Simple Weapons, Ever wish for a little MORE detail? Options

[kzt]

Don't get me started on the idiocy of how a HMG bullet fired out of a "sniper rifle" does extra special damage. Or how pistols and rifles do the same damage.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

My personal experience has been that people (law enforcement and military personnel especially) get attached to certain calibers. I think that a large degree of this attachment comes from that they have to believe that their weapon is going to stop the opposition. That faith in their weapon/caliber of choice is pretty crucial to them willing to go through the door of a suspected crack house. That faith translates into a high degree of vocal commitment to their choice, sometimes flying in the face of empirical data to the contrary.

In RL, my opinion goes like this...
If you find a firearm that is comfortable for you to discharge and hence accurate when you employ it that meets department standards, then I think that you are good to go.

I know a person that like using a .44 Magnum derringer and can hit the target (at close range) consistently (non-government individual). Me, the recoil and muzzle blast are simply unpleasant enough that I lack anything resembling accuracy and would rather be doing anything else. My point here is that regardless of the ballistic capability of the .44 Magnum it doesn't do me any good when fired out of a derringer.

In game terms, I understand why the developers have opted to go with the very simplified system. One of the main reasons that I like Raygun's site 'Shadowrun and Firearms' is that like myself he prefers a much more detailed approach to calibers and how they play out in SR.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Kerenshara brought up the 6.5 Grendel.

My father was a huge proponent of .25 (6.5 mm) caliber bullets over the .222 (5.56mm) as a military round, because of their ballistic coefficients. At the time that he was alive his favorite round was the .25-06 Remington, which he handloaded a variety of types. He would have been pleased with how the 6.5 Grendel was designed and impressed with the ballistics.

I have to say that the Grendel shows a lot of promise and it shows that in terms of ballistics we have not explored every avenue. The .408 Chey Tac is an excellent example of how tweaking can produce some awesome results.

You know the more I think about it the more I get the itch to start tweaking the SR3 weapon system. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Kerenshara]

Don't get me started on the idiocy of how a HMG bullet fired out of a "sniper rifle" does extra special damage. Or how pistols and rifles do the same damage.

Well, part of it would have to do with the weight of the slug. The 5.56 Nato cartridge is tossing a mere 55 grains downrange, whereas you're well over 165 grains on the higher caliber hanguns. Energy = Mass x Velocity. So if you move a projectile three times as heavy but equally dense at one third the velocity, energy delivered to the target is comparable. *waggles hand* It can be argued several ways, but that's not the part that bothers me.

As to the sniper rifle, I haven't ever delved into the exact ballistics on the matter, but a major consideration would be at what length does the propellant actually achieve full burn? If it's 45" (M2HB), then the machine gun should be superior. If it's around 30", the sniper rifle shouldn't be any lower. But I think your objection is over the term "Heavy Machine Gun". Keep in mind, the Ma Deuce isn't really a "heavy machine gun" but an extremely light auto-cannon. HMGs were routinely in the 7mm to 8mm range and it has more to do with fire mission and design than just the cartridge. I don't think the "HMGs" in SR4 are actually .50 cal beasties. Maybe I'm wrong on that one though.

A last thing to consider is that there is a fairly finite amount of damage that can be transferred to (meta)human flesh without the benefit of explosives, because at one point the hydrostatic shock basically blows the thing apart, so having more force than that won't actually increase the damage. A .50 cal round to an upper arm will probably sever the limb. A strike to center of mass... ick. Going up to the 12.7 Soviet round won't do a lot more damage because you've already exceeded what the (meta)human body can handle and you've just increased your over-penetration (blow-through).

[Kerenshara]

In game terms, I understand why the developers have opted to go with the very simplified system. One of the main reasons that I like Raygun's site 'Shadowrun and Firearms' is that like myself he prefers a much more detailed approach to calibers and how they play out in SR.

What's that URL, Bob?

[kzt]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about shadowrun with the Barret idiocy. Which does 9p vs 7p from a HMG. It's the same bullet, fired from the same barrel length. But due the the mysticism of being a "sniper rifle" it does much more damage.

