Does anyone know of Flamethrower stats in a SR4 book, or have the stats from a SR3 book that I could convert.
I'm looking at building a PC who uses a flamethrower as his main combat weapon, but while the SR4 core book talks about it in the skills section (Exotic weapon IIRC) it doesn't provide any stats I can find.
Thanks
Stephen
Full Version: Flamethrower Stats
| QUOTE (Stephen_E) |
| Does anyone know of Flamethrower stats in a SR4 book, or have the stats from a SR3 book that I could convert. I'm looking at building a PC who uses a flamethrower as his main combat weapon, but while the SR4 core book talks about it in the skills section (Exotic weapon IIRC) it doesn't provide any stats I can find. Thanks Stephen |
None in SR4 core, but it'll show up in Arsenal I would imagine.
Personally, I'd stat it up as a line attack out 10 meters, with a flat 6 dice of fire damage, with an option to sweep for additional targets at a penalty akin to changing targets (-2, iirc).
| QUOTE (lorechaser) |
| Personally, I'd stat it up as a line attack out 10 meters, with a flat 6 dice of fire damage, with an option to sweep for additional targets at a penalty akin to changing targets (-2, iirc). |
The nasty part is that it covers what it hits with burning napalm, which keeps burning until you put it out or until it burns out in a minute or two.
I'd probably make a flamethrower work like a shotgun firing flechette. Most flamethrowers would have a specific amount of spread, probably narrow or medium, but there could be a fancy flamethrower than has multiple modes.
Each round, resist 6-(num rounds)P damage of fire, unless you scrape it off?
I'd imagine it would work similarly to the pain inducer
'Course, the pain inducer just works as long as your pointing it at someone. A flamethrower covers the target in flaming fuel. Slightly different circumstances. I'd say it causes continuous damage equal to the base damage of the flamethrower (or maybe your net hits on the attack roll?) each turn, for a given number of turns. (I wouldn't know how long, I'm not sure how long that kind of fuel will normally burn for.)
perhaps you could use your net successes in rounds or so.
based on how well you soak the poor jerk down.
i would figure the extremities (arms/legs) would be easier to get it off of, whereas the torso/head would be... painful.
based on how well you soak the poor jerk down.
i would figure the extremities (arms/legs) would be easier to get it off of, whereas the torso/head would be... painful.
This is goddamned great against spirits. Slips right past the Immunity to Normal Weapons, and does a ton of elemental damage.
The way I'm working it out with my GM at this particular moment is that the initial attack does base 6P fire + net hits gross damage (before resist) after Dodge. Each following round reduces the gross damage by -1 until the fire is reduced to 0P and goes out. So, for example, with three net hits, the flamethrower would do 9P on the initial hit, 8P the next round, and so on.
We're currently considering ways the victim can reduce the burning times (as it were), including removing soaked clothing.
[edit]: Fun fact: we've decided to use the same rules for molotovs and general dousing. Happy lobbing!
Further consideration raises the questions: how does armor assist with resisting fire damage in this manner? And damage-stopping 'ware? Obviously, bone lacing and platelet factories would be useless. But what about dermal armor, natural and 'ware? Sure, the skin burns, so that's P damage right there, but good dermal armor would assist in reducing deeper tissue damage from el fuego. Thoughts?
The way I'm working it out with my GM at this particular moment is that the initial attack does base 6P fire + net hits gross damage (before resist) after Dodge. Each following round reduces the gross damage by -1 until the fire is reduced to 0P and goes out. So, for example, with three net hits, the flamethrower would do 9P on the initial hit, 8P the next round, and so on.
We're currently considering ways the victim can reduce the burning times (as it were), including removing soaked clothing.
[edit]: Fun fact: we've decided to use the same rules for molotovs and general dousing. Happy lobbing!
