Ok here's the deal, i'm making a character when i decide i want to buy a Colt M-23.
Now it has a conceal of 3 (i think), so i says to myself i'll just get a telescoping stock...
Problem is they don't appear to exist, at least not in any of the books i own.

The question would be what you the dumpshock community feel should be the conceal modifier for having a telescoping stock. I'm thinking a one or two, i have a friend with an AR-15, and it has a telscoping stock and there is certainly a diference in size when it's collapsed.

I would just treat it as a folding stock. They both fulfill the same purpose (make the gun smaller when not in use, make the gun more stable when in use), so rather than making the distinction between a tabby and a tourtise shell, just call a cat a cat.

Since in Cannon Companion (page 83) an unfolded folding stock reduces Concealability by 1 in weapons which normally don't have stocks, I'd say replacing a solid rifle stock with a telescoping one would increase Concealability by 1 when it is collapsed.

It does requite house ruling, since the rules in Cannon Companion specifically state that you cannot put a folding stock on a rifle or a shotgun. This silliness exists because the rules assume a rifle or a shotgun always have stocks, and the (Folding) Stock firearm customization option provides Recoil Compensation which a rifle shouldn't get. Instead of making a separate option for giving rifles and shotguns a folding/telescopic stock which doesn't affect recoil but increases Concealability when folded/collapsed, they just ignored it, leading to several hundred posts worth of ranting on this forum and the ones before it.

Yes I use the folding stocks to replace the regular one also.

To give a more rules heavy version:

Folding stock: 300Y?
The fixed stock of a rifle or shotgun may be replaced by a folding stock.

When folded, add 1 to the concealability of the weapon. However treat recoil as from a heavy weapon (doubling all uncompensated recoil). In addition, lower the range category of the weapon by 'one' (ARs use SMG ranges, Shotguns use heavy pistol? ranges).

It takes a simple action to fold or unfold the stock.

Of course, you can also just take a hacksaw to your stock for the increased concealability.

[edits for range penalties]

Cool, you guys certainly know your Shadowrun...

I knew there was a reason I registered on this forum.

They said i was daft to register on this site, but i registered all the same, just to show'em

Crusher, whats the "logic" behind the range penelties? I get the reciol (and like it too, since you dont have the brunt of the recoil going into your shoulder any more) But i don't get why that would affect the ranges.

The ranges at which you can hit something without a stock are very limited. The guns you can normally add a folding stock to are already very short ranged. If I didn't add the rule abould range reduction, you would be able to saw the stock off your AR and still hit targets 500? meters away. In addition, it is too keep that folding stock option from being too attractive. If you have a simple action to spare, there is no real penalty (except for cost), but having some punk whip his assualt rifle with a folding stock out from under his trench coat and shoot you accurately when you are 500 meters away'rambo style', all in a fraction of a second, is a bit much.

For a shotgun, using the 'longer' 50+ meter range bands of a shotgun also require a stock, limiting 'stockless' shotguns to HPish ranges makes sense.

Well, i kinda see where you're coming from, but i still think a TN penalty is more approriate over just saying you can only fire out to one range lower. I mean, imagine the scenario that you DON'T have a simple action to flip out , so you whip out your AR, folded stock, and pop off a few shots at a max of what? 100 meters? i dont know the exact number. Next pass, you have your simple available, , so you pop the stock out and POOF! you're shooting at 500 meters now?

Long range shooting requires both a weapon careful of putting a bullet that far out and careful control of the weapon when firing. A humman factor that causes a deviation of 2 inches at 25 meters is not that big a deal, at 25 meters. However than same human factor would produce a miss distance of 8 inches at 100 meters (still hitting the target), but at, say, 450 meters, you are looking at a deviation of around 3 feet. The stock is a significant step up in reducing the human error, which is really necessary for long range shooting. Even someone with cyberarms will face problems with torque, since they can not properly brace the weapon.

but again crusher, i feel that TN penalties on top of recoil, is the best way to handle that, instead of just saying "oh, because your stock is fold in, you can't shoot that far"

Maybe someone's working on a dare of "I bet you can't hit the broad side of a barn with that stock folded in at 400 meters"

Maybe he can, maybe he can't, but who are we to tell him that because he folds his stock in, his bullit is gonna fall short by 100 meters?

