100
From: Paul
Message no. 75
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:53:53 +0100
In article <000501beb1e7$fec46c80$1e291ec3@******.interware.de>,
Karsten_Dürotin <karsten@****.net> writes
>>Where do you get this from?
>
>The mention of the Predator being a 12mm pistol, and the "Heavy
>Revolver" Ruger Super Warhawk, again.

Super Warhawk does 10M, not 9M... and 12mm is near-as-damnit a .45
(or if you're really historical, a .455 :) )

--
Paul J. Adam




From liliths_childe@*******.com Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:57:54 GMT
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:57:54 GMT
From: Kate. l
Message no. 76
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:55:43 EDT
All the members of my gaming group are around a 4 to an 8 when the word
Aztlan is mentioned...

> --
> D. Ghost
> (aka Pixel)
> "Your Johnson is a one-eyed Snake Shaman"
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the
Message no. 77
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:04:50 -0400
At 09.11 06-12-99 +0200, you wrote:
>You read the ROUTING INFORMATION? Seems to be a tough case of terminal
>boredom, if you ask me...

{{My server should apologize for the technical difficulties that caused it
to regurgitate this message the first time I sent it}}

I read the header data out of habit. At school, depending on where you
are, your X-mailer data would vary. So, by knowing what the ID number
ranges for the labs, buildings and dorms would allow me to tell where a
message was being sent from. This might seem odd, but when you get mail
fresh from the server from someone you've been looking for all day, you can
find them.
This is particualrly useful when you have a programming problem that has
suddenly gone nuts, and your C professor has just posted from his office
even though he said he was ging to be gone two hours ago and won't be back
from Canada for three days. You grab your shoes, key ring and hardcopied
code, and RUN! It is also a useful trick for surprising folks.
You just forget to break the habit.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"You have two options- ask for my opinion, or don't. But don't complain if
my opinion isn't favorable"
Message no. 78
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
> >Anyway, since when is a 9mm considered a 'heavy pistol'?
>
> All the British police forces issuing 9mm handguns think so (some
still use .38 Special revolvers, but there's an increasing move off
pistols to 9mm carbines - more accurate, more controllable)
>
> Ditto the Army. We issue the 9mm Browning. A few specialist units
prefer the SIG-Sauer P226. Nothing heavier than 9mm in sight, though...

You missed my point. Just because they police and army USE 9mms doesn't
make them heavy pistols. If I had my nice, standard issue 9mm and I saw
a .45 magnum, do you REALLY think I'd consider MY pistol a heavy?
Anyway, I was off track with that comment. The 9mm wasn't being
considered a heavy, it was being created as a new pistol class (medium
pistols). I misunderstood.

> >Oh, yeah, THAT really helps. Your average guy has a better chance of
hurting someone shooting through his armoured jacket with a 6M pistol
than he does if he goes for the head shot (6S damage, but +4 to target
number - THAT's gonna happen).
>
> No hit location system in Shadowrun, remember. (Ever see the fantasy
caricature of the 'Barbarian Shieldmaiden' wearing just a skimpy
chainmail bikini, bristling with arrows?) Just because you can't get a
bullet through the torso, doesn't mean the target's bulletproof - a
flechette or explosive round through the thigh could kill in a few
seconds too.

STF what??? You've just proved my point. The ONLY way to hit a specific
location in Shadowrun is to use a called shot (which, IMO, unless you
have a Smartlink II, is just effective a defense as a full armour
jacket, if not more so). So, yes, that guy with the jacket IS
effectively bulletproof (to the extent that the jacket protects him) -
in Shadowrun at least.

> The problem is, either you make pistols do "realistic" damage in
which case nobody sane uses them (compact SMGs and shotguns are
popular, but 9M pistols mean they still have some value) or you accept
FASA's tradeoff of realism vs. cinematics and playability.
>
> I _like_ the image of a pistol-wielding hero surviving a firefight
against enemies with somewhat heavier weapons. It's entirely
unrealistic, but it's fun to play. Others may differ...
> Paul J. Adam

Yeesh...something we finally agree on. :)

*Doc' shuts up now...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 79
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:10:52 +0100
In article <19990615035830.9193.rocketmail@******.mail.yahoo.com>,
Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> writes
>> All the British police forces issuing 9mm handguns think so (some
>still use .38 Special revolvers, but there's an increasing move off
>pistols to 9mm carbines - more accurate, more controllable)
>>
>> Ditto the Army. We issue the 9mm Browning. A few specialist units
>prefer the SIG-Sauer P226. Nothing heavier than 9mm in sight, though...
>
>You missed my point. Just because they police and army USE 9mms doesn't
>make them heavy pistols.

Shadowrun has "heavy pistols" on general issue to police, military etc.

Also, there's the issue of weapons like the Guardian and Thunderbolt.
9mm selective-fire pistols exist and are damn hard to shoot (think
Stechkins, VP70s, Glock 18, Beretta 93R). You're really telling me that you
can get sensible burst-fire and a 12-round magazine out of a .44 Desert
Eagle?

>If I had my nice, standard issue 9mm and I saw
>a .45 magnum, do you REALLY think I'd consider MY pistol a heavy?

Point being, how many .45 Magnums are on general issue in _any_ force?
There'll always be a market for Big Powerful Guns. But if you look for
weapons "popular with mercenaries and security services" (Ares Predator
description), you'll find a hell of a lot of 9mms and very few Magnums.

Thing is there, too, if you say the step from 9mm to .45 Magnum is "6M
to 9M", then what should a 7.62mm NATO rifle bullet be? 12S at least,
maybe 15S... but a MMG is only 9S.

The damage system just doesn't fit existing calibres too well. Making it do
so, does nasty things to game balance in our experience.


>> No hit location system in Shadowrun, remember. (Ever see the fantasy
>caricature of the 'Barbarian Shieldmaiden' wearing just a skimpy
>chainmail bikini, bristling with arrows?) Just because you can't get a
>bullet through the torso, doesn't mean the target's bulletproof - a
>flechette or explosive round through the thigh could kill in a few
>seconds too.
>
>STF what??? You've just proved my point.

No, you've missed mine. Over half the target's body is outside the armour.
You're claiming that every single bullet magically kamikazes into the
armour?

>The ONLY way to hit a specific
>location in Shadowrun is to use a called shot (which, IMO, unless you
>have a Smartlink II, is just effective a defense as a full armour
>jacket, if not more so). So, yes, that guy with the jacket IS
>effectively bulletproof (to the extent that the jacket protects him) -
>in Shadowrun at least.

Which is one reason I don't like making the "standard" pistol so ineffective
against commonplace armour. If you assume that "all shots always hit the
armour" then 4/2 armour (a vest with plates) makes the target very hard
to noticeably injure with a 6M weapon (a simple hit, resisted by Body 3
and no combat pool, can be resisted down to a Light wound most of the
time - include an averageish combat pool of four, and an armour vest
means that someone with Firearms 3 and a 9mm automatic can almost
never harm Joe Average wearing basic body armour...)

9M makes it a rather more chancy prospect, reflecting the better than
fifty-fifty chance that some unarmoured part will be hit. Typical damage
then ends up being Light, with some chance of either a Medium or none -
which just seems to fit a damn sight better.

Remember - no matter how impervous that vest is, over half the target is
sticking out of it, and a 9mm or .45 in the thigh is at least disabling and
at worst fatal.

>> The problem is, either you make pistols do "realistic" damage in
>which case nobody sane uses them (compact SMGs and shotguns are
>popular, but 9M pistols mean they still have some value) or you accept
>FASA's tradeoff of realism vs. cinematics and playability.
>>
>> I _like_ the image of a pistol-wielding hero surviving a firefight
>against enemies with somewhat heavier weapons. It's entirely
>unrealistic, but it's fun to play. Others may differ...
>> Paul J. Adam
>
>Yeesh...something we finally agree on. :)
>
>*Doc' shuts up now...*
>

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 80
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
> >You missed my point. Just because they police and army USE 9mms
doesn't make them heavy pistols.
>
> Shadowrun has "heavy pistols" on general issue to police, military
etc.

Eh...must concede that one.

> Point being, how many .45 Magnums are on general issue in _any_
force? There'll always be a market for Big Powerful Guns. But if you
look for weapons "popular with mercenaries and security services" (Ares
Predator description), you'll find a hell of a lot of 9mms and very few
Magnums.

Okay, okay...you've got me there. But that's an issue of perception,
not realism. The fact that in Shadowrun cops and military people get
"heavy" pistols as standard does NOT mean those heavy pistols are 9mm,
not does it mean they AREN'T. There's no direct correlation. You could
argue that standard military and police sidearms have upgraded to
newer, nicer, recoil-friendlier 12mm and .45 calibre pistols in order
to deal with the preponderance of body armour floating around.
(Actually, that kinda makes sense, don'tcha think?)

