Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Hal Mangold <hmangold@*******.AC.RUNET.EDU>
Subject: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:22:27 EDT
not much to say other than its out, I have a copy, and so far its pretty
cool.

Savage Henry
Message no. 2
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 17:04:02 -0500
> not much to say other than its out, I have a copy, and so far its
> pretty cool.

You know, I'm getting annoyed at this...

For some reason, our bookstores haven't gotten anything new lately,
and if they did I couldn't afford it (argh!)

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 3
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 23:10:01 -0700
On Sat, 4 Jun 1994, Hal Mangold wrote:

> not much to say other than its out, I have a copy, and so far its pretty
> cool.
>
> Savage Henry
>
I also have a copy, stayed up all night last night reading it. It is
better than cool, it's frosted! It also made my points about sexism and
racism real well too. Lone Star is very racist (but slowly <glacially>
changing) and they have also just recently started to admit women. Again
finally!

They are really a lot like the real police, and that isn't a compliment
to the enFORCEment people. I'm already getting milage out of it. They
'do' have a set of laws pertaining to the registration of mages, and they
aren't having a lot of luck registering the street types either. But
they are sure trying (Both ways). :)

Neat book, Findley did real well on this one and on Corporate
Shadowfiles. Looks like FASA finally found something he can do right.

It get's a '10' from me. If you GM SRII, you need this book.

Ivy
Message no. 4
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:58:51 -0400
Ok, I finished reading mine last night, and I've only got three complaints
with it :).

1. Legal protection of electronic mail. Right now this is going through the
US court system. Within a couple of years e-mail will somehow be placed
under the same protections as other forms of communications. There may
be certain requirements of the carriers (ie, some kind of license for
carriers), but it will happen, soon.

2. Secure cellular communications. The current FCC rulings are that any
citizen can legally recieve any legally broadcast signal, and that you
cannot broadcast encrypted (the first regulation is what lets you use a
VCR or radar detector). The first ruling isn't likely to change, but the
cellular companies are right now pushing for the allowance of secure
encryption for cellular communications. Again, it's going to happen in
the next few years.

3. The Thunderbolt heavy pistol. A 1500 rounds per /second/ cyclic is just
mechanically not feasable for an action based on conventional recievers
(which is what is described), from a variety of points. Here are a
couple:

* The feeder mechanism (reciever) just won't be able to feed ammunition
fast enough, even for just the 3-round burst. You figure the math: how
fast does the third round have to move from the clip to the chamber,
assuming a 2.5cm total distance (approximate) over roughly 1/1000 of a
second (I get about 90 kilometers per hour). Or, assuming that you
could feed that fast, the energy of that motion would rip the weapon
out of your grip!
* If you open the firing chamber to feed a new round or ejecting a spent
casing before the previous round has exiteded the barrel, you will be
releasing propellant gasses back into the mechanism, reducing energy
imparted to the current projectile. Not to mention venting hot gasses
into the clip area (really bad with caseless ammo!).

Using multiple in-line projectiles is not only much more feasable, it's
safer.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "I have one prejudice, and that is
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | against stupidity. Use your mind,
this space intentionally left blank | think!" --Zoner <megazone@***.wpi.edu>
Message no. 5
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 11:49:45 -0400
On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Ok, I finished reading mine last night, and I've only got three complaints
> with it :).
. . .
> 2. Secure cellular communications. The current FCC rulings are that any
> citizen can legally recieve any legally broadcast signal, and that you
> cannot broadcast encrypted (the first regulation is what lets you use a
> VCR or radar detector). The first ruling isn't likely to change, but the
> cellular companies are right now pushing for the allowance of secure
> encryption for cellular communications. Again, it's going to happen in
> the next few years.

Of course, the military commonly scrambles their communications,
especially in the military bandwidth (which, so I'm told, is rarely used
in most parts of the country.) So, the technology exists and has been
tested in various applications.
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:27:38 -0400
>>>>> "Jai" == Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM> writes:

Jai> Of course, the military commonly scrambles their
Jai> communications, especially in the military bandwidth (which, so I'm
Jai> told, is rarely used in most parts of the country.) So, the
Jai> technology exists and has been tested in various applications.

