Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject:	Weapons and stuff
Date:	Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:17:05 GMT

Message no. 1 If we're on the subject of weapons, there was an article in Challenge
Magazine a while back called 'Battle-sight Zero' which complained about
the low ranges in Twilight 2K games (!), and then produced it's own rules.

For SR it goes something like this:

If you have firearms 8, you can battle-sight zero your weapon, assuming it
has adjustable sights/telescopic/it's smart, ie nearly every gun. Subtract
6 from your FA skill, then multiply short range by this value.
Medium range := 2x short,
Long range := 2x Medium,
Extreme range:= 2x Long.

NB. These increaed ranges are only for aimed shots for a sniper type position,
and if you use them, don't go above x3 Range, otherwiae it does get silly.

No person can use these ranges with a gun that has been battle-sighted in for
someone else, and it takes a few rounds and a target range of the appropriate
length to do so (difficult in inner city areas).

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk

PS. I also have a re-worked 'base' concealability table for weapon's if anyone's
interested, one that ensures the predator is more conceacble than an UZI, and
HK MP5's are more conceable than 227's.
This gives about a 2-3K range for a good sniper rifle, which seems reasonably
accurate, and even longer for an HMG; according to the article, they used
.50 Cal M2HB's to snipe VC from about 3km away during vietnam, something
for players who laugh at SWAT to worry about, how can you hit it if the guy's
firing at you friom 2km away, and you can;t ven see him?

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 00:01:45 +1000

Message no. 2 P Ward writes:

[Battle-sighting rules]

They sound pretty good to me, but, yeah, a limit has to apply somewhere.

> PS. I also have a re-worked 'base' concealability table for weapon's if
> anyone's interested, one that ensures the predator is more conceacble
> than an UZI, and HK MP5's are more conceable than 227's.

That would be handy to have. I have often been annoyed at how a Remington
Roomsweeper was more concealable than all but one of the Hold-outs. Could
you perhaps post your work to the list?

> This gives about a 2-3K range for a good sniper rifle, which seems reasonably
> accurate, and even longer for an HMG; according to the article, they used
> .50 Cal M2HB's to snipe VC from about 3km away during vietnam, something
> for players who laugh at SWAT to worry about, how can you hit it if the guy's
> firing at you friom 2km away, and you can;t ven see him?

I think that is done by using the MG like an artillery piece, or motar. You
use blind fire and just lob it over at the enemy in bursts. The bursts, due
to something to do with MG's (the words "beaten zone" come to mind (?)),
spread out into an area by the time they get there. I don't think it is a
direct fire thing.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Gareth Owen <glowen1@*****.NHS.GOV.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Fri, 10 Mar 1995 18:48:04 +0000

Message no. 3 Damion wrote:
> > This gives about a 2-3K range for a good sniper rifle, which seems reasonably
> > accurate, and even longer for an HMG; according to the article, they used
> > .50 Cal M2HB's to snipe VC from about 3km away during vietnam, something
> > for players who laugh at SWAT to worry about, how can you hit it if the guy's
> > firing at you friom 2km away, and you can;t ven see him?
>
> I think that is done by using the MG like an artillery piece, or motar. You
> use blind fire and just lob it over at the enemy in bursts. The bursts, due
> to something to do with MG's (the words "beaten zone" come to mind (?)),
> spread out into an area by the time they get there. I don't think it is a
> direct fire thing.
>

Uh-uh, it is a direct fire thing. The .50 cal is a pretty accurate round, they
mounted it on a tripod and adjusted it for single shot fire, giving them an
ultra heavy long range sniper rifle - from which the modern AM rifles (like
the Barrett) are derived.

GLO

--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
Sytems Administrator | Phone: (UK) 0495 765021
Gwent Health Authority | "Reboot it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"

From:	P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:09:45 GMT

Message no. 4 Right, new concealabilities on the way, basically it shifts all the
smaller weapons up by +1 (MMP5's and up), then modifies for things
like size and being a bull-pup.

I've redone the actual weapons, but it'll take a while to get it into
a format that I can post.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk

From:	Malcalypse The Younger <shadow@******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Fri, 10 Mar 1995 22:55:34 -0500

Message no. 5 On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, P Ward wrote:

> If we're on the subject of weapons, there was an article in Challenge
> Magazine a while back called 'Battle-sight Zero' which complained about
> the low ranges in Twilight 2K games (!), and then produced it's own rules.

Wow. I know the guy who wrote this article.. Anyway, we did have a big
problem in Twilight where a person with a skill of 10 in Firearms
(Highest possible) and good stats, he still needed phenominal target
numbers to hit things at long ranges that some of our player know (from
experience) should be easier. So we changed the ranges to be based
somewhat upon your skill in a weapon.

>
> accurate, and even longer for an HMG; according to the article, they used
> .50 Cal M2HB's to snipe VC from about 3km away during vietnam, something
> for players who laugh at SWAT to worry about, how can you hit it if the guy's
> firing at you friom 2km away, and you can;t ven see him?

This is true, and scary. I know people who can reach out and touch
someone's dog tags fairly reliably at over a mile. Ouch.

Shadow

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 12:19:59 +0100

Message no. 6 >Uh-uh, it is a direct fire thing. The .50 cal is a pretty accurate round, they
>mounted it on a tripod and adjusted it for single shot fire, giving them an
>ultra heavy long range sniper rifle - from which the modern AM rifles (like
>the Barrett) are derived.

From a .50cal sniping rifle you can get accurate shots on man-size targets
out to at least 1500 meters using specially-reloaded ammo. Standard rounds
fired from an M2HB machine gun can barely hit a 50-centimeter circle at 500
meters, I think I read somewhere, even if mounted on a tripod (hey, try
firing a gun like that as a hand-held weapon :)

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The story you have just heard is true.
The names have not been changed to protect the guilty.
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:02:02 -0700

Message no. 7 On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> P Ward writes:
>
> [Battle-sighting rules]
>
> They sound pretty good to me, but, yeah, a limit has to apply somewhere.
>
> That would be handy to have. I have often been annoyed at how a Remington
> Roomsweeper was more concealable than all but one of the Hold-outs. Could
> you perhaps post your work to the list?

But if I recall the roomsweeper is like that of the witness protection
hold out shotguns, 6 inches of barrel, same for the tube beneath the
barrel for the ammo(3-4 rounds tops) and then a pistol-type grip similar
to the M-79 Grenade launcher without the shoulder stock. FBI love them I
hear.

> > This gives about a 2-3K range for a good sniper rifle, which seems reasonably
> > accurate, and even longer for an HMG; according to the article, they used
> > .50 Cal M2HB's to snipe VC from about 3km away during vietnam, something
> > for players who laugh at SWAT to worry about, how can you hit it if the guy's
> > firing at you friom 2km away, and you can;t ven see him?
>
> I think that is done by using the MG like an artillery piece, or motar. You
> use blind fire and just lob it over at the enemy in bursts. The bursts, due
> to something to do with MG's (the words "beaten zone" come to mind (?)),
> spread out into an area by the time they get there. I don't think it is a
> direct fire thing.

Something like this but it would be too long to go into on hear and serve
little purpose. I think someone needs to say a few things about general
weapons stuff, and employment practices(at least on how the military do
it) and unfortnuately Im short on time tonight. Gurth? Rat?

Laters

Edge

From:	Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:13:46 -0700

Message no. 8 On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >From a .50cal sniping rifle you can get accurate shots on man-size targets
> out to at least 1500 meters using specially-reloaded ammo. Standard rounds
> fired from an M2HB machine gun can barely hit a 50-centimeter circle at 500
> meters, I think I read somewhere, even if mounted on a tripod (hey, try
> firing a gun like that as a hand-held weapon :)

I have seen men carry it in a sling(in Korea 1/506 th Inf. Bat.CURR AHEE)
that with proper bracing they well could have fired it from the sling, by
hand. Granted that their hand would be mush but they could.!

Edge

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 13:47:43 +1000

Message no. 9 Paul Finch writes:

> But if I recall the roomsweeper is like that of the witness protection
> hold out shotguns, 6 inches of barrel, same for the tube beneath the
> barrel for the ammo(3-4 rounds tops) and then a pistol-type grip similar
> to the M-79 Grenade launcher without the shoulder stock.

And it, apparently, has the same concealability rating as a hold-out pistol
which I can just about keep in my wallet (streetline special). 6 inches is
rather a bit larger than a typical hold-out pistol, isn't it?

> Something like this but it would be too long to go into on hear and serve
> little purpose. I think someone needs to say a few things about general
> weapons stuff, and employment practices(at least on how the military do
> it) and unfortnuately Im short on time tonight. Gurth? Rat?

Marc is the resident expert on military badass tactics I think :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 21:03:05 -0700

Message no. 10 On Sun, 12 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Paul Finch writes:
>
> > But if I recall the roomsweeper is like that of the witness protection
> > hold out shotguns, 6 inches of barrel, same for the tube beneath the
> > barrel for the ammo(3-4 rounds tops) and then a pistol-type grip similar
> > to the M-79 Grenade launcher without the shoulder stock.
>
> And it, apparently, has the same concealability rating as a hold-out pistol
> which I can just about keep in my wallet (streetline special). 6 inches is
> rather a bit larger than a typical hold-out pistol, isn't it?

You must think lineraly grasshopper! Total length of weapon system is shy
of 9 inches, TOTAL HEIGHT IS 3 INCHES, TOTAL WIDTH IS 1 INCH(well
around 1 inch). Now if you are still wondering trace a line from your
armpit to your waist(well your dads if you are younger than 20). Get the
picture yet?

> Marc is the resident expert on military badass tactics I think :-)

Well Im back and ready to kick some leg, 6's!:)

Laters Edge

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 19:30:23 +1000

Message no. 11 Paul Finch writes:

> You must think lineraly grasshopper! Total length of weapon system is shy
> of 9 inches, TOTAL HEIGHT IS 3 INCHES, TOTAL WIDTH IS 1 INCH(well
> around 1 inch). Now if you are still wondering trace a line from your
> armpit to your waist(well your dads if you are younger than 20). Get the
> picture yet?

