Remington Arms MA-7v_

Design features (all): Barrel reduction, bullpup configuration, weight reduction (8 levels).

Design features (v1 - non-combat arms soldiers): Integral foregrip, integral shock pads.

Design features (v2 - combat arms soldiers): As v1, with integral laser sight.

Design features (v3 - special operations soldiers): As v1, with integral rangefinder, integral smartgun-2, and detachable sound suppressor.

Modified assault rifle ranges: S (0 - 45 m), M (46 - 135 m), L (136 - 315 m), E (316 - 495 m).

Concealability: 6 (v1), 5 (v2), 5 (or 3 with sound suppressor) (v3)
Ammunition: 30 (clip)
Modes: SA/BF
Damage: 8M/11S
Weight (unloaded): 4.50 (v1), 4.75 (v2), 4.85 (or 5.35 with sound suppressor) (v3)
Availability: 6/36 hours (C.A.S.), 8/4 days (Noth America), 12/2 weeks (everywhere else)
Cost: 1340 (v1), 1840 (v2), 4250 (v3)
Street Index: 2 (C.A.S.), 3 (everywhere else)
Legality: 2-G
Recoil Compensation: 2

--------------------------------

What's my point? Well, for starters, everyone likes new toys to play with. Also, I like feedback. It usually makes it easier to slide things past the GM.

To try and answer two obvious questions ahead of time, full auto is a waste of ammunition (in my and the U.S. military's opinion), and the loss in range is insignificant in light of the fact that the unaided human eye cannot discern a human-sized form at ranges beyond 300 meters (according to the U.S. military).

You do know that Cannon Companion states that the Setyr-Aug CSL is the Cassie weapon?

On what page? I just read the entry three times, and it's not there on page 23.

My 2 ... bullpup config is unlikely to be used as a standard AR anywhere (from IRL perspective); because of it's inherent awkwardness bullpup rifles add roughly 20-25% to the training times to adaptation, because they are not "natural". Integral recoil compensation is likely, however. Then throw increased conceal and a folding stock to the SF models (to make them more like SMG's for urban clearing, etc) I'm not a believer in suppressors for AR's for soldiers, the only suppressors in use modernly are for SMG's, where their power isn't hampered as much by the sub-sonic rounds the suppressors require, and they benefit from the shorter configurations because the suppressors make up the difference on the fore end.

Can't think of anything else right now for a general issue AR. Remember, go cheap with the CAS. They have a LOT of boys to equip.

There are a ridiculous amount of issues with this gun, but for starters, I'd like to point out that you just built a set of assault rifles no bigger than a modern day compact pistol.

Incidentally, the Predator is, in fact, less concealable than this thing. I think you need to rework your numbers and drop the flat out retarded CC gun creation rules.

Ya, I used the Cannon Companion FCG for a while and thought it was the best thing in the world, then I used Spudmans FCG and learned the errors of my ways. Here is a list of problems with your rifle.

1.) Way to concealable for a rifle.
2.) Dump integral accessories.
3.) Dump the internal recoil comp.

If you are going to have integral gear on it, I would have the integral stuff restricted to smartlinks, thats the only way to go with smart linked weapons. Laser sights are not all that good IMO, Id rather use a red dot sight, because they are cheaper and not restricted to a curtain range which laser sights are. And red dots can also be incorporated into scopes, so it makes them that much better.

Now if you want to make it so you can kit the thing out like hell, make it so it has something like a RIS or SIRS. Which would add two side mounts, and an additional top space, I would restrict the side and additional top space specific accessories like laser sights, tac lights, and the like. And if you wanted to take it a bit further you could have the barrel pre threaded, making external barrel attachments cheaper. Leave the kitting to the mission profile.

Okay, should have been more specific with the reason I dislike the CC FCG. When designing a firearm I know that the ample use of logic and common sense makes very balanced and sense able firearm. I dislike that some weapons that you try to build that are based on RL weapons can't be made without bending the rules. And weapons come out way to expensive then they should be, I mean once I made a bare bone heavy pistol, in fact it was clone of an Ares Predator. And it can out 100-200Y more expensive, the way they have the formula to determine the costs is way jacked up.

