Sniper rifle is, at any moment, in one of these states...
Fully disassembled, can fit in briefcase
1 Complex Action of reassembly:
Partially dissasembled, each half is carbine length
1 Complex Action of further reassembly gets:
Hastily reassembled, use Carbine range mods
Further reassembly (Armorer [2], 1 Complex Action):
Fully reassembled, use Sniper Rifle range mods
(actual test firing gives large bonus for this task)

RAW says it gets -1 DP if bumped; I suggest that any bump causing that, also causes reversion to Carbine range mods.

I assume some internal sensors that aid in reassembly, eg Tab A interfaces with Slot B to check whether it's perfectly re-aligned or needs a slight adjustment on this screw or that screw. Actually test-firing is the best way of double-checking reassembly, as a small misalignment matters a lot at 800 meters range.

kzt is among those who know a lot more about long-distance riflery than I do, so I hope that he's among the second opinion providers.

My thought is that it isn't possible to have a highly accurate rifle that disassembles such that the chamber throat and barrel is not one piece. I have even more doubt about a mid-barrel seam. So you'd get a 21-27 inch long part, depending on the barrel length.

I've seen hunting rifles that break down this way (it looks to me), where the chamber throat is the join. They are two piece and assemble really fast.

They are not designed for 600-800 meter shots, but have a reputation for being quite accurate. This seems like a reasonable basis for modeling the the Ranger. I don't see any good reason to have it break down any further, other then the silencer, bipod and magazine.

See Alaskan CoPilot

I suspect the Ranger is designed like the the rifle in "The Day of the Jackal", which is silly. But typical SR.

I've never seen anyone make a breakdown rifle that has a joint in the middle of barrel. I can't see how you'd ever get it to reassemble without losing lots of accuracy or blowing out unless it was extremely heavily built.

some google-fu indicates that the standard attache case is around 18inx13in and 3-4 inches deep.

Assuming you are using a slightly oversize case that is 20in x 15in, this gives you a diagonal length of 25 inches.

Assuming we place the barrel diagonally in the case, this gives us space for a 20 inch barrel and a 3 inch chamber, with a bit of room for padding in either corner.

Assuming you can fit the receiver (stock + internal magazine + trigger assembly + bipod rail) into one triangle, and the bipod, scope, and bolt into the other triangle, the you are good to go.

I'm not sure you can fit a decent stock into a triangle that is around 18in x 13 inches though.

In any event, The rifle would take much more than 3 seconds to put together.

I see someone beat me to the 20-24" diagonal. Yeah it makes a lot of sense that the barrel would be stored diagonally. If it had a picattany rail on top then you can securely mount most any 'standard' optics on it... short of having the barrel specially tapped for your scope mounts.

Long range and target rifles only attach the barrel to the stock at a single point near the trigger group. A free floating barrel is much better and predictable than bedding it in a stock where differences in thermal expansion/contraction become issues (as well as screwing w/ barrel harmonics).

Due to it's ability to rapidly break it down, I think the -1 penalty is fine, it just means it's not bedded firmly in the stock assembly and has a bit of 'wobble' if it's handled too roughly. The reduction to carbine ranges is bad call on the one posters part. (the range modifier and lack of damage reduction w/ range bracket rules are all screwed up IMO, but that much of a reduction is also screwed up).

As far as assembly, I'd make it an extended armorer test, then someone might be able to get it together in 3IP's (though I'd slam them w/ the -1 penalty because the assembly was done quickly and the barrel wasn't fully tightly). Use Armorer (not longarms... longarms is shooting, armorer is assembly/disassembly/repair/modification of weapons).

If you need 10 successes to get the gun together, then someone rolling 10 dice per IP... will have it together in 3 complex actions... (you could even apply a negative modifier like wired reflexes gives for motion sensor tests since they're 'twitchy' and less sure-handed while doing things on speed). Further, that could be the threshhold for just getting it together, you need 15 to get it fully together and tightened up, the scope neatly adjusted and get rid of the -1).

Fully asembling a AK5(swedish army standard wpn), takes about 7-9 seconds. Add another second or two if you do it blindfolded. Done it myself at those times.