I see what you mean about the Roomsweeper being a highly concealable weapon,
but the thing I was referring to is that it has the _same_ concealability as
all of the hold-out pistols (except two). If would have thought the
hold-outs would have been better when compared to the Roomsweeper.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 12:08:01 GMT

Message no. 12 > > That would be handy to have. I have often been annoyed at how a Remington
> > Roomsweeper was more concealable than all but one of the Hold-outs. Could
> > you perhaps post your work to the list?
>
> But if I recall the roomsweeper is like that of the witness protection
> hold out shotguns, 6 inches of barrel, same for the tube beneath the
> barrel for the ammo(3-4 rounds tops) and then a pistol-type grip similar
> to the M-79 Grenade launcher without the shoulder stock. FBI love them I
> hear.

A hold-out can be hidden in the palm of the hand. Roomsweepers have got to be
bigger than that! We roleplay concealability rather than using dice so we
never really got round to new rules for that.

> > I think that is done by using the MG like an artillery piece, or motar. You
> > use blind fire and just lob it over at the enemy in bursts. The bursts, due
> > to something to do with MG's (the words "beaten zone" come to mind
(?)),
> > spread out into an area by the time they get there. I don't think it is a
> > direct fire thing.
>
> Something like this but it would be too long to go into on hear and serve
> little purpose. I think someone needs to say a few things about general
> weapons stuff, and employment practices(at least on how the military do
> it) and unfortnuately Im short on time tonight. Gurth? Rat?

Okay, since you asked :-)

The beaten zone of a MG is the part of the trajectory where, at long range,
the bullets are flying between head height and the ground. Closer to the
weapon and the rounds go by overhead. Further away and you've only got the
odd ricochet. It applies at longer ranges where you have a significant degree
of elevation on the barrel.

The British Army use the General Purpose Machine Gun exclusively in the direct
fire role. The published figures for effective range are 1100 metres to tracer
burnout, or 1800 metres on dusty/dry ground where you can observe the strikes
of the bullets and correct aim.

Remember, though, at 1800 metres the bullets are taking 3 seconds from
muzzle to target. I think the maximum range the rounds will go is about
5500 metres, but you can forget accuracy even in terms of hitting a village.

Ranges in SR are absolutely stupid. The British Army sniper test is to group
six inches at 300 yards - reliable head shots. Reliable chest shots should
be achievable out to 600-700 yards. We came under effective fire from .50cal
Brownings in the Falklands at 1500-2000 metres. No scopes, no smartlinks.
The only range that looks about right are shotguns and assault cannons: I
have to assume that the assault cannon is a .50cal sniper rifle.

Any comments welcome.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

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

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:12:34 +1000

Message no. 13 Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

> I have to assume that the assault cannon is a .50cal sniper rifle.

I think the Barret is a .50 cal isn't it? It's rated as 14D I think. I
heard/read/was told/similar somewhere that an assault cannon was more or
less a grenade launcher firing solid exploding slugs, but designed as a
rifle type weapon. ie a 40mm man portable rifle. That sounds nasty enough to
be rated at 18D to me. :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 18:09:39 GMT

Message no. 14 Hey, Damion, anyone else but you and me arguing this one? :-)

> Paul Jonathan Adam writes:
>
> > I have to assume that the assault cannon is a .50cal sniper rifle.
>
> I think the Barret is a .50 cal isn't it? It's rated as 14D I think. I
> heard/read/was told/similar somewhere that an assault cannon was more or
> less a grenade launcher firing solid exploding slugs, but designed as a
> rifle type weapon. ie a 40mm man portable rifle. That sounds nasty enough to
> be rated at 18D to me. :-)

You want to look at the ballistics of .50cal ammo, especially using Raufoss
HEI rounds or SLAP. And there is absolutely no way in tarnation I can be
convinced a Barratt 82 has a maximum range of 400 metres. They killed people
with them at 1200-1500 metres in Desert Storm, for chrissakes! :-) The
codes for assault rifles and MGs are screwed up. Look at a modern fighting
vehicle - the new M-8 light tank, say. Immune to all pistol and assault rifle
rounds, and will stop .50cal armour-piercing from the front. Only from the
front. You need 30-40mm of hardened steel RHA to stop .50cal SLAP. Even
40mm HEDP grenades can't do that. Besides, the 40mm is almost an indirect fire
weapon at that range: lots of scatter. Jack the muzzle velocity enough to
get a flat trajectory and you have a Bofors 40/70: about two tons. Not
manportable. (Trolls, maybe, but no concealable holster! :-)

Since pistols, rifles and SMGs have all stayed the same or gotten heavier, I
don't see why a .50cal sniper rifle would come down to 4 or 5 kg from around
15 today. If it did, you'd break your shoulder when you fired it.

Shadowrun power ratings suck as a basis for armour penetrating. If you want
rankings and equivalents, here's my $0.02:

Holdouts - .22LR and .25ACP
Light pistols - .32ACP/7.65mm, .380
Shotguns firing buckshot
Heavy pistols - 9mm, .45, .357, .44
Submachineguns - 9mm, .45
Assault rifles - 5.56mm, 5.45mm, 4.73mm
Shotguns firing slug
Sporting and sniper rifles - .300 Win Mag, 7.62mm NATO, .30-06
Medium machine guns - 7.62mm NATO, .30-06
Assault cannon - 12.7mm, 14.5mm
Heavy machine guns - 12.7mm, 14.5mm
Autocannon - 20mm and up

Now the order there is how much armour they'll blow through, not wounding
effects on people. And it takes no account of the Shadowrun cockup re.
assault cannon (in my eyes) - if an assault cannon is a .50cal sniper rifle
then a 'autofire assault cannon' is a heavy machine gun.

Any system that says a medium machine gun bounces off vehicles a heavy pistol
will perforate is seriously wacko. I'm still trying to sort out the mess they
made of that one, but will offer something when I do :-)

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

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

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:33:36 +1000

Message no. 15 Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

> Hey, Damion, anyone else but you and me arguing this one? :-)

As is often the case, I am accounting for 50% or so of the postings on a
topic (some would have me believe on the list! They should do a simple
calculation and they'll see they're wrong). But I can't help myself, once I
got started, I just _have_ to butt my little nose into everything and put in
my two cents worth. :-)

> You want to look at the ballistics of .50cal ammo, especially using Raufoss
> HEI rounds or SLAP. And there is absolutely no way in tarnation I can be
> convinced a Barratt 82 has a maximum range of 400 metres. They killed people
> with them at 1200-1500 metres in Desert Storm, for chrissakes! :-)

I think whoever it was (Quicksilver?) who posted and said that SR ranges
were for firing the weapon "from the hip" was pretty much correct. If you
have time to aim the weapon properly (as a sniper would), then actual ranges
should be used, but in most SR combat situations, the (what was it, acquire
target, aim, something, something) will take place in a very short period of
time, thus limiting the effective range due to accuracy rather then weapon
capabilities.

> The codes for assault rifles and MGs are screwed up. Look at a modern
> fighting vehicle - the new M-8 light tank, say. Immune to all pistol and
> assault rifle rounds, and will stop .50cal armour-piercing from the front.

Quicksliver also proposed changes to the damage stats for weapons, to take
into account armour piercing capabilities and actual damage profiles of the
rounds. They seemed to make pretty good sense to me.

> Besides, the 40mm is almost an indirect fire weapon at that range: lots of
> scatter. Jack the muzzle velocity enough to get a flat trajectory and you
> have a Bofors 40/70: about two tons. Not manportable.

Well, there goes that idea.

> Since pistols, rifles and SMGs have all stayed the same or gotten heavier,
> I don't see why a .50cal sniper rifle would come down to 4 or 5 kg from
> around 15 today. If it did, you'd break your shoulder when you fired it.

But have they? Heavy MGs and Barrets are still rather heavy (10 kg plus I
think). What SR weapon which is about a .50cal is 4 kg?

> Assault cannon - 12.7mm, 14.5mm
> Heavy machine guns - 12.7mm, 14.5mm
>
> Now the order there is how much armour they'll blow through, not wounding
> effects on people. And it takes no account of the Shadowrun cockup re.
> assault cannon (in my eyes) - if an assault cannon is a .50cal sniper rifle
> then a 'autofire assault cannon' is a heavy machine gun.

Why do you consider the A-cannon to be a .50cal? I don't think it compares
it to any other weapon in the book. And by the damage code it has, it'd
have to be substantially gruntier than a heavy MG (which is about a .50cal
so I'm told). Oh, BTW, Ivy says a .50cal would rate in at about 14D, so she
thinks the heavy MGs in SR are not that big. Just what the difference
between a LMG, MMG anf HMG is then I'm not too sure. (Although an LMG would
fire the same rounds as an assault rifle wouldn't it, and an MMG would be
about 7.62 or so, but how about a heavy MG?)

> Any system that says a medium machine gun bounces off vehicles a heavy
> pistol will perforate is seriously wacko. I'm still trying to sort out the
> mess they made of that one, but will offer something when I do :-)

Did you take a squiz at Quicksilvers suggested Power and Damage category
mods?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 20:28:25 -0700

Message no. 16 On Sun, 12 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Paul Finch writes:
>
> > You must think lineraly grasshopper! Total length of weapon system is shy
> > of 9 inches, TOTAL HEIGHT IS 3 INCHES, TOTAL WIDTH IS 1 INCH(well
> > around 1 inch). Now if you are still wondering trace a line from your
> > armpit to your waist(well your dads if you are younger than 20). Get the
> > picture yet?
>
> I see what you mean about the Roomsweeper being a highly concealable weapon,
> but the thing I was referring to is that it has the _same_ concealability as
> all of the hold-out pistols (except two). If would have thought the
> hold-outs would have been better when compared to the Roomsweeper.

