IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ranger Arms SM-4, high-res houserule on reassembly
Riley37
post Nov 20 2007, 07:08 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 17-September 07
Member No.: 13,319



Sniper rifle is, at any moment, in one of these states...
Fully disassembled, can fit in briefcase
1 Complex Action of reassembly:
Partially dissasembled, each half is carbine length
1 Complex Action of further reassembly gets:
Hastily reassembled, use Carbine range mods
Further reassembly (Armorer [2], 1 Complex Action):
Fully reassembled, use Sniper Rifle range mods
(actual test firing gives large bonus for this task)

RAW says it gets -1 DP if bumped; I suggest that any bump causing that, also causes reversion to Carbine range mods.

I assume some internal sensors that aid in reassembly, eg Tab A interfaces with Slot B to check whether it's perfectly re-aligned or needs a slight adjustment on this screw or that screw. Actually test-firing is the best way of double-checking reassembly, as a small misalignment matters a lot at 800 meters range.

kzt is among those who know a lot more about long-distance riflery than I do, so I hope that he's among the second opinion providers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Nov 20 2007, 07:48 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



My thought is that it isn't possible to have a highly accurate rifle that disassembles such that the chamber throat and barrel is not one piece. I have even more doubt about a mid-barrel seam. So you'd get a 21-27 inch long part, depending on the barrel length.

I've seen hunting rifles that break down this way (it looks to me), where the chamber throat is the join. They are two piece and assemble really fast.

They are not designed for 600-800 meter shots, but have a reputation for being quite accurate. This seems like a reasonable basis for modeling the the Ranger. I don't see any good reason to have it break down any further, other then the silencer, bipod and magazine.

See Alaskan CoPilot

I suspect the Ranger is designed like the the rifle in "The Day of the Jackal", which is silly. But typical SR.

I've never seen anyone make a breakdown rifle that has a joint in the middle of barrel. I can't see how you'd ever get it to reassemble without losing lots of accuracy or blowing out unless it was extremely heavily built.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusher Bob
post Nov 20 2007, 09:12 AM
Post #3


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,598
Joined: 15-March 03
From: Hong Kong
Member No.: 4,253



some google-fu indicates that the standard attache case is around 18inx13in and 3-4 inches deep.

Assuming you are using a slightly oversize case that is 20in x 15in, this gives you a diagonal length of 25 inches.

Assuming we place the barrel diagonally in the case, this gives us space for a 20 inch barrel and a 3 inch chamber, with a bit of room for padding in either corner.

Assuming you can fit the receiver (stock + internal magazine + trigger assembly + bipod rail) into one triangle, and the bipod, scope, and bolt into the other triangle, the you are good to go.

I'm not sure you can fit a decent stock into a triangle that is around 18in x 13 inches though.

In any event, The rifle would take much more than 3 seconds to put together.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Nov 20 2007, 03:33 PM
Post #4


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
In any event, The rifle would take much more than 3 seconds to put together.

Remember, it's 3 Complex Actions, so figure it takes 9 seconds for an uncybered mundane who knows what they're doing. The rest is initiative boosters that we're well-served by not thinking about too much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Falconer
post Nov 21 2007, 01:59 AM
Post #5


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 2,283
Joined: 12-October 07
Member No.: 13,662



I see someone beat me to the 20-24" diagonal. Yeah it makes a lot of sense that the barrel would be stored diagonally. If it had a picattany rail on top then you can securely mount most any 'standard' optics on it... short of having the barrel specially tapped for your scope mounts.

Long range and target rifles only attach the barrel to the stock at a single point near the trigger group. A free floating barrel is much better and predictable than bedding it in a stock where differences in thermal expansion/contraction become issues (as well as screwing w/ barrel harmonics).

Due to it's ability to rapidly break it down, I think the -1 penalty is fine, it just means it's not bedded firmly in the stock assembly and has a bit of 'wobble' if it's handled too roughly. The reduction to carbine ranges is bad call on the one posters part. (the range modifier and lack of damage reduction w/ range bracket rules are all screwed up IMO, but that much of a reduction is also screwed up).

