Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:27:37 +0200
Hail Runners,

I got introduced to SR when I was younger due to a computergame on the SNES.
It was called shadowrun and it featured a samurai/decker/shaman who didn't
suffer from Drain, that didn't adhere to the rules in any way. However, in
the game you had to have a certain strength to be able to handle certain
firearms.
My question is, is there such a rule for SR3? If not, house rules anyone? I
was personally thinking about a knockdown test if the power of the weapons
was higher than 1.5 x Strength of the character firing the weapon.
It wouldn't be necessary for weapons on tri/bipods but I can see a sam with
strength 6 firing a gyro-mounted AK97, 10 bullets per round, 18D keel over
because of the force and shoot his buddies in the shins.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 2
From: Till K till_k@***.net
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:33:25 +0200
Dennis Steinmeijer wrote:

>I got introduced to SR when I was younger due to a computergame on the SNES.
>It was called shadowrun and it featured a samurai/decker/shaman who didn't
>suffer from Drain, that didn't adhere to the rules in any way. However, in
>the game you had to have a certain strength to be able to handle certain
>firearms.
>My question is, is there such a rule for SR3? If not, house rules anyone? I
>was personally thinking about a knockdown test if the power of the weapons
>was higher than 1.5 x Strength of the character firing the weapon.

I think thatīs a bit harsh. Only the strongest humans (Strength 6) could
fire a heavy pistol without having to risk being knocked down. This would
not be realistic. Even an average person can fire such a weapon without
being knocked down. 3 x Strength would be more appropriate, I think.

>It wouldn't be necessary for weapons on tri/bipods but I can see a sam with
>strength 6 firing a gyro-mounted AK97, 10 bullets per round, 18D keel over
>because of the force and shoot his buddies in the shins.

A gyromount is designed to lessen the recoil, so it is unlikely that
someone with that piece of equipment would be knockes over, I think. I
would even consider to add the rating of the gyromount to the characterīs
strength when determining if thereīs a possibility of knockdown.







-- TillK ]B-]

http://www.stud.uni-hamburg.de/users/till

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS d-@ s: a20 C+ U? P L E? W++(+) N o? K? w(-) O? M>+ V? PS+ PE++ Y+
PGP? t+@ 5- X- R+(++)* tv-- b+++(++) DI- D+ G e+>++++* h(+,*) r-- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 3
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:57:28 +0200
> I think thatīs a bit harsh. Only the strongest humans (Strength 6) could
> fire a heavy pistol without having to risk being knocked down. This would
> not be realistic. Even an average person can fire such a weapon without
> being knocked down. 3 x Strength would be more appropriate, I think.

After considering your argument I think I'll have to agree with you. 3 x
Strength it is.

> A gyromount is designed to lessen the recoil, so it is unlikely that
> someone with that piece of equipment would be knockes over, I think. I
> would even consider to add the rating of the gyromount to the characterīs
> strength when determining if thereīs a possibility of knockdown.

You still have to deal with the fact that you are standing on your feet, and
the horizontal force still has to be carried by those two little stumps. The
Gyromount is a body harness that carries your weapon in a "third" arm
attached to the harness. A la the second Aliens movie. The recoil
compensation is because you yourself don't have to carry the weapon. Have
you ever tried to carry a handcannon like a .357? I seriously underestimated
the weight of a thing like that.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 4
From: Mockingbird mockingbird@*********.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:34:36 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Steinmeijer <dv8@********.nl>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Minimum strength requirements for firearms


>
> > A gyromount is designed to lessen the recoil, so it is unlikely that
> > someone with that piece of equipment would be knockes over, I think.
I
> > would even consider to add the rating of the gyromount to the
characterīs
> > strength when determining if thereīs a possibility of knockdown.
>
> You still have to deal with the fact that you are standing on your
feet, and
> the horizontal force still has to be carried by those two little
stumps. The
> Gyromount is a body harness that carries your weapon in a "third" arm
> attached to the harness. A la the second Aliens movie. The recoil
> compensation is because you yourself don't have to carry the weapon.
Have
> you ever tried to carry a handcannon like a .357? I seriously
underestimated
> the weight of a thing like that.