> Thing is there, too, if you say the step from 9mm to .45 Magnum is
"6M to 9M", then what should a 7.62mm NATO rifle bullet be? 12S at
least, maybe 15S... but a MMG is only 9S.

Okay, I couldn't discuss that knowledgeably, but yeah, you're probably
right.

> The damage system just doesn't fit existing calibres too well. Making
it do so, does nasty things to game balance in our experience.

You're certainly right about this, Paul - which is funny, as that's
what I was saying in the first place. :)

> >STF what??? You've just proved my point.
>
> No, you've missed mine. Over half the target's body is outside the
armour. You're claiming that every single bullet magically kamikazes
into the armour?

McBullshit (TM). :) I was not, have not, nor will I EVER claim such
utter crap to be truth. What I WAS saying was that the GAME MECHANICS
of Shadowrun have exactly that effect. Fair enough?

> Which is one reason I don't like making the "standard" pistol so
ineffective against commonplace armour. If you assume that "all shots
always hit the armour" then 4/2 armour (a vest with plates) makes the
target very hard to noticeably injure with a 6M weapon (a simple hit,
resisted by Body 3 and no combat pool, can be resisted down to a Light
wound most of the time - include an averageish combat pool of four, and
an armour vest means that someone with Firearms 3 and a 9mm automatic
can almost never harm Joe Average wearing basic body armour...)
>
> 9M makes it a rather more chancy prospect, reflecting the better than
fifty-fifty chance that some unarmoured part will be hit. Typical
damage then ends up being Light, with some chance of either a Medium or
none - which just seems to fit a damn sight better.

This is funny - again, that's just what I've been trying to say. :)

*Doc' couldn't resist it..."I'm weak...I know I am..."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 81
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:26:28 -0400
At 17.10 06-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>9mm selective-fire pistols exist and are damn hard to shoot (think

Well.... If you use a shoulder stock, they shouldn't be too much harder
than a compact SMG. However, with the exception of the folding number for
the Berretta 93, they are all too bulky.

>can get sensible burst-fire and a 12-round magazine out of a .44 Desert
>Eagle?

I see the 10M pistols (ie, the Warhawk) as being on par with the .44, and
the 9Ms being more like .41Mags and low-end .44Mags. With a strong enough
firearm, you could theoretically get a 10mm Auto into the 41Mag territory.
(Actually, that was were it was supposed to be.) The Glock 20 has a 15
round magazine if I remember correctly, and it isn't a whole lot longer or
thicker than a G17. Thickness-wise at the grip it may be about on par with
the Desert Eagle, but definently slimmer through the slide and barrel, and
quite a bit shorter.
I see no reason, if you could design a pistol that wouldn't detonate if
you were to place a strengthend and up-veled 10mm (possibly have the same
kind of relationship as the .45ACP and the .45 Super or the old .451
Dectonics, which almost can make it into the .41 class), why you couldn't
(from a materials point of few) to make it selective fire. The wear would
increase by an exponent or three, but if you were to use some of the
composits that are being developed, or titianium, it could be made.
(Materials technology isn't my strong suite, so call me on this if anyone
really knows.) Finding someone who could shoot it controllably, now that
would be a challenge.

>Point being, how many .45 Magnums are on general issue in _any_ force?

Hell, how many .45 Magnums are there? The Grizzley, the AMT Automag IV,
and the Widley are all I know of. (My subconcous smites me soundly,
wispering "don't show off, you are scaring the normals".)


>There'll always be a market for Big Powerful Guns. But if you look for
>weapons "popular with mercenaries and security services" (Ares Predator

Actually, a lot of mercs in the 50s and 60s carried the .45ACP based on
the believe that it was the ultimate stopper, and more than a few carried
.357Mags and .45 Colt (US Army chambering for the old Colt Single Action
Army) in the same belief. Folks who could get them carried .44Mags in our
forrays into Latin American in the 70s and 80s. And the failed .41Mag was
designed specifically for police and military applications, with a fairly
large number of them going to "mercs" in the mid and late 70s, at least
according to the reports generated during the "Bridge City" fiasco in '79.
And before this point is raised yet again, none of these are standerd
issue. "Standerd issue" means (a) cheap, (b) easy to use, (c) capable of
being used by the most people without fitting, (d) cheap, (e) comming from
sonome powerful's representational district (at least in a democracy), and
(f) cheap. These are examples of private purchases of folks who put on
thier weapon in the morning the way most folks put ont hier socks, and have
decided that this is what works best for them. Like SHADOWRUNNERS!

>description), you'll find a hell of a lot of 9mms and very few Magnums.

Uhh.... the .357Mag was the standby from the early 70s to the 9mm 80s for
just about anyone outside of the military who carried a gun. It is still a
popular chambering for wheelguns.

>The damage system just doesn't fit existing calibres too well. Making it do
>so, does nasty things to game balance in our experience.

I don't try to make it fit, but I do try to draw parrellels based on logic.

>>> I _like_ the image of a pistol-wielding hero surviving a firefight
>>against enemies with somewhat heavier weapons. It's entirely

Yep.

>>unrealistic, but it's fun to play. Others may differ...

Not entirely unrealistic. .38 snub vs. M-16, who will win. My money is
on the guy with the dedication, training and calm-headedness, regaurdless
of what he has. But I'm biased against people who need the Law of the
Golden BB to survive.




CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"You have two options- ask for my opinion, or don't. But don't complain if
my opinion isn't favorable"
Message no. 82
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:39:20 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990616082628.007db1f0@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 17.10 06-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>9mm selective-fire pistols exist and are damn hard to shoot (think
>
> Well.... If you use a shoulder stock, they shouldn't be too much harder
>than a compact SMG. However, with the exception of the folding number for
>the Berretta 93, they are all too bulky.

There's the problem - and neither the Guardian nor the Thunderbolt have
stocks.

>>can get sensible burst-fire and a 12-round magazine out of a .44 Desert
>>Eagle?
>
> I see the 10M pistols (ie, the Warhawk) as being on par with the .44, and
>the 9Ms being more like .41Mags and low-end .44Mags. With a strong enough
>firearm, you could theoretically get a 10mm Auto into the 41Mag territory.
>(Actually, that was were it was supposed to be.) The Glock 20 has a 15
>round magazine if I remember correctly, and it isn't a whole lot longer or
>thicker than a G17.

Thing is, these are all relatively piddly rounds next to a .30-06, which is a
Sporting Rifle round and thus only a 9S by FASA's rules.

Also, notice that 10mm was a relative fizzle: enthusiasm from keen
shooters, but the FBI issued it, found it was too intimidating for most
people to shoot and that it broke the issue S&W 1076s, and hastily issued
9mm SIG-Sauers.

Smith and Wesson toned the 10mm down to something that more people
could handle, and produced the (so far rather successful) .40 round.

> I see no reason, if you could design a pistol that wouldn't detonate if
>you were to place a strengthend and up-veled 10mm (possibly have the same
>kind of relationship as the .45ACP and the .45 Super or the old .451
>Dectonics, which almost can make it into the .41 class), why you couldn't
>(from a materials point of few) to make it selective fire.

I'm sure you could build it. But can your typical Body 3, Strength 4 Lone
Star detective fire it at all effectively?

Meanwhile, there's a 9mm handgun available today (the Russian Gyurza)
whose ability to defeat Level III body armour at 50m has been
demonstrated and proved. (Level III armour will resist .44 Magnum at
pointblank range, but the Gyurza blew clean through)

>(Materials technology isn't my strong suite, so call me on this if anyone
>really knows.) Finding someone who could shoot it controllably, now that
>would be a challenge.

That's the issue. The problem with saying "all heavy pistols are .44
Magnums" is that my wife - who's 5' 7" and by no means weak or frail -
really could not shoot a .44 Magnum pistol. .357, 9mm and .45 she shot,
liked and could do well with, but larger rounds were just too much for
her.

There's no Strength or Body minimum figures, no penalty for being the
"before" in a Charles Atlas advert, on using a Heavy Pistol - and that just
ain't the case if they're .44 Magnums or whatever.

>>Point being, how many .45 Magnums are on general issue in _any_ force?
>
> Hell, how many .45 Magnums are there? The Grizzley, the AMT Automag
>IV,
>and the Widley are all I know of. (My subconcous smites me soundly,
>wispering "don't show off, you are scaring the normals".)

Precisely... handguns that punchy have their ardent fans, their admirers,
and they don't sell many compared to the more manageable weapons.

