I'm going to list out everything I can think of that I've shot with in real life: BBgun, BBpistol, .22 pistol, .22 rifle, 12g shotgun, 10g shotgun, 12g shotgun pistol, ak-47*2(too many different mods to remember which ones), M16A2 /w grenade launcher, M-60, SAW, Ruger P90(.45 pistol), M1 Carbine, M1 Grand, Colt M1911, M1917 Enfield rifle and a few hunting rifles.

Note that while these are at shooting ranges, some of these were shot during quick shooting drills or at cantelopes rolled across the range (moving target). Let me tell you that shooting at a rolling cantelope that's 10yards away from you is hard as hell. Remember that a cantelope is close to the size of a human head and in a firefight, that thing is going to be bobbing and weaving all over the god damn place. Center mass IS the best place to shoot, for ANY weapon out there. The only reason you would be shooting outside that target is if you have small calibur rounds that wont penetrate the body armor the target is wearing.
Once you stop aiming at center mass, your hit % goes through the floor. I dont care who tells you otherwise.

Sorry again djinni if your are talking out the wrong orifice own up to it and move on. I have personally fired just about every handgun size from .22 (even .25) to .454 Casull. In rifles .223 (which is a tiny rifle load) to .4570 to .50. All require the same fundamentals, and all generally target center mass. Not firing at center mass is a function of the mission. HRT = head shots and specifically a target area of about an inch. General combat = center mass. Under no conditions I have experienced or trained in does a hand shot or groin shot come in as standard training. The caliber of the weapon may be chosen for a specific mission. For instance I would use a .50 caliber M82 for anti-materiel, or a .308 for sniping. Depending on the type of sniping, it would assist the decision of head shot or center mass, but the rule of thumb regardless of caliber is center mass. The fact that you want to dispute speaks volumes about your knowledge of the subject material.

Have a nice day.

djinni, your arguments really don't make sense. It's gotten to the point where Faelan is calling you out about your experience exactly because of what your posts contained.

Sorry once again. I have trained extensively as both a civilian and as a member of the military. Fundamentals do not change based on the caliber of the weapon, period. Center mass for your information is essentially the abdominal region. I am not attacking you, but the information you have presented. It has no basis in reality. Part of what you are attempting to argue about is called selection of a firearm based upon its intended use. A .22 handgun generally for target shooting, is not something for home defense. For home defense you would be best served by a 12 gauge shotgun, which is easy to train anyone in the of in under 10 minutes, and would provide an effective deterent for anyone breaking into your home. For personal carry nothing under a .40 S&W will do for me especially because of the personal armor question. In which case we are talking about an encounter at or under 7 yards, in which case you would very likely be using a quickfire/instinctual firing position, in which case the caliber is not dictating to me the usage, the situation is. The situation matters, and with fundamental skills it won't really matter what caliber you are using, because the situation will force you into its optimal use, for that situation. I can effectively defend myself with any caliber, but the second we move past close range/extreme close range I will go center mass everytime, because at least I improve my hit probaility. I would always rather hit than miss.

Like I said before volumes. Once again have a nice day.

Look, newblet, you said yourself that you also have no 'Real world applications' of firing at someone, so stuff it. You obviously have something in your head saying that at least 4 people are wrong, two of which, Faelan and I, have military experience.
Any weapon you use will be more effective in a target or combat situation when aimed at center mass (Chest and stomach). Period.
Once you start aiming at other part of the body, IE smaller targets, your accuracy will drop considerably.

Edit: Apperently I am more tired that I thought and missed your 'Real life experiences' of shooting a toy gun at people shooting at you. I would suggest upgrading to a real gun, say 9mm or .45, if you plan on firing on defending yourself properly. Also, aim for center mass...

Sorry but real life experience is something that because of my training I don't like to embellish upon, but you obviously want that.

I have been shot at numerous times at close, medium, and long range. In combat environments, in CQB environments. In civilian life once. I have had several hand to hand occurences in civilian life. Needless to say IN ALL CASES my training was applicable, instinctive, and resulted in immediate effective response. I can only say that in my mind, and how it served me, my instructors did their job, I only hope I passed it on well enough to my students.

Like I said not personal not directed to you, but to your comments. With your last comment you are definitely pushing it into the personal. I really don't want to get graphic.

Have a really nice day

@ KarmaInferno:

I've played a few games that have aim-wander accounted for, but it's usually either under-done or grossly exaggerated. Of course, now that I try to mention them, all I get in my mind is a picture of the "scope view" waving back and forth and me frothing because my character is supposedly a "sniper" lying on his stomach in the prone unsupported and he's only been that way for 2 seconds.

