Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Trolls and large weapons

Posted by: ryanstone May 31 2006, 05:09 PM

I have a question for all of you: Is there anywhere in the SR4 rule book that discusses trolls or other large characters, and their user of heavy weapons?
For instance, there is a heavy machine gun in the equipment section whos description mentions that the gun is usually vehicle mounted but trolls may be able to use the weapon as a personal weapon.
Are there rules that govern how big of a weapon is too big for anyone other than a troll to use? Maybe a certain body rating that has to be exceeded in order to use a heavy machine gun or Panther cannon as a personal weapon?

Kind of along these same lines, I have another question: Does high strength provide any recoil compensation? Or is the Str 1 character able to compensate for LMG recoil just as easily as the Str10 Troll?

Thanks in advance,
Ryan

Posted by: Teulisch May 31 2006, 05:19 PM

I know we had recoil compensation for strength in previous editions. dunno where such rules are now (arsenal maybe?).

heavy weapons are heavy. while equipment weight is now a 'common sense' rule, the average human cannot carry that much weight by himself. the average troll, otoh, is stronger than the strongest human. mayber even stronger than the strongest ork/dwarf. BEFORE he gets augmentation.

in addition to the gun itself, theres the weight of its ammo, plus whatever recoil compensation you need, such as a gyroharness.

Posted by: kigmatzomat May 31 2006, 08:34 PM

One problem is recoil and the fact that trolls are made of meat. The energy of heavy weapons tends to scale up pretty fast and while trolls may have the mass to absorb the recoil but without special rigs (gyroharness) they are going to get bruised or broken from the gun's recoil.

A troll should be able to use heavier weapons than a human but probably only a size class different, so an LMG might qualify as an assault rifle. You start popping off large-caliber rounds and the troll's gonna suggest you mount the weapon to a jeep.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 31 2006, 09:21 PM

If you're going to inject RL logic into this situation, keep in mind that the recoil of an LMG is, in most cases, going to be less punishing than that of an AR.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 1 2006, 12:09 AM

One of the main limiters of using heavier weapons in a convenient fashion is the weight and ungainliness of the weapon. .50 caliber rifles are a decent example of this... while the recoil on the semiautomatic Barrett's has been described as being like the recoil of a 12-gauge Magnum, the fact that they're 5 feet long and weigh 35 pounds means you aren't going to see many people USING them like a shotgun.

Enter trolls...

Shorten the barrel a little bit, add the kind of furniture more appropriate for a shoulder fired rifle, and keep as much of the recoil compensation in place as you can... voila, .50 caliber battle rifle.

I think one of the reasons we're not seeing this is game balance, honestly. It'd make sense in the world to have guns designed for larger metahumans and cyborgs... they just don't do it.

Posted by: Raygun Jun 1 2006, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (kigmatzomat)

A troll should be able to use heavier weapons than a human but probably only a size class different, so an LMG might qualify as an assault rifle. You start popping off large-caliber rounds and the troll's gonna suggest you mount the weapon to a jeep.

I've worked this out in terms of mass vs. recoil in several previous threads here on Dumpshock. Do a seach for "trolls and guns" by user "Raygun", category "Shadowrun", date "any date". You'll find 'em.

Basically, a .50 BMG rifle platform that a Troll could conceivably walk around with works out to the equivalent of a human with a 5.56x45mm rifle (what most armies issue infantry these days).

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 1 2006, 02:03 PM

I always used the rule that if the weight of the weapon was greater then strength * 2kg then the person can't effectively weild the weapon. This means firing the weapon without any support. You will still have to counter the effects of recoil as per normal.
Class Weight Strength Req
Hold-out pistol >1kg 1
Light pistol 1kg 1
Heavy pistol 1kg 1
SMG 3kg 2
Assult rifle 4kg 2
Sport rifle 5kg 3
Sniper rifle 6kg 3
Shotgun 3kg 2
LMG 6kg 3
MMG 10kg 5
HMG 25kg 13
Autocannon 40kg 20

Posted by: kigmatzomat Jun 1 2006, 02:13 PM

you failed to quote the section where I said:

QUOTE

The energy of heavy weapons tends to scale up pretty fast and while trolls may have the mass to absorb the recoil but without special rigs (gyroharness) they are going to get bruised or broken from the gun's recoil.

This goes back to trolls being made of meat. A ton of meat will absorb the recoil but the point the rifle stock hits the meat is going to be pounded into bloody hamburger once you've burned through a belt of ammo. Trolls' dermal armor helps a bit but I suspect anything short of a rhino will get bruised from the recoil of a .50BMG in autofire.

Give the troll a decent harness that distributes the force over a wide area and you've got something other than a bruised, bloodied, and tenderized troll.

I think the big thing is that if you let a troll treat a weapon as "light" that the uncompensated recoil is not doubled. Which kind of makes sense as the weight of a troll's arm on the forward grip will provide a lot more recoil-resisting inertia than even Arnold Schwarzenneger's. IIRC, shotguns count as "heavy" weapons and I'd have no trouble with trolls considering them "light."

Posted by: Edward Jun 1 2006, 02:56 PM

In SR4 a troll coulduse any gun in one hand that was not required to be vehicle mounted.

We injected some sensibility and caped that at assault rifle but a troll could wield an HMG with no special attachments (although he probably wanted some).

Also in SR3 strength contributed recoil compensation. So your troll might not miss but with double uncompensated recoil on heavy weapons you still wanted the accessories.

It came out a troll could fire 2 3 round bursts with an HMG with gas vent 4 as accurately as a human could fire 2 3 round bursts with an Aries Alfa with gas vent 4.

Of cause the HMG was far more difficult to hide and resulted in a a more immediate and lethal security response.

Edward

Posted by: Squinky Jun 1 2006, 03:37 PM

If you are using rules that give trolls a benefit to firing guns due to their size, shouldn't you use rules that allow them to hide larger weapons due to their size?

Posted by: NightHaunter Jun 1 2006, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (Edward @ Jun 1 2006, 03:56 PM)

*Snip*
Also in SR3 strength contributed recoil compensation. So your troll might not miss but with double uncompensated recoil on heavy weapons you still wanted the accessories.
*Snip*

I think i'll just 'port the table over for now and see how that works for a while.
Report back in a few weeks.