Well, part of the problem is with granularity of the game system. The range categories are massivice simplifications to begin with, in that you can be standing 1 meter outside of extreme range and not take a scratch. In general, bullets are still potentially lethal far past the ranges given by the book (consider IRL, the long range rifle drill of British troops circa WWI, they were able to volley fire at area targets ~1 mile away with 'reasonable' accuracy). The ranges given in the book are the 'point target' ranges for the weapon, not the actual effective range of the bullet. I stuck the reduced ranges in there because I feel that the removal/non-use of the stock on a shoulder arm so radically reduces your ability to hit a point target that the game rule range bands should be reduced to reflect this.

ok MFB, i understand that the stock is an accuracy aid, but i have yet to hear why, removing the stock, automatically makes your gun unable to fire as far as the tables say it does. As i understand the weapon ranges table, it is there so that you know what the maximum range a gun can fire while still having the power to do the damage listed. And i can't see WHY folding the stock in on such a weapon would automatically reduce it's maximum ranges at which it has the power to do damge.

It wouldnt, you just might not be able to hit the broadside of a 18 wheeler at 500 meters.

How bout this,

"Use smg TN ranges, adding the TN's up to the range ofthe guns maximum. For example, you have replaced the stock of your AR with a telescoping stock. You see you're target running for cover, and don't have the time to pull the stock out, you take aim at 200 meters, hoping to get lucky. Because 200 meters i longer than a standard SMGs range of 150, you take the base tn of 9, plus 6 that falls into the remaining 50 meters, for a BASE single shot TN of 15."

This should make it hella difficult, and incrediably stupid except for the most dire circumstances.

no, no, you're looking at stocks all wrong. what stocks allow you to do is hold your weapon still. seriously, that's their main purpose. if you can hold your weapon perfectly still in relation to your firing shoulder, the rest is easy. any movement will throw your aim off--breathing, blinking, pulling the trigger (not recoil, i mean the physical motion of pulling the trigger). stocks reduce all that jittering around. putting your face closer to the sights has nothing to do with it, though you're correct about positioning the eye. a smartlink will not help with this. it doesn't matter if you know where the gun is pointed if you can't keep the gun pointed at your target long enough to squeeze off a shot.

I am of the opinion that if you want stock removal to decrease a persons accuracy, you should do this by giving them an increased TN, or by decreasing the dice (depending on your edition of choice) There, you've given them a penalty. Leave range categories out of it. The bullet will fly exactly the same in either case, range doesn't change. Your ability to hit things does, fine, I'll accept that. I just think you're applying the penalty in the wrong place.

nah, range category is more accurate (heh!). i mean, sawing off the stock on a rifle isn't going to significantly affect your accuracy at 10m, will impair your accuracy at 75m, and will completely destroy your accuracy at 300m and up. it just makes more sense.

no, locking your arm won't work at all. your shoulder is still free to rotate through its full range, which means you're not going to hit anything at long range.

losing the stock is going to decrease your accuracy more and more the further away your target is, because tiny movements are going to throw a larger and larger variance into the spot your bullet hits. you could come up with a complex series of TN modifiers to reflect that, putting the TN for extreme range at +9 or so. or, you could just use the range tables, which effectively do the same thing.

and it's not like the range tables are 100% accurate anyway. what do you think happens to a rifle bullet at 500m, in SR? does it just stop in mid-air and drop to the ground? no, it keeps moving. in real life, there's a chance you could hit something at 600m with a rifle round (a pretty good chance, actually, but fixing the range tables is not the subject of this discussion). in SR, that chance is so low that it's not worth putting on the range table--you just automatically miss any target beyond 500m, if you're firing an AR.

Then, how do you implement the TN penalties?

The difficulty increase in hitting the target is based on the distance of the target from you, not on the physical ability of your weapon to fire a bullet that far (in this case, anyway). Addiing say +2TN to all stockless shots would make the stockless weaopn useless, even at 10 meters.

So how to draw the line at where to apply the TN penalty? Medium range? But then, a stockless AR would shoot just as well out to 100? (what is medium range for ARs?) meters as an AR with a stock on it. What we want to represent is an effect on accuracy that is largely irrelevant over short ranges (50 meters or less) but a huge factor at longer ranges. Reducing the range categories means that the stockless AT shoots as well at 60? meters (medium range for SMGs is?) as the stocked AR does at 100 (medium range for ARs?). The range reduction implementation of the rule allows you to shoot fine at shorter ranges (which you can do without a stock), and produces a reasonably smooth curve, compared to a 'simple' TN penalty. While a 'complex' TN penalty would be more realistic, it would be much more difficult to implement in a useable manner.