>>There'll always be a market for Big Powerful Guns. But if you look for
>>weapons "popular with mercenaries and security services" (Ares Predator
>
> Actually, a lot of mercs in the 50s and 60s carried the .45ACP based on
>the believe that it was the ultimate stopper,

There was an attempt to classify using 9mm pistols as "inhumane" early
this century, they carried such a mystique at the time...

> And before this point is raised yet again, none of these are standerd
>issue. "Standerd issue" means (a) cheap, (b) easy to use, (c) capable of
>being used by the most people without fitting, (d) cheap, (e) comming from
>sonome powerful's representational district (at least in a democracy), and
>(f) cheap. These are examples of private purchases of folks who put on
>thier weapon in the morning the way most folks put ont hier socks, and have
>decided that this is what works best for them. Like SHADOWRUNNERS!

Again, no question that you'd get potent handguns flying around - I've
knocked up a couple of 10M revolvers and automatics for just that reason.
But they aren't generally used for exactly that reason.

And, let's face it, shadowrunners are using what weapons they can get.
They don't generally have the luxury of going to Weapons World,
presenting a valid SIN and current permit, and picking the weapon they
want: they're limited to the black market and what's available on it, and
what police and military forces will make up a large proportion of that
market: what your "typical private citizen" buys will be most of the rest.

Using a distinctive, uncommon weapon will make you stand out in the
records. That's not good for a shadowrunner.


(I had an assassin character who stole two cases of Ingram Smartguns,
and used each gun only once before destroying it: that way, there was no
way anyone could tie him to past crimes via ballistics. He considered
selling them to clueless amateurs, so they would be caught with the
weapon, but rejected it since the amateurs would describe the seller)

>>description), you'll find a hell of a lot of 9mms and very few Magnums.
>
> Uhh.... the .357Mag was the standby from the early 70s to the 9mm 80s
>for
>just about anyone outside of the military who carried a gun.

You sure about that? ISTR that there were a lot more .38 Specials than
.357s around. Certainly the UK police were almost united in their use of
S&W Model 10s.

>>The damage system just doesn't fit existing calibres too well. Making it do
>>so, does nasty things to game balance in our experience.
>
> I don't try to make it fit, but I do try to draw parrellels based on logic.

The problem is, if you make the step from 9mm to .357 be a jump from
6L to 9M, then .44 should be ~10S and you end up with rifles that do 18D
damage on a single round.

Realistic, but not fun when there's an enemy with a scoped .338 Lapua
rifle who knows how to use it sniping you.

It's easy to exaggerate the difference between pistols and underestimate
the order-of-magnitude increase of lethality provided by most rifle rounds.


>>>unrealistic, but it's fun to play. Others may differ...
>
> Not entirely unrealistic. .38 snub vs. M-16, who will win. My money is
>on the guy with the dedication, training and calm-headedness, regaurdless
>of what he has.

I'd rather have the training, the dedication, the coolness... _and_ the
M16, personally :)


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 83
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:10:00 -0400
At 23.39 06-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>There's the problem - and neither the Guardian nor the Thunderbolt have
>stocks.

Inlet the backstrap to accept one. If you can't, make a bolt one one.
They aren't pretty, they break easily, are uncomfortable as hell, and don't
work perfectly, but they are better than nothing.
Also, what is to say that there have been no Gaurdians or Thunderbolts
made that can except a shoulderstock. Stockable Hi-Powers and 1911s are no
bigger than the usual versions, and know there have been at least a couple
custom modified Glocks that can take detachable stocks. (One was a
longslide, and the other may have been an 18. I only saw the right side of
the guns in the picture, so I couldn't tell if it was an 18 or 17.) The
big question is if there is enough space in the frame. And if there isn't,
I imagine that building a stock that is part of a (extended?) magazine
shouldn't be too difficult for a qualified gunsmith. Such mounts get
wobbly and eventually fail, but I've seen a piscture of such a custom puff
made for the UZI pistol. (Unless the Thunderbolt, which I've never seen
stats for much less a picture, has it's magazine well in front of the
trigger, in which case, it may be reall to machine/mold a custom set of
grips that convert it to a carbine (much like the T/C Contender and Encore
carbine kits).)

>Thing is, these are all relatively piddly rounds next to a .30-06, which is a
>Sporting Rifle round and thus only a 9S by FASA's rules.

-3 power rule for heavy pistols in my games, is what I've decided. IE,
the Predator does 6M.

>Also, notice that 10mm was a relative fizzle: enthusiasm from keen
>shooters, but the FBI issued it, found it was too intimidating for most

Actually, the FBI decided that the full velocity loads were to penetrative
for thier taste, so they when with a lower velocity loading. They through
a bullet int he same weight and diameter calss as a .45ACP, at .45ACP
velocities, from a .45ACP size gun, but it wasn't a .45. Your tax dollars
at work. <g>
Actually, I wish the 10mm would make a comeback. I have a Delta Elite,
and I've had very few problemes with it (other than having to lock it and
it's ammo in a special case, so there is no mistakes with any of the .45s).
Low-pressure loads were they are appropriate (defense), full velocity when
they are appropriate (hunting). Some kind of deal with the .44Mag and
.44Spec. However, the 10mm never got over the abuse at the hands of the
FBI and the broken promises of the origional Bren Ten. Maybe Springfield
can have some success with the .45Super....

>people to shoot and that it broke the issue S&W 1076s, and hastily issued
>9mm SIG-Sauers.

Actually, it was a matter of re-issueing. What had happened was that
there had been some very public failures in performance with 9mm's, but
that was using subsonic ammo. Low velocity and 9mm don't like eachother
very much. After some bozo got his or her brain back fromt he dry cleaners
and realized this, real 9mm (light, fast bullets) ammo was issued.
It is also interesting to note that FBI SWAT now uses a "production
custom" 1911 from Springfield. The HRT uses a similiar gun, but I've seen
sources that claim it is the Springfield, others that it is a
Para-Ordinance P-13.45 (double stack 1911- very cute redesign, it isn't
much thcker than a single stack. Even I can fire it comfortably!)

>could handle, and produced the (so far rather successful) .40 round.

A .45 in a 9mm package, or close enough. Good stuff, but I expect the
.357Sig will start catching up in a few years.

>I'm sure you could build it. But can your typical Body 3, Strength 4 Lone
>Star detective fire it at all effectively?

I said IF you can find someone to fire it effectively.

>Meanwhile, there's a 9mm handgun available today (the Russian Gyurza)
>whose ability to defeat Level III body armour at 50m has been

Yes, but that is a propriatery (sp) round, is it not? I'm also willing to
bet that it was not a lead cored, cupro-nickle jacketed bullet, but more
likely a steel(-cored) round, probably with a hell of a point on it. The
Gyurza looks a bit long in the frame to me, almost into the .357Mag
territory, but I've not seen anything about it's ammunition. What have you
seen?
And lets not even discuss the PSM. The claims are so increadab;e that I
want to see it for myself and be able to disect a couple of rounds to see
how they are built.

>really could not shoot a .44 Magnum pistol. .357, 9mm and .45 she shot,
>liked and could do well with, but larger rounds were just too much for

What was the barrel length? My mother has a hard time with my four
incher, but the family's 8.38" barreled 29 she doesn't have a problem with
becuase of the extra snout mass. Also try starting her with some softer
rounds, in the .44 Special neigborhood and working up from there to
high-end specials/very loew magnums, then low magnumns, and so on, once she
is comfortable with each step. (If you could load in progressive
increments, it works really well. Start off with a cool Special powder
charge, and work up in half grain increments. But I doubt that is kosher
on the Royal Isle. I feel sorry for you guys.) This is what I had to do
for my brother when he first want to try shooting the .44.
I could also be the size of the grips. I'm willing to bet that the .357s
your wife has shot were all K-size frames. The S&W N-frame is almost too
much for get a good grip on with factory grips. I can't even fire a
Berretta 9X or Ruger P-85 family comfortably, becuase they are too big for
my hands. My mother can handle both without a problem, but she can't use
my 1911s becuase I put heavy recoil springs in them.

>> Hell, how many .45 Magnums are there? The Grizzley, the AMT
>>Automag IV, and the Widley
>Precisely... handguns that punchy have their ardent fans, their admirers,
>and they don't sell many compared to the more manageable weapons.

Also, look at the reputations those three guns have. Sensative, sensative
and sensative, all three of them. The only one there that is inexpensive
is the Automag, and they never madeenough of them for it to matter.
Compound that by having to prove a new round, and you end up in the same
spot the origional Automag was in.
Compair that to the Desert Eagle. Is it a special purpose arm? You
betcha. But isn't over expensive, it isn't an overly exotic design (unlike
the Widley) from a mechanical point of view, it has a reputation for
realiability, and it uses common ammunition (excluding the .50AE and the
few .38/.44 barrels that were made). Is it a gun for everyone? Hell no, I
can barely hang onto it, much less have hold it on a target and thumb down
the safety. But I've talked with a couple of guys (and a gal) who own one,
and they all say that they would trade thier Eagle for anything. That word
of mouth and shooter endorsment, plus the realiability and common
ammunition, equals sales. In a lot of areas, dealers rarely have them sit
in the case for more than a week, and that is saying a lot for a speciality
pistol.