Sorry big dog, but he made me do it

Just kidding. I sincerely hope I have not participated in getting this response, but if I have I offer my sicerest apologies to any offended parties. This is about the only board game wise I can think that you can get into a heated debate on anything combat related.

Anyway later.

Eidolon was talking at me.

Or in this game he could very well be referring to a creature made of water

Hmmm... Water elemental being the 'meat' shield for the mage. Make it a large enough force/size so that the bullets will fragment. Probably something already discussed in another thread and I'm diverging.

re: the difference between training and real life. in life-and-death situations, such as combat, you tend to react rather than act--less planning, more instinct. the purpose of training is to alter your instinctive response such that the correct response is instinctive. in other words, if you train to shoot correctly (get a good stance, steady your weapon, get a proper sight picture, pause your breath, squeeze the trigger with steady pressure), you'll shoot correctly in combat. you might not remember doing all those things, and you probably did them faster and sloppier than you normally do in training, but the fact that you miss less often than guys who don't train correctly says that you probably did those things.

I'm a civilian shooter, whose formalized training has been through InSights. With regards to the "where do you shoot someone" question, I'll speak to what they teach in their defensive handgun courses.

The primary location we were trained to fire on was the upper chest. Draw a triangle using the nipples and the bottom of your throat as the three points, and you've got the right area. You've got the airway, upper lungs, the aorta, the spine, and with a little bit of inaccuracy your slug will end up in the shouders, neck, or heart.

The secondary location is the brain, imagined as a little 2" by 4" box that lines up with their eyes if they're facing you, or wherever their eyes would be if they're not. Shots outside of that smaller area can glance off bone or hit something unimportant (the jaw, for example). The smaller target is harder to hit, but can put someone down more quickly and allows you to circumvent body armor.

The tertiary location is the pelvic girdle (a triangle drawn between the tips of the iliac crests and the tip of the pubic synthesis). You've got some important vasculature in there, and it's difficult to move with a bullet in your pelvis.

We were also trained to fire on multiple locations... don't just pour all of your shots into the chest, fire a couple of double-taps into the location you're aiming at, then switch to a different location for the next couple, and repeat until the threat goes away or you've got a better option.

The idea behind getting people thinking about those three major areas is twofold:

1) Getting people into shooting practices where they're aware of their options: if what you need is to get the rounds on target easily and quickly, you might start with the chest. If what you need is for the target to (more likely) go down right frigging now because he's three feet away, you might start with the head. If what you need is to slow down someone rushing at you with a knife, you might start with the pelvis. There really isn't "thinking" involved in this... you just develop a sense of what each location's advantage is, and fire accordingly.

2) Getting people into shooting practices that may keep them alive despite oddities: if your target is wearing body armor, an entire magazine of .40 put center-of-mass isn't going to do much. If your target is incredibly high, destroying a lot of the upper vasculature in his chest isn't likely to impress him. If you trained to change where you're aiming when the first several rounds don't appear to do much, you're more likely to get through to your target that you'd like him to stop being a threat. It also doesn't require you to look at the guy and go through the mental process of "Wow, 14 rounds to the chest didn't put him down... maybe I should shoot him somewhere else after I reload"... after a few rounds, you change to shoot at another (important) location because that's how you were trained to shoot. The presence of body armor or drugs or any other mitigating factor in a basic COM shot becomes irrelevant with regards to how you've trained.

This is, again, from their course aimed at training civilians who carry sidearms how to survive a gunfight, almost certainly at close ranges. That's going to be a little different than what you teach a soldier on how to engage in a firefight. I felt it worth mentioning, though, that the pelvis is considered by some to be a valid (albeit tertiary) point of aim in a defensive shoot.

They train civilian to shoot to kill ?
Anyway, I never tried shooting anyone, but I've got the impression that in Shadowrun it's way too easy to hit someone compared to RL. Is that true ?

I mean, there's a difference between shotting someone to stop him/incapacitate him and kill him. But that's not the point of this thread. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this.

i really don't know how to respond to this idea.

shooting to incapacitate. i mean, you don't have to sit there and shoot 'em until they stop twitching, but if you're putting a bullet into someone, it's not to, y'know, warn them to mend their ways. i've never heard of a training program that teaches otherwise.

Ah ok. I said my piece on that line of thinking as well so ... um ... carry on.

Well there is a theory behind 'shooting to incapacitate'. Though it honestly is only something you'd ever likely (if at all) run into if you were a police officer. And then that entirely depends on police department etc. Alot of police for very good reason these days simply shoot to kill unless their using stick n' shock, beanbags, rubber bullets and other non lethal weaponry and then they STILL go for the main body.

It's a theory I think that was largely thrown out as being purely impractical. Stuff like shooting a guy in the kneecaps, or in the arm etc. It's a small target, it's hard to hit, and if the bugger is moving or worse yet, moving and has a hostage. You risk hitting the hostage, and you risk him still being capable of killing or otherwise harming the hostage.

