Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Guns 101
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Crusher Bob
The time zone divide seems to put a damper on most things. The fact that we typically have a full days turn around on any posts from people in Europe and the US tends to slow things down too much.
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (SeekerOfPeace)
But defending a lie is dishonest. By lie I mean something which can reasonably be proven to be false. An example of such a statement could be, ďYou can breath oxygen in outer space.Ē Or any other statements who are flagrantly false. Sure, people can defend lies, but I guess itís everyone responsibility to do this as little as possible, for the sake of mental sanity.


Just because Im bored, and showing how semantics can rear its ugly head.

I know that you mean breath in space, unassisted, but you didnt specify. So I could argue that you can "Breath Oxygen in outter space."

Heres why, astronauts do it all the time, they take it with them and keep it locked in things like in the space shuttle and spacesuits. Thus a person can breath Oxygen in outter space.

As for the orginal topic, Austere, Ray and other have made it pretty clear on those answers.
SeekerOfPeace
Well, just because Iím bored too, Iíll reply to your statement.

QUOTE
I know that you mean breath in space, unassisted, but you didnt specify. So I could argue that you can "Breath Oxygen in outter space."

Heres why, astronauts do it all the time, they take it with them and keep it locked in things like in the space shuttle and spacesuits. Thus a person can breath Oxygen in outter space.


As I said before:

QUOTE
I think people bear some responsibility as to how they interpret language. Language is just a tool for communication, itís up to both the emitter and the receptor to understand each other.


So I donít think itís not so much a question of semantics as the absence of a desire to actually understand what is being said.

Take idioms for example. If I say: ďIím so hungry I could eat a horse.Ē Or ďTo take the bull by the hornsĒ we both know what this mean. What would happen if people decided to take the words (substantives) literally without making the effort to understand the meaning? Absolute confusion.

Language is limited and subjective. Most information communicated through the use of a language is actually not specified.

For example, when you say you love someone, do you specify and explain every single reason why? Of course you don't, that would be burdening your communication so much it would take you ages to communicate anything to others. It would be way too impractical to even be considered.

So If I say: ďHumans canít breath in spaceĒ, in this specific context a majority of people would interpret that I meant without assistance. Different contexts would imply different interpretations, but in this context, the actual meaning of the sentence is obvious.

So in your example, in my opinion, itís more of a question of ill intentions than a misinterpretation due to semantics.
Critias
Man, what an awesome Shadowrun thread this has turned out to be.
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (SeekerOfPeace)
Well, just because Iím bored too, Iíll reply to your statement.

QUOTE
I know that you mean breath in space, unassisted, but you didnt specify. So I could argue that you can "Breath Oxygen in outter space."

Heres why, astronauts do it all the time, they take it with them and keep it locked in things like in the space shuttle and spacesuits. Thus a person can breath Oxygen in outter space.


As I said before:

QUOTE
I think people bear some responsibility as to how they interpret language. Language is just a tool for communication, itís up to both the emitter and the receptor to understand each other.


So I donít think itís not so much a question of semantics as the absence of a desire to actually understand what is being said.

Take idioms for example. If I say: ďIím so hungry I could eat a horse.Ē Or ďTo take the bull by the hornsĒ we both know what this mean. What would happen if people decided to take the words (substantives) literally without making the effort to understand the meaning? Absolute confusion.

Language is limited and subjective. Most information communicated through the use of a language is actually not specified.

For example, when you say you love someone, do you specify and explain every single reason why? Of course you don't, that would be burdening your communication so much it would take you ages to communicate anything to others. It would be way too impractical to even be considered.

So If I say: ďHumans canít breath in spaceĒ, in this specific context a majority of people would interpret that I meant without assistance. Different contexts would imply different interpretations, but in this context, the actual meaning of the sentence is obvious.

So in your example, in my opinion, itís more of a question of ill intentions than a misinterpretation due to semantics.

Telling someone love them doesnt need an explaination why, because in most cases there is no reason. But if pressed you could make up a reason.