Well just take a look at the weapon systems you are refering to. Whats
the dif, if you put it close to your body from armpit to waist, or stuff
it into your pocket. The thing is that in general terms(FASA name sake
for rules!) the main idea is how well you can hide the darn thing. Not
where or how you do it!

Laters Edge

Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this Doc, she asks me if I am thinking homicidal thoughts. Isn't a
93.7 body count enough of an indicator?

Paramedic Exam: You will be given a left leg presenting with an amputated
casualty. Control haemmorrhage and treat for complications. After 5
minutes the casualty will go into v-fib. The leg is pregnant. You have
a toothpick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Peterson (Paul Finch) Edge | US Army Ret. 1/506th Inf (Mtr. Lt.)
EMT-Paramedic/BSN Wanna-be and Will-Be! Self Empowered Gun Nut
Really Pissed Off Ex-Marriot Fast Food Employee seeking Revenge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 15:19:48 +1000

Message no. 17 Paul Finch writes:

> Well just take a look at the weapon systems you are refering to. Whats
> the dif, if you put it close to your body from armpit to waist, or stuff
> it into your pocket. The thing is that in general terms(FASA name sake
> for rules!) the main idea is how well you can hide the darn thing. Not
> where or how you do it!

Yeah, but you can hide a streetline special a lot better than you can a
remington rooomsweeper _because_ of the fact that it is under half the size.
It should be more concealable because you can hide it better due to the
increased places and locations you can stick it. Even if you put it in the
same locations (the aforementioned armpit to waist), then the streetline
special will be less of a giveaway if you lean sideways than the roomwseeper
will be.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 22:28:57 -0700

Message no. 18 On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

I say again!!!Reread this Damion

The thing is that in general terms(FASA name sake for rules!) the main idea
is how well you can hide the darn thing. Not where or how you do it!
>
> Yeah, but you can hide a streetline special a lot better than you can a
> remington rooomsweeper _because_ of the fact that it is under half the size.
> It should be more concealable because you can hide it better due to the
> increased places and locations you can stick it. Even if you put it in the
> same locations (the aforementioned armpit to waist), then the streetline
> special will be less of a giveaway if you lean sideways than the roomwseeper
> will be.

Reread what I typed befor and think it through. I agree it SHOULD be but
isnt do to the way the game mechanics are. I was just trying to support
your statement by way of rationalizing it, with some ideas as to why the
mechanics are the way they are.

Any beter ways to explain it?

Edge

Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this Doc, she asks me if I am thinking homicidal thoughts. Isn't a
93.7 body count enough of an indicator?

Paramedic Exam: You will be given a left leg presenting with an amputated
casualty. Control haemmorrhage and treat for complications. After 5
minutes the casualty will go into v-fib. The leg is pregnant. You have
a toothpick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Peterson (Paul Finch) Edge | US Army Ret. 1/506th Inf (Mtr. Lt.)
EMT-Paramedic/BSN Wanna-be and Will-Be! Self Empowered Gun Nut
Really Pissed Off Ex-Marriot Fast Food Employee seeking Revenge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:12:24 +0100

Message no. 19 >> Hey, Damion, anyone else but you and me arguing this one? :-)

I'm showing my ASCII sometimes, too :)

>I think whoever it was (Quicksilver?) who posted and said that SR ranges
>were for firing the weapon "from the hip" was pretty much correct. If you
>have time to aim the weapon properly (as a sniper would), then actual ranges
>should be used, but in most SR combat situations, the (what was it, acquire
>target, aim, something, something) will take place in a very short period of
>time, thus limiting the effective range due to accuracy rather then weapon
>capabilities.

I still don't agree with that view. I do agree that hipfiring gives you less
chance to hit, but the actual range of the weapon depends on the weapon, not
the method it is fired (yes, if you point the gun at the ground in front of
you, you have an awfully short range :)

>Quicksliver also proposed changes to the damage stats for weapons, to take
>into account armour piercing capabilities and actual damage profiles of the
>rounds. They seemed to make pretty good sense to me.

Quicksilver proposed to simply chuck out all the weapons and replace them by
different ones with the same names :)

>But have they? Heavy MGs and Barrets are still rather heavy (10 kg plus I
>think). What SR weapon which is about a .50cal is 4 kg?

A .50 machine gun weighs closer to 35-40 kg, a Barrett 82 is 11 kg I think.
The Shadowrun SM-3 weighs 4.5 kg I believe.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The story you have just heard is true.
The names have not been changed to protect the guilty.
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:12:48 +0100

Message no. 20 >I don't see why a .50cal sniper rifle would come down to 4 or 5 kg from around
>15 today. If it did, you'd break your shoulder when you fired it.

What was that trick again? Close your mouth before pulling the trigger of a
Barrett 82?

>Any system that says a medium machine gun bounces off vehicles a heavy pistol
>will perforate is seriously wacko. I'm still trying to sort out the mess they
>made of that one, but will offer something when I do :-)

I've long been thinking of dropping heavy pistols to 6M, but some more
changes could be putting LMGs at around 9M or 10M, and ditto for sniper rifles.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The story you have just heard is true.
The names have not been changed to protect the guilty.
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:06:15 GMT

Message no. 21 Shadow wrote:
> This is true, and scary. I know people who can reach out and touch
> someone's dog tags fairly reliably at over a mile. Ouch.

That's exactly the ohrase from the article? Same guy?

Congratulate the guy who wrote he article BTW, it mde sniping bugs
in Dark Conspiracy a lot safer, and it's made by top assassins in SR
a great deal more lethal (with some appropriate mods for the
differing weapon skills).

Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)

From:	Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:31:16 -30000

Message no. 22 On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >> Hey, Damion, anyone else but you and me arguing this one? :-)
>
> I'm showing my ASCII sometimes, too :)
>
> >I think whoever it was (Quicksilver?) who posted and said that SR ranges
> >were for firing the weapon "from the hip" was pretty much correct. If
you
> >have time to aim the weapon properly (as a sniper would), then actual ranges
> >should be used, but in most SR combat situations, the (what was it, acquire
> >target, aim, something, something) will take place in a very short period of
> >time, thus limiting the effective range due to accuracy rather then weapon
> >capabilities.
>
> I still don't agree with that view. I do agree that hipfiring gives you less
> chance to hit, but the actual range of the weapon depends on the weapon, not
> the method it is fired (yes, if you point the gun at the ground in front of
> you, you have an awfully short range :)

But for the game purposes, we really don't care what the range of the
bullet is, do we? We just want to know how hard it is for the firer to
place that bullet as close to the target's 10-ring as possible. So how
hard is it to put a bullet into the 10-ring at what range with which
weapon - inside 3 seconds? The range table simulates this. We con't
give a flying frag about the range of the bullet, we care about the range
of the mark1 eyeball that is targeting the weapon. The reason that the
longer weapons have a longer "range" is that they are more likely to be
fired from a braced position against the body, or snap-shotted from the
shoulder. They are also faster rounds, so bullet drop is less over distance.

(And yes, I do have a mouse in my pocket :-)

>
> >Quicksliver also proposed changes to the damage stats for weapons, to take
> >into account armour piercing capabilities and actual damage profiles of the
> >rounds. They seemed to make pretty good sense to me.
>
> Quicksilver proposed to simply chuck out all the weapons and replace them by
> different ones with the same names :)

Yes I am! Actually, the change I am making is much less than some of the
other proposed changes.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:17:50 GMT

Message no. 23 >. But I can't help myself, once I
> got started, I just _have_ to butt my little nose into everything and put in
> my two cents worth. :-)

You and me both :-)

> I think whoever it was (Quicksilver?) who posted and said that SR ranges
> were for firing the weapon "from the hip" was pretty much correct. If you
> have time to aim the weapon properly (as a sniper would), then actual ranges
> should be used, but in most SR combat situations, the (what was it, acquire
> target, aim, something, something) will take place in a very short period of
> time, thus limiting the effective range due to accuracy rather then weapon
> capabilities.

My experience of military exercises is that snapshots from the hip tend to
be at houseclearing ranges - yards at most. Anything further tends to be
aimed from the shoulder. And with a sniper weapon you're almost by
definition taking your time to shoot...

> > The codes for assault rifles and MGs are screwed up. Look at a modern
> > fighting vehicle - the new M-8 light tank, say. Immune to all pistol and
> > assault rifle rounds, and will stop .50cal armour-piercing from the front.
>
> Quicksliver also proposed changes to the damage stats for weapons, to take
> into account armour piercing capabilities and actual damage profiles of the
> rounds. They seemed to make pretty good sense to me.

Think I missed those due to mailer troubles a few dats back. I keep trying on
and off to split Power into 'Power' and 'Penetration': there's a big difference.

> > Besides, the 40mm is almost an indirect fire weapon at that range: lots of
> > scatter. Jack the muzzle velocity enough to get a flat trajectory and you
> > have a Bofors 40/70: about two tons. Not manportable.
>
> Well, there goes that idea.
'Fraid so. For the record a 40mm grenade launcher has a muzzle velocity of
about 75 metres a second. Flight time to 1300 metres rather long...

> > Since pistols, rifles and SMGs have all stayed the same or gotten heavier,
> > I don't see why a .50cal sniper rifle would come down to 4 or 5 kg from
> > around 15 today. If it did, you'd break your shoulder when you fired it.
>
> But have they? Heavy MGs and Barrets are still rather heavy (10 kg plus I
> think). What SR weapon which is about a .50cal is 4 kg?

If sniper rifles are .50cal (a common refrain - Elven Fire had a SM-3 as a .655
calibre - and a SM-3 is 4kg...

> Why do you consider the A-cannon to be a .50cal? I don't think it compares
> it to any other weapon in the book. And by the damage code it has, it'd
> have to be substantially gruntier than a heavy MG (which is about a .50cal
> so I'm told). Oh, BTW, Ivy says a .50cal would rate in at about 14D, so she
> thinks the heavy MGs in SR are not that big. Just what the difference
> between a LMG, MMG anf HMG is then I'm not too sure. (Although an LMG would
> fire the same rounds as an assault rifle wouldn't it, and an MMG would be
> about 7.62 or so, but how about a heavy MG?)