The tech has existed for several years; it's the legal restrictions that
need to be dealt with.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "Character is what you are in the
dark."
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | --Lord John Whorfin
Message no. 7
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 16:13:57 -0700
On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Jai Tao wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> > Ok, I finished reading mine last night, and I've only got three complaints
> > with it :).
> . . .
> > 2. Secure cellular communications. The current FCC rulings are that any
> > citizen can legally recieve any legally broadcast signal, and that you
>
> Of course, the military commonly scrambles their communications,
> especially in the military bandwidth (which, so I'm told, is rarely used
> in most parts of the country.) So, the technology exists and has been
> tested in various applications.
>
I can say, from personal experience, that the military was using voice
encryption before 1964.

Ivy
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 13:52:00 +0200
> 1. Legal protection of electronic mail. Right now this is going through
> the US court system. Within a couple of years e-mail will somehow be
> placed under the same protections as other forms of communications.
> There may be certain requirements of the carriers (ie, some kind of
> license for carriers), but it will happen, soon.

Does this mean that e-mail is getting regulated by laws and stuff?

> 3. The Thunderbolt heavy pistol. A 1500 rounds per /second/ cyclic is
> just mechanically not feasable for an action based on conventional
> recievers (which is what is described), from a variety of points. Here
> are a couple:

> * The feeder mechanism (reciever) just won't be able to feed
> ammunition fast enough, even for just the 3-round burst. You figure
> the math: how fast does the third round have to move from the clip
> to the chamber, assuming a 2.5cm total distance (approximate) over
> roughly 1/1000 of a second (I get about 90 kilometers per hour). Or,
> assuming that you could feed that fast, the energy of that motion
> would rip the weapon out of your grip!

I'm not trying to open a new weapons discussion, but it can be done, but
only with caseless ammo. The German G11 caseless assault rifle fires
3-round bursts at 2000rpm. The whole mechanism, including magazine,
barrel, and chamber, recoils with each round, and only comes to a stop
when the third round has been fired. This means you only get to feel one
recoil, from all three rounds at once. How this could be incorporated in
a pistol (with the clip in the grip, I suppose), is beyond me.

> Not to mention
> venting hot gasses into the clip area (really bad with caseless
> ammo!).

KABOOM!

> Using multiple in-line projectiles is not only much more feasable,
> it's safer.

The moral of the story: use duplex or triplex ammo in a conventional
(non-caseless) weapon.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + I'm buried up to my neck in +
+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + contradictionary flies +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message no. 9
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 10:10:30 -0400
>>>>> "Gurth" == Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
writes:

>> 1. Legal protection of electronic mail.

Gurth> Does this mean that e-mail is getting regulated by laws and stuff?

No more than a letter carried by the US Postal Service.

>> 3. The Thunderbolt heavy pistol.[...]
Gurth> I'm not trying to open a new weapons discussion, but it can be done,
Gurth> but only with caseless ammo. The German G11 caseless assault rifle
Gurth> fires 3-round bursts at 2000rpm.

That's 2000 rounds per MINUTE, not 1500 rounds per SECOND. And /that/ is
the impossibility.

>> Not to mention venting hot gasses into the clip area (really bad with
>> caseless ammo!).
Gurth> KABOOM!

Exactly. People have lost fingers from handguns accidentally ganfiring
their clips due to blowback into the clip.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | ...kcab nrut ,kcab nrut ,kcab nruT .ton
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | si emit tub elbisrever si cisum ehT "hgiH
this space intentionally left blank | nO eriF" ,OLE--
Message no. 10
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 09:39:32 -0700
On Wed, 8 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Gurth" == Gurth
<jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL> writes:
> >> 3. The Thunderbolt heavy pistol.[...]
> Gurth> I'm not trying to open a new weapons discussion, but it can be done,
> Gurth> but only with caseless ammo. The German G11 caseless assault rifle
> Gurth> fires 3-round bursts at 2000rpm.
>
> That's 2000 rounds per MINUTE, not 1500 rounds per SECOND. And /that/ is
> the impossibility.

