Rifles are fickle bastards. I've had an m16 jam on me because I didn't say please. I know from first hand experience that weapons need to be maintained. Getting hit with an incoming round is not good maintenance. You and I actually agree on the Armor rating by the way, you said reinforced material, I just said 6-8. So once it takes some damage, it's time to visit the Armorer. Not to mention the fancy electronics and gas vents in some SR weapons.

(I'll give you a hint: the Sgt in my name comes from the U_MC)

On another topic, someone mentioned fights from cover turning into pot shots. Casualty numbers from fights like you describe (when in the real world) are surprisingly low. I just yesterday read about some Marines fighting for about 6 hours from dug in positions on one side of a river, against buildings where they couldn't see the shooters. They took NO casualties, and estimated enemy losses at 5-10. So yeah, when the Sec Forces jump behind their blast doors, and the Runners get behind the armored van, either get comfortable, outmaneuver their cover, or use grenades =)

I don't think the penalty is for sitting in a fixed position, but "popping out" from cover and taking a quick shot or two then ducking back. At least, thats how I see it from the description of the modifier.

Well, I think they mean -1 from cover as in leaning around a wall, shooting over a barricade, something to that effect. The book says "hiding behind cover limits a character's ability to see the action". Prone, like you mention, lets you still see, so you wouldn't (in my games) take the -1. Heck, for someone Prone with a firearm, you could even houserule giving them one Aim action as a Free Action.

As much as I love the anecdotal evidence, it really doesn't hold weight with me. I'd really like to see anything at all related to firearm reliability. Can dropping it mess it up? Hitting it with a hammer? Etc.

If you don't believe people with actual experience, you must not believe much of anything. Call up Colt.

Edit: Dropping a weapon, and one getting hit by a supersonic chunk of metal are very, very different scenarios.

It all depends on where it gets hit. We can just use the SR hit location systems and trivally.... Oh, right. Nevermind.

Yes, but if dropping it messes it up, I'd be very likely to believe shooting it would.


Yes, yes it does. Thus, my reasoning of the glancing shots it would be likely to receive. If two guns are point at each other, over say, 50ft. Then any shot from one to the other is going to be a fairly glancing shot down the barrel/slide of the other gun. Or it will hit the edge of the barrel. Or it will go in the barrel. There just isn't any other surfaces presented.

Wouldn't you imagine that in a firefight these guns are kicking due to recoil, moving due to the firer using Reaction to avoid bullets, shifting to point the camera at different places?

In my games firing in full cover using your smartgunlink, roll the sensor rating + firearm skill. My reasoning to my players is that they are using the camera more then their body control to fire the weapon.

Considering the amounts of recoil that shadowrunners face (typically none) no, I wouldn't think they are kicking much, if at all due to recoil. Yes, they are moving about, but I'd presume the general idea of being in a gunfight is to keep your barrel pointed in the direction the bad people are in at any given time. I still don't think there would be anything near a perpendicular hit to a gun in a typical firefight from cover.


Sounds like a decent houserule, except by RAW smartlinks have no sensor rating. Also, they still need to take their agi into account since they are the ones actually pointing the gun.

Tarantula, you could watch mythbusters episode 67 about a myth that a policeman's revolver got shot by a thug. The bullet entered the chamber and thus saved the cop's life. That episode came from TV around here about a month ago There you can see what can happen... The revolver would have been useless after the first shot if my memory doesn't fail me too much.

I give them a sensor of one as per the Pilot Upgrade weapon mod in Arsenal.

For a fire support character, I recommend the Ballista.

Again, I think theres a big different between the bullet hitting a surface and transferring its energy to the gun (as in that case) versus glancing off the barrel/slide.

If the bullet hits a surface directly, I fully agree, the gun would most likely not work. I don't think that its very likely for that to happen in a gunfight when the guns are pointed at each other though.