So, something that decreases your accuracy is going to have a larger effect at long range than at short range. Big, forehead-slappin' duh. It doesn't take a PhD in trigenometry to puzzle that one out.
My question is, why does everything else that affects your accuracy give you a TN penalty, while this changes your range table. The only other thing (big IIRC) that changes your range table is muzzle shortening, because that actually changes the velocity of the bullet.
I agree that accuracy penalties would be more realistically represented by changing range, but then shouldn't you do this for everything that affects accuracy? Instead of firing at a TN 15 in the dark, on a train, in a box, at a fox, you should be firing at normal target numbers but short range is now 2", and extreme range goes all the way out to 3 feet?
Why should this accuracy penalty be handled differently than every other accuracy penalty.

you can reduce the movement in your shoulders by angling your arms to one side, similar to a bow.

I agree with you that the range tables are a simplification, but as a GM I never say that a target is 501 meters out. Do you? I look at the range table, and get an idea of distance then make a judgement from there.

eh, that's... yeah, sure, that works, i guess. but it's incongruous with the rest of the rules. you're basically allowing stockless ARs to be fired at targets beyond Extreme range--but why only stockless ARs? why not SMGs, why not pistols? these weapons are, realistically, no less likely to miss at ranges beyond Extreme than a stockless AR, but you're giving stockless ARs special treatment.

but it's nonsensical. if you cut the stock off an AR, you've basically got an SMG. SMGs don't face a TN penalty, so why should a chopped-down AR?

eh, it's only special because a normal AR can be fired at those ranges, you're just upping the dificulty for a stockless AR to do it, and thats what you're saying is happening.

Like i said before, my understanding of the ranges, is not only accuracy, but also the ability for the bullt to acctually do damage at the range. someone asked earlier what we thought happened to a bullt when it hits that magical extreme range.

I think it keeps flying (albeit it for a short distance, rapidly losing volecity and curing to the ground) but has, for the most part, lost the majority of it's penetrating and damage power. I'm sure, if someone wanted too, they could make a damage adjuster, similar to the flechette rules, to show that beyond the "extreme" range, you could still do damage.

My point is, stocked or stockless, you're STILL firing an assualt rifle., and it doesnt lose power simply because you choped the stock off. So, adding a stock to an SMG or pistol won't make it shoot further

EDIT: MFB, are you saying that by cutting off the stock of an AR you will only get the total distance as an SMG? That seems funny, to me, considering that from what i've read, and SMG is using pistol firing mechanisms, and the AR is using the Rifle mechanisms, and is, thus, by default, ALOT more powerful

Thats in this icky Real life ™ that we have to deal with. I've never seen the book saying anything about what the extend of the range amounts too. However, because all AR's have an assualt rifle Range, i have to assume that there is no mechanical difference in how well they preform at a given distance. All AR's are going to have the same deviation at short, at a medium, at a long, or at an extreme range, flat out, regardless of what "real life" tells us (this gun can only fire effectively to 500 yards, while this once can go to 1500) As far as SR is concerned, they are both AR's, and can thus, at extreme range, with stocks, fire to 550 meters.

Now, what you're telling me, is that, if you saw that stock off, than, theres NO WAY that that AR could fire past 150 meters (the max for an SMG at extreme) And i'm saying, i'm not one to artificially chop the range at what something can be done at, when the gun is powered to do it to a certain extent, simply because you didn't unfold your stock, i still can't understand WHY that gun would only be able to shoot a bullet to 150 meters. Couldnt the AR without the stock still be useful in a paint and spray capacity out to it's max range?

hey, look, you're the one trying to insert realism into SR. if you don't want realism, then simply don't change the rules at all--ARs fire the same with or without stocks. but if you are trying to insert some realism, then you're going about it slightly wonky. your suggestion about using extended SMG ranges works, but like i said, it's incongruous--ARs suddenly become the only weapon that have a range past Extreme. what i meant was, if you're going to allow ARs to have ranges beyond Extreme, why not just do that for all weapons?

SMGs were not 'originally' designed to be fired with a stock--nor were they 'originally' designed to be fired without one. there are stocked and stockless SMGs and carbines, and they are all different. if you want to be more realistic, i'd use Raygun's Carbine ranges for stocked SMGs and SR's SMG ranges for stockless SMGs.

While i've been using AR's in my example, i've been meaning everything larger than an SMG that is already, stocked as a rule. So that means, off the top of my head, sport rifles, sniper's (why, i anyone would, i dont know but...) and ARs

i'm not being anal, i'm just saying. to me, SMGs already face harsh enough penalties--if you think of the range categories as penalties. an SMG and an AR have roughly similar damage codes, yet an AR's max range is something like 300% longer than an SMG's. that means that an SMG is facing a TN of 9 in situations where an AR faces a TN of 5; that, in turn, means that an AR gets a -4 TN at medium range for having a stock.