A heavy MG is a Browning M2 or Russian DShK - 12.7mm or 0.5in, up to the
Russian 14.5mm KPUs. At least in the real world :-)

My problem is, if 'sniper rifles' are .50cals or similar, where did all
the L98s/M21s/Dragunovs in .30 to .338 go? If a sniper with those can
reliably pick individual targets off at 600m, maybe we need a new class
of weapon...

> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
> (GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
> E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
> b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
>
>

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

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

From:	Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:53:31 -0600

Message no. 24 >My problem is, if 'sniper rifles' are .50cals or similar, where did all
>the L98s/M21s/Dragunovs in .30 to .338 go? If a sniper with those can
>reliably pick individual targets off at 600m, maybe we need a new class
>of weapon...

Not all sniper rifles in Shadowrun are .50 cal. In fact, only the Barret is
listed as such. If you look at the other sniper rifles (Walther & Ranger
Arms, a small selection, but that's a subject for later) you'll see that
they do 14S. I did not know that the Ranger Arms is supposed to be .665, so
there's a problem in my logic already, maybe it just doesn't have enough
charge to move that big of a bullet to the speed that a Barrett reaches. So
Dragunov SVD's, H&K PSG-1's, and the rest of the crowd should probably go
into the 14S category.

Now is when I talk about the later I mentioned above. Despite all the
supplements, there just isn't a wide enough variety of weapons out there in
the Shadowrun game. Considering that the laws have laxxed on such items,
you would imagine that there would be even more variety than there is today
in 2056. If anyone has any weapons that they created for use in their
campaigns or if you have any interest in what I have created so far, email
me at topcat@******.net.

Now a question...what would the numbers look like on something like the H&H
African elephant gun? A more massive rifle you wouldn't want to meet.
Would it be along the lines of the Barrett or more like an Assault Cannon?
Perhaps the AC is an evolvement of the elephant gun to the military level.
Replace the "normal" E-gun ammo with explosive rounds and the damage looks
reasonable. What's the concencus?

-----------------------------------------------
Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

"...There's someone in my head, but it's not me." - Pink Floyd

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:52:49 -0500

Message no. 25 On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Bob Ooton wrote:

> Not all sniper rifles in Shadowrun are .50 cal. In fact, only the Barret is
> listed as such. If you look at the other sniper rifles (Walther & Ranger
> Arms, a small selection, but that's a subject for later) you'll see that
> they do 14S. [...] So Dragunov SVD's, H&K PSG-1's, and the rest of the
> crowd should probably go into the 14S category.

The Dragunov SVD fires 7.62x54 mm rounds. The Ranger Arms is
probably something along the lines of a .270 Winchester (a surprisingly
powerful round) or even a Weatherby .464 magnum (ouch).

> Now a question...what would the numbers look like on something like the H&H
> African elephant gun? A more massive rifle you wouldn't want to meet.
> Would it be along the lines of the Barrett or more like an Assault Cannon?

I'd go with the Barret damage table, but with a shorter range.
But since the ranges are a little screwy, that's not saying much.

Marc

From:	Malcalypse The Younger <shadow@******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 22:02:42 -0500

Message no. 26 On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, P Ward wrote:

> Shadow wrote:
> > This is true, and scary. I know people who can reach out and touch
> > someone's dog tags fairly reliably at over a mile. Ouch.
>
> That's exactly the ohrase from the article? Same guy?

Same guy. Dunno if that's an exact quote or not. i was saying that some
of the people I game with were in 'nam and have done things like this. It
scares me. a lot.

>
> Congratulate the guy who wrote he article BTW, it mde sniping bugs
> in Dark Conspiracy a lot safer, and it's made by top assassins in SR
> a great deal more lethal (with some appropriate mods for the
> differing weapon skills).
>

Thanks. I'll pass on your regards to Tom.

Shadow

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:31:13 +0100

Message no. 27 >We con't
>give a flying frag about the range of the bullet, we care about the range
>of the mark1 eyeball that is targeting the weapon.

In that case, weapon ranges would virtually all be identical. Alright, maybe
one range category for hand-held weapons and one for weapons braced against
the shoulder. If it all depended on the eyesight of the guy who fires the
gun, I for one wouldn't be able to hit anything at any sort of range (I'm
near-sighted but don't wear glasses even though I should, I guess).

>The reason that the
>longer weapons have a longer "range" is that they are more likely to be
>fired from a braced position against the body, or snap-shotted from the
>shoulder. They are also faster rounds, so bullet drop is less over distance.

Here you start contradicting yourself. The bullet velocity doesn't have much
to do with the chances of scoring a hit if, as you say, it almost only
depends on how well the firer aims. At least not at the ranges Shadowrun
gives -- 800 to 1000 meters per second for an assault rifle will cover 250
meters in such a short time that I don't think it'll affect your aiming very
much.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's like, you people, you need heroes. But if I'd agree to the job, you'd
kill me... --Bono, U2
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:13:31 -30000

Message no. 28 On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:

> >. But I can't help myself, once I
> > got started, I just _have_ to butt my little nose into everything and put in
> > my two cents worth. :-)
>
> You and me both :-)
>
> > I think whoever it was (Quicksilver?) who posted and said that SR ranges
> > were for firing the weapon "from the hip" was pretty much correct. If
you
> > have time to aim the weapon properly (as a sniper would), then actual ranges
> > should be used, but in most SR combat situations, the (what was it, acquire
> > target, aim, something, something) will take place in a very short period of
> > time, thus limiting the effective range due to accuracy rather then weapon
> > capabilities.
>
> My experience of military exercises is that snapshots from the hip tend to
> be at houseclearing ranges - yards at most. Anything further tends to be
> aimed from the shoulder. And with a sniper weapon you're almost by
> definition taking your time to shoot...
>
Fine. Take the time by using a simple action to AIM. Otherwise, you are
only shooting accurately at "yards at most." Most of the longarms have
sights, and an SMG is *not* any kind of a long-range weapon. As for
Smartgun links, I don't believe they'd be very effective at anything
other than streetfighting range, because of jitter.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 18:48:05 GMT

Message no. 29 In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.950313213551.15958J-100000@*****> Paul Finch writes:
> > Problem is still muzzle velocity of what's gonna be a heavy round. At the
> > moment the Russian AGS-17 and American Mark 19 match this and the ranges
> > are about right...except at 1300 metres a 40mm from the Mark 19 takes about
> > eight seconds to reach the target and accuracy consists of walking a burst
> > of area effect rounds across an area target.
>
> I was thinking more along of the new magazine filled 30 mm grenade
> launcher. I have the spec sheet at home and will bring it tomorrow to
> read it off to you.

Yes please !

> > >
> > > Effective firing ranges for non-military trained people? Pros could do
> > > well but think about how the non military assets employ this type of
> > > weapon. I hate to say Holloywood style but...
> >
> > But the pros can'd do well under the rules. And the amateurs do fire from
> > the hip unbraced, which is why they're looking for 9s with three dice.
> > Trained individuals would kill untrained often enough for evolution to make
> > the surviving samurai learn how to shoot properly.
>
> True, but the main point is the rules allow for better training and it is
> reflected in the number of dice that are rolled. The range factors stay
> the same, no mater who is shooting whom. So to keep everyone on the same
> sheet of music they use the set ranges.

Sounds like a cop out to me :-)

> > Point taken. But in Shadowrun with a range of 400 metres you have absolutely
> > no chance whatever to do that. For a character with Firearms 10 I think
that's
> > a little unrealistic.
>
> I see your point but seriously how many shots do runners make that are
> outside of 400 meters?

Depends on the game...my assassin character regularly takes shots at 1000
metres plus, but he plans them VERY carefully.

> > > I think you are getting carried away here. Remember generalities. I
> > > know a M-60 GPMG can nail a area effect target at 1100 meters (The
> > > Govment SAYS so) and have hit some area targets myself with one. But for
> > > point targets(which is how the game mechanics are set up for) the
> > > effective range drops like you would not believe! I feel(not think read
> > > what I typed)that the ranges are decent for point targets! I think that
> > > for real world stuff they suck!:)
> >
> > ...I think we want something that lets aiming extend range, don't we?
>
> Yes we do but I was just trying to explain why we couldnt get those shots
> out to 1600 meters!:)

Again, you can't even hit an area target beyond 500m in our rules. But I
also whack in big visibility modifiers - 1500 metres of city air is a hellish
lens to look through. And you have to plan very carefully to get that sort of
clear shot in an urban area: it's not impossible but it takes detailed
planning. I don't want them to be routine or easy, just possible.

> > > Not true, read the FoF and the Street Sam. See all those neat new ways
> > > of recoil damping(sp). Whos to say they havent engineered this type of
> > > recoil stuff? Im a gun nut not an engineer.
> >
> > Ho ho! I AM an engineer! But I'm not a fortune teller... Just that I don't
> > like taking something I consider improbable and waving a magic wand called
> > technolgy at it.
>
> But can the tech i am suggesting be made? and if so then its not a matter
> to discuss anymore I think.

I came up with some extra recoil compensators - like gyro modules to go under
the weapon. Still quirky, though, and not reliable (but my new gear never is)

> > > > Assault cannon - 12.7mm, 14.5mm
> > >
> > > Add 20mm here. We got them today, they arent man portable yet.
> > > Althought Bofors has a new crew served 20mm canno for squad or platoon
> > > level stuff
> >
> > There were antitank rifles up to 20mm in WW2, the old Lahti for instance.
>
> I was talking the vulcan type(in size not mechanics) and chain gun type.
> Not anti-tank rifles but thats a good point to.

