 Telescoping stocks..., + or - on conceal? |
  |
 Jan 19 2006, 01:10 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 7-September 05 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 7,706  |
Ok here's the deal, i'm making a character when i decide i want to buy a Colt M-23.
Now it has a conceal of 3 (i think), so i says to myself i'll just get a telescoping stock... Problem is they don't appear to exist, at least not in any of the books i own. The question would be what you the dumpshock community feel should be the conceal modifier for having a telescoping stock. I'm thinking a one or two, i have a friend with an AR-15, and it has a telscoping stock and there is certainly a diference in size when it's collapsed. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 01:18 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 295 Joined: 10-July 05 Member No.: 7,492 |
I would just treat it as a folding stock. They both fulfill the same purpose (make the gun smaller when not in use, make the gun more stable when in use), so rather than making the distinction between a tabby and a tourtise shell, just call a cat a cat.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 01:56 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Since in Cannon Companion (page 83) an unfolded folding stock reduces Concealability by 1 in weapons which normally don't have stocks, I'd say replacing a solid rifle stock with a telescoping one would increase Concealability by 1 when it is collapsed.
It does requite house ruling, since the rules in Cannon Companion specifically state that you cannot put a folding stock on a rifle or a shotgun. This silliness exists because the rules assume a rifle or a shotgun always have stocks, and the (Folding) Stock firearm customization option provides Recoil Compensation which a rifle shouldn't get. Instead of making a separate option for giving rifles and shotguns a folding/telescopic stock which doesn't affect recoil but increases Concealability when folded/collapsed, they just ignored it, leading to several hundred posts worth of ranting on this forum and the ones before it. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 02:10 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 751 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Hamilton.LTG.on.ca Member No.: 2,853 |
Yes I use the folding stocks to replace the regular one also.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 02:12 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
To give a more rules heavy version:
Folding stock: 300Y? The fixed stock of a rifle or shotgun may be replaced by a folding stock. When folded, add 1 to the concealability of the weapon. However treat recoil as from a heavy weapon (doubling all uncompensated recoil). In addition, lower the range category of the weapon by 'one' (ARs use SMG ranges, Shotguns use heavy pistol? ranges). It takes a simple action to fold or unfold the stock. Of course, you can also just take a hacksaw to your stock for the increased concealability. [edits for range penalties] |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 02:27 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 7-September 05 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 7,706 |
Cool, you guys certainly know your Shadowrun...
I knew there was a reason I registered on this forum. They said i was daft to register on this site, but i registered all the same, just to show'em |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 02:43 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
Crusher, whats the "logic" behind the range penelties? I get the reciol (and like it too, since you dont have the brunt of the recoil going into your shoulder any more) But i don't get why that would affect the ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 02:57 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 751 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Hamilton.LTG.on.ca Member No.: 2,853 |
Yeah but soon you'll run into the dark side of this forum, i usually take breaks from ths forum alot. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 02:59 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Agreed - in SR, the range bracket changes when you do things like change barrel length, or make one chambered for a cartridge normally used in a much larger weapon. Also, while I sort of see the logic behind the double recoil, I think it's a little excessive and doesn't quite make sense, when you consider that in this system, you can fire an SMG one-handed, without using a stock, and not have any problems. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 03:36 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
The ranges at which you can hit something without a stock are very limited. The guns you can normally add a folding stock to are already very short ranged. If I didn't add the rule abould range reduction, you would be able to saw the stock off your AR and still hit targets 500? meters away. In addition, it is too keep that folding stock option from being too attractive. If you have a simple action to spare, there is no real penalty (except for cost), but having some punk whip his assualt rifle with a folding stock out from under his trench coat and shoot you accurately when you are 500 meters away'rambo style', all in a fraction of a second, is a bit much.