But back to semantics, I was only using your obivious phrase to show how easily sematics can be used to disprove you. Actually its quite easy to find people that know nothing about space and its hazards, so you saying a person in space cant breath may say to a person that there is a special reason they cant, medical or otherwise, lack of oxygen in space may not even be a reason to them as to why they cant.

I met a 30+ year old man a few years back, he had no idea our planet was in a solar system that was in a galaxy one of many in the universe. I was showing him an article in Time magazine about the Hubble capturing photos of two galaxies colliding. I then had to explain to him that space is not a huge empty space and that yeah shit can hit the Earth, and it happens to things all the time. What caused the dinosaurs to die off and what makes the moond surface looks that way must have been a shell shocker when I told him to go tot eh library and get books on space. So taking peoples knowledge about a subject for granted is not all that reasonable. When you started this post about guns I bet almost everyone assumed you knew enugh when they started posting, then after your revelation they had to rethink their explinations.
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 8 2006, 08:25 AM)
Man, what an awesome Shadowrun thread this has turned out to be.

Its been derailed so many times, do you really think it was going to get back on track? Even the original poster took it way out on a tangent, so he must have been satisfied with the answers hes gotten so far.
Domino
Guns to semantics WTF? wobble.gif
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (Domino)
Guns to semantics WTF? wobble.gif

Dont forget the moral debate about the evils of guns that always comes along with a gun discussion, the nature of china and their censorship and how to prnounce french words and how badly the swiss are at it.
Domino
QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)
QUOTE (Domino @ Oct 8 2006, 08:46 AM)
Guns to semantics WTF? wobble.gif

Dont forget the moral debate about the evils of guns that always comes along with a gun discussion, the nature of china and their censorship and how to prnounce french words and how badly the swiss are at it.

That was the segway.
Fortune
QUOTE (Frag-o Delux @ Oct 9 2006, 12:03 AM)
QUOTE (Domino @ Oct 8 2006, 08:46 AM)
Guns to semantics WTF? wobble.gif

Dont forget the moral debate about the evils of guns that always comes along with a gun discussion, the nature of china and their censorship and how to prnounce french words and how badly the swiss are at it.

... and the short treatise on the French in North America, a brief summary of Seeker's life, and more than a few posts commenting on the off-topic nature of many posts. wink.gif biggrin.gif
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Domino)
That was the segway.

Where did Ginger come from?

(The word you're looking for is "segue")

~J
Fortune
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Oct 9 2006, 12:09 AM)
The word you're looking for is "segue"

Sadly, Latin, and not French in origin. wink.gif
SeekerOfPeace
I've been more than satisfied with the answers so far. I they were accurate and very well explained. I really enjoyed every single reply.

And yes the topic has derailed times and times again.

I am sorry that some didn't enjoy it, like Cirias and others no doubt. That's too bad, they was a lot to learn from other members in this thread. Well there was a lot to learn as far as I'm concerned, but maybe that's only me.

Deamon_Knight
And that, dear friends, is another schizophrenic display on As the Forum Turns. Tune in next week, when this could all devolve into childish name calling, and esoteric critique of pure logic, or an angry flame war as to Why BSG isn't Better than Stargate and why 7.62x39 ammo is better than the NATO 5.56x45mm!
eidolon
Gawd, not another I D 10 T that can't see that 5.56 is the ammo of the gods!

wink.gif
Kagetenshi
Psht! We should totally switch all longarms over to 15.2mm APFSDS. Or maybe 20x110mm Hispano.

~J
lorechaser
Okay, so let's move to light and medium machine guns.

From my reading, they are far far less effective in SR than they are in real life.

They have +1 or +2 DV, but massive recoil penalties. From my understanding, the real reason to use an LMG was not precision target shooting, but to fill the air with lead. However, the only benefit and LMG has is that it can go longer w/o reloading. To kill people, you're better off using an assault rifle than an LMG.