Okay...but show me a manpack one :-)

> > > > Heavy machine guns - 12.7mm, 14.5mm
> > >
> > > Why not have 20mm, or 35mm? Think it through.
> > There's a 30mm ASP lightweight. vehicle mounted, very effective, weighs
> > about the same as a M2 Browning. Has to be vehicle mounted because the
> > recoil needs to be absorbed through a complex series of buffers.
> >
> > Actually... you couldn't shoulder fire it, but maybe you could put it on
> > a gyromount. That might be manageable! Hey, a Pauline conversion! All
> > right, we slap on 2050s WizzoTek recoil reducers so you can carry it
> > around.
It's still a single shot weapon and probably needs to be fired from a
bipod, like the old AT rifles (which the modern Barratt qualifies as
anyway - the calibres were mostly 12.7mm, .55in, 13.2mm, 14.5mm)

> > I reread the Barret stats in FoF and thought about something else. I
> > think the sniper rifles in Shadowrun fire heavy-calibre subsonic rounds.
> > Explains the short ranges, and the ability to silence the weapon: big
> > slow bullets doing really hefty damage. Elephant guns!
>
> Sub sonic does not effect effective range (in military applications that
> is), only the maximum range, when it hits the Earth.

It does, because the slower the bullet the longer the time of flight. So
a subsonic .655 takes three times as long as a supersonic .300 Winchester: at
600 metres it's the difference between 0.5 and 2 seconds. Also the subsonic
bullet will suffer much more trajectory drop and be more affected by cross
winds. That's why rifles outrange SMGs, even precision ones like the MP-5.

> > Still leaves us without the .50cal high-velocity and the .30/.338 types.
> > Okay, so I need to write them up and create them! I read the novel
> > Shadowplay and they had an antique Barratt 82 turn up: it was apparently
> > completely awesome to the 2050s people. I suppose the Trevilla Armaments
> > Group could reverse-engineer it...
>
> Why doo it, just to confuse all those ignoring this thread?:)
Because I want to! So there! I'm the GM, I'm God, and if EVERYONE on the
thread doesn't agree with me I'll hold my breath till I die and THEN THEY'LL
BE SORRY! :-)
> > Stream of conscious mailing. Fun, isn't it?

>
> Yes there is. Take a look at a Banshee LAV then at form fitting body
> armor level II. See what I mean?

Form fit is just the spall liner without the armour plate, I was talking
armour jackets and up :-)

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

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

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 19:07:41 GMT

Message no. 30 > >My problem is, if 'sniper rifles' are .50cals or similar, where did all
> >the L98s/M21s/Dragunovs in .30 to .338 go? If a sniper with those can
> >reliably pick individual targets off at 600m, maybe we need a new class
> >of weapon...
>
> Not all sniper rifles in Shadowrun are .50 cal. In fact, only the Barret is
> listed as such. If you look at the other sniper rifles (Walther & Ranger
> Arms, a small selection, but that's a subject for later) you'll see that
> they do 14S. I did not know that the Ranger Arms is supposed to be .665, so
> there's a problem in my logic already, maybe it just doesn't have enough
> charge to move that big of a bullet to the speed that a Barrett reaches. So
> Dragunov SVD's, H&K PSG-1's, and the rest of the crowd should probably go
> into the 14S category.

Modern sniper rifles (apart from heavies like the Barratt and McMillan 50s)
fire 7.62mm NATO-class ammo - medium MG rounds. So the damage for them
should be around 9S. .50calibre/14.5mm rifles fire HMG ammo - so 10S. And
the ranges are way too low.

Perhaps we're talking big, slow bullets? Low muzzle velocity cuts range, but
also makes silencing the weapon practical (if you've ever heard supersonic
bullets go overhead, it's totally unmissable and very distinctive). So use
huge bullets for maximum wounding effect - a subsonic .655 would do horrible
things to a human target. Elephant guns, basically.

Doesn't address 'where did the "real" sniper rifles go?' but makes me
feel better. The assault cannon is a 20mm-30mm weapon similar to a bigger
anti-tank rifle or a single-shot version of the ASP30 cannon.

> Now a question...what would the numbers look like on something like the H&H
> African elephant gun? A more massive rifle you wouldn't want to meet.
> Would it be along the lines of the Barrett or more like an Assault Cannon?
> Perhaps the AC is an evolvement of the elephant gun to the military level.
> Replace the "normal" E-gun ammo with explosive rounds and the damage looks
> reasonable. What's the concencus?

As I said, the 'sniper' rifles are elephant-gun class weapons. 14S with a
decent shot will drop an elephant in its tracks (15 Body, but looking for 11s
to resist). Seems realistic - even Great White Hunters had to aim carefully
to get reliable kills on elephants, while an assault cannon would let anyone
kill one.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

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

From:	Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Wed, 15 Mar 1995 02:15:01 -30000

Message no. 31 On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >We con't
> >give a flying frag about the range of the bullet, we care about the range
> >of the mark1 eyeball that is targeting the weapon.
>
> In that case, weapon ranges would virtually all be identical. Alright, maybe
> one range category for hand-held weapons and one for weapons braced against
> the shoulder. If it all depended on the eyesight of the guy who fires the
> gun, I for one wouldn't be able to hit anything at any sort of range (I'm
> near-sighted but don't wear glasses even though I should, I guess).
>
> >The reason that the
> >longer weapons have a longer "range" is that they are more likely to be
> >fired from a braced position against the body, or snap-shotted from the
> >shoulder. They are also faster rounds, so bullet drop is less over distance.
>
> Here you start contradicting yourself. The bullet velocity doesn't have much
> to do with the chances of scoring a hit if, as you say, it almost only
> depends on how well the firer aims. At least not at the ranges Shadowrun
> gives -- 800 to 1000 meters per second for an assault rifle will cover 250
> meters in such a short time that I don't think it'll affect your aiming very
> much.
>
Alright. Ya got me. I'm not being totally consistant:-). However, this
comes from not enough thought in the original post. The range tables,
like so much else in SRII, are a single expression of a number of
abstracted factors, that have been lumped together under one heading for
ease of play.

I happened to be concentrating on the fact that one of the major factors
in streetfighting ranges (which is what SRII is set up to model, BTW) is
the fact that the major limit on *EFFECTIVE* range is the human optic
susbystem(which is better over a larger performce envelope than most
other creatures on earth). What they are saying with the range table is
that in a firefight that is OVER is 10 seconds, but is hopping and
pooping for those 10 seconds, precision shooting goes out the window.
250 meters is a LONG fragging shot when you don't have time to aim,
aren't shooting from a bench rest, and are ducking and weaving for cover,
trying not to get hit by the other guy. Have you ever been someplace
where you even HAD a clear line of sight for 250 meters? Let me use an
example: I personally have had my eyesight calibrated at 20/15 (That
means what the average person w/ 20/20 vision can see at 15 meters, I can
see at 20, but I digress.) I have a damn hard time identifying people at
the far end of the school's soccer field (at MOST 150 yards away). This
means that such a shot is going to be difficult. Not knowing what the
parallax is at that range, I don't know how tall the *apparent* image is,
but the amount of jitter that you get from the hand holding the gun
unbraced is a significant amount of that. But the eye/hand coordination
at such a range is only on factor. Another is the sights used on most
streetfighting weapons. Iron sights.

Now let's take a look at how iron sights operate. Anyone who has ever
been to some kind of summer camp has probably shot a .22 rifle. If not,
bear with me. These rifles have a type of sight that is simple, and
widespread. The rear sight consists of a rectangular piece of metal,
with a notch cut in it, aligned with the barrel. At the end of the
barrel is a thin piece of metal standing up, perhaps with a larger "dot"
at the end. This post is also aligned with the center of the barrel.
(This sight type is called a notch-and-post sight, at least by the people
who taught me how to use it.) To use this sight, you center teh post in
the notch, and align the post with your target (depending on how you were
taught, either put the dot where you want the bullet to hit, of slightly
below, to account for recoil.) You then squeeze the trigger, and the
bullet goes to the point you were aiming at(YMMV). Most firearms hae a
variant on this type of sight. It works on anything from hold-outs to
sniping rifles. The major factor in the effectiveness of this kind of
sight is the distance between the notch and the post. Thus, the iron
sight is more effective on a longer barrel length. (Any, incidentally,
less effective on a bullpup weapon, as the full length of the barrel
cannot be used.) Bingo, difference in weapon accuracy at range based on
weapons.

The third major factor is the controllability of the weapon. A pistol,
no matter how large, is intended to be wielded by one hand. If wielded
by two, it is merely for recoild compensation. An SMG is usually
designed to be wielded by either on or two hands. An assault rifle is
intended to be wielded by two hands. The major intent of the second hand
is to to be able to make fine adjustments of the barrel's vector. From a
physics standpoint, where is it easier to move a level from, the fulcrum,
or close to the end? See last sentance above

These three factors are combined into the range table. The first
explains why all the ranges are absurdly short, compared to range
results, the second explains the differences in the ranges based on
weapon types, and the third backs up the second.

Yes, I know this doesn't explain your complaints about making
sniper-grade shots from a bench rest, with all the time in the world. My
rebuttal: you are pushing the system past the point it breaks down.
However, it is relatively easily fixed. Use the house rule I posted a
while back about magnification systems: instead of lowering target
numbers, have it increase the range table. Gurth, I know you saw that,
you resonded to it.

(BTW, It appears that SRII considers the shotgun range table to be the
range table of the mark 1 human eyeball. In at least a couple of cases,
comeone attempting to lock on using human eyeball is directed to use a TN
"based on the shotgun range table," or words to that effect. The taccomp
does this, and something in FOF does also, I beleive.)

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:34:34 +0100

Message no. 32 >I happened to be concentrating on the fact that one of the major factors
>in streetfighting ranges (which is what SRII is set up to model, BTW) is
>the fact that the major limit on *EFFECTIVE* range is the human optic
>susbystem(which is better over a larger performce envelope than most
>other creatures on earth).