Well, if even a small part of the bullet hits the barrel, it can jam the whole thing with the next shot. Also the energy that the bullet has might be enough to knock the gun out of the hand of the shooter and in worst case scenario, it could ricochet to the person's hand who is holding the gun (or to head )

But over all, the -4 for shooting such a target is really little in comparison to other modifiers IMO.

I'd say there's too many variables in question so saying that if the bullet hits the gun, there's always some negative effect is fair enough One could then roll edge and a critical glitch means headshot or alike, glitch = complete breakdown of the gun, 1 success is enough to deflect "safely" a pistol round, 2 for assault rifle and 3 for MG. If not enough successes, the gun is dropped but still operational.

BullZeye. I don't think that if the bullet is traveling nearly parallel with the barrel, that a ricochet will have enough force behind it to dent or otherwise impact the barrel. Regardless, I'd probably call it that if the called shot is successful, the gun is dropped. If they get a critical success, the gun is disabled. And if they miss then they miss.

Any glitches on the side of the gun from then until repaired would cause a jam that needs an armorer and time to fix.

He keeps demanding evidence to counter his arguments, then quoting physics calculations without any empirical data. It's obviously pointless arguing with this guy.

Guns aren't all smooth. And if there's more than one people shooting back at you, they aren't in perfect angle anymore. The bullet might still have enough energy even from such a low angle to damage the slide or some other part of the gun, not to mention to hit the guncam, to render it maybe even useless. It all depends on the gun in question. My own Beretta (.22 target) has a relatively big "face" to front so hitting it from the front isn't that difficult. Though big part of the front is covered by the underbarrel weight. But all and all, it depends on the target gun, the bullet's angle and bullet's style (APDS, Ex, hollow point).

I'd say this is about enough of shooting the gun, so let us continue this thread with the next issue, which is...?

edit:

pointless, probably yeah ... but fun?

I haven't quoted any kind of physics calculation. I have looked for evidence for and against my position. The best I could find was finding some pics of some rifle magazines guys shot with other rifles, and it went right through. Of course, those aren't glancing shots, but are coming in perpendicularly.

Bullz, I agree. Frankly, I could drop the physics discussion all together, and just quote the core book, and say called shots allows you to knock it out of their hand, if the DV exceed the targets strength. Its up to GM to decide if its damaged, and thus, varies game to game entirely. I was trying to avoid that.

Anyway, for the evidence I could find...

Box o Truth shooting loaded magazines here
and
Youtube, Sniper shoots a handgun here

Obviously shooting it out of their hand is a possibility with the sniper video. Hard to tell how the gun faired though. As far as the magazines, its also obvious that they aren't much protection.

Can't find anything about anyone even trying to shoot a gun, part of a gun, or anything like that though.

Rendering a gun unusable is easier than smashing a Maglight. A standard claw hammer wielded by an average person can render most automatic weapons unusable. The cheap ones use stamped metal. Good ones use aluminum or steel.

Barrels, the hardest part of the gun, are hardened steel. 4140 steel is common. It has a yield strength of 60ksi, meaning 60000lb of force applied to one sq inch will permanently deform it. 90ksi it shatters. A rifle barrel wall is ~5mm.

Ignoring energy loss from friction or bullet deformation, an AK bullet that punches in 5mm imparts around 1,000,000 psi.

In reality the bullet shatters but only after permanently deforming the barrel. (steel vs steel, both lose) And as for glancing off the barrel, at any angle greater than 1 degree it will hit yield force.

And you're neglecting the other targets like the stock/cornershot, grip, magazine, and gas-action tube. The gas action tube on an AK is located on the upper rear 7" of the 16" barrel. Damaging the tube turns the AK into a bolt action rifle.

FYI the military generally considers a rifle compromised if you use the bayonet. They aren't built for melee and bullets punch through stuff better than swords.