True?
Kagetenshi
Eh. LMGs are questionable, but for other MGs, their starting damage code (9S and 10S) is respectable, and they're expected to be used with such modern amenities as a bipod/tripod/etc. The ability to move while shooting, vehicle-mounted weapons aside, is not a feature of non-L MGs.

The big problem with MGs in Shadowrun is that suppressive fire is a relatively weak option much of the time and autofire is an all-or-nothing proposition. Still tempted to go back to per-bullet resolutionÖ

~J
mfb
per-bullet is tedious even to me, and it's not all that realistic anyway (see my post about which bullets hit when). here's how to make autofire realistic: don't mess with the base damage of the weapon, lower the difficulty of the attack by a factor based on the number of rounds fired at the target, and decrease the damage staging by a factor based on range (longer range = less extra damage per success). what you'll end up with is autofire that hits more often than it misses, which means that in order to avoid getting hit, people will have to take lots of cover (you'll probably want to adjust the cover rules so that it provides armor, if the rules don't allow for that already).

i hope everyone appreciates the fact that i couched these mechanics in terms that apply to both SR3 and SR4--indeed, to any game system that provides greater results for more successes.
Pthgar
QUOTE (SeekerOfPeace)
I had no idea there were French explorers in the states. How deep south did they go? I thought most of them remained close to the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Sault St-Marie is on the border of Ontario though, isnít?

Yes, Sault Ste. Marie is on the border of Ontario in Michgan's UP (Upper Penninsula), but Detroit is also on the border of Ontario, seperated by the aformentioned Detroit River sometimes by as little as 2 miles. During Prohibition, in the winter, rum-runners would drive their cars across the frozen Detroit River to buy booze from Canada to sell in speakeasies in the States.

So you are probably correct in your understanding that the French explorers stayed close to Ontario, but south-east Michigan is VERY close to Ontario. Parts of Detroit are actually north of Windsor, Onatrio (which is a very nice city, I might add.)
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (mfb)
per-bullet is tedious even to me, and it's not all that realistic anyway (see my post about which bullets hit when). here's how to make autofire realistic: don't mess with the base damage of the weapon, lower the difficulty of the attack by a factor based on the number of rounds fired at the target, and decrease the damage staging by a factor based on range (longer range = less extra damage per success). what you'll end up with is autofire that hits more often than it misses, which means that in order to avoid getting hit, people will have to take lots of cover (you'll probably want to adjust the cover rules so that it provides armor, if the rules don't allow for that already).

i hope everyone appreciates the fact that i couched these mechanics in terms that apply to both SR3 and SR4--indeed, to any game system that provides greater results for more successes.

If you are going to modify autofire to be more deadly (and more realistic) would you really allow cover to become armor?

That neat video posted a few weeks back, what was it called, concealment doesnt mean cover or something like that, showed that larger machine guns had no real issue with shooting through normal average material commonly used as cover. Light Machine guns were easily punching through block walls and then still penetrating body armor, or continuing through the rest of the building.
Kagetenshi
The cover rules do account for that (well, not with LMGs, due to their excessively low Power) by sapping only part of the weapon's Power.

~J
mfb
QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)
That neat video posted a few weeks back, what was it called, concealment doesnt mean cover or something like that, showed that larger machine guns had no real issue with shooting through normal average material commonly used as cover. Light Machine guns were easily punching through block walls and then still penetrating body armor, or continuing through the rest of the building.

that should be handled by comparing the penetration ability of the round to the ability of the cover to resist penetration. in other words, cover should provide armor based on the material the cover is made of. a bush will provide no ballistic armor and maybe a point or three of impact armor. cement will provide moderate ballistic armor (enough to stop a handgun round, but not enough to stop an LMG or bigger round) and high impact armor.
Fire Hawk
QUOTE
cement will provide moderate ballistic armor (enough to stop a handgun round - >snip<


Depends on the handgun round. IIRC, a .44 magnum can go into - if not through - an engine block.
Crusher Bob
The modren LMG fires the same round that assault rifles fire, and is designed to be carried and fired by just on person.

