Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 20 2011, 05:34 PM

This vehicle is weird. It is supposed to be some kind of a dune buggy with a weapon mount. Now here is what is weird:

• The vehicle is available to everyone while sporting a forbidden modification.
• The weapon in the mount cannot be moved but must be used by a human shooter (fixed mount, manual control), other than the driver.
• The price is lower than any other car.

How did this vehicle happen? Who in their right mind would build a manually controlled fixed weapon mount. Even a gun port or pintle mount would be more effective and the former for a fraction of the cost and protects the shooter. A remote control would make the second crew member superfluous and the whole crew (the driver) would be safely behind armor (pretty light armor though).

Posted by: CanRay Oct 20 2011, 05:44 PM

It's marketed towards big game hunters going after bounties of dangerous awakened animals, most likely.

Posted by: PresentPresence Oct 20 2011, 05:49 PM

Let's hope those animals don't move too erratically. Stay still, critter!

Posted by: Paul Oct 20 2011, 06:00 PM

Somebody watched Delta Force starring Chuck Norris too many times.

Posted by: Stalag Oct 20 2011, 06:04 PM

The first two do seem odd... the first that the "F" mod doesn't make the vehicle itself "F" (though in RL you are free and legal to put all the weapon mounts you want on a vehicle as long as they don't interfere with the operation of the vehicle and don't have any functional weapons in the mounts). The second that the mount is "fixed" instead of "flexible"... if it's fixed why would you need a gunner? It's only ever going to point whichever way the vehicle points.

The price is understandable... the Morgan is not a car, it's a dune buggy. Realistically it's something you're more likely to see cruising across the desert or in the mountains and not downtown Seattle.

Posted by: Bigity Oct 20 2011, 06:09 PM

They could have watched Megaforce and we could have had flying motorcycles with rockets.

Posted by: Paul Oct 20 2011, 06:10 PM

True but I was trying to think the best of them...

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 20 2011, 06:12 PM

It is my favorite vehicle.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 20 2011, 06:20 PM

I don't remember that movie, but I'm pretty sure the vehicles in that movie had flexible weapon mounts.

Posted by: Paul Oct 20 2011, 06:20 PM

Mea Culpa. Your nerd credit rating is bigger than mine.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 20 2011, 06:24 PM

If you have seen the movie yours is bigger than mine. I just thought using a fixed one would be too stupid even for a Chuck Norris movie.

Posted by: Stahlseele Oct 20 2011, 07:09 PM

This thing is a beach-buggy.
It has roll-Bars.
No armored plates.
And on top of the cage, there is a mount for the gun, right?

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 20 2011, 07:20 PM

Right, except that the mount is fixed. I.e. maneuvering the whole vehicle is the only way to point the gun in the right direction. When to open fire is not the decision of the driver but a second crew member in the back.

This setup would make sense either with a flexible manually controlled mount or a fixed remote controlled mount.

Posted by: Method Oct 20 2011, 10:47 PM

I think there were shooting for something like http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Patrol_Vehicle.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 20 2011, 11:10 PM

I'm pretty glad that War introduced rules for vehicle combat that actually make flexible and turret mounts mechanically better.

In regular combat, there's nothing in the BBB rules that makes a fixed mount any less effective than a turret. I suppose that might be because BBB rules only have one type of mount.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 20 2011, 11:21 PM

I would point out that in earlier editions, fixed mounts still allowed an installed weapon to pivot by 5 degrees.

4th edition does not make mention of this, but it makes sense that it would still work similarly, otherwise all firing from fixed mounts would require vehicle tests rather than Gunnery.




-k

Posted by: Method Oct 21 2011, 01:19 AM

Which is a great house rule either way if you ask me.

Posted by: TheOOB Oct 21 2011, 01:51 AM

I imagine many corps try to add elements that would normally be illegal to legal products, loopholes and the like. I had the players steel the prototype for a gun that had a built in internal silencer that was marketed as an ergonomic feature, and thus legal for sale in the UCAS with no restriction(other than those applying to all pistols).

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 21 2011, 02:01 AM

That's a hell of a loophole, but a much milder version of the principle might be sound.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 21 2011, 03:25 AM

HOT WHEELS!!!Ah yes, gotta love them loopholes.

