[X] My Assistant

[Wounded Ronin]

After many years of tinkeing with them in video games and RPGs today I went to a range and rented some automatic weapons and used them. I operated a Thompson M1A1, a M2 carbine,and a HK G3.

My thoughts:

Thompson M1A1:

The Thompson M1A1 has sights that are pretty imprecise compared to what I'm used to, i.e. modern factory default pistol sights. The rear sight was a huge ring and it seems like it was designed just for quick sight pictures using the front sights. What's more is that it recoiled quite a lot. The range staff member advised me to aim low and even while I had my sights pointed at the bottom of my target paper the actual bullet holes climbed upwards all over the paper. And that's just with me squeezing off bursts of 2-4 rounds and leaning forward to compensate for recoil. I should point out that I'm not a tiny guy; I weight between 190 and 200 pounds, I'm 5'11", and I've been hitting the gym every other day on average.

This is actually pretty different than the impression I'd gained from playing lots of video games. In the first place, I can't imagine anything useful coming from spraying in full auto with the M1A1 for anything more than a 2-4 round burst. I feel that the barrel would just get too off target and you'd end up spraying at everything and nothing in particular at the same time. Secondly, the sights look pretty useless for anything besides for close range shooting. Without tight rear sights to help me align the weapon, I don't feel like I'd be able to hit the black on a 50 foot competition target like I'm able to do with a contemporary pistol with factory default sights if I aim carefully and take like 5+ seconds per shot. In other words, if I were trying to shoot very accurately at a longer distance at this time I'd feel more comfortable with a pistol on account of the sights than I would with the M1A1 even with its longer barrel.



M2 Carbine:

Initially I'd really wanted to try a M1 carbine for a long time so as to get my Vietnam groove on, but the M2 available for rental had full auto fire so I guess that's just a bit of extra value to my shooting experience. The M2 was a lot easier to control than the M1A1 and the sights were better too. I still went all over the paper, though, but to a lesser extent than with the M1A1, and of course the .30 carbine cartridges have smaller bullets than .45 ACP cartridges.

So, basically, even though on the whole written history usually is dealing with how people didn't like carbines in .30, my hunch is that I'd personally feel more capable of hitting something far away with it than I would if I had a M1A1.



HKG3:

My first assault rifle in 7.62 NATO! I fired the first few rounds in semi automatic mode just to get the full experience, and switched to full auto later. My comment was, "Holy moly!" The recoil was a lot worse than the M1A1. It was just insane trying to control it in burst mode. I can now understand why when you read history and war memoirs full auto with the M14 is so maligned. At least from a standing position I can't imagine how full auto in 7.62 can stay remotely on target after the first 3 rounds or so.

Of course, being a HK product this was probably the "best" weapon I handled today. It was the most comfortable to handle, the most erogonomic, had the best sights, and was probably the most accurate.

I'm actually really happy that I finally was able to experience the infamous 7.62-NATO-full-auto-while-standing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Synner667]

From what I've read about guns that can fire bursts and on full auto..
..They're not designed to be accurate, relying on many bullets in the air to hit and injure a target - rather than killing.

There seems to have been a change of heart about guns at some point, from weapons that kill to weapons that injure..
..From guns that are accurate at short range to guns that put lots of bullets into the air and only have a short range.


Obviously that's a generalisation, and I'm not well read on guns or gun design.

[Counter Weight]

How much did you pay? I am curious as to how ranges in your area-as I recall you mentioned being in Micronesia in another area of the board (Whether this is your permanent residence or just a transient residence I have no idea.) and wondered how prices compare.

My local handgun range is pretty cheap-15 dollars for a half hour, renting various frames from 9 to 12 dollars, including a small assortment of shotguns and rifles. I also shoot for work, which is obviously "free" (Well I suppose paid by the tax payers is more appropriate), but while I get more rounds, and time, is less open to playing with various weapons.

[Wounded Ronin]

How much did you pay? I am curious as to how ranges in your area-as I recall you mentioned being in Micronesia in another area of the board (Whether this is your permanent residence or just a transient residence I have no idea.) and wondered how prices compare.

My local handgun range is pretty cheap-15 dollars for a half hour, renting various frames from 9 to 12 dollars, including a small assortment of shotguns and rifles. I also shoot for work, which is obviously "free" (Well I suppose paid by the tax payers is more appropriate), but while I get more rounds, and time, is less open to playing with various weapons.

Well, I'm back in the USA now, in Las Vegas, and I went to a place called Discount Firearms where the cost to play with automatic weapons was about a dollar a round.

[Counter Weight]

That's not bad. I'll have to figure out what we pay, at Silver Bullet, overall. With a reloading table, and reloads it lowers the cost (Ammunition) significantly. If you had to purchase ammunition it'd jack the price way up. I take a friend of mine there for his birthday every year, as he works in a clerical field-but loves playing with weapons when he can. We have a lot of fun.

[mfb]

haha, congrats, WR. i wish more people would actually go out and try things.

[cREbralFIX]

A HK MP5 in 10mm fired in two round burst mode was interesting. When I started, there was about 12" of distance between shots. I was able to knock this down to about 6" with two mags of practice.