As far as assembly, I'd make it an extended armorer test, then someone might be able to get it together in 3IP's (though I'd slam them w/ the -1 penalty because the assembly was done quickly and the barrel wasn't fully tightly). Use Armorer (not longarms... longarms is shooting, armorer is assembly/disassembly/repair/modification of weapons).

If you need 10 successes to get the gun together, then someone rolling 10 dice per IP... will have it together in 3 complex actions... (you could even apply a negative modifier like wired reflexes gives for motion sensor tests since they're 'twitchy' and less sure-handed while doing things on speed). Further, that could be the threshhold for just getting it together, you need 15 to get it fully together and tightened up, the scope neatly adjusted and get rid of the -1).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nkari
post Nov 21 2007, 05:06 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 30-July 04
From: Orebro, Sweden
Member No.: 6,523



Fully asembling a AK5(swedish army standard wpn), takes about 7-9 seconds. Add another second or two if you do it blindfolded. Done it myself at those times.

So probably its a yes on that one, tho I dont know much about barrel lengths etc and accuracy etc.. =)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Nov 21 2007, 05:27 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



An unscoped M16 can be fired out to 600 meters with fairly disgusting accuracy, depending on the skill of the shooter, of course. It can also be broken into to peices, which can be reassebled reasonably quickly. The overall length is, as I recall, 40 inches, though the barrel and upper reciever are more than half that. On the other hand, jarring it won't do much to change the functional capability at all.

FULLY assembling it from peices... which gains you nothing as far as stowage space, takes well over 9 seconds, which makes me wonder how far down Nkari's AK5 goes ;)

But mostly: The Ranger Arms SM-4 is a Hollywood Gun. Don't question it, just enjoy it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WearzManySkins
post Nov 21 2007, 06:07 PM
Post #8


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,159
Joined: 12-April 07
From: Ork Underground
Member No.: 11,440



AK5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK5

WMS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Nov 21 2007, 06:18 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



QUOTE (WearzManySkins)
AK5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK5

WMS

That tells me nothing about how complex/simple the mechanism is at the operator level. For example, my timing on the M16, blindfolded, was 47 seconds, but I had to assemble the bolt and bolt carrier key from about seven peices, plus the charging handle, the heat sheilds, the buffer rod and buffer spring... that consumes time.

If the AK5 is not dissassembled into as many peices, then 9 seconds becomes more reasonable the fewer peices the operator has to deal with.

For example: if the bolt and firing pin assembly are 'one unit', the heat sheild over the barrel appears to either be a single peice or perhaps 'fixed' at the operator level... those could mean that he is assembling as few as three or four pieces, explaining the short time.

But thanks for the Wiki link, I'm always keen to learn about a new toy.... :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Nov 21 2007, 06:26 PM
Post #10


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



It's basically 5.56mm FAL. Which doesn't help me very much, but it might help you.

Essentially you'd have to have the scope locked down to the barrel. You wouldn't want to dismount and remount it and "only" get a 1 MOA error if you are shooting at 800 meters.

So you get:
Barrel/Scope
Silencer
Receiver/collapsing stock
Magazine

So 10 seconds wouldn't see that far out of line if you use a surefire-style quick attach silencer. Pull the receiver out, install the barrel/scope, install silencer (optional), Extend stock, load and aim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Riley37
post Nov 21 2007, 07:56 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 17-September 07
Member No.: 13,319



QUOTE (Falconer)
The reduction to carbine ranges is bad call on the one posters part. (the range modifier and lack of damage reduction w/ range bracket rules are all screwed up IMO, but that much of a reduction is also screwed up).

Further, that could be the threshhold for just getting it together, you need 15 to get it fully together and tightened up, the scope neatly adjusted and get rid of the -1).

Former - I don't know guns well, so I'm posting for better-informed opinions! I'm friendly to the houserule of a) any range past 10m gets -1 no matter what you're shooting, because point-blank is always easier for the shooter even at 0 MOA, and b) range penalties that increase threshold and reduce damage. If any experienced shooter has an alternate range table, please post it.