Right. That's intentional, because the assumption is that you're not churning out mass-produced weapons, you're making prototypes that someone picked up or limited-production runs. If you want a mass-produced gun, you get the GM to bring the price back down.

~J

Okay, a bit out of order. BTW yes, planned as a standard rifle

I have all the Shadowrun Supplemental on my hard drive, great reading, cant wait until the new issue comes out <if ever>. I read that article, considered using it at one time, but I am so a customed with Spudmans FCG that I don't use anything else. Besides, I prefer the Spudmans FCG, has a lot more options.

Wow, those responses were so vitrolic that I almost hate to reply.

1) The Concealability of 5 does not make it pistol-sized. It makes it compact. Convenient for urban warfare, stowing in vehicles, etc.

2) The bullpup objection was well-addressed . . . thanks.

3) Integral recoil compensation? There is none. There is a foregrip and shock pads. Most bullpups have foregrips, and many assault rifles have pads. The fact that those accessories provide RC is gravy.

4) If you read carefully, you would see that the sound suppressor was on the v3, for Special Operations units. Their missions are a bit outside the norm.

5) Show me a flash suppressor in CC and I'll put one on v1 and v2.

6) Show me a "red dot" sight in CC and I'll put one on v2 instead of the laser sight.

(Or, with regard to 5 and 6, cut me some slack for my desire to work within the existing official rules.)

7) The Street Samurai Catalog was dated circa 2050-2055, IIRC. The (ommitted) flavor text with my rifle lists its date of adoption as 2058. Not that it matters . . .

8 ) Make it weigh more because soldiering isn't for wimps? A lighter weapon means more stuff can be carried in addition to it. Hence the transition from the M-14 to the M-16.

9) In my personal opinion, a x4 or x4.5 modifier for final price would solve the cost in CC issue, but I'm a player so I don't make those (GM) decisions.

10) With regard to shorter range, smaller size, lighter weight, et cetera, I only attempted to mirror the existing trends in the world today. Yes, not all countries have followed those trends, but like it or not, the US is the world's armament pacesetter.

In any event, I appreciate those of you who attempted some constructive criticism. Had I but known that the weapon creation rules in CC are so unpopular . . .



11) Chrome barrel on an assault rifle . . .

It only matters how your GM views the weapon creation rules.

As for the rest, run with it -- it's a nice enough weapon and it covers all the basics.

-Siege

You want to explain to me how a concealability of 5— a conceal factor shared almost exclusively by pistols— does not make this weapon absurdly small when all other assault rifles offered in the CC don't go above 2. And, more importantly, when no sane human being would assign a conceal of 5 to anything remotely rifle sized?

Base Conceal for an assault rifle, 3.

Bullpup, +2.

Barrel reduction, +2.

Foregrip, -1.

Rangefinder, -1.

Net 5.

Straight from CC.

Now, can you please explain why your tone is so rudely hostile? Are you so perfect that you can criticize other's creativity (and sanity) with no concern for how it reflects upon you? Do you know what the word 'constructive' means?

Sadly, probably not.

I would, however, decrease the conceal. See your both right, you from a rules perspective, him from a more "real life" perspective.

But I don't understand his totally unnecessary flaming...

Because in real life it's a stupid concept that is flameworthy. He's making the critical error of thinking that real life has any application whatsoever.

~J

Bullpup configuration makes me angry. So do spiral notebooks and Crayola markers. I hate being left handed.

I really must apologize. My intent was not to flame. And, in retrospect, that was more hostile than really had any right to be and certainly was not my intent. Before this gets any more out of hand than it has, I'm sorry. All other things aside, that was out of line.

Anyway, you do have a right to constructive criticism, and, in all honesty, I do have a lot, so here goes.

(As a side note, Kagetenshi, I do feel that real life has some bearing on SR. While the rules in general have more ridiculosity than realism— the firearms rules, doubly so— to ignore the fact that realism is a compelling element in any medium and especially games is dangerous. While it is not the benchmark by which everything should be judged, it is a significant factor in the ability of any medium to immerse its viewers or, in this case, participants. So, fair if you want to say that I'm being an idiot for harping realism when a quick glance at the CC's submachinegun section reveals a wealth of stupidly concealable weapons, but don't flat out discount realism in any relation to the game.)