Yes, you're correct, Rat ol' man. But, at 2,000 rounds per minute all
three rounds clear the barrel before any recoil is felt. I think that
the "Rounds per second" was a small typo, that they really meant rounds
per minute.

>
> >> Not to mention venting hot gasses into the clip area (really bad with
> >> caseless ammo!).
> Gurth> KABOOM!
>
> Exactly. People have lost fingers from handguns accidentally ganfiring
> their clips due to blowback into the clip.

Please guys, it's a magazine, not a clip. The last weapons to use
"clips" were the M-1 Garand and the Lee-Enfield Mk VII*A in any kind of
service.

> --
> Rat

Ivy
Message no. 11
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 13:50:12 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

Ivy> Yes, you're correct, Rat ol' man. But, at 2,000 rounds per minute all
Ivy> three rounds clear the barrel before any recoil is felt. I think that
Ivy> the "Rounds per second" was a small typo, that they really meant
Ivy> rounds per minute.

Even at 2000 rpm you're still going to get some recoil on the second and
third rounds. This is according to people I know who've actually fired the
G-11.

[...]

>> Exactly. People have lost fingers from handguns accidentally ganfiring
>> their clips due to blowback into the clip.

Ivy> Please guys, it's a magazine, not a clip. The last weapons to use
Ivy> "clips" were the M-1 Garand and the Lee-Enfield Mk VII*A in any kind
Ivy> of service.

"Clip" is a short form for the term "box clip" which is just one kind
of
magazine. A magazine is a generic term for ammunition storage.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "...and I didn't even need pants!"
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | --Dilbert [Scott Adams]
Message no. 12
From: Hal Mangold <hmangold@*******.AC.RUNET.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook (fwd)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 14:06:16 EDT
> >>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:
>
> Ivy> Yes, you're correct, Rat ol' man. But, at 2,000 rounds per minute all
> Ivy> three rounds clear the barrel before any recoil is felt. I think that
> Ivy> the "Rounds per second" was a small typo, that they really meant
> Ivy> rounds per minute.
>
> Even at 2000 rpm you're still going to get some recoil on the second and
> third rounds. This is according to people I know who've actually fired the
> G-11.
>
> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "...and I didn't even need
pants!"
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | --Dilbert [Scott Adams]

Bottom line, folks. This weapon was included to make Lone Star a bit more
of a threat. Also, the game takes place 50 years in the future. Who's to
say they can't build a weapon like this? For gods sake, they have vehicle
mounted laser cannons and morph seeking weapons...

Savage Henry
Hal Mangold
hmangold@*******.ac.runet.edu
SvgeHenry@***.com
Message no. 13
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook (fwd)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 14:25:24 -0400
>>>>> "Hal" == Hal Mangold <hmangold@*******.AC.RUNET.EDU>
writes:

Hal> Bottom line, folks. This weapon was included to make Lone Star a bit
Hal> more of a threat. Also, the game takes place 50 years in the future.
Hal> Who's to say they can't build a weapon like this? For gods sake, they
Hal> have vehicle mounted laser cannons and morph seeking weapons...

I made myself quite clear as to the mechanical reasons why such a weapon
won't work. FASA has a history of screwing up big-time when it comes to
firearms simply because they're totally ignorant of them.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "Drop a chicken!" --Xuxa
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
Message no. 14
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook (fwd)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 17:50:54 -0500
Vehicle-mounted laser weaponry *is not that far off*. I've played with Class
IV lasers before that will go through steel plating a good three inches thick:
a bit more power, and we're talking light cruiser armor plating. The government
has toys we civilians will not hear about for _years_ - I think Ivy could
probably back me up on this - and some we'll never hear about.

As for morph-seeking weapons, that can be explained by some sort of tracking
and recognition systems.
Message no. 15
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 15:08:38 -0700
On Wed, 8 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:
>
> Ivy> Yes, you're correct, Rat ol' man. But, at 2,000 rounds per minute all
> Ivy> three rounds clear the barrel before any recoil is felt. I think that
> Ivy> the "Rounds per second" was a small typo, that they really meant
> Ivy> rounds per minute.
>
> Even at 2000 rpm you're still going to get some recoil on the second and
> third rounds. This is according to people I know who've actually fired the
> G-11.