Further consideration raises the questions: how does armor assist with resisting fire damage in this manner? And damage-stopping 'ware? Obviously, bone lacing and platelet factories would be useless. But what about dermal armor, natural and 'ware? Sure, the skin burns, so that's P damage right there, but good dermal armor would assist in reducing deeper tissue damage from el fuego. Thoughts?
| QUOTE (Stephen_E) |
| Does anyone know of Flamethrower stats in a SR4 book, or have the stats from a SR3 book that I could convert. I'm looking at building a PC who uses a flamethrower as his main combat weapon, but while the SR4 core book talks about it in the skills section (Exotic weapon IIRC) it doesn't provide any stats I can find. Thanks Stephen |
Well the old M9A1 flamethrower (which is probably what he's thinking of) has, in reality, only enough fuel for 6 seconds of continuous fire (or 3-4 short bursts), a max range of 45-55 meters, (with thickened fuel, max of 20-25 with just gasoline). It weights 52 pounds and consist of a fuel canister, a pressure vessel, the igniter cylinder and the flame gun.
Exactly how long the fuel burns is unclear, but the phrase "is extremely difficult to extinguish" is used. I've seen figures ranging from "15-30 seconds" to "several minutes". So assume 10 combat turns of burning time.
Based on SR3 I'd say it would do 10P damage per combat turn, with more successes causing more damage. Full body armor would protect until it heats up, which it would pretty quick when covered with 1200C napalm. As it's hard to breathe when the air is at 1200C, having a sealed air supply would be helpful.
The main drawback is that you'll burn down anyplace you use it, it's blatantly obvious, it's heavy as hell, it's really short ranged, and you only get a few seconds of fire. (it doesn't tend to blow up when shot, unlike what Hollywood shows)
But it's hugely intimidating and really, really lethal against unprotected people. And really good if you like to start fires.
Thanks guys. This has been a lot of help.
Something I've gotten from some reading I've been doing on Flame throwes is that anyone been attacked by a Flamethrower should have to make a Composure check to avoid running. Probably requiring 1 successes if you're within range. One of the major sucesses in WW2 was the speed troops in dugin fortifications would surrender or run at the 1st blast of fire. US Marines loved the effect it had on dugin Japanese soldiers that would've taken major troop assaults to defeat/move.
Possibly the way to handle armour is apply a cumalative -4 AP/end of round penalty to non Fire Resistant armour, and when that's gone a -1 AP/round penalty to Fire Resistant armour.
Also anyone on fire has to make a Composure (2) check to do anything other than run or try and put the fire out, with no successes = you stay where you are screaming and flopping around taking no effective action. People on fire have great difficulty acting rationally. When it's really HOT fire it's going to be worse.
Stephen
Something I've gotten from some reading I've been doing on Flame throwes is that anyone been attacked by a Flamethrower should have to make a Composure check to avoid running. Probably requiring 1 successes if you're within range. One of the major sucesses in WW2 was the speed troops in dugin fortifications would surrender or run at the 1st blast of fire. US Marines loved the effect it had on dugin Japanese soldiers that would've taken major troop assaults to defeat/move.
Possibly the way to handle armour is apply a cumalative -4 AP/end of round penalty to non Fire Resistant armour, and when that's gone a -1 AP/round penalty to Fire Resistant armour.
Also anyone on fire has to make a Composure (2) check to do anything other than run or try and put the fire out, with no successes = you stay where you are screaming and flopping around taking no effective action. People on fire have great difficulty acting rationally. When it's really HOT fire it's going to be worse.
Stephen
I have damage be continuious, modified by net number of hits for accuracy in the dousing with fire part.
To reduce the damage from fire, I use a system that it takes a complex action, and you roll Agility+Intuition. Each hit reduces the amount of fire damage that you are taking by one. And, when it's reduced to 0, you successfully smother the flames.
To reduce the damage from fire, I use a system that it takes a complex action, and you roll Agility+Intuition. Each hit reduces the amount of fire damage that you are taking by one. And, when it's reduced to 0, you successfully smother the flames.
| QUOTE (Stephen_E) |
| Thanks guys. This has been a lot of help. |
I'm not sure I'd like a PC having one of these things. If you think the availability on a Panther is bad it has to be X20 higher for a military flamethrower. If you want your local friendly rigger to make one I think that's fine. It would do less damage and be more prone to glitches IMHO.
Glitching with a flamethrower would make me think twice about carting one around.