China apparently found one in Canada where they were able to ship AK-Clones as "BB-Guns". Supposedly. Either that, or someone from the RCMP flipped their lid when they found toys built with steel and wood instead of plastic.

Posted by: TheOOB Oct 21 2011, 09:11 AM

Ares wanted those specs, either to copy them and beat the smaller company to market, or fight in court to try to make it illegal, since legal silenced weaponry would be worth billions to the corp that managed to pull it off first.

That's the kind of stuff that corps need runners for.

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 21 2011, 10:50 AM

Believe me, those ARE BB-guns. Airsoft guns more precisely. They do cost $250 or something thereabouts, though. There's also that $500 Mosin-Nagant rifle made of aluminium, with a wooden stock and real scope. It shoots plastic BBs too.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 21 2011, 01:44 PM

There is the Ingram Smartgun though... not legal but only restricted despite having a sound suppressor.
Not to mention the M22A3. There you have a grenade launcher everyone can get a license for.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 21 2011, 02:07 PM

Those AKs were actually BB guns, but could easily be converted to full on bullet-firing AKs with a few part swaps.

At least it's not like the US ATF when they seized shipment of Airsoft M-4s, claiming they could be converted to a real gun. Turns out that, yes, you technically could, but only by replacing 90% of the gun except the plastic shell holding everything together, and even then it would likely shake itself apart after a few shots.

It was more or less the equivalent of "These blocks of wood can be converted to real guns! Carve out some of the wood, stick in all the innards of a real gun, and it fires!



-k

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 21 2011, 02:49 PM

That makes me want to hand-carve a block of wood into a "real gun" with my pocket knife at boy scout camp.

Not that I go to BSA camp any more. Or whittle. Or want to spend that much effort.

Posted by: Neraph Oct 21 2011, 03:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXg56QW6qfo

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 21 2011, 03:34 PM

I said with a pocket knife. Dude clearly had that thing machined.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 21 2011, 03:38 PM

Yeah, well, I'm going to wait and see if more legitimate info comes along than from the RCMP or heavily biased newspapers... Not that there is a firearms friendly newspaper (or any other media) in Canada, I believe.

At this point, it could be true, it could be false. And, yeah, this is a prime example of loopholes in the system that might be snuck around if the authorities aren't looking carefully enough. Or are, *Ahem*, encouraged to not look closely.

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 21 2011, 04:16 PM

Oh, yeah. Receiver, barrel, trigger, you'd also have to put the real internals in... What the hell were you smoking?! First off, those things were copied from Japanese models that have different dimensions than real-steel, that's one, different internal structure that disallows "a few part swaps", that's two, and are made of plastic, and that one's not relevant. Then, what Shadowrun should have taught you a long time ago, you don't believe the media as they're usually lying or talking out of their asses, or lying out of their asses to drum up the moral panic. And finally, do your legwork first. A little research and you wouldn't end up ridiculed by people who actually handled that stuff. ME.


Oh, and that one was about something completely different too. Actually, the ATF threw a shit-fit over the fact that you could fit real-steel trigger mechanism to the cast zinc-alloy lower receiver of the toy (the only part of the real rifle that has a serial number stamped on it) with a liberal application of power drill, and then put it on a real-steel upper receiver to get an unregistered, untraceable rifle that could even fire once or twice before the lower receiver falls apart. If only Colt and other AR15 manufacturers weren't retarded and actually stamped the serial number on the upper receiver instead (or upper AND lower, twice), the whole brouhaha wouldn't have taken place.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 21 2011, 04:23 PM

Seriously Mike, you handled these exact models that were in BC?

That said, I think I have put the warning that this could just be fearmongering on the Canadian Media and RCMP's part.

Hell, you should have heard the complaining and gnashing of teeth over the new Winnipeg Jet's logo. *Shakes Head*

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 21 2011, 04:25 PM

Care to enlighten us Non-Canadians?

Posted by: CanRay Oct 21 2011, 04:37 PM

The http://1.cdn.nhle.com/jets/images/upload/2011/07/110722_logos_news.jpg logo is supposed to be an homage to the long history and tradition Winnipeg has with the old Royal Canadian Air Force (The main training base was here for World War I and II), and was done with permission (And thanks, apparently) from the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, due to it's "Militaristic" stance, a lot of people are heavily up in arms about it, because, well, "The Military Is Evil And Kills Children" or something similar. I've even seen signs downtown going, "Who designed the new Jets logo? Satan?"