>want: they're limited to the black market and what's available on it, and
>what police and military forces will make up a large proportion of that

OK, lets say that someone can build high performance ammo that is standerd
sized (capable of being used in, say, a 1911-sized frame). Would you carry
one? If the recoil wasn't too severe, do you think that the militaries of
the world might pick them up?
The .357Sig, full-pressure 10mm, the .451Dectonic and the .45Super are all
examples of high-end performance in little packages, even if some of them
never quite made it off the launcpad. (They laughed at Newton. They
laughed at Da Vinchi. They jailed Galilleo. Man kind never looks to the
future, only on the past.) Even the 7.62Tok, in it's SMG-only loadings,
was a pretty potent cartridge, and the CZ50 was designed to to hand that
high-end ammo. H&K designed (I don't know if they built a prototype) a
pistol that could fire the ammo for the G11. FN has a pistol that is
designed for a reduced pressure loading of thier P-90 ammo, but it can fire
full pressure rounds in an emmergency. Heck, the caseless .223 round that
Voere (sp) makes (made?) is about the size of a 9mm cartridge. From a
4"-5" barrel it would lose a lot, but it would still be a balsy little slug.
I see no reason why something with large maganum performance that fits
into a full sized frame won't be available in thirty or fourty years.

>market: what your "typical private citizen" buys will be most of the rest.

That is not a matter of the level of firearms technology in Shadowrun, but
more of GMs unwilling to say "no", combined with FASA making tough enemies.
And then it started a self fullfilling profecey of munchkinism.
As for technology levels, read on.

>You sure about that? ISTR that there were a lot more .38 Specials than
>.357s around. Certainly the UK police were almost united in their use of

I'm talking about in the States. Sorry. But not as sorry as the bobby on
subway (you call the the "tube, right?) will be when that round nose zips
out of a perp and bounces around and leaves a nice clean hole that doen't
really effect the knife-weilding drug-zombie for the next three minutes.
Then again, your cops have the good sense to call for a SWAT team if there
is any danger to themselves, unlike a lot of our cops.
It could be worse than a .38. Some places in Europe are only just now
getting 9mm's, and we won't even discuss the issue of .25ACP pistols to
Japanese cops.
As for .38s, you are correct, and I misspoke. The .38 in shortbarrel form
was more common than the .357 until the mid 70s, and still is. But then
again, I'm not over fond of lighting off full-power .357s from a 2-2.5"
barrel, and shoot almost daily with service and hunting pistols. With
longer (3-6") barrels, the .357Mag is more common in the States than .38s.
I can't comment reliably on other parts of the world.

>The problem is, if you make the step from 9mm to .357 be a jump from
>6L to 9M, then .44 should be ~10S and you end up with rifles that do 18D

Actually, I'm thinking that the 9mm is dead, dead, dead, or is a largish
hold-out, within twenty years in the real-world. Most light pistols are
probably in the .357 range, like the .357Sig. (OK, so I'm big fan of a
round that I have only fired once. It's data, while not perfect, is some of
the best I've ever seen and not outlandish.)

>Realistic, but not fun when there's an enemy with a scoped .338 Lapua
>rifle who knows how to use it sniping you.

Against an equal, you match the the gear. Against an inferior opponent,
you give them a chance. Either that, or you come behind them, loan thier
kidney your knife for a few minutes, and take thier gear.

>It's easy to exaggerate the difference between pistols and underestimate
>the order-of-magnitude increase of lethality provided by most rifle rounds.

I never said otherwise. But Shadowrun is supposed to be fun. I don't
want to use the Edge of the Sword tables, or (from what I've been able to
find) Pheonix Command, simply becuase the story stops being fun with all
the math. I'm there to tell a story. Game mechanics are just that;
mechanical devises to help tell the story.
Also, see above concerning power reduction.

>I'd rather have the training, the dedication, the coolness... _and_ the
>M16, personally :)

I agree, but screw the 16. Give me a nice Barret loaded with RUFUS
shells, with a Simrand strap-on NVD for the scope. (I'll see your Laupa,
and raise you a baby cannon! And one that I can find ammo for half the
world, even if is generally pretty crappy stuff.) If I have to use
5.56NATO, find me an Armalite or HK33. (I once had an AR-15 fail on me in
winter while on a vermin erradication mission. I've never seen an HK
anything crap out due to enviromental conditions, and the AR-18 and -180
have real good reps for cold-weather realibility. They also look to be
better suited to lefties.)


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 84
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:13:02 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990617121000.007ee9e0@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 23.39 06-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>There's the problem - and neither the Guardian nor the Thunderbolt have
>>stocks.
>
> Inlet the backstrap to accept one. If you can't, make a bolt one one.
>They aren't pretty, they break easily, are uncomfortable as hell, and don't
>work perfectly, but they are better than nothing.

Point is - the weapons are, by the rules, controllable to the average Joe
without any such modifications and amendments.

>>Thing is, these are all relatively piddly rounds next to a .30-06, which is a
>>Sporting Rifle round and thus only a 9S by FASA's rules.
>
> -3 power rule for heavy pistols in my games, is what I've decided. IE,
>the Predator does 6M.

Agan... I just don't like the notion of an average shot being almost
completely unable to hurt someone in almost standard body armour (4pt
ballistic) with a "heavy pistol". Even armour clothing means John Doe
(Firearms 3, call it one success) can barely expect to inflict a Light wound
on Richard Roe (Combat Pool 4, Body 3).

Basic body armour helping to keep you alive, I'll buy. Allowing you to ignore
pistol fire, I don't, if only because lots of unarmoured tender flesh sticks
out of the armour...


Why bother carrying the damn things, if you cut them that much?
Shotguns and SMGs end up just as concealable for much more damage -
you'd see almost no pistols, but the standard sidearms becoming
Roomsweepers and Defiance T250 shortbarrels and Ingram Smartguns. All
just as concealable as pistols, all more effective and damaging.

> Actually, I wish the 10mm would make a comeback. I have a Delta Elite,
>and I've had very few problemes with it (other than having to lock it and
>it's ammo in a special case, so there is no mistakes with any of the .45s).

I knew a few Practical shooters who were real 10mm enthusiasts, and was
interested enough in the calibre that I could have owned one (I applied
for, and was granted, permission to own a .45, a .44, a 9mm and a
10mm pistol - never got past a .45ACP of my own, though, first a S&W
4506 and then a Glock 21)

I very nearly ended up with a Glock 20, but it sold before I could put in a
bid - luckily, a very nice 21 came along and I traded the Smith for it.

>>people to shoot and that it broke the issue S&W 1076s, and hastily issued
>>9mm SIG-Sauers.
>
> Actually, it was a matter of re-issueing. What had happened was that
>there had been some very public failures in performance with 9mm's, but
>that was using subsonic ammo. Low velocity and 9mm don't like eachother
>very much. After some bozo got his or her brain back fromt he dry cleaners
>and realized this, real 9mm (light, fast bullets) ammo was issued.

I seem to recall it was partly the other way around - weren't the FBI using
high-velocity lightweight 9mm rounds in the infamous Miami shootout?

Personally, I'd say taking on gunmen who had an assault rifle and a
shotgun with pistols was to blame - smacks of bringing a knife to a
gunfight - and I'd have had the whole FBI team packing MP-5s.

> It is also interesting to note that FBI SWAT now uses a "production
>custom" 1911 from Springfield.

The USMC issue a customised, reworked M1911A1 for specialist work too -
it's the issue sidearm for troops carrying the MP-5N SMG, IIRC.

>The HRT uses a similiar gun, but I've seen
>sources that claim it is the Springfield, others that it is a
>Para-Ordinance P-13.45 (double stack 1911- very cute redesign, it isn't
>much thcker than a single stack. Even I can fire it comfortably!)

The Para-Ordnance frames were very popular among the Practical
shooters I knew. More .38 Supers than .45s, even one .45/.357, but they
were _nice_ to handle and shoot.

I admit to a soft spot for the M1911A1. If I'd had the money, I'd have
bought the Colt Combat Elite in an eyeblink.

>>could handle, and produced the (so far rather successful) .40 round.
>
> A .45 in a 9mm package, or close enough. Good stuff, but I expect the
>.357Sig will start catching up in a few years.