Mostly, though, full auto fired offhand just sucks (not crew served weapon in a fortified position or vehicle). On foot, I'd rather do 1-4 rounds per second and be able to maintain control.

[Wounded Ronin]

haha, congrats, WR. i wish more people would actually go out and try things.

I agree. Most people are extremely reluctant to have new experiences and that's ridiculous. As my mom always told me it's just as difficult to have an ordinary life as it is to have an extraordinary one so you might as well strive to do unusual and exciting things instead of sticking with the routine which merely feels safe but isn't any easier.

[Synner667]

A HK MP5 in 10mm fired in two round burst mode was interesting. When I started, there was about 12" of distance between shots. I was able to knock this down to about 6" with two mags of practice.

Mostly, though, full auto fired offhand just sucks (not crew served weapon in a fortified position or vehicle). On foot, I'd rather do 1-4 rounds per second and be able to maintain control.

"Short, controlled bursts, Sergeant Benton !!"

[Fuchs]

Rapid aimed fire (or semi-aimed fire), or burst fire (3 rounds per burst) was the norm in my training. We did some full auto shooting in the army, but it was more for show. That was with a SIG Stgw90, calibre was GP90 (5.6mm), so the sights and the weapon itself was very precise.

Shooting the M2 was fun though, longer bursts, and you get to see the .50 BMG tracer rounds bounce around the target at around 800 to 1 km. But the barrels get so hot, drop one end in a stream after you shot 400 to 500 rounds and changed the barrel, and you got a geysir of steam coming out the other end (I almost got scalded once, and a fellow coroporal almost lost a MG barrel in the snow - it melted over 1 m down to the grund, then rolled away underneath until it cooled enough. That was some digging).

Mandatory military service has the advantage that most players over here have experience with automatics and grenades, which adds a lot to Shadowrun.

[DocTaotsu]

Even shooting rapid semi-auto on an M14 is a pain in the ass. It's big, heavy as hell, and if you don't have it tucked in perfectly it kicks like it's cool. I can't even imagine shooting burst from anything other than the prone.

You didn't try out the much maligned M16 and it's stubby cousin the M4?

[eidolon]

experience with automatics and grenades, which adds a lot to Shadowrun.

Agreed. Playing a game with my Army buddies was a much different experience than playing with (most) civilians that I've played with.

[Shadow]

In my experience full auto is best left for crew served implaced weapons. I could tear a target up at 600 meters with a M-60 on full auto. Thats with a bypod and sand bags. The same target with my M-16 I would have to aim carefully. No way would I hit it on full auto.

Modern weapons (M-16a2, G36's etc) are designed to be accurate and deadly. No one designs a fire arm to wound, they are all made to kill. Soldiers trained en masse are trained to shoot center mass, not for the head or arms, center mass. The older automatic fire ars are just not designed as well as modern automatics.

Now older semi auto or single shots are incredibly accuate(assuming htey were designed well). My SKS was made in 1973 and I can hit a 20 centimeter target at 200 meters with a snap shot.

If they have them I recomend some SMG's, MP5, UMP, anything like that. It's a distinct difference from a battle rifle. A lot less weight to reduce recoil, and shorter barrels are less accurate. Most combat in SR sees to take place with pistols and SMG's.

[jago668]

Agreed. Playing a game with my Army buddies was a much different experience than playing with (most) civilians that I've played with.

Agreed. Two of my friends were in the military for a couple terms and they play different now than they did before. Only a slight difference seeing as how they both played in another guys game with a gentleman that had been in some form of special forces. (Never met the guy to ask which) However it is a marked difference from playing with people that have no experience with either the military or firearms in general.

[WearzManySkins]

I have fired M-14, seven digit serial numbered .45's, M-60's, and M79's.

My favorite one to "fire" was a 20mm CIWS with a "unauthorized" TDT mod courtesy of a library in GD, Pomona. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) Talk about metal storm. The only weapon system projectiles, my radar could track as a outbound target, B-scan just showed a wave, in the outbound portion of the display.

But a dollar a bullet at full auto rates? Sound like I would reload a batch prior to going out there and play lets make a deal.

WMS

[Ed_209a]

Only a slight difference seeing as how they both played in another guys game with a gentleman that had been in some form of special forces.

It would be very interesting to play SR with a former Green Beret, since the rest of us would be combat newbies, and Special Forces' focus is on turning combat newbies into light infantry.

I think a former SEAL or Ranger would be more likely to tell us to get out of his way and stop slowing him down.

[Wounded Ronin]

I have fired M-14, seven digit serial numbered .45's, M-60's, and M79's.

My favorite one to "fire" was a 20mm CIWS with a "unauthorized" TDT mod courtesy of a library in GD, Pomona. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) Talk about metal storm. The only weapon system projectiles, my radar could track as a outbound target, B-scan just showed a wave, in the outbound portion of the display.

But a dollar a bullet at full auto rates? Sound like I would reload a batch prior to going out there and play lets make a deal.

WMS

That price was including range fees; it was a package deal.