Compared to assualt rifles, LMGs will generally have a longer effective range (~800 meters for the LMG compared to ~500 meters for the assault rifles). This is generally because the LMG offers much more controllable autofire, so a short burst will still tend to be on target at muhc longer disances. In addition, LMGs have muhc more contraollable autofire, bacuase they weight twice as much or more what the assault rifle does. As they both fire the same cartridge, the LMG has much less felt recoil. (In SR terms the LMG should probably have some free recoil compensation. Of course, the probelm with this is that autofire in SR is all or nothing...). In addition, the LMG will be much better in a sustained fire role.

Most bullets will penetrate walles, etc. Take a look at The Box of Truth. You can generally fire through several interior walls of a house to hit someone. Interior walls provide concealment, not cover against any sort of firearm. Exterior walls only provide cover from some firearms. This is why any fighting position will be reinforced with sandbags, because even exterior walls will not stop several hits.
Wounded Ronin
So, when can we start arguing about 9mm vs .45?
Fortune
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
So, when can we start arguing about 9mm vs .45?

Now, if you'd like. nyahnyah.gif
Kagetenshi
Pistols should also use 20x110mm.

~J
Crusher Bob
My sidearm is chambered in 8"/55 and is a great comfort in times of trouble. Besides it is the largest practical round for an autoloader. biggrin.gif

(The Des Moines class cruisers actually had autoloading 8" guns, rather than the traditional propellant bag system. This allowed them to maintain a much greater rate of fire (~10 rounds a minute) than conventional 8" guns.)
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)
That neat video posted a few weeks back, what was it called, concealment doesnt mean cover or something like that, showed that larger machine guns had no real issue with shooting through normal average material commonly used as cover. Light Machine guns were easily punching through block walls and then still penetrating body armor, or continuing through the rest of the building.

that should be handled by comparing the penetration ability of the round to the ability of the cover to resist penetration. in other words, cover should provide armor based on the material the cover is made of. a bush will provide no ballistic armor and maybe a point or three of impact armor. cement will provide moderate ballistic armor (enough to stop a handgun round, but not enough to stop an LMG or bigger round) and high impact armor.

So would you consider an overly simplistic way to show this as handguns would be penalized by all the barrier rating and machince guns penalized by half (or less) of the barrier rating? Havent really put much thought to it, seeing that some hand guns could shoot through much more then others and some machine guns less than others. Plus that puts ARs and SMGs into a wierd limbo.

Then ammo considerations.
mfb
i think the armor ratings of the barriers themselves can be tweaked to create a satisfactory (to me) level of realism.
Raygun
QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
The modren LMG fires the same round that assault rifles fire, and is designed to be carried and fired by just on person.

Depending upon its role. Traditionally, the Light Machine Gun is crew-served (gunner and spotter, or gunner, spotter and ammunition handler). The role the M249 SAW as an individual weapon is referred to by the US Army as the "automatic rifle" role. I mention this because the M60 and M240 are also considered useful in the traditional, crew-served "light machine gun" role (along with the M249), but are generally considered a bit heavy for use as an "automatic rifle" (the ability to carry enough ammunition being the limiting factor).

QUOTE
Compared to assualt rifles, LMGs will generally have a longer effective range (~800 meters for the LMG compared to ~500 meters for the assault rifles). This is generally because the LMG offers much more controllable autofire, so a short burst will still tend to be on target at muhc longer disances.

This is true, but could be a bit misleading. At long range, an LMG is designed to affect an area (as in a few square meters; the beaten zone) rather than a point (as in a single person, or said person's head). According to the US Army field manuals, the M16A2/A3/A4 has the same effective range as the M249 (800 meters, unmounted) in the role you were referring to, but that applies to area targets for both weapons. Point effective ranges are also similar (M16: 550m, M249: 600m) but with the M249, you've still got the benefits of automatic fire (as it can't fire any other way). The area effective range of a tripod-mounted M249 is 1,000 meters. Obviously, the M16 is not designed to be tripod-mounted, but if you did (and you can, with a rail fore-end and the appropriate adapter on the tripod) the range would likely be similar.