Yes, the .357SIG is an interesting round. I wonder where the Russian
7.62mm x 25 Tokarev would fit into the matrix here? It's got shedloads of
energy and ferocious penetration, which would tend to at least indicate
high Power.

>>I'm sure you could build it. But can your typical Body 3, Strength 4 Lone
>>Star detective fire it at all effectively?
>
> I said IF you can find someone to fire it effectively.

That's the problem - this is issued to Joe Average (Body 3, Strength 4)
according to SR canon, and Joe Average can handle and use it without
problems.

>>Meanwhile, there's a 9mm handgun available today (the Russian Gyurza)
>>whose ability to defeat Level III body armour at 50m has been
>
> Yes, but that is a propriatery (sp) round, is it not?

Aren't they all when they first arrive?

>I'm also willing to
>bet that it was not a lead cored, cupro-nickle jacketed bullet, but more
>likely a steel(-cored) round, probably with a hell of a point on it.

Spot on. A long, spitzer steel penetrator in a cupronickel-jacketed lead
'bucket', with a Teflon liner to allow the penetrator and 'bucket' to
seperate if it hits resistance.

The penetrator defeats armour, yaws and inflicts a serious wound. The
lead 'bucket' either deforms on armour, or acts as a nasty hollowpoint.

Interesting design in theory. Given the experience the Russians are getting
with heavily armed-and-armoured criminals, I'd give it the benefit of the
doubt for now - it seems to work fairly well.
>
>>really could not shoot a .44 Magnum pistol. .357, 9mm and .45 she shot,
>>liked and could do well with, but larger rounds were just too much for
>
> What was the barrel length?

6" or so, in a Desert Eagle automatic. She had no problem with a S&W
Classic Hunter firing a downloaded cartridge, or a Model 25 firing a fairly
hot load, but the Desert Eagle was just too much gun and too much recoil
for her.

(I loved it, personally :) )

>(If you could load in progressive
>increments, it works really well. Start off with a cool Special powder
>charge, and work up in half grain increments. But I doubt that is kosher
>on the Royal Isle. I feel sorry for you guys.)

No more pistol shooting for us. None. Nada. Zip. Glock 21 #VA799 is
melted down and is holding together some motorway bridge now.

> I could also be the size of the grips. I'm willing to bet that the .357s
>your wife has shot were all K-size frames. The S&W N-frame is almost too
>much for get a good grip on with factory grips.

She had huge trouble with the Desert Eagle, and in fact with most double-
stack automatics. (Nine-mil was manageable - she coped with the
Browning High-Power, and _liked_ the Beretta 92 a friend lent her - but
she never got on with my Glock 21). She always preferred revolvers.

K-size Smith revolvers were no problem at all - she happily shot .357 from
the club's 686 with good results - and full-effort .45ACPs and softly-loaded
.44s from N-frames were manageable. She didn't get a chance to try a
full-power load from a .44 Magnum, but I'd guess that if she was unhappy
with the Desert Eagle she'd have disliked it in a revolver even more.

>I can't even fire a
>Berretta 9X or Ruger P-85 family comfortably, becuase they are too big for
>my hands.

I'm sort of lucky - hands like meat cleavers. Never found a pistol that was
'too big'. One or two that were 'too small', though... (I had that problem
with N-frame Smiths, oddly enough: couldn't get all my fingers onto the
grip)

>>Precisely... handguns that punchy have their ardent fans, their admirers,
>>and they don't sell many compared to the more manageable weapons.

> Compair that to the Desert Eagle. Is it a special purpose arm? You
>betcha. But isn't over expensive, it isn't an overly exotic design (unlike
>the Widley) from a mechanical point of view, it has a reputation for
>realiability, and it uses common ammunition (excluding the .50AE and the
>few .38/.44 barrels that were made). Is it a gun for everyone? Hell no, I
>can barely hang onto it, much less have hold it on a target and thumb down
>the safety. But I've talked with a couple of guys (and a gal) who own one,
>and they all say that they would trade thier Eagle for anything.

Here I can agree completely - I'd have loved to have owned and shot one.
Sensible combat weapon? Hell, no, too heavy, go for a Glock 23 and carry
the spare weight in rifle ammo so you don't _need_ the pistol.

Good for Practical Pistol? Not really, but wouldn't it have been _fun_ to
use one of those where everyone else had their dainty tuned customised
.38 Super racehorse guns...

But it was a wonderfully entertaining gun to handle and shoot, and since I
was only blowing holes in paper for fun, wasn't that sort of the point?

>>they're limited to the black market and what's available on it, and
>>what police and military forces will make up a large proportion of that
>
> OK, lets say that someone can build high performance ammo that is
>standerd
>sized (capable of being used in, say, a 1911-sized frame). Would you carry
>one? If the recoil wasn't too severe, do you think that the militaries of
>the world might pick them up?

Maybe. You'd be more likely to see it in police calibres - the military just
don't use pistols enough to really make it a big deal. If you're reduced to
shooting a pistol at an infantry section with assault rifles, you're in the
"Heroic But Futile Defiant Gesture" category.

> The .357Sig, full-pressure 10mm, the .451Dectonic and the .45Super are
>all
>examples of high-end performance in little packages, even if some of them
>never quite made it off the launcpad.

What about .41 Action Express? ;)

>Even the 7.62Tok, in it's SMG-only loadings,
>was a pretty potent cartridge, and the CZ50 was designed to to hand that
>high-end ammo.

I _thought_ you might mention it somewhere.

>FN has a pistol that is
>designed for a reduced pressure loading of thier P-90 ammo, but it can fire
>full pressure rounds in an emmergency.

And just _where_ does a high-velocity 5.7mm spitzer bullet fit into the
conventional wisdom? After all, maybe some revolution in ballistics
between now and then will mean that the Ares Predator is actually a .177
calibre weapon firing hypersonic rounds...

>>market: what your "typical private citizen" buys will be most of the
rest.
>
> That is not a matter of the level of firearms technology in Shadowrun, but
>more of GMs unwilling to say "no", combined with FASA making tough enemies.
> And then it started a self fullfilling profecey of munchkinism.

I just have a problem with the idea that a competent shot can empty a
.45 or 9mm handgun - considered at least moderately effective today - at
someone in cheap body armour with very little chance of causing any
injury at all.

>>You sure about that? ISTR that there were a lot more .38 Specials than
>>.357s around. Certainly the UK police were almost united in their use of
>
> I'm talking about in the States. Sorry. But not as sorry as the bobby on
>subway (you call the the "tube, right?) will be when that round nose

Usually 158-grain JHPs by the 1980s, AIUI. Those'll smart a little.

>zips
>out of a perp and bounces around and leaves a nice clean hole that doen't
>really effect the knife-weilding drug-zombie for the next three minutes.
>Then again, your cops have the good sense to call for a SWAT team if there
>is any danger to themselves, unlike a lot of our cops.

One point - since most of our police don't carry firearms, the armed units
now generally carry H&K MP-5s. Semi-auto only, I believe, but it gives a
lot more accuracy and improved safety. After all, it's a big deal when
"armed police" get called anyway...

> It could be worse than a .38. Some places in Europe are only just now
>getting 9mm's, and we won't even discuss the issue of .25ACP pistols to
>Japanese cops.

That's very much what I had in mind. Again, the Ares Predator is not only
"popular", but it's so common that it's cheaper on the black market than it
is to buy retail. The only weapon I can think of that fits that profile in
Britain is the Browning High-Power (the Army's issue sidearm) - back when
you could legally acquire one, they were ~£500 new and legal, or £200 for
cash under a pub table in London (Metropolitan Police figures)

Anything "exotic" in calibre terms was a non-starter on the underworld
scene. A Practical shooter had his racegun stolen - it was recovered within
a month, because the police were on the alert for anyone asking the black
market for .38 Super rounds. Uncommon calibres are bad news.

>>The problem is, if you make the step from 9mm to .357 be a jump from
>>6L to 9M, then .44 should be ~10S and you end up with rifles that do 18D
>
> Actually, I'm thinking that the 9mm is dead, dead, dead, or is a largish
>hold-out, within twenty years in the real-world.

Kind of a leap of faith. It's been around for a _long_ time, it's got a
_huge_ user base (think of all those SMGs chambered for it, even if US
pistol owners desert it) and remember so many nations who reject its use
for police work as "overly powerful".

>Most light pistols are
>probably in the .357 range, like the .357Sig. (OK, so I'm big fan of a
>round that I have only fired once. It's data, while not perfect, is some of
>the best I've ever seen and not outlandish.)

This, I have real trouble with. If 'light pistols' doing 6L damage have to be
.357SIG, and 9mm is a 4L hold-out round, how come anyone ever died
from being shot with a .22 or .25? Unless their assailant was a real
marksman, they should have just ignored the gunfire. You could _sleep_
through being shot by a .22 under these assumptions...

