 Using 'older' weapon designs |
  |
 Aug 1 2004, 06:10 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775  |
It may be a myth, I'll admit, but I have read it in several books, had a teacher mention it, and seen it in a couple documentaries. That doesn't make it right, but if it is a myth, it would have to be an oddly widespread one.
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 06:36 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
heh. if it weren't widespread, it wouldn't be a myth!
i'm not saying it didn't happen; i'm just not sure it happened often enough to be considered a feature of civil war-era arms. there are stories about bullets in WW1 and 2 zinging through both sides of a helmet without touching the head of the man wearing the helmet; soldiers didn't, however, poke their heads up from the trenches in expectation that their helmets would magically route bullets around their skulls. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 06:45 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
And there are some pretty fantastic stories even contained in books about single modern battles; still, in this case, it wasn't presented as a freak accident so much as an appreciably common behavior of big bore muskets.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 10:07 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
My personal opinion about the improvement of firearm technology is that firearms aren't bound to change a whole lot between now and 2064, in the same way that they haven't changed much between 1944 and now.
Concerning the firearms themselves, what has changed between now and 1944? Materials and manufacturing technologies. That's about it. We use aluminum, titanium, and scandium alloys as well as polymers in order to decrease the weight of firearms. We use Computer Numeric Controlled machinery to manufacture firearms to unprecedented tolerance levels in very short amounts of time. But in the practical use of these weapons, does this make any difference? Does it make them more powerful? No. Does it make them more accurate? No. It makes them lighter weight, which means that they will actually recoil more in the same cartridge is used, and in some cases, it makes them more reliable and robust. In fact, the laws of physics have not changed. Because of this and the changes in the way militaries operate, we have actually chosen to make the majority of firearms less powerful, and are just now beginning a trend that will split the difference between the power of WWII-era small arms and the small arms of the last 30 years. If this trend takes hold, infantry small arms will still be less powerful than they were 60 years ago. The things that have changed about the use of firearms over the last 60 years really don't have a lot to do with the technology of firearms themselves. Supporting technologies like scopes, reflex sights, laser designators, etc... have improved substantially. We have increased our ability to engage targets quicker and more accurately through these technologies. But more importantly, we have changed the way we think about combat. Ammunition technology has improved, but not by the leaps and bounds manufacturers would like you to believe. Today we have bullets that have been maximized for external ballistics, meaning that they fly about as far, as fast and as flat as we can make an cost-effective bullet go, within the our ability to deal with recoil, chamber pressure, and the ability to see the target and engage it quickly. However, I do think terminal ballistics have some room to improve. If you buy into the whole nanotechnology thing (and you would have to in order to accept most of the cyberware in this game), bullets that actively change density and hardness in flight or on contact with the target shouldn't be that difficult to fathom. Explosive bullets with incredibly small fuses should also be possible. (But incredibly small explosive bullets will always be impractical. The explosion itself is not what does the damage. What's being blown into several tiny bits does. You'll get the same target effect with a bigger bullet.) But at the level of technology Shadowrun is at, nanotechnology might also be too expensive to implement in that way. On top of that, there are several problems to overcome when you really get to thinking about implementing technologies like that. Technology will certainly improve. But I honestly don't feel that firearms will be one of those areas that will be revolutionized by new technology. The main ideas behind combat firearm technology are: practicality, simplicity, and cost-effectiveness. It's an object you stake your like on. The more complex you make it, the more likely it is to fail. There's still a little room to grow, but in the overall picture, I think we've pretty much reached the apex of rock-throwing. Other technologies will supplant it. Honestly, Shadowrun has become far too comic-booky for me. I don't like a lot of the ideas in the game, so I disregard them and don't implement them in my game or on my site. I'm sure this will make some of you cringe, but that's okay. You can play the game your way and you can implement the rules I've come up with in any way you see fit. I'm sure you're capable of figuring what works and doesn't work all by yourselves. Balance is something you feel. No one else can tell you, no matter how hard they try, what is and isn't balanced. You should find out for yourself. Oddly enough, I was getting ready to add Springfield Armory's SOCOM 16 rifle to my site, which seems to be a lot like the type of thing that started the idea for this coversation. PS: I've killed a few animals in my time, and I've never seen a bullet "follow muscle grain". |
|
|
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 10:12 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Not saying that it does or it doesn't, but were any of these animals killed with a musket?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 10:20 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
How about firearm technologies like that used in Metal Storm? Or the electronic recoil adjustment in the Bushman IDW that you quote on your own site? I'd say being able to fire 180 rounds in less than a tenth of a second or almost entirely negating recoil is a pretty big step in firearms technology over the last 60 years.