Edit: The SR3 from CC one, not the broken SR2 one from FOF.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 1 2006, 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Squinky)

If you are using rules that give trolls a benefit to firing guns due to their size, shouldn't you use rules that allow them to hide larger weapons due to their size?

Or rules that trolls are easier to hit?

After all, if trolls get additional boni because they are big, there should be additional mali because they are, well, big...

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 1 2006, 05:41 PM

QUOTE (kigmatzomat)

Again, the recoil impulse on something like an M82 is described as being similar to that of a 12-gauge magnum shotgun. People fire those all the time. We don't have any real problem in Shadowrun giving human characters fully-automatic shotguns (asides from the fact that they have a hard time hitting anything)... why would there be a serious problem giving a noticeably heavier (and similarly-recoiling) weapon to someone who weighs 3x as much?

I am made of meat. So is my little brother's girlfriend. The fact that I am double her weight (I'm 215 pounds) is one of the reasons that I'm able to run through several boxes of 12-gauge ammunition in a 12-gauge pump shotgun without really noticing, and she's not willing to get knocked around by more than 3-4 shots.

I recall helping my father (a man who grew up shooting, who's shorter than I am but built heavier) sight in a bolt-action .338 Win Mag a few years ago. After 50 rounds at the range, we went home and he took off his shirt to see why his shoulder hurt so much. He had a hematoma forming on his shoulder from the recoil. A few weeks later, he took it out again to test the new recoil pad he'd installed on the (bare wood) butt of the rifle to try and cut down on the abuse he was taking from it, and had absolutely no problems with it.

.50 caliber weapons like the M2HB are intended to be fired from tripods or vehicular mounts. They don't have a lot in the way of ergonomics or recoil handling... they're built to be able to provide a fairly sustained rate of fire and not overheat as much. Given proper furniture, muzzle braking, buffering, and weapon layout, putting together a .50 caliber, select-fire battle rifle for trolls would be quite doable, and I imagine they'd be able to handle them in much the same way that normal humans handle .30 caliber rifles of the same type.

Posted by: Geekkake Jun 1 2006, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Jun 1 2006, 12:41 PM)

QUOTE (kigmatzomat @ Jun 1 2006, 06:13 AM)

I think I will design just such a rifle once Arsenal is released. Maybe I'll make a mock-up with the CC rules.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 1 2006, 06:08 PM

Probably the biggest issue with something like this rifle would be the bulk of the ammo box. All other issues aside, .50 is a large round. I think getting much more than 20 rounds into a magazine would just get kinda silly, in terms of carrying spare magazines around.

Posted by: Geekkake Jun 1 2006, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

I concur. When I was a little kid, my grandfather gave me a box of .50 BMG duds. Maybe 30 fit into the shoebox. That's why God invented belted ammo.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 1 2006, 07:31 PM

Belted ammunition has it's own issues. It's more difficult to reload a belt feed because you've got to open up a chunk of the weapon and lay the belt into the action in the proper way, then close it and lock it without de-positioning the belt in the process. It hangs up on stuff if you've got it hanging free, makes it easier for dirt and other crap to get into the mechanism (because there's this external conveyor belt running straight into the weapon) and if it gets twisted on a link, the gun will jam on you. While a "belt pouch" could solve some of these problems, it can't handle all of them, and those belts are going to be really heavy, troll or no.

Box mags certainly seem doable, they just aren't going to be really high-capacity devices.

Posted by: Geekkake Jun 1 2006, 07:41 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

Hence the Complex Action to load a belted weapon, as opposed to a box mag, which is a Simple. Do you suggest two Complex for belted?

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 1 2006, 09:19 PM

Most of my reasoning was "real life fluff", actually, but that'd be a reasonable way to duplicate it. Changing the belts on a machinegun is in no way doable in (essentially) the same amount of time it takes to eject an empty magazine, slap in a new one, and hit a bolt release. I think it's mostly a matter of having the weapons fit into the combat system easily.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 1 2006, 09:29 PM

I am trying to remember ...
I'd say it depends .

If your second gunner helps you, or you have set up the new belt for easy reloading, it would be one complex action.
Else it would be two (or even longer, if your second belt is in your backpack ).

Posted by: Raygun Jun 2 2006, 12:21 AM

QUOTE (kigmatzomat @ Jun 1 2006, 02:13 PM)

you failed to quote the section where I said:
This goes back to trolls being made of meat. A ton of meat will absorb the recoil but the point the rifle stock hits the meat is going to be pounded into bloody hamburger once you've burned through a belt of ammo. Trolls' dermal armor helps a bit but I suspect anything short of a rhino will get bruised from the recoil of a .50BMG in autofire.

And you obviously failed to read the threads I suggested that you search. The Troll, being a much stronger, more massive animal, would be able to support the use of a weapon that is much heavier than one an average human would be able to effectively wield. The mass of the weapon itself absorbs the "excess" recoil and all is well.

Again, a Troll would likely have very little issue handling a 70-90 pound .50 BMG machine gun as a human handles a 7-9 pound M4/M16.

QUOTE

Give the troll a decent harness that distributes the force over a wide area and you've got something other than a bruised, bloodied, and tenderized troll.

He needs only a weapon that is suited to his stature. Otherwise, he needs smaller hands. Scale up. It's not rocket science.

QUOTE

I think the big thing is that if you let a troll treat a weapon as "light" that the uncompensated recoil is not doubled. Which kind of makes sense as the weight of a troll's arm on the forward grip will provide a lot more recoil-resisting inertia than even Arnold Schwarzenneger's. IIRC, shotguns count as "heavy" weapons and I'd have no trouble with trolls considering them "light."