>>Realistic, but not fun when there's an enemy with a scoped .338 Lapua
>>rifle who knows how to use it sniping you.
>
> Against an equal, you match the the gear. Against an inferior opponent,
>you give them a chance. Either that, or you come behind them, loan thier
>kidney your knife for a few minutes, and take thier gear.

Never give a sucker a break.

And, again, who's to say you'll always be superior? And if you're so
superior, why are you nickel-and-dimeing criminal jobs on the street?

Making firearms combat realistic means your turnover of player characters
becomes alarmingly rapid, IMHO.

>>I'd rather have the training, the dedication, the coolness... _and_ the
>>M16, personally :)
>
> I agree, but screw the 16. Give me a nice Barret loaded with RUFUS
>shells, with a Simrand strap-on NVD for the scope. (I'll see your Laupa,
>and raise you a baby cannon! And one that I can find ammo for half the
>world, even if is generally pretty crappy stuff.)

Bit too specialised for long-range work, perhaps. Personal choice would be
a L1A1 SLR with a SUSAT scope, but then that's what I did most of my
training with (except for the scope, but I _like_ the bright x4 for night
and long-range work).

>If I have to use
>5.56NATO, find me an Armalite or HK33. (I once had an AR-15 fail on me in
>winter while on a vermin erradication mission. I've never seen an HK
>anything crap out due to enviromental conditions, and the AR-18 and -180
>have real good reps for cold-weather realibility. They also look to be
>better suited to lefties.)

Try the H&K G36, then. Never had a chance to fire it, but its ergonomics
are _excellent_ and it just feels... right, somehow, when you handle it.
Everything except the ejection port's ambidextrous, too.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 85
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:45:19 -0400
>Point is - the weapons are, by the rules, controllable to the average Joe
>without any such modifications and amendments.

I've always said that USING a shoulderstock (which means you have to
bruise your shoulder or develope a "callus" on your bloodvessles) gives you
apoint of recoil reduction.

>Basic body armour helping to keep you alive, I'll buy. Allowing you to ignore
>pistol fire, I don't, if only because lots of unarmoured tender flesh sticks

Again, house rule: you roll for knockdown if you get hit, and that can
totally screw up the rest of your turn.

>I seem to recall it was partly the other way around - weren't the FBI using
>high-velocity lightweight 9mm rounds in the infamous Miami shootout?

Nope. 147gr subsonic silvertips from Winchester. It totally destroyed
the consumer base for silver tips.

>Personally, I'd say taking on gunmen who had an assault rifle and a
>shotgun with pistols was to blame - smacks of bringing a knife to a

Hind sight is fifty fifty. Intell indicated nothing other than a couple
sidearms and the shotgun.
And I WILL go up against someone with a shotgun while armed with a pistol.
I'm as fast and accurate a any of the federal agents (FBI, DEA, DOE and
Border) and special operations personnel (Army Rangers, Special Forces
("Green Berets"), Navy SEALs, Air Force Combat Controllers and
Pararescuers, and Marine Force Recon) I've shot against on ranges, and have
lot of the same mindset, though.

>gunfight - and I'd have had the whole FBI team packing MP-5s.

Those items were unavailable. I've read everything that isn't classified
concerning that SNAFU. It also wasn't totally FBI. There were some local
cops (I think Dade county, but it may have been miami locals) who were ont
hier day off, and some DEA folks.

>The USMC issue a customised, reworked M1911A1 for specialist work too -
>it's the issue sidearm for troops carrying the MP-5N SMG, IIRC.

Translation, Recon Marines. Who also have the option of carrying the
Beretta, many of whom do.

>shooters I knew. More .38 Supers than .45s, even one .45/.357, but they
>were _nice_ to handle and shoot.

Almost all the Para's I've seen were in .45ACP. I'd love to see one in
.45/.357 (one of my pet loads- glad to know I'm not the only person who
uses it still), that would be great.

>7.62mm x 25 Tokarev would fit into the matrix here? It's got shedloads of
>energy and ferocious penetration, which would tend to at least indicate
>high Power.

In the SMG-loading. Only the CZ50 was made strong enough to fire it
safely. More than a few of those full pressure round in a Tok, and it is
going to blow. The design and materials just can't take it.
Still, it would be an interesting cartridge to try and reintroduce.
Although, I don't know if the world needs another .357Mag range cartridge,
even if you can drop it to .30Luger levels for small game.

>Spot on. A long, spitzer steel penetrator in a cupronickel-jacketed lead
>'bucket', with a Teflon liner to allow the penetrator and 'bucket' to

Paul, I bet you already know this, but for the great uninitiated, Tefrlon
DOES NOT improve armour penetration. It stops the steel projectile from
chewing holes in your barrel.

>The penetrator defeats armour, yaws and inflicts a serious wound. The
>lead 'bucket' either deforms on armour, or acts as a nasty hollowpoint.

Yesh, that nasty. Sounds like the "needle core" projectile I tried to
design once.

>6" or so, in a Desert Eagle automatic. She had no problem with a S&W

I'm willing to bet that the grip was too big, becuase ever description
I've heard of an Eagle's recoil is that the .44 is about on par with a
stiff .357 or Colt Lightweight Commander fired with full powered loads.
Stiff, but not too bad.

>No more pistol shooting for us. None. Nada. Zip. Glock 21 #VA799 is
>melted down and is holding together some motorway bridge now.

If you had emigrated, could have brought your metal children out with you?
Leaving ones homeland is never easy, I know, but I also look at shooting
differently than most folks.

>But it was a wonderfully entertaining gun to handle and shoot, and since I
>was only blowing holes in paper for fun, wasn't that sort of the point?

Well, I know a guy who hunts with one. Never taken a deer at anything
further than 10 feet with it, either.

>What about .41 Action Express? ;)

.40SW range only, in my experince. The big deal was that (a) the .40SW
wasn't born yet, and it had the rebated rim, so that 9mms only needed a new
barrel and magazine. Now the .50AE is a different story, but that isn't
service sized.

>And just _where_ does a high-velocity 5.7mm spitzer bullet fit into the
>conventional wisdom? After all, maybe some revolution in ballistics

I consider it and the guns it designed for to be freaky children who's
parrents and clan have yet to be determined yet, that is wear they fit.
Still, if FN ever to find a needs a foster parent.... <g>

>Usually 158-grain JHPs by the 1980s, AIUI. Those'll smart a little.

Yep. I thought they were still using round nose lead. Those suck. The
110s might be lighter, but they expand more reliably.

>One point - since most of our police don't carry firearms, the armed units
>now generally carry H&K MP-5s. Semi-auto only, I believe, but it gives a

I think something in one of your laws forbids cops from having automatic
weapons. However, you don't have the Posse Comitatus Law, so you can call
in the mlitary much more easily.

>Britain is the Browning High-Power (the Army's issue sidearm) - back when

Love my P35s. I might own more 1911s and Smiths, but when I head for the
door, there is Browing on me somewhere. Fits the hand, never complains,
accurate (with a few touch ups), and you can get parts anywhere in the world.

>Kind of a leap of faith. It's been around for a _long_ time, it's got a
>_huge_ user base (think of all those SMGs chambered for it, even if US

Third world, yes, and for a lot of nestoliga shooters. But folks who are
on the "cutting edge" will probably be using something bigger. There will
probably be good quality firearms available for it that are full sized, but
I really don think that it will fill many of the rolls of the .380.

>from being shot with a .22 or .25? Unless their assailant was a real

I've been hit with a .22 before. (My bad.) I didn;t realise that I had
actually hit my foot (no half-witty comments, please) until I could feel
something wet.

>marksman, they should have just ignored the gunfire. You could _sleep_
>through being shot by a .22 under these assumptions...

I've yet to find a fast AND accurate method of dealing with damage in any
game system.

>And, again, who's to say you'll always be superior? And if you're so
>superior, why are you nickel-and-dimeing criminal jobs on the street?

Becuase our runners are better than most folks.

I also was discussing myself. I am better than 99.999% of the world's
overpopulation. (I also have a bigger ego then most folks, but it is
getting better.)

>Making firearms combat realistic means your turnover of player characters
>becomes alarmingly rapid, IMHO.

That is my other argueement against realistic damage systems. All I try
to do is make it similiar to what we know. My old gaming group from high
school is almost all military personnel now, and I know that they would
practically lynch me if I tried to tell them that a heavy pistol is more
powerful than a light automatic rifle or an SMG. Although an SMG in a
.44Mag-equivelency would impress the hell of out of some of 'em, and cause
excessive salivation int eh rest.