Never fired the G-11, Have fired the MG-42/MG-1 and at 1200 rpm a three
round burst is gone so fast the muzzle never gets a chance to move. I've
also fired the Colt Scamp, about a .22 Hornet that was designed to fire
three round bursts only, at 2200rpm. Worked fine. The G-11 is light,
and firing a load maybe too strong? Or maybe your friends weren't
looking at the target. I have seen the targets from a G-11 firing
bursts. The three bullets are in a triangular pattern, not a line which
they would be if recoil was a problem.

>
> [...]
>
> >> Exactly. People have lost fingers from handguns accidentally ganfiring
> >> their clips due to blowback into the clip.
>
> Ivy> Please guys, it's a magazine, not a clip. The last weapons to use
> Ivy> "clips" were the M-1 Garand and the Lee-Enfield Mk VII*A in any
kind
> Ivy> of service.
>
> "Clip" is a short form for the term "box clip" which is just one
kind of
> magazine. A magazine is a generic term for ammunition storage.
>
A "Box Clip" was a term that went out of style before I was born. The
proper term is "detachable box magazine". ;) Believe it or not.


> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "...and I didn't even need
pants!"
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | --Dilbert [Scott Adams]
>
Ivy
Message no. 16
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook (fwd)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 06:38:32 -0700
On Wed, 8 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:

> Vehicle-mounted laser weaponry *is not that far off*. I've played with Class
> IV lasers before that will go through steel plating a good three inches thick:
> a bit more power, and we're talking light cruiser armor plating. The government
> has toys we civilians will not hear about for _years_ - I think Ivy could
> probably back me up on this - and some we'll never hear about.

Vehicle mounted Lasers? Well, at my last information the answer has to
be yes, but. Yes they do mount them on M-113s (actually should be 'did')
but, they had a power umbilical back to the generator. 2nd but, this was
before the sodium batteries too. I do know that they had some success
with lasers against missiles too.

> As for morph-seeking weapons, that can be explained by some sort of tracking
> and recognition systems.
>
Anybody remember the Bertilon method of identifying criminals? Dates
from the 1800s. It isn't as accurate as fingerprints but it can work as
far as the character can be seen.

Ivy
Message no. 17
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:45:43 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

Ivy> Never fired the G-11, Have fired the MG-42/MG-1 and at 1200 rpm a three
Ivy> round burst is gone so fast the muzzle never gets a chance to move. I've
Ivy> also fired the Colt Scamp, about a .22 Hornet that was designed to fire
Ivy> three round bursts only, at 2200rpm.

Dunnow about the MG-42, but the .22LR and Hornet are listed as /hypersonic/
rounds, not just supersonic. So just for that the bullets are out the
barrel really fast. There are a few other rounds that can match this, and
none of them are standard.

Ivy> Worked fine. The G-11 is light, and firing a load maybe too strong?

Possibly; the G-11 is a light rifle, and he was firing one of the earlier
versions.

Ivy> Or maybe your friends weren't looking at the target.

Yeah, they were :).

Ivy> I have seen the targets from a G-11 firing bursts. The three bullets
Ivy> are in a triangular pattern, not a line which they would be if recoil
Ivy> was a problem.

He was going mostly by feel, and he was feeling the kick. Not bad, but it
was there, and it did occasionally mess him up.

Not put that kind of recoil onto a heavy pistol without a stock :).

[...]
Ivy> A "Box Clip" was a term that went out of style before I was born. The
Ivy> proper term is "detachable box magazine". ;) Believe it or not.

Obviously "box clip" hasn't gone out of common usage, even though it's gone
out of military usage :). Say "detachable box magazine" and people look at
you funny; say "clip" and they know exactly what you mean.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the making
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
Message no. 18
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook (fwd)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:47:53 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

Ivy> Vehicle mounted Lasers? Well, at my last information the answer has
Ivy> to be yes, but. Yes they do mount them on M-113s (actually should be
Ivy> 'did') but, they had a power umbilical back to the generator. 2nd
Ivy> but, this was before the sodium batteries too. I do know that they
Ivy> had some success with lasers against missiles too.