I would agree, so long as the troll has no issues interfacing with the weapon.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 2 2006, 08:30 PM

I hate to throw one of my "from personal experience" in here again, BUT

MMG are designed for defencive postions while LMGs are designed for squadron assults. This is why LMGs are lighter then MMGs. This also means that even a troll could not five a MMG from the sholder. They could fire from the hip but there would still be the problem that the weapon is ment to be fired from a tripod. The weapon would be VERY hard to control. HMGs are right out of question though. Most HMGs use 50cal rounds that will give a average human a concusion if fired from the sholder. They need to be mounted into a turret to be effective (like on the top of a Hummer). The only time you will see a metahuman carting one of those around is if they are taking it somewhere to be mounted.

Posted by: mdynna Jun 2 2006, 08:43 PM

-- This has been another "tales from Afghanistan" moment with TBRMInsantiy --

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 2 2006, 08:46 PM

Quiet you!

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 2 2006, 08:54 PM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

MMG are designed for defencive postions while LMGs are designed for squadron assults. This is why LMGs are lighter then MMGs. This also means that even a troll could not five a MMG from the sholder. They could fire from the hip but there would still be the problem that the weapon is ment to be fired from a tripod.

What current weapon counts as an "MMG" in this context, then? I know that can't include GPMGs like M60s, M240s or PKMs, because all of those can be fired from the shoulder just fine (if slightly inaccurately, thanks to poor ergonomics and relatively stiff recoil) by a human. I can't really think of any modern non-heavy machine guns that aren't designed so that they can be fired from the standing unsupported position by a human -- at least by relatively strong guys.

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

Most HMGs use 50cal rounds that will give a average human a concusion if fired from the sholder.

Firing an actual HMG without any support might be a bit punishing for a human, though that's difficult to test because current HMGs don't exactly allow a human to fire them from the shoulder (no stock and poor grips make it difficult for a human to carry those 30+kg pieces of steel, let alone fire them accurately without support, even ignoring recoil). Firing .50 BMG rifles from the shoulder is, as others have mentioned in this thread, similar to firing a 12G with rather hot loads. http://barrettrifles.com/video/M95_Intro.rm (Realplayer video) doesn't seem "concussed" as he fires the M95 .50 BMG bolt action rifle from the shoulder.

Posted by: Geekkake Jun 2 2006, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

Again, with the mass ratio, I think if the MMG or even HMG were modified for troll-appropriate ergonomics, I see no reason why a troll couldn't use the weapon. Maybe a weapon redesigned from the ground-up as a troll-specific hand-held weapon. So perhaps the canon weapons from the book wouldn't be appropriate (being designed to be fired from a stable platform, meaning not a platform made of meat), as they're bulky and clumsy. But a properly designed weapon should not experience an issue in a suitably large, suitable strong troll.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 2 2006, 09:54 PM

I've seen video of M60s being fired from the shoulder in support of an assault. The shooter looked to be a big guy (probably 240 pounds or so), but that's really not all that absurd. The E3 variants I've seen of the M60 weigh something like 19 pounds, only a few pounds heavier than the M249 (although obviously, the ammunition is heavier too).

.50 caliber machineguns weigh noticeably upwards of 50 pounds (usually closer to 100 when you start figuring in mounting gear and all that good stuff), before you add on a belt of ammunition. .50 caliber rifles, on the other hand, weigh 25-35 pounds and are frequently fired by infantry and sport shooters without much in the way of reported concussions. The recoil just isn't that bad, because the gun has been designed to be fired by a person holding it, instead of from a tripod or ring mount, and so despite the fact that the gun's weight is a fraction of the weight of a .50 MG, it's recoil is manageable.

Kick us up to 2070, where we have trolls a meter taller than everyone around them and weighing in at 250+ kilos without working at it, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to handle an autofire-capable 50 caliber shoulder weapon, since people 1/2 of their weight and 2/3 their height can handle the semiautomatic ones.

Posted by: Cain Jun 5 2006, 07:28 AM

I have to agree that it's not so much mass, as the ergonomics of the weapon. A weapon designed for a vehicle mount just isn't going to be able to be handled by a troll, no matter how large. If the GM wishes to add enough supports and alterations to make the weapon easily handled without mounts, then there's no reason why a troll shouldn't be able to use it fairly readily.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 5 2006, 01:32 PM

Where to start:

1. MMG has a minimum of a 7.62mm ammo with the kick of a shotgun when it is fired off of support (ie bipod/tripod)
2. While it is true most HMGs have no stock there are models out there with stocks (used by infantry for better accuracy when firing) Perfect example is the HMG fired from the Hummer in the Green Day video "When September ends"
3. The M60 is a LMG. If actually fires 5.56mm rounds like the M16.

I fully disagree with the classification of the Machine guns in the SR4 manual. Technically the LMGs would include both the White Knight and the Stoner-Ares Machine guns (which is why they have the same damage code). The MMG would include the Ultimax Machine Gun and there is not HMG in the book. An HMG would have a similar damage rate as the Assult cannons and would only fire in FA mode.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 5 2006, 02:57 PM

M60 in 5.56mm, oh me, oh my. Quartermasters everywheer are breaking out into a cold sweat. They've been issuing the wrong ammo for all these years!

Posted by: ornot Jun 5 2006, 04:34 PM

I don't claim to be an expert in these matters. I'm British and we don't have the love affair with guns that some others do.

I did however, look at Wikipedia which, judging by the number and depth of the firearms entries, is frequently updated by "enthusiasts", and that suggests that the M60 takes a smaller rifle round while the M2 is listed as using a .50 cal round.

My perusal of Wikipedia has also led me to the impression that the increased weight of a machine gun is due to a heavier barrel to slow overheating and allow more continuous rates of fire and increased weight helps reduce recoil, improving accuracy. There is a quite interesting article in Wikipedia about the SA80 and variants, which, despite their many flaws including extra weight, are considered more accurate, although this is likely also due to the long barrel. Oh dear, now I'm beginning to sound like a gun "enthusiast" as well ^^

Getting back to the topic in question, I would permit a Troll to wield a larger weapon than the other metatypes, although as the weapon would have to be custom built I'd work out with the player in advance exactly what it was capable of. Unlikely to be much of a problem in my games, as I've yet to have someone play a Troll gun bunny. I did have a troll adept known as Flash once. He wore red body fitted armour and moved really fast!

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 5 2006, 04:38 PM

Remember that all troll firearms will haveto be 'custom built' in the first place, to allow for their larger hands, thicker fingers, etc...