It's why there's that whole big deal made with the sniper's 'sweet spot' for a headshot kill. It specifcally targets certain nerve endings so even though the guy might be alive a few seconds longer, there's nothing left to send so much as a twitch to the rest of his body and thus potentially cause pure reflex to pull the trigger and blow away the hostage as well.

Some people still hold onto this 'ideal' of shooting to simply wound some one in the hopes that they'll stop. But this is alas unrealistic. Afterall even if you do shoot the guy in the leg, you can sever an artery and he'll bleed to death. The sole intent, and usage behind firearms, has -allways- been to kill no matter what your target is at the time. That of course doesnt mean you cant pull a terminator type thing if your a good enough shot, drive up, shoot the guard in the kneecaps and drive off kinda thing.

But your not bloody likely to try that really. Some one with a good tolerance for pain can still shoot back even then afterall. And if the guy is hopped up on drugs god knows what it might take to stop em. There was one incident years ago where some guy high on cocaine was shot something ilke 30 times, TWICE in the head before he went down. Pumping sappers full of drugs was also a favourite tactic of the vietnamese. Goign by one book I have a machine gunner wrote have though it was still a sort of tactic they used.

They were definding a bridge and constantly had suicide sappers drugged up running at them. So they'd fire low and cut up the sappers legs to slow em down before then shooting them untill they stoped moving. Because just shooting them in the chest did jack all to stop them most of the time. They just kept on running.

But again that sort of shooting to maim thing is almost only ever called up in very specific circumstances, and thats usually where for what ever reason (Be it the guy is doped to hell or wearing body armor) that you then have to go for unprotected areas.

ALso on the previous note of shooting at the pelvic area. Yes, thats one spot to shoot at. The pelivc area however is ABOVE the groin. The groin is sort of part of it but the actual groin area is slightly below that. The pelvic region on the other hand is still a reasonably sized (if much lower down) target that usualy also isnt covered by your average bullet proof vest (Most of the ones I've seen/used cut off at the abdominal region)

I dont think anyone is saying their wanting bonuses for shooting around corners. Rather that they dont think we should -remove- the +2 smartlink bonus when your firing around a corner, using only the smartlink to do your looking for you.

It comes down to two camps.

Camp A) Says it should be rolled as normal

Camp B) Says it should involve penalties, such as possibly removing the smartlink bonus, and then adding further penalties for using nothing but your gun to look around with, particularily/solely when your firing said gun which has the attached camera as your view starts jumping around like a joytoy on speed.

*Sets up tent in newly designated 'Camp B' area.*

*throws a trio of camel spiders in Fortune's tent when he isnt looking for kicks*

*Runs screaming through Camp B* "Eek! Spiders!"

how much you wanna bet there's more real-world shooters in camp B?

What if you load Dues 2.0 into your smartgun?

Well thats the sort of... tactical thinking in a way. The soldiers are generally trying to kill the other guy, before he kills you.

A solider is not going to shoot some one with the idea of 'wounding' them. He's going to shoot him so the guy dies and doesnt blow him up/shoot him first. So really the intent is still ultimately to kill.

Though yes, the thought at the 'upper levels' in the military since at least the 1960's has started leaning towards a preference of -permanentl- maiming an enemy soldier. Prime example. WWII bouncing betties would go off at head height or so. By the 1960's they would go off far lower in many cases with the idea of killing/maiming instead of gonig for flat out killing.

Theres also alot of small landmines that use the same principle. I dont know the type designation but there's one thats particularily nasty. It's an almost all plastic little bastard, uses plastic explosive as the charge. It's about the size of a hockey puck or so. The idea behind it is that the person that steps on it, litterally has their lower leg bone driven into the upper leg bone causing both to shater and, if not killing the person, insuring permanent injury and the requirement of a great deal of medical aid.

For guns specifically though, it isnt the gun that changes in most cases, but the actual munitions used. FMJ is likely to go through the body, where as if you use say JHP in that same gun it's definately going to make a big hole. I belive FMJ is also far more likely to penetrate body armor.

So really the ACTUAL line of thinking, to me seems. Not actualy be out to soley wound the target, but infact to cause an injury, that assuming it -doesnt- kill the target, at the very least cause permanent injury etc.

Afterall you dont want those same soldiers getting better in a few weeks/months and going right back to the front lines again.

Do you get your smartlink bonus when you're using a scope? I don't think you did in SR3, and a moment ago I didn't think you did in SR4 either. Then I read that image mag can be used in conjunction with a laser sight or smartlink, which sits weird with me.