One thing to keep in mind is how firearms are designed to take stresses in-line with the barrel and action. So this basically means that the entire weapon is designed to take the stresses of firing in-line with the barrel with a series of springs, tubes, machined guiding rods and rails, etc. Of course, this also means that weapons are not designed with these equivalent forces coming in from other angles as the chambers, receivers, gas tubes, etc. are all much bulkier in the front and rear than the sides as evidenced by going to your local gun shop and asking to see a weapon off of the rack as they will (hopefully) hand it to you with the action open so you can see what I mean for yourselves.

As all firearms are obviously based upon the "path of least resistance model", it's safe to assume that the material components are designed with this in mind.

I just don't think it's balanced to let some runner with an image link and guncam shoot from behind 100% cover with only a -1 modifier, while everyone else shooting at him takes a -6 modifier. But if you're going to allow that in your game, I think it's entirely fair to let people take called shots for their guns at a -4 to hit to disable the gun, whether it's realistic or not. Maybe this isn't a balance issue in most people's games though, but as for me, I'd rather not have a firefight devolve into a grenade-fest.

^^ Physics.

You're holding a stubborn position based on your admitted limited experience with firearms.

A rifle jams with a little sand in the barrel. Firearms are rugged to stresses, sure, but not impacts from rounds. Your link to those guys shooting loaded mags should answer your questions.

Incidentally, magazines aren't worn in vests for protection from bullets, it's for ease of access.

I would love to take some rifles, like a m-16 and an ak47, and go down to a range, and make sure they work, then have someone shoot them with glancing shots along the barrel/slide and see if they still work, but I don't have the money to.

Failing having a real life example to base off of, the rules don't take into account equipment damage. So it doesn't happen. The called shot rules says its up to the GM to make the call on if something shot out of someones hand is damaged. The end.

Well, them's the breaks, homie. Technology rolls on and we have to adapt to it.

FutureWeapons fairly recently showed a demo from a company that solved the main limitation of corner shooting systems. The camera from this new system always shows as vertical so there is no disorientation in the angle of the image versus the angle of the shooter's head as given by the current systems. The image is also transparent but still bright enough for use in full daylight so you can see normally and also see an image of what the weapon is pointing at overlapped into the visual arc of the dominant eye. I'm convinced that this is basically the first smartgun system in existence, even if it will never be called this IRL (damn it! ). Pretty cool, huh?

As for the "grenade-fest" comment, I can only say that this will only emphasize correct ambush and tactical techniques. You get caught in the open and you're hosed because the enemy can actually aim with just a rifle poking from around whatever they're behind. Toss in a smart-grenade system (basically general issue by the time of SR) and that cover won't count for much anyway, right?

All the trends today will only get more lethal, nasty, and effective. The idea of a John Woo-esque dodges and tumbles with two guns blazing for minutes on end is great for untrained idiots and cinematic games but a realio-dealio SR game with professionals will be a combination of brutal ambush, extreme lethality, and short short firefights as the unaware and/or unprepared group is decimated in short order by smartguns to place your shots well even from behind cover, smart grenades to deny the enemy effective cover, and integral suppressors to make it hard to tell where all this fun is coming from so they can't fight back for the remainder of their short-ass lives.

Everyone wonders why I keep my games to street-level weapons with the occasional AR as the top end? The comments above will tell you what our game would devolve to if I wanted to whip out the SOTA bang-bang and the pros from Dover. Be a real bitch to remake a character every time you didn't beat the enemy on a Perception and/or Initiative roll, no?

If YOU pull out machine guns, the enemy will be shooting using grenade launchers, drones and rocket launchers if the GM isn't named Monty Haul.

Awright, if materials science doesn't do it how about Mythbusters? In the Bugs Bunny episode they jammed a ballistic gel finger in the barrel of a 12g and the barrel "swelled" about a half inch in all directions for about 6". Had the force been inward the barrel would have totally collapsed.

"But a shotgun is really strong!" Sure is but that force was applied to the whole 16" barrel length. The shotgun would need to be 16" x 1" inner curcumference =16 sq in /0.07 sq in (cross section of 7.56 round) =~200 times as powerful as an AK. Nuh-huh.