Much as I hate to do it, I have to go back to d20 modern. The d20 modern flamethrower's backpack can be specifically targetted. It has hardness 5 and 5 hp (which would translate to about body 2, armor 2, I think). If you rupture the backpack, the wearer takes 2x the flamethrower's damage, and everyone adjacent takes normal damage. I think maybe the equivalent would like ExEx - if it ruptures, take an attack, with no resistance, and everyone around you takes a normal attack?
I had a couple NPCs with flamethrowers and we did have someone targetting the backpack. We used the barrier rules though and set it at reinforced material, which I believe is Armor 8, Stucture 9. Granted, took the structure rating down, due to it not being 10cm thick, so really, I figured that the Armor could stay at 8 but to pierce a hole in the tank, the Structure would be a 3.
I didn't end up having a player pierce the tank though, so I didn't have to figure out exactly what would happen in the explosion...but I thought I put it at 6P with no soak and -1DV per meter radius. I probably could have made that x2...and then obviously there was fire damage on top of that...
I didn't end up having a player pierce the tank though, so I didn't have to figure out exactly what would happen in the explosion...but I thought I put it at 6P with no soak and -1DV per meter radius. I probably could have made that x2...and then obviously there was fire damage on top of that...
I'm not too familiar with the structure rules, but I don't think the flamethrower tank would be particularly strong, unless you've reinforced it.
Yeah...I could see it either way, but at the time, we all agreed that the tank would be pretty strong material. I was adjusting stats from the 3rd edition flamethrower for 4th edition...none of the players ended up being targeted by the flamethrowers, so getting it perfect wasn't a major concern.
Granted, I would take more time if one of my players were wanting to use one on a regular basis...
Granted, I would take more time if one of my players were wanting to use one on a regular basis...
| QUOTE (lorechaser) |
| If you rupture the backpack, the wearer takes 2x the flamethrower's damage, and everyone adjacent takes normal damage. |
Unless you are actually firing the FF the fuel tank isn't pressurized. You poke a hole in a tank of napalm (which is difficult to start burning - that's why there is an igniter cylinder) and it oozes out. You put a hole in the Nitrogen tank it might knock you down.
In hollywood all cars explode when they crash.
Being horrible uneducated in these matters, would the bullet's passage through the tank be enough to ignite it?
| QUOTE (lorechaser) |
| Being horrible uneducated in these matters, would the bullet's passage through the tank be enough to ignite it? |
Information I've seen is typically no. And it's unikely to explode if it ignites, as there is no oxygen in the tank. Your most likely, at worst, getting flaming goo spraying out of the entrance and exit holes.
I'd just shoot the guy holding it in the head. More dependable.
You are unlikely to ignite a car gas tank by firing a (non-incendiary) bullet through it, and napalm is far more difficult to ignite. Do common forms of weaponized napalm even undergo vaporization, which would allow for a serious flame-out?
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| You are unlikely to ignite a car gas tank by firing a (non-incendiary) bullet through it, and napalm is far more difficult to ignite. Do common forms of weaponized napalm even undergo vaporization, which would allow for a serious flame-out? |
I can't speak toward military quality napalm, but my personal experience with the stuff is that no, won't happen. Mostly, just oozes out onto the ground, where in a few days, you get a nice puddle-shaped chunk of non-flammable polymer.
I was always a fan of the Shiawase Blazer, the Aliens-style flamethrower from Cannon Companion. Portable enough to be reasonable to use, enough ammo for a few shots... great little toy, IMO.
| QUOTE (Geekkake @ Oct 3 2006, 01:38 PM) | ||
I can't speak toward military quality napalm, but my personal experience with the stuff is that no, won't happen. Mostly, just oozes out onto the ground, where in a few days, you get a nice puddle-shaped chunk of non-flammable polymer. |
'Napalm' could be refering to a number of different substances. But if it doesn't produce enough vapour in a standard atmosphere to, at least on a hot day, flash then it isn't actually a flammable. That said diesel is definately a flammable and it doesn't really 'splode like gasoline will because the vapour pressure is much lower (produces less fumes) for the portions of it that give it that flammable quality.
Now the US military Napalm-B of Vietnam infamy isn't quite the same stuff as you'll get cooking up your own at home by dissolving styrofoam in gasoline. Napalm-B has a much higher percentage of benzene, benzene being one of main components of gasoline that gives it's fumes that POP.