However, most newer assault rifles are going to have much shorter barrels than the M16A2, so generally speaking, they're likely to have shorter range as well. So you're not wrong, but I thought it could use a bit more explanation considering the company. smile.gif

QUOTE (Fire Hawk)
Depends on the handgun round. IIRC, a .44 magnum can go into - if not through - an engine block.

"Into" would depend entirely upon the bullet (definitely possible), but I doubt a .44 Mag is going to make it through any engine block larger than maybe a small motorcycle at best.

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
So, when can we start arguing about 9mm vs .45?

.45 ACP is better than 9x19mm in any case, period. Anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or mentally retarded in some fashion. smile.gif
eidolon
Thought it worth mentioning that in training with the 249, you qualify in bursts of three rounds (at least on the paper range; I never officially qualified with it, but I was cadre at an officer's range and we got to burn off some ammo "qualification" style.)

Like Ray said, ammo is a HUGE consideration. I carried the SAW in tactical drills during PLDC, and believe me, one 200rnd drum is heavy as hell, and doesn't last nearly long enough. biggrin.gif
mfb
yeah, 3-5 round bursts was the rule when i trained on the 249. there was one guy who got yelled at for only firing 1-2 rounds per burst. "but sarge," he said, "i'm hittin' the targets!"

"...hooah!"
Wounded Ronin
This thread is getting me all HOT and WORKED UP...

...to bash the SR firearms system again! rotfl.gif
TheNarrator
QUOTE (Fire Hawk)
Depends on the handgun round. IIRC, a .44 magnum can go into - if not through - an engine block.

The .44 Magnum is reliably stopped by Level IIIA body armor, the concealable armor worn by police officers under their uniforms.
Fire Hawk
Not to discount that, I mean I've read the source before.

...Religiously...

But what do the poor bastards' ribs look like after the hit?
Critias
QUOTE (Fire Hawk)
Not to discount that, I mean I've read the source before.

...Religiously...

But what do the poor bastards' ribs look like after the hit?

Immaterial -- there's likely no ribcage pressed against the engine block the .44 is trying to shoot though (which was the only reason that skinny little vest was brought up).
Austere Emancipator
And if there was (a ribcage pressed against the engine-simulating vest), they wouldn't look too bad. The NIJ standard doesn't tell you which rounds the armor stops, but which rounds it stops with little enough backface deformation for it to be considered protection against that threat. If the bullet lands on an unfortunate spot (such as on the collarbone) there might be a fracture. Much more likely is that you are bruised with all your bones and internal organs intact.
Fire Hawk
That is the one thing the document doesn't outright mention. It states what type of ammunition a given protection level stands up to, but I don't recall seeing anything about what the target feels like after taking the hit.

Thanks for the info.
lorechaser
QUOTE (Fire Hawk)
That is the one thing the document doesn't outright mention. It states what type of ammunition a given protection level stands up to, but I don't recall seeing anything about what the target feels like after taking the hit.

Thanks for the info.

Alive?

I mean, really, everything else is gravy.
Pthgar
I believe the standard is for the target to be alive and able to return fire.
My only source for this is a video I've seen of the founder of Second Chance Body Armor shoot himself in the chest, then blow away a bunch of bowling pins with the same gun. He used this live demonstration to convince police departments to buy his armor in the 70's.
The idea being that alive but uncoscious or incapacitated is as good as dead in a firefight, something we all have discovered as very true in SR as well. smile.gif
Austere Emancipator
Since what a target "feels like" is too subjective to standardize, you have to use sources like Kevlar Survivors' Club to get some first-hand evidence. And what you see over there is lots of contusions, bruises, etc., but very few instances of serious injury when the armor was rated to protect against that threat (none, in fact, that I've found so far). In nearly every case, the officer in question is back in action immediately if no other injury was sustained. And that includes plenty of high-velocity 9x19mm FMJ hits -- which, according to the NIJ tests, cause about the same backface signature through III-A vests.
Wounded Ronin
Oh, guys, I have a legitimate question about firearms from myself, a humble armchair warrior.