Before I get into things, though, I do want to say that while I'm not saying you did your math wrong on calculating the gun creation rules' concealability, the fact that taking an assault rifle frame and reducing the barrel immediately takes it up to the concealability of a large heavy pistol, and furthermore, that a bullpup design then shoots it up into the realm of a small light pistol should have clued you in to the fact that the gun creation rules should be summarily ignored. You are far better off with just adjucating something sane and then having your GM vet.

The concealability of 5 does actually make it pistol sized; you're free to argue that a conceal of 5 on a pistol isn't the same type of concealability you'd find on a piece of clothing or armor, but when you're talking about weapons where concealability, while abstract, is mostly a product of size, you have significantly less room to debate.

Though I know everyone already jumped on Hardison for his claim that bullpup designs are unnatural, I think it's worth restating that this is not the case. Bullpup designs do seem to be slow to aceptance in the US, and while the CAS is no longer a part thereof (and this is mostly a pure opinion call), I would say that it's unlikely that a bullpup assault rifle would be adaopted by the CAS. Then again, canon throws the AUG-CSL in there, so it really is up to you. Hopefully, by 2060, the AUG is no longer the piece of shit it is today.

Speaking of the AUG, aside from custom works and various, less well-known (or well used) designs like the Groza, most bullpup rifles (FAMAS, SA-80, Vector, SAR-21, OICW/XM29/junk) do not sport foregrips. And this is with good reason, as foregrips, in real life, force the shooter into a significantly more tense stance. They do help in controlling recoil, but distance shooting is made somewhat more awkward as a result. This is the reason they're not a good choice for GI issue and are more a mission specific, spec-ops, personal shooter preference type of deal. They are also, incidentally, one of the reasons the AUG is such a horrible weapon: the vertical foregrip doesn't allow the shooter to hold the weapon in a more relaxed grip (there is no horizontal foregrip short of grabbing the completely exposed barrel and burning your hand rather severely in the process). Your statement that shock pads are commonly found on rifles is straight out. While they are seen on sniper and hunting rifles, the added bulk and cost are generally deemed unnecessary for standard soldier issue. And hell, in real life, they don't provide recoil compensation anyway, though that's really a secondary issue.

The sound suppressor should have been provided as a part of a kit or an optional component. Throwing it in as standard issue is rather unlikely, as suppressors are not really always the best choice in a battlefield situation; doubly so for special operations, where loadouts often need to be customized on a per mission basis.

There are sadly no flash suppressors or reflex sights in canon. I'd say it's likely flash suppressors are assumed present unless stated otherwise, but if you like, could just add a +2 to any TN to visually notice weapon fire. As for reflex sights, I'm tempted to suggest a straight -1 TN at short and medium (and maybe long) ranges, except this is essentially a LAM with more bonuses and no downsides. An increase in cost wouldn't really help to make much more sense in terms of game balance or realism, either.

If your weights are in kilos, they are a bit on the heavy side, which, for the most part, doesn't make sense given metallurgy and polymer advancements likely by 2060. If they're in pounds, they are definitely too light, because all advancement aside, there is a point where recoil becomes a significant issue in a weapon that is far too light. Personally, assuming kilos, I'd just cut a kilo and a half off each design.

I'm not sure I agree with your choice to go with SA/BR as the only available firemodes. More progressive militaries have shown a trend towards abandoning fire limiters in favor of solid training, the US being about the only modern military to operate with a rifle that refuses to allow fully automatic fire (and this is sadly a byproduct of some rather terrible experiences in Vietnam that were far more the fault of horrible training than simple access to fully automatic fire, but bad habits die hard in Congress, though will hopefully be gone once the XM8 hits). Still, this is the South, and all amount of derision I can throw its way aside, they have a lot of soldiers to equip and train, and it is quite possible that the CAS would forego marksmanship training in favor of burst fire. And, of course, there's the fact that SR doesn't allow canon bursting in full auto.