So probably its a yes on that one, tho I dont know much about barrel lengths etc and accuracy etc.. =)

An unscoped M16 can be fired out to 600 meters with fairly disgusting accuracy, depending on the skill of the shooter, of course. It can also be broken into to peices, which can be reassebled reasonably quickly. The overall length is, as I recall, 40 inches, though the barrel and upper reciever are more than half that. On the other hand, jarring it won't do much to change the functional capability at all.

FULLY assembling it from peices... which gains you nothing as far as stowage space, takes well over 9 seconds, which makes me wonder how far down Nkari's AK5 goes

But mostly: The Ranger Arms SM-4 is a Hollywood Gun. Don't question it, just enjoy it.

AK5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK5

WMS

It's basically 5.56mm FAL. Which doesn't help me very much, but it might help you.

Essentially you'd have to have the scope locked down to the barrel. You wouldn't want to dismount and remount it and "only" get a 1 MOA error if you are shooting at 800 meters.

So you get:
Barrel/Scope
Silencer
Receiver/collapsing stock
Magazine

So 10 seconds wouldn't see that far out of line if you use a surefire-style quick attach silencer. Pull the receiver out, install the barrel/scope, install silencer (optional), Extend stock, load and aim.

Have you considered the effects that Nanites could have on these things? Maybe an intelligent nanite-based lubricant on the join, which adjusts the barrel to keep it straight then locks in place becoming hard as steel.

I know you're talking RL physics here, and don't mean to insult any experienced firearms experts here, I just thought you might want to consider what in SR's technology might allow something beyond what today's technology can achieve.

here is link for sniper rifle? that fits in a tennis racket case

Grendel SRT

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21889.new.html

http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfi...s/2900/2923.htm

WMS

Given that nanites are used when installing cybertechnology in shadowrun, I'd hope they're pretty darn reliable. I don't know the exact timeline of SR cybertech, but I assume it's probably been around for a good 40-50 years. That's 40-50 years of people putting their lives in the hands of nanites. I'd imagine many hunters and cover ops agents aren't even going to be that old.

I'm just suggesting that technology which, in the SR world, is proven and has been around for decades might fall into the category of old and faithful enough to be considered. There's possibly even newer and fancier stuff around than whatever they do use, but the hunters aren't using it as the 'old faithful nanopaste' option is more reliable. Or, if you like, there could be other nanopastes that are newer but less reliable, thus the hunters choose the more reliable one.

I mean, if a nanopaste-based lubricant (actual lubricant, rather than the gun-alignment stuff) were more reliable, longer-lasting, and superior (in terms of friction reduction and thus component lifetime), whilst never getting dirty... Which would hunters/covert ops agents use?

It's a matter of perceptions, I suppose. I see no reason that nanites couldn't be used in a gritty campaign, as long as they fit the bill and are treated right. You don't even need to give them air-time, they don't need to be mentioned any more than you normally would what's normally used to lubricate your firearms. If you start mentioning them, you're going down the 'fantastic' route. They can just be there, enhancing the capabilities of your stuff and allowing weapons to be broken down into a larger number of pieces with fewer inaccuracies.

The sniper rifle I saw the Secret Service Agent look over in the trunk the "Limo" was in a very compact case, but it was of a interrupted thread design. As for make and model, the small Big Eyes I was using could not make out those features, but could not get the signalman to bring the Big Eyes on the open trunk.

Interrupted thread design meaning the barrel separated from the receiver assembly. But such designs the more you take apart and put back together the more wear the assemblies go thru. But 50+ years in the future, metallurgy and composites would reduce such wear in such designs.

WMS

I'd like to throw out something here, there's a big difference between throwing together a 'cheap' assault rifle and assembling a precision rifle. AR's are designed and built w/ loose tolerances intentionally so that dirt, sand, etc. won't jam them up. Precision rifles are designed with exceptionally tight tolerances and as such are more prone to jamming problems. They don't slap together easily as a lot of the parts have minimal clearance. Even when you get down to ammo, handloads are more problematic because if the rounds aren't spaced very precisely... you can get situations where the breach doesn't fully close and bad things happen when the gun fires. (by the same token a standard issue assault or battle rifle would chamber and fire that ammo no problem).

