Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Autorevolver

Posted by: Voran Apr 18 2006, 07:30 AM

So I'm cruising through wikipedia, my original inquiry was on pistols that fire rifle-caliber type rounds, wasn't having too much success with that, as I couldn't figure out a good way to narrow my fields down. So I'm looking through links, heading to the listings for .454 casull, .500 rounds, etc. Since I'm still rather clueless on firearms, it wasn't making much sense to me, though I was getting 'bigger boom' for bigger calibers.

Course then I head over to Trigun listing, since I'm looking at revolvers, and it points me in the direction of a mateba autorevolver, which I also find out is used by Togusa on ghost in the shell too. Anyway, I google it, find a niiiiice looking pic of one, and decided that needs to be my next runner gun. I'm thinking, not so different from the superwarhawk? So the revolver dmg, but instead of SS its SA?

The reason I'm posting, beyond just that honeymoon glow of finding a new cool item, was I was wondering what some of our more knowledgeable DS posters could tell me about personal experience with the weapon, if any. Good gun? Better off using a regular SA gun?

I also had some secondary questions:

Can you use caseless rounds in a revolver?

I realize there isn't a cannon companion type book for sr4 out yet, but what would be a reasonable ammo stat for resizing something like a mateba for a .500 s&w? 5 round capacity, but what sorta dmg/etc stats? (from what I gather the mateba wasn't sized for it on its own, but I figure, what the hell)

Posted by: Birdy Apr 18 2006, 07:50 AM

On the second question:

Since the original revolvers where "Cap&Ball" (Loose Powder and a primer cap) I see no problems building a wheelgun using caseless ammo. I only doubt you will get many of the benefits of caseless.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 18 2006, 08:48 AM

I'd probably give it a 9M damage code with SA firing rate, but I fully admit to being no expert.

Edit: heavier ammunition was specified, never mind. I based this guess on a Mateba and its standard calibers.

~J

Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 18 2006, 09:36 AM

Semiautomatic revolvers are a novelty really. They don't provide a significant advantage over a standard double-action revolver.

As for the firing mode, I never understood why the Warhawk was SS in the first place. There are DAO semiautomatics with heavier and longer trigger pulls than some double action revolvers so the only thing that makes the slightest bit of sense is that the Warhawk is SAO, which doesn't make too much sense.

The Warhawk's fireing mode is a game balance issue rather than a mechanics issue. There are three revolvers in the canon companion with a SA firing mode but none of them have a damage code as high as 10M. The slowing rate of fire is the price one pays for higher damage. This also makes little sense due to the fact that one can easily make a 10M SA/BF pistol using the CC rules.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Apr 18 2006, 10:13 AM

Like hyzmarca says, the Single Shot rate of fire can only reasonably be explained with it being a single action revolver -- that is, it works like in cowboy movies, you have to manually cock the hammer before every shot. The trigger pull only releases the hammer, hence "single action".

The reason why even that doesn't make much sense is that single action revolvers are largely extinct, other than for something called http://www.cowboyactionshooting.com/pages/Facts&Figures.html. Just about all modern revolvers are double action, where depressing the trigger both cocks the hammer and releases it. You can fire a double action revolver http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=7374.

QUOTE (Voran)

[...] but what would be a reasonable ammo stat for resizing something like a mateba for a .500 s&w? 5 round capacity, but what sorta dmg/etc stats?

If only you used SR3... Then you could just check Raygun's site and http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/pistol/sw_x.html. In SR4, if you aren't using any other house rules for firearms, such a gun would do the exact same damage as any other Heavy Pistol, or else it would do the damage of a Super Warhawk with the same limitation to RoF.

Posted by: HMHVV Hunter Apr 18 2006, 07:07 PM

Eh, maybe the Ruger Super Warhawk was marketed towards runners desiring a "cowboy" feel.

The character I'm playing right now carries one (I based him off Malcolm Reynolds from "Firefly," so I figured it fit him well, even though his main weapon is a Savalette Guardian)

The Warhawk sorta compensates for the lower firing rate with that 10M damage code. Not a big jump, but still, it's something.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 18 2006, 09:59 PM

...better jump in SR4 since the Warhawk is rated at 6P (-2 AP).

With a decent pool (say 14 d) it is not inconceivable to push the DV to 9-10P which is pretty hefty damage. Even if it does not penetrate, the target still has to shake off a lot of stun

Add EX and DV starts at 8P with I beleive another -1 to the AP.

Gel rounds really rock with this weapon. Starting DV is 8S with -2 Str for knockdown. Now take those 3 - 4 hits and the target is resisting more stun than most characters (save for trolls) have on their Stun condition track along with almost automatically getting bowled over (unless again, they are a troll).

Yeah the fire rate and ammo cap. leaves something to be desired which is why I have KK4.1 use one in each hand (w/ambidexterity) ala Doc Holladay style. Most of the time it is just to shoot once per action (giving her 12 shots before reloading) but even with splitting her pool, she still has a pretty good chance to get a couple hits, still knock her opponent down and make them suffer modifiers on their actions.