I agree that Shadowrun is designed for streetfighting, but for some reason I
still believe that the ranges are unrealistic... I can see your point about
the ranges being for snapshooting (see my comments further down this post),
and I agree with it that far. Still, even though I still believe an assault
rifle should have a range of at least two to three times the SR range, I
must agree that it allegedly gets difficult to hit something over, say, 300
to 400 meters. I say allegedly because I must confess that the only weapons
I've ever fired were air rifles :) I do think I've got enough theoretical
knowledge to know how to operate most modern firearms with a little bit of
practice, though...

>Have you ever been someplace
>where you even HAD a clear line of sight for 250 meters?

Lots of times: I don't live in a big city -- if I walk 200 meters from my
house I'll be standing on farmland which stretches for kilometers... 200
meters in the other direction and I'm on the beach, which is divided into
100-meter lengths by rows of poles :) At 250 meters _I_ can't identify
anyone (as I said I'm near-sighted), but I can see they're there -- which
would be enough to hit them I guess... if you've got the time to aim, yes.
But then again, I think 3 seconds would be long enough to put your sights
onto your target -- most people only have one action per turn, so they would
spend +-3 seconds aiming their weapon before they fire. At 250 meters that'd
be a TN of 9 with an assault rifle, which is most likely a miss. Exactly as
you said. But it makes no sense to me that the weapon couldn't hit someone
300 meters away when you can do that with any modern assault rifle.

>Yes, I know this doesn't explain your complaints about making
>sniper-grade shots from a bench rest, with all the time in the world.

My complaints? I can't recall making those...

>Use the house rule I posted a
>while back about magnification systems: instead of lowering target
>numbers, have it increase the range table. Gurth, I know you saw that,
>you resonded to it.

You mean the system that says: multiply the range by (magnification
rating+1)? So that a sniper rifle with rating 2 scope would be short 0-120,
medium 121-240, long 241-600, extreme 601-1200m? I only remember those being
posted about a year ago :) I liked that system, and used it for a while, but
stepped away from it again :) Maybe I'll re-introduce it but then so that it
only works that way if you take time to aim...

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's like, you people, you need heroes. But if I'd agree to
the job, you'd kill me... --Bono, U2
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:22:35 +1000

Message no. 33 Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

> > > Trained individuals would kill untrained often enough for evolution
> > > to make the surviving samurai learn how to shoot properly.
> >
> > True, but the main point is the rules allow for better training and it is
> > reflected in the number of dice that are rolled. The range factors stay
> > the same, no mater who is shooting whom. So to keep everyone on the same
> > sheet of music they use the set ranges.
>
> Sounds like a cop out to me :-)

Not really. A more skilled person will roll more dice and therefore will hit
more often than an unskilled person at any particular range. They don't have
an easier shot, but they do have a greater probability of scoring more
successes and hitting more often, due to their greater skill with the weapon.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Wed, 15 Mar 1995 23:47:56 +1000

Message no. 34 Quicksilver writes:

[Great post on why SR ranges suck]

Very good, it seems that the folks at FASA might have had half a brain when
they designed that table (not that they merely had no firearms knowledge
like we originally thought).

-------------
Gurth writes:

> Still, even though I still believe an assault rifle should have a range of
> at least two to three times the SR range, I must agree that it allegedly
> gets difficult to hit something over, say, 300 to 400 meters.

But when you get up to those kind of ranges, doesn't bullet speed actually
count? As in the target of your shot will get an action before the bullet
actually gets to him (or is likely to), and he will probably have moved to
some degree also. Are Assault Rifle bullets sub or super sonic? 300m ranges
might be fine for stationary targets, but anything moving would get mighty
difficult.

> But then again, I think 3 seconds would be long enough to put your sights
> onto your target -- most people only have one action per turn, so they would
> spend +-3 seconds aiming their weapon before they fire.

Do all you guys rule that aiming requires you to be standing still, and
hence subject to the -1 target number modifier for incoming attacks?

But aiming is difficult when dodging incoming rounds, and tracking moving
targets, so I wouldn't think people would be aiming for 3 seconds a round,
unless they were in a position where they were not avoiding incoming rounds.

> At 250 meters that'd be a TN of 9 with an assault rifle, which is most
> likely a miss. Exactly as you said. But it makes no sense to me that the
> weapon couldn't hit someone 300 meters away when you can do that with any
> modern assault rifle.

Well, if you want, then perhaps an extra range category, Gurth Extreme
Range, can be added on after Extreme Range. Base target number 12. You see
what I mean? After around 250 (or so FASA has decided) m, the chances of
hitting become pretty darn small unless you are firing at stationary
targets, or taking careful aim.

> >Yes, I know this doesn't explain your complaints about making
> >sniper-grade shots from a bench rest, with all the time in the world.

What's wrong with getting ahold of some modern weapon book (like GGG or
whatever Rat suggests), which lists ranges for weapons in ideal situations,
and using these if someone is not in a direct combat situation, such as
sniping, or target shooting.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Thu, 16 Mar 1995 02:35:08 +0930

Message no. 35 Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> Gurth writes:
>
> > Still, even though I still believe an assault rifle should have a range of
> > at least two to three times the SR range, I must agree that it allegedly
> > gets difficult to hit something over, say, 300 to 400 meters.
>
> But when you get up to those kind of ranges, doesn't bullet speed actually
> count? As in the target of your shot will get an action before the bullet
> actually gets to him (or is likely to), and he will probably have moved to
> some degree also. Are Assault Rifle bullets sub or super sonic? 300m ranges
> might be fine for stationary targets, but anything moving would get mighty
> difficult.
>

Well, at 300m, a slightly sub-sonic round would take about a second to
cover the distance. Do any rounds go up to Mach 2 (You can assume a
half-second to happen almost instantly... :) )?

I basically say that it's part of the penalty for the increased range, ya
know.

> > But then again, I think 3 seconds would be long enough to put your sights
> > onto your target -- most people only have one action per turn, so they would
> > spend +-3 seconds aiming their weapon before they fire.
>
> Do all you guys rule that aiming requires you to be standing still, and
> hence subject to the -1 target number modifier for incoming attacks?
>

You betcha... standing still is required (having to factor your own
movement out is akward). Exception: You can _try_ an aimed shot from a
moving vehicle, in my game, but you only get half the bonus (ie, -1 every
two Actions, not one).

Smart snipers use cover rules...

> But aiming is difficult when dodging incoming rounds, and tracking moving
> targets, so I wouldn't think people would be aiming for 3 seconds a round,
> unless they were in a position where they were not avoiding incoming rounds.
>

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code

From:	Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:13:18 -30000

Message no. 36 On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >I happened to be concentrating on the fact that one of the major factors
> >in streetfighting ranges (which is what SRII is set up to model, BTW) is
> >the fact that the major limit on *EFFECTIVE* range is the human optic
> >susbystem(which is better over a larger performce envelope than most
> >other creatures on earth).
>
> I agree that Shadowrun is designed for streetfighting, but for some reason I
> still believe that the ranges are unrealistic... I can see your point about
> the ranges being for snapshooting (see my comments further down this post),
> and I agree with it that far. Still, even though I still believe an assault
> rifle should have a range of at least two to three times the SR range, I
> must agree that it allegedly gets difficult to hit something over, say, 300
> to 400 meters. I say allegedly because I must confess that the only weapons
> I've ever fired were air rifles :) I do think I've got enough theoretical
> knowledge to know how to operate most modern firearms with a little bit of
> practice, though...
>
> >Have you ever been someplace
> >where you even HAD a clear line of sight for 250 meters?
>
> Lots of times: I don't live in a big city -- if I walk 200 meters from my
> house I'll be standing on farmland which stretches for kilometers... 200
> meters in the other direction and I'm on the beach, which is divided into
> 100-meter lengths by rows of poles :) At 250 meters _I_ can't identify
> anyone (as I said I'm near-sighted), but I can see they're there -- which
> would be enough to hit them I guess... if you've got the time to aim, yes.

Hint, if you've got the time, and if they are standing still. I *have*
shot firearms (if only .22 bolt-action rifles).

> But then again, I think 3 seconds would be long enough to put your sights
> onto your target -- most people only have one action per turn, so they would
> spend +-3 seconds aiming their weapon before they fire. At 250 meters that'd
> be a TN of 9 with an assault rifle, which is most likely a miss. Exactly as
> you said. But it makes no sense to me that the weapon couldn't hit someone
> 300 meters away when you can do that with any modern assault rifle.

Something in the rules that discourages aiming in the middle of a
firefight... If you expend *any* (emphasis mine) pool dice on any action
save to shoot at the end of the aiming period, all benifits are lost.

As for being able to hit a target at 300 m, I believe someone else said
that that is NOT the case. Remember, jitter is a major factor at those
ranges.

>
> >Yes, I know this doesn't explain your complaints about making
> >sniper-grade shots from a bench rest, with all the time in the world.
>
> My complaints? I can't recall making those...

Arrrgh. Your plural. The listmembers.

>
> >Use the house rule I posted a
> >while back about magnification systems: instead of lowering target
> >numbers, have it increase the range table. Gurth, I know you saw that,
> >you resonded to it.
>
> You mean the system that says: multiply the range by (magnification
> rating+1)? So that a sniper rifle with rating 2 scope would be short 0-120,
> medium 121-240, long 241-600, extreme 601-1200m? I only remember those being
> posted about a year ago :) I liked that system, and used it for a while, but
> stepped away from it again :) Maybe I'll re-introduce it but then so that it
> only works that way if you take time to aim...

That's about the only time you can use a scope...... Unfortunately,
on-board magnification takes a free activate cyberware action.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:56:03 +0100

Message no. 37 >But when you get up to those kind of ranges, doesn't bullet speed actually
>count? As in the target of your shot will get an action before the bullet
>actually gets to him (or is likely to), and he will probably have moved to
>some degree also. Are Assault Rifle bullets sub or super sonic? 300m ranges
>might be fine for stationary targets, but anything moving would get mighty
>difficult.