P.S. Something to note is that a lot of the deadliness of napalm comes from the fact that it'll quickly eat up most of the oxygen in the air. So even if you don't burn to death you'll likely be smothered, or perhaps even be accutely poisoned by carbon monoxide and other toxins in the smoke.
Napalm-B and pyrogels were basically what I was after. The former apparently has 25% gasoline, 25% benzene, while the latter tend to have up to 60% gasoline per mass. The reason I was wondering about how much flammable vapors they give off is that in my own experience and according to most articles on them, these sorts of agents are rather difficult to ignite. If they gave off anywhere near as much fumes as straight gasoline, that should not be a problem. Hence why I was wondering whether large enough volumes of flammable gases would ever gather inside flamethrower fuel tanks to allow for an explosive ignition.
According to the Finnish DF NBC warfare field manual, a 250kg napalm bomb will reduce air oxygen levels to around 10% in a 50 x 50 meter area, enough to make you lose consciousness within a minute and, with the help of carbon monoxide, kill you within a few. The same source states that the temperature inside a covered foxhole that is in the middle of such a napalm attack will reach 500-600 degrees centigrade, which doesn't sound like much fun.
According to the Finnish DF NBC warfare field manual, a 250kg napalm bomb will reduce air oxygen levels to around 10% in a 50 x 50 meter area, enough to make you lose consciousness within a minute and, with the help of carbon monoxide, kill you within a few. The same source states that the temperature inside a covered foxhole that is in the middle of such a napalm attack will reach 500-600 degrees centigrade, which doesn't sound like much fun.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Oct 3 2006, 02:32 PM) |
| Napalm-B and pyrogels were basically what I was after. The former apparently has 25% gasoline, 25% benzene, while the latter tend to have up to 60% gasoline per mass. The reason I was wondering about how much flammable vapors they give off is that in my own experience and according to most articles on them, these sorts of agents are rather difficult to ignite. If they gave off anywhere near as much fumes as straight gasoline, that should not be a problem. Hence why I was wondering whether large enough volumes of flammable gases would ever gather inside flamethrower fuel tanks to allow for an explosive ignition. |
Reducing the vapour pressure via the gel is a big part of getting the burning rate down, and a Napalm-B bomb can burn for minutes. So I'd imagine it'd be very similar to puncturing a canister of diesel or jet fuel. About the only way it's going to start on fire is encountering a spark outside the canister somewhere. Say following up with another incenerary bullet or a grenade. Basically an improvised fuel-air bomb.
Of course if the wielder didn't notice that the tank was punctured and then tried to fire it again, or was in the process of firing it when hit, then it's going to squirt a stream out the hole and soak the general area. That'll increase the chance of it igniting and putting the wielder in the middle of his own self-created hell. But the tanks themselves aren't likely to pop, especially considering they are using nitrogen gas to push. There'll be no oxygen in the tanks themselves.
Now if they were using a pressurized flammable gas system instead, say propane, like is use for controlled grass fires and stuff it could be a very different situation as not only are you going to get the jetting out of the take but the chances of it reaching a spark to get it going are going to be a lot higher.
| QUOTE |
| According to the Finnish DF NBC warfare field manual, a 250kg napalm bomb will reduce air oxygen levels to around 10% in a 50 x 50 meter area, enough to make you lose consciousness within a minute and, with the help of carbon monoxide, kill you within a few. The same source states that the temperature inside a covered foxhole that is in the middle of such a napalm attack will reach 500-600 degrees centigrade, which doesn't sound like much fun. |
Indeed, falling unconcious from a lack of oxygen would be a blessing in that situation. :/
So, to create one of those movie-fireballs, all you need to do is hit the fuel tank with a grenade launcher. I'm sure the dude in question will be sorry you hit the tanks instead of him.
Though it wouldn't quite make for a fuel-air explosion even then. Just a big splash of flaming goo.
Though it wouldn't quite make for a fuel-air explosion even then. Just a big splash of flaming goo.
The special effects guys for Reign of Fire (I know, I know...) used a device called a "propane cannon" to get the enormous blasts of fire when the bigass dragon did something like fill entire buildings with flame.
My girlfriend promptly turned towards me and said "NO."
Rigging something like this up in SR shouldn't be all that hard...