>a L1A1 SLR with a SUSAT scope, but then that's what I did most of my

I like the trigger on the G-3 better, especially in the K varient with the
Navy trigger group and a fixed stock, topped with irons with tritium
inserts and a Tasco armoured 3-9x40mm on the claw mount. A little heavier,
but that helps with the bursts, shorter, and better sights. I also like
the short selection lever range better.
The SUSAT is too powerful for close up work. Issued to a handful of
troops, in mix with irons or somthing like a red dot, OK, escpecially if it
is on a see-though mount so you can use the irons. But total issuance of
the 4x scope, not so good, especially whan the iron sights aren't really
handy. Glass breaks when you can least afford it.

>Try the H&K G36, then. Never had a chance to fire it, but its ergonomics

Never handled one, but I've read the descriptions on the sights. Doesn't
sound Kevin-proof.
It also hasn't been proven yet. I usually prefeer designs that have had
been baptised.

>Everything except the ejection port's ambidextrous, too.

A usuful feature, but not always needed. And I'm a lefty.




CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://www.Geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 86
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:23:13 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990617224519.007f64f0@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>>Basic body armour helping to keep you alive, I'll buy. Allowing you to ignore
>>pistol fire, I don't, if only because lots of unarmoured tender flesh sticks
>
> Again, house rule: you roll for knockdown if you get hit, and that can
>totally screw up the rest of your turn.

Personally, I'd say a good .45ACP through your thigh would do more than
knock you over...

>>I seem to recall it was partly the other way around - weren't the FBI using
>>high-velocity lightweight 9mm rounds in the infamous Miami shootout?
>
> Nope. 147gr subsonic silvertips from Winchester. It totally destroyed
>the consumer base for silver tips.

I keep getting contradictory statements on this. I'd heard that the FBI
were using high-velocity lightweights (based on the concept of the Relative
Incapacitation Index) which didn't have enough penetration to actually stop
a motivated foe - the "should have but didn't" shot hit the main shooter in
the arm and entered his chest, but stopped before hitting anything
critical.

Also, an Ed Shimek special I've got (The Complete Book of the 9mm) was
quite complimentary to both the 147-grain subsonics (which can't be
_that_ bad or H&K wouldn't be selling MP-5SDs) and to the 115-grain
Silvertip.

>>Personally, I'd say taking on gunmen who had an assault rifle and a
>>shotgun with pistols was to blame - smacks of bringing a knife to a
>
> Hind sight is fifty fifty. Intell indicated nothing other than a couple
>sidearms and the shotgun.

Different perspectives, I guess - from over here it seemed the two Miami
robbers were known to be heavily armed.

> And I WILL go up against someone with a shotgun while armed with a
>pistol.

I'd only do it if I didn't have an alternative. Too much infantry work - I
can't shake the idea that pistols are for policemen, undercover work and
recreational shooting; shotguns are for hunting ducks; and you do your
real work with a rifle. If you're expecting a _real_ fight, bring a L7 GPMG
(the US now uses the same weapon as the M240) and someone else to
carry the extra ammo and a spare barrel.

> I'm as fast and accurate a any of the federal agents (FBI, DEA, DOE and
>Border) and special operations personnel (Army Rangers, Special Forces
>("Green Berets"), Navy SEALs, Air Force Combat Controllers and
>Pararescuers, and Marine Force Recon) I've shot against on ranges, and have
>lot of the same mindset, though.

I'll take your word for it :) Only ever shot pistol once in the Army. (Got
pretty good with a rifle, though) Handguns were almost totally
recreational shooting for me.

>>More .38 Supers than .45s, even one .45/.357, but they
>>were _nice_ to handle and shoot.
>
> Almost all the Para's I've seen were in .45ACP.

Back then, you could load a .38 Super to make Major classification: and
you could put nineteen in a double-stack Para-Ordnance frame as opposed
to fourteen .45s. Slimmer grip, too: never bothered me, but others said
there was a difference.

Also, apparently, the .38 Super kicked less and was more effective when
shot through a compensator: I didn't fire any of those raceguns enough to
have strong opinions beyond "damn, I wish I could afford one of these..."

>I'd love to see one in
>.45/.357 (one of my pet loads- glad to know I'm not the only person who
>uses it still), that would be great.

That particular example's been melted down now, sadly :( But it was an
interesting calibre. Pleasant to shoot, lively but not harsh, fearsome
muzzle velocity, fourteen-round magazine, I was impressed.

>>Spot on. A long, spitzer steel penetrator in a cupronickel-jacketed lead
>>'bucket', with a Teflon liner to allow the penetrator and 'bucket' to
>
> Paul, I bet you already know this, but for the great uninitiated, Tefrlon
>DOES NOT improve armour penetration. It stops the steel projectile from
>chewing holes in your barrel.

Yep. In this case, the PTFE in the Gyurza round is between the penetrator
and its sleeve, to make them seperate cleanly and easily, and that's all.

>>6" or so, in a Desert Eagle automatic. She had no problem with a S&W
>
> I'm willing to bet that the grip was too big, becuase ever description
>I've heard of an Eagle's recoil is that the .44 is about on par with a
>stiff .357 or Colt Lightweight Commander fired with full powered loads.
>Stiff, but not too bad.

Hazel had some interesting opinions on pistols. She really disliked 9mm -
the recoil was "too sharp". My own fairly warm .45 handloads were no
problem in either my Smith or the Glock, and she liked other .45s too,
even in revolvers (several wheelgun devotees with S&W 625s)

The Desert Eagle was (a) too big for her hands, she took that for granted
- but wasn't going to pass up shooting one at least once :) but (b) had too
much recoil overall; it wasn't harsh or unpleasant, there was just too much
momentum coming back at her to feel safe or comfortable. And, being a
competent shooter, she wasn't happy with any weapon she couldn't fully
control.


I loved it, personally :)

>>No more pistol shooting for us. None. Nada. Zip. Glock 21 #VA799 is
>>melted down and is holding together some motorway bridge now.
>
> If you had emigrated, could have brought your metal children out with
>you?

Probably. Trouble is, I work in a fairly specific field (underwater warfare)
in which security clearance is essential and all the important information is
stamped UK EYES ONLY or NOFORN or other things that would stop me
getting a comparable job in the US.

> Leaving ones homeland is never easy, I know, but I also look at shooting
>differently than most folks.

Maybe one day the legislature will see sense. (Shyeah, right...). Or maybe
I'll be hired to do systems engineering on the next Boeing wide-body
airliner or some other non-defence job in the US, in which case we find
out whether resident aliens can own firearms :)


>>But it was a wonderfully entertaining gun to handle and shoot, and since I
>>was only blowing holes in paper for fun, wasn't that sort of the point?
>
> Well, I know a guy who hunts with one. Never taken a deer at anything
>further than 10 feet with it, either.

Now that's skilful. Not the shooting, the stalking. New Forest deer are
cautious and jumpy as hell, and the biggest danger they face is being
force-fed chocolate by overfriendly tourists. Getting _that_ close to a deer
in an area where hunting's legal takes _talent_.

(I've got a SR character who hunts deer with his spurs. He's _good_, a
half-blood Sioux with years of experience of the hunt and the stalk. He
also still doesn't take many deer.)

>>What about .41 Action Express? ;)
>
> .40SW range only, in my experince. The big deal was that (a) the .40SW
>wasn't born yet, and it had the rebated rim, so that 9mms only needed a new
>barrel and magazine.

About what I heard. I think IMI still offer Jerichos (Baby Eagles?) in the
calibre, but it seemed to die a death between the .40 and the 9mm.

>>And just _where_ does a high-velocity 5.7mm spitzer bullet fit into the
>>conventional wisdom? After all, maybe some revolution in ballistics
>
> I consider it and the guns it designed for to be freaky children who's
>parrents and clan have yet to be determined yet, that is wear they fit.
>Still, if FN ever to find a needs a foster parent.... <g>

I always like an honest man :)

>>One point - since most of our police don't carry firearms, the armed units
>>now generally carry H&K MP-5s. Semi-auto only, I believe, but it gives a
>
> I think something in one of your laws forbids cops from having automatic
>weapons.

Nope, we've had police officers with 5.56mm HK33s up in some of the
nastier areas of Strathclyde (for a while there were some East European
AKs that had been meant for Northern Ireland drifting around)

> However, you don't have the Posse Comitatus Law, so you can call
>in the mlitary much more easily.

Princess Gate, 1981, for instance (the Iranian Embassy siege)


>>Britain is the Browning High-Power (the Army's issue sidearm) - back when
>
> Love my P35s. I might own more 1911s and Smiths, but when I head for
>the
>door, there is Browing on me somewhere. Fits the hand, never complains,
>accurate (with a few touch ups), and you can get parts anywhere in the world.