Never mind that the Canadian Armed Forces primary job is Search and Rescue, Securing the Canadian Waters, and Peacekeeper missions for the UN. Hell, Afghanistan was the first actual "Military" action Canada's had since the Korean War!

Don't understand it myself, but, then again, I'm a supporter of the Canadian Armed Forces, Veterans, and so on. So I'm not expected to, being in bed with "The Enemy" and such. Canadian Culture has always been this way. But we're edging towards the ToS, so I'll shut up now.

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 21 2011, 05:23 PM

No, but if something is claimed to be a BB gun AK47 made out of steel and shipped from China, it's most probably either the Cyma or Boyi airsoft gun (cheaper, more common) or Real Sword airsoft gun (more expensive, more faithful to the original). Cymas use the same parts as their cheaper zinc-alloy AEGs, so my point still stands.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 21 2011, 06:35 PM

A) Thus far the Canadian authorities haven't mentioned what make and model toy weapon is mentioned. Without further information I can only go off what was reported.

B) The incident I was taking about required the toy lower receiver to be cut apart and put back together with a shim to make it wide enough to accept the trigger group and associated bits. The rest of the weapon was from AR-15 parts. It is possible the lower receiver was metal, but the pictures I saw they looked plastic.

The rest of my statement is definite, though - you could in fact make a lower receiver out of wood, since it doesn't have to actually contain any great stress or pressure. Granted, the wooden LR wouldn't last very long, but you'd likely get a few shots out of it.

The biggest stupidity is how the ATF defines a "firearm", which at the time was the lower receiver. None of the other parts of an AR-15, for example, were regulated to any great degree.

C) There's no reason to be an ass about it. Nobody was throwing insults before you posted. Chill.

I am aware of what goes into a weapon. I have a shotgun sitting not 5 feet from me and have owned several rifles and handguns in the past. My old 9mm I could take apart and put together blindfolded. Please don't assume.



-k

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 21 2011, 08:13 PM

It so happens I followed that one - the Wei-E Tech M4s were seized and, to make them accept the trigger group, inside of the zinc alloy lower receiver had to be made a bit wider (but not by sawing and shimming, it was milled out). It might have looked plastic due to the finish, though. Some manufacturers use ungodly amount of paint and WE just so happens to be one of the sloppier ones.

As for the AKs, I just knew the only options. And knowing the downright stupid regulations of airsoft in Canada (for instance, no second-hand sales), I kinda figured out that a whole shipment of them was more likely to contain the cheaper models that would surely sell in the ordered quantity. Plus people would prefer a replica of the Russian AK (that Cyma and Boyi make) to the Chinese Type 56 (made exclusively by RealSword).

That and I'm very touchy on the subject of "toys that can be easily turned into weapons". All the designs come from Japan, where the manufacturers are obligated to make sure this is not possible. Then, Taiwanese and Chinese copy the designs, sometimes putting in minor improvements like seals that withstand higher pressure (Japan uses duster gas in their gas-powered airsoft guns, rest of the world uses propane that has higher pressure) or electronic components that improve trigger action (some companies in the West improved a home-made MOSFET mod used in electric-powered airsoft rifles and are having it installed in the guns they order from China), but structurally, it's not possible to use airsoft guns as base for real ones without major modifications that aren't really worth it.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 21 2011, 08:24 PM

No second-hand sales is the worst you can think of?

The license to import Airsoft into Canada also allows the importer to store Weapons-Grade Nuclear Material. No, I'm not joking.

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 21 2011, 08:45 PM

Well, the "can't do something obvious" clause is worse than "can do something unusual because some idiot wrote the law that way" in my book. Also, it's not that hard to guess that getting a license in the first place requires you to jump a shitload of hoops while smiling at the morons leading you through.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 21 2011, 08:47 PM

Leading? You have people leading you through a Bureaucracy? Lucky!!!

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 21 2011, 09:20 PM

Well, here's the problem. They technically can.

But only inasmuch as it's not at all hard to create a structure that is capable of holding the bolt assembly, barrel/chamber, and ammo feed together well enough to launch a bullet. Receivers are not complicated devices. They can be made from nearly anything strong enough to hold those things together. Including BB and airsoft guns that are already kinda shaped like the originals.