Posted by: Raygun Apr 18 2006, 10:04 PM

QUOTE (Voran)

The reason I'm posting, beyond just that honeymoon glow of finding a new cool item, was I was wondering what some of our more knowledgeable DS posters could tell me about personal experience with the weapon, if any. Good gun? Better off using a regular SA gun?

The closest I've personally been able to get to a Mateba was about a foot, staring at one through a glass case at a gun show. They're nifty-looking guns, and have that novelty of an auto revolver (like the Webley-Fosbery; one of those I've actually held), but it really is just that. A novelty. As has already been said, the Mateba really doesn't accomplish anything that other, cheaper, more readily available revolvers can't accomplish. But it sure does look neat.

QUOTE

I also had some secondary questions:

Can you use caseless rounds in a revolver?

Birdy is correct in that cap & ball revolvers didn't use a cartridge case and were thus caseless. But even so, there's a big difference between that and a caseless cartridge (namely how the firearm is loaded). It probably could be accomplished one way or another, but I can't think of any way that it would be beneficial to the user to use caseless ammunition in a revolver. Basically, it would be yet another mostly impractical novelty.

As the case itself is what performs the all-important act of sealing the breech, and each breech in the cylinder needs to be easily accessible for reloading the firearm, cased cartridges are especially useful when it comes to rapidly reloading a revolver (through the use of moon clips or speedloaders).

QUOTE

I realize there isn't a cannon companion type book for sr4 out yet, but what would be a reasonable ammo stat for resizing something like a mateba for a .500 s&w? 5 round capacity, but what sorta dmg/etc stats? (from what I gather the mateba wasn't sized for it on its own, but I figure, what the hell)

If you're still playing SR3, I would suggest using the stats for the S&W X-Frame revolvers from my site that Aus already posted a link to (an auto revolver should offer no better stats), but jack the weight up about 10% and price up about 40%. Any advantage you would gain from the revolver cocking itself would be lost several times over due to the sheer amount of recoil that has to be dealt with when using a cartridge so powerful.

Posted by: Shrike30 Apr 18 2006, 10:31 PM

I would imagine, given that revolvers are constructed with gaps at either end of the cylinder to allow for rotation (the source of cylinder flash), that you might actually run into problems when using caseless ammunition that could be quite disastrous. Say, cylinder flash from the rear of the cylinder igniting a round in a chamber that's not even lined up with the barrel...

Posted by: Raygun Apr 18 2006, 11:09 PM

I was thinking that you'd pretty much have to seal the breech side of the cylinder and load the caseless cartridges from the front end, igniting them electronically. Pretty wierd, but I don't see why it couldn't work that way. Of course, I don't see why anyone would want to do it that way, either. Might be a good way to blow off your hand.

Posted by: Shrike30 Apr 18 2006, 11:20 PM

Yeah, I personally have issues with the concept of putting my hand in front of slugs that I'm loading into a hot cylinder.

Posted by: Lindt Apr 19 2006, 12:09 AM

Eh. My comment reguarding the Super warhawk has always been that its the true 'big iron' of the pistols. .50 AE, .454 Cat, Redhalk .480 .500 S&W. As compaired to something like the Pred (which in my mind has always been a .45 colt clone).

Yeah, I think once you got past the front load, I wouldent call it too odd. IIRC the caseless ammo is electrically primed, so once you get it in... but then you loose the hammer effect... Meh.

Posted by: Raygun Apr 19 2006, 12:25 AM

QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Apr 18 2006, 11:20 PM)

Yeah, I personally have issues with the concept of putting my hand in front of slugs that I'm loading into a hot cylinder.

I don't think the heat would be that big of an issue in a revolver. Anyways, front-end loading worked fairly well for the much greater part of the history of firearms. That said, given the choice, I'd rather not put my hand in front of the cartridge. It's the statistically insignificant occasional mishap I'd be thinking about while doing it.

QUOTE

Yeah, I think once you got past the front load, I wouldent call it too odd. IIRC the caseless ammo is electrically primed, so once you get it in... but then you loose the hammer effect... Meh.

Yeah. No need for a hammer with electronic priming.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 19 2006, 02:00 AM

I really get stressed out when I realize I can't figure out whether my HP is firing 10mm or .45 ACP.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 19 2006, 02:03 AM

Of course you'd still put the hammer in. If you don't, what's the point? It may be purely ornamental, but it is going to be there.

Or heads will roll.

~J

Posted by: Shrapnel Apr 19 2006, 02:12 AM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Voran)

[...] but what would be a reasonable ammo stat for resizing something like a mateba for a .500 s&w? 5 round capacity, but what sorta dmg/etc stats?

That really depends on whether the Super Warhawk was based on the http://ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdResults?function=famid&famid=15, which is single action (and nowhere near being extinct), or the http://ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdResults?function=famid&famid=7, which is double action.

Personally, I've allowed both. It's just a matter of personal preference, and price.

Posted by: Voran Apr 19 2006, 02:28 AM

Thanks for all the replies. I think for SR4 I'll go with the idea of mateba just cloning the super warhawk stats, with the default 6 shot cylinder. Have to admit those S&W x types look rather nice as well, but there's something about the mateba's barrel aligned with the lower part of the cylinder that appeals to me visually.