My girlfriend promptly turned towards me and said "NO."
Rigging something like this up in SR shouldn't be all that hard...
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| So, to create one of those movie-fireballs, all you need to do is hit the fuel tank with a grenade launcher. I'm sure the dude in question will be sorry you hit the tanks instead of him. Though it wouldn't quite make for a fuel-air explosion even then. Just a big splash of flaming goo. |
If it was a Willy Pete and it managed to puncture the tank before detonating inside I'd imagine the result would be a lot like an actual napalm bomb that produces those rolling deep red balls tipped with black smoke. When the gobs of the fuel get tossed everywhere that inital large surface area should produce a large amount of oxygen-flammable mixture in the air. The white phosphorous is pretty much guaranteed to ignite that anywhere and everywhere.
But for the wielder and anyone in his immediate vacitity it the result is likely similar whether the WP hit the tanks or not.
That'd require getting the WP grenade to detonate inside the tank, which doesn't seem very likely. 
And no matter what you blow the tank up with, getting an actual fuel-air explosion from napalm or pyrogel must be one in a million.
And no matter what you blow the tank up with, getting an actual fuel-air explosion from napalm or pyrogel must be one in a million.
The WW2 stuff I found indicated that the guy with the flamethrower wasa prime target for the enemy, not his tank. Basically they had to attach rifle squads as bodyguards to stop the enemy doing everything they could to kill the flamethrower person. Nothing about people trying to blow it up. It did note that WW1 was sufficient to install deadman switchs throughout the system so that if the user went down you didn't have flames go spouting everywhere. Basically when you take in the difficulty of shooting something protected by the weilders body, the resistant nature of steel tanks, and the unlikelyness of anything much happening if you did succeed, I'd suggest anyone trying it be told to stop pissing around and shoot the damned wielder.
As a sidenote. There was multiple mentions regarding no one taking Flamethrower wielders prisoner. If you were captured with a flamethrower pretty much anyside would shoot you on the spot.
Stephen
As a sidenote. There was multiple mentions regarding no one taking Flamethrower wielders prisoner. If you were captured with a flamethrower pretty much anyside would shoot you on the spot.
Stephen
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) | ||
None in SR4 core, but it'll show up in Arsenal I would imagine. |
I hope so. They've kept me waiting long enough for this book and if there's one thing I want from it, it's power creep and lots of it!
If they're gonna hand out "power creep" more intense than an RC6 LMG and an elephant gun, I want it. Give us our lasers back! Give us our flamethrowers! Where's my damn chainsword...
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| I was always a fan of the Shiawase Blazer, the Aliens-style flamethrower from Cannon Companion. Portable enough to be reasonable to use, enough ammo for a few shots... great little toy, IMO. |
The aliens movie, like many movies, don't show a real flame thrower but a flame producer. Nice special effect, ain't gonna do shit beyound a few meters.
That'd be because a gout of flame is just far more interesting to look at.
| QUOTE (Dragonscript) | ||
The aliens movie, like many movies, don't show a real flame thrower but a flame producer. Nice special effect, ain't gonna do shit beyound a few meters. |
Which is why I want an "Aliens-style flamethrower," not a movie prop.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Oct 3 2006, 03:28 PM) |
| That'd require getting the WP grenade to detonate inside the tank, which doesn't seem very likely. |
That's why I specifically mentioned it would have to penetrate the tank first. Perhaps it is over optimistic of me to think that the subsonic velocity of GL is going to have a chance of accomplishing that on the fuel tanks. Or my lack of knowledeg of their exact construction. I know there isn't a hope in hell it would on nitrogen tank where even a rifle round is going to have to score a fairly straight on strike to have even a chance there. But I had assumed there'd be a regulator for the nitrogen gas and that the fuel tanks would be operating a much lower pressure so they'd have somewhat thinner walls. Especially for weight considerations since you don't want to waste weight on tank walls when it could be used for carrying more fuel or other gear.
| QUOTE |
| And no matter what you blow the tank up with, getting an actual fuel-air explosion from napalm or pyrogel must be one in a million. |
Soooo....you're saying there is a chance?
