Flintlocks, Black powder questions Options

[Reaver]

What damage code do you think would be appropriate for flintlock pistols and rifles?

[Austere Emancipa...]

Humm. The most powerful muzzleloading rifles might well do 7S or even 9S, since at short/medium ranges they seem to be capable of the same velocities at same bullet weights as mid-caliber rifles (comparisons to .30-06 were common in my short Google-excursion). The ranges for those should be between the SMG and AR ranges.

Pistols I couldn't find a good source on. The few figures suggested performance between what might be considered Light and Heavy Pistols, so maybe 6M? Will vary a lot depending on ammo type, loading, etc.

[Reaver]

[Austere Emancipa...]

I thought as much, which is why I also invested a few valuable minutes reading articles such as this, which suggest that the performance of blackpowder weapons has not significantly improved IRL. If the last 100 years hasn't seen significant improvement, I doubt the next 60 will either.

[Reaver]

[Jason Farlander]

Applying my lack of any real knowledge on the subject outside of speculation to pose a couple of questions:

Shouldnt you be able to vary the power of the shot depending on how much powder you use? Would black powder rifles/pistols fare comparably well to their modern fellows against modern body armor?

[nezumi]

The power would not even be close to on par with our present guns. I'd tend to say something like 4S or even 4M. It should not be more powerful than say a bayonet or a sword, and it's very unusual for someone to die within a few seconds of getting shot (unlike our present pistols). Usually cause of death would be infection or shock. Also keep in mind that most of the casualties from these weapons weren't wearing armor. The ranges would be piss poor. Medium range would be maybe maybe 20, I'd guess, with a musket, 10 or 15 with a pistol. Rifles would only do slightly better (better still with machined bullets and barrels). I'm not a ballistics person in any way, but I do read more than my fair share of history, and usually the only way they made effective use of muskets in the revolutionary war was by having a whole lot of them, and that was just until they could close the distance enough to use real weapons like swords.

[GunnerJ]

The ranges of a musket would be crap. On par with a hold-out pistol, maybe even. Musketeers fired their weapons in large group volleys, on the principle that enough lead going in one direction would hit something. They weren't even told to aim, as that was impractical at the ranges used.

[Reaver]

[Hero]

Besides, it would also depend on the type of shot you are using, I have a friend that has a muzzle loader. He has used round and slug shaped shot, round shot is some what like a hollow point round in that it has a lot of surface area, but not vary accurate past a certain range. The normal slug form is far more accurate the the round shot, and has the usual effectiveness of a normal slug, except for the lower velocities. I say round shot would have a effective range of a light pistol while the normal slug form would either have an effective range of a heavy pistol or SMG.

[Austere Emancipa...]

[Tom Collins]

As others have stated, the real problem with many of these weapons was infection. Today's weapons fire rounds at a high enough velocity that they are effectively sterile when entering a human body. Guns from the American Civil War and prior to it did not have such high velocities, and often dragged foreign material (ie clothing) in when hitting someone. This lead to a much higher rate of infection. Of course, with modern medicine, this is less of a concern. Of course, modern black powder rifles are a little better and can produce higher velocities.

As for ranges, it depends on what you are talking about. American revolutionary War muskets had an effective range of maybe 100yds. By the American Civil War, the rifles being used had a range of more like 300yds, and were reasonably accurate.

As for damage, I'd say maybe a 6-7M. These guns could easily do as much damage to someone as being hit with a modern rifle at close range (musket balls weren't exactly small). Maybe a little higher dmg code for later madel rifles. Regardless, because of their generally lower velocity, I would allow probably let whoever is being shot take thier armor rating and multiply it by 1.5 to reflect the fact that it will be more effefctive at stopping a ball than a bullet (or at least it seems like it should).

[Req]

[Austere Emancipa...]

At this point, it would be nice to know whether Reaver wants to implement actual 19th (or earlier) century weaponry, with authentic parts, firing authentic ammunition, or just authentic weapons used in a modern setting.

For example, if the limitation really is authentic ammunition, then penetration will be really poor against any form of body armor, because you are limited to slow, large-caliber expanding bullets. On the other hand, in such a setting penetration will be a non-issue, since there won't be any body armor either. Right?

And I'm with Req about the infections.

[Reaver]

[Reaver]

[Austere Emancipa...]

Then something like 4M and 5S might indeed be more reasonable. I won't comment on what the ranges on renaissance era firearms might be, because I haven't got a clue.

[Reaver]

[Austere Emancipa...]

Glad to help. I'm grateful for every excuse to Google up some firearms-related stuff. :D

[Jason Farlander]

[Tom Collins]

ok, here's the way it works. A bullet fired from a modern gun reaches temperatures between 200-300C without too much trouble. This is hot enough to effectively sterilize the bullet (boiling water @ 100C will do a fairly nice job of sterilizing something for you, like said water). Additionally, modern ammo is less likely to drag in foreign objects (like clothing). Because of this, you can treat a wound from a modern rifle as damn near sterile (they'll probably still want to make sure it's clean, but they probably won't be pulling peices of clothe out of you). Of course, this is for todays high velocity rifles (>2000fps). The muskets and rifles of old fired at a much lower velocity (~1000fps at best). This means that the round is less likely to be sterilized when being fired, and more importantly, was MUCH more likely to contaminate the wound with foreign material.

[Req]

[boodah]

reaver, why do i not want to game all of a sudden?

-=shudders=-

[Nikoli]

[Jason Farlander]

Attaining a temperature of 300C will kill any bacteria on the surface of the bullet. They will simply burn off, like sticking a wire loop into a bunsen burner flame. Autoclaving is not an appropriate analogy, because it has different considerations.