My mom, who lives alone in Nevada and who is a firearms n00b, tells me she plans on doing a little bit of skeet shooting with a friend for a hobby.

I'm always a little bit worried about my mom's safety. I mean, what if she's ever the victim of a home invasion?

My question is, if I had to pick out a shotgun for a n00b, what would be a good shotgun for home defense? I have the general idea that some kind of autoloader would be good (for all the versatility and reliability of a pump action I'm worried someone like my mom might not operate the pump correctly under stress) but since I'm not really familiar with the range of products out there, I thought here would be a good place to ask for advice.

Finally, she probably wouldn't want to get one, but what would you recommend for a secondary weapon to keep in the bedroom in case something goes wrong with the shotgun? An AR-15 style carbine? A 1911 handgun?
Butterblume
I wonder, why does someone need a a secondary weapon in the bedroom, when planning to skeet shoot for recreational purposes?
Kagetenshi
You never know when the skeet will strike.

~J
Raygun
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Oct 10 2006, 10:24 PM)
Oh, guys, I have a legitimate question about firearms from myself, a humble armchair warrior.

My mom, who lives alone in Nevada and who is a firearms n00b, tells me she plans on doing a little bit of skeet shooting with a friend for a hobby.

I'm always a little bit worried about my mom's safety.  I mean, what if she's ever the victim of a home invasion?

My question is, if I had to pick out a shotgun for a n00b, what would be a good shotgun for home defense?  I have the general idea that some kind of autoloader would be good (for all the versatility and reliability of a pump action I'm worried someone like my mom might not operate the pump correctly under stress) but since I'm not really familiar with the range of products out there, I thought here would be a good place to ask for advice.

Well, for home defense, I'd really recommend a pump, and that you show her how to use it. There are really just less things to go wrong with one so long as you can operate it and doing that even under stress isn't difficult. I think the best option for this type of thing is the Mossberg 500. You can get a 12 gauge with an 18.5" barrel for about $250 new. Another option would be to buy a 500 with a 28" vent rib barrel that she could use for skeet/trap, and a second 18.5" barrel for about $70 which would be handy for home defense. The barrels are very easy to change out. Using a pump for skeet isn't easy, but it'll certainly teach you how to use it.

If your heart is set on an auto, your choices are a bit more limited. There aren't a whole lot of autos that are made for defense, at least that don't cost more than they should (usually in the $600-800 range), and they aren't usually convertible. I recently bought a used Mossberg 9200 auto with a 28" barrel for bird hunting, then I bought an 18.5" riot barrel from Havlin Sales and that combo works perfectly. Unfortunately, I don't think Mossberg is making 18.5" barrels for the 930, which replaced the 9200 a few years ago. So if you can find a used 9200, that's a good, inexpensive route to go (including a 3-point sling and a 3-shot mag extension tube, I spent about $400 on that rig).

QUOTE
Finally, she probably wouldn't want to get one, but what would you recommend for a secondary weapon to keep in the bedroom in case something goes wrong with the shotgun? An AR-15 style carbine? A 1911 handgun?

Neither one of those. Something small and easy to operate, like a little 5-shot .38 revolver or a Kel-Tec PF9 or P11. No safeties, no bullshit. Load, point, click.
Firewall
QUOTE (Raygun)
Well, for home defense, I'd really recommend a pump[-action shotgun]

According to recent research, the most terrifying sound to hear when breaking and entering is the sound of a pump-action shotgun being cocked. Psychological advantages serve the home-owner well...
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Firewall)
According to recent research, the most terrifying sound to hear when breaking and entering is the sound of a pump-action shotgun being cocked.

I would've thought the sound of a belt-fed MG being cocked would be even more terrifying... though perhaps slightly less recognizable to the general public. smile.gif
Raygun
An auto pretty much makes the same sound when you put a round in the chamber, but sounds are not things I like to depend on in situations like that. I'd rather have the gun that's less likely to jam. Between the two, that's the pump.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012