And no one who shoots AR-15's competitively at extreme range would ever claim they could throw their rifle together in 9s. Again, those guns are HIGHLY gunsmithed and they have high precision parts assemblies in them. They're kept in nice padded cases, they're not thrown around, they're not subjected to 'grunt abuse', if they're disassembled they're disassembled w/ care for cleaning and reassembled w/ just as much care. Ranger arms is a gun w/ a 1.5km extreme range!!!

The idea of a nano-paste lubricant I find rather laughable. You claim that it can be completely fluid but also rigid at it's option. If it's that advanced, the grey goo scenerio becomes a real threat. You should read the chapter in augmentation that deals w/ nanites and nanobots. I could see a hard nanite which cleans and oils the rifle for you. (that'd be pretty nifty, spray on the nannites they clean and oil the gun for you).

Though I do like the idea of a 'self-aligning' weapon... EG: throw the gun together, then let the actuaotrs and sensors built into it, align it quickly. I just don't think tha'ts a job for nanites.


Riley:
Your comments regards smartlink are pretty apt. Only catch the Ranger Arms doesn't have smartlink (unless you pay double for a custom rifle). As a long range sniper... your overbarrel mount already has a scope, the barrel already has a silencer, and underneath probably a bipod. That leaves paying double for an internal smartgun system. Oh well, strict rules, bipods have no benefit to sniping... so underbarrel external smartlink is an option. Ironically, attaching an external smartlink to your disassembled rifle is an Armorer (4, 1 hour) extended test... so much for fast assembly of that option.

I'd think smartlink would be a nice way to provide an augmented reality bonus to fast assembly. Just like the book says, if you have augmented reality blueprints or the like, it gives a +2 bonus on the technical skill. Armorer skill was just a way to make the 3 complex action comment more variable based on the character doing it. (I figured 10dice x 3actions == 30 dice, 30 dice average 10 hits). And 10 dice isn''t that hard to get (4log, 4skill, 2specialization and/or augmented reality).


Anyhow I looked again at the weapon description and page. I think the only reason they put that -1 penalty in there was because they didn't want to see people grab the rifle just because they could, and then use it all the time as a primary semi-auto 'rifle'. The hunting rifle in the game is 7p/-1.... god forbid characters run around w/ a 8p/-3 'hunting rifle' and not use it as a sniper weapon. Makes me heavily tempted to just weld the thing together to eliminate the 'loose barrel' problem even if I can't easily disassemble/reassemble now. Then pull a 'assault weapons ban' type move and make cosmetic modifications so the weapon is no longer a banned 'F' rating. I can see the GM rolling his eyes at that...

In SR, it's seems it is always best to assume that anything involving guns that makes little to no sense is because the people writing the rules only experience with guns has been in comic books and movies. So they wanted a breakdown rifle and hence they made it work like a twisted version of the gun in "Day of the Jackal" because they have no clue that these things really exist.

That's a fair point, kzt, although I find myself pointing out that a game with dragons and elves can probably handle the hit to the suspension of disbelief that the briefcase sniper rifle entails.

i really, really dislike that argument. one of the driving forces behind cyberpunk, and science fiction in general, is the idea that this stuff could actually happen. the inclusion of fantasy elements impacts that, certainly, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded altogether. because if we discard it completely, then it's no longer a blend of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just pure fantasy.

i've rationalized the NAN, as well as some of the more glaringly wackass societal trends in SR. i figure if i'm going to take things as they are, i may as well stop playing RPGs and just watch TV. ...hell, i don't take things as they are even when i do watch TV.

Part of what the game does is say that "things you can do today with weapons you can't do in SR despite 63 more years of advanced technology". You don't need to be able to build a prototype, but it would be nice if you had more then a comic book level of familiarity with weapons technology before you write a game that this makes up a lot of.

Pus there are the TERRIBLE weapon illustrations.

1) Even bad weapon illustrations are better than not weapon illustrations.