As I see the guncam being no more than a scope with a remote monitor, I'd apply smartlink rules to it in the same way I would with a scope. Which is to say "holy crap, it DOES add? Weird." Yes, that means I've changed my mind and now think one should get the smartlink bonus through the guncam.

Incidentally, this means I find myself in the same camp as mfb.

If the smartgun software is doing something to adjust the sight picture to compensate for factors like gun movement and other factors, I can see SOME sort of smartlink bonus even with a guncam or scope.

Like shifting what you see to the left a bit (and thus the position of the crosshairs), if the software thinks the bullet is going to pull to the right for whatever reason.


-karma

I'm amazed my innocent question made it to ten pages.

At this point, I'm mostly in camp B.

I plan to remove the smart-gun bonus, and apply a -1 penalty for shooting from cover.

I think the effective -3 penalty is about in keeping with the style of Shadowrun's systems. The fact that you can counter this manuever in a number of ways (airbursted minigrenades being my favorite) makes me pretty comfortable in that.

I'm considering also doubling all uncompensated recoil.

Thoughts on the actual rules portion?

Well I am definitely camp B. Still thinking about exactly how to apply it though.

Reaching back into the past I apologize to djinni I did not realize he was not a native speaker. The groin is just a small part of the pelvic region, which essentially starts at the belly button and stops at the genital region. The groin in english literally means that space where the legs and torso meet including external genitalia. Perhaps you can see why I don't see that as a valid target in a combat situation (in reality its like trying to shoot someones nuts off).

Also since I got sucked away by the real world the InSights training targets of choice are valid, however their tertiary target is more like my primary in what I would call your most likely instance of self defense, an encounter occuring at a range of less than 7 yards and the assailant is armed with a knife. Essentially take an average sized dinner dish center it over your belly button and you have my target of choice when using a handgun. Reasons 1) shitloads of good sized blood vessels (femoral hit equals death in 1 minute), 2) abdominal wounds are very painful (inhibit breathing, inhibit mobility, high risk of infection which is good to go in my book) 3) center of gravity equals stable target 4) ability to shoot from the hip and naturally land in that area on a target if you have proper body alignment while still enabling your off hand to be used to ward off an attacker (this can be drawn and fired quickly without risk of losing control of your weapon) 5) Body armor often ends around the belly button 6) few courts will deem firing 2 shots in this region as an intent to kill (regardless of self defense).

In a handgun vs. handgun situation you will inevitably seek cover. At this point any exposed bit is your primary target.

Let me sum it up my favorite target in simple english is whatever will provide the greatest hit probability, inflict the most damage and pain, and can be targeted at that specific moment as defined by the environment. (This is in my opinion the entirety of the torso)

What you described as the target areas for your InSights training is somewhat disturbing. If you shoot someone in the head, good luck arguing self defense you are going to jail. The multiple rounds in different areas equals kiss self defense goodbye say hello to jail. Additionally you begin looking at issues of weapon retention, because shooting at the head and chest will result in full presentation of the firearm. Since your life has to be in imminent danger for it to be a clean kill, generally the assailant has to be at or under that 7 yd. mark. At this point you are throwing dice if you think you are fast enough to draw and doubletap to the head before he can be close enough to engage in hand to hand over the weapon. Essentially if you carry a handgun, but dont do dry drills every day and pump a couple of hundred rounds down range every week, I would have to say that those targets would be inapplicable in many of your most common situations. Additionally has the average civilian gunner killed or performed extreme violence on another individual before? Have most criminals? This can result in additional dynamics to the situation. I hope they went into depth on these factors and assigned serious thought to everything that could go wrong in a situation. Essentially I am very interested in InSights target selection i.e. the why? Please elaborate.

I'm not sure it would be any harder to argue self-defense based on target location.

It might be brought up at the trial that you were a "gun-nut" and they might try to paint you as someone just waiting for a chance to shoot someone. But I can't recall any cases where the argument was basically "It can't be self-defense, because he did it well."

I don't follow that sort of thing too much, but to me, the argument that you defended yourself successfully shouldn't invalidate the defense part. It might be used to suggest that if you had enough time to line up and target the head, you had enough time to flee, but that's a fuzzy area. That gets in to defining whether you were in imminent danger.

But the point about the willingness to kill is a good one. Every self-defense course I've taken or seen always stresses the mental aspects. Typically along the lines of "Do not pick up the gun unless you expect to kill someone with it."

Location, number of shots, I've even heard of the caliber of the weapon being an issue, whether you attempted to flee and had no choice but to defend yourself, they all matter. The only time you can count on it going your way is in the case of shooting someone who has invaded your home. Otherwise you are usually looking at some sort of manslaughter charge or if they survived assault with a deadly weapon, and a potential civil suit. Many states in the U.S. just rock like that. Of course if you live in Florida now you'll be just fine.