I would also suggest you just go with a percentage range reduction. While I do agree that the canon range tables need some adjustment and could use a carbine table, I have been assured by my former GM that percentages are much easier to work with on the fly than memorizing a new category for a few carbines, much less, in your case, just one.

As a final note on the SA-80, this weapon was once a complete piece of crap, known for jamming more often than firing and melting int he withering presence of bug repellant, but these have since been corrected. The currently fielded Enfields are actually quite solid weapons, and while not necessarily the best bullpup design so far (at least, in my opinion, that award goes to the FAMAS), it is hardly the horror story that many believe to be. The is, unfortunately, in no small part due to the bad press it recieved on its way down the absolute zero amount of press it receieved as it was fixed. There are a number of British soldiers and one specific armo(u)rer I've heard speak of it in its current iteration quite highly.

It's worth mentioning that it would have had a significantly longer service life had Israel's development not progressed as it did. The Galil, like the AK/AKM47, etc is more or less perfectly suited for harsh, third world conditions where manufacturing is crude by necessity and operating conditions far from pristine.

Anyway, yeah, bipods aren't often standard issue, but they were a pretty good idea with the FAMAS. Just that most designs aren't able to mount them quite so seamlessly, and, at that point, encumberance issues and the like remove any possibility of them being standard equipment. That said, don't really have a drawing of the MA-7.

As on the Galil:

I am well aware that IDF switched from it to the M16 toygun. Had a lot to do with some design problems (read: they are as good in copying stuff as the US is - see the MG42 copy ) that resulted in stress breaks plus they got a nice discount from Hardfort, Conneticut.

As on "red dot" (IIRC Colminator) sights - They are an alternative to laser sights that use a small optic imposing a red dot where the bullet would hit. The "dot" is only within that optic, no laser etc. involved. See the HK G36 for an example. The sight in question is the small secondary unit to the up and right. <Edit> If you need this, use a lasersight and half weight.</Edit>

Ignore flash suppressors in CC designs. Given that they are rather short, just put them in the fluff text

As for deliberately making weapons heavier - Noooooooooooooooo! But making a weapon lighter at all costs (monetarien and ruggedness) isn't the way to go either. Military rifles should IMHO be very rugged and durable as well as resonable cheap (you'll be buying them in 5-6 digit numbers at least). So if it ends up at 1000bucks/5kg and getting it to 4kg costs another 2-3 thousand, take the 5kg version and add more PT (Physical training)

As for SA sure I mean Semi Automatic. After all I tend to refer to the SA-80 as L85 / L86. Btw the gun worked fine - in a controlled west european environment at least.


Michael

I think the one biggest problem with making canon military weapons is that the majority of the military freaks here aren't using canon rules, or at least won't admit that they do. This leads to things like the mention of the red dots sights, which don't exist in canon, but they should.

It also means that it's damn near impossible to come up with a military weapon that everyone agrees upon without using the CC firearms design rules, let alone with them. So you shouldn't take it too hard.

The insanely high concealabilities of ARs with the CC rules are one major reason not to use them. Whoever told the guys at FASA that bullpup ARs are as small as large pistols should be flayed alive.

Using the CC rules does have some other side effects, too. For example the weight which has been thrown around here (wow, I almost made a pun). Canon weapons in SR are incredibly heavy -- far, far too heavy unless the people in the 2060s are several times more strong than the people IRL -- and so will any weapon made with the CC rules be, unless of course you pay a lot to make it light, which doesn't make sense either.

Overlooked the range bit. I just assumed he was using a custom range table as I don't have the canon ranges memorized. Whoops.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the AK can't function as an effective weapon in a clean enviornment. It's just out of its element in the same way a Brown Bess can still punch a hole through you just as well as it did in the 1780s, but it's completely outclassed by even a modern day 1911. In that regard, the AK's main abilities— specifically, that it can function just fine with a fistful of sand shoved through it and get tossed in a volcano for a solid millenium of storage if necessary— become useless in a modern, clean urban setting, while its disadvantages— the fact that it is bulky, clumsy, heavy, inaccurate, and chambered for Russian calibers for which I am only slowly beginning to somewhat respect— fully remain. Slogging through the jungle, the AK is in its element: inaccurate fire due to shoddy barrel and munitions construction doesn't matter at any ranges you'll likely be fighting and the ability to almost never jam is a godsend. In an urban house cleaning, however, I'd rather have something a little less outmoded.