2) I know that since increased operational tempo in American and Commonwealth armies means more and more of us have military background, the weapons in game are going to get a more critical eye pointed towards them. However, the guys who write the game, by virtue of the fact that they have the time to write a role playing game, likely don't have military background at all. Not everyone can be a tough guy. Forgive them, and change it if it's really giving you sand in your vag. I'm sure at some point, somebody like Raygun will cover off on the SR4 weapons and we'll have a whole new set of stuff to argue about.

3) 9 seconds? Is that just upper and lower receivers plus bolt carrier, or detailed strip? Either way, not bad.

4) It's been my experience that oil collects sand more than anything, but we may be using different kind of oil. Graphite is apparently just the trick for arctic conditions. Or so I've been told, as I've never personally done an arctic exercise.

I imagine the game designers only had a "comic-book level" of familiarity with a whole host of things they game was built upon, up to and including cyberlimbs, magic, dragons, and plugging your brain into a Honda. I just find that in a game with cyberninjas and dragons, the briefcase sniper rifle makes an odd sticking point. I mean, are we really flipping through the basic book, seeing a picture of a briefcase rifle and saying, "No way!"

Another thing about the GGD, all the really did was set off a few volcanos and a few tornados. But at the time, nobody really knew what mages were capable of, and anyone who had half a clue probably didn't have access to the high levels of the US Government. Clearly, the GGD was slinging some powerful mojo, but on another level you could see it as an elaborate bluff. I mean, how else did the US give up half their country in the face of what was essentially the threat of bad weather?

Or, maybe a handful of Mob Mind and Physical Mask spells are what got the job done. (Remember, this would have been back in SR1 when you could ground spells out into the physical world. So a few astrally projecting shamans show up in the Capitol Building and the White Houses, summon a F1 spirit and tell it to manifest, and then just start chaining Mob Mind spells out.)

they wiped out an entire air attack brigade (my old unit, actually) with that bad weather. and from anecdotes, they fought several other engagements, and apparently won them all. it wasn't like it wasn't like Howling Coyote said "zomgz i makes teh valcanos asplode" and the US rolled over; the US military gave it their best shot, and they got shut down hard.

Rules changes are retroactive through history unless they have to do with advancing technology. If the setting had actually lost the ability to ground spells through manifest spirits, I'm sure there would be a pretty big in-setting hullaballo about it.

Critias: i agree... Shadowrun keeps a market model which is actually kinda interesting. A lot of their tech is based on today's cutting edge theory made 'real'. So in that aspect it is very much classic science fiction at it's time of publication. Magic is simply magic though... in many aspects shadowrun mages are much more gimped than in other systems, but at the same time their lack of grounding in reality which ties the sammies/riggers/etc liberates them to do more.

As such, as technology advances some things we learn were wrong (or better methods supercede them). So in a way... SR1's setting was superceded by SR2 by 3, then 4 as a way of selling more books but also as a way of advancing the setting.


As I stated after pointing out that the nanite bits were rather silly. I have zero things against a self-assembling gun. Since I was already going long... I didn't backup why, but it was based on the thoughts of cyberlimbs and the such. Basically electronics are embedded into anything and everything. With that mindset though, why not a gun which folds and unfolds itself in 3 combat rounds w/o the user even doing anything more than setting it down and pressing a button? It's simply a matter or robotics.


All the bits about the NAN are all about the re-entry of magic into the game. If the fights suddenly were refought, I feel things would not be so one-sided anymore. The NAN had a clear temporary advantage... (monopoly on magic) they used it to accomplish their ends. But look at the results of the breakups... what interest do they have in actually reunifying the union? The south was let to succede again. Settingwise, this is probably because multiple independant jurisdictions are more to the corps interests, than the reintroduction of a larger more powerfull centralized nation-state entity.

Actually, large, unified states with good legal, financial, law enforcement and transportations systems are much more useful to a large corporation than the same area broken into 12 mutually hostile banana republics. Shipments that cross hostile national borders have to clear customs, in countries the work people who rob you get arrested, Bridges don't collapse under your trucks, you don't have to bribe 43 different people to get a phone line installed, etc.

There is a reason why you have to get down to position 22 in the fortune international 500 before you see a country other then the US, France, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, UK. And that is Switzerland. The first 2nd or 3rd world company that isn't an oil company is 185, China Telecom. It's because it sucks to operate in those kind of countries.