Actually, as of a couple of days ago the USAF has put out some research
contracts for laser-based airborne anti-missile system development.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | There are very few personal problems
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | which cannot be solved with a suitable
this space intentionally left blank | application of high explosives.
Message no. 19
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:17:12 -0700
On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:
>
> Ivy> Never fired the G-11, Have fired the MG-42/MG-1 and at 1200 rpm a three
> Ivy> round burst is gone so fast the muzzle never gets a chance to move. I've
>
> Dunnow about the MG-42, but the .22LR and Hornet are listed as /hypersonic/
> rounds, not just supersonic. So just for that the bullets are out the
> barrel really fast. There are a few other rounds that can match this, and
> none of them are standard.

Rat, could you tell me how the .22LR, at 1300 to 1600 feet per second, or
the .22 hornet at 2100 feet per second got into the "hypervelocity"
crowd? From what I have been able to gather "hypervelocity" starts at
over 1000 meters per second (3300 feet per second). Real difference in
performance there. In fact, the .220 Swift barely gets into that
performance envelope and NO normal cartridge does.

>
> Ivy> Worked fine. The G-11 is light, and firing a load maybe too strong?
>
> Possibly; the G-11 is a light rifle, and he was firing one of the earlier
> versions.
>
> Ivy> Or maybe your friends weren't looking at the target.
>
> Yeah, they were :).
>
> Ivy> I have seen the targets from a G-11 firing bursts. The three bullets
> Ivy> are in a triangular pattern, not a line which they would be if recoil
> Ivy> was a problem.
>
> He was going mostly by feel, and he was feeling the kick. Not bad, but it
> was there, and it did occasionally mess him up.

Well, lets put it simply. Tested out of a Ransome rest the weapon
doesn't recoil. Therefore it has to be personal error on the part of the
shooter.

> Not put that kind of recoil onto a heavy pistol without a stock :).
>

Check out Jane's Military weapons for a good example. Chopper posted it
yesterday so you might be able to find it here too.

> [...]
> Ivy> A "Box Clip" was a term that went out of style before I was born.
The
> Ivy> proper term is "detachable box magazine". ;) Believe it or not.
>
> Obviously "box clip" hasn't gone out of common usage, even though it's gone
> out of military usage :). Say "detachable box magazine" and people look at
> you funny; say "clip" and they know exactly what you mean.

Well, I am used to talking with people who are firearms professionals.
And the professionals would, and have, broken up laughing at people who
refer to "clips" of any kind if they aren't talking about the very few
weapons that used them. And, I'm trying to advance your education. If a
person wants to talk weapons, they should know, and use, the proper terms
for the parts. ;)

The ignorant will always look at a person "funny" if they use the correct
terms. The ignorant don't know what those terms are you see.

> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the making
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
>
Ivy
Message no. 20
From: Marcel Emami <rab@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-MANNHEIM.DE>
Subject: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:01:29 MSZ
The Lone Star Source Book is out in Germany too. It's great jusr as I
expectet the Lone Star as an faschism Texas Ranger Corporation
only Toto is missin *grin*

RAB
GM/GO -d+(---) -P+(---) c+(+++) l u e+ m+ s /- n+ h+ f+ g++ w+ t-- r++ y++

rab@***.informatik.uni-mannheim.de
Message no. 21
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:02:42 +0100
>
> > Not put that kind of recoil onto a heavy pistol without a stock :).
> >
>
> Check out Jane's Military weapons for a good example. Chopper posted it
> yesterday so you might be able to find it here too.
>
> > [...]
> > Ivy> A "Box Clip" was a term that went out of style before I was
born. The
> > Ivy> proper term is "detachable box magazine". ;) Believe it or
not.
> >
> > Obviously "box clip" hasn't gone out of common usage, even though it's
gone
> > out of military usage :). Say "detachable box magazine" and people
look at
> > you funny; say "clip" and they know exactly what you mean.
>
> Well, I am used to talking with people who are firearms professionals.
> And the professionals would, and have, broken up laughing at people who
> refer to "clips" of any kind if they aren't talking about the very few
> weapons that used them. And, I'm trying to advance your education. If a
> person wants to talk weapons, they should know, and use, the proper terms
> for the parts. ;)
>
> The ignorant will always look at a person "funny" if they use the correct
> terms. The ignorant don't know what those terms are you see.
>
> > --
> > Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the
making
> > http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
> >
> Ivy
>