You mean like the concept of universal ammunition within the same class of weapons? So that you can take your enemies clips and use them in yours without a problem? Kinda like you can do in Shadowrun? It fits at least two of your ideas there; practicality and cost-effectiveness. I can't imagine it being difficult, either, outside of waiting for older style firearms to die off in popularity (which they apparently have in Shadowrun since there's virtually no real-world weapons in the game). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 1 2004, 11:13 PM
Post
#32
|
|||||||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Nope. But I have a difficult time believeing that it would happen with a round ball weighing quite a bit more than the bullets I tend to use. Muscle can split along its grain, but a bullet changing course into it and being guided by it seems too far-fetched to be anything but incidental.
Not very useful in terms of small arms, which is what I was discussing. You might see a few small arms designed around this concept, maybe (it's how I explain the Ruger Thunderbolt). But having the ability to fire really, really fast isn't all that helpful when it comes to people who can't carry the amount of ammunition necessary to make that technology useful. On top of that, ballistic consistency goes down the toilet with Metalstorm, so using it in slow-fire weapons comes at a price. Metalstorm is meant to cover an area with a lot of lead extememly fast. That's about the only thing it does exceptionally well. Electronic firing systems, like Remington's EtronX, would probably be more useful, especially when you consider the implementation of Smartlinks.
Doesn't appear that that one has panned out yet, has it? I guess we'll see. The argument against it is that it's just another thing to go wrong. Sure it helps make automatic fire more accurate, but it also makes the weapon more mechanically complicated and dependent upon electricity. It's a trade off you have to consider carefully. The guy who invented it gave up on the electronic part, opting to go with a tuneable hydraulic system instead. Turns out no one was interested in the dependence on batteries. I guess we'll see if it comes back sometime.
Again, Metalstorm is neat, but it's not very useful at the small arms scale. Fine for static emplacements for area denial or missle defense, not good for much else. You get the same or better effect hitting something with a single RPG.
No. That, I can safely say, would never happen in anything but a game. Especially in a market as competitive as Shadowrunning is supposed to be. But again, it's your game. If it works for you, it does. What I meant was not a lot of complicated mechanical or electro-mechanical devices that depend on electrical power to operate. The more complicated you make something, the more prone it is to failure. Which is exactly why up to 100,000,000 Kalashnikov rifles have been made. They're dated technology, but they're also dog-simple, utterly reliable and will kill you just as dead as an XM8. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Aug 1 2004, 11:48 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
indeed. a single operating system for all PCs would make life a lot easier in the world of computing than a single cartridge for all weapons of a given class would for the world of firearms. failing some sort of massive reboot, like the Crash, i don't see that happening ever, much less within the next 30 years.
after all, who gets to decide what cartridge each class of weapon uses? what incentive is there for all weapons manufacturers to use that cartridge? hell, right here in this thread, we're arguing about the usefulness and applicability of weapons from the american civil war--how in the world is anyone going to convince the entire planet to use just one single cartridge for all weapons of a single type? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 11:53 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
By force :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 1 2004, 11:54 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 150 |
While the 22 legends have never been proven, I have heard directly of a cop that died from a 25 that followed the bone up the arm to the heart. With a heavier projectile though, that's pretty unlikely. I can't even see it happening with 9mm, let along a big honking musket ball. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 12:01 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Was the arm at his side, or was he holding it out? IE, was there significant bullet redirection?
Sure, a powerful enough bullet will go up one arm and down the other if you're standing with both arms out straight directly away from each other, but there's no redirection there. ~J, devil's advocate |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 12:09 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Bullets definitely can follow bone. That much has been documented, and while it's an incredibly rare occurrence and does only happen at certain angles, it's not nearly as far fetched as a musket ball travelling along muscle. It's a claim I admit I myself am skeptical of, but given the number of sources I've seen backing it up, I tend to take it as tentative fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 12:15 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
well, sure, but it'd be silly to claim that .22 rounds are better because they have a better chance of following a bone they strike. in the end, a 9mm in the chest cavity is going to to more damage, more often, than a .22 will--even when the .22 does richochet.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 12:25 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 150 |
A guy had a 25 at the door to his house, waving it around. Cop was behind his car, using it for cover with his gun drawn and pointed at Bad Guy. Bullet entered arm, followed the bone around and hit the heart, killing him quickly. But, yes, counting on being able to do this is ludicrous. Counting the small probability of this happening in order to get more damage from a SR gun is also pointless. Just recounting a story. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 12:34 AM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Got a lnk to that story, or for that matter does anyone else have links to the newspaper or coroner's reports on any of these dubious ballistic qualities? And even if you do is it common enotu that it's any more of a factor then getting hit by a meteorite? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 2 2004, 01:52 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
I could probably find a copy of the report from the Warren Commission. :dead:
There are enough firearm varieties in the game. What I'd like to see developed for SR are weapons/rules for the new weapons you hear about, like crowd contol microwaves and other things sinister :? - such as "lasers". |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 01:53 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Lasers of all man-portable varieties are in Cannon Companion, vehicle lasers in Rigger 3.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 01:55 AM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 150 |
Nope, no link, since I didn't read it in the paper, but instead heard it from a cop the next day. And nope, it was a fluke shot, as I said, nothing to count on in combat. It's more likely than a meteor hit of course, since there'd be shooting involved, but still not worth trying to duplicate in the game. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 02:47 AM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,751 Joined: 8-August 03 From: Neighbor of the Beast Member No.: 5,375 |
I knew a forensics guy (proff) in my college days that told of an attempted suicide. The poor slot pointed the gut at the side of his head and pulled the trigger. The bullet followed the curve of his skull up, over, and down but didn't kill him. I don't have proof but after the other slides he'd shown us, his word was good enough for me.