Reliable, reliable, reliable. Our shooting club had a Browning High-Power.
It ate over a quarter of a million NATO-spec 9mm rounds (115 grains at
~1300fps) before it finally started to show a hairline slide crack.

Naturally we replaced it... with another Browning. I made sure my FAC
had a 9mm slot on it, and that would one day have been a GP35.

>>Kind of a leap of faith. It's been around for a _long_ time, it's got a
>>_huge_ user base (think of all those SMGs chambered for it, even if US
>
> Third world, yes, and for a lot of nestoliga shooters. But folks who are
>on the "cutting edge" will probably be using something bigger.

If I'm a soldier, rentacop or policeman acting with the backing of law,
being cutting-edge is good.

If I'm a criminal, I want to be using the most common, unremarkable,
untraceable weapon going. I do _not_ want some cop frisking me,
noticing my .408 Caseless sidearm, and remembering while he looks at my
permit that there have been nine or ten unsolved shootings by such a
weapon and that I'm a decent match for the description of the shooter...

>>from being shot with a .22 or .25? Unless their assailant was a real
>
> I've been hit with a .22 before. (My bad.) I didn;t realise that I had
>actually hit my foot (no half-witty comments, please) until I could feel
>something wet.

There's exceptions to every rule :) I've heard the story of the man shot in
the chest with a .25 who only realised he was wounded when the police
officer pointed to the bloodstain, too... but there are plenty of graves for
people hit by those wimpy little rounds.


>>marksman, they should have just ignored the gunfire. You could _sleep_
>>through being shot by a .22 under these assumptions...
>
> I've yet to find a fast AND accurate method of dealing with damage in any
>game system.

Yeah. But if there was one, there'd be less for enthusiasts to bitch about
:)


>>And, again, who's to say you'll always be superior? And if you're so
>>superior, why are you nickel-and-dimeing criminal jobs on the street?
>
> Becuase our runners are better than most folks.

Again - if you're so good, how come you're street criminals? :)

> I also was discussing myself. I am better than 99.999% of the world's
>overpopulation. (I also have a bigger ego then most folks, but it is
>getting better.)

I'd say I was above 99% of the UK for combat skills, but then that's not
saying too much...

>>Making firearms combat realistic means your turnover of player characters
>>becomes alarmingly rapid, IMHO.
>
> That is my other argueement against realistic damage systems. All I try
>to do is make it similiar to what we know. My old gaming group from high
>school is almost all military personnel now, and I know that they would
>practically lynch me if I tried to tell them that a heavy pistol is more
>powerful than a light automatic rifle or an SMG. Although an SMG in a
>.44Mag-equivelency would impress the hell of out of some of 'em, and cause
>excessive salivation int eh rest.

Yeah. Different perspectives. You want the system to at least fit a logical
sequence. I want it to be playable and to fit our own particular cinematic
mould.

As long as we're both having fun with the game, we're both right.

>>a L1A1 SLR with a SUSAT scope, but then that's what I did most of my
>
> I like the trigger on the G-3 better, especially in the K varient with the
>Navy trigger group and a fixed stock, topped with irons with tritium
>inserts and a Tasco armoured 3-9x40mm on the claw mount.

Ah, the G3K... handled one (scoped - H&K's own x4) but never fired it. I
_liked_ that weapon, but I don't know it the way I do the L1A1. Carried a
SLR around for too long, I suppose.

>A little heavier,
>but that helps with the bursts,

Was never personally convinced about automatic fire from a 7.62mm,
personally. I can get ~300 rounds a minute off (well, a full magazine in
less than four seconds) in panic fire using semi-auto, that's enough for
anyone :)

>shorter, and better sights. I also like
>the short selection lever range better.

L1A1 doesn't have that problem - just 'safe' and 'fire'. Some miss full-auto,
I never did - the British Army seriously believes in rapid aimed single shots.
Even the L85A1 is carried and used in semi-auto almost exclusively: it
_has_ full-auto, but it's very rarely used.

> The SUSAT is too powerful for close up work.

Which is why it's got backup iron sights on top :) Been there, done that. If
all else fails at close range, secure the muzzle to the enemy with your
bayonet before firing...

>Issued to a handful of
>troops, in mix with irons or somthing like a red dot, OK, escpecially if it
>is on a see-though mount so you can use the irons. But total issuance of
>the 4x scope, not so good, especially whan the iron sights aren't really
>handy. Glass breaks when you can least afford it.

The only broken SUSAT I ever saw was on a rifle that got run over by a
Warrior IFV. It's a very tough piece of kit.

Again, I got used to it. No need for tritium irons, the aiming pointer in
the SUSAT's illuminated, and it gathers light well on a moonless night. The
only time the SUSAT failed me, it was such a dark, rainy night that even
the two IWS (generation-I image intensifiers) we had saw nothing. We
could _hear_ the Blue Force patrol less than a hundred yards away, but
nobody could see a damn thing.

So we loosed off a few magazines in their general direction anyway :) No
real chance of hitting (even if we'd been using live instead of blank) but
_they_ didn't know that... they returned fire and bugged out hastily. At
least it screwed up their patrol route.

>>Try the H&K G36, then. Never had a chance to fire it, but its ergonomics
>
> Never handled one, but I've read the descriptions on the sights. Doesn't
>sound Kevin-proof.

Seemed pretty robust while I was handling it. (Tougher than a L85A1,
didn't compare badly to the G3s)

> It also hasn't been proven yet. I usually prefeer designs that have had
>been baptised.

Wait a few days - the German troops in Kosovo are carrying it. Spain just
scrapped a load of CETME rifles to buy the G36 too.

>>Everything except the ejection port's ambidextrous, too.
>
> A usuful feature, but not always needed. And I'm a lefty.

I gathered. You might not like the L85A1, then - can't be shot left-
handed.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 87
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:50:14 -0700
Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <3.0.3.32.19990617224519.007f64f0@***.softhome.net>,
> IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes

<snippy>

> Maybe one day the legislature will see sense. (Shyeah, right...). Or maybe
> I'll be hired to do systems engineering on the next Boeing wide-body
> airliner or some other non-defence job in the US, in which case we find
> out whether resident aliens can own firearms :)

They can.:)

<snip s'more>

> > Well, I know a guy who hunts with one. Never taken a deer at anything
> >further than 10 feet with it, either.
>
> Now that's skilful. Not the shooting, the stalking. New Forest deer are
> cautious and jumpy as hell, and the biggest danger they face is being
> force-fed chocolate by overfriendly tourists. Getting _that_ close to a deer
> in an area where hunting's legal takes _talent_.
>
> (I've got a SR character who hunts deer with his spurs. He's _good_, a
> half-blood Sioux with years of experience of the hunt and the stalk. He
> also still doesn't take many deer.)

Are you kidding? Here in NJ, that's common shooting range against deer. And we have a
BIG and FREQUENT hunting season (the deer around here breed like RABBITS!)...I knew a
friend of mine when I was younger who's dad had walked up behind a deer and shot him
down with a normal *pistol* (a M1911A1 to be exact), by getting close enough to put
the weapon *against* the deer. Deer can be remarkably stupid. I laughed when I saw the
video tape. (BTW, we're in an interesting situation here....the deer overpopulation
got bad enough last fall that they had a BOUNTY out on deer for about 3 weeks. $200
per deer...max of 2 deer (sustaining the old limit). 100 permits issued (Not possible
to scalp. Photo ID type. Digital too.)....The deer have finally reached normal levels
for once.)
<snip>

>>One point - since most of our police don't carry firearms, the armed units

> >>now generally carry H&K MP-5s. Semi-auto only, I believe, but it gives a
> >
> > I think something in one of your laws forbids cops from having automatic
> >weapons.
>
> Nope, we've had police officers with 5.56mm HK33s up in some of the
> nastier areas of Strathclyde (for a while there were some East European
> AKs that had been meant for Northern Ireland drifting around)
>
> > However, you don't have the Posse Comitatus Law, so you can call
> >in the mlitary much more easily.
>
> Princess Gate, 1981, for instance (the Iranian Embassy siege)
>

I think in that case Posse Comitatus would be ignored, as it technically isn't US
property, it's whatever-nation's-embassy-it-is property...besides, Posse Comitatus is
something many soldiers often take to extremes...keeping a HUGE distance. It doesn't
ban military assistance to law enforcement too much. Just military acting as judge and
jury, really, IIRC.

JP
Message no. 88
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:21:01 -0400
Paul--

>airliner or some other non-defence job in the US, in which case we
>find out whether resident aliens can own firearms :)

The answer is yes, resident aliens can own firearms here in
the USA. <g>

Shadowmage

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Heavy Pistols TOO heavy?, 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!