Posted by: ornot Jun 5 2006, 04:44 PM

I more meant if they wanted something with special stats, rather than just buying one of the stock guns with a percentage price adjustment for troll sized ergonomics. Of course that does bring up the point of a troll gaining a concealability increase for hiding regular sized ordnance again...

I'd be inclined to refuse... far too confusing.

<edited for typo>

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 5 2006, 04:45 PM

Well, so far there have been no 'special stats' mentioned. Just take the stats for an HMG, pay the troll customization costs and go to town.

Posted by: ornot Jun 5 2006, 04:47 PM

I guess that would be pretty quick and easy...
Meh... in the game I'm running my runners are keeping a low profile, for all that the Orc face wants to break the seal on his AK, the others won't let him.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 5 2006, 06:10 PM

QUOTE (ornot)

If you must know I am a parital expert on this matter.

I have been trained on a wide range of firearms (ranging from pistols to MMGs). I know how they fire, I know how they work, I know what is feasible and not when firing these weapons.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 5 2006, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

1. MMG has a minimum of a 7.62mm ammo with the kick of a shotgun when it is fired off of support (ie bipod/tripod)

The traditional description of an MMG does not include any caliber requirement, it just needs to be a machine gun capable of extended firing (generally speaking, a heavy quick-change barrel) and being fired from both tripods or other heavy mounts and from bipods. Nearly all modern MMGs are chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO or 7.62x54mmR, however. These days it is more common to talk about General Purpose Machine Guns, like the M240, which can be used with vehicle mounts (often with some modifications), tripods, bipods, or fired without support.

"Kick of a shotgun" has quite a bit of leeway, of course, but going with a low-end 12G shot load:
437.5 grains at 1200fps with 40 grains of propellant from a 7.25lb Remington 870 = 16.2ft-lbs of recoil energy at 12fps, recoil impulse of 3.04lb/s
Versus standard M80 ball from an M240B GPMG:
146 grains at 2750fps with 46 grains of propellant from a 24.2lb gun = 5.1 foot-pounds of recoil energy at 3.7fps, 2.6lb/s of recoil impulse.
And that's without taking into account the reduction of felt recoil from a gas-operated automatic weapon. Of course the heavy bolt and the rest of the internals going back and forth, as well as the belt being pulled across the weapon, cause the gun to shake a fair bit, but the actual recoil per shot fired should not be anywhere near as bad as that from most shotguns.

QUOTE (TBRM)

2. While it is true most HMGs have no stock there are models out there with stocks (used by infantry for better accuracy when firing)

Such devices are not quite equivalent to shoulder stocks on small arms, and would be useless (or worse) when firing the weapon without support.

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

An HMG would have a similar damage rate as the Assult cannons and would only fire in FA mode.

I don't really disagree about the damage code, but why could a HMG not include SA and/or BF firing modes?

QUOTE (ornot)

and that suggests that the M60 takes a smaller rifle round while the M2 is listed as using a .50 cal round.

Absolutely right. M60-series machine guns fire the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_mm_NATO round, which is an order of magnitude weaker (almost literally

) than the .50 BMG/12.7x99mm round fired by the M2HB HMG.

Posted by: ornot Jun 5 2006, 06:36 PM

I figured you had at least passing knowledge of these things, based on your previous posts ^^

I find calibre nomenclature to be rather confusing and so many variable calibres have been mentioned in this thread it is hard to keep up.

I did visit the website of the current manufacturers of the M60, U.S Ordnance Inc. (http://www.usord.com/) one can view their FAQ

QUOTE

Q: What type of Ammunition does the M60 Series of machine guns fire?
A: 7.62 x 51 mm NATO ammunition
M61: Armour Piercing used against lightly armored targets.
M62: Tracer used for observation of fire, incendiary effects, signaling, and training.
M80: Full Metal Jacket Ball Against light materiel targets and personnel, and for range training.
M82: Blanks used During training when simulated live fire is desired (A blank firing attachment must be used to fire this ammunition).
M63: Dummy round used during mechanical training.

All very interesting, but fairly moot, as we're discussing the utilisation of weapons made with advanced technology in 2070 by a group of humanoids standing 2 to 3 metres tall and weighing upwards of 200kg

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 5 2006, 06:55 PM

The particular cartridges fired by these weapons may well change, obviously, but assuming humans (or roughly human-sized metahumans) still determine what are called LMGs, MMGs and HMGs, etc.; assuming that wars are still waged in ways similar to how they are waged now; and assuming the basic operating principles of firearms do not change -- all of which appear safe assumptions according to the canon SR world -- the weapons that fill these roles in the 2060s and 2070s will still fire ammunition that is very similar, or even identical.

That FAQ must be old, since it makes no mention of the current 7.62x51mm AP round (the M993). The M61 with its steel penetrator is Ye Olde Skool.

Posted by: Raygun Jun 5 2006, 10:19 PM

I click on this thread again and my fulloshitometer goes haywire. WTF?

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 5 2006, 10:29 PM

TBRM has that effect Raygun. Don't worry, just stick your head in the invisible flashlight thread and you'll forget all about it.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 5 2006, 11:01 PM

QUOTE (TBRMinsanity)

MMG has a minimum of a 7.62mm ammo with the kick of a shotgun when it is fired off of support (ie bipod/tripod)

While there is a certain amount of subjectivity on the matter of felt recoil, I thought I could share some personal experience here.

My DSA FAL carbine weighs about 10-11 pounds loaded and scoped, noticeably under the weight of most MMGs (about 25 pounds). It's chambered in 7.62x51mm/.308 Winchester, the same round most of us agree is a good benchmark for defining an MMG. My Mossberg M500A is a 12 gauge, and can take 3" shells. While the FAL's recoil is kind of sharp, it doesn't hit nearly as hard as the Mossberg does loading a 3" 00 shell, even when fired with the gas action closed off (which essentially turns the rifle into a straight-pull bolt-action). I doubt that a weapon chambered for the same caliber but weighing twice as much as my FAL is going to kick more.

QUOTE (TBRMinsanity)

The M60 is a LMG. If actually fires 5.56mm rounds like the M16.

I think you may be confusing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249. The M60 is referred to as a General Purpose Machine Gun (a type of MMG meant to be usable both as a man-carried weapon and as a vehicularly-mounted weapon), and fires 7.62x51mm. The M249 is a Squad Automatic Weapon (a term that almost always indicates an LMG), and is chambered for 5.56x45mm.

QUOTE (TBRMinsanity)

What's your background? I'm always interested in seeing how different groups are trained and what they're taught.

Posted by: Lindt Jun 6 2006, 03:03 AM

I suddenly want to go fire off a 10 ga. mag and see what it does to my shoulder.

So 1.5 oz @ 1600 fps?

Now to find someone stupid enough to lend me a 10. ga...

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 6 2006, 07:15 AM

You can get 1.25oz slug loads to 1600fps with a 3½" 12 gauge, in case you can't find 10 gauges. Any .338 or bigger magnum ought to be comparable from medium weight sporting rifles.

Oh, and I concur with Shrike30: we simply must know.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 6 2006, 01:34 PM

The main reason I say HMGs only fire in FA is because of how 90% of them are designed. Most have a fixed pin receiver group which is great for fully automatic weapons but hard to design for SA or burst fire. Plus with HMGs your most likely shooting at vehicles not people, and as a result you want to hit the enemy vehicle with as much lead as humanly possible.

Anyone who wants to experience what it is like to fire these sorts of weapons should look into joining their countries infantry. Some countries have a reserve/home guard unit that allows them to be part time soldiers in your country's army. The other way is to see if local gun clubs are allowed to test fire these weapons (for LMGs and above I thing only the US allows them on gun ranges).

Posted by: ornot Jun 6 2006, 01:46 PM

I'll pass on joining the military just to play with autofire weapons.

The physical training would probably kill me anyway!

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 6 2006, 03:59 PM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

Anyone who wants to experience what it is like to fire these sorts of weapons should look into joining their countries infantry.

Lucky me for not having a real choice in the matter.

Posted by: ornot Jun 6 2006, 04:29 PM

QUOTE

Lucky me for not having a real choice in the matter.

awwww

*pats Austere Emancipator*

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 6 2006, 05:34 PM

Given my country's current foreign policy leanings, I think I'll pass on joining the military, thanks. Getting shipped to another part of the world to have roadside bombs blown up at me in the name of preserving freedom isn't something I feel like getting into.

I've got a lot of respect for the troops running the risk of getting hurt or killed every day for something they believe in, I just think that the people putting them in harm's way have dubious motivations for doing so.

Posted by: Lindt Jun 6 2006, 06:11 PM

Because remember kiddies, theres a differance between supporting your tropps, and supporting your evil ov... erh i mean goverment.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 6 2006, 10:27 PM

Thank God I work for a good government.

Posted by: Raygun Jun 7 2006, 01:23 AM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

The main reason I say HMGs only fire in FA is because of how 90% of them are designed.

While that is true, I believe the point Aus was trying to make is that it doesn't have to be. Considering that if you intend to derive the weapon from an existing design (and doing so from an HMG is only logical), you'll have to change quite a lot in order to facilitate ergonomics at the very least. In that case, there's no reason why any existing HMG design couldn't be made select fire. In any case, the Troll wouldn't be using it in the role of an HMG. It would essentially be used as a giant assault rifle.

QUOTE

Most have a fixed pin receiver group which is great for fully automatic weapons but hard to design for SA or burst fire.

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by that?

Personally, I see little issue with taking an M2HB, flipping it upside down, replacing the top cover with a magazine well (say, one that accepts extended M82A1 mags, for example), replacing the backplate with a shoulder stock, and adding a pistol grip with a select fire trigger group (capable of disconnecting the trigger lever from the sear after each shot). Slap some iron sights and maybe a Picatinny rail to what used to be the bottom of the receiver and blammo, Troll-sized assault rifle which is not terribly dissimilar from a G3 in terms of disassembly.

QUOTE

Plus with HMGs your most likely shooting at vehicles not people, and as a result you want to hit the enemy vehicle with as much lead as humanly possible.

Again, the Troll is likely to treat the weapon differently than a human would.

QUOTE

Anyone who wants to experience what it is like to fire these sorts of weapons should look into joining their countries infantry. Some countries have a reserve/home guard unit that allows them to be part time soldiers in your country's army. The other way is to see if local gun clubs are allowed to test fire these weapons (for LMGs and above I thing only the US allows them on gun ranges).

Or, since it's perfectly legal for civilians to own fully automatic firearms in the US (with the proper tax stamp or license), you can simply find someone who owns one and befriend them. It takes some work, but that's how I've gotten the (admittedly limited) experience with fully automatic firearms that I've had. It's also not terribly difficult to find NFA dealers. I would guess that about 99% of them own machine guns personally.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 7 2006, 01:26 AM

Edited because on retrospect it added nothing to the thread. My apologys.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 7 2006, 01:14 PM

I don't think people are getting the point I'm tring to make about HMGs, they are just too heavy, too big, and too powerful. NO troll would be able to fire one of these weapons unsupported (or even with a full gyroscope stabalizer). The only way your going to get one of these weapons to fire in a personel mode is if you attach it to an exosceleton that can handle the stress these weapons produce.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 7 2006, 01:55 PM

I think the point you're missing, is just how big, heavy, and strong a troll is, and how much less the forces invovled seem like when you are that big, strong and heavy.

Posted by: Raygun Jun 7 2006, 05:29 PM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

Dude, honestly, I've done the math on this. You can find it by searching the forum as instructed in my very first post in this thread. Your assumption here is incorrect. The average Troll is going to be plenty massive to handle the recoil from an HMG without any kind of recoil-stabilizing equipment.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 7 2006, 05:31 PM

I don't think what he's saying is about mass, Ray. I think he's caught up on the fact that an HMG is not likely to have a standard rifle shaped support (IE, a stock - think of the handles on a Ma Duece), and that it's going to be generating a LOT of impact on a relatively small point - like me. I've got a smegging lot of mass, and firing a shotgun repeatedly - especially if it's got ridiculously hot loads - is still going to bruise the shit out of my shoulder.

That said, what would be an HMG round to a human would easily be an AR round to a Troll, if he were firing a weapon specifically made for his MetaType, and not just a human weapon fitted for troll hands.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 7 2006, 08:05 PM

I think I understand where he is coming from, let me try to explain it this way.

I was an INF in the US Army. I weighed (at the time) 250 pounds, about 140 kilos. I stand 76 inches or 6'4", just a little over two meters tall. For a time I thought it would be cool to be the M60 gunner, so I volunteered. Now the 60 is considered a GPMG, or a MMG depending at how you look at it.

Now the M60 I used had a rifle stock. So you could fir it from the standing position, it wasn't easy but you could do it. The preferred way for me was crouching. It too to much to lay down, and I could stay mobile if I was kneeling/crouched.

The .60 fires a 7.62 round, the same, or very similar round fired by many AR's. There is no reason why that gun couldn't be carried like an SMG by a troll. Seriously. A troll weighs 3 times as much as me. At least 600 pounds. And is 3 feet taller, two feet wider than me. If I can use a M-60 like an AR, then a troll should have no problem shooting it like a SMG. Whats 17 pounds to someone who can lift 400?

Now a Ma Duece .50 cal weighs about 75 pounds unloaded. But some of that is the tripod and the connector. Remove those and you could probably get it down to 50 pounds. Thats 4 times what a M60 weighs. So a troll who is 3 times bigger than me, could easily manage a 50 pound gun using both hands. Easily.

Thats it, they are that big that it really would not be a problem. It would be like us using a big AR. It would have to be redesigned ergonomically, but hey, your going to do that anyways.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 7 2006, 08:19 PM

I'm thinking the application would be a little more like a battle rifle (to humans, the M-14/G-3/FAL "class" of weapons in .308). Has an autofire setting, but is usually used on semiautomatic because the round is heavy enough to sit someone down hard on a solid hit, you've only got 20 rounds in the mag, and the recoil makes the gun walk around some on full auto. Going cyclic is a bit of a waste. I get the impression I'm imagining the recoil affecting the troll a little more than some others are (Raygun, my impression of your imagined troll weapon has it being used more like a .223 assault rifle than a .308 battle rifle), but that's not a very large difference.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jun 7 2006, 08:20 PM

I see I'm not being listened to so I'm dropping this thread.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 7 2006, 08:31 PM

Hey, I'm listening. I just think you're wrong

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 7 2006, 08:38 PM

QUOTE (Shadow)

I was an INF in the US Army. I weighed (at the time) 250 pounds, about 140 kilos. I stand 76 inches or 6'4", just a little over two meters tall. For a time I thought it would be cool to be the M60 gunner, so I volunteered. Now the 60 is considered a GPMG, or a MMG depending at how you look at it.

You know, your numbers seem a little off.
Now, you might just be an engineer for NASA

.

I was a Jäger (light infantry) at the german army. I weighed (at the time) about 65 kilos (130 metric pounds). I didn't volunteer, I just fieldstripped the MG3 faster than most guys the G3, and I qualified in basic training for gold status with the MG.

QUOTE

Now the 60 is considered a GPMG, or a MMG depending at how you look at it.

Since the MG42 most portable machine guns qualify as GPMG (General Purpose Machine Guns), meaning they count as light when carried by infantry and medium when mounted on a tripod or vehicle.

(btw: a tripod is heavy).

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 7 2006, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

Since the MG42 most portable machine guns qualify as GPMG (General Purpose Machine Guns), meaning they count as light when carried by infantry and medium when mounted on a tripod or vehicle.

Are you including 5.56mm "Squad Automatic" type machine guns on this list? You usually don't see those mounted on vehicles.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 7 2006, 08:48 PM

Hm, can you still be a General Purpose Machine Gun with a toy calibre of 5,56mm?

Posted by: Shadow Jun 7 2006, 08:59 PM

I am not an engineer, which is why my conversion is off, they are just "best guess". And you are right, the Tripod on a M2 is freeking heavy, so you lose a lot of weight when you drop it.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 7 2006, 09:17 PM

I never noticed that the basic HMG in the SR4 book has a 3(10) recoil compensation.

A Troll or a strong Ork would be strong enough to lug that around. Like mentioned in the text, it might even be fired standing... (After all, shockpad and gas vent 3 gives 4 point recoil compensation, probably enough to shoot a long burst)

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 7 2006, 11:22 PM

I've got a pretty funny image in my head at the moment...

In the beginning of the getaway scene in Heat (which rapidly degenerates into the massive downtown shootout scene), the characters inside of the car don't roll down the windows and try to stick their bodies out of a speeding car in order to shoot forwards... they just start shooting through the windshield. I can imagine how loud (and bright, with a carbine) that'd be inside of a vehicle.

Skip forwards to 2070...

The van slews around a corner and accelerates, building up speed towards the Lone Star roadblock. "We got company, folks!" yells the rigger, as bullets start hitting the van, starring the windshield and punching holes in the radiator. "Frag these cops," growls the troll in the backseat, dragging the 12.7mm up between the front seats and levelling it through the windshield, flipping the selector to autofire. "Uh, Zeek, hold on a...." is as far as the front passenger Flea gets, before the windshield is blown out of the frame riding 12 cubic feet of muzzle flash, and everyone's blast dampening kicks in...

Posted by: Raygun Jun 8 2006, 01:37 AM

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)

TBRMInsanity's point all along has been a lack of controllability due to excessive recoil. I have shown mathmatically, in previous threads, that this would not be the case. Aus posted a link demonstrating that even humans have little issue firing a rifle using an "HMG" round (.50 BMG) from the shoulder using a properly designed rifle.

Now, regarding ergonomics, kigmatzomat is the one who brought it up. In my post following his, I assumed that in any case, the "HMG" would need to be suited to the Troll's stature, otherwise he would be likely to run into problems. Ergonomics are an important aspect with regards to controllability. I went on to say "you'll have to change quite a lot in order to facilitate ergonomics at the very least." I then explained how an M2HB could be modified to suit the Troll's stature. So I definitely considered that issue.

TBRMInsanity went on to say:

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

Which I refute completely, as I have gone to lengths beyond simple supposition to conclude otherwise (even to my own suprise).

QUOTE (Shadow)

A troll weighs 3 times as much as me. At least 600 pounds. And is 3 feet taller, two feet wider than me.

According to http://tss.dumpshock.com/html/tss-13/art13-g.htm, the average Troll would weigh more like 1,083 lbs, considering other factors mentioned in canon.

QUOTE

Now a Ma Duece .50 cal weighs about 75 pounds unloaded.

An M2 actually weighs 84 lbs without the tripod. The pintle pin actually slides through a hole in the receiver itself, so there's no extra weight on the gun when the tripod is detached.

QUOTE (Shrike30)

I get the impression I'm imagining the recoil affecting the troll a little more than some others are (Raygun, my impression of your imagined troll weapon has it being used more like a .223 assault rifle than a .308 battle rifle), but that's not a very large difference.

Okay, here we go. I hope you guys appreciate this.

Human, average weight: 154 lbs
Rifle, M16A2: 7.5 lbs, unloaded (4.87% body weight)
Load: 62 grain FMJ @ 3025 fps (US M855)
Propellant Weight: 26.1 grains
Recoil: 4.5 fpe @ 6.2 fps
4.5/154 = 0.02922 fpe/lb

Human, average weight: 154 lbs
Rifle, M14: 9.2 lbs, unloaded (5.97% body weight)
Load: 146 grain FMJ @ 2750 fps (US M80)
Propellant Weight: 46 grains
Recoil: 13.4 fpe @ 9.7 fps
13.7/154 = 0.08701 fpe/lb

Troll, average weight: 1083 lbs
Rifle, M2HB: 84 lbs, unloaded (7.75% body weight)
Load: 660 grain FMJ @ 2910 fps (US M33)
Propellant Weight: 235 grains
Recoil: 36.7 fpe @ 5.3 fps
36.7/1083 = 0.03388 fpe/lb

Note that the M2HB has no additional weight added for ergonomic purposes. This data assumes the rifle is being fired at as light of a weight as possible; one round in the chamber, no magazine attached, meaning recoil will be maximized. Also note that this does not include any reduction in recoil from means other that sheer mass (particularly in the M2HB's case, its short recoil operation and barrel buffer).

Now, if we actually bring the Troll's rifle down to a weight equal to the human/rifle ratio (considering the XM312, this should be possible), we get this:

Troll, average weight: 1083 lbs
Rifle, (hypothetical): 59 lbs, unloaded (5.5% body weight)
Load: 660 grain FMJ @ 2910 fps (US M33)
Propellant Weight: 235 grains
Recoil: 52.2 fpe @ 7.5 fps
52.2/1083 = 0.04819 fpe/lb

Still less than (almost half) the fpe/lb of a human with an M14.

Sources:
http://tss.dumpshock.com/html/tss-13/art13-g.htm
http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm
http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a-stan.shtml
http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/downloads/recoil.html

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

I see I'm not being listened to so I'm dropping this thread.

You are being listened to. Unfortunately, the assumptions you've been making are incorrect. This is why some people, including myself, have been disagreeing with you.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 8 2006, 02:52 AM

QUOTE

According to Patrick Goodman's excellent article found in TSS #13, the average Troll would weigh more like 1,083 lbs, considering other factors mentioned in canon.

Sounds like a SR3 Troll to me - in SR4 RAW they are a smaller and heavier than in SR3. Just mentioning

Posted by: Raygun Jun 8 2006, 03:55 AM

That is (somewhat) based on an "SR1-3 Troll". I was unaware that they had changed the height/weight for Trolls in SR4. Incidentally, the weight still appears to be a bit off in SR4. In proportion to its height (using the formula provided in Goodman's article), I come up with a proper weight of 763 lbs (346.2kg).

Troll, average weight (SR4): 763 lbs
Rifle, M2HB: 84 lbs, unloaded (11% body weight)
Load: 660 grain FMJ @ 2910 fps (US M33)
Propellant Weight: 235 grains
Recoil: 36.7 fpe @ 5.3 fps
36.7/763 = 0.04809 fpe/lb

Still about half the recoil of human/M14, however, the "rifle" is proportionately nearly twice as heavy (17 lbs to an average human, a bit less than an M240B).

Troll, average weight (SR4): 763 lbs
Rifle, (hypothetical): 42 lbs, unloaded (5.5% body weight)
Load: 660 grain FMJ @ 2910 fps (US M33)
Propellant Weight: 235 grains
Recoil: 73.3 fpe @ 10.6 fps
73.3/763 = 0.09606 fpe/lb

That's a lot of recoil, definitely unmanageable in full auto without some kind of recoil management. However, utilizing an efficient muzzle brake or a recoil management system like the http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m312.htm, it would likely work just fine. Still no harness or anything like that needed. There's also no reason why the "rifle" couldn't be a tad heavier, say up to 8% body weight (61 lbs/troll).

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 8 2006, 04:43 AM

Of course, then you get to the fact that trolls can carry and use 'really heavy weapons' as an MMG. A fire support troll carrying around a 25 or 30mm automatic grenade launcher /light autocannon on a bipod might be pretty handy to have around.

I think the real limiters on troll heavy weapons will probably be the ammunition weight.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 8 2006, 05:56 AM

I think weight is honestly less of a concern than volume. If you're making 20 round .50 caliber magazines, those get kinda bulky kinda fast.

QUOTE (Raygun)

I hope you guys appreciate this.

Raygun love is ALWAYS appreciated.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 8 2006, 06:10 AM

I once stood in a rowboat, propped 2 60's on my hips, and just started rockin'! And I didn't stop rockin' until I was waist deep in brass and sinking! And I did it all without sweating into my bitchin' red shvetband.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 12:21 PM

Using Raygun's format:

Human, average weight: 154 lbs
M240B GPMG: 24.2 lbs, unloaded (15.7% body weight)
Load: 146 grain FMJ @ 2750 fps (US M80)
Propellant Weight: 46 grains
Recoil: 5.1 fpe @ 3.7 fps
5.1/154 = 0.03312 fpe/lb

Troll, average weight (SR4): 763 lbs
Rifle, (hypothetical 25x59Bmm "MMG"): 84 lbs, unloaded (11% body weight, about same as a Mk 48 Mod 0 for a human)
Load: 2037 grain HEDP @ 1750 fps (US XM1049?)
Propellant Weight: 50 grains (from earlier correspondence with Raygun)
Recoil: 52.1 fpe @ 6.3 fps
52.1/763 = 0.06828 fpe/lb

Troll, average weight (SR4): 763 lbs
Rifle, (hypothetical 20x102mm "HMG"): 105 lbs, unloaded (13.8% body weight)
Load: 1543 grain HEI @ 3280 fps (US M56A3)
Propellant Weight: 585 grains
Recoil: 213.9 fpe @ 11.5 fps
213.9/763 = 0.28034 fpe/lb

So, uhh, I guess trolls using AGLs as personal weapons will work, to an extent. High velocity 40mm rounds (like the ones fired from a Mk 19) will cause heftier recoil than the 25x59Bmm loads of an OCSW, though. But using automatic cannons, even relatively "light" 20mm ones, is probably out of the question. The felt recoil to a SR4-type troll from a 20x102mm cannon would be significantly worse than that from an M2HB to the average human.

Posted by: DrowVampyre Jun 8 2006, 12:54 PM

Yeah, even a troll would have trouble with autocannons, I'd say. However, they could probably pull the Predator trick and use a smaller caliber minigun...that'd be plenty unpleasant for anyone on the receiving end, even if it would necessitate a gigantic backpack for all the ammo.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 01:14 PM

They could definitely use small arms caliber miniguns. There's significant bulk involved in the weapon itself, the power source, and the ammunition, as you said, but beyond that it wouldn't cause serious problems for trolls. With those arms the torque is a non-issue, and the total (uncompensated) recoil force relative to mass is about the same as that for a human firing an M60.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jun 8 2006, 02:25 PM

I would like to point out that the power source is likely less of a problem. They seem to have made some significant advances in battery technology.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 02:42 PM

I was actually mentioning it because I wasn't sure what parts, exactly, come under the header "power source" when talking about minigun components. Apparently, at least in the case of an M134, it's just the battery and cable, so you can largely forget about that bit. It'd be a minor hindrance compared to the ammo, anyway.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jun 8 2006, 02:44 PM

So much ammo.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 02:46 PM

http://www.dillonaero.com/4400.html

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 8 2006, 02:54 PM

Of course, using the SR rules, it would take a un-augmented human holding the trigger down ~14.67 minutes to use all that ammo up (15 rounds an action and 20 actions a minute)

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jun 8 2006, 03:46 PM

Hey, you might well want to surpress for that long.
What about in real-life rules? How long would it really take a minigun to burn through 4400 rounds?

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 03:50 PM

With that particular weapon, 1 minute 6 seconds with the higher RoF (4000rpm), 2 minutes 12 seconds with the lower (2000rpm). 4min 24 seconds with an http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg06-e.htm, 8 minutes with an http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg12-e.htm -- though either is likely to have a barrel failure before you get through all of that.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 8 2006, 05:02 PM

I recall seeing a demo from one of the big shoots last year of one of the new M60 mods... it's down to about 18 pounds, and they were able to run 850 rounds of ammo through it without stopping once. I wonder if they could quintuple that amount...

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 05:10 PM

The M60E4. They tried the same thing before in an earlier shoot, and the barrel blew out at around 800-something. You could probably get higher if it were done when its freezing outside instead of on a hot day in a desert, but I wonder if you can reliably get any air-cooled GPMG to over 2000 rounds cyclically. 4400 would be really pushing it, even with the sturdiest and most reliable MGs.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 8 2006, 05:14 PM

Take a note from computer cooling: add heat sinks along the barrel, inside of a shroud to protect the user's hands somewhat. It'd add a few pounds, but as a technical exercise, it'd be amusing...

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 8 2006, 05:22 PM

Make it like the Lewis gun, only with maximized surface area heat sinks like you said. Way more practical than having a revolving barrel and bolt array.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 8 2006, 05:32 PM

The question would be, of course, can we get one of the dumpshock CE dudes to clue us in on how much cooling we could get out of this...

Posted by: Raygun Jun 8 2006, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

I think weight is honestly less of a concern than volume. If you're making 20 round .50 caliber magazines, those get kinda bulky kinda fast.

Well, the kind of standard loadout for an M16A2/M4 is 7 magazines, or 210 rounds. At a pound per loaded mag, that represents 4.5% body weight. To the SR4 Troll, that's 34 lbs. 20 rounds of M33 weighs about 5 lbs. Assuming our hypothetical 20-round .50 BMG mags weigh two pounds a piece, we're looking at 7 lbs/mag. 34/7 = ~5 mags, or 100 rounds. Give him just one more mag (to 5.5% body weight), and he's carrying the same common loadout as a human with an M14.

That's not a whole lot of rounds to fire, but even so, it does represent an awful lot of firepower. I mean, can you imagine that?

QUOTE

Raygun love is ALWAYS appreciated.

Posted by: Geekkake Jun 8 2006, 07:16 PM

QUOTE (Raygun)

That's not a whole lot of rounds to fire, but even so, it does represent an awful lot of firepower. I mean, can you imagine that?

Oh yes. Oooohhhh yes. I imagine it daily.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 8 2006, 09:35 PM

QUOTE (Raygun)

That's not a whole lot of rounds to fire, but even so, it does represent an awful lot of firepower. I mean, can you imagine that?

Oh, yeah... that's the kind of firepower you really want on your side when a firefight starts. A lot of things start getting reclassified as "concealment" rather than "cover..."

The limited ammunition count was one of the reasons for my battle rifle imagining of a troll gun. 120 rounds on semiautomatic can last you for a while, but if you start using bursts or suppressing targets, having a grand total of 6 mags of ammo can become an issue.

Besides, you can also have the troll carry a few hundred-round belt pouches for the crew's LMG.