From:	derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject:	Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date:	Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:52:55 -0500

> Hm, I'd have to look into the CC and do some reasearch on the web, so
> I'm writing this down kind of fuzzy in the details:
> With classes I mean the (basically, of course there are shades of grey)
> two kinds of long range rifles: On the one hand weapons like the M24 or
> M22 (sic? The M16 with sound suprressor and scope), meant to be used
> against soldiers/Corporate security guards/VIPs and similar soft
> targets, with basically shorter ranges (depending on length of barrel,
> cartridge, shape of the projectile and the like).
> On the other hand (as you put it) "heavy sniper rifles" like the Hecate
> or M82, wich are capabale to destroy/disable satellite dishes, car
> motors, and the like.
>
> I think, though, that SR gives a good differenciation of these weapons,
> while still keeping them in one spot.

Kinda.....the reason that the barrets and other .50 or larger sniper rifles
are considered anti-material is because of the geneva convention (per the
explanation we get in the army) because it's "inhumane" to shoot a person
with something of that size, and technically with the barrets you're
supposed to be aiming at their equipment ;) a .308 or .338 Lapua are both
quite capable of taking out most equipment too ;)

>
>> This is true, but, most snipers are trained to do those calculations very
>> quickly or they've got a spotter to do them for them while they're tracking
>> the target, adjusting sights, and then pulling the trigger.
>
> Yes. But there are still factors, that cannot be figured in: Wind is
> rarely constant on the whole length, drag is different, so you's have to
> work with averages (or even educated guesses), limiting the effective
> range. Of course, that doesn't stop particularly skilled snipers to use
> the full range potential of a weapon, as our examples below show.
>

Agreed fully ;)

>>> It has been a while that I heard it: An Australian sniper got some very
>>> high classed medal, for eliminating a Taliban at the maximum range of
>>> his M92. So, it is possible, in the Real World(TM) as well as in SR (A
>>> sniper in my group hit his target at Extreme Range, decapacitating the
>>> target. He could keep the rifle as payment.), just to get the thread
>>> back on topic.
>>
>>
>> And a canadian sniper team set the world record over in Iraq recently by
>> obtaining a confirmed kill at 1500 meters
>
> ^^^^^The examples I meant. (I keep them for reference).
>
>> Nope, you don't, the Barret Model 121 is a .50 sniper rifle, and would be in
>> reality considered an Anti-Material rifle) the only thing you'd have to
>> tweak was the damage and range if you wanted to introduce something like the
>> AW-Magnum which is a .338 Lapua, which can reliably hit nearly as far out as
>> the .50 BMG sniper rifles and hits with considerable force at that range,
>> you'd have to introduce a class of "heavy sniper rifles" with longer
range
>> and more damage, then make the AWM one of those with more recoil reduction
>> than the rest of them.
>
> Huh? I'm not sure if I understand that paragraph, and ask you to clarify
> it a bit (English is my second language).

You don't need to introduce a second category unless you want to get
nitpicky and add some range, just put in an add in on the notes of the
specific weapon that it increases standard sniper rifle ranges by
100/200/300/500 meters or whatever the realistic modification is on there

The Barrett already compensates partially by stating that the standard ammo
for it is considered APDS.

>
>> (not trying to be argumentative, but, 90% of my old gaming group were all
>> army or ex-army and we all spent plenty of time debating guns and this kind
>> of stuff with the people that were civilians in the group because they have
>> preconceptions of how things work, and once you've been around it, it's
>> pretty tough not to try to correct those preconceptions)
>
> I understand that. I can get quite, er, irritated if someone uses the
> term "hacker", when "cracker" would be more appropiate.
> the difference being, that hackers are, well, computer geeks, hacking
> away on keyboards, and crackers being those, who break into cmputer
> systems. (Most deckers fall into the latter category).
>
Yup, and the term "Computer Tech" encompasses both quite often ;)