For a shotgun, using the 'longer' 50+ meter range bands of a shotgun also require a stock, limiting 'stockless' shotguns to HPish ranges makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 03:55 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
Well, i kinda see where you're coming from, but i still think a TN penalty is more approriate over just saying you can only fire out to one range lower. I mean, imagine the scenario that you DON'T have a simple action to flip out , so you whip out your AR, folded stock, and pop off a few shots at a max of what? 100 meters? i dont know the exact number. Next pass, you have your simple available, , so you pop the stock out and POOF! you're shooting at 500 meters now?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 04:26 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 404 Joined: 22-June 05 From: Canada eh! Member No.: 7,455 |
You could hit them 500 meters away if you can handle the recoil. The muzzle velocity and accuracy is not deminished in any way. If you are strong enough or have a gyromount in your cyberarm, why the heck not? What is wrong with attractive? It makes sense, also if you are in a firefight, it is a simple or complex action to unfold the stock, or face the extra recoil, that is its downside. Cost is also another factor, you are adding +50% price. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 04:38 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
Yes we do. Welcome, here is your dikoted ally spirit AVS, that you can have sex with, and apperently is drop bear modified. AE has the right idea. Apply a folding stock to a rifle, makes it slightly more concealable when folded. If you try and fire it with the stock folded, it acts like a heavy weapon(aka 2x recoil). I might also note the problem arses with a folded stock, and internal recoil comp(ala Ares Alpha). The idea is to 'almost' force the user to unfold the stock before firing. I believe there is a rule about stun damage and heavy weapons? Might be a idea to enforce that as well. Back when I was still learning trap, I shot using a .20 ga. I was at that point strong enough to have it not quite pressed into my shoulder (like it should have been). I switced to a somewhat light weight .12 ga. I had a welt half the size of my fist for a week. Moral of this story is a gun that has a stock, has it there for a reason. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 04:53 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
I don't have a big problem with someone using a weapon without a stock to fire at things at long range - and no problem if they're using a smartlink. A stock certainly helps, but the main reasons why pistols and SMGs can't shoot effectively at long range (stock or no stock) are: bullet trajectory (not flat enough), inadequate sights, short barrel. That, and like I said before, in SR what range increment a weapon uses pretty clearly depends on the type of gun and the kind of round it fires, not whether it has a stock or not. If it was all about whether it has a stock or not, you ought to be able to put a stock on a heavy pistol and start using it at longer range. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 05:11 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Long range shooting requires both a weapon careful of putting a bullet that far out and careful control of the weapon when firing. A humman factor that causes a deviation of 2 inches at 25 meters is not that big a deal, at 25 meters. However than same human factor would produce a miss distance of 8 inches at 100 meters (still hitting the target), but at, say, 450 meters, you are looking at a deviation of around 3 feet. The stock is a significant step up in reducing the human error, which is really necessary for long range shooting. Even someone with cyberarms will face problems with torque, since they can not properly brace the weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 05:40 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
but again crusher, i feel that TN penalties on top of recoil, is the best way to handle that, instead of just saying "oh, because your stock is fold in, you can't shoot that far"
Maybe someone's working on a dare of "I bet you can't hit the broad side of a barn with that stock folded in at 400 meters" Maybe he can, maybe he can't, but who are we to tell him that because he folds his stock in, his bullit is gonna fall short by 100 meters? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 05:46 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 404 Joined: 22-June 05 From: Canada eh! Member No.: 7,455 |
It is true someone with a cyberarm will face the same problem, but since you have the str or the built in gyro-mount, the problem gets compensated for. Picture mounting the weapon on a turret. Since the weapon is mounted at a central point, the stock no longer comes into play, and would therefore be redundant, not adding any additional compensation. Essentially, your shoulder becomes a mounting point, elongating the weapon thus giving you more mechanical advantage over the torque generated from the bullet exiting the weapon (Akin to using a longer leaver to lift something, so less force is required to gain the same advantage). If you have a shorter weapon, you need more energy to compensate for the loss of mechanical advantage, BUT if you do have that force to counter the kickback's force, then the end result would be the same. Now doubling the recoil, is a fair solution for computing the extra force required to compensate for the loss of the stock. Extra strength, the gyromount, and gas venting will provide extra mechanical advantage to gain the extra control required for accuracy at long distances. Edit: fixed spelling and grammar |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 05:51 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