But that's another example of the FASA just not caring about anything other then it's "Cool". Sell the Sizzle.

Lilt: You and... uh... the other guy...

Seem to be working under a misaprehension of what a combat firearm has to go through and for how long.

Nanites are far from a perfected technology in SR. Hell, the 'implant versions' require a special control/replacement module or they begin losing function within what... a week?

How long between special 'nanite lube services' is a sniper in the field going to have to go? Mind you, the stresses of firing, particularly in the area of the barrel and firing chamber are going to be much more extreme than the typical human body.

Mind you: I don't have a problem with the idea of a 'briefcase' sniper rifle that can be assembled at the site for the hit. I object to making guns needlessly complex and fiddly, and the idea that it somehow loses damage if poorly assembled, rather than having a shorter range and subsequent lower accuracy of poorly assembled (even that is wonky IMHO... or at least an example of poor design if it is that suseptable to jarring, etc...).

Spike, check out the common applications of nanites in augmentation. They can be used to build small buildings, computers, military tech, among other things. Its not as if the gun has an immune system systematically destroying the nanites (and optimized for fighting things of that size). Hell, put in hard nanites, and I doubt the nanites fair any worse than the barrel does from the heat.

To be fair, if the SM-4 is jarred once assembled, all it gets is a -1 to its dice pools. That's barely noticeable. It's the smallest mechanical penalty that exists, at least until someone figures out how to take away half a die. The SM-3 (from previous editions) took a +2 TN penalty if it got knocked, which was a much more dramatic effect. (You may not notice the difference between throwing 7 dice and 8 dice without firing quite a few rounds, but you'll noticed the difference between a TN2 and a TN4, or a TN4 and a TN6. Not so much a TN6 and TN8, though.) It seems to me that the SM-4 was intentionally made to be a much more "user-friendly" (or idiot-proof) weapon.

If it takes 3 Complex Actions and no skill rolls, then the weapon effectively can't be assembled incorrectly. And if the weapon were to be inaccurate, it doesn't seem like its range would matter. If the rounds aren't going where you think they're going, then it really doesn't matter how far they go (especially if the system has no way to account for it, beyond a dice pool penalty).

The weirest part of the SM-4 picture to me is the scope. That thing is huge. It's about 50% of the bulk of the weapon, and technically, anything you can put into the scope you can also put into a pair of contact lenses. The bigger question seems to be why would an assassin who needs to discreetly sneak his sniper rifle around in a briefcase would be using an imaging scope that looks like something you'd use to locate Jupiter.

Ok Spike, so instead of arguing that cannonically nanites wouldn't be used, why not just say "I disagree with cannon on a variety of points regarding tech, so it my game it would work like this..." Instead of arguing that there wouldn't possibly be nanites in weapons.

See... nanotech hive on a delicate precision firearm used by rich white dudes for precision shooting at competions? No problem. Wacky stuff like that exists today.

Outside of hollywood, you'll never see it used by any 'professional' in the field.

Like I said upthread, this is a breakdown between if you like your games Chrome or Black.

Me? I'm happy either way, but when talking guns I tend to work from the Black mindset. Then again it does edge towards my job a bit... so I'm biased. I'll happily PLAY chrome and never look back, but I don't talk about stuff like that all serious.

And Spike, if said weapon outshoots a black weapon 9/10 except when the black is carefully assembled by a extraordinarily good weaponsmith? And the chances of being both a fantastic weaponsmith and an amazing shot are quite low.

not really. most people who are amazing shots are fairly accomplished gunsmiths, because becoming an amazing shot is more than just shooting a lot--it's knowing your weapon well enough to use it to its maximum effectiveness. knowing your weapon means knowing how it's put together, what makes it accurate and dependable, how to keep it accurate and dependable, what factors limit its accuracy and dependability--in other words, being a weaponsmith.

that said, if nanotech zomgz weapons reach a point where they're as or more dependable than tried-and-true regular weapons, as or more accurate, as or more easy to handle in the field, etcetera, then they'll no longer be zomgz weapons--they'll be tried-and-true regular weapons.