Heh. Fair enough: the action itself is not necessarily bad. Past that, I'll say I have a personal preference for other designs, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Just that its tolerance for poor construction has a tendency to overshadow everything else.

When I mentioned urban combat, I was not referring to Berlin circa 1945; I was mostly referring to, for example, LA circa 1997. In a modern, clean, first world urban setting, reliability on par with an AK's is nice, but hardly necessary, and it is for this reason the M4s and M16s show up in SWAT arsenals. Iraq, on the other hand, is another story. Say what you like about US foreign policy; the soldiers there still need far better rifles.

That was, looking back a bit of a bad anlogy. I was only pointing out that while a Brown Bess may be far from the best weapon to have on hand today and be greatly outclassed by more modern weapons, the Brown Bess will still kill you just as well as it did 230 years ago. And, likewise, while the AKM47 may be outclassed by more modern weapons, it will still kill quite effectively. That said, I'm not claiming musket:1911::AK:M16. That would be a gross exaggeration. And hell, I'd hit the ground after the first bullet or musket ball flew past my head, and I really don't care what it's getting fired out of.

That is, incidentally, one of my issues with the SR system. The way it approaches firearms and armor creates a dynamic in which older weapons are no longer as effective on a single human being, and better, newer things with no downsides whatsoever overshadow everything else. Whether it was a conscious choice by Mulvihill as an artistic statement on the ebbing of humanity in the future or just a completely stupid mistake, it doesn't make for terribly compelling gameplay— at least, in this case, not with the guns (largely because it simply could not work out that way— at least not to that degree— in the future).

You're probably right about accuracy and ergonomics issues being much more problematic for those of us with no practical experience. I must admit I've never fired a rifle (much less a gun); that said, while I can't really say for certain in either direction, does make sense that the AK and its variants would prove more effective. Just unfortunate that I find the AK's aesthetics a little unpleasant.

Looking over what Raygun's said, and what others have said about preferences for rifles, etc, this seems to lend a decent roleplaying reason to specialize in a rifle -- as a means of representing personal preference and extra time spend training with it ...

That said, perhaps a better way to do it would be to enforce a preference-based system on what your character will use -- e.g., he might be able to shoot great with a Colt, but won't use them unless he is unable to use his trusty G3/M14/AK-variant/G36 (or insert your gun of choice here).

In my game, I have the CAS Marines swapping over to an HK G3 clone for their weapon of choice, do to the need for higher firepower against the Azzies, but...

Another thing to remember that in SR, a recent-manufactured AK need not look cheap or unfinished - the wonders of micro-factories and more efficient manufacturing technology. Heck, a guy with the right equipment could punch out Valmet-quality AK clones from his basement and have them look sharp as anything in the latest Holly Brighton sim.

I'm with Raygun on the AK's aesthetics, tho - it's truly the totem assault rifle. It's the scary romanian made AKM's with the blue plastic stocks that scare me.

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Birdy]Michael "A G3 can jam???"[/QUOTE]

Yes. The G3 most certainly can jam and most certainly has jammed. It will also kick the hell out of you in full-auto (the price of superior ballistic performance), should you be inclined to bother with it that way. No weapon is perfect. That said, I think I'd rather have a G3A3 or a FAL more than anything else we've discussed so far if the shit were to hit the fan. Far more versatile rifles IMHO, as long as you can handle them.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Blasphemie! Propaganda! <Kreiiiiiisch>

No, sure the G3 can jam, even with regular ammo (don't ask about that plastic maneuver ammo ) and the idea of using it on full auto on anything smaller than a group of guys in earth-brown that scream "Urääää" more than 50m away makes me shudder. Heck, I could hit man sized popups at 400m in SA quite reliable but had problems hitting anything on burst more than 50-100m away. And I was above average in height/strength (Used to be the staffs MG-gunner)