[fistandantilus4....]

Agreed. Two of my friends were in the military for a couple terms and they play different now than they did before.

I'm curious, what were some of the specific differences?

[Fuchs]

In our case, after military service, a lot of the "my character carries everything in the gear section but the kitchen sink, and enough ammo and rations to fight WW3" mentality was gone in favor of "primary weapon, sidearm, knife, some grenades". We tended to use less "that's best according to the rules" and more "that's how it's done in the army" tactics too.
And we changed the firearms rules to use actual cartridge weights and more plausible ranges (SR2).

[Synner667]

Things were the same for me and my friends after we did some Live Action Role Playing..
..Forget carrying loads of gear, carry just what you need [and maybe a few other bits] is a lesson you quickly learn after you have to spend time digging through packs to find things, you trip over and break things, you only ever use one weapon anyway, etc.

I imagine it must be similar for people who do Paintballing.

I spent some time with some re-enactment people, and that was worse than LARP, because the gear is heavier [to be authentic] and more cumbersome.

Now my character's gear is more based on "where is it", than "carry everything upto my weight limit" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Synner667]

In my experience full auto is best left for crew served implaced weapons. I could tear a target up at 600 meters with a M-60 on full auto. Thats with a bypod and sand bags. The same target with my M-16 I would have to aim carefully. No way would I hit it on full auto.

Modern weapons (M-16a2, G36's etc) are designed to be accurate and deadly. No one designs a fire arm to wound, they are all made to kill. Soldiers trained en masse are trained to shoot center mass, not for the head or arms, center mass. The older automatic fire ars are just not designed as well as modern automatics.

Now older semi auto or single shots are incredibly accuate(assuming htey were designed well). My SKS was made in 1973 and I can hit a 20 centimeter target at 200 meters with a snap shot.

If they have them I recomend some SMG's, MP5, UMP, anything like that. It's a distinct difference from a battle rifle. A lot less weight to reduce recoil, and shorter barrels are less accurate. Most combat in SR sees to take place with pistols and SMG's.

All combat weapons are designed to kill, per se, because lumps of metal travelling a high speed always have the right of way and will do terrible things to anything enroute..
..But I remember reading that the combat-of-the-future philosophy would be to injure, rather than kill - which is why grenades are steel wire wrapped around a charge or brittle cases [rather than being big bombs], why bullets are generally small calibre [else everyone would being using shotguns], why the development for lasers was to blind [rather than turn people into charred corpses], etc

Simply because 1 injured combatant = 2+ people out of action [1 injured, 1+ carer], 1 dead combatant = 1+ extra person to shoot at you.


From what I've read, most gun combat is quite short range [less than 100m, I think] because of the ranges that you encounter the enemy [as you say, pistols and SMGs].
I was just reading recently, that the British Arms has just bought a stack of new sniper rifles for overwatch duties in places like Afghanistan, but doesn't actually have enough snipers to use them !!

[DocTaotsu]

Oddly enough I've found that all the games I've run in the military work best when they generally ignore military concepts. Something about playing a simulation of their daily life just made everyone bitter and uninterested in playing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It is nice to play with military folk because we can gloss over a lot of the tactical details that I've seen other groups get hung up on. No one has to spend 10 minutes every combat describing how they "cut the pie" around corners and arguing that I should give them some sort of bonus because "that's how it's done in real life". Of course I also play with players who rarely if ever make former military character backgrounds which I find intensely amusing. My favorite explanation for why his character has a 5 in long arms is that he was "An Alaskan (insert appropriate tribe here) game warden".

[Wounded Ronin]

In our case, after military service, a lot of the "my character carries everything in the gear section but the kitchen sink, and enough ammo and rations to fight WW3" mentality was gone in favor of "primary weapon, sidearm, knife, some grenades". We tended to use less "that's best according to the rules" and more "that's how it's done in the army" tactics too.
And we changed the firearms rules to use actual cartridge weights and more plausible ranges (SR2).

I always felt that the game would simultaneously more realistic and more immersive if players had to specify how they were carrying their gear. Not just "I have 3 SMGs, 1 sniper rifle, a katana, and a thousand rounds of ammunition", but rather exactly how each one was carried. If the way the stuff was carried was obviously silly or awkard the GM might assign penalties to Athletics or something like that.

[jago668]

I'm curious, what were some of the specific differences?

Saw alot more setting up of combat. Less go in guns blazing and more worried about okay we need to do this, and security will probably respond this way so be ready for it. Much more taking cover than previously. Saw a switch from pistols as main weapons to rifles and smgs. Use of grenades and suppressive fire went up also. As someone else mentioned the amount of gear carried when way down. More like armor, main weapon, backup weapon, couple reloads, and few grenades. Then the various assorted gear like radios stayed. However the 4 pistols, combat axe, 16 extra magazines per weapon, so on and so forth went away. In general less junk carried and more trying to control the way a fight might go.

[eidolon]

Not the only difference, but my favorite difference when playing with people that actually have experience with weapons and stuff is that they don't have utterly effing ridiculous ideas as to what a weapon can or can't, or does or doesn't do.