I'd peg the odds at much better than that. Surface area is your friend, especially when you it is basically the polystyrene dilluting and stopping convection currents bringing more benzene to the surface that is keeping the benzene evaporation rate low. So you get it into near mist and that'll greatly increase the benzene concentration in the air. Benzene's LEL is only around 1.2%. Then you just need a spark. Like a piece of ferrous metal from the grenade 'splosion striking gravel, or the still hot igniter coil on the flamethrower nozzle. Then it's autoignition time, baby!
It isn't going to be a guaranteed lock, but I can't help but peg the odds higher than 1:1000000.
Well, for starters, there are no WP rounds for grenade launchers that I'm aware of (
), and second, because of the applications for such munitions, they are given very light impact detonators. Even if such a grenade could penetrate the tank (and I'm betting it wouldn't, because GL projectiles are very lightly built), it wouldn't have time to since it would go off as soon as it came to contact with it. The burster charges in WP grenades are tiny, and if one were capable of crushing a hole in the tank, it certainly wouldn't spread the incendiary agent inside very far at all.
If you could choose exactly how the napalm or pyrogel is spread into the air around the tank following the hit, sure the probability would be much higher. Maybe that's just me being overly sceptical, but I'm thinking a random explosive device stuck at random inside a metallic tank containing a random amount of a random sticky incendiary agent causing said incendiary agent to separate and spread uniformly in vapour form at a particular concentration (between 1.2% and 7.8%) around the (former) container and only then being ignited in such a way as to induce an explosion is a text-book case of a million-to-one chance -- even if in testing you'd find it's more like 1:1000. I mean, actual thermobaric weapons fail at managing that all the time.
), and second, because of the applications for such munitions, they are given very light impact detonators. Even if such a grenade could penetrate the tank (and I'm betting it wouldn't, because GL projectiles are very lightly built), it wouldn't have time to since it would go off as soon as it came to contact with it. The burster charges in WP grenades are tiny, and if one were capable of crushing a hole in the tank, it certainly wouldn't spread the incendiary agent inside very far at all.If you could choose exactly how the napalm or pyrogel is spread into the air around the tank following the hit, sure the probability would be much higher. Maybe that's just me being overly sceptical, but I'm thinking a random explosive device stuck at random inside a metallic tank containing a random amount of a random sticky incendiary agent causing said incendiary agent to separate and spread uniformly in vapour form at a particular concentration (between 1.2% and 7.8%) around the (former) container and only then being ignited in such a way as to induce an explosion is a text-book case of a million-to-one chance -- even if in testing you'd find it's more like 1:1000.
I mean, actual thermobaric weapons fail at managing that all the time.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| but I'm thinking a random explosive device stuck at random inside a metallic tank containing a random amount of a random sticky incendiary agent causing said incendiary agent to separate and spread uniformly in vapour form at a particular concentration (between 1.2% and 7.8%) around the (former) container and only then being ignited in such a way as to induce an explosion is a text-book case of a million-to-one chance -- even if in testing you'd find it's more like 1:1000. I mean, actual thermobaric weapons fail at managing that all the time. |
Shoot him in the head with the grenade, it's the only way to be sure.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Oct 4 2006, 02:28 PM) |
| Well, for starters, there are no WP rounds for grenade launchers that I'm aware of (). |
Well Arsenal isn't out for SR4 yet, but if it holds form of the CC (page 41) then they'll be there. Or in this mix of real and not real are you talking about that pesky Right Now In Real Life thing?
Good point about the sensitivity of the fuse. Given that SR4 grenades are field programmable by skilled techs (hackers) that could likely be somewhat overcome, especially using the Smartlink system. *shrug* It would require prepwork for it though.
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| Shoot him in the head with the grenade, it's the only way to be sure. |
Yah, once we start talking about using grenades to detonate flamethrower tanks I don't think we are talking about any meaningful increase in damage to the guy wearing the flamethrower.
It was the pesky Never Even Been Attempted AFAIK In Real Life thing.
Though, again, even if you did something to the fuze, grenade launcher projectiles are (as you said) very slow and very lightly built, and I wouldn't give it very good odds (like, say, 1:1000000) of penetrating even a very thin layer of steel. It's a very thin aluminum shell filled with a blasting cap, some primitive sensors (ie. pressure, spin) and a few ounces of a powdered(?) chemical, none of which is conducive to great armor piercing properties.
