 Revolver vs Automatic, What are the advantages? |
  |
 May 3 2005, 12:25 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Immortal Elf  Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670  |
speaking of mechanics, any real reason not to roll power and damage potential into one stat, assuming you've got a stat for penetration?
|
 |
 
|
|
May 3 2005, 12:29 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 768 Joined: 27-December 04 From: Houston, Texas CAS Member No.: 6,907 |
Personally I like revolvers for two reasons, they look cool, and they are more accurate.
I usually give my characters both however, since a revolver's max ammo is 7 and a semi-automatic's is 50, heavy revolver, light or machine semi-auto. |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2005, 09:16 AM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 142 Joined: 29-November 02 Member No.: 3,660 |
Which is great until a bullet unseats from recoil and locks up the cylinder . |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 3 2005, 09:52 AM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Are you designing a new RPG system? Just for firearms, if you don't want to pay too much attention to bullet types, I suppose it's not very important to have a two-part damage code. Optimally, unless it gets too complicated to do, I would like some kind of Power/Damage Level system, because it allows you to simulate different bullet designs much better. For example, expanding bullets create a much wider wound channel ( = higher Damage Level, unless too unbalancing) but penetrate less tissue ( = lower Power), so that an expanding bullet fired from a low-power handgun might be powerful enough to deal with most humans (say, 5M), but killing trolls with the same could prove very problematic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 3 2005, 05:13 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
I agree with this also. The only time I've had any pistol stovepipe was directly the result of a weak magazine spring. Even then, with a clip that's seen many thousands of rounds through it it's only happened twice and only on that one magazine. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 3 2005, 09:09 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
a two-part damage code (penetration, damage) is fine. what i'd want to avoid would be a three-part damage code (penetration, power, damage).
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2005, 10:13 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Oh, right, should have said "three-part DC", not "two-part" in the above message. I didn't think of penetration as a part of the DC because it's a separate attribute in my games.
I like having all three because I like to fiddle with the ammunition, bringing into the game the whole range available IRL with different effects in game. If you're designing a new game system, or changing an existing one where a 3-part DC just doesn't fit in, then it's definitely a better idea to just drop the one part than making extensive changes to the game mechanic to squeeze in the third part. In SR3, though, you'd actually have to change around more stuff to use just Penetration and Damage, and you'd have to make huge abstractions in the Damage department: either having only 4 basic levels of damage, or only one level of damage with the only differences in how hard it is to resist. |
|
|
|
|
May 3 2005, 10:35 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
That is usually caused by the lack of a case mouth crimp after seating the bullet in a magnum cartridge. Dumbass: 2, Gun: 0. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2005, 07:18 AM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 142 Joined: 29-November 02 Member No.: 3,660 |
True enough , but the first tim I saw it happen was with factory ammo . (whoops) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 4 2005, 05:07 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
That's pretty unlikely, unless a lighter, non-crimped load was mixed in the cylinder with heavier crimped loads and fired. Not that it couldn't happen, but you'd be talking about a very major mistake on the part of the ammunition manufacturer if that happened with the same load in all chambers.
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2005, 06:22 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 518 Joined: 24-February 03 From: Tucson Member No.: 4,153 |
Overall, I prefer a revolver. They hardly ever jam (and when they do it's because of low powder charge) and they are more accurate... at least in my experience. Don't get me wrong, I do like my Steyr semi-auto, but I always pull better groupings with my S&W 6" and 4" .357 revolvers. Frankly, if I were going into combat, I'd carry both. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 03:39 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Arethusa mentioned this ever so briefly earlier, but keep in mind revolvers will work better underwater or in a vacuum than an automatic, since the machinary doesn't use the venting of gas to reload. I suspect a glock underwater would be far more prone to jamming, as the empty casings would get stuck in the ejector, whereas a revolver wouldn't (assuming the bullet didn't bounce all around the muzzle on the way out due to the added drag).
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 03:41 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 11-April 05 Member No.: 7,319 |
I've had a revolver jam when the primers back out from the cartridge. This mostly happens with hand-loads, but it also happened twice with factory loads. In my experience
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 04:02 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Actually, Glocks are among the most reliable pistols underwater. They may not be any good if you deviate from standard factory ammunition, but they're known for working relatively well underwater. And I have no idea how a bullet could "bounce around the muzzle." Bullets just go slower underwater. It's one fluid substituted for another. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 04:09 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 7-April 05 From: Charlottesville, VA, CAS Member No.: 7,303 |
While your point about the cartridge jamming the glock underwater is well taken, in a vacuum there wouldn't be a problem. My understanding of autoloading pistols is that almost all of them use the momentum of the bullet to reload, not the gas. The notable exception to this being everyone's favorite, the Desert Eagle, which actually uses a gas-operated recoil system similar to that used in assault rifles. In fact though even a gas-operated recoil system would still work to operate the loading mechanism since the gas used is created *by the round*. It doesn't use gas from the environment, it just siphons off some of the gas from the firing process to move the receiver. Again, I do however think your example of cartridge ejection is a good example. I'd imagine that the force with which the cartridge is ejected might not be enough to overcome the drag of the water... EDIT: Or maybe not. Arethusa beats my post and debunks the example. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 04:15 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Yeah, doesn't matter if it's recoil or gas. A gas system will function just fine in a vacuum because the gas is generated by the propellant in the cartridge. Gas systems, however, will likely have a bit more trouble than a recoil or revolver action underwater because of the dramatically increased pressure. That doesn't mean they won't work, however.