Assault rifle bullets go between 800 and 1100 meters per second, depending
on weapon used and ammunition fired. Out to 300 meters that would take less
than half a second to less than a third of a second to reach the target. Of
course the bullet slows down due to friction with the surrounding air, so
you cannot simply divide the range by the velocity to find the flight time.

>Do all you guys rule that aiming requires you to be standing still, and
>hence subject to the -1 target number modifier for incoming attacks?

Nobody's ever aimed in my campaign, but I think I'd use it :)

>But aiming is difficult when dodging incoming rounds, and tracking moving
>targets, so I wouldn't think people would be aiming for 3 seconds a round,
>unless they were in a position where they were not avoiding incoming rounds.

What I meant was that "average people" have 3 seconds to aim and fire, not
that they _are_ aiming for three seconds...

>Well, if you want, then perhaps an extra range category, Gurth Extreme
>Range, can be added on after Extreme Range. Base target number 12. You see
>what I mean? After around 250 (or so FASA has decided) m, the chances of
>hitting become pretty darn small unless you are firing at stationary
>targets, or taking careful aim.

I think I'll stick with the FASA ranges. I know I've been argueing about
them being not realistic and everything, but I also don't feel the need to
chuck them out :) For one, I would have to get those ranges into my skull
all over again :)

>What's wrong with getting ahold of some modern weapon book (like GGG or
>whatever Rat suggests), which lists ranges for weapons in ideal situations,
>and using these if someone is not in a direct combat situation, such as
>sniping, or target shooting.

3G3 it's called. What it does is it lets you design weapons for use in
TimeLords, and then provides some sets of rules to convert your TimeLords
weapon into one of seven game systems (like TORG, GURPS, T2K, and some
others), and also gives a set of general conversion guidelines so you can
work out actual conversion rules yourself. In order to use the ranges 3G3
provides you'd need to calculate the TimeLords stats to describe your
Shadowrun weapon, and then find the range that corresponds to them...

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't belong in this world or the next one
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 20 Mar 1995 01:18:15 GMT

Message no. 38 <snip snip snip>
> 250 meters is a LONG fragging shot when you don't have time to aim,
> aren't shooting from a bench rest, and are ducking and weaving for cover,
> trying not to get hit by the other guy. Have you ever been someplace
> where you even HAD a clear line of sight for 250 meters?
...
Yes - Salisbury Plain, Stanford Training Area, Copehill Down... :-)

It's not just cities, or at least it isn't in our game.
...
> Let me use an
> example: I personally have had my eyesight calibrated at 20/15 (That
> means what the average person w/ 20/20 vision can see at 15 meters, I can
> see at 20, but I digress.) I have a damn hard time identifying people at
> the far end of the school's soccer field (at MOST 150 yards away). This
> means that such a shot is going to be difficult. Not knowing what the
> parallax is at that range, I don't know how tall the *apparent* image is,
> but the amount of jitter that you get from the hand holding the gun
> unbraced is a significant amount of that.
...
Which is why we never fire unbraced if there's an NCO looking ;-)
...
> But the eye/hand coordination
> at such a range is only on factor. Another is the sights used on most
> streetfighting weapons. Iron sights.
...
Not on my Glock 21 they aren't: borrowed Aimpoint red dot sight. Very nice.
...
<<<cogent description of iron sights snipped>>>
> Most firearms hae a
> variant on this type of sight. It works on anything from hold-outs to
> sniping rifles. The major factor in the effectiveness of this kind of
> sight is the distance between the notch and the post. Thus, the iron
> sight is more effective on a longer barrel length. (Any, incidentally,
> less effective on a bullpup weapon, as the full length of the barrel
> cannot be used.) Bingo, difference in weapon accuracy at range based on
> weapons.
...
Marginal, to be honest, once the sight radius gets over about 16 inches.
And have you seen the L85, G11 and the Steyr AUG recently? I think all the
US Army's ACR candidates had optic sights for just the reasons you mention.
...

> Yes, I know this doesn't explain your complaints about making
> sniper-grade shots from a bench rest, with all the time in the world.
...
Fighting through Imber Village, Whinney Hill and the FIBUA complex at
Copehill Down, it just doesn't work. With training it's very quick to
get a rifle into the shoulder and fire aimed shots. And yes, the time pressure
is urgent even though we're firing blanks - heard of SAWES gear? The beeper
telling you "You're Dead!" is very embarrasing.

The British Army Annual Personal Weapon Test (APWT) is a case in point. It's
shot on an electronic range with targets at 100, 200 and 300 metres. The
targets fall when hit. It's been a few years, so the details are probably
a little off, but basically it's this:-

Phase 1 consists of a 100m dash to the firing point, down, load, aim and
fire. The 'go' is the 100m target coming up, and you have 25 seconds. You
are then prone with nine more exposures - three at each range, random
sequence, targets up for three econds each.

Phase 2 is shot from the prone and is a series of exposures at each range,
targets up for about three seconds each. Ten exposures. If you're not
certain of your marksmanship, ignore the 300s and fire second shots at any
100s and 200s you missed.

Phase 3 is shot from a braced position in a firing trench and is similarly
ten exposures, various ranges.

Phase 4 is shot from the standing position. Five exposures each at 100m and
200m, two seconds per exposure. Rifle to be held in the shoulder but lowered.
When the target shows, either fire standing or kneeling (but you gotta go
down, fire, and come back up each time).

This doesn't exactly suggest lengthy aiming, does it? Using SR reactions and
so forth we barely get one action in two seconds. And this was with the old
L1A1 SLRs: the scores with SA80 are disgusting and the 'pass' mark had to
be raised from 40 to 60.

Good shooting is a matter of training and practice. If your experience is
minimal, it seems almost impossible (I was a natural rifle shot - in the
sense of hitting figure-11 targets at 300m most of the time, nothing better
than that, but my pistol shooting needs constant work or I seem to forget
what I learned) but with training it gets easier and easier.

The final happy cop-out answer - it's only a game, isn't it? We have long-range
firefights in ours and rewrote the rules to suit ourselves. It suits us. It
won't suit a lot of other people. I post about my real-life experience, sure,
but in a game based on the suspension of disbelief I don't think that should
be cause for anyone to make changes they don't want to.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

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

From:	Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 19 Mar 1995 21:35:18 -0600

Message no. 39 First of all I apologize for the Jessica snyder posting,
I was using my wifes email and posted by mistake under
her name. oops

Ok I get to play again!
Info on reality for the unwashed masses

I fon't know who is writing here but...
><snip snip snip>
>> 250 meters is a LONG fragging shot when you don't have time to aim,
>> aren't shooting from a bench rest, and are ducking and weaving for cover,
>> trying not to get hit by the other guy. Have you ever been someplace
>> where you even HAD a clear line of sight for 250 meters?
>...
>Yes - Salisbury Plain, Stanford Training Area, Copehill Down... :-)

Marine Corps rifle training requires shooting at a man sized upper
torso target at 500m with iron sights. most people can do this
8 out of 10 times, even on a windy day. 250m is a short shot.

Range of weapons in shadow run is one of my pet peeves, so I
won't dwell on it.

[stuff deleted to save bandwidth]

>...
>Which is why we never fire unbraced if there's an NCO looking ;-)

I agree.

>> But the eye/hand coordination
>> at such a range is only one factor. Another is the sights used on most
>> streetfighting weapons. Iron sights.

First off, pistols suck for accuracy in any case, and most real street
pistol combat is done without sighting...
That's why God, DLoH, or someone else really smart invented the
smartlink. No sight needed

[stuff on iron sights deleted]

>Fighting through Imber Village, Whinney Hill and the FIBUA complex at
>Copehill Down, it just doesn't work. With training it's very quick to
>get a rifle into the shoulder and fire aimed shots. And yes, the time pressure
>is urgent even though we're firing blanks - heard of SAWES gear? The beeper
>telling you "You're Dead!" is very embarrasing.

A Smartlink makes sights obsolete...

[stuff on Brit training deleted]
>
>Good shooting is a matter of training and practice.

These are words to live by...

[more brit training stuff deleted]

>
>The final happy cop-out answer - it's only a game, isn't it? We have long-range
>firefights in ours and rewrote the rules to suit ourselves. It suits us. It
>won't suit a lot of other people. I post about my real-life experience, sure,
>but in a game based on the suspension of disbelief I don't think that should
>be cause for anyone to make changes they don't want to.

This sounds good to me...
>
>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Oh, that's who was writing.

Keith

From:	Mark Kalvin <Sahtori@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 20 Mar 1995 00:12:00 -0500

Message no. 40 This is a light response to things written by:

jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU (Keith Johnson)

and

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

>Ok I get to play again!
>Info on reality for the unwashed masses

>I fon't know who is writing here but...
><snip snip snip>
>> 250 meters is a LONG fragging shot when you don't have time to aim,
>> aren't shooting from a bench rest, and are ducking and weaving for cover,
>> trying not to get hit by the other guy. Have you ever been someplace
>> where you even HAD a clear line of sight for 250 meters?
>...
>Yes - Salisbury Plain, Stanford Training Area, Copehill Down... :-)

>Marine Corps rifle training requires shooting at a man sized upper
>torso target at 500m with iron sights. most people can do this
>8 out of 10 times, even on a windy day. 250m is a short shot.

>Range of weapons in shadow run is one of my pet peeves, so I
>won't dwell on it.

Considering the nature of combat in the game, IMHO for anyone to worry
overmuch about Marine Corps riflery and things of that nature. The game
demands tactical situations that are exciting, things that can make the blood
race. It is very difficult to imagine the average gamemaster coming up with
some situation where shooting in the deep distance is needed. Sniping is only
exciting for the shooter and the person shot at. It is not the sort of thing
that you could imagine an S-run storyline making exciting for an entire Team.
S-run firefights are not the place for military tactical doctrines; if any
doctrine at all should be, it was probably made in hollywood. :-) Shadowrun
is all about living in a story where you portray someone who is tough, smart
and dangerous, usually in an urban setting, under most circumstances, things
will take place at close range under spray-and -pray conditions: imagine one
drive-by shooting or sudden firefight after another.