CHOPPER
Expert liar and captain of the ill fated 1958 Everest
Expidition
Message no. 22
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:08:17 +0100
> > Not put that kind of recoil onto a heavy pistol without a stock :).
> >
>
> Check out Jane's Military weapons for a good example. Chopper posted it
> yesterday so you might be able to find it here too.
>
> > [...]
> > Ivy> A "Box Clip" was a term that went out of style before I was
born. The
> > Ivy> proper term is "detachable box magazine". ;) Believe it or
not.
> >
> > Obviously "box clip" hasn't gone out of common usage, even though it's
gone
> > out of military usage :). Say "detachable box magazine" and people
look at
> > you funny; say "clip" and they know exactly what you mean.
>
> Well, I am used to talking with people who are firearms professionals.
> And the professionals would, and have, broken up laughing at people who
> refer to "clips" of any kind if they aren't talking about the very few
> weapons that used them. And, I'm trying to advance your education. If a
> person wants to talk weapons, they should know, and use, the proper terms
> for the parts. ;)
>
> The ignorant will always look at a person "funny" if they use the correct
> terms. The ignorant don't know what those terms are you see.
<CHOP> when i started GM'ing cyberpunk genre ganes i did a
little homework...looked through Janes infantry weapons, read a
friends copy of 'TWILIGHT 2000' and got a few library books...
ALL YOU NEED ARE THE BUZZWORDS...i started with little idea
about how guns worked ,except by throwing lead by explosion, but
with a few technical terms you can SOUND like you know what you
are talking about, and that makes the game smoother.
Clumsy, incoherent GMing just gums everything up..


> > --
> > Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the
making
> > http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
> >
> Ivy
>
CHOPPER
appologys cos some fool posted my message for me before i'd
finished it...
Message no. 23
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 09:20:00 -0500
What exactly _is_ the difference between hypersonic and supersonic rounds? I
was under the impression that all rifle rounds were supersonic, or at least the
vast majority of them. In fact, I've been wondering how many fps is supersonic.

---------------------
Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
"Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
Message no. 24
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:25:58 +0100
>
> What exactly _is_ the difference between hypersonic and supersonic rounds? I
> was under the impression that all rifle rounds were supersonic, or at least
the
> vast majority of them. In fact, I've been wondering how many fps is
supersonic.
>
> ---------------------
> Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
> "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
<CHOP>
Almost all rounds are over 330mps <speed of sound i think> and
so are supersonic... you have to go out of your way to get
subsonic rounds, usually used in suppressed weapons for minimum
noise signature.
Hypersonic? who knows...
CHOPPER
Still pondering....Abort<A> retry <R> fail <F>?
Message no. 25
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 09:34:13 -0500
How available are hypervelocity weapons, such as the .220 Swift?

---------------------
Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
"Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
Message no. 26
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:41:00 +0100
>
> How available are hypervelocity weapons, such as the .220 Swift?
>
> ---------------------
> Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
> "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
>
Its a 'Varmint' rifle , easily available at sporting shops (I
THINK)<disclaimer>

SWAT sniper teams sometimes use that sort of thing, cos the
round is light(no overpenetration) high velocity and has a very
flat trajectory

CHOPPER
Message no. 27
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:10:10 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

>> Dunnow about the MG-42, but the .22LR and Hornet are listed as /hypersonic/
>> rounds, not just supersonic. So just for that the bullets are out the
>> barrel really fast. There are a few other rounds that can match this, and
>> none of them are standard.