The only guns I've seen that for the last 50+ years were called HMGs were in 12.7mm or 14.5mm. So if they meant something else that would be kind of bizarre.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

What's that URL, Bob?

Shadowrun and Firearms

There ya go.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about shadowrun with the Barret idiocy. Which does 9p vs 7p from a HMG. It's the same bullet, fired from the same barrel length. But due the the mysticism of being a "sniper rifle" it does much more damage.

The only guns I've seen that for the last 50+ years were called HMGs were in 12.7mm or 14.5mm. So if they meant something else that would be kind of bizarre.

I think it would have been better to give sniper rifles a bonus for accuracy rather than amp the damage. The ballistics are going to be very close (although boat tails will alter things a bit) the difference is going to be match grade ammunition, floating barrel, and significant improvement of a bolt action over an automatic (i.e. being able to seat the round properly in the chamber consistently). Moving from a 1 MOA to 1/4 MOA is worlds apart at 2,000 yards.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I think it would have been better to give sniper rifles a bonus for accuracy rather than amp the damage. The ballistics are going to be very close (although boat tails will alter things a bit) the difference is going to be match grade ammunition, floating barrel, and significant improvement of a bolt action over an automatic (i.e. being able to seat the round properly in the chamber consistently). Moving from a 1 MOA to 1/4 MOA is worlds apart at 2,000 yards.

I'd give a larger benefit when taking aim as its bonus. Like +2 dice for a take aim action instead of +1, max two take aim actions at +2 bonus.

[BullZeye]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about shadowrun with the Barret idiocy. Which does 9p vs 7p from a HMG. It's the same bullet, fired from the same barrel length. But due the the mysticism of being a "sniper rifle" it does much more damage.

The only guns I've seen that for the last 50+ years were called HMGs were in 12.7mm or 14.5mm. So if they meant something else that would be kind of bizarre.

It's bit like the differences between light-medium-heavy machine guns. Light I would say is like modern SAW, firing 5.56's. Medium, maybe a M60 firing 7.62's and HMG M2 firing those pesky little 12.7's. Real difference between those calibers is huge, but SR-wise, not that much.

I think the idea that a sniper rifle deals more damage than a MG with the same round is more on the location where one hits on average. One tends to spray with a MG hitting whatever location while sniper rifle users usually prefer (try) to shoot where it counts. So the average damage inflicted by a MG round is lower per bullet than of a sniper rifle. This theory of mine would fit also to Kerenshara's idea of...

A last thing to consider is that there is a fairly finite amount of damage that can be transferred to (meta)human flesh without the benefit of explosives, because at one point the hydrostatic shock basically blows the thing apart, so having more force than that won't actually increase the damage. A .50 cal round to an upper arm will probably sever the limb. A strike to center of mass... ick. Going up to the 12.7 Soviet round won't do a lot more damage because you've already exceeded what the (meta)human body can handle and you've just increased your over-penetration (blow-through).

I think (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) kinda, at least?

[Bob Lord of Evil]

I think the idea that a sniper rifle deals more damage than a MG with the same round is more on the location where one hits on average. One tends to spray with a MG hitting whatever location while sniper rifle users usually prefer (try) to shoot where it counts. So the average damage inflicted by a MG round is lower per bullet than of a sniper rifle.

I agree, that single shot between eyes is meant to bypass armor and cleanly terminate the target. My point is that a sniper rifle is a precision weapon meant to engage targets at standoff ranges where assault rifles cannot accurately reach. A HMG or any MG for that matter is by design an area denial weapon. However, in all fairness, that caliber of 'sniper rifle' is actually an anti-material weapon. I agree with kzt that the kinetic energy is going to be equivalent and that any bonus for a 'sniper rifle' should be in the form of a bonus to hit.

A HMG round really, regardless of the weapon platform, should be a terminal event when it intersects with flesh and bone.