That's why I opted for a SA only/burst weapon. With this ammo-type full auto is basically useless. At the same time I want a weapon that jams every 500-1000 rounds in a controlled environment

[quote=ARETHUSA]
When I mentioned urban combat, I was not referring to Berlin circa 1945; I was mostly referring to, for example, LA circa 1997. In a modern, clean, first world urban setting, reliability on par with an AK's is nice, but hardly necessary, and it is for this reason the M4s and M16s show up in SWAT arsenals. Iraq, on the other hand, is another story. Say what you like about US foreign policy; the soldiers there still need far better rifles.
[/quote]

Okay, SWAT is a different piece of duty. There you can use all kinds of nifty systems since:

Usage time is actually quite short (Only one house/room and than home)
Situation is cleaner
Targets are different (Mil sniper=hit the guy so he can't fight no more, SWAT sniper=kill him so fast, he can't do anything anymore)

There it's precision, speed of use and effectiveness above all.


Michael "Where did that Belgian come from?"

Let's not get into Stalingrad. Really. I mean, even if you could get autofiring plasmacannons on levitating tanks, I'm willing to bet most of us would rather kill ourselves immediately than face a day of the hell on earth that was called the battle for Stalingrad.

I know I market the Battle of the Black Sea (Black Hawk Down) far too much, but I still think it's a nice example of urban warfare in the brave new world. Sure it lasted less than a full day (18 hours?), and the total casualties are less than a thousandth of what went down in Stalingrad, but that's still a whole lotta corpses per hour, and a whole lotta panicked soldiers fighting for their lives.

The book doesn't have a single mention of a gun jamming in a situation where it might have mattered, as far as I can remember, which is slightly surprising when you consider that all those M16s and M4s were full of sand by the time the first shots were fired. [Edit]And the average american assault rifle that visited downtown Mog during that time probably fired got about 300 rounds fired through it -- balanced between the guys who only fired a few shots if any, and the guys who stuffed everything full of ammo and, when those ran out, fired the first guys' spare ammo.[/Edit]

Like others, I have often wondered about why they make so many AK clones ugly on purpose though. Maybe it's some sort of statement for pacifism on the part of countries formerly in the Soviet union. A hideous ugly blue plastic gun might make the soldier think twice about actually using it. Or something. As long as guns are all black, they can't really be that ugly.

To make this all a bit more related to SR: I think it's a good bet that firearms in the SR world would be a fair bit more aesthetic than the guns we have today. With the extremely competitive nature of the arms trade and the fact that domesticity is not as important a factor in buying guns for an armed force, all firms would have to make their weapons as appealing as possibly in every way.

Also, since arms trade seems to have become more of an oligopoly (only a few huge corps which do most of the guns), branding and other such methods have undoubtedly become more important. The looks of a weapon are a significant part in this.

That's the catch though, isn't it?

Presumeably military planners of the future will learn lessons from the events leading up to the BoS and subsequently avoid it, but how much abuse do you want your weapons to be able to take?

Given that the current US Army structure was predicated on being able to fight a landwar in some of the coldest countries, you would think the original M-16 would have been more reliable than they actually were.

-Siege

I just want one of them OICW. Those sound scary.

Me, w/ OICW: Airburst, biatches!
Enemy Forces: *shouts in foreign language*
Me, w/ OICW: I'm in your base, killing your d00ds!

Ha! Nothing quite like having software conflicts in your targeting system.

"Blue Screen of Death" takes on a whole new meaning, neh?

-Siege

On that thread, I've always disliked the idea of smartlinks removing triggers from guns.

If my batteries fail or the electronics go snap, crackle, pop -- I wanna be able to pull the trigger damnit!

-Siege

Edit: unrelated topic, but still fun -- if you think cybernetics are out of hand, start unleashing viruses that can corrupt onboard systems.

Imagine a bug that keeps flashing "Buy Aztech Food Products" on your retinal display...