this is incorrect. despite what SR says, the main utility of a stock is not reducing recoil. i say again, THE MAIN USE OF A STOCK IS NOT TO REDUCE RECOIL. a stock on a weapon is mainly an aid for precision on any shot--single, burst, autofire, whatever. the act of shooting is one of precision, and you can not get the same precision without a stock as you can with. re-read Crusher Bob's last post, it explains this. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 05:56 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Well, part of the problem is with granularity of the game system. The range categories are massivice simplifications to begin with, in that you can be standing 1 meter outside of extreme range and not take a scratch. In general, bullets are still potentially lethal far past the ranges given by the book (consider IRL, the long range rifle drill of British troops circa WWI, they were able to volley fire at area targets ~1 mile away with 'reasonable' accuracy). The ranges given in the book are the 'point target' ranges for the weapon, not the actual effective range of the bullet. I stuck the reduced ranges in there because I feel that the removal/non-use of the stock on a shoulder arm so radically reduces your ability to hit a point target that the game rule range bands should be reduced to reflect this.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 06:00 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 404 Joined: 22-June 05 From: Canada eh! Member No.: 7,455 |
Actually, yes it is, you are just not thinking of how it does so. A stock lets you put your face closer to the gun's sites safely. and helps you to position the eye in the same place. Still if you can safely compensate the recoil you gain no advantage. Picture putting two lasers on a turret, one in the shape of a hand gun, one as a rifle. The stock gives you no advantage here. If you have a smartlink, what is the difference? If you do not have a smartlink, you have to site them in with your eye, what do you gain from using a rifle sites vs a hand gun's? you gain the accuracy, because the distance between the two points of the sites is greater. With a sawed off stock, the distance between the sites is the same, so what would the advantage of having the stock in that scenario be?? my conclusion is none. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 19 2006, 06:06 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
ok MFB, i understand that the stock is an accuracy aid, but i have yet to hear why, removing the stock, automatically makes your gun unable to fire as far as the tables say it does. As i understand the weapon ranges table, it is there so that you know what the maximum range a gun can fire while still having the power to do the damage listed. And i can't see WHY folding the stock in on such a weapon would automatically reduce it's maximum ranges at which it has the power to do damge.
It wouldnt, you just might not be able to hit the broadside of a 18 wheeler at 500 meters. How bout this, "Use smg TN ranges, adding the TN's up to the range ofthe guns maximum. For example, you have replaced the stock of your AR with a telescoping stock. You see you're target running for cover, and don't have the time to pull the stock out, you take aim at 200 meters, hoping to get lucky. Because 200 meters i longer than a standard SMGs range of 150, you take the base tn of 9, plus 6 that falls into the remaining 50 meters, for a BASE single shot TN of 15." This should make it hella difficult, and incrediably stupid except for the most dire circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 06:07 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 404 Joined: 22-June 05 From: Canada eh! Member No.: 7,455 |
The whole game is a massive simplification of life, meant for some element of realism, and not to overly complicated so that it takes 1.4 million years to compute a shot. The system doesn't take into account wind, barrel wear, and many other factors. I respect your opinion of reducing ranges, but I think that should be a house rule. If you can handle the recoil, nothing else changes. I was not saying you double every point of uncompensated recoil, but every single point of recoil and try and soak that down. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 19 2006, 06:08 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
no, no, you're looking at stocks all wrong. what stocks allow you to do is hold your weapon still. seriously, that's their main purpose. if you can hold your weapon perfectly still in relation to your firing shoulder, the rest is easy. any movement will throw your aim off--breathing, blinking, pulling the trigger (not recoil, i mean the physical motion of pulling the trigger). stocks reduce all that jittering around. putting your face closer to the sights has nothing to do with it, though you're correct about positioning the eye. a smartlink will not help with this. it doesn't matter if you know where the gun is pointed if you can't keep the gun pointed at your target long enough to squeeze off a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 06:12 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
I am of the opinion that if you want stock removal to decrease a persons accuracy, you should do this by giving them an increased TN, or by decreasing the dice (depending on your edition of choice) There, you've given them a penalty. Leave range categories out of it. The bullet will fly exactly the same in either case, range doesn't change. Your ability to hit things does, fine, I'll accept that. I just think you're applying the penalty in the wrong place.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2006, 06:15 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
You have never fired a rifle, right? Regardless of recoil, a stock allows you to anchor the firearm far more firmly into your body, making it far more stable, allowing you to fire the weapon far more accurately. When firing at longer ranges, the difference is immense. It doesn't matter whether you've got arms like the Governator in the 1970s, you can never hold a rifle as steady without using a stock as you can when firmly pressing the stock to your shoulder. Like Crusher Bob and mfb have been saying, the difference is just immense. Cutting the range from AR to SMG is completely justified. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th January 2025 - 10:42 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.