Go google these words: exploding pistol rifle picture video and see the devastation an unchanneled cartridge does. Now focus that force onto an area a fraction the size.

True dat. And that is why our whole group has decided to leave the mil-spec bang-bang out of the picture.

I mean, the SR DevGrp has some ideas of potential nastiness as evidenced by the sourcebooks by me, I'm a really mean person when it comes to weapons, tactics, and making things scream and bleed.

Example: How about a near-silent scooter (to go fast) and walker (to get over stuff so it can go fast again) drone with a claymore-type mine attached on a telescopic swing arm. We get into a firefight and take cover behind something nice and big and tough if it was handy. Google maps lets me see what's around us and I would program and zoom that little bugger without notice due to all of the noise, muzzle flashes, lack of data traffic to give it away, etc. around the building/block/whathaveyou to nail them from behind or a flank with the mine. 10S directional in the poop-chute, anyone?

Cheap, efficient, and with a little luck, reusable.

All the pressure and energy in the cartridge does not get channeled into pushing the bullet. That is not the same amount of force the bullet would impart into the barrel when shot into it. Especially if the angle was very small, as it likely would be in these scenarios.

You're killing me here. First off, traditional ammunition has roughly 33% caloric efficiency. That means that 33% of the total energy (heat) output is transferred to the bullet. However, those gun ruptures were not 100% caloric efficient since it doesn't address the pure heat increase caused by the propellant. But to make you feel better, let's use that number.

Sheer logic would say that if 33% of the energy is in a bullet, then it would cause 33% of the devastation caused in those gun blow ups. Hey, that's still total failure! But at this point I'm pretty sure you won't take such simple logical extrapolation.

33% of the Mythbuster shotgun energy would still have deformed the barrel, only for ~2 inches in length instead of 6. Still a barrel kill. But wait, now we've concentrated that energy down to a 12g slug, which is 18.5 mm diameter or 268 mm^2. Ignoring the energy dissipated across the rest of the barrel and just taking the deformed area gives us 50 mm (2 inches) length x inner circumference (3.14 x 18.5) =2904 mm^2.

Hey, that means the shotgun slug has 11x the energy concentration, meaning it could crumple the barrel 11 times. Hey, since it was already yielding at 1x concentration and will rupture at 1.5x concentration (90ksi/60ksi) that means it will shatter 7 layers of barrel wall! Yay!

Okay, let's go back to your glancing blow arguement. First off, I've already defeated that using an AK47 shooting itself back here. But you don't like theoretical examples. So let's go back to the shotgun.

Right now the shotgun slug is hurtling in with 11x the force required to completely collapse the barrel over one 268mm area. In reality you only need a few millimeters of deformation but why quibble?

To calculate the minimum glancing blow sufficient to collapsing force on the barrel, we use a classic right angle force triangle. Each side will be measured in barrel-collapses. The long side is 11x. The short side is 1x (minimum needed to make you happy).

To get the angle where the hypotenuse is 11 and one side is 1x we take the inverse sine of 1/11 and get 5 degrees. That means if the bullet comes in any more than 5 degrees off of the barrel alignment, it will still impart enough energy to completely collapse the barrel.

In the AK example it was less than 1 degree because the AK round was only dimpling the barrel sufficiently to ensure it wouldn't fire again.

OP here, I have to admit, as someone with real life combat experience, I am in agreement with the one shot=disabled weapon theory, but we'll see what my gm thinks about the RAW.

In any case, I thank all contributors and launch in a different direction; I have played with recoil compensation for serious MG action and hit the wall of -15 dice with the Foot Jacks (both feet), one arm at Str 10 (specialized of course), Gyromount Stabilizer with a Ingram White Knight (has it's own gas vent system superior to what can be bought on the market). Can anyone beat -15 vs recoil without creating a Theoretical Troll, or am I skirting the limit of compensation?