Latter - the idea that there's a difference between reassembled well enough to shoot at all (eg if a guard stumbles across your sniper nest), and aligned, double-checked, tightened down to minimal MOA error, is my intent.

What about the "smart mount" that can tell you if the scope is on at exactly the same alignment as last time (when you ranged in the gun)? Could that reduce or eliminate errors in reassembly? (uh, assuming non-blindfolded, non-hasty reassembly)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lilt
post Nov 21 2007, 08:20 PM
Post #12


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,965
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Member No.: 2,032



Have you considered the effects that Nanites could have on these things? Maybe an intelligent nanite-based lubricant on the join, which adjusts the barrel to keep it straight then locks in place becoming hard as steel.

I know you're talking RL physics here, and don't mean to insult any experienced firearms experts here, I just thought you might want to consider what in SR's technology might allow something beyond what today's technology can achieve.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Nov 21 2007, 08:26 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



QUOTE (Lilt)
Have you considered the effects that Nanites could have on these things? Maybe an intelligent nanite-based lubricant on the join, which adjusts the barrel to keep it straight then locks in place becoming hard as steel.

I know you're talking RL physics here, and don't mean to insult any experienced firearms experts here, I just thought you might want to consider what in SR's technology might allow something beyond what today's technology can achieve.

That is certainly a workable idea for 2070 era Shadowrun.

In real life snipers, like hunters, tend to gravitate towards simple and reliable mechanisms over fiddly, if cool, things like nanite lubes that can fail at the damndest time...

It just becomes a matter of taste then:

Shadowrun as cool Hollywood style shoot'em up, where slick, high tech guns rule the day or...

Shadowrun as semi-realistic covert ops wonk, where solid and professional operators use the most reliable and effective gear over what is new and shiny?

Chrome or Black, Omae?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WearzManySkins
post Nov 21 2007, 09:50 PM
Post #14


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,159
Joined: 12-April 07
From: Ork Underground
Member No.: 11,440



here is link for sniper rifle? that fits in a tennis racket case

Grendel SRT

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21889.new.html

http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfi...s/2900/2923.htm

WMS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lilt
post Nov 21 2007, 09:51 PM
Post #15


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,965
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Member No.: 2,032



Given that nanites are used when installing cybertechnology in shadowrun, I'd hope they're pretty darn reliable. I don't know the exact timeline of SR cybertech, but I assume it's probably been around for a good 40-50 years. That's 40-50 years of people putting their lives in the hands of nanites. I'd imagine many hunters and cover ops agents aren't even going to be that old.

I'm just suggesting that technology which, in the SR world, is proven and has been around for decades might fall into the category of old and faithful enough to be considered. There's possibly even newer and fancier stuff around than whatever they do use, but the hunters aren't using it as the 'old faithful nanopaste' option is more reliable. Or, if you like, there could be other nanopastes that are newer but less reliable, thus the hunters choose the more reliable one.

I mean, if a nanopaste-based lubricant (actual lubricant, rather than the gun-alignment stuff) were more reliable, longer-lasting, and superior (in terms of friction reduction and thus component lifetime), whilst never getting dirty... Which would hunters/covert ops agents use?

It's a matter of perceptions, I suppose. I see no reason that nanites couldn't be used in a gritty campaign, as long as they fit the bill and are treated right. You don't even need to give them air-time, they don't need to be mentioned any more than you normally would what's normally used to lubricate your firearms. If you start mentioning them, you're going down the 'fantastic' route. They can just be there, enhancing the capabilities of your stuff and allowing weapons to be broken down into a larger number of pieces with fewer inaccuracies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Nov 21 2007, 10:00 PM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



QUOTE (Lilt @ Nov 21 2007, 01:51 PM)
Given that nanites are used when installing cybertechnology in shadowrun, I'd hope they're pretty darn reliable. I don't know the exact timeline of SR cybertech, but I assume it's probably been around for a good 40-50 years. That's 40-50 years of people putting their lives in the hands of nanites. I'd imagine many hunters and cover ops agents aren't even going to be that old.