And herein is why I have so much respect for Raygun. This is a man that who put hours and hours into his website; filling it with weapons, rules, and history. After he finished all of that he said, (not exactly a quote) "This is how I see it. Use what you want." I am very impressed by that. As always, great job Ray! That being said, any chance you'd consider taking requests? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 03:34 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Thanks, kevyn. Very nice of you to say. :)
As for requests, I've never been big on them, but tell me what you're thinking. I may put it up if it's something I'm interested in. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 03:56 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 27-January 03 From: Kentucky, USA Member No.: 3,958 |
Sounds more like a riochet, rather than 'following'. Ah well, without the ME report, it's all speculation.
{Edit} Actually, it sounds more like the cop had his arm out in front of his heart while aiming/steadying his firearm. The bullet just happened to come in along that path, tearing through tissue and possibly glancing off the bone, before emerging and then plunging into the chest and heart.{/Edit} Personally, I'd say electronics and new materials would be the biggest innovations in firearms over the next 50 years. The most innovative thing I've ever seen was the Glock 17 when it was introduced, and all it did was take advantage of materials already on-hand (plastics and ceramics with the metal parts), plus use a new safety/firing system. Better recoil control, stronger/lighter materials and possibly new innovations in loading or firing would be most likely. Electronics could be useful once power supplies become a non-issue (but would still need to function without them). |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2004, 04:33 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
And considering that it was several years behind Heckler & Koch's VP70, P9 and P9S pistols (read: 14 of them), the Glock wasn't even that innovative. The trigger system was new, but not necessarily a step forward in technological terms. Contrary to popular belief, there's not one ceramic part in the Glock pistol. Steel and plastic. That's it. The Glock was just relatively cheap and marketed well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 04:42 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 150 |
He was wearing a vest, bullet entered chest through the arm. As I said, fluke. When your number is up, fate will conspire against you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 04:48 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 150 |
I had a woman in the store one day that swore the Glock she was issued was one of the ceramic models. Refused to believe it wasn't and told me they issued them to her (FBI I think, it's been a while) so that agents could carry them on planes. Probably just a random nutjob, but amusing anyway. :) Glock's main innovation was indeed more marketing related than product related. The VP70 was monstrous, but right for it's principle. The interesting thing with guns, is that even advances are not universally accepted. Polygonal rifling may work better, but it's still not common. (drawbacks aside) Almost everyone uses either Browning system, with Beretta being the only one with different stuff, and no one's beating down a door to get the rotating barrel into their handguns. Guns only have to work so well, as it were. They may not be perfect, but they're good enough. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 2 2004, 05:17 AM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 20-June 04 Member No.: 6,423 |
I've come across that type of wound that I don't think it's that rare. I've heard of war stories involving that type of skull penetration, the bullet grazes the brain and rides the skull and exits through the same wound, or similar (the first time I heard of it, it was a second hand story of a friendly fire incident during Vietnam and the bullet penetrated the helmet and rode on the inside of the helmet. From what I've heard, the guy had a permanent bald streak around his head from the scar). I recall watching a documentary on Iwo Jima and a combat medic tell a heartrending story of a guy who took a bullet to the eye, the bullet ricocheted around the brain and exited through the wound, and was believed to be dead, only to see the guy years later at a reunion and tell him the saddest part of his life was when they stopped the IV. I wouldn't bet my life on a game of Russian roulette to prove it, but I think it's just not uncommon. It also looks like it occurs mostly with high-velocity, low weight rounds. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th March 2025 - 07:33 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.