Ivy> Rat, could you tell me how the .22LR, at 1300 to 1600 feet per second,
Ivy> or the .22 hornet at 2100 feet per second got into the "hypervelocity"
Ivy> crowd? From what I have been able to gather "hypervelocity" starts at
Ivy> over 1000 meters per second (3300 feet per second). Real difference
Ivy> in performance there. In fact, the .220 Swift barely gets into that
Ivy> performance envelope and NO normal cartridge does.

Well, the definition of "hypersonic" isn't fixed. It is conveniently used
synonymously with Mach 5. But it really means a velocity at which air
starts acting differently than it does at supersonic speeds. I'm a bit
fuzzy on the details as aeronautics isn't one of my big things, but as
velocity increases air begins to act more and more like a liquid than a gas
(part of why the "sound barrier" exists), and the dynamic characteristics
can radically change (like what happened to the P-51Ds). Accelerate further
and air begins to act like a solid; that's the point where hypersonic
dynamics begin to take effect.

Anyway, there's a range near where I live, and it's a really sucky one at
that. You can't fire jacketed rounds at all, and you can only fire subsonic
rounds (this is an outdoor range, too!). Anyway, they classify the .22LR as
a hypersonic round.

Go figure.

[...]

Ivy> Well, lets put it simply. Tested out of a Ransome rest the weapon
Ivy> doesn't recoil. Therefore it has to be personal error on the part of
Ivy> the shooter.

I'll take your word for it.

Ivy> Well, I am used to talking with people who are firearms professionals.
Ivy> And the professionals would, and have, broken up laughing at people
Ivy> who refer to "clips" of any kind if they aren't talking about the very
Ivy> few weapons that used them. And, I'm trying to advance your
Ivy> education. If a person wants to talk weapons, they should know, and
Ivy> use, the proper terms for the parts. ;)

/I/ know that, and /you/ know that, but most of the people on the list
don't know that. Well... now they do :).

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the making
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
Message no. 28
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 12:46:45 -0500
So my 680-750fps is supersonic?

---------------------
Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
"Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
Message no. 29
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:24:34 -0700
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:

> How available are hypervelocity weapons, such as the .220 Swift?
>
> ---------------------
> Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
> "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
>
That depends on which state you live in, and which country. Out here in
Oregon all it takes is money. But, because they are mostly custom made,
it takes lots of money.
Ivy
Message no. 30
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:20:48 -0700
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:

> What exactly _is_ the difference between hypersonic and supersonic rounds? I
> was under the impression that all rifle rounds were supersonic, or at least the
> vast majority of them. In fact, I've been wondering how many fps is supersonic.

Supersonic = 1130 feet per second when you are talking firearms. Not
always exact, but it works.

Hypersonic = buzzword. The only references I've located on it since
yesterday, in my husband's and my library, have referred to "Anti-gun"
propaganda, not actual professional terms. Some of the anti-gun freaks
are talking that the .22 long rifle rim-fire is hypersonic, it has a
muzzle velocity oc around 1200 feet per second.

Someone on this list posted that "hypersonic" was anything over 1000
meters per second. If that is correct then almost all rounds currently
in production are NOT hypersonic. 1000 mps = 3280 fps. There probably
aren't a hundred different rounds on the planet that get into that range,
and most of those are home-made "wildcats".

The M-16A2 round, which I have read about as "hypersonic" actually clocks
at 2850 fps. Significantly short of velocity.

Ivy
Message no. 31
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 17:55:40 -0700
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:
>
> >> Dunnow about the MG-42, but the .22LR and Hornet are listed as /hypersonic/
> >> rounds, not just supersonic. So just for that the bullets are out the
>
> Ivy> Rat, could you tell me how the .22LR, at 1300 to 1600 feet per second,
> Ivy> or the .22 hornet at 2100 feet per second got into the
"hypervelocity"
>
> Well, the definition of "hypersonic" isn't fixed. It is conveniently used
> synonymously with Mach 5. But it really means a velocity at which air
> starts acting differently than it does at supersonic speeds. I'm a bit
> fuzzy on the details as aeronautics isn't one of my big things, but as
> velocity increases air begins to act more and more like a liquid than a gas
> (part of why the "sound barrier" exists), and the dynamic characteristics
> can radically change (like what happened to the P-51Ds). Accelerate further
> and air begins to act like a solid; that's the point where hypersonic
> dynamics begin to take effect.
>
> Anyway, there's a range near where I live, and it's a really sucky one at
> that. You can't fire jacketed rounds at all, and you can only fire subsonic
> rounds (this is an outdoor range, too!). Anyway, they classify the .22LR as
> a hypersonic round.
>
> Go figure.