(I might be overdoing the smilies because I'm having a rather hostile argument on another forum at the same time. Apologies.)
Though, again, even if you did something to the fuze, grenade launcher projectiles are (as you said) very slow and very lightly built, and I wouldn't give it very good odds (like, say, 1:1000000
) of penetrating even a very thin layer of steel. It's a very thin aluminum shell filled with a blasting cap, some primitive sensors (ie. pressure, spin) and a few ounces of a powdered(?) chemical, none of which is conducive to great armor piercing properties. (I might be overdoing the smilies because I'm having a rather hostile argument on another forum at the same time. Apologies.)
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Oct 4 2006, 03:05 PM) |
| (I might be overdoing the smilies because I'm having a rather hostile argument on another forum at the same time. Apologies.) |
No problems. Just, you know, keep on with your usual informative-while-not-being-a-dick here and it's all cool with me.
I'm usually not-a-dick? That's news to me...
(The dude I'm being hostile to is, after days of going at it with other people, still insisting it's impossible to aim a weapon properly when it's fired on burst or fully automatic mode, this time because he thinks the recoil will push the sights into your skull. It's getting a bit comical now, so I'm mostly just implying that he ought to find himself a rifle and a trained shooter and try it some time.)
(The dude I'm being hostile to is, after days of going at it with other people, still insisting it's impossible to aim a weapon properly when it's fired on burst or fully automatic mode, this time because he thinks the recoil will push the sights into your skull. It's getting a bit comical now, so I'm mostly just implying that he ought to find himself a rifle and a trained shooter and try it some time.)
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Oct 4 2006, 03:40 PM) |
| (The dude I'm being hostile to is, after days of going at it with other people, still insisting it's impossible to aim a weapon properly when it's fired on burst or fully automatic mode, this time because he thinks the recoil will push the sights into your skull. It's getting a bit comical now, so I'm mostly just implying that he ought to find himself a rifle and a trained shooter and try it some time.) |
Make sure to point out to him to properly compensate for the massive amount of recoil he should use the time-tested technique of bracing the muzzle flat against the middle of his forehead.
Now telling him THAT would fall clearly outside of "not-a-dick" territory.
Man, you gotta watch out for that BRUTAL FULL AUTO RECOIL.
Because, you know, guys like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjUDCyDCuI
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HoiwR32wdk...related&search=
are having such a difficult time with it.
However, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo does make me arch an eyebrow. FIREARMS ARE SILLY.
Because, you know, guys like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjUDCyDCuI
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HoiwR32wdk...related&search=
are having such a difficult time with it.
However, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo does make me arch an eyebrow. FIREARMS ARE SILLY.
I don't think that Glock 17 makes such a good case. Watch the slo-mo at the end of the second clip and you'll see he's all over the place. Of course that underscores exactly the type of weapon, and appropriate application for, a fully automatic pistol in traditional format. Which is, um, I guess emptying your clip at someone close to you in the hope you'll not need to fire another round before you can get another clip in.
But I sure as hell wouldn't want to be downrange of that MP5. In the hands of someone with a decent amount of training I'd likely end up with all three rounds from a burst ripping through my sinus cavities.
Watch the slo-mo at the end of the second clip and you'll see he's all over the place. Of course that underscores exactly the type of weapon, and appropriate application for, a fully automatic pistol in traditional format. Which is, um, I guess emptying your clip at someone close to you in the hope you'll not need to fire another round before you can get another clip in. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to be downrange of that MP5. In the hands of someone with a decent amount of training I'd likely end up with all three rounds from a burst ripping through my sinus cavities.
Lucky for me, this guy's saying you can't even aim the first shot, that if you hold the weapon on burst or full auto like you held it when firing single shots, you'd suffer injuries. Which is kinda funny, because the only injuries I suffered in the FDF were from PT, the guns never hurt me.
Have you posted videos of people firing automatic weapons and clearly aiming? What does he say to those?
He has failed to address any visual evidence I've linked so far. I presume he'd say "He's totally not aiming there he just happens to look sort of through the sight. If the weapon were on semi, he'd be sticking his eyeball into the rear sight array."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.