Although I have yet to see the second Aliens movie, I do watch a lot of
behind the scenes documentaries. Gyromounts are currently being used on
cameras, so that the cameras motion and the cameramans motion are
completely independant, anything that is designed to keep the bodies'
movement from the gun will also keep the guns movement from the body.
Because of this, I would tend to agree that a gyromount would lessen the
recoil being transmitted to the person. If you don't like full rating,
how about 1/2 rating?

Mockingbird
--Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
--Denis Miller
Message no. 5
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:25:16 +0200
> Although I have yet to see the second Aliens movie, I do watch a lot of
> behind the scenes documentaries. Gyromounts are currently being used on
> cameras, so that the cameras motion and the cameramans motion are
> completely independant, anything that is designed to keep the bodies'
> movement from the gun will also keep the guns movement from the body.
> Because of this, I would tend to agree that a gyromount would lessen the
> recoil being transmitted to the person. If you don't like full rating,
> how about 1/2 rating?

Okay,...that's a good point, it would work both ways. Half the power of the
weapon against 3 times the strength of the person holding it.

An average human with strength 3 could just handle a 9(Damage Level) weapon.
That's about right. An average human with strength 3 could handle a
18(Damage Level) with a gyromount. Shouldn't there be any modifiers because
of the clumsy weight of a gyromount?

btw: Aliens is a really nice movie. The best in the series. One of the few
movies where I thought that the sequel actually measured up to it's parent.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 6
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:54:33 +0100
In article <l03130300b3e08c693ab8@[134.100.43.195]>, Till K
<till_k@***.net> writes
>I think thatīs a bit harsh. Only the strongest humans (Strength 6) could
>fire a heavy pistol without having to risk being knocked down.

The "what _is_ a heavy pistol?" argument comes around regularly, and it's
often claimed that a "heavy pistol" is a .44 Magnum or thereabouts.

I have no problems, based on that, with a 2 x Strength modifier. That
much momentum is _not_ easily absorbed... 3x suggests a "heavy pistol" is
a 9mm or so, which a surprising number of "ordinary people" still find
unpleasantly sharp to shoot.

>This would
>not be realistic. Even an average person can fire such a weapon without
>being knocked down.

Uh... no :)When .357 Magnum first appeared, in a long-barreled, heavy-
framed revolver, S&W felt the need to warn that it was only suitable for
shooters of large stature, due to its considerable recoil...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 7
From: Till K till_k@***.net
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:03:35 +0200
>In article <l03130300b3e08c693ab8@[134.100.43.195]>, Till K
><till_k@***.net> writes
>>I think thatīs a bit harsh. Only the strongest humans (Strength 6) could
>>fire a heavy pistol without having to risk being knocked down.
>
>The "what _is_ a heavy pistol?" argument comes around regularly, and it's
>often claimed that a "heavy pistol" is a .44 Magnum or thereabouts.
>
>I have no problems, based on that, with a 2 x Strength modifier. That
>much momentum is _not_ easily absorbed... 3x suggests a "heavy pistol" is
>a 9mm or so, which a surprising number of "ordinary people" still find
>unpleasantly sharp to shoot.
>
>>This would
>>not be realistic. Even an average person can fire such a weapon without
>>being knocked down.
>
>Uh... no :)When .357 Magnum first appeared, in a long-barreled, heavy-
>framed revolver, S&W felt the need to warn that it was only suitable for
>shooters of large stature, due to its considerable recoil...

Okay, being knocked down IS possible. But, for someone trained to use
firearms, this is very improbable, or even for someone following only some
basic rules (maintain a broad stance etc), I think.
For example, I once fired a shotgun. It was relatively lightweight, so much
of the recoil was absorbed by me. I was not knocked down despite me being
not very strong, probably even below average (Strength 2).
Maybe these knockdown rules should apply only to characters with no or low
firearms skills, or when firing a weapon the character is not used to (a
character with a pistols skill firing a rifle etc).

-- TillK ]B-]

http://www.stud.uni-hamburg.de/users/till

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS d-@ s: a20 C+ U? P L E? W++(+) N o? K? w(-) O? M>+ V? PS+ PE++ Y+
PGP? t+@ 5- X- R+(++)* tv-- b+++(++) DI- D+ G e+>++++* h(+,*) r-- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Wolfchild nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:14:18 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Till K wrote:

> Okay, being knocked down IS possible. But, for someone trained to use
> firearms, this is very improbable, or even for someone following only some
> basic rules (maintain a broad stance etc), I think.
> For example, I once fired a shotgun. It was relatively lightweight, so much
> of the recoil was absorbed by me. I was not knocked down despite me being
> not very strong, probably even below average (Strength 2).
> Maybe these knockdown rules should apply only to characters with no or low
> firearms skills, or when firing a weapon the character is not used to (a
> character with a pistols skill firing a rifle etc).