Wow! I spent a few hours trying to get a solid definition of
"hypersonic" last night. Real work, considering our library. It may be
of interest that the only place I could find that term used was in the
HCI's anti-gun propaganda! I came to the conclusion that it was another
buzz-word they had come up with. Guess not, but it sure looked like it
from their garbage.

>
> [...]
>
> Ivy> Well, lets put it simply. Tested out of a Ransome rest the weapon
> Ivy> doesn't recoil. Therefore it has to be personal error on the part of
> Ivy> the shooter.
>
> I'll take your word for it.
>
I flat love the ransome rest. Takes all the guess work out of things. I
just wish I could afford one. And a range to use it on, too. Someday. . .

> Ivy> Well, I am used to talking with people who are firearms professionals.
> Ivy> And the professionals would, and have, broken up laughing at people
> Ivy> who refer to "clips" of any kind if they aren't talking about the
very
> Ivy> few weapons that used them. And, I'm trying to advance your
> Ivy> education. If a person wants to talk weapons, they should know, and
> Ivy> use, the proper terms for the parts. ;)
>
> /I/ know that, and /you/ know that, but most of the people on the list
> don't know that. Well... now they do :).
>

Hey, we educate them! People should learn things every day, and we
probably just made a couple of days worth with these exchanges.

> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the making
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
>
Thanks, Rat, I needed that info.

Ivy
Message no. 32
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:03:07 -0700
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:

> So my 680-750fps is supersonic?
>
> ---------------------
> Gian-Paolo Musumeci solstice@****.edu
> "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."
>
Not according to my sources. The standard "supersonic" speed for
firearms is 1130 fps. I remember hearing that at sea-level supersonic is
about 1100 fps so that's close enough.

Ivy
Message no. 33
From: "S.K. Khoo" <S.K.Khoo@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook (fwd)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 09:52:27 +0100
> Actually, as of a couple of days ago the USAF has put out some research
> contracts for laser-based airborne anti-missile system development.

Yeah, and unles the government is going to chuck out mega-loads of
cash, this is going to head the same way the SDI program went - laser anti-
missile weapons are just too expensive until they can develop a more efficient
power source.

Speaking of which, does any SR source book specifically mention
orbital lasers in existence ?
Message no. 34
From: Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject: Re: Lone Star Sourcebook - Reply
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 14:17:10 +0200
> Gurth> but only with caseless ammo. The German G11 caseless assault
> Gurth> rifle fires 3-round bursts at 2000rpm.

> That's 2000 rounds per MINUTE, not 1500 rounds per SECOND. And /that/
> is the impossibility.

Sorry, didn't read it all that well :) You're right. You can possibly reach
those kinds of speeds even with multi-barreled chain guns (150 rounds per
second should be reachable with 7 or 8 barrels, but that's about it, I
think).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + Remember what the doorknob said: +
+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + "Feed your head" +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message no. 35
From: "The Kumquat <smirk>" <CRF_BROWNJT@***.CUIS.EDU>
Subject: Lone Star Sourcebook
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 15:25:29 -0500
I just bought the Lone Star Sourcebook, and so far, (as much as I've
read),it's great. It details both the corporate and police aspects, power
structures, and give an in-depth history on the organization, as well as policy
and procedure. It also gives archetypes for sample Lone Star Cops, as well as
other types of LS Cop, Like the Police Mage, The Super-Cyber Cop, and the Lone
Star Rigger, and it gives new equipment which only Lone Star has access to.
Before I started reading this, the LS were either real wimps, or only used as a
plot device to make the characters leave a battle area. This sourcebook makes
them a force to be reckoned with.

Just My two Pence. (IS that in SI or Imperial?<smirk>)
The Kumquat

Support Whirled Peas.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Lone Star Sourcebook, 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!