I did have another question. Is the HK G38 in the cannon companion likely the SR 'advanced' version of the HK g36 or the HK g36/7 (using Raygun's site for the listings)? I know SR 4 uses the HK xm30, but I think the weapon looks a little silly and plasticky to me. Even some of the extrenal sites on wikipedia that I used to check on the xm30 didn't sell me much on its look.

Also I do apologize for my focus on the 'look' of a gun, its just that I figure since SR pretty much lumps up everything, gives everything in the same class relatively the same stats, that I may as well go with the one I think my char would look more intimidating carrying. And for some reason the Ares stuff doesn't do it for me. I don't like the Alpha or the revamps of the predator too much, tho I kinda liked the look of the predator 3.

Posted by: Raygun Apr 19 2006, 02:42 AM

QUOTE (Voran)

I did have another question. Is the HK G38 in the cannon companion likely the SR 'advanced' version of the HK g36 or the HK g36/7 (using Raygun's site for the listings)?

Yeah. From what I understand the G38 is another SR attempt at a modular rifle platform based on a real rifle (like the Steyr AUG-CSL). Being that the G36 is modular like that in reality, it's definitely the inspiration for the G38. I assume the XM30 is supposed to be based on the idea of the XM8, which was itself a very slightly modified G36 (different plastic furniture, better optics; now defunct).

The G36/7 on my site is a fictional 7.62x51mm version of the G36.

Posted by: Voran Apr 19 2006, 03:11 AM

QUOTE (Raygun)

The G36/7 on my site is a fictional 7.62x51mm version of the G36.

Woops. Heh the site is so well done I have a hard time telling at first glance which stuff is based on real stuff and which stuff is based on nearly-real stuff

Posted by: Raygun Apr 19 2006, 03:14 AM

Well, I try...

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 19 2006, 03:47 AM

QUOTE (Shrapnel)

Thanks for the links

Downloaded images of both the Super Blackhawk S-411N and Super Redhawk KSRH-9.

Gives me a pretty good reference for what my character KK 4.1 is packing.

For sheer looks I prefer the Blackhawk (always was one for the classical look & that 10.5 in barrel has a definite intimidation factor). For performance & speed however - especially firing 2 weapons in alternating fashion or at the same time - double action would make more sense.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 19 2006, 10:37 PM

Darn, raygun beat me to the Webley-Fosbery, automatic revolvers are cute as collectors items but not really usable as weapons. I mean sure point and shoot but the extra bells and whistles are too expensive for a comperable non-revolver.

As for single and double action- my S&W .357 is a double action but I shoot straighter if I treat it like a single action, mannually cocking it for each shot. It takes only a momment, and the differnece is the pull needed for the double action pulls me a little off center.

I've had a similar experience with a .38 webley.

A semi-auto like a baretta is already cocked after the first shot so it doesn't have that problem.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Apr 19 2006, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

A semi-auto like a baretta is already cocked after the first shot so it doesn't have that problem.

That's true for single-action and DA/SA pistols, but with double-action only pistols (like a Beretta 92D/DS), and oddities like the Glock "safe action", the trigger pull still cocks the hammer or striker on subsequent shots.

Of course, you can get a double action trigger that's light enough to remove the accuracy problem.

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

For sheer looks I prefer the Blackhawk [...]. For performance & speed however [...] double action would make more sense.

Hence why sane people pick a DA revolver for defense, and why SA revolvers are curiosities -- and almost exclusively US curiosities.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Apr 20 2006, 01:20 AM

It's a silly idea, but...

Would it be physically be possible to mod a Mateba type autorevolver to fire two-round bursts?

-karma

Posted by: Raygun Apr 20 2006, 01:33 AM

I don't see why not.

Hmm. A full-auto caseless revolver. Well past "silly" and approaching "regoddamndiculous" at speeds heretofore unknown to man.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 20 2006, 02:54 AM

AE- the S&W is wonderfully accurate, especially loaded with 38 specials. I don't want to mess with that for a little lighter trigger.

For personal defense, yes I have a permitt, I usually carry a .380 Baretta Cheetah or .25 Baretta bobcat (I'm small It's the only thing I can wear with a business suit) With each of those I can mannually cock it but after the first round, the action cocks it without me having to do it again or a DA pressure. The first shot takes a little more pull, after that it's fine

Posted by: De Badd Ass Apr 20 2006, 03:07 AM

QUOTE (Raygun)

That said, given the choice, I'd rather not put my hand in front of the cartridge. It's the statistically insignificant occasional mishap I'd be thinking about while doing it.

What you call "the statistically insignificant occasional mishap" is what Shadowrun rules call a "glitch". Those never happen on a reloading test.

Posted by: Lindt Apr 20 2006, 04:09 AM

QUOTE (Raygun)

Hmm. A full-auto caseless revolver. Well past "silly" and approaching "regoddamndiculous" at speeds heretofore unknown to man.

Wow, now you have to deal with both recoil AND torque effects. Pulls up and hard to the left.

Snow, you are one of the reasons I would never be able to mug someone. Cause you never know when that person is skilled in a small arsonal of weapons, and can break your arm in 3 places, all while wearing heels.

Posted by: Raygun Apr 20 2006, 04:19 AM

QUOTE (De Badd Ass)

What you call "the statistically insignificant occasional mishap" is what Shadowrun rules call a "glitch". Those never happen on a reloading test.

This is why you must Know Your GM. Only a particular kind of sadistic bastard would have you blow your own hand off, as opposed to dropping the ammo or some other minor difficulty.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Apr 20 2006, 02:51 PM

QUOTE (Raygun)

I don't see why not.

Hmm. A full-auto caseless revolver. Well past "silly" and approaching "regoddamndiculous" at speeds heretofore unknown to man.

Hm. Well, not caseless, but now that I think about it, isn't this basically how the Pancor Jackhammer works? Recoil-operated revolving cylinder?

-karma

Posted by: Daddy's Little Ninja Apr 20 2006, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (Lindt)

QUOTE (Raygun @ Apr 19 2006, 09:33 PM)

Hmm. A full-auto caseless revolver. Well past "silly" and approaching "regoddamndiculous" at speeds heretofore unknown to man.

She is also a great cook. But I do not think she does anything with knives.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 20 2006, 06:57 PM

Even cut the food she's cooking? I guess she just shoots it into bits?

Posted by: mfb Apr 20 2006, 07:01 PM

guns are helpful household tools. i use mine in place of a remote for the TV.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 20 2006, 07:01 PM

Tragically, it only has an "off" button.

Posted by: mfb Apr 20 2006, 07:28 PM

i don't find that tragic in the least.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 20 2006, 07:36 PM

I'm sure your brain appreciates that.

Posted by: Raygun Apr 20 2006, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Apr 20 2006, 02:51 PM)

Hm. Well, not caseless, but now that I think about it, isn't this basically how the Pancor Jackhammer works? Recoil-operated revolving cylinder?

Well, insofar as both would operate full auto and fire from a rotating cylinder, they're basically similar, but that's about it. The method of operation is drastically different.

The Jackhammer is actually gas-operated, with the barrel itself acting as a forward-travelling piston which pulls an operating rod with it when fired. The operating rod cocks the striker as well as indexes and locks the magazine in place.

In the Mateba, the upper half of the revolver (barrel, cylinder) simply recoils rearward when a shot is fired, pushing the hammer, which is part of the lower assembly, rearward and so cocking it again. When the upper half returns forward, the cylinder is rotated, indexing the next chamber.

Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 20 2006, 08:42 PM

There was once a Western called The Rifleman which featured a lever-action Winchester rifle which was modified to fire as soon as it was cocked, eliminating the need to operate the trigger.

This may explain the SA pump action shotguns. At the very least, it provides a justification for modifying SS weapons into SA and looks downright cool on screen.

Posted by: Daddy's Little Ninja Apr 20 2006, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Even cut the food she's cooking? I guess she just shoots it into bits?

I meant she never refers to knives as weapons. Though if po'ed in her kitchen, she has been known to through produce at the offender until they retreat.

Posted by: Birdy Apr 21 2006, 10:38 AM

Pitchforks! The most useful household tool is a Pitchfork!

+ You can use it to clean up the stable
+ You can use it to clean up the bachlor appartment
+ It make a good "Religious fanatic repellant"

Definitly a must have

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 22 2006, 03:07 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

There was once a Western called The Rifleman which featured a lever-action Winchester rifle which was modified to fire as soon as it was cock, then eliminating the need to operate the trigger.

This may explain the SA pump action shotguns. At the very least, it provides a justification for modifying SS weapons into SA and looks downright cool on screen.

That was with chuck Conners and it was a neat actuion. he would just work the pump and it went off. but he realy fired from the shoulder so I'd say accuracy was way the hell off.

For bolt actions don't underestimate real speed. In 1914 British infantry were required at a mimimum to fire 15 bulls eyes in 1 minute. Firing a .303 SMLE-a bolt action rifle with a 10 round mag. Most were able to fire in exess of that and some were nearly 30 shots. it was called the "mad minute," speed and accuracy, not ust volume. At mons in august 1914 German forces that went head on at these men were stopped cold, survivors reporting they faced massed machine guns, so fast and deadly was the fire form the British lines they couldn't believe it was aimed rifle fire.

Posted by: Raygun Apr 22 2006, 05:57 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Apr 20 2006, 08:42 PM)

There was once a Western called The Rifleman which featured a lever-action Winchester rifle which was modified to fire as soon as it was cock, then eliminating the need to operate the trigger.

Well, sort of. The trigger still had to be operated. The rifle on The Rifleman was a Winchester 1892, modified with that distinctive large loop lever. The lever itself had http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/img/rm_win92_lever.jpg so that when the lever was brought fully up and the bolt locked into battery, the screw would hit the trigger, firing the rifle. The screw could be removed, allowing the rifle to operate normally. I understand what you mean, though. As long as the screw was there, all the shooter had to do was swing the lever down and back up again to get a bang.

I've thought about buying another lever for my Winchester 94 to see if I could make that work (heh, http://www.e-gunparts.com/product.asp?chrProductSKU=319490B), but I have so far been unsuccessful in convincing myself to follow through with that. Besides, 30-30 Win is a different beast from 30-20 WCF. Probably would not be much fun to shoot that way. I have an 1892 as well, but I'm not about to mess with it as it's worth a few bucks (thanks to The Rifleman and Cowboy Action shooting).

QUOTE

This may explain the SA pump action shotguns. At the very least, it provides a justification for modifying SS weapons into SA and looks downright cool on screen.

Obviously, you couldn't accomplish the same thing with a pump action unless you went about it much differently. While modern pump action shotguns are designed specifically to prevent this kind of thing from happening (for safety reasons), some older designs, specifically the Winchester 97, will fire every time the action is racked, so long as you hold down the trigger and have the ammo.

Oddly enough, the Winchester 97 is still made in China by Norinco. In fact, they make a right awesome copy of the http://www.marstar.ca/gf-norinco/YL-M-97.shtm. Slap a 1917 Enfield bayonet on there and the boche will run in sheer terror (thought you might like that one, Snow_Fox).

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 23 2006, 02:53 PM

lol, and the boche, who introduced poison gas ot the battle field, made formal complaints to geneva about that weapon.

This thread has made me think. Why would you want an auto-fire revolver? The idea of a revolver is more reliable but slower. autofire would take care of the 'reliable' issue but all that will do it empty the gun faster. Ultimately this was historically proven to be an unacceptable situation. That's why semi-auto's are the norm now.

So we're back to where this started. A revolver gives a level of style or if you are not too technical reliability but for most gun folks, semi-auto's would be the weay to go.

Personally, although I love my S&W, it is the only fire arm that has ever caused me grief. (though that was not the gun itself but crappy Winchster rounds that the brass warped in the chamber making extraxtion a bitch.)

Posted by: Voran Apr 23 2006, 03:34 PM

Basically I was thinking autorevolver because, to me, it looked cool. Something about the alignment of the barrel to the bottom of the cylinder was kinda cool. I start thinking 'vash the stampede'. Although I don't believe his gun was actually an autorevolver. (Fusion cannon!)

Posted by: Raygun Apr 23 2006, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

This thread has made me think. Why would you want an auto-fire revolver?

Because it's unusual, thus cool. And that's pretty much as far as it goes. Fashion over function.

QUOTE

The idea of a revolver is more reliable but slower.

Which, as we've seen with the ever-popular Miculek video, is not necessarily the case. Double action revolvers can be operated on par with semi-autos as far as speed is concerned, and are certainly fast enough as far as practical applications go. In fact, there's very little difference between how DA revolvers and DAO autos operate in terms of speed, and there's only a slight advantage with DA/SA autos. Once again, it depends largely on the skill of the shooter.

QUOTE

autofire would take care of the 'reliable' issue but all that will do it empty the gun faster.

Especially since the revolver is likely to carry less than half the amount of ammunition that a comparably-sized auto will.

QUOTE

So we're back to where this started. A revolver gives a level of style or if you are not too technical reliability but for most gun folks, semi-auto's would be the weay to go.

Yep.

Posted by: HMHVV Hunter Apr 23 2006, 07:29 PM

Aren't revolvers also less likely to jam? Wouldn't that be a selling point for them?

Posted by: Raygun Apr 24 2006, 06:31 AM

Yes, it is.

Posted by: Voran Apr 24 2006, 08:08 AM

On a psychological kinda side of things, would you be more afraid (in the SR world I mean, since I'd be scared outta my ass if I had even a fricking hold out pistol pointed at me) of the gunbunny who's doing the john woo doublefisted SA pistol action or the guy who gets the same job done, carting around a 6 shooter? A six shooter he could probably beat you to death with if unloaded.

Maybe its just me, but through my experience in SR, my chars tend to go "why is that guy only carrying one gun?" and spend a little more time worrying about what his stats looks like, than another gunbunny clone

Posted by: De Badd Ass Apr 24 2006, 08:14 AM

QUOTE (HMHVV Hunter)

Aren't revolvers also less likely to jam? Wouldn't that be a selling point for them?

Exactly! So why negate that selling point by designing an auto-revolver. So you can have some bling that jams?

Posted by: Voran Apr 24 2006, 08:15 AM

Do autorevolvers have a jamming problem too?

Posted by: Arethusa Apr 24 2006, 08:41 AM

QUOTE (Voran)

Do autorevolvers have a jamming problem too?

No. DBA does not know what he is talking about.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 26 2006, 02:24 AM

Yes they can jamb. Like the chauchat(Raygun you knew this was coming), in perfect condicitons it is fine but with more working parks you have more things to screw up. They found with the Fosbery this happened in the trenches of WW1. The dirt and grime got into everything and the open nature of a revolver as opposed to a browning semi-auto just suck it in.

Posted by: Voran Apr 28 2006, 03:31 AM

On another gun route, I was playing F.E.A.R. again the other day, and was thinking of a gun somewhat along the line of the Penetrator, but instead of launching spikes, which would be fun in itself, it would fire barrett type .50 cal rounds.

In SR the barrett is a big gun, like it is in real life, but would it be possible, given the tech of SR4 to make it a shorter barrel, but decrease its recoil by adding a foregrip, shoulder stock reinforcement and, I dunno a rating 3-4 type gas vent?

Kinda cheestastic, but in this case, I'm thinking more of an intellectual exercise rather than trying to fit it in a game.

Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 28 2006, 03:48 AM

Is the penetrator fully automatic? If not there's no reason for a Gas Vent. Just talk your GM into letting you use a http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2005/01/the_maadi_griff.html

Posted by: HMHVV Hunter Apr 28 2006, 03:53 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Apr 27 2006, 11:48 PM)

HOLY MOTHER OF FUCKER!

A .50 BMG round in a PISTOL?! I'm no gun expert, but I've heard that's DEADLY stuff. Probably a single shot weapon only there, but you wouldn't need more than that to turn someone into spraypaint...

Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 05:50 AM

Makes me think of that pistol in Fallout 2 that had stats as a sniper rifle and hit like a brick in close range...pretty crazy

Posted by: Voran Apr 28 2006, 06:14 AM

Heh, oddly that's somewhere around the original idea that made me start the thread. I was looking up on the net to see if I could find a real world equivalent of that pistol in fallout 2 that you could cut down from an assault rifle, then got sidetracked by autorevolvers And the world goes round and round.

Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 06:18 AM

I suppsed the only thing left is a walking cane that shoot tanks rounds

Posted by: DrowVampyre Apr 28 2006, 07:39 AM

QUOTE (eralston)

I suppsed the only thing left is a walking cane that shoot tanks rounds

Oh come now, don't be foolish. Have you completely forgotten about the 16" naval gun hidden inside a cigarette? That's, like, the most basic piece of equipment you can have!

Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 08:08 AM

Yeah, my titanium teeth lacing were put in by a disreputable street dentist. I suppose I'll spend the rest of my days supporting the apple sauce industry

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Apr 28 2006, 04:35 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

...ooohh nice big bang bang. My Merc Gracie coulda stood her ground firing it.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 28 2006, 10:51 PM

dumbest gun I've ever seen? .50 magnum with a 2 inch barrel. Just happily sitting on the hself in my favorite gun store. I mean jeez, it's great if you're mugged by a hump backed whale but otherwise?

Posted by: eralston Apr 29 2006, 12:25 AM

Well, you'll kill the mugger...and the old woman across the street...and the drivers of those cars...

Posted by: John Campbell Apr 29 2006, 04:27 AM

Or you'll miss, and you won't be able to get off a second shot because the first one broke your wrist.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 29 2006, 05:12 AM

I saw a man in my very town murdered by a humpback whale. You need to be ready for when they come at you, 'cause they will.

~J

Posted by: Ophis Apr 29 2006, 08:36 AM

Damn those Krill eating bastards!

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 29 2006, 02:56 PM

sure, they gotta pay for the krill somehow.

Seriously, my S&W give my sinus' a pain when I fire magums rounds and that's just .357. I don'tr want to think what a .50 would feel like.

Posted by: Fire Hawk Apr 29 2006, 06:12 PM

Ooo, love the quote: "for when the .500 S&W is just not enough".

Aheh.

The .500 S&W is intended for either target shooting, or as a sidearm for big game hunting (like pachyderms). Even then, it's still a novelty.

This is an ED-compensation gun. Pure and simple.

There's absolutely nothing practical about killing someone, overpenetrating enough to punch a hole through a car or several other people, and shattering your wrist.

Edit: And don't talk to me about barrel-climb.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 29 2006, 10:06 PM

The .357 was big with game hunters like T Roosevelt as a weapon of last resort. I find it wonderfully accurate when loaded with .38 specials. BUT a .50 magnum with a way short barrel? Sure what you hit, you vaporize but I wouldn't want to bet my life of the accuracy.

Posted by: Fire Hawk Apr 29 2006, 10:33 PM

Or being able to make a follow-up shot.

Hey, Snow Fox, how've things been while I've been gone (I've GOT to stop these year-long absences)?

Posted by: Lindt Apr 30 2006, 01:00 AM

QUOTE (eralston)

Makes me think of that pistol in Fallout 2 that had stats as a sniper rifle and hit like a brick in close range...pretty crazy

Yeah, .223 pistol, 5 round clip. I was playing Fallout 2 this afternoon.

So THATS over kill. You could park small cars in the tempary cavity that would leave.

Posted by: Fire Hawk Apr 30 2006, 01:05 AM

To Hell with the temporary cavity - The permanent one will still be a missing chunk.

<--- Imagines this thing loaded with MOD-0 rounds...

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Apr 30 2006, 01:07 AM

You can get several handgun calibers which would be more lethal from a pistol than .223 Remington. With the right ammunition, anything from around .454 Casull level on up. [I figured you weren't referring to it with the temporary cavity thing, but I thought I'd mention that, what with all the times the .223 Pistol has come up in various places as some kind of überweapon.]

I suppose if you're willing to trade in concealability, ease of handling and the possibility of follow-up shots for lethality, a .50 BMG handgun would make perfect sense.

Posted by: Lindt Apr 30 2006, 01:07 AM

Heheh, chunky salsa?

I was just noting what that gun he was talking about was.

Posted by: Fire Hawk Apr 30 2006, 02:11 AM

Sorry, my brain was still on that .50 cal monstrosity.

A pistol chambered in .223 (which is a 5.56x45mm NATO, btw) isn't that impressive, though the wound profile would possibly be a gross sight.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 30 2006, 03:07 AM

.223, what am I missing? That's just a hair larger than a target round and smaller than the .25 beretta I carry as a hold out.

Posted by: Lindt Apr 30 2006, 03:32 AM

Oh I was talking chunky salsa via the .50 BMG too... Well, that and crushed wrists. I get strange bruises after 25 rounds from my .25 .

While im no gun nut, the .223 is a good bit longer then a .25 beretta. It being a rifle round and all.

Posted by: John Campbell Apr 30 2006, 03:52 AM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

.223, what am I missing? That's just a hair larger than a target round and smaller than the .25 beretta I carry as a hold out.

What you're missing is... well, take a look at http://www.ci-n.com/~jcampbel/images/Calibers.jpg. The one on the left is a .22LR. Second from the right is a .223. Caliber isn't everything.

(From left to right, that's: .22LR, 9mm (9x19), .40 S&W, .45ACP, .223 Remington (5.56mm NATO), and .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO). And a AA battery for scale.)

Posted by: Snow_Fox Apr 30 2006, 02:27 PM

ah, more charge. like the most noticable difference between a .38 and .38 special.

Posted by: Raygun May 1 2006, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

dumbest gun I've ever seen? .50 magnum with a 2 inch barrel. Just happily sitting on the hself in my favorite gun store. I mean jeez, it's great if you're mugged by a hump backed whale but otherwise?

Well, it really only has one semi-practical use: it's good in grizzly country. Relatively lightweight and easier to carry around than a rifle or shotgun. Muzzle blast will likely scare away most animals and can draw attention of help. Though I think a .454 Casull would work just as well and would be more versatile.

QUOTE

The .357 was big with game hunters like T Roosevelt as a weapon of last resort.

Not Teddy, anyway. He died 16 years before Smith & Wesson introduced the .357 Magnum.

QUOTE

I find it wonderfully accurate when loaded with .38 specials. BUT a .50 magnum with a way short barrel? Sure what you hit, you vaporize but I wouldn't want to bet my life of the accuracy.

The first shot isn't going to be any different from any other handgun as far as accuracy is concerned. Like JC and Fire Hawk said, it's the precision of any follow-up shots you might need to take that's the problem.

I shot the 8" barrel S&W 500 not long after they came out. A friend of mine, who happens to be an FFL dealer, ordered one as soon as he heard about them (needless to say, he has since sold it). Anyway, there's no way around the fact that it makes for a lot of recoil. The slapping-around you get from the muzzle blast is substantial (everyone within a two mile radius ought to be able to figure out what happened, you're definitely going to feel it and after relatively few rounds it becomes a chore; from a short-barreled revolver that's only going to be worse), but even so, the recoil really is not as bad as people tend to make it out to be. I'd even venture to say that most .454 Casull revolvers with heavy loads are going to be perceived as being just as bad in the felt recoil department (higher pressure load, lighter gun). You may be likely to smash your wrist bones into paste after shooting these things every day for years, but you'd have to be pretty friggin' ignorant to hurt yourself with one shot, even with a .500 Mag.

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

You can get several handgun calibers which would be more lethal from a pistol than .223 Remington. With the right ammunition, anything from around .454 Casull level on up.

Jeez, I'd say anywhere from .40 S&W and up. I think as far as wounding capacity goes you're likely to get a similar end result from either inside of 50 meters. I think you'd get a much more destructive wound from any .454 Casull load over any .223 load. (But I'm sure you've done your research, so...

)

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

ah, more charge. like the most noticable difference between a .38 and .38 special.

Oh, it would be a lot more noticeable than that. Comparing .25 ACP to .223 Remington is something like comparing a unicycle to a Corvette. They just don't do the same thing.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 09:24 PM

QUOTE (Raygun)

(But I'm sure you've done your research, so...

)

In this particular case, not really.

I think I got a bit carried away by how large a cavity you can get with a 62gr JHP at around 2500fps, forgetting about penetration. You're right in that you can probably get a larger permanent cavity beyond 8" with a .40 S&W than with the .223. Heck, you might have serious trouble getting beyond 8" with deforming .223s from such a short barrel, or else you get a wound cavity like http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2040gr%20RNL.jpg.

Posted by: Voran May 1 2006, 09:36 PM

Btw, Would you be able to fire a barrett from a standing position? All the footage I've seen (history channel and the like) show it from prone. But would it be possible to cart it around firing from the hip ala Robocop, or if you gave it a foregrip, shortened the barrel and slapped a good gas vent on it, would it still knock a normal person on their butt if fired like a 'regular' shoulder arm? What about an orc/troll?

Posted by: Fire Hawk May 1 2006, 09:46 PM

Sure, but you won't likely be standing after the first shot. It will -at the very least- stagger you, if not topple you over.

EDIT: Orks and trolls might have a better time of it.

There's footage of a shortish guy in a firing range (Raygun knows what I'm talking about) firing a round from a (I forget the caliber... .755?) T-Rex rifle.

Posted by: Shrike30 May 1 2006, 09:54 PM

By far the most common description of the recoil from a Barrett is that it's like firing a 12-gauge Magnum. The main reason firing a Barrett from the hip doesn't really happen is that when you're talking about a rifle that weighs over 25 pounds, is sometimes bolt action, and going on 5 feet long, shoulder-firing like you would a smaller rifle is ungainly and impractical.

Stick with semiautomatic, chop down the barrel some, and make the brake even bigger, and sure, I could see firing this thing from the shoulder. I'm not going to say it's practical, just that it could be done.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 11:02 PM

Like Shrike30 said, the recoil is not a problem when firing a Barrett from the shoulder. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TTCowcpYk8, for example. There's also one video floating around of someone from the Barrett company firing a full magazine with one of their rifles standing unsupported, with no "staggering" whatsoever.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 11:59 PM

http://www.barrettrifles.com/video/M95_Intro.rm is the clip I meant above (realplayer video). At the end of it, 5 rounds are fired with a bolt action M95, which has more felt recoil than the semi-automatic M82, without support, and while it clearly shoves his shoulders back a bit he has absolutely no trouble maintaining his balance.

Posted by: Raygun May 2 2006, 04:34 AM

QUOTE (Fire Hawk)

Sure, but you won't likely be standing after the first shot. It will -at the very least- stagger you, if not topple you over.

A good muzzle brake makes all the difference, as the video Aus posted shows. Remove that brake and it will become a lot more difficult to handle (about 140 fpe @ 20 fps; according to Barrett, the brake knocks recoil down by at least 40%).

QUOTE

EDIT: Orks and trolls might have a better time of it.

Orks I don't think would get much of a break, but according to previous calculations found elsewhere in this forum, trolls could likely use .50 BMG HMGs like we use assault rifles.

QUOTE

There's footage of a shortish guy in a firing range (Raygun knows what I'm talking about) firing a round from a (I forget the caliber... .755?) T-Rex rifle.

Transposed there. .577 T-Rex. If you mean the one with the little guy that falls down, he just had no friggin' idea what was going on. Probably never shot a rifle before in his life. There's another video from the same outfit (Accurate Reloading) of a guy firing a .700 Nitro Express, which is quite a bit more powerful. He takes it like a man.

.577 T-Rex: 750 grain solid @ 2400 fps = 9591 fpe
.700 NE: 1000 grain SP @ 2200 fps = 10746 fpe
.50 BMG: 660 grain FMJ @ 2910 fps = 12409 fpe

Posted by: Fire Hawk May 2 2006, 04:57 AM

Thanks, Ray. In the T-Rex vid, I don't remember the guy falling down, exactly, but he did get knocked across the room, iirc.

.577, eh? I have a dyslexic memory, perhaps?

Posted by: Lindt May 2 2006, 05:15 AM

A .7" bullet? What the hell do you hunt with a .700 NE? Banks?

Posted by: John Campbell May 2 2006, 05:20 AM

Trolls.

Posted by: Voran May 5 2006, 09:40 AM

In game effects, is a muzzle brake covered under the 'gas vent' tech? Would a 'gas vent 3 (or 4 or whatever)' be better than a current day muzzle brake, or are they entirely different concepts?

And, as I'm looking at some pics of earlier OICW type configs, I was wondering, could you take something like shortened barreled barrett and attach a submachinegun/assault rifle under it? Mostly a concept idea, but with the introduction of drones in SR I started to feel having some sorta anti-material gun is useful for a heavy run, or when you're doing one of those after-run meets in the middle of a burned out warzone

Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 5 2006, 10:05 AM

QUOTE (Voran)

In game effects, is a muzzle brake covered under the 'gas vent' tech? Would a 'gas vent 3 (or 4 or whatever)' be better than a current day muzzle brake, or are they entirely different concepts?

Yes, and depends. For example, no matter how brilliant your gas venting/compensation/muzzle brake system, IRL you cannot fire a 3-4 round burst with an assault rifle at long ranges with anywhere near the same accuracy as you'd get with a single shot -- direct comparison isn't really possible.

QUOTE (Voran)

And, as I'm looking at some pics of earlier OICW type configs, I was wondering, could you take something like shortened barreled barrett and attach a submachinegun/assault rifle under it? Mostly a concept idea, but with the introduction of drones in SR I started to feel having some sorta anti-material gun is useful for a heavy run, or when you're doing one of those after-run meets in the middle of a burned out warzone

I think you'd be much better off having an attached GL with HEDP grenades. That way you can use a full size assault rifle, if necessary, and still get away with half the size and weight.

Posted by: Fire Hawk May 5 2006, 11:47 PM

The OICW was a somewhat i m p r a c t i c a l idea, given that the thing weighs more (IIRC) than a full-sized M16 with attached M203 40mm GL, under barrel.

There's no point in carrying a briefcase full of bricks that essentially does the same thing as a comparibly lightweight weapon; even an M4/M203 combination (IIRC they're compatible) will basicly do the same job, and it isn't as bulky as that overpriced monstrosity.