Shinobi Killfist,

You have a very good point, a sniper rifle fired from the hip should not be given any precision bonus. So it would have to be in conjunction with aiming.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

A .50 cal round to an upper arm will probably sever the limb. A strike to center of mass... ick.

Reminds me of the scene from 'Saving Private Ryan' when the Germans turn the 20mm AA canon on the Americans on the panzer. Graphic beyond words really but it really showed how devastating a large caliber high velocity round is.

[Kerenshara]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about shadowrun with the Barret idiocy. Which does 9p vs 7p from a HMG. It's the same bullet, fired from the same barrel length. But due the the mysticism of being a "sniper rifle" it does much more damage.

The only guns I've seen that for the last 50+ years were called HMGs were in 12.7mm or 14.5mm. So if they meant something else that would be kind of bizarre.

Like I said in my above post, I'm not convinced they ARE the same round to begin with. Then, note my comment on barrel length. The IRL Barret has a 30"/ 762 mm barrel. The picture of the RPK-HMG doesn't appear to be that long. The classic Ma Deuce is 50% longer than the Barrett. So I'm not willing to pass judgement on the issue. The LMG apparently seems to fire assault rifle cartridges, similar to the M249 SAW. The MMG does the same damage; that sounds like a design feature consideration more than a cartridge change. The M-60 would be using 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge acheving the same end: designed for long and sustained firing, using the "higher end" of the assault rifle cartridges. Then we have the M240 GPMG, which has a longer barrel and is even more suited to extended firing, and was first adopted as a vehicle weapon (IIRC, it is the same basic weapon as the co-axial machine gun on the M-1X series of tanks). It has extended ranged over the M60, extended endurance, weighs more, but still fires that same 7.62x51mm NATO round. It's kind of a garbage distinction he way the system breaks it down. And as to my reasoning for the RPK-HMG being less than .50 cal, it has a pistol grip and a conventional stock. NO way is that going to be a .50 cal fully automatic weapon. The distinction between "classes" of machine guns has always been more one of "role" than of "statistics". The classic MMG can be traced bck to the WWII German MG42, the team level base-of-fire weapon for the panzergrenadiers which made them feared by their opponents. The Bren and BAR weren't even in the same class, and would be much more akin to the LMG as presented here. It is a much lighter automatic fire weapon witha different rolw which does not include continuous fire. The modern SAW is in that same category, still having a short/light barrel. For those who didn't know, the M60 is a direct decendant of the MG42, and if you know what to look for, the similarities are striking. To continue the analogy, the HMG was usually a fixed emplacement weapon by doctrine which could be dug in and properly serviced with ammunition.

The Ma Deuce started as an anti-tank cannon and the Soviet DShK was similar. Both were often used as anti-aircraft weapons. It should be noted that the Ma Deuce continued to be used as a primary air-to-air weapon on American fighters while others were utilizing 20mm and up to 37mm cannon for the same purposes. I don't know that it falls under HMG at all as presented. In fact, the Vigorous Assault Cannon looks about like a Barrett in dimensions and general design.

[Kerenshara]

I think it would have been better to give sniper rifles a bonus for accuracy rather than amp the damage. The ballistics are going to be very close (although boat tails will alter things a bit) the difference is going to be match grade ammunition, floating barrel, and significant improvement of a bolt action over an automatic (i.e. being able to seat the round properly in the chamber consistently). Moving from a 1 MOA to 1/4 MOA is worlds apart at 2,000 yards.

There is a current generation of sniper rifles entering service/under development where the accuracy issues relating to bolt-action vs. semi-automatic are being swiftly redressed. It's become almost like a modern 6-speed automatic vs. a manual transmission - there are diferences but they are almost accademic at this point. What is interesting is the newest Barrett is not only bolt-action, but it's actually single shot! That was their answer to getting single-shot cold bore accuracy out to 2000m. I'm fairly sure that over time it will be rectified to the point it's accademic and less of an issue than the round's individual characteristics. But your point about total accuracy (over for example, a standard long rifle) is well taken.