There is a HUGE difference between reliable in the hands of a trained professional in a controlled environment and reliable in the hands of a poorly trained, or untrained (for nanites anyway) operator in the field. Vast. Mere words can not encompass that gulf.

The M16 is an awesome bit of machinery, highly reliable and accurate. Yet the Ak-47, and the later varients remain popular with a huge number of people despite any number of glaring flaws that you or I could care to mention.

One of the primary reasons for that popularity is that unlike the M16, which is a maintanence whore, the AK can be left in a mud pit for weeks on end, then fired without any but the most rudimentary cleaning... if even that much.

Reliability in the field is paramount for military and paramilitary equipment, particularly weapons, which tend to be used under fairly extreme conditions at the best of times (heat, friction, pressure, rapid temperature changes... all this just from its basic operation:Firing)


EDIT::: to add, the US Army tried to switch to a dry graphite lubricant for the M16 just prior to the Iraq war. Graphite lubricants are not new technology at all. However, they found very quickly that while dry lubricants work extremely well against friction, they work significantly less well against foriegn particulate matter... you know... sand. Within weeks Graphite lube was forbidden and the really old school technique of 'slimy fluid buffer'... that is oil... was back in use. The fluid carries the sand out of the mechanism and provides a layer of buffer material thick enough to prevent most sand/dust based damage and jams.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WearzManySkins
post Nov 21 2007, 10:22 PM
Post #17


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,159
Joined: 12-April 07
From: Ork Underground
Member No.: 11,440



The sniper rifle I saw the Secret Service Agent look over in the trunk the "Limo" was in a very compact case, but it was of a interrupted thread design. As for make and model, the small Big Eyes I was using could not make out those features, but could not get the signalman to bring the Big Eyes on the open trunk.

Interrupted thread design meaning the barrel separated from the receiver assembly. But such designs the more you take apart and put back together the more wear the assemblies go thru. But 50+ years in the future, metallurgy and composites would reduce such wear in such designs.

WMS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyDaze
post Nov 21 2007, 10:47 PM
Post #18


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,838
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,669



QUOTE
There is a HUGE difference between reliable in the hands of a trained professional in a controlled environment and reliable in the hands of a poorly trained, or untrained (for nanites anyway) operator in the field. Vast. Mere words can not encompass that gulf.

Um... you can self-administer the things by inhaler. Yeah, nanite inhalers are a reality in SR. So if you consider every 8-y/o asthema patient a 'trained professional' and damn near anywhere to be a 'controlled environment' then... yeah.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cthulhudreams
post Nov 22 2007, 01:28 AM
Post #19


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,650
Joined: 21-July 07
Member No.: 12,328



QUOTE (Spike)

One of the primary reasons for that popularity is that unlike the M16, which is a maintanence whore, the AK can be left in a mud pit for weeks on end, then fired without any but the most rudimentary cleaning... if even that much.

I'd bet money that the really important reasons behind its popularity are three fold.

A) Cheap - they are easy to make

B) You can buy it - there are not many export controls on these partly because of the countries of origin and partly because of point C

C) There are lots and lots of them floating around in failed or corrupt states scattered around the world, so they are common and easy to get.

Reliability is a nice addition factor, but availability is probably more significant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Falconer
post Nov 22 2007, 08:55 AM
Post #20


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 2,283
Joined: 12-October 07
Member No.: 13,662



I'd like to throw out something here, there's a big difference between throwing together a 'cheap' assault rifle and assembling a precision rifle. AR's are designed and built w/ loose tolerances intentionally so that dirt, sand, etc. won't jam them up. Precision rifles are designed with exceptionally tight tolerances and as such are more prone to jamming problems. They don't slap together easily as a lot of the parts have minimal clearance. Even when you get down to ammo, handloads are more problematic because if the rounds aren't spaced very precisely... you can get situations where the breach doesn't fully close and bad things happen when the gun fires. (by the same token a standard issue assault or battle rifle would chamber and fire that ammo no problem).

And no one who shoots AR-15's competitively at extreme range would ever claim they could throw their rifle together in 9s. Again, those guns are HIGHLY gunsmithed and they have high precision parts assemblies in them. They're kept in nice padded cases, they're not thrown around, they're not subjected to 'grunt abuse', if they're disassembled they're disassembled w/ care for cleaning and reassembled w/ just as much care. Ranger arms is a gun w/ a 1.5km extreme range!!!

The idea of a nano-paste lubricant I find rather laughable. You claim that it can be completely fluid but also rigid at it's option. If it's that advanced, the grey goo scenerio becomes a real threat. You should read the chapter in augmentation that deals w/ nanites and nanobots. I could see a hard nanite which cleans and oils the rifle for you. (that'd be pretty nifty, spray on the nannites they clean and oil the gun for you).

Though I do like the idea of a 'self-aligning' weapon... EG: throw the gun together, then let the actuaotrs and sensors built into it, align it quickly. I just don't think tha'ts a job for nanites.


Riley:
Your comments regards smartlink are pretty apt. Only catch the Ranger Arms doesn't have smartlink (unless you pay double for a custom rifle). As a long range sniper... your overbarrel mount already has a scope, the barrel already has a silencer, and underneath probably a bipod. That leaves paying double for an internal smartgun system. Oh well, strict rules, bipods have no benefit to sniping... so underbarrel external smartlink is an option. Ironically, attaching an external smartlink to your disassembled rifle is an Armorer (4, 1 hour) extended test... so much for fast assembly of that option.

I'd think smartlink would be a nice way to provide an augmented reality bonus to fast assembly. Just like the book says, if you have augmented reality blueprints or the like, it gives a +2 bonus on the technical skill. Armorer skill was just a way to make the 3 complex action comment more variable based on the character doing it. (I figured 10dice x 3actions == 30 dice, 30 dice average 10 hits). And 10 dice isn''t that hard to get (4log, 4skill, 2specialization and/or augmented reality).


Anyhow I looked again at the weapon description and page. I think the only reason they put that -1 penalty in there was because they didn't want to see people grab the rifle just because they could, and then use it all the time as a primary semi-auto 'rifle'. The hunting rifle in the game is 7p/-1.... god forbid characters run around w/ a 8p/-3 'hunting rifle' and not use it as a sniper weapon. Makes me heavily tempted to just weld the thing together to eliminate the 'loose barrel' problem even if I can't easily disassemble/reassemble now. Then pull a 'assault weapons ban' type move and make cosmetic modifications so the weapon is no longer a banned 'F' rating. I can see the GM rolling his eyes at that...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Nov 22 2007, 09:18 AM
Post #21


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



In SR, it's seems it is always best to assume that anything involving guns that makes little to no sense is because the people writing the rules only experience with guns has been in comic books and movies. So they wanted a breakdown rifle and hence they made it work like a twisted version of the gun in "Day of the Jackal" because they have no clue that these things really exist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mercer
post Nov 22 2007, 09:27 AM
Post #22


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,326
Joined: 15-April 02
Member No.: 2,600



That's a fair point, kzt, although I find myself pointing out that a game with dragons and elves can probably handle the hit to the suspension of disbelief that the briefcase sniper rifle entails.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Nov 22 2007, 03:10 PM
Post #23


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i really, really dislike that argument. one of the driving forces behind cyberpunk, and science fiction in general, is the idea that this stuff could actually happen. the inclusion of fantasy elements impacts that, certainly, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether. because if we discard it completely, then it's no longer a blend of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just pure fantasy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyDaze
post Nov 22 2007, 04:42 PM
Post #24


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,838
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,669



QUOTE
it's just pure fantasy.

Hell, I accepted that SR was just pure fantasy back when I tried to rationalize the NAN. The scieince part of SR has always been just one step more believable than Star Trek, and the same with the society. It's all fantasy fluff, and it could NEVER happen without much more magic than we see in SR, so just learn to take it how it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Nov 22 2007, 04:54 PM
Post #25


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i've rationalized the NAN, as well as some of the more glaringly wackass societal trends in SR. i figure if i'm going to take things as they are, i may as well stop playing RPGs and just watch TV. ...hell, i don't take things as they are even when i do watch TV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st July 2024 - 06:34 AM

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.