Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

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

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

-- TillK ]B-]

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

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS d-@ s: a20 C+ U? P L E? W++(+) N o? K? w(-) O? M>+ V? PS+ PE++ Y+
PGP? t+@ 5- X- R+(++)* tv-- b+++(++) DI- D+ G e+>++++* h(+,*) r-- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.