>> But the eye/hand coordination
>> at such a range is only one factor. Another is the sights used on most
>> streetfighting weapons. Iron sights.

See above comments.

>>First off, pistols suck for accuracy in any case, and most real street
>>pistol combat is done without sighting...
>>That's why God, DLoH, or someone else really smart invented the
>>smartlink. No sight needed

The smartlink allows a more efficient spray and pray. :-)

>Fighting through Imber Village, Whinney Hill and the FIBUA complex at
>Copehill Down, it just doesn't work. With training it's very quick to
>get a rifle into the shoulder and fire aimed shots. And yes, the time
pressure
>is urgent even though we're firing blanks - heard of SAWES gear? The beeper
>telling you "You're Dead!" is very embarrasing.

>A Smartlink makes sights obsolete...

>Good shooting is a matter of training and practice.

Shadowrunners who aren't former mercenaries, don't ordinarily recieve the
kind of training described above and when you talk about the urban situation
that most shadowrunners work in, they wouldn't be able to use it. There is
not large city in America today where combat at the ranges described is
practicable; you need only imagine trying to discern a single target from
several hundred meters on a Summer's day in manhattan at, say, three o'clock
in the afternoon. Finding someone with a rifle leaning out of an office
window: you would have to spot him or her through all the haze and dust of
the city to acquire his or her image.

>The final happy cop-out answer - it's only a game, isn't it? We have
>long-range firefights in ours and rewrote the rules to suit ourselves. It
suits us. It
>won't suit a lot of other people. I post about my real-life experience,
sure,
>but in a game based on the suspension of disbelief I don't think that should
>be cause for anyone to make changes they don't want to.

>This sounds good to me...
>
>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

In essense, I agree with the two above writers. It is easy to see that they
expend a lot of gunfire in their games. :-) But what about magic? What does
magic do? Here's a question: what rules do you guys use when it comes to
using magic against getting shot? I play a hermetic mage and for the sake of
the story, he spends a lot of time and karma avoiding death by projectiles.
Does anyone have anything to say about this?

Another stick to stir the water with. Does anyone else think that it would be
possible to use magic to transform the inertia of an incoming projectile to
another form of energy like heat or light (limited target projectiles). This
could have some really serious impact on game balance if it were possible
within the game's rules. It would be the sort of thing that a spell-user
would discover as an idea one day and then keep to himself for years...

Have fun

Mark Kalvin (Sahtori@***.com)

From:	Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:47:10 -0600

Message no. 41 >Mark Kalvin (Sahtori@***.com) writes:
>
>Considering the nature of combat in the game, IMHO for anyone to worry
>overmuch about Marine Corps riflery and things of that nature. The game
>demands tactical situations that are exciting, things that can make the blood
>race. It is very difficult to imagine the average gamemaster coming up with
>some situation where shooting in the deep distance is needed. Sniping is only
>exciting for the shooter and the person shot at. It is not the sort of thing
>that you could imagine an S-run storyline making exciting for an entire Team.
>S-run firefights are not the place for military tactical doctrines; if any
>doctrine at all should be, it was probably made in hollywood. :-) Shadowrun
>is all about living in a story where you portray someone who is tough, smart
>and dangerous, usually in an urban setting, under most circumstances, things
>will take place at close range under spray-and -pray conditions: imagine one
>drive-by shooting or sudden firefight after another.
>

I absolutely agree with you here Mark. But my question is
why did they give the weapons unrealistic ranges if range is
not important?

>>The final happy cop-out answer - it's only a game, isn't it? We have
>>long-range firefights in ours and rewrote the rules to suit ourselves. It
>suits us. It
>>won't suit a lot of other people. I post about my real-life experience,
>sure,
>>but in a game based on the suspension of disbelief I don't think that should
>>be cause for anyone to make changes they don't want to.
>
>>This sounds good to me...
>>
>>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
>
>In essense, I agree with the two above writers. It is easy to see that they
>expend a lot of gunfire in their games. :-) But what about magic? What does
>magic do? Here's a question: what rules do you guys use when it comes to
>using magic against getting shot? I play a hermetic mage and for the sake of
>the story, he spends a lot of time and karma avoiding death by projectiles.
>Does anyone have anything to say about this?

Actually, I hate playing anything that uses a gun in Shadowrun. The only
character that I've ever really developed is an Elven hermetic initiate
who now wanders the street with no tech weapons. The last Sam who
asked him when he wanted to die got himself turned into a tree!
The Sixth World is where the truth is hidden!

My pet peeve about firearms in Shadowrun keeps me from playing gun guys.

>
>Another stick to stir the water with. Does anyone else think that it would be
>possible to use magic to transform the inertia of an incoming projectile to
>another form of energy like heat or light (limited target projectiles). This
>could have some really serious impact on game balance if it were possible
>within the game's rules. It would be the sort of thing that a spell-user
>would discover as an idea one day and then keep to himself for years...

Hmm... It seems there is a rebel among us...

Stay alive,

Keith

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff
Date:	Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:32:22 +0100

Message no. 42 >Another stick to stir the water with. Does anyone else think that it would be
>possible to use magic to transform the inertia of an incoming projectile to
>another form of energy like heat or light (limited target projectiles). This
>could have some really serious impact on game balance if it were possible
>within the game's rules. It would be the sort of thing that a spell-user
>would discover as an idea one day and then keep to himself for years...

Well, he couldn't target a specific bullet because he can't see it.
Technically it's in his field of vision, but I doubt there are many people
who see bullets fly :) You could use a anchored spells -- Detect Bullets,
which then switches on a Turn Bullet To Other Form Of Energy spell.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
<te huur: 1 lege regel (opschrift naar keuze), hier te bezichtigen.>
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and stuff (fwd)
Date:	Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:06:21 -0700

Message no. 43 Stats for mag filled GL as promised

30mm Individual Grenade Launcher System (IGLS)

Semi-auto recoil operated launcher with 10 round magazine
Currant ammo includes HEDP, Marker and Inert.
Other ammo intended: flechette, buckshot, smoke, and lume.
30% less weaight than 40mm ammo, 44% less bulky than 40mm.
weight 13lpbs
length 32 in
impluse <3lbs/sec
noise <155 db
muzzel velocity 275 ft/sec
arming distance: 45-90 ft
penetration: 2 in RHA
lethal radius: equiv to 40mm hedp ammo
range: >500m
made by ardec, Alliant Techsystems, and Knox Engineering

Game stats? See my nerps submission in a few weeks!:)

> > True, but the main point is the rules allow for better training and it is
> > reflected in the number of dice that are rolled. The range factors stay
> > the same, no mater who is shooting whom. So to keep everyone on the same
> > sheet of music they use the set ranges.
>
> Sounds like a cop out to me :-)

I dont think it is, take a dam good look at the game mechanics and you
figure it out!:)

> > I see your point but seriously how many shots do runners make that are
> > outside of 400 meters?
>
> Depends on the game...my assassin character regularly takes shots at 1000
> metres plus, but he plans them VERY carefully.

Yes but I bet he aint pulling the trigger more than once! Think it
through and then reply.

> > > There were antitank rifles up to 20mm in WW2, the old Lahti for instance.
> >
> > I was talking the vulcan type(in size not mechanics) and chain gun type.
> > Not anti-tank rifles but thats a good point to.
>
> Okay...but show me a manpack one :-)

I wasnt saying it was manpacked but I bet a crew served one could do some
serious stuff, hell the vulcans in the Riggers book and vehicles are 20mm
or better.

> > Sub sonic does not effect effective range (in military applications that
> > is), only the maximum range, when it hits the Earth.
>
> It does, because the slower the bullet the longer the time of flight. So
> a subsonic .655 takes three times as long as a supersonic .300 Winchester: at
> 600 metres it's the difference between 0.5 and 2 seconds. Also the subsonic
> bullet will suffer much more trajectory drop and be more affected by cross
> winds. That's why rifles outrange SMGs, even precision ones like the MP-5.

In military grade subsonic ammo the effective range is NOT changed I know
I used the dam stuff. Granted it is slower and more affected by
crosswinds but the effective range is NOT changed.

Laters Edge

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are infinitely patient, prefering to minimize risks to themelves and
suffer a thousand defeats if they gain the final victory. Still, they are
diabolically clever, and devious in the extream. If they fail militarily,
they infiltrate and corrupt. Now they are on the march once more, and the
more they are set back, the more determined, devious and dangerous they
become. Curr ahee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Peterson (Paul Finch) Edge | US Army Ret. 1/506th Inf (Mtr. Lt.)
EMT-Paramedic/BSN Wanna-be and Will-Be! Self Empowered Gun Nut

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Weapons and Stuff
Date:	Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:46:08 +1000

Message no. 44 Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

[Phase 1-4 of some marksmanship testing course.]

Everything you have said could be done in the SR game system, with the
exception of the shots which exceeded the SR extreme range. Even for a shot
at SR extreme range, TN 9, it would be quite possible to do as well as you
suggested. Assume one action every 2 seconds, for the sake of the argument.
Assume one target is shot during each action. Base TN 9, -1 for stationary
target, and -1 for one action aiming (remember, you get 2 simple actions per
go). Final target number of 7. Assume an average person with an average
Firearms skill, ie they have 3 for Firearms, and 4 in their Combat Pool.
They put in all their Combat Pool (hey, no-one's shooting back, so why
not?). They get to roll 7 dice against a target numebr of 7, on average
they'll get 1 success. Bingo, there you are. If you like, you can fire twice
instead of aiming for the first simple action, that way you effectively get
14 dice vs a target number of 8, even more chance of hitting than before.
The only problem is that by SR, you can't hit something past 250m with an
Assault Rifle. Easy fix to this, use any of the aiming/scope rules
suggested, or merely extend Extreme range to a realistic one. I'd think the
latter is much simpler and easier.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer