Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ SR 4 Weapons Questions
Posted by: BnF95 May 1 2006, 09:06 AM
Okay, one of my returning (SR2&SR3) players just pointed out some inconsistencies.
a.) The AK-97 Carbine has a detachable folding stock which, if extended gives 1 point of recoil compensation whereas its big brother, the AK-97 Assault Rifle has a built in stock and no recoil compensation.
b.) The Remington Roomsweeper has a damage code of 5P and armor penetration of -1 normally, when it switches to flechette (i.e. shot), it's damage should go up to 7P(f) and the AP should become +1. Instead, the damage code is now 7P(f) and the AP is +2 (net armor penetration loss of +3).
c.) Do the damage codes of weapons have any form of equivalency to calibers and/or bullet size? Assuming that the standard SMG fires pistol rounds (like today's SMGs do) then why is their base damage code 5P? Shouldn't it be 4P?
I was wondering if anyone else may have ... perhaps, made a modified weapons table?
Oh, yeah, before I forget:
d.) What about all the weapons of "yesteryears?" Ares Predator I, II, & III, Browning Max-Power & Ultra-Power etc. etc. How does one convert the old weapons?
Posted by: MYST1C May 1 2006, 09:29 AM
| QUOTE (BnF95) |
| a.) The AK-97 Carbine has a detachable folding stock which, if extended gives 1 point of recoil compensation whereas its big brother, the AK-97 Assault Rifle has a built in stock and no recoil compensation. |
For some reason SR has had a rule for years that adding a stock to a weapon that lacks one or unfolding and using a collapsible stock gives recoil compensation while permamently built-in stocks don't.
My personal house rule is that any type of stock gives 1 point of recoil compensation if the player clearly declares he's firing from the shoulder (and the character is able to). Firing from the hip gets no recoil compensation.
| QUOTE |
| c.) Do the damage codes of weapons have any form of equivalency to calibers and/or bullet size? Assuming that the standard SMG fires pistol rounds (like today's SMGs do) then why is their base damage code 5P? Shouldn't it be 4P? |
Please no "SR damage code = RL caliber" discussion! (Although it's better in SR4 then ever before.)
Assuming the same ammo, damage differences between SMGs and pistols could be explained with SMGs usually having longer barrels resulting in higher bullet speed and greater precision.
| QUOTE |
| d.) What about all the weapons of "yesteryears?" Ares Predator I, II, & III, Browning Max-Power & Ultra-Power etc. etc. How does one convert the old weapons? |
Takes the nearest SR4 equivalent and copy the stats.
Posted by: Butterblume May 1 2006, 09:58 AM
a)
It's nowhere even mentioned in the rules, but it seems that stocks give 1 point RC for weapons up to submachineguns. For heavier weapons, a stock isn't enough, you need an additional shockpad.
Only the Ingram White Knight doesn't fit, there is no mention of a shockpad in the description (I think they just forgot, though).
Posted by: mintcar May 1 2006, 11:13 AM
d) It's easy when it comes to the predators. All the different versions have had the same damage code, the new ones just have more built in features. Strip the features and you have a Predator I or II.
Posted by: TBRMInsanity May 1 2006, 01:44 PM
| QUOTE |
| Firing from the hip gets no recoil compensation. |
I would reconsider that house rule. I know from personal experience that it is easier to compensate weapon recoil when firing from the hip, the down side is you have no accuracy. This is where smartlink comes in. The German military has developed a "smart gun" system that allows troops to fire from the hip but maintain the acuracy of firing from the sholder. The system plugs into their night vision scope and shows the line of fire of the weapon.
Posted by: James McMurray May 1 2006, 02:38 PM
| QUOTE (TBRMInsanity) |
| I know from personal experience that it is easier to compensate weapon recoil when firing from the hip, the down side is you have no accuracy. |
Would that translate to -1 recoil but +1 from lack of accuracy?
Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 02:44 PM
| QUOTE (BnF95 @ May 1 2006, 11:06 AM) |
| c.) Do the damage codes of weapons have any form of equivalency to calibers and/or bullet size? Assuming that the standard SMG fires pistol rounds (like today's SMGs do) then why is their base damage code 5P? Shouldn't it be 4P? |
Well, you can fill entire forums with replies to that question alone.
I'm rather far from being a weapon's expert, but isn't a modern day SMG ammo more akin to that of the equivalent of a SR heavy pistol (i.e. 9mm or somesuch)?
Of course, there's still the question why heavy pistols have more armor penetration than SMGs then...
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: James McMurray May 1 2006, 03:12 PM
Well, there goes the thread, buried beneath the onsuing onslaught of RL gun discussions. 
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 03:17 PM
| QUOTE (Thanee) |
| I'm rather far from being a weapon's expert, but isn't a modern day SMG ammo more akin to that of the equivalent of a SR heavy pistol (i.e. 9mm or somesuch)? |
If a 9x19mm is a "heavy pistol", then I wonder why anyone would even think about using a "light pistol" for defense.
In the modern world, even without orks and trolls, a 9x19mm is generally considered the least powerful acceptable defensive handgun caliber. IRL, most SMGs are chambered for the same cartridges as the majority of combat handguns: 9x19mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP.
| QUOTE (BnF95) |
| c.) Do the damage codes of weapons have any form of equivalency to calibers and/or bullet size? |
I guess I'm not allowed to go into specifics, so you'll just have to settle for "NO!"
Posted by: Moon-Hawk May 1 2006, 04:50 PM
All together now:
HOW DO FIREARMS REALISM!?!?!?1
(not my line)
Posted by: BnF95 May 1 2006, 05:03 PM
| QUOTE (Thanee) |
| I'm rather far from being a weapon's expert, but isn't a modern day SMG ammo more akin to that of the equivalent of a SR heavy pistol (i.e. 9mm or somesuch)? |
I've never actually considered a 9mm as a "heavy" round for a pistol. That would be 10mm up to .50AE (Ruger Super Warhawk???)
$tic+-->| QUOTE (M $tic) |
| Takes the nearest SR4 equivalent and copy the stats. |
I've tried ... for example
| CODE |
SR3E Weapon Dmg Ares Viper Slivergun 9S(f) Remington Roomsweeper 9S(f) Colt Manhunter 9M Ares Predator 9M Ruger Super Warhawk 10M SR4E Weapon Dmg Ares Viper Slivergun 8P(f) Remington Roomsweeper 7P(f) Colt Manhunter 5P Ares Predator 5P Ruger Super Warhawk 6P |
So a 9S(f) weapon can either be 8P(f) or a 7P(f) while a 9M is equal to a 5P and a 10M becomes a 7P. I'm not even sure how the math works there, but based on melee weapons it seems that:
Sword (SR3) is [STR+2]M and Sword (SR4) is [STR/2]+3P
Katana (SR3) is [STR+3]M and Katana (SR4) is [STR/2]+3P but with and AP of -1.
So it seems that the 1 point of damage difference between sword and katana is translated ... loosely to the AP bonus of the katana.
In which case I'm totally lost as far as the damage code translation between SR3 and SR4 is. Can anyone help?
Posted by: James McMurray May 1 2006, 05:05 PM
I don't think there is a damage translation formula. It looks to me like each weapon was evaluated seperately and given a damage value and AP rating based on that.
Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 05:08 PM
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ May 1 2006, 05:17 PM) |
| If a 9x19mm is a "heavy pistol", then I wonder why anyone would even think about using a "light pistol" for defense. |
Well, I don't really know why anyone in SR would use a light pistol, 'cept for style.
If you want concealability you go for a hold-out, if you want reasonable concealability but not too much lack in firepower, you go for a heavy pistol (or even SMG). If you don't care about concealability you pick the biggest you can handle (usually an AR).
In my naive view, I would say a light pistol is something like a .22 or .38, while those 9x19mm and .45 ACP are heavy pistols (they are called 'Großkaliber-Pistolen' (big/heavy/large caliber pistols) here, that certainly doesn't give me the impression of a light pistol). Stuff like the .50 Desert Eagle would be ultra-heavy pistols then (not really a standard category), similar to the Ruger Super Warhawk (which I would think is probably equivalent to a .44 magnum or maybe those .50 revolvers).
When comparing with SMGs, maybe what I call 'heavy pistol' here would be some sort of 'medium pistol' and the heavy pistols are a bit bigger than that (i.e. 10mm). Then there simply would be no category for RLs most typical pistols (at least from my point of view those 9x19mm and .45 ACP and so on are the most common (semi-automatic) handgun calibers).
| QUOTE |
| IRL, most SMGs are chambered for the same cartridges as the majority of combat handguns: 9x19mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP. |
So, apart from the question what RL caliber would be equivalent to a SR heavy pistol, that at least was right. Thanks!
Of course, the rules for damage codes are not really realistic, I guess everyone knows that. But they are certainly based on RL calibers somewhat (with some flaws, naturally).
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 05:10 PM
| QUOTE (BnF95) |
| I've never actually considered a 9mm as a "heavy" round for a pistol. |
I would see it as the low-end of heavy (there are many more calibers IRL, than in SR, so many must be packed together into a single weapon category (which are probably losely based on calibers at least (see above)) apparantly).
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 05:14 PM
| QUOTE (BnF95) |
| Can anyone help? |
It seems like most weapons in a category now have a standard damage code.
Hold-Out 4P
Light Pistol 4P
Heavy Pistol 5P -1AP
Ultra-Heavy Pistol 6P -2AP
SMG 5P
AR 6P -1AP (which apparantly is a bit low, but that's what they ended up with)
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: BnF95 May 1 2006, 05:17 PM
Thanks for the info guys (special thanks to Thanee for bearing with me.)
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 05:32 PM
| QUOTE (Thanee) |
| (they are called 'Großkaliber-Pistolen' (big/heavy/large caliber pistols) here, that certainly doesn't give me the impression of a light pistol) |
Is it standard usage in Deutsch to call a .38 Special or .380 ACP "Großkaliber" too? In any case, that does absolutely nothing to categorize combat handgun calibers, they're nearly all "Großkaliber", from the wimpiest holdouts (like http://www.amderringer.com/lms.html), through the standard concealed carry pieces (like http://www.vpc.org/graphics/glock26.jpg), all the way up to chunky large-frame dedicated combat sidearms (like http://www.hkpro.com/socom.htm).
| QUOTE (Thanee) |
| But they are certainly based on RL calibers somewhat (with some flaws, naturally). |
They might have given some consideration to real firearms, but it's quite obvious where ever the reality and their idea of playability were in any kind of disagreement they went with the latter. It's not a question of flaws, they could have checked and corrected those all too easily with people like Raygun around, they choose to ignore stuff like that. Which is fine, of course, if you aren't particularly interested in realism.
Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 05:51 PM
As far as I can tell, .38 is called 'Kleinkaliber' (small caliber) here.
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 05:55 PM
So "Großkaliber" basically translates to "an adequate combat handgun caliber" and "Kleinkaliber" translates to "inadequate".
Posted by: Big D May 1 2006, 06:03 PM
I'd load any light or hold-out pistol with stick-n-shock unless I anticipate going into a situation (I'm sure there is one, somewhere) where 4P beats 6S(e).
On the SMG issue, as others have mentioned, a SMG has a longer barrel, enabling fuller powder burn (more velocity) and better shot placement. Hence the 5P.
Let's try to stay away from real rounds; there are just too many variables involved (for example, most military folks gripe about 9mm FMJ, but some of those same folks have no problem with 9mm HP for put-down). The damage codes seem to be very clearly just arbitrarily assigned for play-balance.
I would translate damage codes from SR3 based on gun type--with the reduced numeric DV, lots of guns that had slight advantages in one way or another are now going to be mathematically identical to the others.
TBRM, do you have a link to that German gadget? I've seen concept drawings for a shoulder-mounted ball-and-socket design here, but that was years ago and I don't think anything ever came of it.
Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 06:10 PM
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ May 1 2006, 07:55 PM) |
| So "Großkaliber" basically translates to "an adequate combat handgun caliber" and "Kleinkaliber" translates to "inadequate". |
LOL, that might be.
I think over here people don't really think of weapons in terms of how useful they are for self-defense, since they are not used that way normally. They are more for sports (apart from the obvious uses for police, military, security and criminal subjects, of course), and I wouldn't be surprised if those terms came from that direction.
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Butterblume May 1 2006, 06:21 PM
| QUOTE (Big D) |
| TBRM, do you have a link to that German gadget? I've seen concept drawings for a shoulder-mounted ball-and-socket design here, but that was years ago and I don't think anything ever came of it. |
I thinkt it's a myth
. (but i will accept confirmatory evidence ).http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm (scroll a little down)
Posted by: Shrike30 May 1 2006, 07:29 PM
| QUOTE (Big D) |
| I'd load any light or hold-out pistol with stick-n-shock unless I anticipate going into a situation (I'm sure there is one, somewhere) where 4P beats 6S(e). |
Trying to shoot through something would probably be one of those situations. Glass, car door, interior wall...
Posted by: TheOneRonin May 1 2006, 07:39 PM
| QUOTE (Butterblume) | ||
I thinkt it's a myth . (but i will accept confirmatory evidence ).http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm (scroll a little down) |
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn72-e.htm
Posted by: hobgoblin May 1 2006, 07:48 PM
gah, never mind...
Posted by: BnF95 May 1 2006, 07:50 PM
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| penis-conpensators... |
I can't believe you said that. How do you explain my mother who really likes ventilating things with her .357? Considering the fact that she is almost 70.
Posted by: hobgoblin May 1 2006, 07:52 PM
maybe age is starting to affect her hormones?
Posted by: BnF95 May 1 2006, 07:54 PM
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| maybe age is starting to affect her hormones? |
Hmmm ... point.
Posted by: Butterblume May 1 2006, 08:53 PM
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn72-e.htm |
I was referring to the picture which compared the 7,62mm NATO to the 15,2mm of this austrian rifle.
I can't remember where i read it, but 25mm caliber might be next
.
Posted by: hobgoblin May 1 2006, 09:05 PM
and at that point one may well go spinstabelized rockets...
warhammer 40k anyone?
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 09:07 PM
25x59Bmm in the Barrett Payload Rifle/XM109, firing rounds such as the http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1049.htm. I couldn't find a picture of such a 25mm cartridge with anything to give you scale, but it's just a bit shorter than a .50 BMG cartridge with a projectile nearly twice the diameter and around 3x the mass. The 15.2mm Steyr gets quite a bit more velocity at the muzzle, though...
[Edit]Heh, Dumpshock Forums is right up there with Defense Review when you Google for the specs of the 25x59Bmm cartridge.[/Edit]
Posted by: Big D May 1 2006, 09:22 PM
25mm is next. There is a 25mm "sniper rifle" in development. However, I'm not sure if it's really what you would call a rifle round. It's more like the OCSW (M-307) round, but with more powder behind it to reach out to the 2-3km range.
Still, at that size, you're talking more about "flat-trajectory grenade" than "AP penetrator" a la a Bushmaster. If you had to convert it to SR4 I'd call it a GL operating at MG or cannon ranges.
We should have a contest--see who can guess the eventual stats of the Barrett when it shows up in the next SB.
[edit]I stand corrected.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m109-ampr.htm
It *is* the M-307 ammo. Only the form factor (MGL to sniper "rifle") is different from the M-307. You *might* get a little more range from the barrell, not sure. At any rate, it's not going to get you hard kills at 3-4km like a .50 can, and won't replace all .50 rifles.
[/edit]
Posted by: Shrike30 May 1 2006, 09:38 PM
... define "hard kills." That's a term I've not heard before.
Hobgoblin: remember the Ex-Explosive Gyrojet rounds from 3rd ed? Slap those in a 30 round sickle mag, give the weapon a 4 round burst mode, and you've got yourself a bolter...
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 10:26 PM
As far as I know, the longest range affirmed sniper kill is still 2430 meters. There's no reason why the XM109 would not be capable of that, considering that with high explosive ammunition it can achieve a kill even without a direct hit. A bolt action .50 BMG will be more accurate than a semi-auto 25x59Bmm, no doubt about that. And it definitely will not replace all .50 rifles any time soon, seeing as how the DoD is still buying in M107s while the XM109 is still an X.
The Payload Rifle is built around the XM1049 HEDP instead of the XM1019 HEAB for the OCSW, but that is kind of part of the difference between an AGL and an anti-material rifle.
Posted by: Big D May 1 2006, 11:16 PM
ISTR that a Canuck scored at over 3km in Afghanistan a while back...
Posted by: hobgoblin May 1 2006, 11:21 PM
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| ... define "hard kills." That's a term I've not heard before. Hobgoblin: remember the Ex-Explosive Gyrojet rounds from 3rd ed? Slap those in a 30 round sickle mag, give the weapon a 4 round burst mode, and you've got yourself a bolter... |
ugh, should have recalled. maybe there is a reason why i never opend cannon companion much...
so, whos up for converting a anthroform into terminator armor?
Posted by: Dissonance May 1 2006, 11:25 PM
Something to consider in SR terms: The maximum sniping distance, not to mention angles in this day and age, is likely straight out the Fscking roof. Given that it's not unreasonable to assume that a sniper of all people would be wared out the gills with all sorts of fun trajectory bits, not to mention spotters and so on?
Well. I figure that the really good Gubmint snipers, at least in SR, would be capable of the occasional Gunbound-style shot, in which they just let terminal falling velocity do all the heavy lifting as they shoot in a parabolic arc.
And in case it's not clear from the previous, I have bupkis knowledge of physics, firearms, software, or even math beyond trig. I'm pulling this all out of a non-mouth orifice.
Speaking of experimentals, when's the OICW gonna show up?
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 1 2006, 11:28 PM
Never. Been shelved a few years now.
[Edit]More precisely, the XM29 OICW was shelved in 2004 until such a time that the sub-projects XM8 and XM25 would be sufficiently developed. Late last year, the XM8 project was suspended. AFAIK, the XM25 is still being developed, but the track record for OICW-related projects is not too good...[/Edit]
Posted by: Shrike30 May 1 2006, 11:43 PM
| QUOTE (Big D) |
| ISTR that a Canuck scored at over 3km in Afghanistan a while back... |
I think the shot AE is talking about (2.43 k) is the one you're thinking about. If there's been one beyond 3k, I haven't heard about it, and the 2.43k one was a Canadian sniper in Afghanistan...
Posted by: Geekkake May 2 2006, 01:51 AM
| QUOTE (Dissonance) |
| Well. I figure that the really good Gubmint snipers, at least in SR, would be capable of the occasional Gunbound-style shot, in which they just let terminal falling velocity do all the heavy lifting as they shoot in a parabolic arc. |
Y'know, I just watched an episode of Mythbusters yesterday about this very topic. Apparently, the experimental data the team came up with indicated that a person could not die from a falling bullet. Though it would obviously hurt quite a bit, it may not even break the skin.
On the other side of the issue in the same episode, some doctor was claiming that people do, in fact, die from it. What's the truth? Who knows? The general consensus seemed to indicate that a bullet falling at terminal velocity straight down (or close enough to it, affected only by the wind) was not lethal, or even particularly damaging (the weight and speed, combined with the fact that it falls sideways, etc.). However, a bullet that maintains its ballistic trajectory over a high elevation may retain enough speed to kill someone.
Nevertheless, I doubt the Gummint would rely on such tactics if the outcome wasn't reasonably certain. Might as well use a missile or a goddamned artillery cannon at those ranges.
OPERATION: NITPICK COMPLETE :: RETURNING TO BASE
Posted by: hobgoblin May 2 2006, 02:04 AM
hmm, some new episode or just a offshot of the falling penny myth?
Posted by: Geekkake May 2 2006, 02:05 AM
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| hmm, some new episode or just a offshot of the falling penny myth? |
New episode.
Posted by: hobgoblin May 2 2006, 02:25 AM
well, i hope to catch it some day then.
Posted by: TheOneRonin May 2 2006, 01:26 PM
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| ... define "hard kills." That's a term I've not heard before. |
Back in my old unit, the bradley crews used the term "hard kills" to describe anything more armored than a transport truck...and usually it was something taken out with a TOW instead of the 25mm.
But I doubt Big D is using it in that way. I can't see a .50cal being able to kill something that the XM109 couldn't. But that's just the opinion of a grunt.
Posted by: Big D May 2 2006, 02:20 PM
I meant by that a direct hit, as opposed to catching them in a 25mm grenade blast, which is slightly less challenging.
After considerable searching, I can't find any reference to a 3km+ shot, so it must be a figment of my imagination.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 2 2006, 05:15 PM
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| Back in my old unit, the bradley crews used the term "hard kills" to describe anything more armored than a transport truck...and usually it was something taken out with a TOW instead of the 25mm. |
That's a definition I can work with. Kind of useful, too...
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 2 2006, 05:41 PM
It would be, only the term is already used for something else. "Soft-kill" in military-related discussion usually means fooling the target through ECM, smoke, flares, IR and laser jamming, etc., while "hard-kill" means destroying/neutralizing a target, whether with KE, HE or other munitions.
Posted by: TheOneRonin May 2 2006, 06:00 PM
That makes even more sense. Of course, you get all kinds of "term-misuse" when you hang out with grunts.
[thread hijack]Speaking military terms, AE, how much army jargon overlap is there between english and your native tongue?[/thread hijack]
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 2 2006, 06:40 PM
Not exactly SR-related, but...
I wouldn't really know. 9-month conscripts don't get subjected to the more serious military parlance, and I'm not too familiar with English grunt-speak. I've got a feeling there has traditionally been little if any overlap because the strongest foreign influence on Finnish military life is from Sweden. Lately, however, it has become more common to loan words directly from English (or whatever language a new technological breakthrough is made in) -- for example, http://www.mil.fi/english/ refers to "OCSW", "HPM/High Powered Microwave" munitions, etc. Most people read about this stuff in English, and the terminology sneaks into their native language when people can't be bothered to come up with new words.
Posted by: Perssek May 2 2006, 06:49 PM
| QUOTE (Gekkake) |
| Y'know, I just watched an episode of Mythbusters yesterday about this very topic. Apparently, the experimental data the team came up with indicated that a person could not die from a falling bullet. Though it would obviously hurt quite a bit, it may not even break the skin. |
Well, I don´t know. About ten years ago, in São Paulo, a night watcher in a construction site fired his .38 revolver to the sky, trying to scare away some bums that were sleeping at the place. The ballistic trajectory brought the projectile through a roof in a nearby house, and into a 9-year-old boy, almost severing his thumb in the process. He had some surgery, and ended OK. It´s worth to remember, though, that the house had no concrete covering under the roof tiles.
Posted by: hobgoblin May 2 2006, 07:01 PM
hmm, why is it that i assume every gun-enthusiast in there is from the "wrong" side of the atlantic?
Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 07:06 PM
You mean Europe? I don't know. I generally assume America when I think "gun enthusiast."
Posted by: TheOneRonin May 2 2006, 07:11 PM
Define "wrong side" of the Atlantic, please.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 2 2006, 07:16 PM
I have no idea. I should think it would be easy to tell I'm not a native English speaker.
| QUOTE (Perssek) |
| It´s worth to remember, though, that the house had no concrete covering under the roof tiles. |
That's still a freak story, even if the "roof tiles" in this case means rusty sheet metal. According to Army tests, a .30 caliber, 150 grain spitzer bullet has a terminal velocity of about 300fps. That is enough to penetrate the human skull, as long as the angle of incidence is small, or a few inches of flesh. It would be a very unreliable assassination tool, even apart from the problem of air currents and other effects that would reduce your accuracy from a matter of inches to a matter of yards.
Posted by: Thanee May 2 2006, 07:38 PM
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| Define "wrong side" of the Atlantic, please. |
Bottom?
Bye
Thanee
Posted by: Perssek May 3 2006, 03:21 PM
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| That's still a freak story, even if the "roof tiles" in this case means rusty sheet metal. According to Army tests, a .30 caliber, 150 grain spitzer bullet has a terminal velocity of about 300fps. That is enough to penetrate the human skull, as long as the angle of incidence is small, or a few inches of flesh. It would be a very unreliable assassination tool, even apart from the problem of air currents and other effects that would reduce your accuracy from a matter of inches to a matter of yards. |
Well, english is not my first language, too, so I may not be able to express myself correctly. The roof was made of ceramic tiles, with wood beams supporting it and nothing else between the bullet and the kid. It was reported in major newspapers and TV news at the time. I can remember the kid with a BIG wraparound support on his finger. The bullet was a common lead .38, according to the memory one of my friends (who is a military and general gun fanboy).
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 3 2006, 04:07 PM
Shit happens, I guess. In the test I mentioned above, one of the bullets dropped onto a soft pine plank base-first, leaving a 1/16" (1.5mm) deep mark.
Posted by: Perssek May 5 2006, 06:35 PM
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Shit happens, I guess. |
They do, don´t they?. I´m sure the kid (now in his early twenties, if the memory serves me well) will agree. But on the subject of gun doubts...
I´m not sure about the automatic (burst?long burst/full automatic) fire modes. Is the +2/+5/+9 DV increase applied to EACH and EVERY bullet in the burst, or to the burst in general?
Let´s say, I have a 4P DV weapon that fires a 3-round burst, giving it a +2 DV. The burst (as a whole) will make 6P (4+2=6P) DV or EACH BULLET in the burst will do it (that being 6+6+6=18P)? Althoug this former idea makes sense, it seems waaaay too lethal to me.
In my games, I´m using the first option. Is it ok (not rules-wise, but good-sense-wise)?
Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 5 2006, 06:40 PM
first option
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)