Hell, if you just wanted to fire one shot, you could probably hold the mess together with duct tape. It wouldn't survive past the first shot, and I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near it when it went off, but it would propel at least one bullet, possibly to lethal effect.

That's the stupid part. Instead of defining a firearm as the bits that actually do the job of launching the bullet, they defined it as the structure that holds those bits together. So the part that gets strictly regulated and tracked is that structure instead of the actual dangerous bits.

If "firearm" was defined as the actual parts of the gun that come into contact with the bullet, airsoft guns would have zero problems.



-k

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 21 2011, 09:44 PM

Unless they throw more hoops at you than you can jump through. And they do.

I said "easily". If you tried that with an airsoft gun, you would have to cut every obstructing bit out (and there's a shitload of them), then make the part that holds the real cartridge(s), mount the barrel so it doesn't fly off instead of the bullet, and finally make a firing pin. Once you're done with it all, you'll most probably notice that you actually didn't need the airsoft gun in the first place.
Actually, there was only one model that could have been easily converted to fire real bullets. As soon as this came to light, it was withdrawn from production and the manufacturer was fined. And no, I'm not talking about Tanaka and their Cassiopeia system - that one was a case of combined Internet bullshit and media fearmongering.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 21 2011, 10:15 PM

I suppose it depends on your definition of "easily".

I have a lathe, drill press, wirefeed welder, and an entire rack of other power tools. I could probably mill out or weld together a rough receiver out of steel stock in an afternoon or two. It wouldn't be pretty, and probably be way over-done because I don't know the actual strength requirements so I'd err on the conservative side, but it would not take THAT long.

What I could not do would be to produce a barrel and bolt assembly, the actual dangerous bits, because those require an exacting knowledge of metallurgy and ballistics engineering I don't possess to do properly. (unless you LIKE your firearms exploding in your face)

Instead of registering and tracking the manufacture and sale of the barrel and bolt groups, the actual parts of a firearm that launch the bullet and the hardest bits to make correctly, they decided to register and track the one part that never touches the bullet and pretty much anyone halfway decent with shop tools could turn out.

It's idiotic.

I suppose, though, not much more so that the various "assault weapon bans" that mostly ban parts that LOOK dangerous, rather than ARE dangerous. I mean, seriously, a "pistol grip" on a rifle somehow makes it more deadly?



-k

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 21 2011, 11:02 PM

Not to forget .50 BMG is only dangerous if fired in bursts.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 21 2011, 11:07 PM

Whatever...

Posted by: Daishi Oct 22 2011, 12:23 AM

Judging from the description, art and stats, the Morgan is a minimalist open chassis dune buggy. Its the cheapest car because it lacks certain typical amenities such as doors or a roof. In most jurisdictions, it's probably so cut down that it's not even street legal.

As for the mount, the legality system is quite abstracted, so you shouldn't expect perfect consistency when its viable to break the pattern. Adding a weapon mount to a personal car or a plane is probably going to be for nefarious purposes, so it makes sense to make that after-market modification Forbidden. But if a vehicle is designed from the ground up for a purpose where a weapon mount could be legitimate, the same restrictions shouldn't necessarily apply. Most SR government's wouldn't be very concerned about a weapon mount on a vehicle that's specifically designed for wilderness patrols and probably not even allowed in urban areas or even on the highway.

The fixed weapon mount also bugs me. Flexible would make much more sense given the Morgan's description.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 22 2011, 12:37 AM

A Cooling Shroud, a SAFETY DEVICE, is part of that "Assault Weapon Ban", BTW. Go figure. IIRC, the SPAS-12 was banned because of it's look as well, as there's lots of Semi-Automatic Shotguns on the market legally (Some were designed John Browning for $Deity's sake!), and they certainly couldn't have had an issue with it being able to be a Pump-Action as well, could they?

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 22 2011, 05:37 AM

You might want to look around for real world "fun" vehicles. They are rarely cheap even though they lack many features found in normal vehicles.
This is purely your assumption. The book does not place any restriction on the vehicle.

Exactly.

Posted by: TheOOB Oct 22 2011, 05:57 AM

I'd venture a guess that many of the prices in Shadowrun are the designers basically throwing arbitrary numbers out, so take them with a grain of salt.

I can also defiantly see that a built in mount(for hunting naturall) would be cool while modifying a car to put in a mount wouldn't be.

Posted by: Daishi Oct 22 2011, 01:57 PM

I was actually looking at military light vehicles. They can be quite expensive, but they can also be dirt cheap for small, simple models.


Street legality has no mechanic in SR4. Like many things, it's entirely up to the GM how to implement that, if at all. I simply provided a plausible interpretation of the Morgan.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 22 2011, 03:58 PM

MPUVs! Are they street legal?

They're just the bastard child of the Jeep, Kubelwagen, and Hummer after all.

Posted by: hobgoblin Oct 22 2011, 05:22 PM

If street legal, me wants.

Posted by: Kirk Oct 22 2011, 05:48 PM

Define "street legal".

One of the things that (IMO) has been making SR less gritty has been the encroachment of "law everywhere". Worse, again IMO, is consistent and equitable law everywhere.

I read the original intent as a patchwork of balkanized corporate-feudal territories within government claimed but anarchically controlled cities and larger states.

So street legal in the barrens may or may not be street legal in cop-heavy locales of the barrens which may or may not be street legal in city/state/nationally "controlled" areas which may or may not be street legal in this, that or the other corp's territory.

Equally, enough money, power, and 'swing' can make almost anything street legal (or not street legal). How much is "enough" depends on where you are.

Now for me, the fact the MPUV is 8 (no R or F) means it's /usually/ going to be street legal, at least in most places. You may have to trick it out to look like an executive ride for some places, it might need different plates or accessories, but basically it's going to be acceptable. Your GM's mileage may vary.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 22 2011, 07:48 PM

The thing is the Thundercloud Morgan does not have Availability of 8 but of - . This means not only that you can get it everywhere in the Barrens, but also in the best controlled corporate environments. The lack of an R behind the availability means that you don't need a license for buying or using this vehicle. So it must be street legal.

There is nothing about law everywhere in SR. The R behind the availablity just tells us that in territories where the law is enforced you will have to be able to produce a license.

BTW what's an MPUV?

Posted by: PresentPresence Oct 22 2011, 08:05 PM

Military Personnel Utility Vehicle?

Posted by: CanRay Oct 22 2011, 08:33 PM

Like someone owning a Jeep or VW Iltis. I doubt it'll be familiar on the street, but it's cheap and affordable and easily modified. Probably good for Barrens Driving.

Yep. It's the Military Jeep of Shadowrun.

Posted by: Daishi Oct 22 2011, 11:46 PM

Having an availability of - doesn't necessarily say much about street legality. It just means it requires no special government approval to acquire or use. I don't need a background check and government approval to buy an ATV, but I typically can't take it onto the city streets.

The MPUV is the "Multi-Purpose Utility Vehicle." It's been the Shadowrun Jeep/HMMWV equivalent for a while. The current incarnation is in MilSpecTech and Runner's Black Book.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 23 2011, 01:56 AM

So you'd probably see it about as often as you would a Jeep in the 1960s and 1970s of the USA...

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 23 2011, 05:13 AM

Hey, if it's good enough for MacGyver...




-k

Posted by: CanRay Oct 23 2011, 08:16 AM

Hell, I know someone IRL that has a VW Iltis. Admittedly, he's the owner of my FLGS/Army Surplus store...

I also lived down the street from someone that owned a... Korean-Era Jeep, IIRC, when I first moved here.

Classic cars are regular items on the streets in Summer.

Posted by: Neraph Oct 23 2011, 04:16 PM

Urm... Legality, and more specifically the Jurisdiction subsection, page 313, SR4A. The Availability and Legality ratings of items are only for Seattle, UCAS. Anywhere else is GM discretion.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 23 2011, 04:28 PM

OK. Still the R and F letters are only of importance, where (in Seattle) the law is enforced. Nobody will call the authorities if you are driving around in a tank selling smack in the Barrens.

Posted by: Mardrax Oct 23 2011, 05:23 PM

Not if by 'the authorities' you mean KE/LS. You might find yourself in a heap of trouble with local syndicates or even just gangs though. They might care less about the tank, but drug selling is likely encroaching on their turf.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 23 2011, 05:47 PM

Of course I do not mean te local crime syndicates. The R and F in the availability does not mean them either.