Perhaps a rule that says if any uncompensated recoil equals or exceeds the
strength of a character, there needs to be a knockdown test?


Wolfchild - "Discinctaque in otia natus."
--
,-'~/ In October of 1994, three student filmmakers ____|____
/' | /(_ disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, \|/
/ / \,_/ .\ Maryland while shooting a documentary. X
| | /, ,-' A year later their footage was found. / \
| | ,-, \ \,?| "Quin tu istanc orationem hinc veterem atque / \
| ,|/ / ,_\,_/_ antiquam amoves?" -Plautus, Miles Gloriosus ___|___
|/ | __, _) There are nights when the wolves ___|___ \|/
| `;-~_.--~ are silent, and only the moon howls. \|/ X
`.`--,, Wolfchild <nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu> X / \
(`~`)___/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\___ / \ / \
Message no. 9
From: Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:54:23 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Dennis Steinmeijer."

] btw: Aliens is a really nice movie. The best in the series. One of the few
] movies where I thought that the sequel actually measured up to it's parent.

On this note, my old GM used the Aliens score for mood music, and it
had us really on edge at times...anyone know if this is still available?

-------------------------------------------
PLEASE WATCH YOUR STEP
NICK UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Message no. 10
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:14:27 -0500
> On this note, my old GM used the Aliens score for mood music, and it
> had us really on edge at times...anyone know if this is still available?

The ALIENS score, written by James Horner (of STAR TREK II, BRAVEHEART, and
APOLLO 13, among others) is still available at www.cdnow.com.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 11
From: Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:53:54 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Patrick Goodman."
] > On this note, my old GM used the Aliens score for mood music, and it
] > had us really on edge at times...anyone know if this is still available?
]
] The ALIENS score, written by James Horner (of STAR TREK II, BRAVEHEART, and
] APOLLO 13, among others) is still available at www.cdnow.com.

Cool, thank you very much.

-------------------------------------------
PLEASE WATCH YOUR STEP
NICK UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Message no. 12
From: Damian Robinson max.robinson@**.net.au
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:25:15 +1000
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> In article <l03130300b3e08c693ab8@[134.100.43.195]>, Till K
> <till_k@***.net> writes
> >I think thatīs a bit harsh. Only the strongest humans (Strength 6)
> >could fire a heavy pistol without having to risk being knocked down.
>
> The "what _is_ a heavy pistol?" argument comes around regularly, and >
it's often claimed that a "heavy pistol" is a .44 Magnum or
> thereabouts.

:-{>
A .40 or .45 IMHO, but that's neither here nor there. If anyone is
actually interested, I've got my opinions on weapon power in a .txt
file already.

> I have no problems, based on that, with a 2 x Strength modifier.
> That much momentum is _not_ easily absorbed... 3x suggests a "heavy
> pistol" is a 9mm or so, which a surprising number of "ordinary
> people" still find unpleasantly sharp to shoot.

How about making Body part of the equation then. how about Body +
Strength x 1.5. That way you only need a Bod & Str of 3 to fire a
heavy pistol without a problem.

>
> >This would
> >not be realistic. Even an average person can fire such a weapon
> >without being knocked down.
>
> Uh... no :)When .357 Magnum first appeared, in a long-barreled,
> heavy- framed revolver, S&W felt the need to warn that it was only
> suitable for shooters of large stature, due to its considerable
> recoil...

But we don't see such warnings now for real heavy pistols, like the
.454 Cassul (And that is a heavy pistol any way you look at it!), or
see anyone falling down from firing it either.

I also think the warning was more advertising hype than a real
problem. It was "The Most Powerful Handgun In the World!" According to
S&W, and it was at that time. I own the basically same model they were
talking about, the Model 28 Highway Patrolman, and have fired it with
full power loads, without knockback. I'm not overly strong, but I do
have a higher Bod.
--
Cheers
Damian & Leigh-anne

Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/

ICQ?
His #14030875
Hers #37896626
Message no. 13
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:17:45 +0200
According to Dennis Steinmeijer, at 22:25 on 18 Aug 99, the word on
the street was...

> Okay,...that's a good point, it would work both ways. Half the power of the
> weapon against 3 times the strength of the person holding it.

Or, in other words, the Power against (6 x Strength). The math is easier
to do if you make it as simple as possible :)

> An average human with strength 3 could just handle a 9(Damage Level) weapon.
> That's about right. An average human with strength 3 could handle a
> 18(Damage Level) with a gyromount. Shouldn't there be any modifiers because
> of the clumsy weight of a gyromount?

Factor it into the character's encumbrance, and see if that gives any
modifiers to the TN.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * 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
Message no. 14
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:18:07 EDT
In a message dated 8/19/1999 7:41:44 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

> > An average human with strength 3 could just handle a 9(Damage Level)
weapon.
>
> > That's about right. An average human with strength 3 could handle a
> > 18(Damage Level) with a gyromount. Shouldn't there be any modifiers
> because
> > of the clumsy weight of a gyromount?
>
> Factor it into the character's encumbrance, and see if that gives any
> modifiers to the TN.

Given a gyromounts weight, that can potentially help, yes.

-K
Message no. 15
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:42:17 -0400
At 18.57 08-18-99 +0200, you wrote:
>you ever tried to carry a handcannon like a .357? I seriously underestimated
>the weight of a thing like that.

Huh? Handcannon? Heavy? .357?

<giggle>

<Raven puts his down and goes back to sleep>


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 16
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:24:07 +0200
> Huh? Handcannon? Heavy? .357?
>
> <giggle>
>
> <Raven puts his down and goes back to sleep>

Hey! I feel offended! My manhood has been violated! I never held a gun in my
life,...go to the shooting range when I was about 14,...got a nice .22 to
play with,...a guy comes up to me,...and tosses that uncomfortable hunk of
metal in my lap. I was under the impression that everything short of a
bazooka would fire like the .22,...boy was I wrong.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 17
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:55:06 -0400
Dennis--

>I was under the impression that everything short of a bazooka
>would fire like the .22,...boy was I wrong.

Well, technically, even the main gun of a tank shoots like
a .22... but I know what you mean. <g>
Still, there should not be minimum strength requirements for
a handgun or rifle of any kind. None of these guns will "knock you on
your keister" for any reason, unless you happen to have really weak
knees and a really bad sense of balance.
"Knockdown" occurs at the other end when someone gets hit, and
is entirely a muscular reaction to getting shot, and not due to the
energy of the bullet. I've seen someone wearing a bullet-resistant vest
stand ten feet away from a PSG-1 and get shot several times; he stood
upright the whole time and never even staggered. He wasn't a big guy;
he stood about 5'8" and he wasn't particularily muscular, either. If
getting hit at point-blank range by a rifle bullet didn't knock this
guy over, then I doubt shooting a handgun would do the trick.
Now, if someone has weak hands and wrists and no experience in
shooting pistols, I could see him losing control of the firearm and
letting the recoil flip the firearm out of his hands. But if I can
hold onto a snub-nose .44 Magnum while shooting, I see no reason why
anyone else in moderatly good health wouldn't be able to do the same.

Shadowmage
Message no. 18
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 23:25:30 +0100
In article <199908200455_MC2-81AC-D102@**********.com>, Tarek Okail
<Tarek_Okail@**********.com> writes
> Still, there should not be minimum strength requirements for
>a handgun or rifle of any kind. None of these guns will "knock you on
>your keister" for any reason, unless you happen to have really weak
>knees and a really bad sense of balance.

But, many of them will be unpleasanty sharp or lively in your hands, and a
less-burly shooter will mislike using them. For instance, my wife simply
couldn't handle .44 Magnum in any useful way (she liked shooting them,
but would only put down one or two rounds - she didn't feel safe firing it
for long, and certainly couldn't fire it at all quickly).

FWIW she was a damn good shot with .22 and .38 Special, not bad with
my .45ACP, found .357 energetic but manageable and didn't like 9mm at
all.

> Now, if someone has weak hands and wrists and no experience in
>shooting pistols, I could see him losing control of the firearm and
>letting the recoil flip the firearm out of his hands. But if I can
>hold onto a snub-nose .44 Magnum while shooting, I see no reason why
>anyone else in moderatly good health wouldn't be able to do the same.

Can they hit anything when they fire it?

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 19
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 23:21:33 +0100
In article <37BB40DB.BF660AE9@**.net.au>, Damian Robinson
<max.robinson@**.net.au> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>> I have no problems, based on that, with a 2 x Strength modifier.
>> That much momentum is _not_ easily absorbed... 3x suggests a "heavy
>> pistol" is a 9mm or so, which a surprising number of "ordinary
>> people" still find unpleasantly sharp to shoot.
>
>How about making Body part of the equation then. how about Body +
>Strength x 1.5. That way you only need a Bod & Str of 3 to fire a
>heavy pistol without a problem.

Kicking loose some old memories, the rule that got discussed, many
moons ago (back under SR1! After RBB1) was that you took Body + 2 x
Strength as the "tolerable power" for a weapon, and anything above that
was a +TNo mod.

Halve the modifier (round down) if firing a stocked weapon from the
shoulder, halve the weapon's Power if firing supported (e.g. off a bipod)


So, Joe Blow (strength 3, body 3) fires a heavy pistol. No problem.

He fires a 6M SMG in burst mode. No problem.

He fires a 8M assault rifle from the hip in burst fire. 11S damage, so he
takes a +1 penalty - that thing _kicks!_ He fires the same rifle braced and
aimed from his shoulder. +1 halved - no problem.

He fires an assault cannon from the hip. OUCH! 18 Power - 9 = +4 penalty
to his target numbers.

He fires the assault cannon from a bipod, having got prone behind it. 18
halved = no problem.





--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 20
From: Mike & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@***.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:26:26 -0400
Paul asked:
> Can they hit anything when they fire it?

My wife shoots with me periodically, and I fear her accuracy. My original
piece was a Desert Eagle .44 Magnum. This spitfire could place one in the
crease between two 3-liter soda bottles full of water. She tagged them both
with one shot and sent them flying sideways. She has repeated this accuracy
on several occasions.

God do I love this woman!

She's as good with my new one too (Glock .40), which I actually prefer over
the Eagle.

If you want my opinion, skill being relatively equal I would bet on a woman
shooter over a man anytime. They seem to be so much calmer about the whole
thing.

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 21
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 03:21:45 -0400
Paul--

>For instance, my wife simply couldn't handle .44 Magnum in any useful
>way (she liked shooting them, but would only put down one or two rounds
>she didn't feel safe firing it for long, and certainly couldn't fire
>it at all quickly).
>FWIW she was a damn good shot with .22 and .38 Special, not bad with
>my .45ACP, found .357 energetic but manageable and didn't like 9mm at
>all.

You've made my point for me rather nicely, actually. <g> Look
at the fact that she found 9mm unpleasant yet easily handled the .357.
IIRC, there's more energy behind a .357 round than a 9mm.
There are also the factors of grip design, your hand size,
firearm weight, and barrel placement relative to the long bones of
the forearm. While recoil is almost completely constant from round
to round and firearm to firearm, *felt* recoil varies tremendously.
This is another reason not to require a "minimum strength"
for firearms.
I once owned a Desert Eagle in .50 AE. It actually didn't kick
that hard (due to the 50 oz. weight of the gun), but I sold it after
I realized that I didn't like shooting it all that much. The grip was
just too darn big for my hands. The same went for the Coonan .357 auto
that I once had. On the other hand, I've owned a couple of .357
revolvers that I really liked, and for a while I had a .44 Magnum
revolver that I shot occasionally. The difference was the grip. I could
get my hands around the grip of the revolver comfortably. My favorite
firearm right now is the CZ-75 in 9mm NATO. It fits my hand perfectly.

>>hold onto a snub-nose .44 Magnum while shooting, I see no reason why
>>anyone else in moderatly good health wouldn't be able to do the same.
>Can they hit anything when they fire it?

I could, and in Shadowrun terms I'd put my strength down as a
"1" or maybe a "2" at best. Granted, I've never tried rapid-fire with
the .357, the .44 Mag., or the .50 AE, but I'm of the "Aim *then* fire"
school of shooting <g>, and I was still able to get off a round every
second or two with the big handguns.
Shadowrun has it right, in my opinion. High strength helps to
offset recoil modifiers, but you don't need a high strength in order to
shoot a firearm. You might need a good strength stat in order to carry
some of them for long periods of time, though.

Shadowmage
Message no. 22
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:56:03 +0100
In article <199908210321_MC2-81D1-B75B@**********.com>, Tarek Okail
<Tarek_Okail@**********.com> writes
>Paul--
>>FWIW she was a damn good shot with .22 and .38 Special, not bad with
>>my .45ACP, found .357 energetic but manageable and didn't like 9mm at
>>all.
>
> You've made my point for me rather nicely, actually. <g> Look
>at the fact that she found 9mm unpleasant yet easily handled the .357.
>IIRC, there's more energy behind a .357 round than a 9mm.

And the 9mm was in an automatic, where the recoiling slide should have
softened the recoil some, too. Go figure.

(FWIW I always found 9mm 'sharp' compared to .45ACP)

> I once owned a Desert Eagle in .50 AE. It actually didn't kick
>that hard (due to the 50 oz. weight of the gun), but I sold it after
>I realized that I didn't like shooting it all that much. The grip was
>just too darn big for my hands.

That's an issue, too. I have a friend who simply couldn't cope with a Glock
21, because his hands are too small to fit the grip. He's about the same
size as me, except where I have hands like shovels Glenn's are more
delicately proportioned.

Now, me, I found some pistols hard to shoot because they were too
_small_ for my hand (a S&W 686 with factory grips was a prime example:
my shooting club had one of those, and one 686 with aftermarket Hogue
neoprene grips that suited me perfectly)

>My favorite
>firearm right now is the CZ-75 in 9mm NATO. It fits my hand perfectly.

I've yet to run into anyone who really disliked the CZ75 :) Found it merely
acceptable, liked it, loved it, but nobody seems to be unable to use it.

>>>hold onto a snub-nose .44 Magnum while shooting, I see no reason why
>>>anyone else in moderatly good health wouldn't be able to do the same.
>>Can they hit anything when they fire it?
>
> I could, and in Shadowrun terms I'd put my strength down as a
>"1" or maybe a "2" at best.

Methinks you sell yourself short. I easily qualify as Strength 4 in
Shadowrun, if only because I've hauled sixty-pound loads around for a fun
weekend's soldiering. I'm not "strong" in terms of arm-wrestling, don't
work out, I just got used to walking, tabbing and occasionally fighting in
web gear, rifle and rucksack.

>Granted, I've never tried rapid-fire with
>the .357, the .44 Mag., or the .50 AE, but I'm of the "Aim *then* fire"
>school of shooting <g>, and I was still able to get off a round every
>second or two with the big handguns.

I could get an aimed shot a second off with any semi-auto firearm you
gave me on the range. Exercises, either with blanks or live-fire, were
somewhat different... at range your ROF drops sharply, up close it's
_incredible_ how fast you can pull a trigger during CQB.

> Shadowrun has it right, in my opinion. High strength helps to
>offset recoil modifiers, but you don't need a high strength in order to
>shoot a firearm. You might need a good strength stat in order to carry
>some of them for long periods of time, though.

I've seen someone (slightly) scarred for life by a .454 Casull. A competent
but inexperienced shooter, who was hellish good with .22 and .38. First
shot they fired, they thought such a big heavy revolver would soak up the
recoil... and they got the hammer spur planted in their forehead and
needed two stitches to close the wound. Still a nice puckered mark six
months later.

No second shot, either :)


I think it's easy for experienced shooters to underrate how intimidating
the more powerful handguns can be to novices. With proper training and
practice they're downright enjoyable (I had a .44 slot on my FAC and I
intended to fill it with either a Desert Eagle or a S&W 29). But how many
people have that much experience and practice?

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 23
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:36:48 -0400
Paul--

>Methinks you sell yourself short. I easily qualify as Strength 4 in
>Shadowrun, if only because I've hauled sixty-pound loads around for a
>fun weekend's soldiering.

Let's compare:
Paul 60 lbs for 24 hours not very tired
Me 60 lbs for 20 minutes briefly exhausted

Hmmm. Nope, I don't think I'm selling myself short. <g>

>I've seen someone (slightly) scarred for life by a .454 Casull. A
>competent but inexperienced shooter, who was hellish good with .22 and
>.38. First shot they fired, they thought such a big heavy revolver
>would soak up the recoil, and they got the hammer spur planted in
>their forehead...

Ouch. I suppose that no one told him he should keep both hands
on the handgun and lock his wrists?

>But how many people have that much experience and practice?

Just about every runner with a decent (3-4) firearms skill. <g>

Training-wise, I started off with a .22, and then moved up to
a 9mm short/.380 auto (Why oh why did James Bond pack so useless a
handgun as the Walther PPK?). From there I moved on to 9mm NATO and
.45 ACP. (I think it's a pretty universal feeling that 9mm NATO feels
'sharper' than .45 ACP when it comes to recoil.) After that, it was
.357 magnum, a 10mm racegun that cost a pretty penny, .44 magnum, .50AE
and then back down to 9mm NATO, which is actually the caliber I prefer
to shoot.
It's nearly impossible to define this kind of thing in simple
and straightforward rules. When it comes to Shadowrun, I'd leave this
in the realm of roleplaying; 'What would my character find pleasant or
easy to shoot?'
The Predator II (SSC), Browning Ultra-power (SSC), Colt
Manhunter (SSC), and Hammerli 610s (FOF) are all firearms that look
like they might have comfortable grips. The Ares Predator is barrel-
heavy and based on the firearm that "Robocop" used, which itself is
based on the AMT Automag III in .22 Magnum, and is therefore out of
the question. Impressive looking but damned uncomfortable. For that
matter, the Ruger Thunderbolt (which is NOT based on the Ruger Super
Warhawk revolver despite what the description says) also looks like
it would be nice to hold. The recoil would be painful, though.

Shadowmage
Message no. 24
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:07:17 -0400
> From: Tarek Okail [mailto:Tarek_Okail@**********.com]
> Training-wise, I started off with a .22, and then moved up to
> a 9mm short/.380 auto (Why oh why did James Bond pack so useless a
> handgun as the Walther PPK?). From there I moved on to 9mm NATO and

Because M made him - the Beretta was deemed too puny and weak. :-)
The switchover occurred after Bond almost died when he was kicked by
an east german woman with poisoned blades in her boots. Of course, I'm
going by the books instead of the movies here... *sigh* I can't believe
I remembered all that.

> It's nearly impossible to define this kind of thing in simple
> and straightforward rules. When it comes to Shadowrun, I'd leave this
> in the realm of roleplaying; 'What would my character find pleasant or
> easy to shoot?'

This is one thing that variable damage codes are good for - it gives
some more texture to the weapon selection.

James Ojaste
Message no. 25
From: Lady Jestyr jestyr@*********.html.com
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:21:38 +1000
>> Training-wise, I started off with a .22, and then moved up to
>> a 9mm short/.380 auto (Why oh why did James Bond pack so useless a
>> handgun as the Walther PPK?). From there I moved on to 9mm NATO and
>
>Because M made him - the Beretta was deemed too puny and weak. :-)
>The switchover occurred after Bond almost died when he was kicked by
>an east german woman with poisoned blades in her boots. Of course, I'm
>going by the books instead of the movies here... *sigh* I can't believe
>I remembered all that.

It happened in the movies, as well. (Though you'd have to ask me when I'm
_not_ hopped up on pain meds, to find out which one it was in...)

Lady Jestyr
~ Hell hath no fury like a geek with a whippersnipper ~

* jestyr@*****.com | URL: http://www.geocities.com/~jestyr *
Message no. 26
From: David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:10:33 -0700
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
To: "'shadowrn@*********.org'" <shadowrn@*********.org>
Subject: RE: Minimum strength requirements for firearms
Date sent: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:07:17 -0400
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org

> > From: Tarek Okail [mailto:Tarek_Okail@**********.com]
> > Training-wise, I started off with a .22, and then moved up to
> > a 9mm short/.380 auto (Why oh why did James Bond pack so useless a
> > handgun as the Walther PPK?). From there I moved on to 9mm NATO and
>
> Because M made him - the Beretta was deemed too puny and weak. :-)
> The switchover occurred after Bond almost died when he was kicked by
> an east german woman with poisoned blades in her boots. Of course, I'm
> going by the books instead of the movies here... *sigh* I can't believe
> I remembered all that.

I can, for if my memory serves me, it was a .25 cal Beretta with skeleton
grips, and the change was to a .380 PPK (which is an improvement) and a
.38 S&W revolver for when concealment was not an issue. Aganin that is
from the books, Thunderball I believe.


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Minimum strength requirements for firearms, 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!