And, yes, extraction is more of a problem underwater. Doesn't mean it won't happen; just depends (quite a bit) on the weapon in question. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 05:13 PM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Because I wouldn't know a gun from a hole in the ground, even if the hole had a sign saying 'not a gun' : P I didn't mean to imply there wouldn't be gas to eject the cartridge in a vacuum, rather the engineers made it at one atmosphere, with an understanding of how things work with normal air pressure. As soon as you wildly twist that premise, it's not always clear how things would turn out. In a vacuum (since this is usually, in our case, in space), you'd still have to deal with no gravity and oftentimes delicate things nearby, so a lot of givens are no longer there. At minimum, you may have to worry about hot pieces of brass ejecting out and bouncing around the cabin or whatever instead of staying neatly in a revolver. Just random thoughts from a person who has years of experience with a nintendo light gun. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 09:37 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Gas operation under water is a very bad idea. When water mixes with propellant residue, it becomes a gummy substance that adversely affects the weapon's operation, especially in a system like direct impingement (AR15/M16; high atmospheric humidity in combination with a particularly sooty propellant residue was the major contributing factor to M16 failures during Vietnam). Also, the gas tube is going to be filled with water which is going to have to go somewhere when gas pressure is directed against it. That hydraulic compression will increase pressure (with the bolt's rearward movement also being resisted by water, the M16 especially so considering a water-filled buffer tube), thus wear. Case ejection will be affected by fluid resistance and eventually short-stroking will occur, meaning manual operation only. Other systems such as short or long stroke piston operations would likely be less affected. Still, propellant residue will eventually clog up the barrel's gas tap, making for manual operation only. As for ammunition underwater, any kind of specialty ammunition (other than AP) is pretty much out. Expanding/frangible bullets will probably expand or fragment inside the barrel (that's bad), and I wouldn't want to think about the possibilities of what might occur with PIE bullets. Revolvers might generally be more reliable as far as firing underwater is concerned as, again, the weapon is not dependent on gas pressure or momentum to cycle underwater. A major problem with automatic pistols firing underwater is light or no primer strikes due to a water-filled firing pin channel in which the forward movement of the firing pin is resisted by water pressure. The water generally has only one place to pass, through the extremely small firing pin hole in the bolt face. The Glock pistol can be modified with "maritime spring cups" which allow water free movement through the firing pin channel, which in turn allows unresisted forward movement of the firing pin, thus more reliable operation. More on that here, last question. As far as firing in a vacuum is concerned, automatic firearms aren't likely to be affected by the lack of oxygen or gravity, and range will be substantially increased. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 10:00 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Indeed. Effective range becomes "however far out you can aim or until it hits something or gravity becomes a major factor".
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 10:18 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
recoil becomes a larger issue, though, since you don't have a planet stuck to your feet to help absorb it. automatic weapons in space are one situation where SR's autofire rules almost make sense.
almost. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 10:29 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
What do you mean? The autofire rules make perfect sense. Mickey and Goofy agree with me, too, so there.
Now if you'll pardon me, there's a carnivorous smurf on my tail. ~J |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 10:37 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's not--oh, god. that's not a tail. ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
May 6 2005, 02:09 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Firing a gun in space would send you spinning backwards out of controll due to recoil. You'd be moving fairly slowly since a handgun gun produces realitivly few newtons. Still, it isn't a good idea to go shooting with a very percise tactical computer connected to the un via smartlink and a rocketpack via datajack so that it may fire off the rockets to compensate for the gun. Spinning slowly out of controll can mean slow death in the emptiness of space if there isn't anyone around to rescue you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 6 2005, 02:33 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Um, dude, that applies if you're in space at all. Presumably if you're firing a gun you've got something to either anchor yourself with or provide thrust. If not, well, those people aren't going to be worth considering.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 6 2005, 06:19 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Avatar of Mediocrity Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 725 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle, WA (err, UCAS) Member No.: 277 |
I'm pretty sure that's the unnecessarily-complex solution to the problem. Get your rocketpack (or more likely, cold-gas maneuvering system) and hook it up to a fairly-sensative accelerometer. Tell it to keep acceleration at a net zero as long as you're not moving the joystick. Problem solved, and no tactical computer necessary. Of course, if you're having to figure out firearm-compensation for null-grav encounters, your Shadowruns are a lot different than mine... :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th December 2025 - 04:14 PM |
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.